What Does Liberalism Mean
video description
Date: 2024-11-16
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 19
danielantero2076
I'm big fan of all CC courses but. I have to complain about the explanation about Locke in this episode:
Firstly, is not true that Locke agreed with slavery. I think is unfair to attribute to him the entirety of the words of the Constitutions of Carolina. That was just something he was involved in. More importantly, it was a job, not his personal opinion. Many of us are in a similar situation, the things we create or produce at work are not entire and faithful reflections of our thinking but just a little (at best, in many case we even disagree completely with them.
More correctly Locke should be judged by his words on a book he wrote specifically to express his thoughts. In his Second Treatise of Government (STG) he explains that when a person does something wrong to other so bad that it deserves the punishment of death, then the injured person can defend and take the aggressor as captive (slave, only until they can establish of system of justice to keep them both safe (see paragraphs 23 a 24 of STG.
Secondly, is not true that according to liberalism we give up some of our liberties to the State. What we give in TRUST (as in a fiduciary relation) is the right to defend them through force. People agree not to make justice by their own hand, but the State shall provide a system to adjudicate rights when harm is done to someone and have power of execution, that is, the power to use force to defend those rights (see paragraphs 7 and 13 of STG. No liberties are given away, only the executive power (force) to protect them.
reply
I'm big fan of all CC courses but. I have to complain about the explanation about Locke in this episode:
Firstly, is not true that Locke agreed with slavery. I think is unfair to attribute to him the entirety of the words of the Constitutions of Carolina. That was just something he was involved in. More importantly, it was a job, not his personal opinion. Many of us are in a similar situation, the things we create or produce at work are not entire and faithful reflections of our thinking but just a little (at best, in many case we even disagree completely with them.
More correctly Locke should be judged by his words on a book he wrote specifically to express his thoughts. In his Second Treatise of Government (STG) he explains that when a person does something wrong to other so bad that it deserves the punishment of death, then the injured person can defend and take the aggressor as captive (slave, only until they can establish of system of justice to keep them both safe (see paragraphs 23 a 24 of STG.
Secondly, is not true that according to liberalism we give up some of our liberties to the State. What we give in TRUST (as in a fiduciary relation) is the right to defend them through force. People agree not to make justice by their own hand, but the State shall provide a system to adjudicate rights when harm is done to someone and have power of execution, that is, the power to use force to defend those rights (see paragraphs 7 and 13 of STG. No liberties are given away, only the executive power (force) to protect them.
reply
zelenisok
Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau held that life and liberty are more important than property, and talk about how property should be restricted to preserve life and liberty. Lolbertarians do not have legitimate claim to classical liberalism.
Also, Locke's idea of slavery was of a non-hereditary institution legitimately applied only as a substitute for capital punishment, which is a for-that-time-progressive form of the mainstream anti-slavery view of that period (it should be noted that many people at that time were not abolitionists, but were anti-slavery, being for certain reforms that would lead to a gradual disappearance of slavery, most American Founding Fathers were of such view. Instead of quoting an article of the Carolina Constitution that he did not write, tho he was hired to contribute to the writing of that Constitution in general, we could quote the very first sentence of Locke's main work, the Two Treatises on Government, where he says Slavery is so vile and miserable an estate of man, and so directly opposite to the generous temper and courage of our nation; that it is hardly to be conceived, that an Englishman, much less a gentleman, should plead for it.
reply
Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau held that life and liberty are more important than property, and talk about how property should be restricted to preserve life and liberty. Lolbertarians do not have legitimate claim to classical liberalism.
Also, Locke's idea of slavery was of a non-hereditary institution legitimately applied only as a substitute for capital punishment, which is a for-that-time-progressive form of the mainstream anti-slavery view of that period (it should be noted that many people at that time were not abolitionists, but were anti-slavery, being for certain reforms that would lead to a gradual disappearance of slavery, most American Founding Fathers were of such view. Instead of quoting an article of the Carolina Constitution that he did not write, tho he was hired to contribute to the writing of that Constitution in general, we could quote the very first sentence of Locke's main work, the Two Treatises on Government, where he says Slavery is so vile and miserable an estate of man, and so directly opposite to the generous temper and courage of our nation; that it is hardly to be conceived, that an Englishman, much less a gentleman, should plead for it.
reply
martinbruhn5274
Ok, 5 seconds in and I have to write this comment. Should americans get to own guns is just not what gun control is about. It's not an either your toddler is allowed to own a gun, or nobody ever. And not country with strict gun control laws does it that way. Think about it more like owning a car. Can anybody own and drive a car, no questions asked No! Your car needs to be registered, you need to pass an exam and own a valid driver's license, be above the legal age for driving (in the USA typically over the age of 16, follow the traffic rules and laws and if you are caught breaking them, your might go to jail, your driver's license might be revoked. None of that applies in the USA on a national scale for guns, and even locally, it's extremely patchy. That's what gun control is all about, create rules and guidelines to ensure, that law abiding citizens can own guns, safely, while keeping guns out of the hands of those, who can not be trusted with them. Namely children, people who don't know what they're doing, people who are psychologically unstable and pose a risk to others and people who have been convicted of violent crimes.
reply
Ok, 5 seconds in and I have to write this comment. Should americans get to own guns is just not what gun control is about. It's not an either your toddler is allowed to own a gun, or nobody ever. And not country with strict gun control laws does it that way. Think about it more like owning a car. Can anybody own and drive a car, no questions asked No! Your car needs to be registered, you need to pass an exam and own a valid driver's license, be above the legal age for driving (in the USA typically over the age of 16, follow the traffic rules and laws and if you are caught breaking them, your might go to jail, your driver's license might be revoked. None of that applies in the USA on a national scale for guns, and even locally, it's extremely patchy. That's what gun control is all about, create rules and guidelines to ensure, that law abiding citizens can own guns, safely, while keeping guns out of the hands of those, who can not be trusted with them. Namely children, people who don't know what they're doing, people who are psychologically unstable and pose a risk to others and people who have been convicted of violent crimes.
reply
therealquade
Negative liberalism - You already have rights, government subtracts them from you to protect others
Positive liberalism - Governments decide what rights to give to you, IE rights are additive.
Both negative and positive liberalism can create inequality, the difference is that with negative liberalism, smaller government means more freedom and less intervention, but positive liberalism means you must have a big government no matter how much freedom you may or may not get. As an example, the soviet union was an example of positive rights being applied, and it was a tyrannical mess. Your argument about gun rights as positive and negative, is incorrect. The constitution does not grant the right of people to own guns. The constitution forbids the government from interfering in the extant natural rights of the individual to own guns before government ever existed. Rights are things that you do, Rights are NOT things that are done FOR you. you have a right to own guns, you do not have a right for others to not own guns because you don't want them to.
reply
Negative liberalism - You already have rights, government subtracts them from you to protect others
Positive liberalism - Governments decide what rights to give to you, IE rights are additive.
Both negative and positive liberalism can create inequality, the difference is that with negative liberalism, smaller government means more freedom and less intervention, but positive liberalism means you must have a big government no matter how much freedom you may or may not get. As an example, the soviet union was an example of positive rights being applied, and it was a tyrannical mess. Your argument about gun rights as positive and negative, is incorrect. The constitution does not grant the right of people to own guns. The constitution forbids the government from interfering in the extant natural rights of the individual to own guns before government ever existed. Rights are things that you do, Rights are NOT things that are done FOR you. you have a right to own guns, you do not have a right for others to not own guns because you don't want them to.
reply
Weberbros1
You are using the word right in the European way, as something you are allowed to do. Would prefer you use it in the classical sense as used in the constitution while talking about liberalism, that is, an action that someone is intrinsically capable of performing. We all have the right to freedom of speech and the right to run around naked in public, but only one of those rights have we agreed is so important that congress does not have the power to make laws that infringe upon it.
reply
You are using the word right in the European way, as something you are allowed to do. Would prefer you use it in the classical sense as used in the constitution while talking about liberalism, that is, an action that someone is intrinsically capable of performing. We all have the right to freedom of speech and the right to run around naked in public, but only one of those rights have we agreed is so important that congress does not have the power to make laws that infringe upon it.
reply
MatauReviews
Liberalism is essentially just a commitment to Capitalism. Any Political Science that doesn't take the material forces of the political economy into account is just philosophizing around pedantic nothings. How does Imperialism come into play Especially with regard to Settler-colonial regimes I believe in positive freedom or liberty. Negative freedom is what the US promises. Liberalism cannot defeat fascism. Fascism after all is just Capitalism in decay
reply
Liberalism is essentially just a commitment to Capitalism. Any Political Science that doesn't take the material forces of the political economy into account is just philosophizing around pedantic nothings. How does Imperialism come into play Especially with regard to Settler-colonial regimes I believe in positive freedom or liberty. Negative freedom is what the US promises. Liberalism cannot defeat fascism. Fascism after all is just Capitalism in decay
reply
ljsmooth69
Yeah the state of nature cuz if you were to follow the nature of the of the facts to be able to live in peace and pursue your happiness you have to have mutual respect amongst one another not to impede or get in the way or stop someone in their pursuit of happiness they have no right to do to you and you have no right to do it to them the American way
reply
Yeah the state of nature cuz if you were to follow the nature of the of the facts to be able to live in peace and pursue your happiness you have to have mutual respect amongst one another not to impede or get in the way or stop someone in their pursuit of happiness they have no right to do to you and you have no right to do it to them the American way
reply
Weberbros1
I get away from this debate very easily, in fact I’ve never entered into the debate of should Americans get to own guns. The pertinent question is can you take my guns away from me, the answer to which is no, not as long as the 2nd amendment and the constitution are in place, and as long as I own guns I’m going to make sure those stay in place!
reply
I get away from this debate very easily, in fact I’ve never entered into the debate of should Americans get to own guns. The pertinent question is can you take my guns away from me, the answer to which is no, not as long as the 2nd amendment and the constitution are in place, and as long as I own guns I’m going to make sure those stay in place!
reply
GrantLeeEdwards
Read JOHN DEWEY, kids.
Rawls & Berlin are useful theorists, but they’re narrowly analytic & to a large extent apolitical. Dewey is where you go to find a progressive path out of the current malaise of democracy.
Dewey:
Liberalism & Social Action (1927)
Freedom & Culture (1939)
& many other books
reply
Read JOHN DEWEY, kids.
Rawls & Berlin are useful theorists, but they’re narrowly analytic & to a large extent apolitical. Dewey is where you go to find a progressive path out of the current malaise of democracy.
Dewey:
Liberalism & Social Action (1927)
Freedom & Culture (1939)
& many other books
reply
Willy_Tepes
The strange thing about Liberalism is that it tries to legislate speech and behavior. It brings the state into people's private lives in a very controlling and intrusive way, and severely punishes anyone who resists or speaks up against it. It seems like the opposite of freedom.
reply
The strange thing about Liberalism is that it tries to legislate speech and behavior. It brings the state into people's private lives in a very controlling and intrusive way, and severely punishes anyone who resists or speaks up against it. It seems like the opposite of freedom.
reply
Tonoborus
finally someone mentioned my boy Rawls. chronically over-looked. his 'original position behind a veil of ignorance' approach still, i think. helps us clearly explore if a social or legal rule is fair or not.
reply
finally someone mentioned my boy Rawls. chronically over-looked. his 'original position behind a veil of ignorance' approach still, i think. helps us clearly explore if a social or legal rule is fair or not.
reply
AssocUSA
If this video was juxtaposed with a class and material analysis it would be so much better. Also pointing out the Philosophical idealism (from the mind) in liberalism that makes it inherently problematic.
reply
If this video was juxtaposed with a class and material analysis it would be so much better. Also pointing out the Philosophical idealism (from the mind) in liberalism that makes it inherently problematic.
reply
kuroazrem5376
If you emphazise group identities over individual rights, you create competition and animosity between groups, as they will go back to a tribal mentality. You're already seeing that today.
reply
If you emphazise group identities over individual rights, you create competition and animosity between groups, as they will go back to a tribal mentality. You're already seeing that today.
reply
russelldavis1359
Justice (retribution, restoration, rehabilitation) is the answer to most historic wrongs that lead to loss of liberty. That would look like reparations in most cases
reply
Justice (retribution, restoration, rehabilitation) is the answer to most historic wrongs that lead to loss of liberty. That would look like reparations in most cases
reply
andrew9812
Will the series go more into the refutations of liberalism all together I’m curious to see how those who oppose liberalism make their case and what their alternative is.
reply
Will the series go more into the refutations of liberalism all together I’m curious to see how those who oppose liberalism make their case and what their alternative is.
reply
pinealgasm
now tackle ableism. no one knows how to help me. i can't even sue the legal system for being inaccessible to me. no one has any incentive or obligation to care.
reply
now tackle ableism. no one knows how to help me. i can't even sue the legal system for being inaccessible to me. no one has any incentive or obligation to care.
reply
biblesforbreakfast
It's sad that all the definitions for polical theories are just fight'n words these days. Nobody actually looks up dictionary definitions anymore: (
reply
It's sad that all the definitions for polical theories are just fight'n words these days. Nobody actually looks up dictionary definitions anymore: (
reply
NicvB
The thumbnail says who fights for your rights. Well, I can say for sure that the BEasty Boys fight for our right to party.
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
reply
The thumbnail says who fights for your rights. Well, I can say for sure that the BEasty Boys fight for our right to party.
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
reply
crash_course
Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of the people tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone
reply
Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of the people tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
