The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism (Pt. 1) – Learn Liberty
Articles Blog

The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism (Pt. 1) – Learn Liberty

November 30, 2019


Only registered users can comment.

  1. I'd like to hear him talk more about that "great debate" mentioned around 25:30. Why was it so "decisively" won by the (now-) left?

  2. Nobody thinks that the advent of petroleum as a fuel source in the 1850s had anything to do with that economic growth spike he's talking about?

    This instructor needs to rethink his role as an educator. Be a free thinker, but make sure you know who was right!

  3. What? Marx was pro imperialism? If he was at all pro imperialism it was because he believed it to be the herald to the last stages of the decay of capitalism. Do professors even read anymore? What he describes is Leninism. Lenin's theory of capitalism was adopted by Marxists, but Marx himself did not believe this. Marx is even famously quoted as saying, "I am not a Marxist."

  4. At least he gets the importance of the shift in the labeling of the left and the right. It creates a lot of false dilemmas which keep the argument over heated and prevents charitable argument.

  5. @spartan2600:
    Not nearly as much as Soros paid to whatever outlet that stuffed your cranium with all that stinking rotten statist manure.

  6. @JackBlair2 I'm not sure if I follow your comments. Is the one about Jesus in agreement or disagreeing with my comments? And what are you getting at with the Emancipation Proclamation, you completely lost me with that one.

  7. @Akatam0t0ma There is nothing more statist than the Koch billionaires who live of workers and taxpayer largess to fund their political corruption. I don't listen to corporate news, so there's no way any Soros could affect what I think.

    I listen Democracy Now and The Real News Network, both of which don't receive a penny from corporations, businesses, the government or George Soros.

  8. @spartan2600 Well bless your liberal heart. You know how best to prevent taxpayer largess from falling into the hands ofthe Koch billionaire (assuming that is true in the firt place)? Don't collect so much tax that you can simply give it away willi nilly. You keep what you earn. I keep what I earn. If you want to help out your fellow man, do it out of your own pocket.

  9. @rosihantu1 We need taxes to pay for public schools, healthcare for the poor etc. The reason the Koch get subsidized by the government isn't because we collect taxes whatsoever, its because the government is corrupted and undemocratic.

    I don't keep what I earn, the multi-millionaire that owns the company I work at steals a large share of what I produce. Same with the people who have to work for the Koch's companies. We need the government to care for the needy, private charities don't cut it.

  10. @rosihantu1 There's a reason the United States, the richest nation in the history of the world has a 15-20% poverty rate that is rapidly increasing, and Finland, a nation with virtually no natural resources but a very democratic government with a great welfare system has poverty below 2% and the world's best (public) education system.

  11. @spartan2600 Do you think that having a great welfare system, will reduce poverty? And what incentives to work would one person have if they can continue suckling on the government teat? FOr a start, I don't believe the 15-20% poverty rate, solely based on the number of fat asses I see living in the trailer parks. And if it is true, I suggest that you study why the poor are poor in the first place. Trust me there are always jobs around, only not at the wages you want.

  12. @rosihantu1 The reality is that the countries with the lowest poverty and homelessness rates have the most extensive welfare systems- all the Scandinavian nations, France, Germany and Israel from close to its founding until the 1980's when it undertook neoliberal reforms.

  13. @rosihantu1 I don't know what you see, but the fact is that the poverty rate in the US is generally accepted to be around 20%. I also don't know what country you're from, but there are very few jobs in the US. There are 6 unemployed people for every 1 job opening. Also, most people who live in poverty ARE employed! The problem is that the greedy corporations and rich bosses pay very little in the US, mainly because we don't have many unions.

  14. @rosihantu1 In places like Sweden, everyone has a job that pays well, but if not, they get help from the government like subsidized housing, food, healthcare, etc. The welfare system is skeletal in the US, therefore there are more people in poverty and homeless.

  15. @spartan2600 Everybody is greedy. Corporations, rich bosses, employees, me, you and evrybody else. We all want to pay as little as possible for the services we receive. If I invest money in a business, I expect a certain return on investment. That means operating at the lowest cost possible including employee cost. That is sound business practice as long as corporations are not using force to compel people to work for them. But u can't compel corporations to hire unionize worker as well.

  16. @spartan2600 What you are proposing is the redistribution of wealth in the interest of fairness. I want fairness as well. You know what pisses me off, good looking girls tends to have sex with good looking guys or guys with money. I have neither. In the interest of fairness, can this utopia of yours compel good looking girls to have sex with me? Personally, I don't care much about housing or money. If you can redistribute sex, I'm right with you.

  17. Liked the video for the most part but I was disappointed that he has bought into the myth of Lincoln and the Yankee caricature of the antebellum south, slaver did exist but was dying only a small number of the population owned slaves, southern society at the time lacked the wide spread racism of the north and were extremely liberal when compared to new england, I am using liberal in its classical usage.

  18. 27 minutes into this, he keeps casting individual freedom as being connected to industrialization, which to me means the labor movement, from this perspective, is a negative. I see no reason to give him more of my time if he's going to ignore the fact that the rich who owned the factories had the power, and abused it, thus creating situations such as we see described in something like The Jungle. This power difference continues, with labor regulations helping, but not solving, the problem.

  19. actually i think ayn rand and milton freidman had a lot to do with the 20th century revival of libertarianism

  20. The reason why a liberal party becomes more social , is because they start to realize that liberal philosophy is BUNK. and does not work for the benefit of the whole of the people.

  21. Classical liberal ideas haven't died. They've come back with a vengeance when they murdered Bretton Woods. They came to dominate Reaganomics and the Thatcher regime, which dominate politics to this day. Free trade and free market faiths tyrannize the Washington consensus and all WTO/IMF organizations

    In fact it's Keynesianism that has died when it was forcibly converted to classical liberalism by the likes of Hicks-Hansen, Viner, Samuelson, who you should remember if you took any econ courses.

  22. To put it concisely, the left became corrupted by Marxian political theory ignorant of the fact that Marx's conclusions were incorrect. It was not industrialism that created the horrible living conditions but the failure of government to effectively manage and keep pace with large migration of people from the farm to the cities. Marx's solution was to increase the size and scope of the entity that failed. Marxism is a contradiction and that is why it will never work.

  23. It is obvious to me why things didn't get steadily worse from the 40's onward. 1: The Holocaust, the Gulag Archipelago, Pol Pot's Mountain of Skulls, etc. 2: The Cold War created a contrast between freedom (as in classical liberalism) and a totalitarian collectivism, 3: The writings of individuals such as Mises, Hayek, Hazlitt, Muggeridge, Kolakowski, Solzenitzyn, etc, 4: the more recent collapse of collectivism overtly (Eastern Europe, USSR) and discreetly (China, Vietnam, India).

  24. So free trade is tyrannizing…. Freeness is controling…… Being free is constricting. Are you noticing any incongruities in your thinking.

  25. Its not bunk its just not delivering on what you think govt. should deliver. Some people believe that the quality of life rising for all people and being free are inherently good. Others believe that quality of life being similar or equal amongst all citizens is more important and justifies loss of freedom. So when you say it does not benefit all, what do you really mean? No system benefits everybody financially, so considering that, isnt it better to be broke and free not broke and enslaved.

  26. 44:09 can someone show me the data for that? That is an extremely compelling statement, as I feel like the traditional story is that WWII is the reason economies exploded with wealth [or at least with the US leading the way.. it's a very Keynesian story as well obviously]

  27. We all have our coping mechanisms. What's a good way you could reach out to people without insulting them or making them defensive?

  28. I'm curious how you would define "quality of life"? [as opposed to "standard of living", is what I'm thinking, if that helps]

  29. The only thing is, Jersey shore is easy to watch and understand. This video uses big words and bigger ideas.
    Ten minutes of this video equals more content than three Jersey Shore episodes, possibly seasons.

  30. I'm liberal and I find this course helpful and clear to me many point about the history of Liberalism. I find it incarnated in human nature. In all the societies there're liberal people. It's not limited to the west, but it's a universal project. Nationalism contradict liberalism because we are ruled under one idea, culture, religion, and we identify ourselves with the government. Suppose that a state who rules many ethnics groups as Serbia, those ethnics groupe will never tolerate to be unrecognized by the government and they suffer from the forced annihilation into a strange nation. The former Iraqi regime wanted to arabise the Kurdish people and that went to many wars that endure more than one hundred years of war between Kurds and the fourth state sharing their land.
    Wars were between liberal and conservative parties in latine america, as in Mexico and Colombia.

  31. 35:07 "the replacement of a large degree of self-employment by mass employment in large, integrated productive facilities creates a kind of experience of collectivism in people's daily life which tends to affect the way the see the world." No. Working for 14 hours a day for a meager pay and in horrible conditions creates a whole different kind of experience. What a sly and dishonest way to describe the miserable working conditions in which newly emerging industrial capitalists put their workers into, not even mentioning the suffering of the peoples of imperial colonies.
    Basically proves how easily you can take human pain and turn it into a reasonably sounding self-justifying sentence.
    I'm not an opponent of liberalism, but I was hoping to hear a more credible lecture on how the classical liberal ideology of the first half of the 19th century – that is looking for ways to oppose the "divine" right of monarchy and make people more free – has repetitively undergone a vast paradigm shift by transforming into an ideology of oppression, this time in the hands of private business. Back in the aftermath of the Industrial revolution it was the emerging class of industrial capitalists exploiting the factory workers and destroying the colonies; today the picture is more complicated with financiers, bankers, good old industrial capitalists, tech billionaires, etc.– altogether buying politicians and basically writing legislation. Europe is doing slightly better than the US, but not radically differently.
    Power has shifted from the state into private (corporate more recently) business–John Stuart Mill or Adam Smith would be very surprised to see the kind of outcome the philosophy they nourished has produced.
    This should be obvious, even just by looking at the business press these days.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *