Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Who favors more freedom liberals or conservs?

1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 12:24:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
https://www.youtube.com...

Prof. Davies just destroyed the Two Party system in four minutes.A279;
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 1:13:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Quoting another YTer? :(

Also, I am astonished at those political definitions: to say liberalism is based on "the essential goodness of the human race" is just flat out false. Any political philosophy student or textbook will tell you liberal philosophy promotes an at best mixed view of human nature. Essential Goodness, which we'll assume includes altriusm over egoism, is socialist in nature.

Moreover, the point "people are subservient to the government" seems a rather large exaggeration of conservative ideology. People are subservient to the government for some conservatives, yes, mostly the evangelical pre-Disraeli groups. Just as in liberalism (Hobbes springs to mind) and socialism (to an extent, Marxists under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat; Christian Socialists). However, Disraelites advocate the neo-feudal structure where those at the top look after those at the bottom, and the bottom in return help the top. The "peasantry" look after the "nobility", and the "nobility" look after the "peasantry" in a noblesse oblige. People are subservient to government only in the same way that the government is subservient to the people.

The other conservatives that I enjoy as well as a major political philosophy movement (since Popper and Santayana) is that of Oakeshott's ship where government simply keeps people afloat. In which case, the government seems to be subservient instead to the people, not the other way around. The government is occasionally needing to rule harshly, and in other situations (such as now) the government must have a light touch.

I'm only 48 seconds in, and I already disagree with the brunt of what is said.

Oh yaaay a liberal vs conservative scale, even though American Conservatives are orthodox liberals, and everywhere else conservatives are by and large 'liberal conservatives'. Awesome. (1 minute in)

Alright, I misread the original situation. The fact that he was giving political philosophy definitions of "liberalism" and "conservatism" made me assume he was discussing poli phi (for short). Instead, he is now discussing poli sci (political science). This jerking between poli phi and poli sci and inconsistency is what I'll criticise him now for in future rather than being plain wrong. (1:24)

I will have to take fault, even though this is political parties now so it's not my expertise, at claiming liberals want to ban prayer in public schools. That's a crude representation of what's a more meandering issue, which cannot be easily summed up in a bitesize phrase like that. As most liberals will tell you, prayer is fine, prayer in public school is fine, it's just not fine when it is forced onto other people who must take the time taking part, or coerced/pressured into doing so. Similarly for Free Trade: crude simplification. Though now I am wondering where the two party system criticism comes into play. Spitting Image did it in the minute and a half I've been watching and they were both accurate and funny, which are two adjectives I'd hesitate to associate with this presentation (1:34).

Ha! I cannot contain my laughter at the blatant bias here (which is obvious for Learn Liberty videos, and I don't expect it not to exist, but I expect some sophisticated subtlety, like that in the CATO institute for example. At least they make a coherent case which isn't 100% rhetoric a lot of the time). Characterising "liberal", which has its etymology in the word "liberty" quite clearly, as a synonym for "less freedom" is utter rubbish, and can fairly be characterised as a propaganda attempt (in the sense of avoiding debate, not in the Nazi-sense of the term) to sleight liberalism to strengthen an argument through rhetoric and not reason. (1:49)

I'm wondering where Prf. Davies is going with this. I haven't watched it all at this point, so I am only speculating here. He is on screen, after replacing "conservatism" and "liberalism" with "more freedom" and "less freedom" respectively, seeing how the issues do not naturally align. Which to me seems to be refuting the attempt at calling them synonyms. (2:10)

I will call "no" at allowing prayer in public schools as being anti-freedom. Part of me thinks to be charitable and assume he meant mandatory prayer or mandatory no-prayer and therefore he's right, but the use of words doesn't imply that, and so... (2:16)

He's came up with a new hermeneutical device of viewing things: the extent of which something promotes freedom in the social sphere and the same thing in the economic sphere. It's novel, and may be useful. However, I can poke holes the size in this idea. The first being "freedom", as shown clearly by Isaiah Berlin and has now been near-universally accepted (in the same way as supply/demand has been in economics) can be divided into "positive freedom" and "negative freedom", which refers to different 'forms' of freedom. I'm low on characters, so I'll avoid defining these terms, but there is a lot of information on this subject. The second other problem is essentially the vagueness of the value of freedom; how do you evaluate the freedom of being able to drive without a licence plate compared to the ability to do unlicenced drugs?

To be clear, if these two issues are recognised, I think we have a nifty little hermeneutical device. I just don't see the second being resolved any time soon, and the former causing some complications to the graph that will make representation unclear. (3:40)

Again, he's moved from poli phi to poli sci with such speed that if I were not a poli phi student, I would not recognise the jerking going on. To say liberals do not think in terms of first principles might as well be saying "this square is circle". His original slide stated the first principles of liberalism (even though, again, they were the wrong principles to an extent), and to say conservatism as a poli phi has 'principles' in the sense of ideology is heavily debated by poli phi scholars for decades. I anecdotally fall down on the side that says its Popper and Santayana brand isn't an ideology. (4:09)

His concluding remark: "Do we or do we not have the right to property and life?" sums up the entire problem masterfully skirted around. Liberals say we do. So do the American conservatives (who are liberals) and the European conservatives (who are liberal conservatives). Life is best protected, argues the social liberal, by universal healthcare. Property, liberals may (and have in the past and among poli phi circles) argue, can only be protected by rational agents, and the use of drugs stops us being rational agents, and therefore drugs are anti-freedom. Ultimately, very little follows from a support of freedom because, as many have said in the past and many will continue saying, freedom is used as a buzzword encompassing many things, and even its true meaning is quite vague to begin with.

In other words, I am very confused at the whole thing. There was no reference to the Two Party system, yet alone anything that can refute it. To quote Spitting Image: "This is...mindless confrontation with no reasoned argument." The economist Prf. Davies at best proposed a hermeneutical device to help analyse from a liberal presupposition. In reality, I think he presented a case which simply revealed his skill is in economics, not in political philosophy, and why political philosophy needs to be taught stronger in schools.

https://www.youtube.com...
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 7:43:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I found much that I personally agreed with up to the 2:00 mark, when I began almost hating the man.

The Liberal/Conservative scale is misleading, outdated and/or useless.
-Agree

It is difficult to define "Liberal/Conservative" outside of the matrix of policy positions.
-Agree

Universal Health Care, Minimum Wage, and higher taxes are "less free" issues?
-I cannot take him seriously past this point. His earlier statements were bromides, and the later ones were misinformed.

"Who favors freedom more? Liberals or Conservatives?"

This question has, as its basic premise, a useless ad homen insult. It cannot be answered, because ad homen taunts are impossible to discuss. (One side love 'freedom,' while the other does not?)

Conservatives (In America) support great freedom for groups, and traditional power structures.
Policies that demonstrate this: They support tax breaks for the wealthy, at one time supported slavery, they support the large financial institutions, and argue for less church/state separation.

Liberals (also in America) support greater freedom at the individual level, and do not trust traditional authority figures:
Policies that demonstrate this: Liberals support gay rights, labor unions, religious self-determinism, artistic and press freedoms and at one time opposed slavery.

Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to oppose economic saturation, preferring economic centralization.
Policies: Deregulate banks, end environmental protections, end the minimum wage, child labor laws, and the right of the poor to sue the wealthy.

Liberals tend to support economic saturation policies.
Policies: Minimum wage, worker safety, universal health care, welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 7:57:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
... thinking...

This is the only definitive way that we can accurately describe "liberal" and "conservative," at least in the US.

We form a composite of various policies, and ask citizens to check off how many of these positions they agree with. The side with the far and away the most checks "wins," in the event of a near-tie, the person is a "moderate."

The insult "who loves freedom more?" Can be safely ignored.
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 10:36:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Modern American Liberals = Only maximized social freedom.

Modern American Conservatives = Only maximized economic freedom.

Libertarians = Both.

Fascists = Neither.
Tsar of DDO
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 10:41:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Every
Villain
Is
Lemons

/endthread
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 10:51:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 10:41:32 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Every
Villain
Is
Lemons

/endthread

honestly I think this is the most fitting response to that video. 4 minutes of talking about absolutely nothing except a bunch of opinions. Is this what university students in political science classes take notes on?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 10:55:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 10:51:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/18/2013 10:41:32 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Every
Villain
Is
Lemons

/endthread

honestly I think this is the most fitting response to that video. 4 minutes of talking about absolutely nothing except a bunch of opinions. Is this what university students in political science classes take notes on?

That might be the first class of an intro polit theory class. What was your issue with it though? Did you not understand it?
Tsar of DDO
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 10:55:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 10:51:37 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/18/2013 10:41:32 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Every
Villain
Is
Lemons

/endthread

What?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 10:56:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 10:55:39 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/18/2013 10:51:37 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/18/2013 10:41:32 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Every
Villain
Is
Lemons

/endthread

What?



Ah... ok.
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 11:00:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 10:55:39 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/18/2013 10:51:37 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/18/2013 10:41:32 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Every
Villain
Is
Lemons

/endthread

What?



the fool has probably never watched spongebob.

I wish I was 7 again. life sucks
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 11:04:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 11:00:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/18/2013 10:55:39 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/18/2013 10:51:37 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/18/2013 10:41:32 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Every
Villain
Is
Lemons

/endthread

What?



the fool has probably never watched spongebob.

I wish I was 7 again. life sucks

Gurl, I'm 17 and i still try and watch at least a clip of Spongebob, if not a full episode, every day.

Spongebob is proof that there is good in the world.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 11:04:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 11:00:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/18/2013 10:55:39 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/18/2013 10:51:37 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/18/2013 10:41:32 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Every
Villain
Is
Lemons

/endthread

What?



the fool has probably never watched spongebob.

I wish I was 7 again. life sucks

How does not watching Spongebob make me a fool?
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 11:05:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 10:55:14 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/18/2013 10:51:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/18/2013 10:41:32 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Every
Villain
Is
Lemons

/endthread

honestly I think this is the most fitting response to that video. 4 minutes of talking about absolutely nothing except a bunch of opinions. Is this what university students in political science classes take notes on?

That might be the first class of an intro polit theory class. What was your issue with it though? Did you not understand it?

the man didn't forward much to actually understand, there were no facts, and no big, novel "point". I don't think one needs to take a course at a university to be told that political views can be organized according to how much liberty they propagate. It's also a blanket assumption to claim that people (which people exactly?) don't adhere to principles that may inform their political opinions. I don't know, it was just so vacuous, it was annoying to watch.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 11:08:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 11:05:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/18/2013 10:55:14 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/18/2013 10:51:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/18/2013 10:41:32 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Every
Villain
Is
Lemons

/endthread

honestly I think this is the most fitting response to that video. 4 minutes of talking about absolutely nothing except a bunch of opinions. Is this what university students in political science classes take notes on?

That might be the first class of an intro polit theory class. What was your issue with it though? Did you not understand it?

the man didn't forward much to actually understand, there were no facts, and no big, novel "point". I don't think one needs to take a course at a university to be told that political views can be organized according to how much liberty they propagate. It's also a blanket assumption to claim that people (which people exactly?) don't adhere to principles that may inform their political opinions. I don't know, it was just so vacuous, it was annoying to watch.

What do you mean "no facts"?

In any case... what you saw is five minutes of what probably is a lecture which is at least an hour long that is part of a course to be covered over an entire semester. But it's not supposed to be hard... it would be (something like the first lecture) of a polit theory course.
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 11:13:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 11:08:32 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/18/2013 11:05:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/18/2013 10:55:14 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/18/2013 10:51:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/18/2013 10:41:32 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Every
Villain
Is
Lemons

/endthread

honestly I think this is the most fitting response to that video. 4 minutes of talking about absolutely nothing except a bunch of opinions. Is this what university students in political science classes take notes on?

That might be the first class of an intro polit theory class. What was your issue with it though? Did you not understand it?

the man didn't forward much to actually understand, there were no facts, and no big, novel "point". I don't think one needs to take a course at a university to be told that political views can be organized according to how much liberty they propagate. It's also a blanket assumption to claim that people (which people exactly?) don't adhere to principles that may inform their political opinions. I don't know, it was just so vacuous, it was annoying to watch.

What do you mean "no facts"?

In any case... what you saw is five minutes of what probably is a lecture which is at least an hour long that is part of a course to be covered over an entire semester. But it's not supposed to be hard... it would be (something like the first lecture) of a polit theory course.

I'm sure there's more legitimate content in the rest of the lecture. It's just something about that gap between the OP's hyperbolic language and the languid nothingness in the video that made me sort of seethe with irritation.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 7:52:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 10:36:33 PM, YYW wrote:
Modern American Liberals = Only maximized social freedom.

Modern American Conservatives = Only maximized economic freedom.

Libertarians = Both.

Fascists = Neither.

Again, "freedom" has two meanings. I'd say libertarians in practice minimise these two freedoms, not maximise it. Fascists moreover would argue that Freedom comes from fulfilling one's duty, and interestingly have found some base in this in Camus' Myth of Sisyphus.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 7:52:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 10:55:14 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/18/2013 10:51:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/18/2013 10:41:32 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Every
Villain
Is
Lemons

/endthread

honestly I think this is the most fitting response to that video. 4 minutes of talking about absolutely nothing except a bunch of opinions. Is this what university students in political science classes take notes on?

That might be the first class of an intro polit theory class. What was your issue with it though? Did you not understand it?

If this was an intro, take your money back. Many things were stated which are wrong. Instead, it's a LearnLiberty video, which does faux-lectures online to teach people to evangelise libertarianism/conservatism, similar to Ragner University (I think that's what it's called - someone can correct me).
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 7:55:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 11:13:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/18/2013 11:08:32 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/18/2013 11:05:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/18/2013 10:55:14 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/18/2013 10:51:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/18/2013 10:41:32 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Every
Villain
Is
Lemons

/endthread

honestly I think this is the most fitting response to that video. 4 minutes of talking about absolutely nothing except a bunch of opinions. Is this what university students in political science classes take notes on?

That might be the first class of an intro polit theory class. What was your issue with it though? Did you not understand it?

the man didn't forward much to actually understand, there were no facts, and no big, novel "point". I don't think one needs to take a course at a university to be told that political views can be organized according to how much liberty they propagate. It's also a blanket assumption to claim that people (which people exactly?) don't adhere to principles that may inform their political opinions. I don't know, it was just so vacuous, it was annoying to watch.

What do you mean "no facts"?

In any case... what you saw is five minutes of what probably is a lecture which is at least an hour long that is part of a course to be covered over an entire semester. But it's not supposed to be hard... it would be (something like the first lecture) of a polit theory course.

I'm sure there's more legitimate content in the rest of the lecture. It's just something about that gap between the OP's hyperbolic language and the languid nothingness in the video that made me sort of seethe with irritation.

The lectures are only 5 minutes long, as part of the ethos of the site. An hour long lecture would contain an hour's worth of falsehoods and rhetoric, rather than content. I'd also add that the discussion of political issues was average at best even for sixth form standards in the UK.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...