The Problems with Classical Liberalism

The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 133

Classical Liberalism is in trouble. We can all see that. With it, the nations that have incorporated it as their operating model are also in trouble. We can all see that too. Today, post-liberal movements on both the Left and the putative Right see these problems and are calling for Classical Liberalism's demise. But do they see the problems we face clearly and accurately? James Lindsay, host of the New Discourses Podcast, thinks they do not, and in this episode, he breaks down what they're missing and the major problems Classical Liberalism faces as we make our way deeper into the twenty-first century. First, it's under deliberate attack from an attempted global Communist Revolution. Second, we can't defend it because we aren't even clear about what it is. Third, three deep and important philosophical questions demand answering in order to carry the philosophy of Individual Rights and Liberty into our increasingly technological and digital age. Join him to break through the conceptual fog and to start facing the real problems threatening us and to turn away from fighting shadows.

© 2023 New Discourses. All rights reserved. #NewDiscourses #JamesLindsay #liberalism

3:24 - Reactionary movement
6:15 - Our current moment, the marketplace of ideas
9:11 - Aristocracy of ideas
12:24 - Upheaval and the second enlightenment
20:13 - First major problem of Classical Liberalism: Marxist provocation and revolution
29:14 - Second major problem of Classical Liberalism: We can't defend Liberalism because we aren't even clear about what it is
38:48 - Third major problem of Classical Liberalism: 3 major questions that need to be answered to apply Liberalism to the 21st century.
43:30 - First question: What's a good theory of the individual?
56:14 - Second question: what does ownership and property mean?
1:29:10 - Third question: what is and how can liberalism provide a reasonable expectation of privacy in both private and public spaces?

[Matheusss]

I remember in law school how every book and text we had mentioned how the liberal state failed and we evolved into a "social state". Lmao

[szczesciejestkoloruczarneg]

“The system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not.” ― Friedrich August von Hayek

[tallard]

My vinyl collection lives at my sister's.
My cassette collection was nearly entirely lost/stolen
My CD collection stopped in 2003.
From 2003 to 2022, I "bought" zero music, I always found digital "ownership" stupid.
in 2022, I bought two "non-albums" from an artist who isn't on any major labels.

I also personally, uselessly I suppose, REFUSE to partake of Bill Gates Microsoft Office's annual rentals. I remember fondly when we bought software disks and installed them on however many computers we needed to.

The rental world is disgusting.

[Darth_Pro_x]

3:24 - Reactionary movement
6:15 - our current moment, the marketplace of ideas,
9:11 - aristocracy of ideas
12:24 - Upheaval and the second enlightenment
20:13 - First major problem of Classical Liberalism: Marxist provocation and revolution
29:14 - Second major problem of Classical Liberalism: we can't defend Liberalism because we aren't even clear about what it is
38:48 - Third major problem of Classical Liberalism: 3 major questions that need to be answered to apply Liberalism to the 21st century.
43:30 - First question: What's a good theory of the individual?
56:14 - Second question: what does ownership and property mean?
1:29:10 - Third question: what is and how can liberalism provide a reasonable expectation of privacy in both private and public spaces?

Summary by James (from his twitter):
Classical Liberalism has some problems.
1) It's under direct attack
2) We don't know what it means
3) Its underlying philosophies of the individual, ownership, and privacy need renewal and updating for the present era.

[Jules-Is-a-Guy]

Thnx in advance James, this is exactly the one I've been waiting for. I consider myself a Classical Liberal, but we live in a time when it's important to clarify its strengths and weaknesses, and realistically address its ostensible limitations in this day and age.
In spite of more than 90% agreeing with everything on this channel myself, I'd also simply argue, it's difficult for anyone nowadays not to be a kind of "small p" postmodernist. We're all larping to some extent, our culture has either lost or outgrown many established traditions/institutions, we're piecing together new ways of living in a highly fractured social landscape, with individual idiosyncrasies, often stitched together from earlier, disparate social conventions.

[corystarkiller]

That's a lot to think about, but very obviously something that's absolutely necessary to solve. This will be one video that I relisten to, to properly understand everything.
Your efforts don't go unnoticed. Please don't ever give up, you're changing hearts and minds through your work, and the future generations thank you.

[ReformedHistorian]

Thank you for taking Carl’s article seriously.

[dudleymq]

This may be the most significant podcast you're done so far. Thank you.

[basedbulgarian]

The problem with classical liberalism is it relies on conservatism (cultural nationalism, family centric society) to propagate itself, while in many ways fighting against the principles of conservatism

[timefororbit]

Thanks for another thoughtful podcast. What defense does Classical Liberalism have against a communist revolution? It appears there was no immune response when things kicked off in the 1960s through the 90s; the immune response only started they had already marched through the institutions and were applying the boot. We need the Constitution to empower citizens against tyranny. But we also need some mechanism built-in that identifies the endless forms of Marxism as the gateway to tyranny and the enemy of freedom. Classical Liberalism was blindsided for a century by a hostile parasite that proudly declared that it's goal was to destroy Classical Liberalism and traditional society. Besides declaring Marxism a religion, what else can we do?

[d.b.bassett]

James, read Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. When Jefferson claims life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are “among” our rights, Blackstone spells out the others. Both public and private. He also writes about public and private “wrongs.” It’s a brilliant discourse on the “common” laws of England that were the heritage and bedrock of our declaration and constitution. Blackstone clearly outlines a framework for right vs. wrong in public vs. private. I could imagine this as four quadrants. Further, Jefferson’s worst choice of words was inalienable. This has been taken to mean “cannot be taken away.” Right clearly can, and have been taken away, repeatedly, historically. A better word choice might have been “indispensable, ” to mean, “must never be given away or surrendered.” Those would be true rights, as opposed to weakness that can be taken advantage of leading to wrongs.

[swamibr]

If we need to update the definition of an Individual, I don’t think we can afford to omit the inherent spiritual nature of an individual’s essence. Without that, we can’t really put our finger on why individualism is so essential

[allyourbase]

Thank you James “Ba Gua” Lindsay. You have your fingers on the pulses. 🙏🏾🇺🇸❤️

[RedactedAnonymous]

You should be getting millions of views

[StupidAnon-gnih]

Lindsay is going to point out problems with classical liberalism?

Huh. I have to admit, I didn't see that coming. Looking forward to this.

[Goabnb]

Regarding the tractor example, you can't even buy a new tractor anymore without all the computerised stuff to avoid it. They pretty much all do it whether the farmer wants the "features" or not, and will even try to prevent the breaking of the software. Lois Rossmann talks a lot about this on his channel, to the point that Nikon tried to prevent somebody selling a 2nd hand lens of a range that wasn't even made anymore, because they want to control where people can buy Nikon stuff. Ignoring the fact that it was a 2nd hand, older item, being matched up between 2 willing people in an arms length transaction, Nikon thinks they still own the product they made and sold 15+ years ago

[vinomatt]

The problem with classical liberalism is simple. It contains a paradox. It must tolerate the production and proliferation of ideas that are explicitly anti-liberal until such a time arises where grievances are irreconcilable.

[anonymousAJ]

The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) is a US federal agency that was created in 1887 to run a railroad cartel
The Federal Reserve is a US federal agency that was created in 1913 to run a banking cartel (it's also explicitly a mix of public and private organizations)
The problem is a lot older than 1960

[notloki]

the marketplace of ideas turned into an oligarchy of experts, the oligarchy of experts informs the stakeholders. it's an emergent process.

how'd that rationality and skeptical deference to evidence work out during the coof? oh yeah, it didn't.

[yukey]

Another well articulated presentation.