What is Liberalism? (Political Philosophy)

An explanation of the four central tenets of philosophical liberalism, as well as objections to liberalism.

This series examines five positions in political philosophy and discusses whether US politicians that claim that label actually support policies that are in line with the underlying philosophy. The series is brought to you by our new book: Are All Lives Equal? (#Liberal #PoliticalPhilosophy)

Here are some videos you might enjoy:

Philosophy by Topic:

Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Collier-MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Dictionary of Continental Philosophy, and more!

[stackerman]

The more you learn about governmental systems and political ideology, the more you realize that the average American has the political literacy of a 5th grader.

[Wbjpen]

My upbringing twisted terms such as liberal and equality so much that it took years of self-study to neutralize them and many others. Dogmatism is a horrible thing to impose on a child.

[MrPhiltri]

It feels like we have to reinvent the wheel in terms of liberalism. Just that there are also a square and a triangle, both claiming to be a wheel...

[tirthapathasaravanan]

thank you. Great clear points. I am a visual thinker. While listening to you clear and precise points, I was visualizing whatever you were saying. I think it will be helpful if there are visual animations representing your already clear cut points. If you give me permission, I want to use your audio to make animated visuals. The easier it is to understand, the more people will pay attention and learn. Thank you for your effort.

[Pfhorrest]

It's important to note, on the economic question, the existence of the libertarian-socialist advocacy for usufruct property rights, and the corresponding notion that capitalism is dependent upon the state. The general idea there is that a maximally liberal condition would be one in which nobody's claims to exclusivity over any particular objects were validated, so anybody would be free to take and use whatever they like. It is therefore a decrease of liberty to validate any such claims: it takes state action protecting your claims to private property for you to have private property at all. So rather than requiring the government to "violate the liberties" of the rich for the benefit of the poor in order to redistribute wealth from rich to poor, all that's needed is for the government to *stop* violating the liberties of the poor by preventing them from just using that wealth themselves uninhibited.

Nobody I'm aware of actually advocates for the *total* invalidation of all claims to property, but rather a reconceptualization of property called "usufruct" (literally "fruit of use"), which means that things are the property of whoever habitually uses them: homes are the property of the people who live in them, businesses are the property of the people who operate them, etc. This doesn't mean that the government *takes* homes or businesses and *gives* them to others, but rather that if there is a dispute about who a home or business legitimately belongs to in the first place, and so who has a right to exclude whom (say a 'landlord' wants to evict a 'tenant', or a 'boss' wants to fire a 'worker'), the government mediating that dispute looks at the history of use to judge who is in the right (and so would judge that the 'tenant' is the actual homeowner and the 'landlord' has no claim; that the 'worker' is a shareholder and the 'boss' has no claim; etc).

I myself advocate for something slightly more propertarian than that, more to do with what contracts are valid than what claims of ownership are valid, but it has very similar consequences: by having the government do less, wealth naturally redistributes from those who have more than they're using to those who need more than they have.

[graceom]

Thanks, this was really helpful for school!

[CapnSnackbeard]

Not a Liberal here: what does the government have to do with settling "moral disputes?" What does a government have anything to do at all with morality? This objection to Liberalism implies governments are capable of determining what is good, being moral, and imparting morality on on us. Terrifying

[tienshan]

I would describe myself as a liberal in the Continental tradition, meaning that I favor a robust state precisely as a means to protect the freedom -- and, mutatis mutandis, the quality of life -- of individual citizens. But that raises a question, one often heard, if implicitly, in the North American context: to what extent is freedom a necessary precondition for a "good" quality of life -- "good" either in a subjective meaning sense, and/or in a moral or existential state of being sense -- and to what extent is the possession of freedom equivalent *to* quality of life? And relatedly, how is freedom assessed, to say nothing of being measured?

You have no idea how much I will be spamming friends and families with this video! Great explanation!

[InventiveHarvest]

Here's the counter-intuitive thing:

Liberalism not only maximizes benefits for the individual, but also due to the poverty fighting power of unfettered markets, it provides the best overall society as a whole.

[subliminallime]

I'd agree more with the category of liberal that rejects laissez-faire economics & advocates for a strong social safety net, although I don't fully agree with either. Politics is one area that I'd definitely call myself a skeptic.

[weaslebee]

Thank you for this. This helped me with my report

[luckyea]

Economic liberalism is an ideology that is an integral part of conservative social thought about minimal government intervention in the economy of a nation and about complete freedom for individuals in the economy.

In history, countries had the highest rates of GDP growth and living standards in those times when the state intervened in the economy, supported domestic producers, subsidized them and provided them with preferential loans. Examples, Russia (period 1929-1955), China, South Korea.

Data for countries around the world whose economies grew at double-digit (almost double-digit) rates for more than 20 years in the 20th century are given below:

1. 13.8% - Russia - average annual growth for 22 years (1929–1955).
2. 11.5% - Taiwan - average annual growth for 27 years (1947-1973).
3. 10.4% - China - average annual growth for 25 years (1983-2007).
4. 10.2% - South Korea - average annual growth for 23 years (1966–1988).
5. 9.7% - Japan - average annual growth for 23 years (1948-1970).
6. 9.2% - Singapore - average annual growth for 24 years (1966-1989).

Thus, in the twentieth century, the world's largest national economic growth for more than 20 years was achieved in Russia in 1929–1955 (minus four war years). During this period, real wages grew 4 times, citizens’ deposits in savings banks grew 5 times, and the economy grew 14 times.

And:
- First place in the world in terms of the share of mechanical engineering in the total volume of industrial production.
- Complete technical and economic independence of the state has been ensured.
- First place in the world in terms of agricultural mechanization.
- First place in Europe and second in the world in terms of absolute industry size.
- First place in Europe and second in the world in terms of labor productivity in industry.
- The latest industries and advanced technologies: nuclear, space, rocketry, aircraft manufacturing, instrument making, radio engineering, electronics, electrical engineering and others.

And sanctions did not prevent such economic growth in Russia!


The amazing vitality of the neoclassical paradigm and its
popularity in big business circles, generously
sponsoring the imposition of the resulting way of thinking on the public consciousness is explained by economic and political interests. Neoclassical economic theory plays the role of the scientific basis of the ideology of market fundamentalism and liberal economic policy, in the implementation of which large capital is interested, seeking to minimize state regulation of its activities. This ideology substantiates his claims to dominance in society, since it reduces social relations to the power of money. It also justifies modern forms of neocolonialism, which allow issuers of world currencies (primarily the American dollar) to exploit all the unequal exchange of unsecured banknotes for real wealth. Therefore, it is vigorously imposed by Washington through both direct political pressure and indirect methods, through international institutions (IMF, World Bank, WTO, etc.) and funding from the expert community, to national ruling elites in order to exploit the countries they rule!

[Javier-rmql]

I am not from america. The version of liberalism I understand as such does not include equity (that is socialism) or state support of basic needs (also socialism).
This mix of two different ideologies under one label in american politics is baffling to me.
But given how wrong classical liberal ideas are it is what you can expect that it ended going to the left.

[Jason-os]

Cheer~~willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own--- openness to new ideas.😊

[PaulMielcarz]

Conservatism is ideal conservation. Liberalism is individual liberation. Liberty is the opposite of justice. Justice is enforcing fairness.
Konserwatyzm jest konserwacją ideałów. Liberalizm jest oswobodzeniem jednostki. Swoboda jest przeciwnością sprawiedliwości. Sprawiedliwość jest egzekwowaniem uczciwości.

[adriancruz]

I’m a fan of your stuff but in my option this is far too cursory to be useful

[practicaliching]

It is well known in the psychiatric profession that there is a link between liberalism and emotional instability.

Undoubtedly the two most consistently found relationships are the positive effect of conscientiousness on right-wing voting and the positive effect of openness to experience on left-wing voting. Conscientious individuals are theorised to be more conservative because they take greater heed of social norms, valuing order and accomplishments that are socially proscribed. Open-minded individuals are more accepting of unconventional social behavior and unorthodox economic policies that are generally associated with the left.

There has been reasonably consistent evidence that a third trait, emotional instability, often called neuroticism, increases one’s chance of left-wing views.

[CasualPhilosophy]

Great vid! Although I take issue with the passing account of neoliberalism 😅

[enisten]

4:13 "People are free to do as they wish so long as they don't interfere with the rights of others."

This sentence is devoid of any meaning. The whole question is, what is a right and what isn't? In Turkey, for example, it is a crime to insult politicians, and this is justified by the same liberal principle, namely that your rights end where mine start. They tell you that you need to find a way of criticizing the politicians without insulting them, since everyone has the right to be free from insults. Insulting a person is considered analogous to swinging your fist where their nose is. Whereas, in the US, the most conspicuously liberal country, insulting politicians is considered a fundamental human right. It's not a crime even to insult ordinary citizens. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never break me." If someone protests too much, they're considered "thin-skinned", analogous to their nose standing where you had the right to swing your fists. Both legal systems are perfectly consistent with the aforementioned same liberal principle. Hence, it is devoid of any meaning. Its information content is no more than "everyone is equal before the law". One man's freedom is another man's tort.

[MattWatts-kvrh]

I wonder how many Americans actually understand this.