Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 7: Conclusion: What’s Your View?


So what’s your view about what the role
of government should be? What’s your criteria for deciding what you think government should
do? What’s your methodology? What’s your philosophy for making that broad goal? Why do you think government should be limited?
Do you think it should be limited because of the consequences of government action?
Do you think it should be limited because government infringes on your natural rights
or our natural rights? And finally, what do you think the role of
government should be? Do you think there’s no role for government? Are you an anarchist?
Do you believe the role of government should be minimal—it should only provide the army,
the police, and the courts but nothing else? Do you believe that there are certain public
goods like defense, like dealing with externalities such as the environment? Do you believe that
there’s a social-market economy, that there is a responsibility for dealing with the poorest
within society? We need some sort of basic welfare state such as making sure every child
can go to school? Or do you believe in nonclassical liberal
views about the role of the state? Is it the job of the state to promote a virtuous society,
as some conservatives would argue? Do you think it’s the job of the state to create
equality, as many people would argue on the left, having an egalitarian state? Are you a socialist? Do you believe that the
government should either own or, if not necessarily own, control all aspects of the economy? Or
are you—I hope not—a totalitarian, a fascist, or a communist who believes that the government
should control every aspect of life? So the question is, what’s your view about the
role of government?




Comments
  1. Agression is very precisely defined as 'the initiation of force against another's person or property', talking to someone in an attempt to explain your viewpoint is in no way aggressive – the only way in which persuasion could be aggressive was if you used a threat in an attempt to pursuade someone, e.g do this or I will put you in prison

  2. I've been thinking about this situation and this is how I'd tackle the "child in the street" use of force. I will assume two things: 1. The child is unaware the car is coming and 2. The child is of sound mind. If you plan to change these assumptions then don't bother replying. With that in mind, it is in the child's interest to live and exercise its right to self-defense, assuming perfect knowledge. The mother, aware of the car, is exercising defensive force in pushing the child.

  3. Just to elaborate more: You are obfuscating the term "initiating" from meaning "to aggress" to mean "to start." The aggressive use of force, the way libertarians use the term, is to used to personally gain at someone else's expense. In the case of the mother, she is using force to prevent loss. Just because the brain signals to nerves in her arms to initiate muscular contractions to "push" her child can be described as "initiation" but you are interchanging the words for their meanings.

  4. You are applying it to government apriori. The whole concept of the initiation of force, as generally described, would logically prevent a government forming to begin with.

  5. its clearly different, i may or may not be able to dodge your punch, i cant chose weather to be able to dodge the punch, i can chose not to read your comment.

  6. I find it interesting that in the case of the mother/child, the van is the justification for initiating defensive force because the existence of the van is self-evident, or in other words an objectively viewed as a threat. Putting aside how the government came into existence, wouldn't the justification for "any action" also self-evident? Ironically, it's precisely the "reality is subjective" is how government "create" imaginary "vans" and yet your example assumes an objective van.

  7. good luck buddy, since you draw a clearly define where persuasion ends and aggression begins he throws out the idea that there is a distinction entirely. its pretty frustrating ><

  8. 75-58; I think that settles it. I've read much of Rothbard's work, and I think he makes the clearest, simplest arguments for anarcho-capitalism.

  9. Kneejerk reaction would be to just slowly make our way into anarchism, to give individuals the chance to gradually adapt to the increase in freedom, i very much doubt we can get to anarchism in a shot period of time.

  10. Without guiding Principles that are articulated equally, more or less, in all religions as fundamental to moral and ethical behaviour we have Loose Humanism, Barbarianism. Although not in vogue in our current culture, even religious cultures, God Centered behaviour is a way to a civilization respectful of all materials, including your bodies and possessions. It begins with recognizing one's Self as a portion of Creator with attributes of Principle, such as give and you shall be given too.

  11. Very interesting video series and it offers a lot to think about. I also like at the end the quick succinct way the non-classic liberal views are described by their views of the function and role of government. To be sure, this part was less than 1 min so it is overly simplistic, but interesting none the less.

  12. I have always considered myself a conservative, but I have moved more libertarian or classic liberal recently. As a religious person, my religious views have not changed or softened, but my views on what is proper for government to enforce has. Take the recent Gay Marriage dust up. I am far more leery of having a single federally enforced mandate be legislated as opposed to States and their citizens choosing their own way. This is regardless of what side of the issue would "win" federally.

  13. What a terrific series! I've been a libertarian for some time now, but I didn't know this much about each school. I didn't realize that the Chicago school supported a role of a social safety net. I definitely fall in the Natural Rights camp. While I have always been adverse to Anarcho-Capitalism, I think I found it more convincing than at any other point in my political evolution. Again, great series. Very concise, objective and educational.

  14. Great little miniseries. LearnLiberty is an asset to the freedom movement. Personally I favour small and constitutionally limited government.

  15. I promise, and maybe even swear to God, that I would wield my totalitarian power with wisdom, compassion, impartiality, and with an inclination to do what is best for society as a whole. That's my promise!

  16. However, it has been historically demonstrated that absolute power will corrupt absolutely.

    You will for a while…. but it will corrupt you.

  17. [[I promise, and maybe even swear to God, that I would wield my totalitarian power with wisdom, compassion, impartiality…]]

    A "god" no doubt that describes himself as wrathful, jealous and intolerant. A "god" who demands that everyone surrender their will to his will, or he'll torture them for an endless time…which is a working definition of enslavement.

  18. [[God Centered behaviour is a way to a civilization respectful of all materials, including your bodies and possessions.]]

    That's completely false. The 'god'(s) of Abraham, for example, is/are said to own people and their lives. If you disagree with that, then I suggest a closer reading of the bible(s) and the Koran. Both Paul of Tarsus and "King" David explained why "god" has the right to arbitrarily torture you or smash you to bits like flawed pottery. Also, see "god's" arguments to Job.

  19. The 'god(s)' about what you speak are finished. They have taken the secondary position at this time according to the Divine Plan of Su God, the linage of Fire, Miroku, 5/6/7. The Principle Deities, follow, now along with the subordinate deities or the 'god(s)' about which you speak, the Principles set forth not only in Bible, Torah, Koran, Gita, Shito texts, and rule in this time. WIthout these Principles, friend, one is lost. End of Story…

  20. That's a possibility — but notice how I did NOT promise that I would try to avoid being corrupted. Ha ha ha!

  21. Should the description not say minarchy and not monarchy? Monarchy seems to have no relevance to the subject matter at hand…

  22. I'm all for what works. Maybe a transition towards this utopia but better to start off with Chicago and then work your way down with government power.

  23. I wish there would have been some mention of Panarchism or "Functionally Overlapping Competing Jurisdictions."

    But then again, there may be too few thinkers that have fallen under that camp to really sustain a "school" of thought.

  24. Neo-fascist. The Economy is sacred, no economic intervention is needed AT ALL. The Private sector and free market is the best tool for fighting poverty and advancing technology. But force is how everything should be kept in order. Protection of Life and Property, but Liberty is limited by the State. Minarchies are unstable and Anarchies are chaotic. I know I am going to get flamed for this. lol.

  25. Good video, except Communists, as far as I know, want to eventually abolish the state. So I don't wholly agree with this video's explanation of their ideology.

  26. He was refering to communism in the colloquial sense. Similar to the communism that has occurred everywhere it has been tried.

  27. Those communisms aren't actually communism though. While it's true communism has the weakness of being easily hijacked, that doesn't mean one should misrepresent the ideology of communism as the failed result of the ideology. One should explain the weakness, but not misrepresent the theory.

  28. Yeah… And Fascism means a bundle of sticks. As in if we all stick together will rigid rules and structure, we will be more unbreakable or stronger (strength through unity). But that isn't exactly what we all think of when we think fascism.. is it?

    Did you notice he used the term "classical liberalism".. That is probably because the term "liberalism" no longer has the same meaning. Just like "Communism" no longer has the colloquial meaning that you wish it did. Cheers.

  29. I don't believe in changing the meanings of words to match people's misconceptions of the meanings.

  30. And I believe that words should be chosen as to communicate an idea. This often means using the commonly used words, instead of the original definition. Or do you think when someone says "fuck you" that they are coming on to you? And did you think that when I said "coming on to you" I meant literally getting on top of you?

  31. There's a difference between giving words and phrases a second meaning, and changing the meaning of a word from what it was to what people have come to believe due to being ignorant.

    Yes, words should be used to communicate an idea, but you damage that ability when one group still uses the old definition and another uses the new definition. In addition to that problem, words with many meanings can be confusing which makes communicating an idea that much harder.

  32. By second word I meant like "row" meaning both a row and also to row. Not to take the word for an ideology and give it a second meaning contradicting its first meaning.

    No confusion is had when someone says "a row of books", but confusion is had when someone says communism is a form of totalitarianism.

    If anything, socialism should've been under the totalitarian description. Because although communism suggests socialism at first, the actual theoretical state of communism is anarchy.

  33. But who gave "Communism" that second meaning? It certainly wasn't this speaker, it was most likely the self proclaimed communist dictators and tyrants. Now that "communism" has that second meaning, their is nothing deceitful about using it. I certainly was not confused when he mentioned it, I knew he was referring to communist dictatorships and not communist theory. I think you are rowing in circles here. Cheers.

  34. you believe that having a private-police force and military would possibly work without some form of civil war breaking out? Would private courts not simply show bias?

  35. The whole idea of having a state controlled court system is that it acts as a neutral arbiter for citizens to settle their disputes with each other. If courts were private, then they're would be no guarentee judges and juries would be so neutral, and the threat of 'kangeroo courts' would loom.
    I agree somewhat with anarcho-capitalism, as markets clearly are the most efficient and product way of allocating resources. Yet public goods, such as courts/police/education, should be state controlled.

  36. Isn't a State controlled court system biased toward the State? If citizens were to settle disputes, couldn't they both choose someone they agree on, or instead, couldn't their respective judges choose a third judge who they both agree on?

  37. well the idea is the jury are anonymous, sworn to secrecy and base their verdict on the performance of the perspective lawyers. How would a united rule of law be agreed upon anyway and if courts were to be privatized what would they base their decisions on anyway?
    Also, are there any examples of anarcho-capitalism existing in the past?

  38. The point is that aggression is immoral.

    To answer your second question though, a lot of people mention the not so wild west as an example of anarcho-capitalism in private laws. I believe there are some other examples as well, but they're not coming to mind right now. You can definitely find an example of a private institution existing for every public "good" currently existing though.

  39. Government should be limited to those things which absolutely need force to accomplish for the good of society.
    The inefficiency of government for doing things is legend and manifest.
    The externalities problem (pollution, etc.) could be solved in court with class actions, given a court with enforcement and no policy agenda.
    So: minimal, defense, court enforcement, trade enhancement (monetary system, coherent negotiation with other groups).

  40. I hate the fact that these idiots make up definitions for words that have established meanings.
    Socialism = a system where decisions about production and distribution are made democratically.
    Communism = a classless, stateless society, which is anarchist by definition.
    This is what these words mean to actual socialists and communists. The idea of a totalitarian socialist state only rose with Stalin, who did more to damage the cause of socialism than any other person.

  41. Great set of videos. I see the benefits of all these approaches and even understand the logic behind Anarcho-Capitalism to a certain degree. H

  42. However, (accidentally cut myself off) while I would love an Austrian, Natural Rights, or maybe even further approach, I am convinced at this time that a public goods or Chicago school brand of classical liberalism is the most practical in actually being put into effect. People of good will naturally do disagree about policies and have different views. The Chicago school or public good school stands the best chance I think of meeting the (basic, tolerable) political preferences of a highly dive

  43. Have to say that even if I see society as individuals, I prefer the empirical approach and the public choice approach. I deeply respect Hayek (road to serfdom is incredible) and Mises but I don't like the subjective value approach and the fact that (almost) austrian view does not recognize probability.

  44. Consequentialist market anarchist; however, I see no good way to get from point A to point B. Most proposed methods are either not likely to work (e.g. agorism) or likely to lead to worse consequences (e.g. violent revolution).

  45. Excellent series. Thanks for these informative videos. I find myself aligning myself with the Austrian and Natural rights theories.

  46. I like Milton Friedman and the Chicago School because they don't start with assumption. Propose and test the result is better than reasoning if possible since deciding by reasoning invite corruption due to the nature of people (someone will do twisted reasoning on purpose for self (or a group)-interest).. Like foreign policy….or who gets tax break…

  47. Many think that private courts would be biased because they would be paid by the parties wanting to settle a dispute. But think deeply: courts wanting to stay in business would have to have a reputation of making unbiased decisions. Govt courts have no such constraint; they have guaranteed incomes from taxation and life tenure.

  48. The role of government is to ensure the smooth continuation of commerce. Several aspects help support this cause including defense, courts, and infrastructure.

  49. I wish to call all NON-classical liberals, Nazi fascists, wanna-be totalitarian control-freaks because at the end of the day that's just what they are on a smaller scale.
    Awesome video series, thank you !!

  50. I think the only way to save America is to go towards Friedman's economy, then to an Austrian economy. Only if that happened could an Anarcho-Capitalist society exist.

  51. I definitely agree with the Chicago school of thought. However, I am not going to explain myself, as I am tired.

  52. This series of videos was so good, I forgot to "like" half of them because I wanted to watch the next one.

  53. Compulsory taxation is theft, and the question of what type of government I'd a great one it I'm not sure enough people ask the question of how do we get there.

  54. Geolibertarian. Minimal state funded not through coercive taxation, but through the just collection of commonly owned ground rents from landholders (land value taxation).

  55. I am for a minimalist state. A carefully-guarded government with very few responsibilities and little power is what a society needs. There should be a constitution that should be simple and easy to understand and follow, making laws that protect citizens from coercion or oppression. Anarcho capitalism sounds good, but soon socialists, jihadists, and other control freaks will seek to fill the power vacuum.

  56. Our legal traditions are an intellectual treasure and heritage as well as a history of tyranny and failure.  They are both success and failure.  They are a history and a future as well.  We told Zimbabwe not to take all the farms from white people, divide them up, and give them to poor black people, or they would have a famine, and they did.  So, there you have some agricultural law.  We have some imminent domain problems making roads and dealing with legitimate concerns and profiteers.  Granted these are often poorly managed with business owners getting deprived of their income (farms here too) and profiteers (sometimes the government itself, such as with some tollways especially around Chicago) benefiting greatly at their expense, but, these public means of transportation have for millennia been made possible for a variety of reasons only by the government acting in a certain parental role.  All the systems laid out seem revolutionary, but it pays to remember how inspiring the US Constitution still is, and how these ideal present us with more of a direction than a reason for revolution.

  57. I believe in the Natural Rights school of thought. I agree with Ayn Rand on everything, but I'm just starting to learn about Anarcho-Capitalism.

  58. Stop paying taxes, invest out of government currencies, defend those who share a private property ethic.
    Three simple steps to ending the State.

  59. I, personally, side with the concept of a Voluntary Miniarchy. A structuring of society in which a minimalist state does exist and which people are free to participate in if they please, but also does not enforce it's decisions across all people. Essentially, if one prefers to have nothing to do with the state, he is capable of not interacting with it and it will not initiate force against him. In such a society, the state would take on an almost "Pay-to-Play" approach, and the individual only pays taxes for the services, which he uses.

  60. For a long time I was a Progressive (simply a pretty name for a mix of Leftism and Socialism), but through many readings, videos and podcasts I think Rothbard took Mises idea of axioms to its logical and moral ends.

  61. I think minarchism is the best kind of government because it provides the main roles of state: Army,police and legislation. Certainly, the state is competent only on those 3 areas,nothing more!

  62. When I found this channel, I became a Minarchist.  Then I started watching Stefan Molyneux and now I call myself an Anarcho-Capitalist, but I prefer the term "Voluntarist".

  63. Government always grows, the founding fathers already tried minarchism and look at where we are now. The death of the state is the only way to freedom and true capitalism.

  64. I don't know if this term has already has been coined but here's my governmental philosophy.

    American Classical Liberalism-
    British liberalism with much stricter borders (due to the damages of quickly changing demographics an example of empiricism in the case of the multicultural experiment) , and it incorporates the 10th amendment (i.e. individual state & local governments can choose to have welfare state since you can migrate freely among the country so it’s a pseudo-free market, churches and charities should do the majority of it though.) A combination of Classical Liberalism and Constitutionalism. The federal government is responsible for protecting life, liberty, and property. Mostly handles foreign issues but intervenes on things like affirmative action to protect equality under the law for all. Overall Federal government protects the state collects a flat tax, controls the border, and tries federal offenses, state and local government do most everything else, and despite the inherent inequality of individuals each person deserves equality under the law, protects the individual and strips the federal government of much of its power.

  65. "A Totalitarian, a facist, or a communist who believes that the government should control every aspect of life?"

    Communist !! Really !!

    A communist society is "STATELESS", "Moneyless" and "Classless" Society. Where did you get the idea of a "totalitarian communist"? Anyone who endorse leninism, maoism and so on, can only identify himself "totalitarian socialist" NOT a "communist".

  66. We don't need a welfare state but we do need to deal with the physically unable somehow. If you can't work we need to deal with you someway.

  67. It's an interesting topic. I have concerns over things like global warming, but I'm also reasonably confident that capitalism will find solutions for everything. The only big concern of mine are for the poorer families. My grandmother is a broken woman that depends on government money. I can't support her, and the economy may be better without expenditures like social security, but right now we need this money.

Leave a Reply

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