The Institute for Humane Studies supports and partners with professors to promote the teaching and research of classical liberal ideas and to advance higher education’s core purpose of intellectual discovery and human progress.
Our vision is to ensure higher education becomes a place where classical liberal ideas are regularly taught, discussed, challenged, and developed, and where free speech, intellectual diversity, and open inquiry flourish.
At IHS, we believe the principles of the classical liberal tradition - including individual liberty and responsibility, limited government, economic freedom, the rule of law, free speech, and open inquiry - are the foundation of a just, peaceful, and prosperous world.
We believe for those ideas to take root, they must be taught, explored, and challenged in higher education.
Wow! Personally, i love it, the conversation on free speech world, a remarkable, enlightening, and educative experience, it's has been amazing and interesting journey.
Vast majority of peoples needs arnt being met while bankers and corporate merchants are fat and incompetent and it’s the people who are supposed to be moderated? You’re insane
Where did the distorted thinking (eg, desire for safe spaces, trigger warnings) on college campuses come from? How did those students develop those distortions? Has anyone figured this out?
Was open & agreed until about 30mins in, he says this country is a total meritocracy, & that capitalism doesn't breed greed...??? Right, maybe from HIS perspective, but some people in corp America just get slammed down once they start reaching success, esp if they don't brown nose or play fake politic.
Biden said the same thing. "I have guns. I've gone hunting. I'm not trying to step on the second amendment." Dude is a cuck. Did he get his degree at the toilet store?
Thanks for using my hometown/current residence of Columbus, OH as an example. It was one of a few cities to take full advantage of the interstate freeway system in conjunction with an annexation policy, which I think is still in place since its inception in the 1950's. Of course, single family homes became a priority in newly acquired land while a few neighborhoods in established areas were afflicted by gentrification- especially after the 1980's. But now, after a sharp increase in both home values and average monthly rents, the city leaders have begun to see the light. In 2024, there are proposals for changes in zoning to allow for mixed use developments, though mostly in established areas. Those will include no parking requirements, which will likely benefit the local public transit system. And height restrictions on new buildings will be relaxed, per the designated section.
Well first of all. People are lacking the financial means through their income to just buy everything off the shelves. Capitalism overall requires consumption and consumerism to function at all. If a company is making more products and selling more products, does that not mean they are not making more money? Price gouging overall is just a scam. And a tool or instrument for companies to make more money while explicitly taking advantage of the consumer. Without them even realizing they are being taken advantage of. Then there's the fact that stores inflate prices without you even realizing it. And if you think I'm wrong about my first argument. Just go to any dollar store in America. People aren't aimlessly buying everything in the store because they are cheap. At the end of the day capitalism can work. If the companies are regulated and monitored for fair play. And there are many companies to compete with one another. Competition helps. So that you can just as you put it, "Go somewhere else," when prices are too high. Just saying.
Ok so I stopped this at 31:50, just because I could finally access my phone by then. The 1st speaker was unbiased, amusing, intelligent, well-spoken, and gave an honest and fair accounting of his viewpoint. The 2nd guy, not at all so. The 2nd speaker was CLEARLY biased, made false statements repeatedly (you absolutely CAN own a tank, I've met men who do) and has obviously never read or seen ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, EVER about insurgency and asymmetric warfare...which, when you look at the 20th century, is actually pretty astounding. In short- I turned this off because the 2nd speaker was slanted and ignorant.
There's a workbook called 30 Days Without Social Media by Harper Daniels...I wish something like that trended. Everyone needs a long break from social media influence.
It would have been better to have Yaron Brook for the Capitalism side. Kaplan believes in anarchy. In the end, socialism never works. It is wrong in theory and fails in practice.
Mr. 10000 feet definitely has his head in the clouds. You want a separate class of people to be sufficiently armed for defense and think they won't become your rulers. "Let them have their rifles" presumes that it is up to you to allow other citizens to have what you approve of. That somewhat assumes that you know better than I do what I can use for lawful purposes. Funny that you can claim such intellectual superiority while displaying such a lack of fundamental understanding at the same time. The difficulty with funding studies isn't that gaining knowledge is bad; it is that the funding is directed toward selective studies aimed at a predicted result. At the end, Dr. Shermer makes the point that any study can be manipulated to obtain the intended result. Suicidal people who have no access to guns will simply use the next available method. You can't just take their guns and expect to find them alive in a week. You have to take their knives, razor blades, aspirin, prescription drugs, ropes, extension cords, tall buildings, trains, trucks, cliffs, bridges, trees, bodies of water... Or, you can take the person to a safe place for treatment where there is no access to any of those things. BBBBBBuuuuttt the guuuunnns! No. Part of an answer is not an answer to suicide. The statistics about a gun owner being more likely to be shot by their own gun is skewed by suicides, which are going to happen with or without a gun. The idea that all other suicides are survivable is ridiculous. It also ignores defensive uses of guns that don't result in a shooting. Ms. "negative rights" (whatever that is supposed to mean) throws in defense of property, which doesn't meet the definition of self defense. So, no, the statistics on self defense do not include defense of property. They mean lawful defense of an innocent person against an imminent lethal attack. Dr. Shermer makes an emotionally charged presentation about shooting children, and then concedes that gun control is simply impractical. I'm waiting to hear him admit that enforcing laws against violent crime is practical. He makes a head fake toward that by saying that there is no point to have laws that aren't enforced. Yet, many of his proposed solutions are already part of existing laws that are not enforced. His frustration over lack of enforcement is evident. Perhaps he should understand that when laws are actually enforced, the matter of gun ownership becomes irrelevant. The "need" for "assault weapons" is a vacuous argument. Assault weapon is nothing but a political propaganda term, and "need" doesn't determine the rights of the individual. Then we have the guy who "can't believe" that there are more gun crimes than there are people who accidentally shoot themselves or an innocent person while attempting to prevent a crime. Keep that guy away from pointy and sharp objects. He seems to view the world as being the same as his environment, where clumsy people hurt themselves all the time. So much so that it outnumbers the instances of violent crime.
This is a brilliant presentation. Ozachar perhaps needs to read some of RAUCH’s books and articles. I long thought that he was a moderate conservative, especially given his agreement with so many other conservatives. Ozachar missed RAUCH‘s moderation here because of his harshness for what one of my conservative friends called the “sick” Trump.
Ah, Professor Munger's discourse weaves through the labyrinth of capitalism's virtues and vices, particularly zeroing in on the insidious metamorphosis into cronyism within democratic frameworks. Your apprehension that capitalism, in its unadulterated form, may teeter towards unsustainable practices within a democracy resonates with an intriguing premise. However, the leap to equating this inevitability with the foibles of capitalism itself merits a Socratic excavation. Is it not, rather, the intermingling of state and market that breeds the cronyism you decry? The pure free market rebuttal lies in a purer separation, a realm where free markets are unfettered by governmental intrusion, thereby nullifying the soil in which cronyism germinates. You lament the erosion of capitalism into cronyism, citing Hayek's foresight on the overreach of central planning. Yet, might this not underscore the argument that it is not capitalism, but the state's hand, which warps the market's nature? True capitalism, unshackled from the state's embrace, is not the harbinger of cronyism but its antidote. The issue you've outlined is not inherent to capitalism but to the marriage of business and state. Your invocation of virtue and the sustenance of moral capitalism within a democracy piques interest. The public choice theory you reference-emphasizing the necessity of good rules over good people-echoes pure free market sentiments, albeit through a different lens. If the essence of capitalism is corrupted not by its own mechanisms but by the intrusion of the state and its regulations, could the solution not lie in a more radical unwinding of these entanglements rather than in seeking to reform them from within? You deftly navigate the moral quagmire of rent-seeking, lobbying, and the pursuit of profits at the expense of ethical considerations. Yet, in the absence of the state's power to grant favors, would not these activities become moot? In a landscape where the market's invisible hand is the sole arbiter, the need for lobbying diminishes, as there would be no regulatory largess to court. In essence, while you diagnose the symptoms with acuity, the prescription you hint at-to engage directly with criticisms from the left-while noble, may overlook a more foundational remedy. Disentangling capitalism from democracy's whims and the state's reach offers a pathway not just to circumventing cronyism but to realizing a market that truly reflects the voluntary exchanges and entrepreneurial virtues you extol. Thus, in response to your thoughtful exposition, the pure free market perspective posits not a modification of capitalism within the current democratic-state framework but a transcendence towards a system where market and state do not intersect. Herein lies the purest expression of free market capitalism, unblemished by the distortions of cronyism, where individual sovereignty and economic freedom are paramount. This, we argue, is the path to a sustainable capitalism, immune to the criticisms rightly raised against its current manifestations.
imma mythbust real quick bc if the President ordered federal agents and military to confiscate arms 1st-Alot of citizens, federal agents and military members will die 2nd-Not everyone in the federal bureaucracies and military will follow those orders bc they value there own life and the constitution 3rd-Americans are trained better than federal agents and we have alot of vets within the 2a community to counter military tactics bc if a group of mediocre trained terrorists can hold off the military fairly decently then what do you think well trained american gun owners can do 4-The military may have tanks and aircraft but you know how many of those pilots and engineers wont fight their own people let alone somehow have every piece of equipment maintained well enough to use them against civilians
Your delusional if you think it wont be mayhem if all the law abiding citizens turned in their guns! The colonists defeated a well armed and professional army! The 2nd amendment was written to keep our tyrannical government in check. Just ask the jewish people what happens when the government takes away all the guns. History repeats itself
"The colonists defeated a well armed and professional army!" No, the colonists, the French, Dutch and Spanish defeated them. "The 2nd amendment was written to keep our tyrannical government in check." Yup, saw how that worked during the tyranny of segregation. "Just ask the jewish people what happens when the government takes away all the guns" Hitler never took all the guns. "History repeats itself" Not your version of it lol.
@jimh6763 Glad you recognise your claim was wrong. Point is, the rest of the population was still armed, and tyranny flourished. In the US, the tyranny of segregation flourished, letting any fool have guns didn't prevent that. The Jewish people having small arms was not saving them from squads of troops come to take them away. Stop pretending otherwise lol.
Stricter gun laws will only affect the people that buy their guns legally. The criminals will continue to buy theirs out of some guy's trunk or in an alley.
Some basic (possibly remedial) English grammar is in order, also this grammar usage hasn’t changed since the Founding Father Noah Webster who wrote the the American Dictionaries (1806) and multiple Public School Grammar books (1784, and 1785) that were used well into the 20th Century, which coincides with the sudden change in America’s political agenda changes of the 2nd Amendment grammar usage and definitions of words. The “well-regulated militia” is a prefatory clause it is not a conditional clause, it provides one reason, not the only reason for the right in the operative clause. A prefatory clause does not restrict the operative clause in any manner. Also a prefatory clause is not a conditional clause. A conditional clause is a subordinate clause that refers to a hypothetical situation. It usually starts with the word "if" and is used with a main clause that describes the consequences of the hypothetical situation. so now that the sentence/clause usage and grammar are out of the way. On to the usage, and meaning of “well-regulated”, which its common usage in 1790’s had to with properly functioning, not controlled by government bureaucrats, officers or agents elected or otherwise. There is a reason why there were no gun control laws disarming citizens, also coincidentally until the 20th century when the anti-gun groups started their political attacks on the US Constitution with a unconstitutional and fundamental change in how to interpret the US Constitution, with the “Living Document” theory, a naked power ploy attempt to invalidate the US Constitution’s protections for its citizens and instead make whomever (re)defines the words to fit their opinions can change it; much like Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass (1871) character Humpty Dumpty quote “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”. And then, the “militia”, the common usage and meaning in the 1790’s, and was codified in federal laws as recently as 1903 Dick Act (which replaced the Militia Acts of 1795), going to the common usage definition of and the legal definition of a “militia” which again as a reminder doesn’t mean semi-military organization, or a state established reserve army/navy, colloquially State Defense Forces (SDF’s) or the National Guard forces. It means the people (as in We the People, and citizens) willing to fight to keep their country. (Usually understood to be males 17 to 40, that privately owned military weapons). Next the Bill of Rights, in addition to the 2nd Amendments declarative in the operative clause “the right of the people“ leaves no grey area as to whom the right is reserved for (it is incorporated via the 10th Amendment - which because the 2nd Amendment specifically enumerated the right to the people, it prohibited not just the federal government but all the states as well, the 10th Amendment’s clauses doesn’t allow the people and the states to share power with the usage of the “or” between the two entities. Also bear in mind that the Bill of Rights also contains a preamble, which further placed additional reasons for the Bill of Rights to be ratified, the Founding Fathers and the Citizens feared that the US Constitution without a Bill of Rights still left the federal government with too much political power and the ability to erode civil liberties of the people, these “rights” were declarative to further restrict the federal and state governments from violating or infringing on the civil liberties of its citizens. Bill of Rights Preamble: “Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine. THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz. ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.” The 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. The 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Will is right, capitalism is soulcraft (which sounds remarkably like Marx). However, it’s striking that Will *only* notes the ways capitalism promotes certain virtues without also noting the way it promotes certain vices. That makes him sound less like a serious intellectual who is interested in examining ideas and more like a partisan who is interested in apologizing for his view.
So this guy's angle is because the military can have better guns than they had in the 1700s and tanks and all this stuff that we have to get rid of the Second Amendment because regular civilians just can't have that stuff it's an argument from feeling and frustration it's not logic and laws. He says if the enforcers come to your house to take your guns there's nothing your little handgun or rifle can do to stop them. That's exactly why we're so upset right now is because that's their angle on all of this that's their only reason as to why they need to ban them.. This guy is a moron only if he knew what those military people really thought and how they said they won't if that really happened they would refuse the order. My own local police department said if that ever happened and they were ordered to do that they would refuse. He doesn't understand once that starts happening if that really is what they want to do there's going to be war.. And not the war they are expecting either. Because a lot of those military and police are going to be on the gun advocate side.. and they are going to turn against these old angry government in suits. And what is the implying that we shouldn't even try to defend ourselves if they come and try and take our weapons? Because they would have to take mine over my dead body, and I'll be an example for the one guy who tried to stick up for himself and got shot killed and then hopefully everyone else will rise up, grow some and stand up for the country's rights
I knew just by the voice Who the Speaker of the negative Side was period And then I looked at the video and I was like oh boy not this idiot... I want to see the guys in ex-christian who had issues with the Bible so then he just threw out his whole belief entirely on God. Now he's just Mr skeptic... on everything I guess..🙄.. I want to see the guys way out of his league on this one. He has no right to have an opinion on it. Guy doesn't even view morals and human life the same as a lot of us
The style of the slideshows was representative the positions. Huemer's was simple, clear, and used rock solid reason. Shermer's was disorganized, disjointed, and used dubious statistics to establish emotional reactions.
