"In a free market, money corrodes caste and class and lubricates social interaction....Capitalism is the most cooperative system ever created for the peaceful improvement of peoples' lives. It has only a single fatal flaw: It doesn't feel like it." - Jonah Goldberg I love this quote. Karl Marx would be rolling in his grave if he heard this and saw it in action around us every day in the States.
Ian Arbues He predicted something that had repeatedly happened beforehand. What he didn't predict was that it would ALWAYS be the result of government interference in the market.
Blitzy Name a financial crisis that wasn't the result of government either monkeying with the money supply or going bankrupt or both. Marxists are wrong about everything.
@ Ian Arbues Yes interference, government intereferes in the market all the time. Whether or not corporations control the government or not is irrelevant to this point. The State is the most inefficient way to protect capital that could ever be devised. Firstly it takes massive amounts of the capital it supposedly protects and secondly it causes repeated economic crises and wars that destory the capital. Wait, did you think that "the market" is the same as corporations? Are you that stuipd?
Interesting statement "if you try to turn the microcosm into the macrocosm, you may destroy the world. If you try to turn the macrocosm into the microcosm you will destroy the family" paraphrasing. But you get the point.
Maga hates him and liberals don't like him. He is never trump but obviously doesn't support the Democrats. Guys who attack both sides just aren't popular.
Before watching this, I‘m going to say that Jonah is a political fusionist a la Frank Meyer. I also think Jonah knows better than to call himself a full on “L”ibertarian. Just like myself... I am libertarian on some issues, but since I believe in transcendent objective morality, I fall on the side of conservatives on some issues. I don’t see a problem with that even in the slightest. It is only the libertarian ideologues who do.
I think it is better to view libertarianism as a process, a method. There are opinions I hold privately, and ones I hold publically, and often my private self is at odds with my public self. That being said, my public self is often fully invested in a libertarian sensibility inasmuch as the method for achieving political ends is heavily restricted by the libertarian proscriptions.
Conservatism and Libertarianism walk hand in hand. I feel like a true conservative have to consider himself a libertarian. The libertarian movement lost focus years ago condoning abortion, mass imigration, the use of drugs, feminism and the like, so its no wonder the conservative movement have a more positive light to others.
Libertarianism, as many other philosophies, definitely exists on a spectrum. Contrary to what some die-hards will try to say, there's no real special one-policy turn off that suddenly invalidates all the other views you may have. I think as long as many are able to agree to a common, peaceful, and nice goal that'd be pretty great. Some might separate somewhere in the discuss, but that's the purpose of discussion, debates, etc. We're more complex than just a label or party affiliation. Even in libertarianism itself, there's no correct answer for some topics like abortion and borders. We're not anarchists by nature, we're just about maximizing liberty through a small government. You can still land on issues, like thinking the liberty of the baby is more powerful than that of the liberty of the parent's choice, or the immigrant's right to an easy citizenship is or isn't as important as a critical vetting process on who you let in to live by the local law of the land. Personally I just call myself a libertarian because I lean more in that direction than any other philosophy. Drill me on a case by case thing though, and you'll find some situations where I won't give the absolute "libertarian answer". For example, did you know there's a government regulation that keeps your cell phones from operating on exclusive services like the closed services of a game console? Can you imagine being forced to keep a phone for each network provider, just in case you need to speak to someone on that service? Yeah, I don't see the benefit in removing something like that just to say "yay, market is freer". So yeah, you're not really alone.
Hmm..Well, I will say this...Whenever your trying to run a country..., you have to acknowledge your ignorance and your limitations. If you don't think your ignorant about something, there is a 100% chance you will make something worse. So to me, It doesn't make sense to figure out every issue or every topic. It's impossible, you can never have all the relevant facts to make the "best" decision based on whatever criteria your reaching for. You _must_ acknowledge your *ignorance.* Therefore, if your going to do something like run a country, you need to have a set of _principles_ which guide your decisions. Instead of trying to figure out what you feel or believe about a specific topic, I think it's far wiser to let yourself be guided by a set of principles which you can always rely upon. The question you have to ask yourself is what kind of principles do you have? Are your views on various issues consistent with your principles? Or have you made a compromise with some principle? Now, Libertarians tend to be very principled and I think that's a good thing. So even though it may not even obvious that the results will be good, they stick with their principles. One example might be seat-belt laws. It may not be immediately obvious that seat-belts are "bad" or "good" for society and I'm not going to claim whether they are or not. But if we believe the state has no power to compel us to do something against our will, than the principle tells us we should be against the seat-belt law. My advice is to stick with your principles. That can be very difficult, because maybe you think seat-belt laws are good for society, but if your going to start compromising your principles, than you really don't have those principles, do you? If we don't stick to our principles, than what are we? So I would say you have to look inside yourself and decide if your really gonna stand by those principles or if your just giving them lip-service. Of course, many topics can be tough and complex, but we should strive to stick to certain core principles as much as possible.
Great conversation, Nick. Very stimulating. I'm reading a couple of Jonah Goldberg's books now. The book about the cliches is fun. I'm just an ordinary liberal so this conversation was a bit exotic for me, but I pretty much kept up and now have a reading list. Thanks
Why do I have hope for the future? There are so many god damn smart people articulating their thoughts brilliantly everywhere. Sure, there's also the opposite, but what a time for philosophy!
Goldberg fails to realize that there is very little common ground between conservatives and liberals. It used to be we all used to agree on love of country.
24:00 if you're taking it from Coming Apart it's the top 20% as Murray was looking at the top and bottom quintiles. Which makes me curious about the other three.
“Because of the cultural stock of the population, and the American founding, and throughout much of the 19th century, it got instantiated and strengthened in our institutions.” - Jonah Goldberg
It would be nice to see him go that direction. Considering how many years he has been pushing neo-con policies. Like never ending wars. Of course he might be going more polo-con. Like Pat Buchanan.
Hobbes is not entirely correct, in a state of nature most humans will find it beneficial to cooperate within their tribe and to trade with other tribes and attempt peaceful negotiation where possible when confict arises. Other humans belive in bending others to their will and living off the productivity of others. such people band together and gain a cultural narartive as warlike and raiding others as a lifestyle. Post neolithic revolution these people are the conquerors of territories and establishers of the leviathan state which the rest of humanity has been oppressed by ever since
No country has the right to claim capitalism as its own invention. Free market trade AKA capitalism was the natural state of economics in the beginning of human history. As soon as there were enough people on the planet to makeup a tribe instead of just a family, they began to freely trade amongst each other. It was natural to decide "I have this thing you want and you have that thing I want, so let's trade so we both get what we want." The Bible is one of the oldest historical texts in existence and, regardless of whether you're a Christian or not, the Bible is an incredibly valuable text for historical understanding. And free market capitalism is clearly present throughout both the old and new testaments and in many of the societies mentioned therein. Disingenuous individuals have tried to confuse the biblical concepts of charity and concern for the welfare of one's neighbor with the modern ideas of socialism and communism, but that's incorrect... false comparison. Those who try to make that incorrect argument clearly aren't familiar with the Bible. The Bible makes a clear distinction between charity and economy. They are never intermingled or even considered relevant to each other. Charity is a matter of individual morality. Economy is a matter of secular group governance.
I'm no fan of conservatives but I've always had respect for this guy, even if I haven't always agreed with him. He's smart, witty, and urbane. Elite without being an elitist, and definitely not some populist crazy like the people at Brietbart since Andrew died, Rebel Media, or Pajamas Media.
Standard glib cliches. On just one note, the rise of Medieval universities also rediscovered Greek history that nurtured the importance of the individual and the State's role that helped nurture that. The Enlightenment is the fruition of many events.
Nick, you need to give your more slow-to-speak guests a bit more space... some of us who try to construct rich sentences need some time to get to our destinations :)
There are certain things which should be imposed on the whole nation. 1. As a 'melting pot': one language, US English, for business 2. As a 'melting pot': public service and products for all in legal transactions The bakers were wrong to not make a cake for the homosexual couple who were in legal activities. Martin Luther King had followers commit civil disobedience against the unfair segregation laws, nobody's equal rights were violated, just a bad law was violated. The restaurant people who expelled people from the Trump administration were wrong, as the diners were engaged in legal activities. 3. The right to defense and to keep and bear arms.
Lawrence Miller Wrong. People should be free to speak whatever language they want and to serve or not serve anyone they want. Allow the market to decide.
Two very bright men who don't seem to understand a key feature of normal human socialization: When we gather as a "tribe," every member knows all the other members of the tribe, but when we gather in so large a group that 'freedom' in anonymity is the commonality, then we have joined a huge human herd. Humans thrive in small tribes such as Neighborhood Watch and Girl Scouts, but when we become anonymous in a huge herd, such as 'liberals' or 'conservatives,' then the worst of our socialization--our social psychology--becomes our identity. We then identify as a member of the huge anonymous herd, instead of as a member of the small neighborly tribe. So long as conservatives buy into the liberal mantra that tribalism is an evil, they are helping to perpetuate the exact nihilistic "teleology" they object to.
@@kendallandrews8691 What you don't seem to understand is that Islam is not just a faith but also a political and judicial system. And here in Europe, between half and two thirds of all Muslims, depending on the polls, regard this political-judicial system as being more important than the laws of their country of choice. And in fact it's worse than that. In France for example, 40% of all Muslims aged 0 to 25 sympathise with Islam-motivated suicide bombings. Here in Germany, radical mosques are not being closed down and radical Imams are not being deported. A German woman has on average 1,5 children, whereas foreign women with no higher education (which is typical of Muslim women) have 2,4 children. In 2010, there were around 3 million Muslims in Germany, now there are about 6 million. The math is not that difficult: Muslims, of which very many want Sharia law here, are going to start dominating politics in the next few years and most of Europe will probably turn into Islamic Sharia states, possibly already before the end of this century. I see no future for democracy and human rights here and thus no future for freedom. So yes, a Muslim ban is absolutely necessary, but will come far too late, there is no turning back, and we are rushing headlong into a new fundamentalist Dark Age. How's that for freedom?
@@ericadler9680 I live close to a Muslim center and many Muslims live in my building. Great people. Sorry your silly bigotry has made you live in fear. Better go protest Dave Chappelle. After all he is a scary Muslim!
Libertarian Jonah Goldberg is the best Jonah Goldberg - language NSFW (depending upon what your work is): great discussion. Salty. More importantly, read Suicide of the West: amzn.to/2FcWGdj
Where is the idea that the government at any level, from national to local, can impede on the liberty of citizens? The Constitution sets the rules and those rules are that we are free to do whatever the heck we want to do. The government, even the most local of governments, cannot restrict the liberties of the people. Any argument to the contrary is nonsense. The American people are free. Leave them alone. Americans are the priority, not random foreigners and especially not at a national level. If you want to aid random foreigners then go for it. That's your choice and it would rightfully be your responsibility as a result of that choice. It isn't everyone's responsibility. Again, to think and argue otherwise is nonsense. Arguments contrary to those two points are unconstitutional and are completely against the values of America and its people. Some "globalist," please argue against my points. It seems that both Goldberg and Gillespie are on the other side so surely there are readers who are with them. Make yourselves known.
You said: "Constitution sets the rules and those rules are that we are free to do whatever the heck we want to do." It's not true. You caNOT do to other PEOPLE what you want to. This, in my not-so-humble opinion demands that Libertarians not support abortion rights. We can argue the attainment of personhood but an actual libertarian position would be to allow for the rights of the living human-being in the womb. In fact, I think it is the duty of Libertarians to DEFEND the rights of the person in the womb.
hunkahillbilly I agree with your pro-life stance generally. The viability of the baby should be the cut off at the very least. When the baby can survive without a thing from the mother then it has every right to do that. An analogy that I use with abortionists is that when the baby reaches the point of viability it is less a "parasite" (a phrase that abortionists like to use) and more a prisoner who is unjustly being held captive. The Constitution does set the rules for the way laws can restrict us though. We are free to do what we want to do. Laws are there to ensure that everyone has that freedom. Anything less than that is unconstitutional. For example: you're free to kill me but you will be punished for it because you would have infringed on my liberty by doing so. My right to live my life trumps your freedom to (unjustly of course) kill me. Trying to prevent bad things from happening is a slippery slope that oftentimes takes away the liberty of innocent people. That's what the vast majority of laws do. Laws should be a preventive measure that make it clear that restricting the liberty of others is wrong. That's the only time that laws should be taking away our liberty, if we take away the liberty of others. Swinging this back to the video: they both seem to think that laws and rules that hurt innocent people are fine. Mass immigration is the obvious one, the one that I was concerned with. But even the stinky cheese ban hypothetical where governments should be able to ban things. No such ban is constitutional because Americans have every right to create, buy, ingest, and otherwise use cheese as stinky as they like. The main point is that globalism, specifically mass immigration, hurts Americans and thus it is unconstitutional. You can't hurt innocent Americans.
I haver to disagree with the"vialbility outside the womb" thingy. Not ONE baby could survive outside the womb- even those actually delivered at term - without the mother's care or someone else's. They would just starve to death on their own...or die of thirst or from exposure. It's not an unreasonable position to have to think that the mother of the child has a DUTY to protect it from harm inside the womb as well as outside the womb.
hunkahillbilly Oh of course the baby needs support to survive. The point was that the mother need not be involved at all, thus she should not have any say in whether the baby lives or dies. It's unreasonable to give her control over the baby's life when the baby doesn't need anything from her. The whole leftist "parasite" argument goes out the window when the baby reaches viability. The baby can survive without the hostile mother and thus it should be given every chance to do just that. It's absolutely wrong for her to kill it at that point. That's just my argument for viability being the time limit for abortion. I agree that the mother has a duty to keep the child safe both inside and outside of the womb. It's her responsibility. Sadly we allow women to disregard that responsibility every day, including of viable babies who can survive without the mother, thanks to Roe v. Wade.
31:00 He claims celebrity is a far bigger problem for the left because the left has people far more famous than Scott Baio. This is intuitive but wrong-headed. Just look at the reality: Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Donald Trump, Clint Eastwood (mayor and a speaker at the RNC). He's ignoring what Haidt would probably say is conservative psychology. Conservatives have more respect for social hierarchies. Conservatives are primed to love movie stars and tabloids, but they're rebuffed by current cultural elites. There's also the issue that being a rich, famous, respected movie star is more desirable than pursuing politics.
The welfare state provides free handouts, even though they aren't necessarily free on the backend, but thats the only freedom that anyone is interested in anymore.
Speaking about marriage, what about the problem your wife divorcing you, filing a false domestic violence claim, getting the home, half your wealth and the children + huge child support. Aren't these situations really bad for "elite" families too ? Goldberg seems to think marriage is a panacea but it doesn't hold up to the current state of affairs. Strong families are a big advantage but doesn't the way family justice works now, undermine marriage in a big way ?
Identity politics is useful for simplifying people into groups, so they can be manipulated. You are not discussing the concepts of equal rights. With equal rights, people cannot rule over others. Without an equal right, those in power can rule over others on the point. Free speech is one such, so is defense and the 2nd Amendment, the whole bill of rights.
An example of identity politics is the elected official who claims they support the 2nd Amendment, presumably to identify with those who support the 2nd Amendment, then go on want so-called common sense gun laws which ban guns and make ownership more difficult for law abiding people, while doing nothing about real criminals who abuse guns and go through a so-called revolving door of justice.
38:03 Interesting test.... How do you feel when someone says you belong to the government.... These two acted completely repulsed by it (as would I), but others felt that they "belong" like they are part of a club or something.....
So, you support electing celebrities? Is this just because there is majority of the people vote for celebrities? Then I believe you err on president Trump, because there is some substance there. 1. Support for the 2nd Amendment, HRC clearly opposed the 2nd 2. Reducing federal regulations, HRC said she supports more regulations 3. Getting the US out of the Paris Accord (that was never ratified by the senate), HRC would continue the Obama admin to oppress our energy with taxes and caps
All you have to do is look at the "GoFundMe" site and you will see that capitalism is failing Americans for their healthcare needs. I've had small businesses,so Im a capitalist but I also believe that some things like healthcare should be provided regardless of the ability to pay
The casual use of profanity in political discussions in the public sphere comes across like the "cool" parents coming to smoke weed with their teenager's friends. So pitiful. Does anyone ever ask Nick Gillespie about the costume he insists on wearing on camera all the time? That jacket must smell like a rotten corpse by now. Time to change things up and stop being a performance clown - let your ideas make you stand out, instead of your "brand". Too bad - it's actually a pretty substantial discussion that can do a lot of good. But the adolescent streak of Reason keeps it from being as persuasive as it could be. Time to move out of mom's basement.
Anglo-conservatives have a strong liberty component, and indeed have the same adoration for the American revolution as libertarians. They are basically classical liberals, of which right-wing libertarians are a modern (radical) outgrowth. But people like Goldberg and Shapiro are not very representative of conservatives, let alone the GOP.
Most were liberal only so far as it enhanced their wealth, hence the founding of a "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" nation built on chattel slavery, termination/forced relocation of natives, ignoring all women and non-property owning white men, etc.
Bltizy shut the fuck up. The fact that the government took over doesn't mean that libertarianism failed, merely that the governmnent took over. Look you're wrong ALL THE TIME. Nobody wants to hear what you want to say, fuck off.
The only reason why capitalism have work in the West and prospered everyone is because of all the regulations worker protection and Environmental Protection I'm the safety net. It true capitalism would not work because true capitalism call Marcy power and inequality which destabilize the nation and caused a revolution. Why do you think call Maman what's populism he's going to bring if left alone? The funny thing is Libertarians are all from the first world countries. You have lived in a prosperous nation and think it's because of capsule is that alone but you don't know capitalism relies on sheep labor and deregulation to prosper. Competition does work but you have to know competition also can harm consumers. they can easily make your own safe product to make him as cheap as possible to beat the competition. Have you ever heard of baby formula in China where they put fake powder in baby formula to make them super cheap?
Then why did the increased living standards of workers PREDATE the regulations by decades? When has "true capitalism" caused a revolution? Instead we find that socieites that are the LEAST capitalistic, like Russia and China have revolutions. Competition can harm consumers? Citation needed. Yeah I heard about the baby formula frauds in China, but that is not competition harming consumers, people who do that would do it whether they had competition or not, they're just frauds.
These are poorly defined terms: conservative, liberal, left, right, and many others. How about talking details and naming names and citing references. Your discussion has not been helpful.
Jimmy Catalina Government debt can be good or bad depending on why it was borrowed. For true self defense and for capital improvements, it makes sense, just as we might borrow for a house or car that gets us to work. Debt is the basis for capitalism that got us out from being stuck in a zero sum game, in which there are only a finite number of dollars that we fight over, rather than create wealth. Even rich companies borrow.
Money isn't wealth. It's a tool to transfer and hold wealth... If you have a place to live, a car, and can waste time watching TV you are very wealthy.
