Thank you so much. I’ve only been watching the video for 2 minutes and I starting to understand this theory, my professor goes on and on for 2 hours and I can’t understand anything . Thank you
This video is as poor as it gets to understanding liberalism in the context of the fabric of society. The author isn't even able to use "anarchy" in a sensible way. Let me help you to understand liberalism in a few sentences from a perspective of today's most common political system in the west: Statism. All western countries rest on legalized coercion and theft. This is legitimized by the use of force, usually from a point of war or threats of war. Liberalism searches to minimize legalized coercion and theft, though they want to keep it for laws, justice, and security. For these three most important services in a society, they don't trust competition but lapse to monopoly. For the status quo in the west today there seems to be no limit to legalized coercion and theft. Usually, the size of them is only limited by the threat of riots and civil war. Thus, it is fair to say there's a distinct difference to liberalism, but they are much alike by principle. The only real alternative is anarchy (right wing), often called anarcho-capitalism where no coercion and theft is forced and security against coercion and theft is ensured by competition between companies providing services for law-making, courts, and security. Competition between these companies is not much unlike competition between countries today. Anarchy has just brought it down to the local level. Under anarchy it will be almost impossible to enforce more than one law: §§1. You may not produce a victim. Ownership to ground is defined by upbringing and usefulness. You own a piece of ground as long as you keep it under upbringing to a degree at least 1/2 of the average for the same type of ground in the same area. This takes care of two concerns. Predictability for a man who wants to make useful use of ground while at the same time make sure ground is available for new and more useful use of ground. The latter is usually only applicable when scarcity. Yet we need a working system that works from here to infinity because we have no authority to constantly change the laws. We need the law to work regardless of the circumstances. This is how we defeat the proposed need for central government. Thus, liberalism is pretty much the same as we have today, with a little less legalized coercion and theft. The question " is war inevitable?" the answer should be obvious: with a central power it is. This is why it is very important for the citizens to fight all attempts to take control over the masses so that establishment of central power is prevented. The signs of this is happening is when you see punishment for so-called victimless crimes. To go from statism to ancap and smoothly it takes a lot of systematic brainwashing and new teaching. 99 out of 100 people are almost helplessly indoctrinated into the evil of statism. It is useful to learn to understand what's the difference between liberalism and the status quo from a perspective of anarcho-capitalism because then you see the difference isn't worth a fight or an effort. With anarcho-capitalism, there's no democracy in the traditional sense. You choose what policies you want to live under by the choice of membership in a security company. Security companies offer law(s), justice, and security. So what's the difference between direct democracy and security company membership? First of all: immediacy, but also the absolute relationship between the service you pay for and the service you get. If you don't get it one week, you change to a better company.
Thank you, Prof. The video has expanded my understanding of international relations and the actors within the arena. Could you add more videos, please?
Thanks for explaining liberalism so simple and clear! However, I would submit that liberalism envisioned by the west has caused more wars and conflicts than any other period in history. Internal order and liberal democracy favors the US and its erstern allies only. In other words it's no just and fair, and it's in stark contradiction with the US concept of one superpower as represented by the US snd US world hegemony. While liberalism seems good in theory its certainly not contributing to peace in practice. It's a pretext for US dirty work of interventions. Invasions snd US sponsored coups snd regime changes in countries who want to create their own forms of government. Interdependence to the extent the US desires means selling out your birth right to the US. This leaves very little independence of states. We have seen clearly what institutions like the IMF and the World Bank have done to third world countries. So , clearly liberalism as practiced by the conceptual west has caused conflicts, wars.,mass displacement of peoples and increased poverty. It's even severely affecting the working and middle class of the US and the Western nations. This is what makes Realism authentic
If your definition of liberalism conflicts with the dictionary definition of the non-political term at its root, then perhaps it's better to simply come up with a different name, instead of calling your tall-ist policies and ideology shortism. The definition of llberal is: "willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own", ie:"broad minded". The word shares a root with liberty, and clearly pertains to freedom. So there appear to be a lot of added meaning to your definition of liberalism that have nothing to do with... you know, liberalism. The reason liberalism supports gradual change is because *it is* the status-quo, and the reason it supports institutions is because those instuttions were built for and by, liberal governments. Those aspects, however, aren't essential to liberalism, they're essential to being established. If international institutions were built by, and served the interests of, absolute monarchies, then the two latter aspects of your definition: supporting gradual change and favoring institutions would apply to monarchism. And the same goes for Communism, Fascism, or any other political ideology which commands the dominant role in global affairs.
All human problems are solved!! just study quran if you are sincere in searching. If we follow god and his last messenger based on quran and the saying of the prophet our social injustice issues will all be solved. try to prove this statement wrong if you can!! after prophet jesus was sent. the last revelation by god was quran and god said it will be protected from changes and it did not change not even a single letter based on authentic narrations of companions of the prophet who documented quran when prophet Mohammed was alive. even the words of the prophet muhammed are all documented with narrators we can clearly tell the living situation for each narrator and wether they were trust worthy. and god fearing in their actions. it is all well documented and can be easily checked with the science of hadith.
