The Problems with Classical Liberalism 

My vinyl collection lives at my sister's. My cassette collection was nearly entirely lost/stolen My CD collection stopped in 2003. From 2003 to 2022, I "bought" zero music, I always found digital "ownership" stupid. in 2022, I bought two "non-albums" from an artist who isn't on any major labels. I also personally, uselessly I suppose, REFUSE to partake of Bill Gates Microsoft Office's annual rentals. I remember fondly when we bought software disks and installed them on however many computers we needed to. The rental world is disgusting.

“The system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not.” ― Friedrich August von Hayek

That's a lot to think about, but very obviously something that's absolutely necessary to solve. This will be one video that I relisten to, to properly understand everything. Your efforts don't go unnoticed. Please don't ever give up, you're changing hearts and minds through your work, and the future generations thank you.

I remember in law school how every book and text we had mentioned how the liberal state failed and we evolved into a "social state". Lmao

3:24 - Reactionary movement 6:15 - our current moment, the marketplace of ideas, 9:11 - aristocracy of ideas 12:24 - Upheaval and the second enlightenment 20:13 - First major problem of Classical Liberalism: Marxist provocation and revolution 29:14 - Second major problem of Classical Liberalism: we can't defend Liberalism because we aren't even clear about what it is 38:48 - Third major problem of Classical Liberalism: 3 major questions that need to be answered to apply Liberalism to the 21st century. 43:30 - First question: What's a good theory of the individual? 56:14 - Second question: what does ownership and property mean? 1:29:10 - Third question: what is and how can liberalism provide a reasonable expectation of privacy in both private and public spaces? Summary by James (from his twitter): Classical Liberalism has some problems. 1) It's under direct attack 2) We don't know what it means 3) Its underlying philosophies of the individual, ownership, and privacy need renewal and updating for the present era.

Thnx in advance James, this is exactly the one I've been waiting for. I consider myself a Classical Liberal, but we live in a time when it's important to clarify its strengths and weaknesses, and realistically address its ostensible limitations in this day and age. In spite of more than 90% agreeing with everything on this channel myself, I'd also simply argue, it's difficult for anyone nowadays not to be a kind of "small p" postmodernist. We're all larping to some extent, our culture has either lost or outgrown many established traditions/institutions, we're piecing together new ways of living in a highly fractured social landscape, with individual idiosyncrasies, often stitched together from earlier, disparate social conventions.

This may be the most significant podcast you're done so far. Thank you.

If we need to update the definition of an Individual, I don’t think we can afford to omit the inherent spiritual nature of an individual’s essence. Without that, we can’t really put our finger on why individualism is so essential

The problem with classical liberalism is simple. It contains a paradox. It must tolerate the production and proliferation of ideas that are explicitly anti-liberal until such a time arises where grievances are irreconcilable.

Thank you for taking Carl’s article seriously.

James, read Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. When Jefferson claims life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are “among” our rights, Blackstone spells out the others. Both public and private. He also writes about public and private “wrongs.” It’s a brilliant discourse on the “common” laws of England that were the heritage and bedrock of our declaration and constitution. Blackstone clearly outlines a framework for right vs. wrong in public vs. private. I could imagine this as four quadrants. Further, Jefferson’s worst choice of words was inalienable. This has been taken to mean “cannot be taken away.” Right clearly can, and have been taken away, repeatedly, historically. A better word choice might have been “indispensable,” to mean, “must never be given away or surrendered.” Those would be true rights, as opposed to weakness that can be taken advantage of leading to wrongs.

Lindsay is going to point out problems with classical liberalism? Huh. I have to admit, I didn't see that coming. Looking forward to this.

Thanks for another thoughtful podcast. What defense does Classical Liberalism have against a communist revolution? It appears there was no immune response when things kicked off in the 1960s through the 90s; the immune response only started they had already marched through the institutions and were applying the boot. We need the Constitution to empower citizens against tyranny. But we also need some mechanism built-in that identifies the endless forms of Marxism as the gateway to tyranny and the enemy of freedom. Classical Liberalism was blindsided for a century by a hostile parasite that proudly declared that it's goal was to destroy Classical Liberalism and traditional society. Besides declaring Marxism a religion, what else can we do?

Deeply appreciated!

Thank you James “Ba Gua” Lindsay. You have your fingers on the pulses. 🙏🏾🇺🇸❤️

Thanks, Jim! 🎯

You should be getting millions of views

Regarding the tractor example, you can't even buy a new tractor anymore without all the computerised stuff to avoid it. They pretty much all do it whether the farmer wants the "features" or not, and will even try to prevent the breaking of the software. Lois Rossmann talks a lot about this on his channel, to the point that Nikon tried to prevent somebody selling a 2nd hand lens of a range that wasn't even made anymore, because they want to control where people can buy Nikon stuff. Ignoring the fact that it was a 2nd hand, older item, being matched up between 2 willing people in an arms length transaction, Nikon thinks they still own the product they made and sold 15+ years ago

The problem with classical liberalism is it relies on conservatism (cultural nationalism, family centric society) to propagate itself, while in many ways fighting against the principles of conservatism

The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) is a US federal agency that was created in 1887 to run a railroad cartel The Federal Reserve is a US federal agency that was created in 1913 to run a banking cartel (it's also explicitly a mix of public and private organizations) The problem is a lot older than 1960

We are always wrong...when we get into discussions of "right" vs "wrong." Thats the actual irony of it all.

the marketplace of ideas turned into an oligarchy of experts, the oligarchy of experts informs the stakeholders. it's an emergent process. how'd that rationality and skeptical deference to evidence work out during the coof? oh yeah, it didn't.

The problem with people "doing their own research" is that people don't widely know how to account for their own confirmation biases, and they fail to recognize what makes something a reliable source. People listen to video essays on RU-vid spouting unsubstantiated claims, and they take that for fact if it aligns with their poorly reasoned values. Hmmm...

This episode of the New Discourses Podcast is accessible in advance for supporters. It will be made public for everyone on Tuesday, December 26, 2023, at 2pm ET.

Stephen Hicks also has a great short book summarising 15 arguments for and against liberalism. Rarely do I see arguments against it presented by someone who is overwhelmingly for it

Another well articulated presentation.

Almost makes me want to buy a membership. If I only had a bigger discretionary budget.

More people need to avoid the streaming model at all cost. get a VPN download everything you possibly can from pirates Bay, and keep backups in an EMP proof Faraday bag.

Privacy: I have the right to veil/ protect myself suitably from the potential of predators. Where is the private square? Anywhere that vulnerability is willingly consented to/exercised for some goal or a game. If I write poetry which relates deeply to me then I am liable to keep it completely private - to the degree that it represents vulnerability so too should my right to control its propagation. Sexuality is inherently an expression of vulnerability and to the degree that such information is made widely available is to the degree it’s exploitable by predators - this is totally unreasonable and data relating to these things should be untouchable except by conscious consent. That’s how I see privacy.

My understanding of the NRx critique of liberalism often centers on what they call universalism: the dissolution of all particulars about humans (race, ethnicity, cultural practices etc.) that make a moral life achievable. This seems like a different way of expressing the same problem of defining what an individual is within liberalism: too expansive of a notion of individualism would deprecate the very real and necessary relations in society, while too limited of a scope would lead to a collectivism indistinguishable from those that haunted the last two or three centuries of human history.

Love your podcasts. This one is so perfect.

This may be your best podcast yet, extremely good!

Recently started following Lindsay's lectures. Good find. Good info.

The humility to say "I am often wrong" shows you are not suffering the fate of the midwit. But it does not show you are a genius.

Activist tolerants are always the second against the wall. If you seek your own destruction, fight for "their right to come to your home and change it"

I'm pretty sure Ayn Rand did more writing in nonfiction than fiction Her fiction writing is about 2,000 pages, while I would guess all her non-fiction essays add up to a bit more however IMO the best summary is Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" ("OPAR") But she's deeply critical of Kant and most modern philosophers are Kantians So she gets dismissed out of hand

Hello, can someone please tell me who Mr. Lindsay refers to at 24:56, it is not linked and I cannot find them on search. I do not think I got the right pronunciation from the audio or captions. Thank you for any assistance.

Cannon does in fact put chips in their lenses to control which lenses can be mounted and disable advanced features for third party lenses.

The threats to classical liberalism are not easily articulable .

I just realized the modern neoliberal regulatory system uses essentially the same logic as the 19th century government sanctioned monopolists. The 19th century had a lot of government sanctioned private monopolies, based on the logic that only captains of industry, men of great talent and accomplishment, had the knowledge and expertise to manage highly complex large scale operations like trans-Atlantic shipping. Or in other words only government approved businesses, that the government is satisfied are capable of performing such important tasks in the economy, can be allowed to operate in the marketplace. The modern captured regulatory system characteristic of neoliberal policy thinks exactly the same thing, only businesses the regulatory agencies are satisfied with can be allowed to operate in the marketplace. The byzantine regulatory system creates the illusion that this is an open and fair process, thus obfuscating that this isn't a free market. It's a market where only government approved players can participate, built on the same logic that only the government can determine who should be allowed to do business.

A theory of the person is more important than a theory of the individual. We all exist as distinct persons, as members of families, communities, and nations. Any theory that fails to recognize that dual nature is doomed to failure. Personality is that which attracts others to us, while distinguishing us from them. Individualism creates division and tension. Collectivism denies the distinct identity, value, and moral agency of the person. A person needs to be both "I" and "we."

#ScottishEnlightenment, thank God we followed a common-sense model in the US.

Also, no politician or government is your SAVIOR! stop lending authority to someone to "save you"

I came here post twitter spat with Carl. I find his analysis sound. He points out accurate flaws in the presuppositions that manifest in the incentives and direction of its development when taken up by further left people looking to "progress". Neither Carl nor I are relishing this development and are not advocating for a loss of freedoms specifically. I am thinking James is just worried Carls project will activate the leftists harder or he will open up new aveunes for them to attack

I’ve seen the problems with classical liberalism as this: 1. To say we aren’t gods is an assumption and certainly not a widely accepted one. One philosopher said “America is the most polytheistic society ever with over 300 million gods. Each man being his own god.” 2. Classical liberalism contains a central contradiction. It claims the existence of rights and morals while denying a knowledge of final causes. This is a result of shoddy philosophical education. Morals are synonymous with final causes and rights are derived from an understanding of what is necessary to achieve the end for which man is intended. Claim you do not know that end or if it exists and you cannot logically recommend anything. You depend on the goodwill and gullibility of your audience. As an example, to say we must grant freedom to achieve whatever ends humans might be created for is to already assume the final cause of humanity is not hate or to sacrifice humans to Huitzilopochli. You have nothing to say to a Nietzschean or an Aztec. 3. Classical liberalism was intended for a people who went to church and were happy to accept divine command morality. The few who wanted more had a classical education in virtue morality. But the philosophical education had already degraded to such a point that they could not defend either. We are now at such a point that we despise the former and are not aware of the latter. The result is problem number 1. Those are the basic issues and I don’t see any real way of solving them. Classical liberalism was simply a mistake, an illusion for the upper classes that secured them a feeling of control over their situation when they lacked the education to really understand it. It depends on a Christian world view and declines with it. It seemed to be a justification for deism. Essentially these people were like descartes and didn’t bother to really understand philosophy. They found the inturpretations of the Catholics to support Catholicism and decided it was what Paul called “vain philosophy.” Consequently you have to be drunk or high to take Locke or Hume seriously, and without sufficient coffee, tobacco, and alcohol the whole thing falls apart. Actually a proper solution let’s have kids read “The Republic” in 8th grade, cover to cover. In 9th grade they are forced to read “The Napoleon of Nottinghill.” In 10th make them read “Common Sense.” In 11th grade, “Heretics.” In 12th Grade, “10 Philosophical Mistakes.” Poor Lindsay here is too much of a democrat. It’s the simple truth that most people value money and public honors above truth. You have to just accept that and live with the need for a well educated aristocracy. When you reject it, you end up with a poorly educated aristocracy, as we have now.

This channel is like a medicine of truth and sanity for me. Enlightening, informative snd inspiring. This is a precious and rare content and it should be disseminated as much as possible.

I'm so tired of explaining liberalism to people. It would help if our liberal democracies actually bothered to teach it in school. Same thing with marxism. Liberalism needs to advocate for itself otherwise this nonsense happens.

Haven’t listened yet but will be fascinated to learn if “classical liberalism” is addressed as the US version, which emerged later and differs from the original version by British thinkers.

I have straight taken to saying that Classical Liberalism is the only form of Liberalism, everything that isn't Classical Liberalism ('Social Liberalism', Neo-Liberalism, etc.) just straight up aren't. They're either something else (Left or Social Liberalism is just a soft form of Socialism) or they're perversions of it (Neo-Liberalism). Edited for clarity.

I'm not a philosopher nor am I an expert in any way shape or form, but something like classical liberalism can only really work under a judeo Christian worldview, the bible is the foundation of classical liberalism.

"Public investment" was a big mistake, people should be invested in their investment, it shouldn't be set it and forget it, because you don't know what they are really doing with your money. The second major reason is that "public investment" muddies up the value of companies, "venture capitalism" is nothing more than gambling.

kudos to you for mentioning that woke is reactionary, it was a long time overdue that someone finally said it

The enemy is collectivism. The solution is individualism coupled with pragmatism. Cue William James, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Henry David Thoreau music...

Thanks for the birthday present.

Well that was POWERFUL

I had to delete a whole ass comment because i was going to disagree with you on property and leasing and owjing and the nuances and such. But then you ended up covering all my points exactly later on right as i was wrapping up my comment. Im just blown away james. Im a proud college drop out. I had the intellect abd the skills to go but ot bored me and i saw theough the games and despite having an iq of 167 i decided to follow in my family footsteps and stick to my roots as working class. Ive never regretted not going to college. But now i kinda do. Because ill never be able to sit down with you and work with you. Because i dont have a formal education youll never take my work seriously. Nobody would. So guys like you have to work really hard to speak up for the rest of us. You have that doctorate. You have that formal education and you have the actual intelligence and knowledge that many of them lack. And youre on the right team. Youre doing great work. Please dont ever stop. With my IQ its very rare i come across pepple and think "wow that guys is vastly more intelligent than me" maybe more talented. Sure. More beautiful. Oh all the time. More athletic. All the time. A better person? I can think of millions of examples. But more intelligent? Its very rare. That person usually is a doctor or a scientist of sorts. Ur definitely one of those people i listen to and im like damn it this guy is smarter than me. But it inspires me because i independently come scross many of the same conclusions YOU do. Its amazing. Im listening to you in the background and something clicks in my brain and im like, i gotta write james an email or a comment. A tweet. Hes gotta know about this. Then ten seconds later you go over the thing i just clicked on, and you do it so effortlessly. You articulate it like its obvious. Im just blown away dude. Your IQ must be in the 180s. I feel like im playing against bobby fisher. I wonder what conversing with u face to face would be like. Itd be like talking to a psychic like youre just saying all the shit im thinking. Id always be 5 seconds behind you. Lmfao. Thank you james for everything you do. Your work is appreciated. And best believe we are using your work to actually build alternatives to socialism.

Should have mentioned that the original formulation of Coca Cola had substantial quantities of cocaine

Brilliant podcast as usual

my crack on the philosophy of the individual. The individual is the smallest part of the whole in a human society. So if its rights are maintained the whole of society is maintained as consequence of doing so. No one human being can see the whole as such there is always a limit to their ability Not to mention the fact we as human beings have an intrinsic nature, that the whole of society was created in response to. And intrinsically in that nature lies the capacity and possibility of failure. As well as the capacity and possibility of deturpation Above all else for personal gain, be it moral , spiritual, monetary or material. When there is such evidence when one is acting in bad faith, then acting in bad faith should be quantified along with the decision of whatever organ. Be it abuse of power or lying under oath. To which case it should incur punishment fitting the crime. That first part i got from ShortFatOtaku i simply put together what i could think about, dunno if i forgotten something. What you think?

James, i have question for You: How many people bought Amazon Alexa, and how many people bought open source products similar to Alexa, but without spying? This is one of major difficulties.

It is problematic that the only subs videos won’t roll on locked screen. 😢

One of the most effective “behavior altering techniques” that were taught by clinical psychologists from University of Oregon education/psychology professionals WHEN I WAS RAISING MY CHILDREN, THAT I BELIEVE IS SIMPLE ENOUGH TO LEARN AND DO, is “Behavioral Learning Theory”. I sincerely think that everyone should KNOW it, so that they can firmly put forward an effective action and protection for each one who can do it, and keep you focused on what you are about in our American “culture”, and to stand for our Republic form of Gov’t. Freedom “rights”, “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

I really hope there will be some sort of video on Pacifism at some point.

James: it's the day after Christmas. I do not have 2 hours to listen to a lecture. Have a good holiday.

Re: The problem of what an individual is. James Lindsay's notion of a center of conscience is a good one. I think we can do slightly better still, however. It isn't just about conscience, but about interpretation. From AI modelling and many other contexts it has become clear that interpretation is a lot harder than people used to think back in the day, what was called "naive realism". This was the idea that, because it *seemed* simple (because all living things have evolved systems that handle it just about automatically in generally appropriate ways), it *was* simple. Now we know that it is not, as people are struggling to reverse-engineer such systems. This is known as the Frame Problem: That the number of ways any real set of data could be categorized and organized (in a word: interpreted) is practically infinite. Some also call it the Postmodern problem or the problem of the Postmodernists, because it was on the back of the Frame Problem that they accused any and all success of being entirely arbitrary (which is ridiculous on its face and does not follow). What the Frame Problem means, is that every individual needs to bootstrap his own, individual systems for interpreting information. Without this bootstrap-process, even the notion of a social construction is literally impossible (how can you pick up anything from others without figuring out what others are? Or what they do?). The result is that in this sense, every individual's systems are locked away from those of every other individual, and can only interact as a computer would with an API, along particular paths, with no guarantee that the response is what it is labelled as (and confirmation that it is not once it breaks), and with risk of information loss in no less than 4 different ways during transmission (I illustrate in a video on my channel called Case Against the Dialectic). This makes it impossible for any two (much less more) individuals to act "as one" for any extended period of time (and leaves it up to chance if it ever happens), and makes any "collective" merely a falsehood concealed by good fortune. The individual is the true unit of society, because that is the unit that absorbs and interprets information. No other unit can, except by relying on individuals, and no two individuals can be expected to interpret anything in *exactly* the same way (though there is a reasonable chance the differences won't be immediately obvious or matter). Therefore, the possibility that any one of us might have gotten something seriously wrong warrants allowing others to make that judgment (interpret the situation) for themselves. And follow through on that judgment, since *nobody* wants to be forced to do something stupid (let alone wrong according to his conscience) because of some other idiot. This is separate from discussing what might be the smallest viable unit for society, where a case could be made that family is better, even with all the problems those entail, because individuals cannot reproduce on their own. Even so, the above is reason enough to respect the individual, I dare say.

An important turnning point

How would Liberalism reach a sustainable demography? One frequent criticism is that Liberalism tells the state what NOT to do, but doesn't offer the citizens guidance on what to ALWAYS DO. A system that is not "family friendly" enough will always perish.

A possible good place to start for defining individualism is the law itself. An individual is tried, prosecuted, and punished based on his own actions and not those of society. While he may have been influenced by others (ie., friends, family, mentors, etc.), only HE is charged for his own actions and choices. Which also brings the factor of manipulation, duress, threats, being drugged, use of force, etc. into play, as they supersede their ability to make a decision of their own accord. An individual is a sovereign being able to rule their own life. When someone is not in a position to do so, they cannot be held accountable for themselves (ie., minors, mentally disabled, etc.). This also holds true in the case of writing a will. They must be of sound mind and under no duress.

Wait, is James Lindsay's opinion that Milton Friedman is a "neo liberal" whose concept of a free market necessarily leads to cronyism? If I am understanding what was said, I disagree with Mr. Lindsay, completely, on that point.

When you mentioned the Napster days it made me nostalgic for a better time that was more free, more awesome, and less soy… despite people getting sued for downloading Metallica songs.

I was expecting it say "NOTHING!" and then cut to the end.

James, if your in Tacoma look up Infinite Soups...

Starting with, the inability to ground its philosophical assumptions.

We had a market place of ideas when the printing press was in full swing before radio and television. This is covered in Neil Postman's book, "Amusing Ourselves to Death;" At the time of the American Civil War, something like 95% of whites could read and print got the abolitionist movement off the ground. What had happened was, with the advent of television, radio and film, the bandwidth of the citizens became narrower and fixed onto these new technologies. Print wasn't as fashionable, and there were less presses around pumping out ideas. The Internet reopened the marketplace of ideas.

I have a couple farms. One in Bavaria Germany and one in Manassas VA. Mine are horse farms- but as I live in the farming community I can attest to the fact that the Right to Fix issue has been the literal bain of the existence of farmers for a long time. It has gotten consistently and exponentially worse for as long as I can remember. I am reminded of my grandfather who was a diplomat (Agricultural Attache) and came from a farming family often lambasting the unethical practices of legislators and corporations around this issue. He called it highway robbery en masse courtesy of the government. And per usual it is government and corporate interference and overreach which is their modus operandi. Without the consent of the people it effects- largely by people who it does not and never will affect. Smh. 😑

Really enjoyed you and Jonathan Pageau on Benjamin A Boyce’s channel. I think he, like most, misunderstood what you meant when you said Christian Nationalism. He also seems to have different definitions for certain terms he uses in mysticism, like unity, which the commies have corrupted the definitions of. Selfishly I want to hear you two converse on Gnosticism and the marxification of the church.

In the Australian political context the nominally conservative party is called The Liberal Party. It is supposed to be a broad church of people who can have different points of view. This was to be a counterpoint to the leftist Labor Party, where there is much more top down control. In the recent, defeated, Constitutional referendum which was to not only recognise the Aboriginal people but also to require that there was to be a government funded body giving Aboriginal groups say over legislation. There was a huge media storm in a teacup because unlike the Labor Government, the Liberal Leader of the Opposition said that Liberal politicians could take either a pro or con stance. He made them melt down even more when he publicly supported “No”. There are still people who blame him for the failure of the referendum.

Happy new year 🎊🎊🕛

Honestly we need to separate creative IP and functional IP into separate categories Creative IP, art, design, ect, should be protected. But the copy of windows I bought to make my PC work should, as long as I have the license, be copyable, and modifiable so that I can make sure I can keep my hardware in operating order, same with John Deere tractors, Cars, ect.

I'm in a spiff with Amazon because I bought seasons 1 & 2 of Bluey to stream. Well... I only have access to 8 of the 54 episodes. All they have to say about it it "the missing episodes aren't available". Why to F did you sell them to me then?

You can tweak classical liberalism all you want. It won’t work with a populace that it thoroughly post-liberal. If you want freedom, we need to instill into the coming generations a mindset that can make use of it. (Plus, we need to disseminate better definitions of freedom. Definitions that include parameters of responsibility, nobility, and morality. Definitions that aren’t starkly secular.)

Give the power of "authority" back to local and state governments as intended

It's hilarious, considering your story about the printing press, how much stuff most Christians still believe that is not in the Bible

"Hey everyone, this is James Lindsay and you're listening to the nudist courses podcast..."

27:47 aaah hes so close to realizing it! its both hilarious and frustrating that he doesn't realize the actual problem(s) with his form of Classical Liberalism, but intellectuals can never find the real problem with their own ideology

1:21:00 funny little story about streaming services and ownership. Reservoir dogs is one of my favorite movies and it’s something I can keep on in the background and it’s familiar and it’s like listening to music while I work. Fucking RU-vid change the language to Portuguese so now I’m learning Portuguese via identifying words from lines that I’m well familiar with. 😎

SOMEONE owns those cars, a central office called "engulf and devour" read WEF!

Muddy water made clear, thx

James is right on every point in this video. Just because he is gay, doesn't mean he isn't a great thought leader.

My phone case has a sliding cover over the back cameras, I place a drop of black nail polish over the front

What is the difference between Classical Liberalism vs. Neoliberalism?

1:13 Okay. That's what I've been waiting for. That's what I've been asking for; how do we solve the problems with classical liberalism that got us here? As I've pointed out, repeatedly, classical liberalism is not a solution to the situation we're in, it couldn't prevent us from getting here in the first place. Looking forward to what you have to say.

If you enjoyed this Talk by James Lindsay, you might enjoy the book from Oxford University Press called "THE SYSTEM OF LIBERTY" by George Smith. I think there are only 3 books left so you should get it before its out of print.

Actually theres some good works on why intellectual property rights are not the same as traditional property rights and actually hurt freedom. Rothbard for example was again IP. I dont necessarily agree with that but id like to hear ur thoughts cuz they are good arguments. The agoists and ancaps are very passionate about this.

Proverbs 22: is meant to deal with Personal problems…not on a global scale where everyone is allowed to throw “sand in the gears”.

Try reading Saint Thomas Aquinas

Talking about revisionism history regarding the Catholic church.

Well, you may be technically correct on the nuances between “liberal” and “neoliberal,“ etc., from a practical standpoint, and in order to win, it is necessary for the time being to throw all of these adherence into the liberal bucket to mock them and tear them down. National conscience is too wild to have that level of micro detail be paid attention to.the largest distinction that an individual can make and what should be the strategy for those who switched to pushback against bad actors is establishment or antiestablishment. Does a vote for this the power of the federal government of the last 75 years or does it shrink it? That is only question.

Fascists weren't bound by Orthodoxy they were referencing their strength as a unified collective.

As far as the tractor data thing, once the tractor is completely paid off, what's stopping a farmer from disabling whatever device or program being used to record the data? I think all they can do is void the warranty. I agree it's BS and wrong but I hope people can get around it. Did a little reading and I wonder if you have updates for the tractor software? I know the data collecting has something to do with the app. I'm not sure but it may be that the only way to not share data means not getting updates. Who knows what problems that may cause.