Sho how would liberalism handle a conflict between competing states? For example. Right now China is exercising dominance in the south china Sea and is claiming rights according to the 9 dash line. China's neighbors disagree and believe China is encroaching on its territorial rights with regard to their waterways. let's say China decided to occupy one of the land features in the Spratly Islands that the Philipines claims belong to them. How would America, under the Paradigm of LIberalism respond to this situation?
This is definitely a tough one! China's actions would certainly be better explained by Realism in this case. If the USA was acting under a liberal paradigm, they would seek to pressure China to change course through liberal institutions, for example, like the United Nations. (Obviously would be ineffective with China holding a veto on the security council). .. or perhaps through multilateral sanctions, in an effort to maintain the stability of the liberal order. Liberalism relies on states acting liberally, and the world increasing in democracy, and China in general is a challenge to that.
@@KorczyksClass I argue it is nearly impossible to employ liberalism to address a crisis where the adversarial nation is a realist. that just does not seem to work no matter how i think about it.
@@KorczyksClass Yes, that is what i thought, the US would use the United Nations but China has also shown a propensity to disregard rulings by world bodies such as the dispute between China and the Philipines in 2012 which the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ruled against China.
@@rynor7132 What if real decision makers of all world powers give zero regard or genuine belief in Liberalism and its glamorous objectives? What if politically the world today is three-dimensioned, namely the real decision-makers, the intellectuals (politicians, press, the elite etc) and the rest, where the first dimension/category has its own doctrine (I claim it to be absolute REALISM), whereas the second and the third share the same aspirations and glamor of Liberalism? After all, the reality check says that the biggest liberal states, the icons of Liberalism themselves are implementing the complete opposite of Liberalism in a way that's more obvious than ever. Away from books and theory; reality says it all...my humble opinion and (objective, I hope) observation.
Liked how you explained it, very clear, I finished Liberalism by Ludwig von Mises. My problem with Liberalism is that it assumes the people desire the same. 1 thing if its a small homogenous community; race, religion, culture. How can it work on a ship where no1 agree on the direction/destination? At best we all vote & end up where no1 wanted to really go. Especially on a global scale. This is why I love Hobbes, but where his for the state, I'm like pro-monarchy where Christ is King. We'll accept a Republic, but 16th & 17th amendment. Honestly their a list but capitalism, education, etc via a moral frame work. It takes virtuous people to uphold a Nation; after all, what's the point if not communities of strong families?
Thanks for the kind words! Unfortunately I don't have videos about those. They're definitely on my list of videos to make. I do have a video on realism vs. Liberalism you can check out here though: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Hl43BizGd5c.html And one specifically on realism: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0lL6KVCch4Y.html
