Podcasts about Montesquieu

Sección en el programa El Remate de la Diez Capital radio con nuestro abogado particular, Juan Inurria. Puente descubrió esta semana que entre las funciones del Poder Judicial «no está derribar gobiernos». Yo, que llevo más de treinta años frecuentando juzgados, cuando estudié y cuando lo sigo haciendo no lo veo escrito en ninguna parte, pero sí, en cambio en las barbaridades que espeta el gobierno sanchista, está este nuevo mantra que compran la manada de votantes que le siguen. Y es que cada cual aprende donde puede. Y esta vez te toco a ti Puente, Bolaños no quiso. El CGPJ respondió con un comunicado. Dijo que ciertas declaraciones de «altas instituciones del Estado» erosionan la confianza ciudadana en el Estado de Derecho. Sin dar nombres. Que respetuosos. Y Puente replicó que la justicia también está sometida a crítica, como cualquier otro poder. Tiene razón, Puente. Lo está. Pero hay una diferencia que cualquier albergador de sentido común conoce, y es que criticar una sentencia es un derecho. De eso a que el Gobierno mande a descalificar a los jueces que lo investigan es otra cosa distinta. Esa otra cosa tiene nombres varios, así que queridos lectores uds. pónganle el que más les guste. Donde el CGPJ anduvo con pies de plomo, por si le riñen a su presidenta, las asociaciones profesionales no se anduvieron con rodeos -todas menos una- La Asociación Profesional de la Magistratura, la Asociación Judicial Francisco de Vitoria, el Foro Judicial Independiente y las dos principales asociaciones de fiscales firmaron un comunicado conjunto. Sin eufemismos, y dejo claro que se trata de una «estrategia orquestada para atentar contra la independencia judicial». Su crítica más dura no fue para el Consejo -cuya declaración calificaron de insuficiente- sino para la Fiscalía General – que recuerden depende de Sánchez- a la que acusaron sin ambages de ignorar su deber legal de defender la independencia judicial. Queridos amigos, los jueces y fiscales del reino de España diciéndole al fiscal general que no hace su trabajo. Firmaron todas las asociaciones de la carrera. Todas menos una: Jueces y Juezas para la Democracia. Que dicen todo sin decir nada. ¿Qué independientes, verdad? El detonante fue una jueza de Badajoz, que es Magistrada, Beatriz Biedma, que fue instructora en el caso del hermanísimo de Sánchez. La trama es que se habría ordenado seguimientos sobre ella, su familia y su entorno profesional. Con el propósito, según las informaciones publicadas, de hostigarla y desacreditarla. Una magistrada espiada por hacer su trabajo. Si eso no es un ataque al Estado de Derecho, que es lo que tiene que pasar. Y al parecer todo lo hacia una tal Leire que pasaba por allí. Otro Juez, o Magistrado mejor dicho, Pedraz lleva semanas removiendo los cimientos de Ferraz, que es la sede o el local del PSOE en Madrid. La UCO pasó por allí y se quedo doce horas. Y hemos sabido esta semana que el sumario del caso Leire apunta a una trama pagada con fondos del PSOE para entorpecer causas judiciales que afectaban al partido y al Gobierno de Sánchez. Santos Cerdán como presunto cabeza visible. Gaspar Zarrías, la gerente del partido y varios compañeros abogados como co-investigados. El magistrado sitúa el arranque en una reunión del 26 de abril de 2024 y por aquel entonces recordar lo qué estaba ocurriendo exactamente esos días con el presidente y su famosa carta de reflexión, por lo que le pasaba a su esposa. También esta semana en Badajoz, seguíamos con el juicio al hermano del presidente. Y su hermano David negó cualquier implicación en la creación de su propio puesto. Claro, el resto somos bobos. La UCO señaló que buscó piso en Badajoz un mes antes de que le adjudicaran la plaza. Uno puede buscar piso donde le plazca o pueda pagar. Pero cuando ese dato se suma a un expediente para crear su plaza, a testigos que en el juicio recordaron las cosas de forma llamativamente distinta a como las recordaban en instrucción, – a mí me pasa a diario- y a un puesto que nadie cubrió mientras él no estaba, el cuadro tiene una pintura descarada que no necesita demasiada imaginación o sí, en fin, créanse lo que consideren creerse, yo lo dejo aquí que tengo que preparar la visita del Papa y el inicio de los mundiales. De cualquier manera, ya Montesquieu escribió que no hay libertad donde el poder judicial no está separado del ejecutivo. Lo escribió en 1748. Hay quien lleva desde entonces sin leerlo. Descarados. Puente lee.

« Comment peut-on être Persan ? », se demandait Montesquieu ; « comment succéder au général de Gaulle ? », se demandait Georges Pompidou.Plongez dans l'histoire des grands personnages et des évènements marquants qui ont façonné notre monde ! Avec enthousiasme et talent, Franck Ferrand vous révèle les coulisses de l'histoire avec un grand H, entre mystères, secrets et épisodes méconnus : un cadeau pour les amoureux du passé, de la préhistoire à l'histoire contemporaine.Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Frédéric Samama est auteur de L'énigme de l'inaction climatique et pionnier de la finance verte et alors que nous vivons un de ces épisodes de canicule aujourd'hui, il m'a semblé essentiel d'essayer de comprendre pourquoi nous savons depuis 70 ans et nous ne faisons rien. En 2009, il a monté le premier centre de recherche mondial sur la finance et le climat, lancé les premiers indices low carbone et créé la première coalition d'investisseurs à la COP21. Et pourtant, son livre ne parle pas de finance. Il parle de cerveau, d'histoire, de philosophie et d'une question qui l'obsède depuis cinq ans : pourquoi, sur un problème que tout le monde connaît, que l'on a créé, et qui nous menace en tant qu'espèce, on n'arrive pas à bouger ?Dans cet épisode, nous parlons de neurosciences cognitives, d'inférence bayésienne, de moments fromages dans l'histoire de l'humanité, et du lien entre capitalisme, néolibéralisme et perte de nos réflexes moraux. J'ai questionné Frédéric sur l'overview effect des astronautes, sur Lévinas et la philosophie du visage, sur Jean Cavaillès et la résistance, et sur ce que tout ça dit de notre capacité à réinventer nos représentations du monde face à l'urgence climatique.Citations marquantes"Sur un problème où tout le monde est au courant, qu'on a créé, et qui nous menace en tant qu'espèce — pourquoi diable, on n'arrive pas à se mettre en mouvement ?" (0:29:00)"Le capitalisme, c'est comment tu fais vivre des gens ensemble en dehors de règles morales et religieuses. Et maintenant qu'on fait face à un défi moral, qui est le défi du climat, on ne sait plus faire." (0:19:30)"Face à l'enjeu moral, c'est l'action qui doit prévaloir — et pas la réflexion de est-ce qu'on est optimiste, négatif, et ainsi de suite." (1:06:44)"On a voulu détendre le lien social. En cas de problème, il n'y a plus personne, et donc il n'y a plus de devoir — on ne demande que des droits." (0:26:30)"Le climat, ce n'est plus seulement la plus grosse menace. C'est aussi la plus belle opportunité de réapprendre à vivre ensemble, nous, les 8 milliards de personnes sur Terre." (1:12:00)Big Ideas1. Notre cerveau construit des modèles à partir de signaux — et s'y enferme L'inférence bayésienne selon Stanislas Dehaene : le cerveau observe des signaux et fabrique des lois du monde. Agassi qui lit le service de Becker, le bébé qui comprend la gravité, le rat dans le labyrinthe — tous fonctionnent pareil. Le problème : une fois le modèle établi, on arrête de le mettre à jour. On entre en surconfiance. C'est exactement ce qui se passe avec le climat : on sait, mais on ne change pas de modèle. (0:02:37)2. L'histoire humaine s'est organisée autour de "moments fromages" — et le climat en exige un nouveau Deux grandes ruptures : l'agriculture et la science moderne (accès aux ressources naturelles), puis le néolibéralisme (accès aux ressources humaines mondiales). À chaque fois, l'humanité a réorganisé ses représentations. Le climat est la première fois qu'on nous demande de limiter l'accès aux ressources — un défi sans précédent pour des cerveaux conditionnés à l'expansion. (0:07:43)3. Le capitalisme a délibérément mis la morale hors jeu Au XVIIe siècle, la grande question était : comment faire vivre des gens ensemble sans passer par la morale ou la religion, qui créent des guerres ? La réponse : l'intérêt personnel. Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Hirschman ont construit un système où l'égoïsme profite à la société. Ça a marché. Mais le climat est un problème moral (les plus faibles meurent en premier) — et on n'a plus les réflexes pour ça. (0:14:55)4. L'overview effect comme signal de bascule possible Les astronautes dans l'espace deviennent poètes. Ils voient la planète fragile, belle, vivante. Frédéric propose ces trois perceptions comme signal capable de réécrire nos représentations. La fragilité déclenche la responsabilité (Lévinas). La beauté prépare à la morale (Kant). Le vivant nous réintègre dans la nature après des siècles d'extraction. Pas un programme politique — une hypothèse sur comment les cerveaux humains peuvent changer. (0:39:00)5. Face à un enjeu moral, la question n'est plus l'espoir — c'est l'action Jean Cavaillès, philosophe-mathématicien résistant, incarne la réponse. En mai 1941, zéro espoir objectif. Et pourtant il agit — parce que face à un enjeu moral, la question n'est plus "quelle est la probabilité ?" mais "quelle est mon obligation ?". C'est la même logique que d'appeler les pompiers pour quelqu'un qui fait une crise cardiaque dont on sait qu'elle sera fatale. On agit. Pas parce qu'on espère, mais parce qu'on doit. (1:04:06)Questions poséesQu'est-ce que l'anecdote d'Agassi et Becker révèle sur le fonctionnement du cerveau humain ?Quels sont les grands "moments fromages" de l'histoire de l'humanité, et où en sommes-nous aujourd'hui ?Comment définirais-tu le capitalisme à son origine — et en quoi diffère-t-il du néolibéralisme ?Pourquoi le néolibéralisme a-t-il dissous le lien social, et quelles en sont les conséquences concrètes ?Sur un problème aussi connu et aussi grave que le climat, pourquoi l'humanité n'arrive-t-elle pas à se mettre en mouvement ?Qu'est-ce que l'inférence bayésienne nous apprend sur notre incapacité à mettre à jour nos modèles face au climat ?Qu'est-ce que les astronautes et l'overview effect peuvent nous apprendre sur comment changer nos représentations collectives ?Comment Lévinas et Kant peuvent-ils nous aider à repenser notre rapport au problème climatique ?Qui était Jean Cavaillès, et pourquoi son histoire est-elle une réponse au problème de l'inaction ?Si le signal qui change nos représentations n'est pas encore arrivé, qu'est-ce qui pourrait en tenir lieu à l'échelle de nos sociétés ?Références citéesPersonnes et penseursStanislas Dehaene — chaire de sciences cognitives, Collège de France (0:04:00)André Agassi / Boris Becker — anecdote du service et de la langue (0:02:37)Max Weber — thèse sur la naissance du capitalisme (0:13:00)Albert Hirschman — économiste, auteur sur l'origine du capitalisme (0:13:00)Marcel Enaf — sur le commerce pré-capitaliste (0:17:29)Machiavel, Spinoza, Galilée, Montesquieu, Adam Smith — généalogie du capitalisme (0:15:25)Milton Friedman — article dans le New York Times sur le néolibéralisme (0:19:54)Emmanuel Lévinas — philosophe lituanien, "le visage d'autrui" et l'éthique (0:42:44)Emmanuel Kant — la beauté, le désintérêt et la morale (0:44:30)Michel Serres — "on mesure l'ampleur d'un problème à la durée qu'il a mise à se former" (0:33:34)Robin Dunbar — nombre de 150, limite de coordination des groupes humains (0:34:22)Hannah Arendt et Karl Polanyi — fascisme comme réaction au libéralisme du XIXe siècle (1:07:50)Henri Bergson — envoyé aux États-Unis pour convaincre Wilson d'entrer en guerre (0:53:43)Président Wilson — discours d'entrée en guerre au nom de valeurs morales, 1917 (0:54:30)Jean Cavaillès — philosophe-mathématicien résistant, fusillé (1:02:11)Raymond Aron — "Si Jean Cavaillès avait vécu, j'aurais dit moins de bêtises" (1:04:06)Pierre Brossolette, Jean Moulin — résistants évoqués en parallèle (1:05:00)Concepts et événementsInférence bayésienne — mécanisme cognitif de construction de modèles (0:47:50)Overview effect — phénomène de bascule perceptuelle chez les astronautes (0:39:30)Théorie des "moments fromages" — concept central du livre (0:07:43)Bulle des tulipes — première crise financière spéculative, XVIIe siècle (0:50:23)COP21 — coalition d'investisseurs créée par Frédéric (0:27:33)Passage à l'an 2000 (bug Y2K) — contre-exemple de mobilisation rapide (0:30:00)Protocole de Montréal / couche d'ozone — résolu en 18 mois (0:51:43)Timestamps clés00:00 Introduction — Et si on se réjouissait à nouveau du futur ? Gregory présente Frédéric Semama, pionnier de la finance verte et auteur de L'énigme de l'inaction climatique. 02:37 L'anecdote Agassi / Becker Comment Agassi a découvert le code du service de Becker en s'asseyant dans la foule — et ce que ça révèle sur le cerveau humain. 04:00 Comment le cerveau construit ses modèles du monde Stanislas Dehaene au Collège de France : inférence bayésienne, le bébé, le rat dans le labyrinthe. 07:43 Les "moments fromages" de l'histoire humaine Agriculture, science moderne, néolibéralisme : trois grandes ruptures où l'humanité a réorganisé ses représentations pour accéder à de nouvelles ressources. 13:00 L'origine du capitalisme — bien au-delà de l'argent Comment le capitalisme est né comme solution à la guerre de religion : faire vivre des gens ensemble sans morale ni religion. 20:56 Tout le monde veut un village mais personne ne veut être villageois La concierge qui sauve Frédéric pendant le Covid — et le choc quand il essaie de la remercier avec des cadeaux. 27:00 Pourquoi on n'agit pas sur le climat Trois raisons structurelles : c'est la première limite à l'accès aux ressources, il n'y a pas de signal à hauteur du problème, et nos modèles sont inadaptés. 36:22 La bulle sociétale — on peut savoir et continuer quand même De la bulle internet à la bulle des tulipes : le mécanisme d'enfermement conscient à l'échelle d'une planète. 39:00 L'overview effect — les astronautes comme piste de bascule Fragile, belle, vivante : les trois perceptions que les astronautes rapportent de l'espace — et ce qu'elles activent dans le cerveau. 42:44 Lévinas : le visage d'autrui comme début de l'éthique Quand voir la fragilité de l'autre nous oblige à agir au-delà de notre instinct de conservation. 52:07 La couche d'ozone vs le climat En 18 mois, tous les pays du monde se sont mis d'accord. Qu'est-ce qui est fondamentalement différent avec le climat ? 53:43 Bergson à la Maison-Blanche La France envoie le philosophe Henri Bergson convaincre Wilson d'entrer en guerre. Il réussit. Ce que ça dit du pouvoir des valeurs morales en politique. 1:00:14 Je ne cherche pas à avoir de l'espoir Frédéric explique pourquoi la question n'est pas l'espoir — avec mai 1941 comme exemple. 1:02:11 Jean Cavaillès — le héros oublié de la résistance Fils de militaire, philosophe-mathématicien, major de Normale Sup tout seul. Et résistant. Fusillé dans une fosse commune. 1:06:29 La crise cardiaque et l'obligation morale "La probabilité que tu survives est nulle. Et pourtant, tu vas tout faire pour me sauver." Ce que ça dit du rapport entre morale et action. 1:14:54 La solution concrète : recommencer à regarder le vivant Pourquoi enseigner la vie des animaux et des plantes à l'école changerait plus de choses que n'importe quelle taxe carbone. Suggestion d'autres épisodes à écouter : #286 Le cynisme politique face à l'urgence climatique? avec Fabrice Nicolino (https://audmns.com/SHnNoJp) #292 Les enjeux de la géopolitique climatique avec David Djaiz (https://audmns.com/BoZGVQa) #178 Les technologies vont-elles nous permettre de faire face au défi climatique? avec Philippe Bihouix (https://audmns.com/ktZSlzb)Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Stel dat je de economie opnieuw kon ontwerpen, net zoals Montesquieu ooit de politieke macht opsplitste. Dat is precies wat duurzaamheidsonderzoeker en auteur Babette Porcelijn voor ogen heeft met haarTrias Economica.In deze aflevering gaat Marnix Kluiters met haar in gesprek over de verborgen machtsstructuren in onze economie. Wie voelt de gevolgen, zonder ooit een stem te hebben gehad? Babette laat zien hoe de drie economische machten: de publieke macht, de financiële macht en de bedrijfsmacht, steeds verder verstrengeld raken, en wat dat betekent voor onze democratie.Verder bespreken ze geldschepping en groeidwang, aandeelhoudersmacht versus stakeholderszeggenschap, rechten voor de natuur en toekomstige generaties, de rol van Europa als tegenmacht, en hoe je kleine maar fundamentele stappen kunt zetten. te beginnen bij Big Tech.

La esclavitud fue una institución milenaria y universal. Existió en todas las civilizaciones a lo largo y ancho del mundo. Da igual donde y cuando miremos. La encontramos en Sumeria, en la antigua Roma, en el islam y en los imperios prehispánicos de América. Nadie la cuestionaba y parecía que iba a existir siempre. Pero entre finales del siglo XVIII y finales del XIX esa estructura se desmoronó. Las raíces del movimiento abolicionista se encuentran en el cristianismo, que aceptó la esclavitud, pero no entre cristianos. En la Edad Media la esclavitud se redujo mucho en Europa occidental, pero resurgió con fuerza tras la llegada de los portugueses al golfo de Guinea y de los españoles al continente americano. Isabel la Católica prohibió esclavizar a los indígenas, pero no a los africanos, lo que permitió que los españoles primero y luego las potencias europeas con intereses en América empezasen a llevar esclavos desde África dando origen a la trata atlántica. El abolicionismo en América surgió entre entre los cuáqueros. En el siglo XVIII se sumaron predicadores como John Newton, autor de Amazing Grace, y filósofos ilustrados como Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Voltaire y Kant, que ofrecieron a la causa de la abolición un fundamento racional y secular. El Reino Unido, curiosamente la mayor potencia esclavista de la época, fue quien más esfuerzos hizo por acabar con la esclavitud. El caso Somerset de 1772 liberó a los esclavos en suelo inglés. Años más tarde la Sociedad para la Abolición, fundada en 1787, creo la campaña política moderna con panfletos, medallones, boicots y peticiones al parlamento. Crearon también un nuevo género, el de los testimonios de antiguos esclavos. Algunos como los de Olaudah Equiano, Quobna Cugoano, Ignatius Sancho y Mary Prince conmovieron a la opinión pública y fueron de vital importancia para influir sobre la agenda legislativa. En el Parlamento un diputado llamado William Wilberforce fue quien se encargó de dar la batalla durante casi 20 años hasta lograr la prohibición de la trata en 1807. La Royal Navy comenzó a patrullar las costas africanas para capturar a los barcos negreros. La diplomacia británica, entretanto, presionaba a las potencias coloniales para que ilegalizasen la compra de esclavos. En 1833 el parlamento aprobó la Slavery Abolition Act que liberó a los 800.000 esclavos del imperio. Los dueños fueron indemnizados con una suma tan elevada que el Gobierno británico tuvo que pedir el dinero prestado. Francia abolió definitivamente la esclavitud en 1848, los Países Bajos en 1863, Portugal en 1869. Estados Unidos resolvió la cuestión en el campo de batalla con una una guerra civil que alumbró la Decimotercera Enmienda de 1865. En España la abolición llegó primero a Puerto Rico en 1873 y luego a Cuba en 1886, tras el sistema transitorio del patronato. Brasil hizo lo propio en 1888, pero aquello costó el trono a los Braganza. El proceso coincidió con la revolución industrial, pero las plantaciones en las Antillas eran rentables. Había algo más que empujó esta idea, el convencimiento íntimo de aquellos europeos de que la esclavitud era incompatible con la dignidad humana. Eso persuadió a las mismas sociedades que se beneficiaban de ella para que renunciaran voluntariamente a una institución milenaria en apenas cinco generaciones. En El Contrasello: 0:00 Introducción 3:50 Abolición de la esclavitud 1:15:16 La desamortización de Mendizábal Bibliografía: "Breve historia de la esclavitud” de James Walvin - https://amzn.to/42AhJUr “Slavery: A World History” de Milton Meltzer - https://amzn.to/439sSM8 “Slavery: A World History” de Milton Meltzer - https://amzn.to/439sSM8 “The slave trade” de Hugh Thomas - https://amzn.to/4wMgTlB “Esclavitud. Una historia de la humanidad” de Michael Zeuske - https://amzn.to/4d8n9w6 · Canal de Telegram: https://t.me/lacontracronica · “Contra el pesimismo”… https://amzn.to/4m1RX2R · “Hispanos. Breve historia de los pueblos de habla hispana”… https://amzn.to/428js1G · “La ContraHistoria del comunismo”… https://amzn.to/39QP2KE · “La ContraHistoria de España. Auge, caída y vuelta a empezar de un país en 28 episodios”… https://amzn.to/3kXcZ6i · “Contra la Revolución Francesa”… https://amzn.to/4aF0LpZ · “Lutero, Calvino y Trento, la Reforma que no fue”… https://amzn.to/3shKOlK Apoya La Contra en: · Patreon... https://www.patreon.com/diazvillanueva · iVoox... https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-contracronica_sq_f1267769_1.html · Paypal... https://www.paypal.me/diazvillanueva #FernandoDiazVillanueva #esclavitud #abolicion Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comAdrian is a journalist and an old friend. We arrived in America on the same plane in 1984 and spent the first few days together in the same hotel room. After more than 20 years writing for The Economist, he became the global business columnist for Bloomberg Opinion. He's the author of several books, including The Aristocracy of Talent, and the co-author of many more with John Micklethwait, including The Right Nation. Adrian's new book is The Revolutionary Center: The Lost Genius of Liberalism. It's a terrific tonic for a philosophy as vital as it is in eclipse.For two clips of the episode — on how Enlightenment ideas got corrupted, and Big Tech's threat to liberalism — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: raised in rural Shropshire; his parents both teachers; his dissertation on the 11-plus (an exam that changed my life); when IQ tests were a liberal cause; Luther and the Reformation; the religious civil wars leading to the Enlightenment; Hobbes as a proto-liberal; the humanism of Erasmus; Montesquieu and the spirit of liberalism; John Stuart Mill and utilitarianism; Isaiah Berlin and pluralism; Graham Wallas and the Great Society; Lippmann; Leo Strauss; Thatcherism; consumerism vs. self-improvement; meritocracy threatened by the left; Foucault's folly; the EU and managerial liberalism; Brooks' bobos; affirmative action and DEI; why liberal democracy in Iraq didn't work; Oakeshott; Schmitt and friend-enemy; Trump's stark illiberalism and neo-royalism; King Charles; Putin ushering in a strongman era; Biden's open borders; the migration crisis and Brexit; the buffoonish Boris; the struggling Starmer; high culture and other upsides to elitism; Abundance; Deneen and post-liberalism; and Europe stepping up for Ukraine.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. We have some real stars coming up: Ben Rhodes on Iran and speech-writing, Harvey Mansfield on modernity, HW Brands on the life of George Washington, John Gray on Trump's new world, Bob Wright on the evolutionary force of AI, Tiffany Jenkins on privacy in a liberal democracy, Jerusalem Demsas on the state of the left, Daniel McCarthy on conservatism, Stephen Grosz on the struggles of love, and Robby George on pretty much everything. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

"Daher das rege, geistige Leben, das Ideen- und Wortgefecht im Salon, dem diese Frau ihre Seele einhauchte [...]", so begeistert schrieben die Brüder Goncourt über Claudine Alexandrine Guérin, Marquise de Tencin (1682-1749), die intelligente Herrscherin der "Hauptstätte des Geistes" in den Jahren vor 1750. Hier konnte man Montesquieu, Fontenelle und Marivaux begegnen, aber auch der jungen Jeanne-Antoinette Poisson (der späteren Madame de Pompadour). Diese Laufbahn hätte sie sich selbst wohl kaum erträumt, als sie 1698 in Montfleury bei Grenoble das Ordensgelübte ablegte. Wie konnte sie 20 Jahre später in die höchsten Kreise Frankreichs aufsteigen? Und welche Rolle spielte sie bei der Entwicklung der europäischen Salonkultur? Diesen Fragen gehen wir in dieser Episode nach.

Nuestro 'historiador de cabecera' Francisco José Franco, nos lleva hoy hasta el origen de la separación de poderes en los estados, ante la pregunta de si se da de forma fehaciente en nuestra actualidad. José Francisco nos cuenta que la idea fue desarrollada en el siglo XVIII por el filósofo francés Montesquieu, quien propuso separar el poder político en tres partes: ejecutivo, legislativo y judicial, con el objetivo de evitar abusos y garantizar las libertades de los ciudadanos.La teoría apareció en su obra 'El espíritu de las leyes', publicada en 1748, y tuvo gran influencia en revoluciones y constituciones posteriores como la de los países como Estados Unidos y Francia, aunque el Fuero de León fue el primer lugar en el mundo en establecer algo "muy parecido a la separación de poderes".

My colleague Oliver Traldi recently published an essay called ‘Jane Austen's Virtuous Liberalism'. It's a very nice discussion of the ways in which Austen understand the challenges of character formation.Virtue, as Austen sees it, faces two tough challenges. First, people whose characters are not yet formed must see how to be virtuous rather than vicious. Then, the virtuous must somehow find a way to succeed in their struggles against the vicious without adopting vicious means.In this episode, Oliver and I discussed Austen's ideas of virtue, what that has to do with liberalism, the relationship between philosophy and literature more broadly, as well as poetry and ideas about the Great Books. We also talked about the Keira Knightly Pride and Prejudice. Yes, we both liked it. Here is why Oliver thinks Jane Austen is so popular among philosophers.TRALDI: And so I do think that even though she's not making arguments, she's not laying out philosophical theories, there is a level of precision in her thinking about virtue, which I do think is something that it took me a little aback.And I think it's part of why—one person who quote-tweeted my article was Daniel Kodsi, who's a friend of our colleague John Maier and his coauthor often. And he runs this magazine called The Philosophers' Magazine, which I had written before. And Daniel quote-tweeted my article with something like, “Add Oliver to the list of all the philosophers who love Austen.”OLIVER: And it's a long list.TRALDI: And I think it's a long list. And I do think this precision is part of it that she does, that it is—again, it's not like a philosophy journal article, but it is an intellectual sophistication that is often not present in novelists that we really appreciate.And here is an extract about Austen, Smith, and the wonderfully fertile period at the end of the eighteen century.TRALDI: But yes, I think it's obvious—without knowing the background, I'm sure there are scholarly questions about, how much Smith did Austen read? And they're both 250th—a lot was happening in 1775 and 1776.OLIVER: Those were great years. Those were the good old days.TRALDI: They were great years. In the great books syllabus, you get to the end of the 1700s and suddenly there's this—you have Smith, you have Kant, you have the American Revolution, you have the French Revolution, you have Burke. Rousseau is right before, Montesquieu is right before. I mean, it was a real—OLIVER: It's a great time.TRALDI: It was a great time. A lot was being done. And obviously, you know, I love the 1800s. I love the Romantics. But you could teach a whole great books course from 1750 to 1800, probably.OLIVER: You've also got all the dictionaries and all that kind of work going on as well. It's a very, very fertile—explorations.TRALDI: Yes, yes. There's all sorts of—yes, it was an amazing time.OLIVER: So did you, having read these two, Austen and Smith, close together—TRALDI: Yes, and I should say that my reading of Austen was much more careful than my reading of Smith.OLIVER: Sure, but you wrote this before you read Smith.TRALDI: Yes, absolutely.OLIVER: Or at least you fully conceived it. Do you see a lot of Smith in Austen?TRALDI: “A lot” might be—This was my favourite bit.TRALDI: Yes. But this is one of the great—I know we talked about this, but it's one of the great—you see this in Smith, you see this in Austen—commerce has its own virtues, and they are very traditional virtues. You have to be trustworthy. You have to be pleasant. You can't really be wholly self-interested in every moment because people have to be willing to deal with you given your—I mean, think about Yelp reviews or even just word of mouth. “Oh, that person screwed me over.”OLIVER: There's a discussion in one of Hayek's papers, which is—it's a very Smithian point he makes about, the nature of the knowledge problem means that it's not so much that I'm trying to get information about the thing you're trying to sell me, but I'm really trying to get information about you and whether you are someone I should be buying from. Which is exactly the project that the novelists and Smith—there's a sort of period between Smith and the early novelists, running through Austen to George Eliot, when they're all working on that problem together.TRALDI: Yes. I do think in Austen, it's often—the real puzzle is, how do you make out somebody else's character?OLIVER: Exactly.TRALDI: This is a phrase that Lizzy Bennet does use with regard to Darcy. And how do we actually figure out who the trustworthy and untrustworthy people are?OLIVER: And if you're too philosophical about that, in the sort of analytic sense, I think you can end up not paying enough attention to the particulars of that question.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Because when you actually try and do it, it's really, really hard.TRALDI: Yes. And I think this is the sort of—reading Austen, you get a sense of—and there are very few philosophy papers on things like this. Reading Austen, you get a sense of, what sorts of details in a normal life are the ones that I can extract information from to make out somebody else's character?Oliver is an analytical, political philosopher. You can find out more about his work here. Here he is on Twitter. His Substack is orting. You can watch the episode on YouTube here.TranscriptHENRY OLIVER: Today I am talking to Oliver Traldi. Oliver is an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Toledo in Ohio. He is my colleague on the Emerging Scholars Program at the Mercatus Center, and he's written a book about political beliefs as well as many other articles for magazines, online.He's got a Substack. He's maybe the most prominent political and epistemological young philosopher of his generation. [laughter] But most importantly for us, he is interested in Jane Austen and the idea of virtue. Oliver, welcome.OLIVER TRALDI: Thank you so much for having me.Reading Austen as a PhilosopherOLIVER: Let's just start—before we get to this article you've written, tell me about being a philosopher but reading Jane Austen, because she's often read and commented on by people who are not philosophers or who are only philosophers by acquaintance or whatever.TRALDI: Right.OLIVER: Is it different reading as a philosopher, do you think?TRALDI: I think yes and no. One thing as a philosopher, there are—contemporary philosophy, we have very exacting standards of rigor and clarity. And when we look for a theory, we want something that's been improved by hundreds of people and thousands of journal articles.And so, if you were to simply extract a theory of virtue from a novel and say, “Does this—is this the end-all, be-all of moral thinking?” obviously you're going to be disappointed. So I think as a philosopher, you have to look for other types of things, other types of sensitivities rather than logical sensitivity.You have to say, how sensitive is the author to the different types of situations where people's virtue can be exhibited or challenged? Or how sensitive is the author to the different types of pressures that a character's convictions can be put under, or the different sorts of compromises that they might have to make, or the different sorts of people who might not be virtuous who they might have to interact with and sort of, you know, contract with or avoid? And what are going to be the impacts of different kinds of choices in those situations?So the novelists, I think, tend—if they do it well, a novelist who's interested in morality will understand living morally probably better than a philosopher, while maybe not understanding, say, arguments about whether morality supervenes on reality or vice versa, or what grounds morality, or different theories of meta-ethics or whatever.OLIVER: I mean, there are obviously some novelists who do have a better appreciation of those things than others, we should say.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's absolutely true. And as I wrote in my article, I do think Austen in particular had an appreciation for this issue that you might call moral disarming or unilateral disarming. You know, does the moral person put themselves at a disadvantage relative to the immoral person? And then how do we actually help—how does morality survive?So that's a kind of philosophical question, but I tend to think—I taught last year—I think we've talked about this a bit. I taught in a great books program at Tulsa.OLIVER: This is the Jennifer Frey program.TRALDI: This is the ill-fated Jennifer Frey program. Jennifer—I don't know if you've met her, but she's an incredibly charismatic person. But somehow the program, despite being enormously successful, did not survive. You know, I was there for a year, and they decided that was long enough.OLIVER: [laughs] You don't think your arrival was the—TRALDI: No, no. I hope not. I most certainly hope not.OLIVER: No. General problems of higher education prevailed. Yes.TRALDI: Yes, many, many problems of higher education these days. But yes, so I think—what was I saying?OLIVER: Well, I think we're getting to this question of, you are not just a philosopher; you teach the great books.TRALDI: Right, exactly. The great books. That's where I was. Yes.Philosophy and the Great BooksOLIVER: So, one thing I'm interested in is that, you know, reading as a philosopher, you get a slightly different perspective on Austen. When you read other fiction, poetry, whatever, is there a benefit to you as a philosopher? Does it broaden you in some way?TRALDI: Yes. I think absolutely, it's broadening, but it's also focusing in a different way. You know, contemporary philosophy is often described or captured with the word epicycles. So what we mean when we say epicycles is, you have some major theory, which is supposed to answer some big question. And then your career as a philosopher—you're like three layers deep in the theory, in some sub-debate, and you're making some really fine-grained distinctions.And if you can make those distinctions successfully, you've had a really great career. But I think it's easy to forget, why are we doing—you know, what attracted us to philosophy? Why are we doing this to begin with?And the great novels, great books in general—one example I always use is the Book of Job. It doesn't really—it's not doing clear philosophy on the question of why do bad things happen to good people. But when you read it, you feel the question, why do bad things happen to good people? You get it, you know? You get why this is a question that people have worried about for thousands of years. You get why it calls out for an answer.You know, there's a lot of truth out there. I'm looking at a set of coat hangers, and I could count the coat hangers. But if you were given the decision, would I rather have an answer to how many coat hangers are across the room from me, or why do bad things happen to good people? You'd probably go with the latter one. There's somehow some kind of depth or importance to that question, right?And I think there's—a great novelist can often generate some vividity to these questions. They can show how these questions are part of a good life, asking these questions, trying to have these questions answered—or a not-so-good life.Certainly in Austen there are a lot of characters who learn to be more virtuous. Probably Emma is the clearest example. But you might also think of Marianne Dashwood. Really—OLIVER: Lizzy Bennet.TRALDI: Lizzy Bennet really learns to be a better person. I actually think her character is rather close to Emma in a lot of ways.OLIVER: Yes, I think Emma's sort of a clear rewrite of Lizzy in some—yes, yes.TRALDI: Yes, and in some ways more evocative, actually. Yes. I mean, we can talk about all these books. But yes, I think there's these things, even—obviously qua literature, they have other virtues, right? Which much philosophy doesn't have; very little philosophy has the literary virtues.But the philosophical virtue that a lot of literature does have is you see, okay, these are the—this is what a life is like. This is what making choices is like. These are the big questions when you decide how to live your life and what kinds of choices to make.And I think Austen—these questions are all through Austen, even though nobody has to murder anybody in Austen. Nobody has to make decisions about war and peace or about, you know, civilizational decline or civilizational progress or anything like that. These people making these small choices in a lot of ways. But those are the lives that most of us lead. And when you read Austen, you think, “Oh, okay, there's a virtuous and a vicious way to lead this kind of rather normal life.”The Good LifeOLIVER: The question of what is a good life, or what is a good life in a commercial society, maybe, is the sort of bedrock of what she's doing.TRALDI: Yes, I think so. And that's why I think Austen—you know, Austen wasn't on our syllabus at Tulsa, but she was certainly discussed. And the “what is a good life” question—to me, it's the big question that a great books program for college students should always come back to.If I didn't know what else to talk about, I would just say, “Well, we just read this book.” You know, we read these old biographies of Charlemagne from, like, Einhard—Notker the Stammerer and Einhard, his adopted son or whatever. I don't remember. But this is like 800s. I'm sure you know more about this stuff than I do.And I wasn't quite sure what to do with them because what do I know about Charlemagne? So I just said, “Does it seem like Charlemagne lived a good life?” And you know, you're off to the races. And I think that's important at that age, because that's the age at which—OLIVER: For the undergraduates?TRALDI: Yes. I think that's the age at which you're starting to make your own big decisions about what sort of life to lead. And I think for me, looking back to myself at that age, I think one thing I did wrong—at Tulsa I was in some ways as much a student as a teacher. I was rereading a lot of this stuff for the first time in decades. And some of it I was reading for the first time. As I told you, I was reading a lot of Austen for the first time for this essay.OLIVER: Right, right.TRALDI: And yes, it was stuff that I had thought about at a theoretical level, you know, like what are the ins and outs of this theory or this philosophical move or something like that. But you feel the question a bit differently when you're like, “Okay, I'm an adult. I have to decide whether to live in this way or that way.”The world is open to you. You could convert to Thomism [laughter] like so many have tried to have me do, or you could become a merchant after reading The Wealth of Nations. Or you could become a revolutionary after reading Marx, or you could become a Nietzschean. You know, there are all these choices open to you.OLIVER: Please don't become a Nietzchean.TRALDI: No, no. That is, I'm a—OLIVER: Keep your children out of school if that's going to be the result. [laughs]TRALDI: Yes. I'm a committed moralist, so I cannot, but he is—he made a comeback, that's for sure.Philosophy and PoetryOLIVER: Now, there's this obviously sort of long-running question in philosophy about, what is the relationship between philosophy and poetry? Are they antagonists, or are they in some way, you know, twins, and each provides one half of what is needed for a complete way of understanding the world? Do you have a position on this?TRALDI: Yes, I mean, I think they're what the kids call twinning.OLIVER: Twinning? [laughs]TRALDI: I think they're twinning. No, no, I think that means something different. I think that means when you're wearing the same outfit or something like that.OLIVER: So we're almost twinning with our stripes—yes, I see.TRALDI: We're almost. We actually—we are stripes and blue. Yes, we're closer than I would've expected.I would say closer to twins. There are a lot of claims that philosophy is at odds somehow with this or that. There's also this—certain people will say, “Well, ever since Socrates, philosophy has been at odds with politics.” And a big part of philosophy is, how do you survive? Well, I don't know. Nobody's trying to kill me. I think of myself as a decently committed philosopher.OLIVER: It seems to me this changed fundamentally in the Enlightenment and with the Romantics, and they see it all much more joined up. It's a sort of ancient-and-modern dynamic.TRALDI: Yes, there may be an ancient-and-modern distinction there. But yes, for me I don't see any kind of contradiction. Now, there are—and I think this comes out of what I said before—philosophical attempts to understand poetry. And certain kinds of literary and aesthetic devices do sometimes fall a little flat.The philosophical literature on metaphor, for instance—I think some theories of metaphor really don't get why people use metaphors. [laughter] So one of the most important theories of metaphor is that they're all just false, that it's like everybody who uses a metaphor is lying. This isn't the full theory. There are bells and whistles added.OLIVER: Sure, sure.TRALDI: But yes, so I think there's no contradiction. But at the same time, they are different modes in some ways, and people who do the one are often trying to do something different than the other.I do think that the desire for rigor and precision and clarity that philosophers have can be a little maddening to nonphilosophers, who see the pull of philosophical questions like, “What sort of life I should lead?” and then see, what do philosophers actually do?And we're doing all this modal logic and all these truth tables and all this very technical stuff that looks like math. And they say, “That can't possibly be the right way to think about how to live.” And it's true that there are these studies of—that suggest ethicists aren't actually very good people and things like that, although you have to wonder what is the background ethical theory that went into evaluating them.So yes, I don't think there's really a contradiction between philosophy and anything else. But certainly, there was a point in my life where I always come back to trying to write poetry and do poorly and then stop. But it was always something where I would say, “Okay, if I'm doing philosophy in the afternoon, I better wait till the evening to write poetry.” You have to sort of reboot and get into a different mode.OLIVER: Iris Murdoch used to write philosophy in the morning and novels in the afternoon. That kind of thing.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's very sensible.OLIVER: And she was upstairs for the one and downstairs for the other.TRALDI: Yes. That's even better, you know?Favorite PoetsOLIVER: Which poets do you like?TRALDI: Geez, I guess for an American, I like Wallace Stevens. I wasn't expecting this question. For a Brit, you know, I actually like Philip Larkin a lot.OLIVER: Oh, yes?TRALDI: I know—what is the opinion of Larkin? Is he considered—OLIVER: Very high.TRALDI: Very high? Okay.OLIVER: Some—there are some dissenters, but basically he's the guy.TRALDI: He's the guy, okay. Yes.OLIVER: Twentieth-century English poetry is like Auden, Larkin, Betjeman.TRALDI: Yes, Auden is—actually, my friend Jane Cooper just wrote something about Auden.OLIVER: Yes, Jane is excellent.TRALDI: Yes, Jane is really great.OLIVER: That was in the New Statesman if you want to look it up.TRALDI: That was in the New Statesman. Yes, yes, yes. But Auden, I don't know quite as well.I mean, poetry is—I think it's interesting the way that we receive poetry now. I think you were talking about this a few days ago, about things like poems appearing as inspirational quotes on social media or something like that, and whoever is the most quotable. And you felt like maybe Dostoevsky is very quotable.OLIVER: Dostoevsky has a sort of screenshot quality.TRALDI: Yes, yes.OLIVER: As does Martin Amis.TRALDI: Yes. So I—OLIVER: Whereas Philip Larkin in a funny way—you know, he has very short poems. You can get the whole poem on Twitter. Like, Robert Frost has that. But something like “The Whitsun Weddings,” it's quite hard to just take three lines out. The whole thing works as a—and that, so that poem gets less—TRALDI: Yes. Which is what you would expect from a good poem, really, that it would form a kind of whole.OLIVER: Exactly. If it's a three-page ode, it should have a continuous quality.TRALDI: Yes, it should have a kind of internal structure. Yes.OLIVER: There are some one-line things and—but I think it's notable that a poet like Wordsworth doesn't seem to get a lot of social media play. And I think probably that's one reason.TRALDI: So yes, I think Larkin is somebody who, I did see some shorter references to him, and I thought I'd better just go and look up a ton of poems by this guy. And Stevens was the same way.Death and Philip LarkinOLIVER: So, which Larkin do you like?TRALDI: You're really putting me on the spot here. [laughter] It has been a little while.OLIVER: I lied to you and said it would be about Jane Austen.TRALDI: Yes, now I'm completely screwed. Well, he has a bunch about death. He has one where death is a ship following you. And he has one where death is, like, a fruit that gets picked or something.OLIVER: Apple?TRALDI: Might be an apple.OLIVER: He decides not to throw the apple.TRALDI: There's one with sweetbreads in it. And now I'm really—OLIVER: The ship one, “Next, Please”—that's excellent.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: He sees the—it's like hearing the music coming, and then the ship.TRALDI: I forgot that that was the title. I forgot that that was the title.OLIVER: And then as the ship goes past, it leaves nothing in its wake. It's very sort of—very gloomy.TRALDI: It's very gloomy, yes. I think I read Larkin in a gloomy phase; it was like Larkin and Radiohead or something.OLIVER: But he's a good example of what you were saying before, that he won't think propositionally. He's logical in the sense that he's sort of orderly, and he goes from one thing to the next. But he's not being a philosopher.TRALDI: No, of course. Yes.OLIVER: But he's very preoccupied with the sorts of questions that philosophers are probing, but has a sort of very meaningful treatment of them.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: And I think in a way, the sharp response that you want from the reader in those questions, Larkin is better at provoking than someone like Bertrand Russell or some other contemporary of his.TRALDI: Yes, yes.OLIVER: Bertrand Russell's a bit earlier, but you know what I mean.TRALDI: No, I think that's exactly right. And I think that is why I'm a fan of the great books pedagogically and not—I don't know if Larkin will be called a great, you know, like, who knows? I don't really understand that designation, but tings like poetry and novels.OLIVER: The biggest dissenter was Harold Bloom, who said Philip Larkin's just a period piece. And he doesn't understand why everyone likes him.TRALDI: Oh, yes, well, I'm not on board with everything. Oh, I've also been—OLIVER: No, you're not very Bloomian.TRALDI: I'm not very Bloomian, I don't think.OLIVER: Either Allan or Harold.TRALDI: Yes. Well, I actually—this is very embarrassing, but I've actually never read The Closing of the American Mind, which I know is—OLIVER: But why should you? I'm not sure it's retained its—TRALDI: Well, it's certainly been received into my circle. But it is like a classic of anti-ideological—OLIVER: Sure. Have you read Adler, How to Read a Book, that kind of great books stuff?TRALDI: No. There's so many things that I haven't read. I mean, I'm just learning how to read. I learned how to read in Tulsa last year, [laughter] in Oklahoma, which is not where most people would go to learn how to read.Jane Austen and the Problem of MoralityOLIVER: So let's move to Jane Austen. Your thesis basically is, many moral theories face this problem that if I believe XYZ theory and you don't believe it, you can get the advantage of me. Because I'll always stick to my principles and you can just be a bad guy.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: So is morality screwed? This is what people say about liberalism. This is what you're arguing. And you think Jane Austen's got an answer to that?TRALDI: Yes, I think she has a kind of answer. And again, one decision I had to make while writing the essay was, am I going to go super—this is a completely philosophically rigorous and respectable answer? Or am I just going to kind of sketch it?OLIVER: Slum it in literary criticism? [laughter]TRALDI: Yes, I wouldn't put it quite that way, but—and I think I went for the latter, where I just wanted to kind of evoke the answer. And I think the answer has something to do with living in a large enough society where—and Austen I think is not the only person to give this answer. But you live in a large enough society where, when people see you acting well and somebody else acting poorly, the disadvantage that you have in that one interaction is outweighed by the advantages you have from the society that you gain from being seen to act well by many others.So one thing I didn't mention here, but a connection I made when I was first coming up with this idea, is that it's actually a lot like what Martin Luther King Jr. says about civil disobedience. So he says, you might think, if you're out there and the police are coming at you with bats, or the white supremacists are coming at you with bats or whatever, weapons or whatever, you might think, “I'm on the losing end of this interaction.”But actually what will happen is that this interaction will be seen by many others. And you, by keeping your calm, will be seen to be the virtuous one, and they, by being violent, will be seen to be the vicious ones. And this can only help your political cause. I'm probably abstracting some of the details of King's presentation.OLIVER: In a vulgar sense, this is the sort of “be the change you want to see” approach.TRALDI: Yes, but also, be the change you want other people to see. You know? Because that's how it gets saved from—and again, one of the ways in which this is not quite philosophically rigorous is because the philosopher can say, “Well, what about an example where nobody's going to see it? Or what about an example where the situation is set up that in doing the right thing, you're perceived to have done the wrong thing?” And you get back into tough problems. And that's why we have philosophy. You know, there's always going to be these puzzles.OLIVER: But we don't get the—I think this is what the novelists are helpful for. We don't get to set the conditions in our lives. You know, when you're doing a philosophical problem, you can just say, “Well, these are the conditions. What happens then?” And what Jane Austen is so good at is saying, “I'm going to take her and drop her in this house, and that's life. And she's just going to—she won't even know what the conditions are for a long time.” That's the novelist's preoccupation.TRALDI: Yes. Yes. It's interesting what you said about not even knowing what the conditions are. It's one thing I love, which is there in, I think, a lot of Austen—and it's done by a lot of my favorite novelists. I think Kazuo Ishiguro is really good at this. It's just novels where you see the characters' growing awareness of their circumstances and—OLIVER: Like in Klara and the Sun or something.TRALDI: Yes, or I think certainly in Never Let Me Go and in Remains of the Day, a lot of the action is in a situation where you understand what's going on better than the characters do.Clues and GamesTRALDI: And I think we talked about this the other day. In Austen, Emma, for example, is this sort of, like, halfway detective where she sees a lot of clues that could help her understand the nature of the life she's leading and the circumstances she's in, but she always misinterprets the clues. But on the other hand, it's not like she misses them entirely. She's kind of on the right track, and at least she's trying.OLIVER: And what I think Austen does so well in that book—I think it's her most important book—is that by putting us, without quite realizing it, with Emma's blinkers on, as it were, and only allowing our perspective to be her perspective, she makes us the detective.But whereas in a detective novel, you know, there's a funny little man and he is a detective, and he says, “Oh, there's a clue in this novel,” the read of—on the first read very often goes straight past what they must later realize to be a clue. And that is such a normal condition of life, that, “Oh, actually, that was one of the conditions, but you couldn't have known it. Sorry.” And you can only work it out in retrospect.TRALDI: Yes. In modern love, these are sometimes called red flags. [laughter] I think it's not quite a precise analogy, but yes, I think it's right. And I certainly—I had read Emma years ago and didn't really notice. As you say, on my first read, I didn't really notice, even having watched—I think it was the, what is it, the Kate Beckinsale version maybe, from ITV in like 1996 or something.It was really in reading it for this essay that I noticed that this feature that, starting on page 30 or 40 or so, there's a—and they're often in games. The clues are often in games. So very early on, Elton is playing some sort of poem game with Emma.OLIVER: The riddles, yes.TRALDI: The riddle game. And you know, Emma already misinterprets his riddles as being about Harriet rather than about her. But then there's also—the riddles also have some relation to things that happen much later.OLIVER: Then there's the anagram game at the end.TRALDI: There's the anagram game at the end. Yes, it's the—and I don't think there are many games like that in any of the other Austen.OLIVER: People play games, but we're not taken into them and have them narrated in that way.TRALDI: And they're not word games in general. There's card games and things like that. And you know, in Pride and Prejudice, Wickham has all these gambling debts and things like that.OLIVER: Yes.TRALDI: You know, in—I don't know if you know Whit Stillman, but for the same magazine a couple years ago I wrote about Whit Stillman, who's a sort of conservative filmmaker who's a huge Austen fan and brings in Austenian themes to a lot of his movies, but writes them about characters in the 1960s and '70s. And one of them was called The Last Days of Disco, for example, about—and some of the broader social themes he talks about are also there in Austen.So one thing that was just on the edges of my consciousness as I read through the novels for this essay was the question of the noble man versus the working man, which I think is very present in Austen and has something to do with her conception of virtue: that the virtuous person will be engaging in commerce in some way.OLIVER: Those moments of the noble and the virtuous man or whatever often take place in a shop, like the drapier in Emma or the jewelry shop in Sense and Sensibility.TRALDI: That's interesting. That's interesting.OLIVER: She's very careful to take us into a commercial situation and contrast.TRALDI: See, that is the sort of detail that I think a philosopher—I think we—the mere—the vibe of, “You're in a shop, and this means something.” I think this is something philosophers are—we can watch for the action; we can judge the characters' actions. But then there are these questions of atmosphere and milieu. And certain things happen in a shop; certain things happen at the seaside. In Persuasion there's an injury by the seaside.OLIVER: Yes. That's one of the most exciting scenes in Austen. Very dramatic.TRALDI: Yes, yes. I think actually Persuasion in some ways is quite different than her other books. It has a sort of—you know, in some ways it feels a little more like Frankenstein or Wuthering Heights at points. There's a little bit of a windblown, dark quality to it at times. It's a little bit bleaker. It's a little hard to explain why, but that's just a feeling that I had reading it that maybe had changed with some of the other literary tastes of the time.Artlessness in Austen's HeroinesOLIVER: Now, the quality that you focus on in the heroines, in this question of virtue defending itself against bad actors who break the rules, is artlessness.TRALDI: Yes. So this is a term Austen uses quite a bit, and almost always, she very much picks and chooses the characters who are going to receive this term. And I thought that this is like—it's not only her artless characters who face this question about how can morality survive, or how can virtue prevail, but I think they're the limit point.Like, if you really are unwilling to use—and I mentioned in the essay, when Darcy describes—I forget what; maybe it's him describing how he found Lydia and Wickham, or it's something to do with Wickham—he said, “I had to resort to arts.” So it must be, the “arts” back then means—one of the meanings of the term is dishonesty or subterfuge or something.OLIVER: Yes, if someone was artful, it could have—TRALDI: Yes, like the Artful Dodger.OLIVER: Exactly. Could have negative connotations for sure.TRALDI: Yes. And so the artless one, you know, they're missing something.So it's the question of, if you view—morality in a way means you're missing something, right? You've taken arts out of your arsenal. You've taken tools that could deal with certain situations, and you've just decided not to use them. So the question is, how can it be an advantage to have less tools?You know, we're here at Mercatus; the economists would tell you it's never advantageous to have fewer choices, right? There's no paradox of choice. It's never advantageous to have fewer choices. And so I think this is the—if morality is a kind of unilateral disarmament, artlessness is the clearest case of that.OLIVER: And you're seeing that in Fanny Price, Elinor—TRALDI: You see that in Fanny Price. You see that in Elinor. Harriet Smith is described as artless over and over again. And then there are these other characters who are described as artful, or other things that are mentioned as arts.I think Harriet, in a lot of ways, is the one who's most often described this way. And it's interesting because you think of Emma changing a lot in Emma, but Knightley actually shifts in his evaluation of Harriet, who he thought of as sort of an unserious person. And Knightley himself comes to recognize her artlessness as a kind of seriousness which makes her a good match, not ultimately for him, but for his dude, Robert.OLIVER: The farmer.TRALDI: The farmer, yes.OLIVER: He doesn't change his view of her social position, though.TRALDI: No, certainly not. But he does change his view of her character, basically. You know, her artlessness is not silliness. It has a sort of depth to it.And yes, certainly Fanny. In the Whit Stillman movie Metropolitan that's part of what set me on this, there's this whole discussion of the book Mansfield Park and this old Lionel Trilling essay about it where he says, how is it—there's this question about how modern people can even like Mansfield Park because we've sort of lost the notion of virtue being exciting or something.One of the most provocative lines to me in Austen was in Sense and Sensibility where it says that Elinor glories in Edward's integrity, which is an odd thing to glory in. You don't glory—nobody is on Instagram showing off their integrity, you know?OLIVER: It's like that René Gerard quote people like to pass around: “Everyone is on diet pills and nobody wants to be a saint.”TRALDI: I like that. That is very Instagrammable.OLIVER: Exactly. Exactly.TRALDI: That's very good, actually. I like that. Yes, so there's something provocative about the notion that virtue can be exciting, and in particular can be romantically exciting.The Importance of IntegrityOLIVER: Or even less than that. One thing I think is difficult for people interpreting Austen today is that virtue, whether it's exciting or romantically exciting, or the notion of integrity is of interest for its own sake.There's a lot of—you know, we have integrity as an organization. It's very important for me to have integrity as a professional. But there's not as much a sense of, just having integrity is the good life. We don't need to be complicated about this. That's just—you should just do that. And Austen's very firm on that all the way through.And criticism wants to pull her towards sometimes feminism, sometimes discussions of slavery, sometimes various other things. And she's just constantly sort of resisting that by saying, “I like integrity. I like good people. I don't think it's that hard.” It's a good line you've picked up on, I think.TRALDI: There's a character in The Wire who says, “A man's gotta have a code.” I think he's Omar, who murders the drug dealers and steals from them.OLIVER: I haven't seen it.TRALDI: So he says, “A man's gotta have a code.” And I think there is a—even in a character who in some ways is bad, we admire the integrity of having a code and sticking to it.There is this debate, I guess in moral philosophy, or at least on the outskirts of moral philosophy, about, “Well, if your code is wrong, maybe it's better not to stick to it.” I don't share that perspective. I think part of the good life is holding yourself to certain standards. And if those standards turn out to be wrong, the holding yourself is still of moral value, right? Not allowing yourself—OLIVER: It doesn't mean they're not adjustable.TRALDI: Yes, no, of course. If you decide the standards are wrong, and in Austen—OLIVER: It's sort of implicit in the idea of having standards that you will be honest and therefore accept when your standards need to be improved or whatever. Right?TRALDI: Yes, I think that's absolutely right. And in Austen we certainly see people shifting their standards. And I think one thing that I—of course, modern readers and watchers of Austen do not quite understand some of these things. But I think in Pride and Prejudice in particular, we're supposed to feel that Lizzy Bennet is quite hard on people and has to learn to improve herself in that way.OLIVER: We're delighted with her when she does that because we think it's sassy.TRALDI: Yes, exactly. If you go on YouTube, you can see all these, like, “Lizzy Bennet owning people's lives for 50 minutes,” these compilations of clips from the various movies or whatever. And she's obviously very, very clever.But she realizes—after coming to understand who Wickham is and feeling that she might not have another chance with Darcy, she comes to realize that she has had certain prejudices, which have made her blind to the realities of the world and blind to what might be her best options.So yes, I was saying I believe in integrity; that's all I was saying. And integrity obviously is adjustable, but I tend to think that it's better—even if the rule is wrong, it's better for the person who has it to hold themselves to it, rather than to adjust to try to get an advantage.And in philosophy, we have all sorts of terminology for these sorts of questions: “Are you an internalist or an externalist about reasons or about rules or whatever?” I think the more literary way to say it would just be that integrity is a virtue. And people should stick to their codes unless they see a good reason to change them.Austen and Adam SmithOLIVER: Now, you have recently been reading Adam Smith.TRALDI: Yes, I did read a lot of Adam Smith for this debate we had last week. Although I did a poor job because I had forgotten that the debate was about whether Smith was a philosopher or an economist. [laughter] I thought it was simply, is he a philosopher or not? So I put myself in the odd position of arguing that Adam Smith is not an economist.But yes, I think it's obvious—without knowing the background, I'm sure there are scholarly questions about, how much Smith did Austen read? And they're both 250th—a lot was happening in 1775 and 1776.OLIVER: Those were great years. Those were the good old days.TRALDI: They were great years. In the great books syllabus, you get to the end of the 1700s and suddenly there's this—you have Smith, you have Kant, you have the American Revolution, you have the French Revolution, you have Burke. Rousseau is right before, Montesquieu is right before. I mean, it was a real—OLIVER: It's a great time.TRALDI: It was a great time. A lot was being done. And obviously, you know, I love the 1800s. I love the Romantics. But you could teach a whole great books course from 1750 to 1800, probably.OLIVER: You've also got all the dictionaries and all that kind of work going on as well. It's a very, very fertile—explorations.TRALDI: Yes, yes. There's all sorts of—yes, it was an amazing time.OLIVER: So did you, having read these two, Austen and Smith, close together—TRALDI: Yes, and I should say that my reading of Austen was much more careful than my reading of Smith.OLIVER: Sure, but you wrote this before you read Smith.TRALDI: Yes, absolutely.OLIVER: Or at least you fully conceived it. Do you see a lot of Smith in Austen?TRALDI: “A lot” might be—OLIVER: Primarily from Theory of Moral Sentiments.TRALDI: So I would say that the notion of sympathy as being fundamentally part of how you recognize a good person seems to me to be there in Austen. The characters are—OLIVER: And this is the thing about awareness of other people and learning from that awareness.TRALDI: Awareness of other people and learning from other people and feeling other people's emotions. One thing that is related to sympathy in an odd way—and I think actually Austen and Smith conceive of it a bit differently, but that is there for both of them, in particular in Sense and Sensibility—is this notion of self-control or self-command.OLIVER: Self command. Yes. Yes.The Importance of Self-CommandTRALDI: Now, Smith gives a really odd argument about self command, which is that if you don't have control over your emotions, you will end up feeling or expressing something that other people can't sympathize with. And this is bad because sympathy is good, or something like that. I actually think it's a rather confused argument.OLIVER: I think what he's saying is that if you display a lack of self-command, then no matter what you are feeling, people find it difficult to deal with that sort of uncontrolled behavior. It's not the particular expression of feeling; it's the fact that you are a little unstable or—TRALDI: Yes, I think that's right.OLIVER: —a bit extra.TRALDI: I think what Smith doesn't do is explain quite how that's bad. But what I think is that actually, in Sense and Sensibility, it's a little bit the reverse, where actually Elinor and their mother, they do sympathize with Marianne. They do feel what she's feeling after—who's the other, the w guy in Sense and Sensibility? They're all w's.OLIVER: Oh, Willoughby.TRALDI: Willoughby, right, right. Not Wickham, Willoughby. When Willoughby—OLIVER: You can just say “the cad.”TRALDI: The cad. There's always a cad. So when the cad leaves, Marianne has all these emotions, and you really feel them. And Marianne also has a lack of self-command when Willoughby is there. There's this whole episode, which I didn't quite make the most of but felt very important, where they go to the house of this woman. They just sort of barge into this house, Willoughby and Marianne.And this is really supposed to show something about the relationship. If you and your partner barge into somebody's house, it can't be a good relationship somehow because it's leading you into bad actions. That's my sense of what that episode is supposed to show from the highest possible remove.OLIVER: I think, yes, and I think there are several other instances of that: when they ride in the carriage together, unaccompanied.TRALDI: Right, right.OLIVER: And there's a sort of general consternation about this. And Marianne sort of says, “Oh, well, how can it be a problem?” And they—part of the consternation is, you're breaking the rules in a very flagrant way, but also that you are assuming that it's okay because you'll get married. And this assumption is a very big one.TRALDI: Yes. And obviously there is this assumption that—she doesn't recognize quite how—she thinks her position is much more secure than it actually is, which is how it turns out in the book. But I think we're supposed to think that even if she were right about Willoughby's affection, which in a sense, she—Willoughby—OLIVER: No. Even if they do get married, she's broken the rules in a way that—TRALDI: She's broken certain rules in a way that is—but I think what's different from Smith is, there is sympathy from her family even though she lacks self-command. But that is precisely—so it's sort of a different theory of why self-command is good. It's precisely because her emotional state is actually draining for her family.And then Elinor says—when she learns that Elinor has actually been going through something—OLIVER: The same.TRALDI: —very similar, and maybe even rougher, in this whole thing with Lucy Steele telling her about this, you know, blah, blah, blah.OLIVER: Which is a beautiful name—to steal. I mean, it's great.TRALDI: It's an amazing—honestly, in some ways Sense and Sensibility may have been my favorite. I think it's just lovely.OLIVER: If I just wanted to just read one for fun, that's what I go to. I do, yes.TRALDI: Yes. And there's a lot—none of these things are quite perfectly in there. But I think honestly, everything that's in the other novels has a little part to play in Sense and Sensibility. You know, I think if I were to recommend just one, if somebody was like, “I have time for just one,” I might recommend Sense and Sensibility.But in the end, Marianne says—again, it's one of these amazingly evocative lines. Elinor says, “You didn't act that badly. Do you compare your conduct with Willoughby's?” And she says, “No, I compare it with—Elinor, I compare it with your conduct. You have this self-command.”And it's precisely the fact—it's not—and I think this is why philosophers do like Austen, because it's not—it's still literary, but there is a precision to her moral evaluations. It's precisely the fact that Elinor knew that her family loved her and didn't want to burden—it's all quite conscious. She didn't want to burden her family with her emotions. But you actually see that Elinor has this family trait of having very strong sentiment, which Marianne does, and simply also has this virtue of self-command.And that is—there are film adaptations and TV adaptations that demonstrate self-command, but it's a very hard thing to film. It's something you feel inside. It's a very hard—the actors have to be very good for you to see—you see pieces of it in some of the adaptations of Persuasion and some of the adaptations of Sense and Sensibility, but self-command is very hard to find.Austen AdaptationsOLIVER: Which adaptations do you like the best?TRALDI: I'm forgetting—I often like the long ones that I think were for the British ITV. So I like the—I think Kate Beckinsale was in the Emma one. Although I think there was one of Persuasion, which was also quite good. I like the one of Northanger Abbey. I don't think it's that good, but it's kind of cute, which I think it's probably the cutest of her long novels.Whit Stillman did a very loose adaptation of Lady Susan, which is hilariously funny at times, and also has Kate Beckinsale and some other great actors in it.OLIVER: Did you see the new Persuasion on Netflix a couple of years ago?TRALDI: No. No.OLIVER: It has that—is it Dakota Johnson, the actress, who's famous for other non-Austenian—Fifty Shades of Grey or whatever.TRALDI: Yes, and isn't she one of the Avengers or something like that?OLIVER: Something like that. But everyone was very upset that it was this terrible adaptation.TRALDI: Oh, yes.OLIVER: Didn't—it sort of killed all of Austen's words. She looks at the camera; she drinks from the bottle. I actually thought it was quite fun. On the basis that all adaptations are bad—TRALDI: I think if you allow some looseness, it can be quite fun. So for example, the 2005 Pride and Prejudice, I think if you're just sort of like, “Well, this is just somebody who was inspired by Pride and Prejudice,” you can have a lot of fun with the movie.OLIVER: I think as an interpretation of the book, that film is quite bad.TRALDI: Oh, yes. I think it's absolutely missing the mark.OLIVER: But in terms of like, the countryside and the house and the geese and the food, it's fantastic.TRALDI: Oh, yes. It's lovely to look at.OLIVER: The dresses, right? The clothes are amazing.TRALDI: And a lot of the—and the cast is honestly like—OLIVER: Yes, it's great.TRALDI: The cast is really, really great. And the parts as they are—OLIVER: Rosamund Pike is maybe the best Jane on TV.TRALDI: She's terrific. And who's the one who plays Kitty?OLIVER: Yes.TRALDI: Who is in—and the father is the guy from The Hunger Games. I forget his name, but I think the father is excellent in that. But of course, it's not exactly the father from Austen.OLIVER: No, no, no.TRALDI: But as a movie itself—but yes, I like a lot of these longer TV versions.One odd thing—they make these choices. So there is some scholarly apparatus brought to bear on some of them. So I think maybe it's Persuasion that there were multiple versions of, and some of the adaptations use pieces from the unpublished version, which are interesting. And as I was reading it, I had to Google around a bit and figure out these things.Austen's Moral PrecisionTRALDI: I was going to say about Austen's moral precision, the other place where I think this comes in—and I wrote a bit about this in the essay—is near the end of Mansfield Park, when—the names are what I'm worst at—when Edmund, right, is finally disillusioned with—OLIVER: Mary.TRALDI: With Mary Crawford?OLIVER: Mm-hmm.TRALDI: It's because there was this affair. There's always a sibling or a cousin who makes some horrible mistake, you know? So there was this affair, and Mary Crawford can only criticize it by saying that they weren't very prudent, you know, in prudential terms. They took a big risk. They made a bad decision. You know, they really screwed themselves over.OLIVER: They could have made it work. Yes.TRALDI: Yes. And Edmund realizes that she lacks moral fervor because he thinks the appropriate criticism should be a moral one. And as a psychological matter, it shouldn't even enter your head, I think is the idea. I'm extrapolating a bit, but if you see somebody acting this badly, to then say, “Well, geez, you're doing something that isn't in your interest”—for that to be your first thought indicates that your priorities are highly misplaced in a way that, to him, is quite unattractive.And this also struck me as a moment of—this is something we philosophers talk about. What is the distinction between prudence and morality? They both tell you what you should do, in some sense, but there's different—the shoulds have different forces, right? So Edmund has a certain moral precision and sensitivity which, actually, Fanny is basically the only person he knows—not that everybody in the house is a bad person; his father is a decent guy, and one of the aunts is okay, I think.But yes, there's a real sophistication to this evaluation. And it's funny to me that she actually used this as the—I mean, I suspect that even at the time there were readers who were just like, “Wait, I really don't get what the nature of Edmund's problem is here,” because it's not like Mary—Mary's not like, “Oh, yes, I support infidelity.” You know? She's not like— it's if you blinked, you might miss it, the mistake that Mary has made.And so I do think that even though she's not making arguments, she's not laying out philosophical theories, there is a level of precision in her thinking about virtue, which I do think is something that it took me a little aback.And I think it's part of why—one person who quote-tweeted my article was Daniel Kodsi, who's a friend of our colleague John Maier and his coauthor often. And he runs this magazine called The Philosophers' Magazine, which I had written before. And Daniel quote-tweeted my article with something like, “Add Oliver to the list of all the philosophers who love Austen.”OLIVER: And it's a long list.TRALDI: And I think it's a long list. And I do think this precision is part of it that she does, that it is—again, it's not like a philosophy journal article, but it is an intellectual sophistication that is often not present in novelists that we really appreciate.Every Word MattersOLIVER: I mean, one way people talk about the great books is to say that every word matters. And a lot of novelists will say that about their own. Well, you know, Elizabeth Bowen used to say, “What you're doing is to make everything count.” Austen is one of the examples where it's actually true. Every word is being used carefully.TRALDI: Yes. It's funny, this bears on another Twitter argument I had recently about this phrase logographic necessity. Basically, every word in a great book is there for a reason. I think that's right. Although you have to be careful about—if you were to say, “Well, every word in Plato is there for a reason, so you can't really say he's wrong about every—” you would be kind of abandoning the philosophical mission.OLIVER: I mean it in the sense of what you might call the artistic or structural integrity of the book. Not everything has to tell in the meaning sense. But it all holds as a unit for some—TRALDI: Yes. I think everything is there—there is what we could call an internal reason for everything to be there. Everything is there to hold together—OLIVER: Like the making of a piece of furniture or something.TRALDI: And I think you hear—I think this is one thing that—and not all classical music, but I think it's one thing that distinguishes classical music even from very good contemporary pop music or jazz or rock music, is that you have this sense of, “Yes, every note I hear basically is holding up a larger structure of some sort.”OLIVER: Yes. And Jane Austen is very Mozart in that way.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's right. Yes.Austen's Place in Great Books ProgramsOLIVER: So should Jane Austen have a bigger place on great books programs, based on all these things you've said about her?TRALDI: Yes, this is—so, there was actually a debate—I did not write the piece in response to this debate, but this is—OLIVER: Tanner Greer.TRALDI: Yes, there was—Tanner Greer weighed in on this, and my friend Circe. I think—OLIVER: I think they're just desperately wrong.TRALDI: You think they don't—that she—OLIVER: I think Emma is obviously a book that should be on one of these syllabuses. Maybe Sense and Sensibility.TRALDI: Yes. I think the ones I would consider are Emma, Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park. I do think they're actually longer than I realized, which is always—I mean, there are these very practical concerns with putting together a syllabus.OLIVER: Sure, sure. Although I want to ask you about that, because my response to a lot of these debates, which is maybe just because of where I studied, but just make them read more. And if they don't do the reading, that's their, you know—TRALDI: That's true. Well, I don't want to get into this too much. We already make them read a lot compared to—so for example, a year ago, I had my students read two novels in a week, which is more than most courses make college students read.OLIVER: But that's by no means unreasonable.TRALDI: No, no, of course, of course.OLIVER: You know.TRALDI: Well, exigencies of the teenage mind aside—OLIVER: Because I often think this, when people debate how things should be taught and why it's so important to keep these programs, and they'll talk about the importance of writing essays. And then it turns out the students maybe write one essay a semester. And I sort of think, well, who cares? All this rhetoric for one essay.TRALDI: Yes. I don't know if I'm really ever going to assign essays again. It just is—the age of AI is upon us.OLIVER: Sure. But you see what I mean.TRALDI: No, yes, I know exactly what you mean. And I do think reading a lot is the main part of—and certainly, you know, when I read all seven of these in two weeks, that's much more reading than I normally do, as well, to write this essay.OLIVER: But you didn't have to lie on the sofa afterwards with a cold compress. You were fine.TRALDI: In a way it was a really good two weeks. If you get to read—I mean, this is why we have good lives, right? If you get to read Jane Austen and you call that work, it's a nice life.OLIVER: So yes, will you be putting Emma on your program?TRALDI: I would definitely consider Emma. I would definitely consider Sense and Sensibility. I would consider Mansfield Park. I think these are the ones that have—the moral element is very prominent. But it's obviously there in all of her books.OLIVER: You can have a really good moral discussion about Mansfield Park, which is a bigger, broader thing than Pride and Prejudice, for example.TRALDI: Yes, I think so. I would definitely consider—in the 1800s there were—obviously the British novel of the 1800s was a big deal, and there's—OLIVER: [laughs] We did quite well, yes.TRALDI: You all did quite well. So the ones we did at Tulsa—we had Frankenstein and Wuthering Heights and The Picture of Dorian Gray. And then we had one Irish, The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. And I don't think anybody—if you replaced one of those with Emma or Mansfield Park, I don't think anybody would say, “Oh, you made a horrible call.”OLIVER: I think Tanner's point was that you simply don't have that many slots for an English novel that deals with these sorts of ideas, and that it should obviously be Middlemarch because that is the bigger novel. It's about bigger questions of society. It's about the whole—it's got more greatness in it, whereas Austen is sort of more about the individual.TRALDI: So I do think that this question of greatness—I think there are some people who read Austen and they think, “Well, this is—obviously it has all these sorts of themes, but it's not great. It has this littleness to it. It has this smallness to it.”OLIVER: It's domestic.TRALDI: That is not my reading of it. I think if that's the question, I don't feel that way. I think it pulls out these great themes about the nature of virtue and the nature of moral learning, becoming a better person, the nature of love. We read Sappho. We read the Symposium.To me, you read Wuthering Heights and you say, “Oh, this is a really big book because it's about society and how trauma gets passed down, and it has these horror elements, and it's very dark.” But actually, it's quite hard to figure out, how do we turn Wuthering Heights in a discussion about how to live? With Austen, it's just completely straightforward.OLIVER: [laughs] How not to live, maybe.TRALDI: Yes. In Austen, it's just completely straightforward. This is the discussion. This is what she had in mind as well, this question of how to live. So to me, Austen is completely—in terms of her successes as an artist, she belongs. In terms of her themes, she belongs. So I would not rule her out. I think she is absolutely a great, and who knows what that means, but I think she would be completely appropriate on any of these syllabi.Reading PlansOLIVER: Very good. And what will you read next?TRALDI: What will I read next? I mean, our—from the beginning, I'm thinking I should read some more poetry. It's been a while. Actually, speaking of—this is funny. Well, I want to get into William Empson. He had an odd life, which I think somebody should do like a movie about him or something.OLIVER: Yes, he'd make a great movie.TRALDI: I think Empson would be a good movie. So that might be—OLIVER: Are you going to read the poems or the criticism?TRALDI: Probably a little of both, but that's for a while from now. I think, you know, at the moment I'm back to reading philosophy. So what novel will I read next? That's a good question. What should I read next?OLIVER: If you like Jane Austen?TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Maybe read one of the people that she admired, like Samuel Richardson or Fanny Burney, someone like that.TRALDI: You know, I do think—you saying Samuel Richardson reminded me, I've read very little Samuel Johnson. I think reading some of the great critics, I think, writing this piece—OLIVER: Oh, Johnson, yes. You would like Johnson.TRALDI: I think I would like Johnson. I think I would like Empson. The history of literary criticism is something I have very, very little idea of.OLIVER: Oh, well, then, Johnson. I mean, he's the best.TRALDI: Yes, I think I should, I should definitely read Johnson.OLIVER: English literary criticism begins and ends with Samuel Johnson.TRALDI: You know what, this is a little different, but—I might have talked about this with you a little bit—I want to read The Fable of the Bees, Mandeville, because reading about Smith—a lot of the ideas that we think of as Smithian are actually Mandevillian, and he kind of moderated them.OLIVER: Well, he hated Mandeville.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Very hard on him.TRALDI: Yes. So a lot—like the invisible hand, it's only a small part of Smith's thinking, but it was like the entirety of Mandeville's thinking, this sort of dynamic.OLIVER: Well, I think it means different things for them. I think Mandeville, in a funny way, is more philosophical in the sense you were saying, and trying to make these propositions. And Smith was saying, “Well, what about feelings? What about all these funny things that we can't account for? Like, look around. It's too messy.”TRALDI: No, that makes sense to me. Yes, I think between Mandeville and Smith, Mandeville is somebody who thought virtue was sort of like a con.OLIVER: A fool's game.TRALDI: Exactly. You're sort of a sucker if you try to be virtuous.OLIVER: I think he also just assumed that if you were commercial, you were obviously on the get.TRALDI: Yes. But this is one of the great—I know we talked about this, but it's one of the great—you see this in Smith, you see this in Austen—commerce has its own virtues, and they are very traditional virtues. You have to be trustworthy. You have to be pleasant. You can't really be wholly self-interested in every moment because people have to be willing to deal with you given your—I mean, think about Yelp reviews or even just word of mouth. “Oh, that person screwed me over.”OLIVER: There's a discussion in one of Hayek's papers, which is—it's a very Smithian point he makes about, the nature of the knowledge problem means that it's not so much that I'm trying to get information about the thing you're trying to sell me, but I'm really trying to get information about you and whether you are someone I should be buying from. Which is exactly the project that the novelists and Smith—there's a sort of period between Smith and the early novelists, running through Austen to George Eliot, when they're all working on that problem together.TRALDI: Yes. I do think in Austen, it's often—the real puzzle is, how do you make out somebody else's character?OLIVER: Exactly.TRALDI: This is a phrase that Lizzy Bennet does use with regard to Darcy. And how do we actually figure out who the trustworthy and untrustworthy people are?OLIVER: And if you're too philosophical about that, in the sort of analytic sense, I think you can end up not paying enough attention to the particulars of that question.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Because when you actually try and do it, it's really, really hard.TRALDI: Yes. And I think this is the sort of—reading Austen, you get a sense of—and there are very few philosophy papers on things like this. Reading Austen, you get a sense of, what sorts of details in a normal life are the ones that I can extract information from to make out somebody else's character?In philosophy, we do ask, what is a good character and what is the good action in this sort of situation? What is the bad action in this sort of situation? But it's not for the philosopher to say, “Okay, in the sorts of situations you're likely to be in, what do you pay—where do you direct your attention to try to figure out these things about?”And it's not—I don't think Austen—it's not super subtle either. In Persuasion—I mentioned in the essay—in Persuasion, it starts out by saying Anne really cared about paying off the family's debts, and the rest of her family didn't give a s**t, you know? And it's sort of like, okay, so we just immediately are like, Anne's the sort of person who you might want to have a business transaction with because if she has a debt to you, she might actually pay it. And I forget if that's the exact detail, but it's something like that, you know?OLIVER: And there's also the novelist—Jane Austen is very good at what you don't see, which aga

Réconcilier la France et l'Algérie par l'économie et le « doux commerce » cher au penseur français Montesquieu... C'est le pari de Patrick Martin, le chef du patronat français (Medef), qui rentre d'un séjour à Alger, où il a été reçu notamment par deux ministres. Sur RFI, le président du Medef s'exprime aussi sur les opérateurs chinois en Afrique, qui, selon lui, « sont des prédateurs et travaillent à perte ». Et il lance un appel contre « la sauvagerie » de la nouvelle guerre des droits de douane. Le « patron des patrons » français répond aux questions de Christophe Boisbouvier. RFI : Vous rentrez d'Algérie où vous avez passé quatre jours et où vous avez été plutôt discret. Peut-être parce qu'il ne faut surtout pas dire des mots qui fâchent ? Patrick Martin : Je ne pense pas avoir été discret parce que les médias algériens, par exemple, ont assez largement couvert ce déplacement. Mais je crois avoir, en répondant à l'invitation de mon homologue algérien du Crea (Conseil du renouveau économique algérien), contribué quand même à ce que les relations importantes et historiques entre la France et l'Algérie se stabilisent. Depuis la brouille de 2024, l'Algérie importe beaucoup moins de produits français : par exemple des céréales, des bovins. Est-ce que ces exportations françaises vont reprendre après votre visite à Alger ? Je l'espère en tout cas. Enfin, il ne faut pas non plus exagérer. La France reste par exemple le deuxième investisseur étranger en Algérie. Moi, j'ai vu de très belles entreprises françaises implantées là-bas, souvent dirigées par des binationaux d'ailleurs. Donc, oui, il y a une baisse de nos exportations. D'autres prennent nos places. D'ailleurs, je pense à l'Italie. Mais c'est vrai également des Allemands, c'est vrai des Turcs. Donc, il faut qu'on y soit attentif parce que c'est un pays qui a un réel potentiel. Il y a un marché intérieur qui est important avec bientôt 47 millions d'habitants. Je le redis, il y a de très belles entreprises. Après, il y a un certain nombre de sujets sur lesquels il y a des interférences étatiques. On souhaite évidemment qu'elles se règlent. Après le ministre de l'Intérieur, Laurent Nuñez, voici le patron du Medef, Patrick Martin. Est-ce à dire que la France et l'Algérie se réconcilient grâce à la sécurité et grâce à l'économie ?   À nouveau, moi, je crois beaucoup à ma place, à la diplomatie économique. C'est ce qui m'avait valu, par exemple, de me rendre en Chine l'année dernière avec le ministre des Affaires étrangères, pour contribuer à régler le problème très sensible de nos exportations de Cognac et d'Armagnac. C'est dans cet esprit également qu'il y a quelques années, on avait contribué à ce que la relation entre l'Italie et la France, qui s'était momentanément dégradée sur le plan diplomatique, se ressoude ou se consolide. J'étais allé également au Maroc à plusieurs reprises au premier semestre 2024, et je crois pouvoir dire qu'avec nos homologues du patronat marocain, on avait aidé à ce que la relation étatique se consolide également. Voilà, sans présumer de nos forces et de notre influence, je crois que cette diplomatie économique est importante dans les relations internationales. Vous êtes le ministre bis des Affaires étrangères ? Certainement pas. Moi, je pense que l'économie est suffisamment importante pour se suffire à elle-même. L'autre actualité économique, c'est le sommet Afrique-France de Nairobi, qui va s'ouvrir dans quelques jours au Kenya, avec notamment un grand forum d'hommes d'affaires où sont attendus 2 000 participants africains et français. Est-ce à dire que la France des chefs d'entreprises tourne le dos à l'Afrique francophone au profit des pays anglophones ? Non, certainement pas. Je voudrais rappeler que, par exemple, le Medef a pris l'initiative, il y a cinq ans, de créer l'Alliance des patronats francophones, qui est une logique d'affaires en parallèle de ce qui peut exister sur le plan politique et culturel de longue date. Mais dans le grand rebattage des cartes du commerce mondial, on se doit de s'intéresser à toutes sortes de pays qui, francophones ou non, sont demandeurs. Est-ce que quelquefois les opérateurs français ne sont pas un peu plus timides que leurs concurrents chinois ou turcs dans certains pays africains ? Je pense que les entreprises françaises ont une qualité - et c'est peut-être vrai des Français d'une manière générale - lorsqu'ils sont installés quelque part c'est d'y être pour longtemps. Moi, il ne m'a pas échappé qu'en particulier les Chinois étaient très offensifs dans certains secteurs d'activité. J'entends tout autant qu'ils peuvent partir aussi vite qu'ils sont arrivés. Les Chinois sont très offensifs parce qu'ils sont très prédateurs, très agressifs sur le plan tarifaire. On est à peu près convaincu que dans un certain nombre de cas, sur un certain nombre de gros marchés, ils travaillent à perte et ça s'inscrit probablement dans une stratégie étatique d'influence. Dans quels secteurs par exemple ? Dans le secteur des infrastructures. Ils construisent des stades, des routes, des ponts en perdant de l'argent ? En tous cas, on a du mal à comprendre comment ils peuvent gagner de l'argent au niveau des prix auxquels ils prennent un certain nombre d'affaires. En marge du G7 qui se tiendra cette année en France, le Medef va organiser ce 11 juin un B7, un sommet du business, « B » comme business, entre les patronats des sept pays occidentaux les plus riches. Quelles peuvent être les retombées pour l'Afrique ? Les retombées pour l'Afrique, elles sont indirectes d'une certaine manière. Nous, notre enjeu, qui est totalement partagé par mes sept homologues patronaux des États-Unis, d'Allemagne, de Grande-Bretagne, du Japon, d'Allemagne, d'Italie, c'est qu'on rétablisse des règles dans les relations économiques et commerciales, parce que ce qui se passe actuellement, c'est une forme de sauvagerie qui s'introduit dans les relations commerciales. À quoi pensez-vous ? Je pense aux droits de douane. Or, nous avons besoin du commerce international, nous avons besoin d'accords de libre-échange raisonnés, raisonnables. Sans quoi, pour imager mon propos, les 20 % de salariés français qui travaillent grâce aux exportations pourraient voir leurs emplois menacés. Donc, voilà, nous, les sept patronats que je viens d'évoquer, nous sommes très demandeurs et nous allons dire à nos pouvoirs publics, à nos gouvernements, qu'il faut rétablir des règles. Ça pourra profiter aussi aux entrepreneurs américains ? Mais bien sûr, eux même sont quand même perturbés. Je n'irai pas au-delà, mais ils sont quand même perturbés par les volte-face que leur propre administration crée dans les relations internationales.

Une enquête de l'IFOP de mars 2026 le montre clairement : 46 % des Français placent la liberté en tête de la devise républicaine, 35 % l'égalité… et seulement 19 % la fraternité. Autrement dit, plus le monde devient incertain, plus nous valorisons ce qui nous protège individuellement, et moins nous choisissons ce qui nous relie. Article de la revue Acropolis d'avril 2026, par Thierry Adda, philosophe, Président de Nouvelle Acropole France.Abonnez-vous gratuitement à notre newsletter philosophique :www.revue-acropolis.comSaviez-vous que Nouvelle Acropole est réalisée à 100% par des bénévoles ? Nous dépendons donc beaucoup de nos étudiants et amis pour la divulgation !   N'oubliez pas de vous abonner à la chaîne et si possible de la partager sur vos réseaux sociaux.   Ce sera d'une grande aide !

In this episode, William Green talks with Matthew McLennan, who oversees about $130 billion at First Eagle Investments. Matt is head of the firm's Global Value team & a portfolio manager of its Global Value, Global Equity, International Value, International Equity & US Value strategies. Here, he explores how to build resilient wealth by patiently holding a “non-uniform” portfolio of scarce assets that should endure & prosper even in difficult conditions. This episode provides a time-tested survival strategy for investors looking to navigate this period of extreme uncertainty. IN THIS EPISODE YOU'LL LEARN: 00:00:00 - Intro00:02:14 - Why Matthew McLennan thinks investors should prepare for turmoil.00:17:43 - How to construct a resilient portfolio by thinking like a gardener.00:19:38 - Why Matt loves businesses with scarce assets in mundane industries.00:23:02 - Why survival is the key to investment success.00:23:33 - How cash & gold provide a ballast in the event of unexpected storms.00:26:28 - Why he's wary of a highly concentrated investment strategy.00:51:07 - How patience has become a powerful edge in a hyperactive world.00:57:17 - How to build long-term success by focusing on process, not rewards.01:05:28 - How to think better by harnessing our right-brain capabilities.01:23:05 - Why “what's hot today” is likely to produce terrible investment returns.01:25:10 - How studying wine & playing backgammon help him as an investor.01:29:04 - Why he favors a team-based approach, instead of being a lone wolf. Disclaimer: Slight discrepancies in the timestamps may occur due to podcast platform differences. BOOKS AND RESOURCES Join the exclusive ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TIP Mastermind Community⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn how to join us in Omaha for the Berkshire meeting ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Inquire about William Green's ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Richer, Wiser, Happier Masterclass⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Thucydides' book, History of the Peloponnesian War. Daniel Yergin's book, The Prize. John Cochrane's book, The Fiscal Theory of the Price Level. Peter Matthiessen's book, The Snow Leopard. Iain McGilchrist's book, The Matter with Things. David Galenson's book, Old Masters and Young Geniuses. Charles de Montesquieu's book, The Spirit of the Laws. Stephen Wolfram's book, A New Kind of Science. Winston Churchill's book, My Early Life. William Green's book, Richer, Wiser, Happier. Follow William Green on X. Related ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠books⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ mentioned in the podcast. Ad-free episodes on our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Premium Feed⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. NEW TO THE SHOW? Get smarter about valuing businesses through ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Intrinsic Value Newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Check out our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠We Study Billionaires Starter Packs⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Follow our official social media accounts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠X⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Try our tool for picking stock winners and managing our portfolios: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TIP Finance⁠. Enjoy exclusive perks from our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠favorite Apps and Services⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn how to better start, manage, and grow your business with the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠best business podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. SPONSORS Support our free podcast by supporting our sponsors: HardBlock Human Rights Foundation Plus500 Shopify Netsuite Vanta References to any third-party products, services, or advertisers do not constitute endorsements, and The Investor's Podcast Network is not responsible for any claims made by them. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://theinvestorspodcastnetwork.supportingcast.fm

In this episode from 2024, Alex speaks with Bryce Tingle about corporations, how these unique legal entities are governed, how changes we have made to corporate governance has discouraged companies from joining Canada's public markets, and how the decline in our public market is hurting Canadians. 

 Episode Notes: 1. Bryce's article “Returning Markets To The Centre Of Corporate Law” https://jcl.law.uiowa.edu/sites/jcl.law.uiowa.edu/files/2023-09/Tingle_Final.pdf  2. Bryce's profile at UofCalgary https://profiles.ucalgary.ca/bryce-tingle  3. Jensen and Meckley's “The Theory Of The Firm” https://www.sfu.ca/~wainwrig/Econ400/jensen-meckling.pdf  4. Introduction to Douglass North's theory of Institutions: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40803-016-0028-8  5. Summary of Montesquieu's “Doux Commerce” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doux_commerce  6. Mill on Trade As a Social Act: https://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/five.html  7. The Voltaire quote referenced regarding the London Stock Exchange: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7351337-go-into-the-london-stock-exchange-a-more-respectable 

En av hans böcker beskrevs som skriven av djävulen själv i helvetet. Henrik Lagerlund reflekterar över Baruch Spinoza och upplysningen som kom bort. Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radios app. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna.Den historiska företeelse som går under namnet Upplysningen står i centrum för samtidens kulturkrig. Enligt gängse beskrivning var den en intellektuell rörelse under 1700-talet som satte förnuft, vetenskap och individuell frihet i centrum. Den utmanade religiös dogmatism, absolutism och traditionella auktoriteter. Upplysningen är även starkt förknippad med filosofiska idéer om rationalitet, empirisk kunskap och mänskliga rättigheter, tankar associerade med tidens giganter som Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu och Kant. I vår tid finner man många seriösa och oseriösa förespråkare för upplysningsidealen som inte bara de historiskt rätta utan också de som är mest lämpade för att möta framtiden. Alltså en politisk fråga. Princetonpsykologen Steven Pinker kan nämnas som en av de mest högljudda förespråkarna för denna uppfattning.Men för att reda ut om Upplysningen är en gångbar politiskt idé bör vi först reda ut den historiska frågan: Vad var egentligen Upplysningen – bortom schablonerna?Ingen har gjort ett mer seriöst försök att besvara denna fråga än den brittiske filosofihistorikern Jonathan Israel. I tre enorma böcker har han analyserat inte bara Upplysningens verkliga innehåll, utan också dess framväxt. Och han argumenterar först för en viktig distinktion, två sorters upplysningar om man så vill. Den viktigaste är den radikala upplysningen som tar sin början med Spinoza omkring 1650 och den andra är den moderata upplysning som främst representeras av tänkare som John Locke och Immanuel Kant. Om den radikala upplysningen är ett ideal är den moderata upplysningen något som strävar efter genomslag och till att reformera stat och kyrka. Den innebar att den senare inte föreslog förändringar som motsade de grundläggande principerna bakom monarkin, aristokratin och kyrkan. Det betydde att den till exempel accepterade slaveriet och kolonialismen. Det är denna upplysning som är främst representerad inom litteraturen före den franska revolutionen.Den radikala upplysningen hade fram till dess främst verkat i skymundan. Den förkastade all religion och förespråkade demokrati i motsatts till monarkin och aristokratin, samtidigt som den insisterade på alla människors lika rättigheter och en världsbild baserad på modern vetenskap. Även så kända författare som Denis Diderot, Baron d'Holbach, Claude Adrien Helvétius fick hålla dessa sina åsikter delvis hemliga för myndigheterna och kyrkan. Och den stora inspirationskällan för denna radikala filosofi var alltså en judiskfödd linsslipare i Nederländerna som dog bara 44 år gammal: Baruch Spinoza.Hur radikalt den radikale tänkarens direkta inflytande över upplysningsfilosoferna var, visar Joahnim Israel i ännu en tegelsten: ”Spinoza: Life and Legacy” från 2023.När Spinoza dog 1677 var de flesta av hans skrifter otryckta, några få hade publicerats anonymt. Det var ett medvetet beslut på grund av deras tydliga ateistiska inslag, men efter hans död tog hans vänner i smyg initiativet till en samlad publicering. Samtidigt lanserade inkvisitionen med den holländske katoliken Johannes van Neercassel i spetsen ett försök att samla in och kväsa hela Spinozas litterära kvarlåtenskap. Inkvisitorn besökte även Spinozas förläggare i Amsterdam, men han lyckades lura van Neercassel. När utgåvan med efterlämnade skrifter tryckts fick den smugglas ut. Så nära var det att den radikala Upplysningen aldrig blev av.Bland skrifterna fanns Etiken, Spinozas viktigaste och mest inflytelserika verk. Det är en radikal och ytterst originell kritik av traditionell filosofi och teologi. Han avser att bevisa, bokstavligt talat härleda från uppenbara premisser, en ny syn på Gud, människan och universum. Trots att boken genomsyras av metafysik, fysik, antropologi och psykologi är syftet främst etiskt. Det består i att visa att vår lycka och vårt välbefinnande inte ligger i ett liv som är förslavat av de passioner och förgängliga ägodelar vi vanligtvis eftersträvar. Det består heller inte i det oreflekterade och dogmatiska förhållningssätt med vilket vi accepterar de vidskepelser som passerar för religion, utan snarare i ett liv i enlighet med förnuftet. För att klargöra och stödja dessa etiska slutsatser måste han dock först avmystifiera universum och visa vad det verkligen är för något.En av hans teser är att Gud är detsamma som naturen och att det endast finns en substans. Allt som existerar är modifieringar av denna enda substans. Det gäller också oss själva och våra medvetanden. Genom att förstå universum kan vi komma att förstå oss själva och eftersom vi inte helt kan kontrollera våra känslor bör vi istället försöka moderera dem. Vi är i grund och botten en del av naturen och kan aldrig helt avlägsna oss från den kausala serie som länkar oss till yttre ting. Vi kan dock motverka passionerna och uppnå en viss grad av lättnad från deras kaos. Det leder till ett lugn och en sorts lycka, men främst ett liv i enlighet med förnuftet.Det tydligaste upplysningstänkandet hos Spinoza finns dock i skriften Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, som publicerades anonymt 1670. En kritiker beskrev det som en bok “som skrivits av djävulen själv i helvetet”. Här förespråkas både individuell frihet och religionsfrihet, demokrati och tolerans, men Spinozas egentliga avsikt var att avslöja sanningen om de heliga skrifterna och därigenom underminera den politiska makt som utövades i den modern staten av religiösa auktoriteter.Men det var inte bara teologer och religösa auktoriteter som kritiserade Spinoza utan det gjorde även kända filosofer, även om den också hade sina försvarare. Israel visar att den engelska översättningen av Tractatus spelade en betydande roll i att formulera de idéer om separationen mellan kyrka och stat samt tankarna på den sekulära staten som låg bakom den så kallade “glorious revolution” i England 1688.Så, vad är det för fel med detta? Spinoza låter väl som en rebell i samtidens smak, en fritänkare i opposition mot grumliga auktoriteter. Är inte detta en filosofi för framtiden?Felet är att det inte är Spinozas radikala upplysning som överlevt, utan den moderata versionen – även om makten har växlats från kyrka och monarki till kapital, så är det en upplysning med förbehåll som påverkat utvecklingen. En där rasism och kolonialism har kunnat frodas. Och mer filosofiskt relevant: En där människan som subjekt frigjorts från naturen som objekt. Därför står vetenskapen och filosofin mållös inför framtidens utmaningar. Vad vi behöver är något av Spinozas panteism – en lära som sammanbinder människan med naturen, som får oss att på ett harmoniskt sätt leva i enlighet med den, istället för i opposition mot den. Det vore verklig upplysning.Henrik Lagerlundfilosof och författareLitteraturJonathan Israel:Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650-1750. Oxford University Press, 2001.Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity and the Emancipation of Man 1650-1750. Enlightenment Contested, 2001.Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy, Revolution and Human Rights 1750-1790. Enlightenment Contested, 2011.

Nombre de juristes et de commentateurs critiquent régulièrement les lois prises sous le coup de l'émotion suscitée par le retentissement médiatique de certaines affaires criminelles. Ils les caricaturent parfois par cette expression « un fait divers = une loi » et considèrent qu'elle est en parfaite contradiction avec cette pensée très juste de Montesquieu selon laquelle « il ne faut toucher aux lois que d'une main tremblante ». Il est pourtant indéniable que certaines grandes affaires pénales exercent parfois une influence très directe sur l'évolution de notre droit, qu'il s'agisse du droit pénal ou de la procédure pénale. L'ampleur de la couverture médiatique, l'horreur des faits, leurs conséquences politiques ont interpellés nos gouvernants et les ont conduits à agir. Comment ces grandes affaires pénales ont-elles modifié notre droit ? Quelles sont-elles ? Quelle peut-être leur influence réelle ? Est-ce de nature à répondre à certains dysfonctionnements ou difficultés de notre système judiciaire et à favoriser les nécessaires évolutions sociétales ? L'influence de ces grandes affaires répond-elle à cette nécessité citée par Maîtres Vouland et Bonnifay, avocats : « quand la justice vacille, le droit se réinvente ? » Ce podcast est inspiré par l'ouvrage collectif « l'influence des grandes affaires criminelles sur le droit » édité par Lefebvre Dalloz, dans lequel sont évoquées notamment les affaires du petit Grégory, Michel Fourniret, Cahuzac, Outreau, ou encore le procès de Bobigny, le naufrage de l'Erika ou les attaques terroristes djihadistes, Sarah Halimi … un ouvrage très riche donc Et nous recevons pour en parler Francis Nachbar, qui nous fait une nouvelle fois l'amitié de participer aux podcasts de l'ISP

Carmen Iglesias es una de las intelectuales más importantes de este país. Está considerada una de las voces más influyentes en el estudio de la Ilustración y de autores como Montesquieu, Rousseau o Comte. Tutora de la infanta Cristina y profesora de Historia del entonces príncipe de Asturias y hoy rey Felipe VI, en 2014 se convirtió en la primera mujer en dirigir la Real Academia de la Historia. Además, es académica de número de la Real Academia Española (RAE) desde el año 2000, donde ocupa el sillón E.

För många historieintresserade är 1700-talet nära förknippat med den europeiska upplysningstiden. Det var då, menar många, som människor började vända vidskepelse och okunnighet ryggen och i stället sätta sin tro till förnuft, vetenskap och framtidstro. Upplysningens centrala gestalter – tänkare som Montesquieu, Voltaire och Rousseau – har därför blivit självklara inslag i den historiska allmänbildningen.Men vad var egentligen upplysningen? Här går meningarna isär. Vissa forskare betraktar den som en i huvudsak fransk elitkultur, förankrad i Paris salonger och utan djupare folklig påverkan. Andra ser upplysningen som en bred intellektuell rörelse som genomsyrade hela Europa, med inflytande långt utanför aristokratin – inte minst i borgerliga kretsar i England, Sverige och andra delar av kontinenten.Begreppet upplysning omfattar dessutom en rad samtidiga fenomen: religionskritik och begynnande sekularisering, jordbruksreformer, liberalismens första uttryck, den vetenskapliga revolutionen, naturvetenskapliga upptäckter, politiska idéer om maktdelning och samhällsomvandling – från reformistiska envåldshärskare till utopiska socialister – samt en stark vilja att sprida kunskap, bildning och folkbildning.I detta avsnitt av Harrisons dramatiska historia samtalar historikern Dick Harrison och fackboksförfattaren Katarina Harrison Lindbergh om upplysningstidens komplexitet och mångfacetterade arv – en idérevolution som fortfarande präglar vårt samhälle.Bildtext: Les salons au XVIIIe siècle, målad av Anicet Charles Gabriel Lemonnier, visar en litterär salong i upplysningstidens Frankrike där intellektuella och aristokrater samlas för samtal och idéutbyte. Salongerna spelade en central roll i spridningen av upplysningsidéer och formandet av den offentliga opinionen under 1700-talet. Wikipedia (Public Domain).Klippare: Emanuel Lehtonen Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Carmen Iglesias es una de las intelectuales más importantes de este país. Está considerada una de las voces más influyentes en el estudio de la Ilustración y de autores como Montesquieu, Rousseau o Comte. Tutora de la infanta Cristina y profesora de Historia del entonces príncipe de Asturias y hoy rey Felipe VI, en 2014 se convirtió en la primera mujer en dirigir la Real Academia de la Historia. Además, es académica de número de la Real Academia Española (RAE) desde el año 2000, donde ocupa el sillón E.

Vendredi 13 février marque la Journée mondiale de la radio. Souvent annoncée comme dépassée, elle demeure pourtant un média puissant et accessible, diffusé en continu sur RCF et Radio Notre Dame. Par sa proximité et sa simplicité, la radio informe, accompagne et crée du lien au quotidien. À l'ère du numérique, elle conserve un rôle essentiel dans le paysage médiatique. Avec : - Sébastien Poulain, docteur en science de l'information et de la communication, chercheur associé au laboratoire Mica de l'Université Bordeaux Montaigne- Pierre-Hugues Dubois, présentateur de la matinale- Clara Bevilacqua, journaliste de la matinale- Etienne Pépin, rédacteur en chef de RCF et Radio Notre Dame- Marie-Ange de Montesquieu, présentatrice de l'émission En quête de sensRetrouvez tous nos contenus, articles et épisodes sur rcf.frSi vous avez apprécié cet épisode, participez à sa production en soutenant RCF.Vous pouvez également laisser un commentaire ou une note afin de nous aider à le faire rayonner sur la plateforme.Retrouvez d'autres contenus d'économie et société ci-dessous :Silence, on crie : https://audmns.com/jqOozgUOù va la vie ? La bioéthique en podcast : https://audmns.com/UuYCdISContre courant : https://audmns.com/swImDAMAu bonheur des herbes : https://audmns.com/XPVizmQSacré patrimoine : https://audmns.com/TNJhOETEnfin, n'hésitez pas à vous abonner pour ne manquer aucun nouvel épisode.À bientôt à l'écoute de RCF sur les ondes ou sur rcf.fr !Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

durée : 00:59:10 - Avec philosophie - par : Géraldine Muhlmann, Nassim El Kabli, Antoine Ravon - Hannah Arendt est convaincue que le nazisme et certaines périodes du stalinisme ont dessiné un tout nouveau type de régime politique : le totalitarisme. Afin de le penser, elle part de la classification des régimes proposée par Montesquieu au 18ᵉ siècle pour inventer de nouveaux concepts. - réalisation : Nicolas Berger - invités : Martine Leibovici maîtresse de conférences émérite en philosophie politique à l'Université Paris Cité; Vincent Lefebve chercheur au Centre de recherche et d'information socio-politiques (CRISP) en Belgique

durée : 00:03:02 - L'Humeur du matin par Guillaume Erner - par : Guillaume Erner - La condamnation de l'animateur Jean-Marc Morandini pour "corruption de mineurs" révèle les contradictions entre les valeurs conservatrices de la chaîne CNews et le comportement d'un de ses animateurs. Et si, pour mieux comprendre ce dilemme, il fallait se tourner vers Montesquieu ? - réalisation : Félicie Faugère

Political Tribalism with Lauren HallPolitical scientist Lauren Hall joins Michael Liebowitz for a wide-ranging discussion on political tribalism—how identity, loyalty, and moral signalling have displaced judgment, moderation, and principled disagreement in modern politics.Lauren Hall brings a rare combination of scholarly depth and cultural clarity to the conversation. Drawing on the classical liberal tradition and her work on family, moderation, and the moral limits of politics, she examines how tribal thinking corrodes institutions, distorts public debate, and turns politics into a substitute for meaning. The discussion explores why societies fracture when politics becomes a moral identity—and what intellectual resources exist for restoring restraint, pluralism, and seriousness to public life.This episode is a thoughtful examination of ideas over slogans, and persuasion over power—an essential listen for anyone concerned with the health of liberal society.Disclaimer:The views expressed by Lauren Hall are her own, and not necessarily reflective of her employer or anyone with whom she works.About Lauren HallLauren Hall is Professor and Associate Dean of Academic Affairs at the Rochester Institute of Technology, College of Liberal Arts. She is the author of The Medicalization of Birth and Death (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2019) and Family and the Politics of Moderation (Baylor University Press, 2014), and co-editor of a volume on the political philosophy of Chantal Delsol.Her scholarship engages deeply with the classical liberal tradition, including extensive writing on Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, and Montesquieu.About Michael Liebowitz – Host of The Rational EgoistMichael Liebowitz is the host of The Rational Egoist podcast, a philosopher, author, and political activist committed to the principles of reason, individualism, and rational self-interest. Deeply influenced by the philosophy of Ayn Rand, Michael uses his platform to challenge cultural dogma, expose moral contradictions, and defend the values that make human flourishing possible.His journey from a 25-year prison sentence to becoming a respected voice in the libertarian and Objectivist communities is a testament to the transformative power of philosophy. Today, Michael speaks, writes, and debates passionately in defence of individual rights and intellectual clarity.He is the co-author of two compelling books that examine the failures of the correctional system and the redemptive power of moral conviction:Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crimehttps://www.amazon.com.au/Down-Rabbit-Hole-Corrections-Encourages/dp/197448064XView from a Cage: From Convict to Crusader for Libertyhttps://books2read.com/u/4jN6xjAbout Xenia Ioannou – Producer of The Rational EgoistXenia Ioannou is the producer of The Rational Egoist, responsible for overseeing the publishing, presentation, and promotion of each episode to ensure a consistent standard of clarity, professionalism, and intellectual rigour.She is the CEO of Alexa Real Estate, a property manager and entrepreneur, and serves on the Board of Directors of the Ayn Rand Centre Australia, where she contributes to the organisation's strategic direction and public engagement with ideas centred on reason, individual rights, and human freedom.Xenia also leads Capitalism and Coffee – An Objectivist Meetup in Adelaide, creating a forum for thoughtful discussion on philosophy and its application to everyday life, culture, and current issues.Join Capitalism and Coffee here:https://www.meetup.com/adelaide-ayn-rand-meetup/Follow Xenia's essays on reason, independence, and purposeful living at her Substack:https://substack.com/@xeniaioannou?utm_source=user-menuBecause freedom is worth thinking about — and talking about.#TheRationalEgoist #LaurenHall #PoliticalTribalism #ClassicalLiberalism #Reason #IndividualRights #FreeThought #IntellectualHonesty #MichaelLiebowitz #XeniaIoannou

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTl2m5StrvQ Podcast audio: The crimes of the French Revolution have long been regarded as indicting Enlightenment ideals. Its Reign of Terror has been seen as the product of an overconfident belief in reason, liberty, and human perfectibility. The American Revolution, by contrast, is said to have succeeded only because it was more moderate and traditional. In his 2025 OCON talk, “Enlightenment on Trial: The Real Lessons of the American and French Revolutions,” Don Watkins challenges this narrative. What history shows, Watkins contends, is that Enlightenment ideals in France were largely confined to intellectual elites within a rigid, hierarchical society. French culture was also shaped by powerful anti-Enlightenment currents — notably Rousseau's elevation of passion and the collective over reason and the individual. These ideas later fueled the Terror. By contrast, many American colonists read thinkers such as Locke, Montesquieu, and Franklin and had long practiced self-government, giving Enlightenment ideals real cultural depth. Watkins highlights a further, crucial difference between the two revolutions. The French were fundamentally motivated by hatred towards the ancien régime. French mob violence was widespread and brutal, since it sought, above all else, to eradicate the nobility, the clergy, and every other symbol of the past. Similar unrest was relatively limited and contained in America, where Americans resisted British rule with a positive aim: to establish a government that protected individual rights. Among the topics covered: Narratives about the French Revolution; The rise and fall of the Revolution; Two Revolutions compared; Contrasting motivations. This talk was recorded live on July 5th in Boston, MA, as part of the 2025 Objectivist Summer Conference, and is available on The Ayn Rand Institute Podcast stream. Listen and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Watch archived podcasts here.

Bienvenue dans cet épisode consacré à un thème cardinal de la Justice, une question fondamentale et ce qui apparait à l'évidence comme un dilemme voire une utopie : juger vite, juger bien. C'est également l'un des sujets de grand oral du concours de l'ENM 25. « Le temps est père de vérité », disait François Rabelais. Ainsi, pendant longtemps, l'on a considéré que la lenteur de la justice était une vertu, car elle permettait d'assurer la qualité de la justice. A l'opposé, Montesquieu affirmait qu'« il faut que la Justice soit prompte. Souvent l'injustice n'est pas dans le jugement, elle est dans les délais » (Discours prononcé à la rentrée du Parlement de Bordeaux, in Œuvres complètes, t. 1, Gallimard, Biblio. Pléiade, 1949, p. 47.) Le temps est un élément inséparable du procès civil comme du procès pénal, une donnée objective qui marque le temps de gestation du jugement. La prise en compte du temps par la justice donne lieu aujourd'hui à un véritable droit processuel. Par application de l'article 6§1 de la Convention européenne de sauvegarde des droits et libertés fondamentaux, le justiciable a un droit au déroulement du procès dans un délai raisonnable. Le 15 décembre 2025, la France a été mise en cause devant la Cour européenne des droits de l'Homme pour une procédure de redressement et liquidation judiciaires qui a duré… plus de 28 ans… en 1ère instance. Si une telle situation demeure extraordinaire, on comprend que de manière générale, les exigences processuelles modernes de célérité imposent à l'État de prendre les mesures normatives et matérielles nécessaires à la réalisation de cet objectif, sous peine de sanctions, à la fois internes et européennes. Une bonne administration de la justice suppose que le juge puisse prendre son temps, pour examiner en profondeur le dossier et en apprécier sérieusement toutes les subtilités. Néanmoins, face à une société de l'instantané, de l'immédiat, la justice ne serait ni crédible, ni efficace, sur un plan humain comme sur un plan économique, si la décision mettant fin à la contestation était rendue à l'issue d'une procédure trop longue. Aussi, est-il possible aujourd'hui de « Juger vite et juger bien » ? explorons comment concilier célérité et qualité dans le fonctionnement de la Justice. Pour cela, nous recevons Franck TOURET, enseignant de procédure civile au sein de la prépa ISP.

Nous sommes dans les années 1773-1774, à Saint-Pétersbourg. C‘est-là, auprès de Catherine II, que l'encyclopédiste Denis Diderot passe l'hiver. La tsarine aime s'entourer des plus beaux esprits de son temps et des plus libres aussi, elle a donc sollicité le philosophe des Lumières. Dès sa prise du pouvoir, trente ans plus tôt, elle lui avait proposé de publier « l'Encyclopédie », qui était interdite en France. Diderot, qui suivait de près son action politique, avait fini par entreprendre le voyage. Sur place, l'écrivain français se rend tous les trois jours chez l'impératrice pour des séances de plusieurs heures. Il ne renoncera pas à lui faire part de quelques réflexions critiques, notamment dans ses « Observations sur le Nakaz ». Le « Nakaz » étant un ouvrage rédigé par Catherine, en 1767, s‘inspirant de « L'Esprit des lois » de Montesquieu. Diderot note : « L'impératrice de Russie est certainement despote. Son intention est-elle de garder le despotisme et de le transmettre à ses successeurs ou de l'abdiquer ? Si elle l'abdique, que cette abdication soit formelle ; si cette abdication est sincère, qu'elle s'occupe conjointement avec sa nation des moyens les plus sûrs d'empêcher le despotisme de renaître, et qu'on lise dans le premier chapitre la perte infaillible de celui qui ambitionnerait à l'avenir l'autorité arbitraire dont elle se dépouille. Voilà les premiers pas d'une instruction proposée à des peuples par une souveraine de bonne foi, grande comme Catherine II et aussi ennemie de la tyrannie qu'elle. » Le despotisme et l'impérialisme sont-ils les marqueurs de l'identité russe, bien avant Catherine II et jusqu'à nos jours ? Sont-ils son ADN ? Avec nous : Sabine Dullin, professeure d'histoire contemporaine à Sciences Po, spécialiste de l'histoire de L'Empire russe et soviétique. « Réflexions sur le despotisme impérial de la Russie » ; Payot. Sujets traités : Despotisme, impétailisme,ADN, Russie, Catherine II , Denis Diderot , Nakaz Merci pour votre écoute Un Jour dans l'Histoire, c'est également en direct tous les jours de la semaine de 13h15 à 14h30 sur www.rtbf.be/lapremiere Retrouvez tous les épisodes d'Un Jour dans l'Histoire sur notre plateforme Auvio.be :https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/5936 Intéressés par l'histoire ? Vous pourriez également aimer nos autres podcasts : L'Histoire Continue: https://audmns.com/kSbpELwL'heure H : https://audmns.com/YagLLiKEt sa version à écouter en famille : La Mini Heure H https://audmns.com/YagLLiKAinsi que nos séries historiques :Chili, le Pays de mes Histoires : https://audmns.com/XHbnevhD-Day : https://audmns.com/JWRdPYIJoséphine Baker : https://audmns.com/wCfhoEwLa folle histoire de l'aviation : https://audmns.com/xAWjyWCLes Jeux Olympiques, l'étonnant miroir de notre Histoire : https://audmns.com/ZEIihzZMarguerite, la Voix d'une Résistante : https://audmns.com/zFDehnENapoléon, le crépuscule de l'Aigle : https://audmns.com/DcdnIUnUn Jour dans le Sport : https://audmns.com/xXlkHMHSous le sable des Pyramides : https://audmns.com/rXfVppvN'oubliez pas de vous y abonner pour ne rien manquer.Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement. Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Twee jaar geleden overleed Meindert Fennema. Ter nagedachtenis organiseren we de Meindert Fennema-lezing. Deze tweede editie wordt uitgesproken door Annelien de Dijn, hoogleraar Moderne politieke geschiedenis en auteur van het boek Vrijheid: een woelige geschiedenis.Tijdens deze lezing laat zij zien hoe negentiende-eeuwse ideeën nog steeds doorwerken in onze samenleving. Ze benadrukt dat feminisme niet alleen terug moet kijken naar de geschiedenis van het patriarchaat, maar vooral vooruit moet denken. Een uitnodigend pleidooi om oude patronen los te laten en samen te bouwen aan een gelijkwaardige toekomst.Annelien de Dijn is hoogleraar Moderne politieke geschiedenis en voorzitter van de afdeling Politieke geschiedenis van de Universiteit Utrecht. Haar onderzoek richt zich op de geschiedenis van het politieke denken in Europa en in de Verenigde Staten van 1700 tot nu. promoveerde in 2005 aan de KU Leuven. Daarna was ze onder meer verbonden aan Columbia University en U.C. Berkeley. Haar eerste boek French Political Thought from Montesquieu to Tocqueville: Liberty in a Levelled Society verscheen in 2008.Zie het privacybeleid op https://art19.com/privacy en de privacyverklaring van Californië op https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Send us a textStart with a simple audit: what did your last 24 hours reveal about what you truly value? We walk through a practical reset—putting God first, then spouse and family—so your calendar aligns with your convictions. From there, we open Colossians 3 for plainspoken marriage guidance and let 1 John 3 challenge our love to become action, not talk. If faith is real, it should shape how we treat our neighbor, how we spend our money, and how we order our homes.We ground today's anxieties in enduring wisdom. Psalm 122 points us toward worship and peace in the city, while Proverbs 29 warns against stubborn hearts that refuse correction. We remember Boatswain's Mate Robert M. Blair, whose Medal of Honor citation for “cool courage” under fire illustrates how trust in God steels ordinary people for extraordinary moments. That courage extends to cultural clarity: despite modern efforts to cast America as a pagan echo of Rome, the moral sources that formed the founders—Scripture, Blackstone, Montesquieu—bear a Christian imprint. Judge Nathaniel Freeman's early remarks reinforce that aim for a Christian republic with biblical authority in civic life.The heart of our reflection is Abraham Lincoln's 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation. He names blessings amid civil war, urges penitence for national sins, and calls the people to thank the “Most High God” while seeking healing and unity. His words carry weight now, when polarization and moral drift threaten peace. Gratitude without repentance is thin; repentance without action is hollow. We make the case that daily obedience—time well spent, marriages guarded, neighbors loved—becomes the seed of public renewal. Join us as we trade vague outrage for concrete faithfulness and ask God to steady our steps.If this resonates, share the episode with a friend, leave a review, and subscribe so you never miss a moment. Your support helps more listeners realign their days with purpose. What will your next 24 hours say?Support the showThe American Soul Podcasthttps://www.buzzsprout.com/1791934/subscribe

“Todo homem que tem poder é tentado a abusar dele.” Com esta frase célebre, Charles-Louis de Secondat, o Barão de Montesquieu, fincou as bases para uma das doutrinas mais influentes da modernidade: a separação dos poderes. Seu intuito era preservar a liberdade individual diante da concentração do poder estatal. Mas essa reflexão se expande para além da política secular — atinge, de maneira aguda, os mecanismos de autoridade, responsabilidade e limitação que permeiam as organizações religiosas, inclusive a Igreja Adventista do Sétimo Dia. Montesquieu via o poder como uma entidade que, sem freios e contrapesos, tende ao autoritarismo. E é neste ponto que sua teoria se torna especialmente relevante para a comunidade de fé: porque o poder, mesmo quando exercido com boas intenções, precisa de vigilância. A estrutura adventista, com sua escala global, múltiplos níveis de governança e forte compromisso com a ordem institucional, corre o risco de, inadvertidamente, reproduzir os desequilíbrios que Montesquieu tanto temia. Por isso, este episódio é mais que uma análise acadêmica. É um apelo eclesiológico e espiritual: por uma reforma da cultura de liderança, por limites espiritualmente conscientes ao exercício da autoridade, e por estruturas que não apenas funcionem, mas inspirem confiança. E, acima de tudo, por uma crítica responsável ao pensamento de Montesquieu que, embora ofereça contribuições relevantes, falha ao deslocar o centro da autoridade espiritual da revelação para a arquitetura institucional.

Congress, and not the presidency, used to be the predominant power of the U.S. government. In this interview, we discuss the history of how politics, populism and polarization changed the balance of power in our government.

durée : 00:02:31 - L'Humeur du matin par Guillaume Erner - par : Guillaume Erner - Suite à la sentence prononcée contre Nicolas Sarkozy hier, on a entendu une multitude de réactions : les uns considérant que la justice était passée, les autres, au contraire, qu'il s'agissait d'une grande injustice. Ce qui est en cause, c'est la vertu au sens de Montesquieu. - réalisation : Félicie Faugère

Gustav III (1746–1792) hade ett kluvet förhållande till upplysningens idéer. Hans reformer inom straffrätt, religionsfrihet, hälsa och kultur var tydliga uttryck för upplysningstänkandet. Samtidigt innebar inskränkningar i tryckfriheten och motståndet mot den franska revolutionen att han aldrig fullt ut kunde förena upplysningens ideal om frihet med sin egen enväldiga maktutövning.Redan som kronprins läste Gustav III upplysningsfilosofer som Voltaire, Rousseau och Montesquieu. Som kung blev han en av de främsta upplysta despoterna – en härskare som förenade enväldig makt med reformer inspirerade av upplysningens ideal. Men han föredrog att läsa upplysningsfilosofer framför att träffa dem.I detta avsnitt av Historia Nu samtalar programledaren Urban Lindstedt med historikern Hugo Nordland, aktuell med boken Överlevaren – En biografi om Gustav III (Historiska Media).Upplysningen förknippas ofta med förnuft, vetenskap, tolerans och samhälleliga reformer. I Frankrike fick rörelsen kanske sitt tydligaste uttryck i Encyklopedien (1751), där tidens samlade kunskap gjordes tillgänglig för allmänheten.Den svenska upplysningen utvecklades inte som en enhetlig rörelse utan antog upplysningsidéer inom vetenskap, litteratur och politik. Spridningen skedde genom vetenskapliga akademier, offentliga sällskap och tidningar, snarare än genom en samlad opinionsrörelse, och banade väg för reformer som ökad religions- och tryckfrihet samt tidig folklig folkbildning. Men vetenskapshistorikern Tore Frängsmyr har ifrågasatt om Sverige alls hade en upplysning i egentlig mening, och menat att det snarare rörde sig om pragmatiska nyttoreformer än en intellektuell rörelse inspirerad av franska filosofer.Samtidigt menar forskare som Marie-Christine Skuncke och Jakob Christensson att man mycket väl kan tala om en svensk upplysning – om än i en mer moderat, kristen och praktiskt orienterad form. Här symboliseras upplysningen snarare av sockenprästen som lärde bönder att vaccinera sina barn, lantmätaren som kartlade landet och provinsialläkaren som bidrog till folkets hälsa.Mot denna bakgrund framstår Gustav III som en central gestalt i 1700-talets kulturhistoria. Hans politik speglade både upplysningens inflytande och det svenska samhällets särdrag. I Lovisa Ulrikas omfattande bibliotek på Drottningholm tillgodogjorde han sig europeisk filosofi – särskilt påverkades han av fysiokraten Mercier de La Rivière och dennes idé om en ”naturlig ordning”. Till sin mor skrev han entusiastiskt:”Den är utomordentligt intressant och lägger fram nya och riktiga idéer, som tills nu har undgått till och med de mest upplysta politikers ögon.”Efter statsvälvningen 1772 genomförde Gustav III reformer som speglade Beccarias idéer om en humanare straffrätt: tortyr som förhörsmetod avskaffades och dödsstraffet begränsades från 1779 till att gälla endast mord, dråp och barnamord. Barnamordsplakatet 1778 gav ogifta mödrar rätt att föda anonymt för att minska barnamorden.Bildtext: Gustav III (i guldfärgad rock) tillsammans med sina bröder prins Fredrik Adolf och prins Karl, den senare sedermera kung Karl XIII. Gustav III framställs ofta som en upplyst despot – en monark som förenade enväldets makt med reformer präglade av upplysningstidens idéer. Konstnär: Alexander Roslin, Tre bröder. Licens: Public Domain.Musik: Elegant Arguments av Boris Skalsky, Storyblock AudioKlippare: Emanuel Lehtonen Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Durant le siècle des Lumières, un mouvement sans précédent s'est développé lorsque des philosophes comme Rousseau, Voltaire, Locke, Montesquieu ou Diderot ont combattu l'obscurantisme et l'ignorance. « Les lumières, c'est plus d'un siècle de débats, de discussions », affirme le philosophe Alexandre Dupeyrix.

This conversation delves into the foundational principles of American law, focusing on the separation of powers and federalism. It explores the historical context, key thinkers, and the intricate mechanisms that govern the relationship between the federal and state governments. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding these concepts for legal education and exam preparation, while also highlighting the dynamic nature of federalism and its implications for contemporary governance.In the intricate tapestry of governance, two foundational concepts stand out: Separation of Powers and Federalism. Imagine a system where power is not concentrated in a single entity but is distributed to ensure balance and prevent tyranny. This is the essence of these principles, which have shaped modern democracies.Separation of Powers:The doctrine of Separation of Powers divides government responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. The intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances. As James Madison famously noted, "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."Federalism:Federalism, on the other hand, is a system of government in which entities such as states or provinces share power with a national government. The U.S. Constitution establishes this system, allowing for a division of powers between the federal government and the states. This ensures that governmental power is not only separated horizontally among branches but also vertically across different levels of government.Understanding these concepts is crucial for appreciating the structure and function of modern democracies. They ensure that power is balanced and that citizens' rights are protected from potential governmental overreach.Subscribe Now: Stay informed about the principles that shape our world. Subscribe now for more insights into governance and democracy.TakeawaysUnderstanding the foundational principles of law is crucial for law students.Separation of powers and federalism are key concepts in constitutional law.Historical context shapes the current legal framework.Key thinkers like Montesquieu, Adams, and Madison influenced the Constitution.Defining core concepts is essential for exam success.The legislative branch is designed to be the most powerful yet checked.The executive branch has significant powers but is limited by checks.The judiciary interprets laws and has the power of judicial review.Federalism allows for a balance of power between state and federal governments.States serve as laboratories of democracy, experimenting with policies.law school, constitutional law, separation of powers, federalism, legal principles, Supreme Court, exam preparation, American government, historical context, legal education

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comJill is a writer and scholar. She's a professor of American history at Harvard, a professor of law at Harvard Law, and a staff writer at The New Yorker. She's also the host of the podcast “X-Man: The Elon Musk Origin Story.” Her many books include These Truths: A History of the United States (which I reviewed for the NYT in 2017) and her new one, We the People: A History of the U.S. Constitution — out in a few days; pre-order now.For two clips of our convo — on FDR's efforts to bypass the Constitution, and the worst amendment we've had — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: raised by public school teachers near Worcester; dad a WWII vet; her struggles with Catholicism as a teen (and my fundamentalism then); joining ROTC; the origins of the Constitution; the Enlightenment; Locke; Montesquieu; the lame Articles of Confederation; the 1776 declaration; Paine's Common Sense; Madison; Jefferson; Hamilton; Adams; New England town meetings; state constitutional conventions; little known conventions by women and blacks; the big convention in Philly and its secrecy; the slave trade; the Three-Fifths Clause; amendment provisions; worries over mob rule; the Electoral College; jury duty; property requirements for voting; the Jacksonian Era; Tocqueville; the Civil War; Woodrow Wilson; the direct election of senators; James Montgomery Beck (“Mr Constitution”); FDR's court-packing plan; Eleanor's activism; Prohibition and its repeal; the Warren Court; Scalia; executive orders under Trump; and gauging the intent of the Founders.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. Coming up: John Ellis on Trump's mental health, Michael Wolff on Epstein, Karen Hao on artificial intelligence, Katie Herzog on drinking your way sober, Michel Paradis on Eisenhower, Charles Murray on religion, David Ignatius on the Trump effect globally, and Arthur Brooks on the science of happiness. As always, please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Professor Kozlowski tackles the French Enlightenment with excerpts from Montesquieu and Rousseau. The first is an orderly, encyclopedic thinker trying to categorize and classify every element of political philosophy; the second may well be a proto-Anarchist masquerading as an Enlightenment mainstay. Really, what were we expecting from the French?Readings today come from Montesquieu's The Spirit of the Laws, as well as The Social Contract and "Discourse on the Origin of Inequality" by Rousseau.Additional readings include Voltaire's Candide and Moliere's Don Juan, as well as a casual suggestion that you should read some David Hume, (here's an especially representative collection). And of course, today's video game recommendation is Europa Universalis. If you're interested in Professor Kozlowski's other online projects, check out his website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠professorkozlowski.wordpress.com

On Thursday's Mark Levin Show, in Friday's meeting with Vladimir Putin, President Trump will attempt to forge an agreement between Putin and Zelensky. We're told we need to discus s the meeting but how much do you know about Putin? He's been in power for 25 years, longer than any Kremlin leader since Stalin. There's no effective opposition because Putin has killed them all.  Montesquieu says “any man who has power is led to abuse it; he continues until he finds limits.” This is Putin. Also, Trump's action to curb D.C's rampant crime is constitutional. In just a few days, his actions have resulted in hundreds of arrests and widespread resident approval, including from some Democrats. Democrats call Trump a dictator while they support criminals, Hamas, and illegal immigrants, manipulate crime stats, and defy court rulings.  Later, PM Benjamin Netanyahu calls in and addresses the global propaganda against Israel in the Gaza conflict, including false claims of starvation and inflated casualty figures from Hamas. Israel's delivery of nearly 2 million tons of aid, which is equivalent to one ton per Gazan, is stolen by Hamas. Netanyahu stresses the unprecedented measures to minimize civilian casualties, such as warnings via texts and calls.  Netanyahu also explains that forces gang up against Israel and the U.S., chanting "death to Israel, death to America" as they seek to destroy free societies and impose a dark tyranny reminiscent of the early Middle Ages. Afterward, WABC's Sid Rosenberg calls in to discuss the NYC Mayors race. Rosenberg endorses Curtis Sliwa as his top choice but predicts socialist Zohran Mamdani will likely win because no candidate will drop out anytime soon. Finally, On Power explains that the Democratic Party poses a significant domestic threat to America by seeking to breach constitutional safeguards in pursuit of a utopian society, influenced by Marxist, socialist, and Islamist elements, though not representative of all members.  The progressive movement aim to fundamentally transform the nation's character through centralized power, diminishing individual freedoms. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On this episode, Nathan Goodman interviews political theorist Jacob Levy about the rule of law and its tensions with modern immigration enforcement. Drawing on his 2018 article, “The rule of law and the risks of lawlessness,” Levy explains that the rule of law requires laws to be general, predictable, and applied equally. Referencing thinkers like Montesquieu, Fuller, Hayek, Oakeshott, and Shklar, Levy argues that immigration control often violates these principles, especially when it involves militarized policing, extrajudicial punishment, and fear-based governance, which ultimately threatens both civil liberties and democratic institutions.Dr. Jacob T. Levy is Tomlinson Professor of Political Theory and associated faculty in the Department of Philosophy at McGill University. He is the coordinator of McGill's Research Group on Constitutional Studies and was the founding director of McGill's Yan P. Lin Centre for the Study of Freedom and Global Orders in the Ancient and Modern Worlds. He is a Senior Fellow at the Niskanen Center. He is the author of The Multiculturalism of Fear (Oxford University Press, 2000) and Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom (Oxford University Press, 2014).If you like the show, please subscribe, leave a 5-star review, and tell others about the show! We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, and wherever you get your podcasts.Virtual Sentiments, a podcast series from the Hayek Program, is streaming. Subscribe today and listen to season three, releasing now!Follow the Hayek Program on Twitter: @HayekProgramLearn more about Academic & Student ProgramsFollow the Mercatus Center on Twitter: @mercatusCC Music: Twisterium

This is the opening hour and a half of the sequel to my recording "Thucydides, Plutarch, Nietzsche" for my Technology and Nihilism series.  Subscribers will have access to the full 4 hour recording soon.Here I discuss the significance of Thucydides's turn to speeches after the "archaeology."  In this recording I discuss Thucydides as the alternative to the Platonic and Aristotelian tradition, and how it is that Nietzsche sees in Thucydides the standard which we are to look towards going forward.Among other things, what is at issue is the status of the divine in the life of man, particularly with respect to what we mean by "history" and how, if at all, we even have access to "history."I include numerous and meticulous juxtapositions of Thucydides with Plato (particularly the dialogues of the Gorgias, the Republic, and the Laws) and Aristotle (particularly the Nicomachean Ethics, the Politics, and the Physics). I also draw upon specific examples from Montesquieu, Hegel, Nietzsche, William Butler Yeats, and Heidegger to connect everything that comes tumbling out from a very subtle and detailed reading of Thucydides and a representative sampling of the entirety of the great books of our Western tradition to emphasize the living relevance of them all for us todaySupport the show

This is Part 3 in a series noting that 2025 is the 40th Anniversary of Harvard University Press' 1985 publication of Richard A. Epstein's "Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain." We our celebration of this anniversary with a fair use and transformative reading, finishing chapter 2 in what Richard calls "Philosophical Preliminaries." He titles chapter 2 "Hobbseian Man, Lockean World" because he's taking a look at political philosophy and the American constitutional order, how these things interact. Every college student should read this book. It's a superb introduction to the political philosophy of the American regime. Praise the Lord. We'd like to thank Harvard University Press for making this material available and Richard Epstein for writing it. Make sure you buy the book and follow along. It's very important for you to have your own copy on your own bookshelf, and to begin to master this material. Support your local book dealer. See if they have a copy of it, or if they'd mind keeping an eye out for you. I always encourage buying physical books, objects you can have, hold, cherish, learn from, display on your bookshelf as a topic of conversation, things you can pass on to the next generation with your notes in them, things that do not depend upon electricity. Toward that end: Go to Harvard University Press for more selections available for purchase. Please support the publisher and your local booksellers. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-contemplating-property-rights podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

Como a burocracia pode sufocar a missão? Neste episódio provocador da série A Ordem, exploramos três fundamentos históricos do Estado moderno — centralização, harmonização e cumulação — e extraímos lições poderosas para a liderança e estrutura da Igreja Adventista do Sétimo Dia em tempos de hipertrofia institucional. Você já se perguntou: Quando a ordem institucional se torna um obstáculo espiritual? Como discernir entre controle e serviço? O que o Leviatã de Hobbes tem a ver com departamentos que decidem sozinhos? Com linguagem acessível, rigor teológico e aplicação prática, este episódio é um chamado urgente aos pastores, administradores e líderes para reencontrarem a missão no meio da máquina. Cristo continua sendo a cabeça. O Espírito ainda distribui dons. A missão precisa ser o filtro de cada decisão. ▶️ Assista, reflita e compartilhe com sua liderança. A ordem só é verdadeira se for movida pela missão

In this episode of The Classical Mind, we dive into a curated selection of The Federalist Papers, the seminal series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay to argue for the Constitution. Rather than tackling all 85 essays, we focus on a thematic collection (#s 1, 9-10, 15, 30, 39, 51, 62-63, 68, and 78) that highlights the philosophical and structural pillars of the American experiment in self-government.We begin with Hamilton's General Introduction (No. 1), then explore how the proposed union protects against internal strife and faction (Nos. 9–10), and why the Articles of Confederation were inadequate (No. 15). We examine the central role of federal taxation (No. 30), the plan's alignment with republican principles (No. 39), and the essential structure of checks and balances (No. 51).We also explore the three branches of government through Madison's defense of the Senate (Nos. 62–63), Hamilton's thoughts on presidential elections (No. 68), and his case for an independent judiciary (No. 78).Along the way, we consider the historical context: chaos under the Articles of Confederation, Enlightenment influences like Montesquieu, and why Democracy in America offers a fitting modern endnote. Join us as we revisit the founding debates that continue to shape the American constitutional imagination.Endnotes: -Hamilton -Junius: The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today's Students by Allan Bloom -Wesley: Democracy in America by Alexis de TocquevilleOur next read will be Peter Pan. Get full access to The Classical Mind at www.theclassicalmind.com/subscribe

durée : 00:58:53 - Le Cours de l'histoire - par : Xavier Mauduit - Comment Montesquieu envisage-t-il les rapports entre États et quelles règles leur donne-t-il ? Dans quelle mesure le philosophe des Lumières peut-il être qualifié de précurseur de la géopolitique ? Comment pense-t-il la géopolitique de son temps, mais aussi du passé ? - réalisation : Thomas Beau, Sam Baquiast, Jeanne Delecroix, Jeanne Coppey, Raphaël Laloum, Maël Vincent--Randonnier, Sidonie Lebot, Maïwenn Guiziou - invités : Hugo Toudic Philosophe français, Catherine Volpilhac-Auger Professeur émérite de littérature française à l'ENS de Lyon Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

durée : 00:58:53 - Le Cours de l'histoire - par : Xavier Mauduit, Maïwenn Guiziou - Comment Montesquieu envisage-t-il les rapports entre États et quelles règles leur donne-t-il ? Dans quelle mesure le philosophe des Lumières peut-il être qualifié de précurseur de la géopolitique ? - réalisation : Thomas Beau, Sam Baquiast - invités : Hugo Toudic Docteur en philosophie, directeur adjoint de l'Institut international de recherche de l'Université de Chicago à Paris; Catherine Volpilhac-Auger Professeur émérite de littérature française à l'ENS de Lyon

On Friday's Mark Levin Show, the framers of the Constitution did not grant courts, such as the International Court of Trade, the final authority on matters like tariffs, reserving that power for Congress. The Constitution gives Congress broad authority over taxation and spending, and through a 1977 emergency law, it delegated certain tariff powers to the president. Courts lack the constitutional basis to override such delegations. Historical records, including Madison's notes, the Federalist Papers, and state ratification debates, show the framers rejected giving courts supreme authority, like judicial review, to resolve separation-of-powers disputes. The framers of the Constitution, heavily influenced by Montesquieu, designed a government with a strict separation of powers to prevent tyranny, as Montesquieu warned that combining legislative, executive, or judicial powers in one entity leads to arbitrary rule and oppression. Congress should address this through legislation, not courts through litigation. Also, Sam Antar accused a Politico writer of "reputational laundering" for praising  New York AG Letitia James as a "Shadow Attorney General" in a Democratic shadow cabinet, while ignoring her federal criminal investigation for alleged mortgage fraud. Politico's omission of the DOJ referral shows the media bias, as James has targeted Trump, notably winning a $450M civil fraud case against him.  Later, the Wall Street Journal reports the decline of America's military-industrial capacity compared to China's rapid growth in the sector. The U.S. has allowed its defense manufacturing and supply chains to weaken due to underinvestment, outsourcing, and a focus on short-term efficiency over long-term resilience. This is frightening. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

(00:00) Intro (01:58) La magistratura USA riscatta l'onore dello stato di diritto: la partita dei dazi si riapre (19:12) Musk non è più Doge (29:29) Stellantis ha un nuovo CEO: avrà anche una nuova strategia? (44:38) La metastasi mafiosa nelle mappe della DIA Questo podcast e gli altri nostri contenuti sono gratuiti anche grazie a chi ci sostiene con Will Makers. Sostienici e accedi a contenuti esclusivi su willmedia.it/abbonati Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On the fifty-eighth episode, Shane, Matthew, and Ben are joined by William B. Allen, Professor Emeritus of Political Philosophy at Michigan State University, to discuss Montesquieu's political philosophy and its influence on the American Founding and eighteenth-century British politics. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast cohosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew K. Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

On Wednesday's Mark Levin Show, you are hearing it in the leftwing press, in the Never-Trump editorial pages and more - you cannot and must not deport anyone without some kind of notice and due process. Yet, there's nothing from these people on how this is supposed to actually work. What kind of due process are they talking about? The kind of due process that applies to citizens? If not, then what lower standard suffices as constitutional due process? Exactly how would due process, of any kind, be administered to millions and millions of illegal immigrants? We don't have enough courts of any kind in our country to handle the tsunami of cases that would be involved. This was all intentional. The border was opened to anyone. This is the Cloward-Pivens strategy: flood the system, overwhelm the system, break the system, and in doing so achieve your goals. Effectively, this is massive amnesty. Also, it seems these Federal judges are trying to stop mass deportation efforts and disrupt the Trump administration's response to Biden's mass immigration policies. Later, Hans von Spakovsky calls in and explains that he was stunned by Judge Boasberg's order because he's blatantly defying the Supreme Court. Boasberg's order was void from the moment he signed it. So how can he hold the Trump administration in contempt? Either Boasberg is incompetent or he's deliberately ignoring the Supreme Court. Afterward, Jonathan Turley calls in to discuss the criminal referral against NY AG Letitia James. James claims ​that ​her ​Virginia ​home ​was ​her ​principal ​residence. ​That ​was ​not ​and ​cannot ​be ​true ​because ​she was and still ​is ​an ​official ​of ​the ​New ​York ​government ​who ​must ​live ​within ​the ​state. What's ​notable ​about ​her ​false ​statements ​is ​that ​each ​one ​​worked ​towards ​a ​better mortgage ​rate. ​ Then, the Declaration of Independence discusses natural law and natural rights. Where do these concepts originate? They are influenced by John Locke and Montesquieu, but not entirely, as they ultimately come from God. When they say the people are sovereign, that ide comes from God. This is why the government can never be sovereign. The United States is first county on earth to be founded on these principles. Finally, Heritage President, Kevin Roberts, calls in to discuss the organization's impactful projects and ongoing efforts to revitalize federalism in America. Roberts shares insights on the current political landscape, the significance of state legislative work, and the importance of maintaining a conservative agenda while addressing challenges such as tariffs and international relations. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

William J. Federer is a nationally known speaker, historian, author, and president of Amerisearch, Inc. He's the speaker on The American Minute daily broadcast. He has authored numerous books including, America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations, Who is the King in America?, Socialism: The Real History From Plato to the Present - How the Deep State Capitalizes on Crises to Consolidate Control and the newly released, Silence Equals Consent: The Sin of Omission.On January 20th, 2025, President Donald Trump began his second term as the 47th president of the United States. He won both the popular as well as the electoral vote, leaving no doubt concerning his election. The people decided this change was necessary for what many believed was the preservation of our nation. In the weeks that have followed, his administration is having to deal with an unprecedented 132 legal challenges by liberal judges.Some are referring to this as a judicial "January 6th." Others see it as a judicial coup or judicial insurrection. In fact, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer has even admitted, "...we did put 235 judges, progressive judges, judges not under the control of Trump, last year on the bench, and they are ruling against Trump time after time after time."This program takes a look at the "road" our judiciary is traveling on as William looked at numerous warnings about judicial overreach as expressed by individuals such as Montesquieu, Thomas Jefferson, Alexis De Tocqueville, George Washington and also modern commentators such as Phyllis Schlafly and law professor Alan Dershowitz.

durée : 00:03:46 - Le Pourquoi du comment : philo - par : Frédéric Worms - Le pouvoir risque l'absolutisme. Montesquieu pense l'équilibre des trois pouvoirs, mais est-ce suffisant ? Pour Foucault et Deleuze, les pouvoirs sont multiples. Entre contrôle et liberté, obéissance et protection, quels contre-pouvoirs garantir pour préserver nos droits fondamentaux ? - réalisation : Riyad Cairat

durée : 00:03:50 - Le Pourquoi du comment : philo - par : Frédéric Worms - Un pouvoir sans limite devient tyrannique. Pour éviter cet abus, Montesquieu a pensé la séparation des pouvoirs en institutions indépendantes. Dans les sociétés modernes, comment garantir cet équilibre ? Sans contre-pouvoirs, la politique risque-t-elle toujours de sombrer dans la tyrannie ? - réalisation : Riyad Cairat