Podcasts about On Liberty

Today we confront the primary moral philosophy presented as a challenge to Kant's Deontology: Utilitarianism. We'll read Chapter 1 of Bentham's "An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation" as well as a sizable portion of Mill's On Liberty - which is remarkably NOT Utilitarian, and famous as one of the primary texts underlying contemporary Libertarianism. Along the way we'll have some very serious discussions about free speech, personal freedom, and Christian insularity - and how the world of rights and personal independence has changed in the past few hundred years.Additional readings this week include: Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Foucault's Birth of the Clinic, Turgenev's Fathers and Sons, Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, and Hugo's Les Miserables. It's a mixed bag, with some anachronistic choices, but these will provide a good cross-section of perspectives about the virtues and vices of Mill's text. Speaking of mixed bags and individualism run amok, our game recommendations for this week are: John Company (2nd edition) and Darkest Dungeon.If you're interested in Professor Kozlowski's other online projects, check out his website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠professorkozlowski.wordpress.com

What happens when a seasoned sailor with Parkinson's, his daughter and a plucky 24-metre yacht set off across the Atlantic? In this Big BOAT Interview, we follow Joe and Amy Leitch aboard On Liberty - the first Outer Reef to cross the Atlantic on its own bottom - as they journey from the U.S. to Sweden via ice fields, open seas and long stretches of remote coastline. But this isn't just a story of exploration. Partnering with Yachts for Science, the duo welcomed two researchers aboard, turning part of their voyage into a mobile lab for ocean exploration. Their journey proves that groundbreaking science doesn't require a megayacht or your own private submersible - just commitment, curiosity and a spot on deck. BOAT Pro: https://boatint.com/1p5 Subscribe: https://boatint.com/1p6 Contact us: podcast@boatinternationalmedia.com

Anna Kornbluh on the prevalence of aesthetic immediacy and why we need climate counteraesthetics. Events (from the introduction): at the Zollo Collective: https://www.instagram.com/zollo.hamburg/?hl=en at La Band Varga: https://labandavaga.org/?page_id=102 Rethinking Economics Summer School Switzerland: https://resuso.ch/   Shownotes Anna Kornbluh's personal website (including all her publications): http://www.annakornbluh.com/ Anna at the University of Illinois Chicago: https://engl.uic.edu/profiles/kornbluh-anna/ Kornbluh, A. (2024). Immediacy, or the Style of Too Late Capitalism. Verso Books. https://www.versobooks.com/products/3031-immediacy-or-the-style-of-too-late-capitalism Kornbluh, A. (2023). We Didn't Start The Fire. Death Drive and Ecocide. Parapraxis Magazine Issue 3. https://www.parapraxismagazine.com/articles/we-didnt-start-the-fire Kornbluh, A. (2020). Climate Realism, Capitalist and Otherwise. Mediations. Journal of the Marxist Literary Group. Vol. 33. No. 1-2. P. 99-118. https://mediationsjournal.org/articles/climate-realism Kornbluh, A. (2019). The Order of Forms. Realism, Formalism, and Social Space. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/O/bo44521006.html Groos, J., Sorg, C. (2025). Creative Construction. Democratic Planning in the 21st Century and Beyond. Bristol University Press https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/creative-construction on Alexis Pauline Gumbs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_Pauline_Gumbs https://www.alexispauline.com/ her essay on the Maui wildfires: https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/a44819303/climate-crisis-maui/  on climate fiction (cli-fi): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_fiction Rebecca Saltzman: https://rebeccasaltzman.net/ Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the Trouble. Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press. https://www.dukeupress.edu/staying-with-the-trouble Tsing, A. L. (2021). The Mushroom at the End of the World. On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins. Princeton University Press. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691220550/the-mushroom-at-the-end-of-the-world on the genre of the Heist film: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heist_film on “Logan Lucky”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Lucky Strange, S. (2015). Casino Capitalism. Manchester University Press. https://manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9781784991340/ Edward Morgan Forster on Narrative: https://www.aerogrammestudio.com/2013/03/04/e-m-forster-the-difference-between-story-and-plot/ on climate/eco-anxiety: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-anxiety Spufford, F. (2012). Red Plenty. Graywolf Press. https://www.graywolfpress.org/books/red-plenty explanation “hypersititon”: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hyperstition on Kim Stanley Robinson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Stanley_Robinson Robinson, K. S. (2020). The Ministry for the Future. Orbit. https://store.orbit-books.co.uk/products/the-ministry-for-the-future Robinson, K. S. (2017). New York 2140. Orbit. https://store.orbit-books.co.uk/products/new-york-2140 on the Inflation Reduction Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_Reduction_Act on the Green New Deal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal website of Daniel Aldana Cohen (including all his publications): https://aldanacohen.com/ Climate & Community Institute: https://climateandcommunity.org/ “A Message from the Future with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez” video from 2019: https://youtu.be/d9uTH0iprVQ?si=8O-M_fS2iO_AQhiL Aronoff, K., Battistoni, A., Cohen, D. A., & Riofrancos, T. (2019). A Planet to Win. Why We Need a Green New Deal. Verso Books. https://www.versobooks.com/products/2546-a-planet-to-win Klein, N., Taylor, A. (2025). The Rise of End Times Fascism. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/apr/13/end-times-fascism-far-right-trump-musk on the Zohran Mamdani campaign: https://www.zohranfornyc.com/ on Social Realism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_realism on Brandon Taylor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Taylor_(writer) his website: https://brandonlgtaylor.com/ on Colson Whitehead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colson_Whitehead his website: https://www.colsonwhitehead.com/ on “Succession”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_(TV_series) on “Somebody Somewhere”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somebody_Somewhere_(TV_series) on public luxury: https://communia.de/en/project/public-luxury/ https://autonomy.work/portfolio/public-luxury-in-practice/ Nunes, R. (2021). Neither Vertical nor Horizontal. A Theory of Political Organization. Verso Books. https://www.versobooks.com/products/772-neither-vertical-nor-horizontal Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò's website: http://www.olufemiotaiwo.com/ Táíwò, O. (2020). Who gets to feel secure? On Liberty, Security, and Our System of Racial Capitalism. Aeon. https://aeon.co/essays/on-liberty-security-and-our-system-of-racial-capitalism Boston Review issue on “What is the State for?”: https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/from-the-editors-what-is-the-state-for/ on Freud's concept of the Death drive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_drive Future Histories Episodes on Related Topics S3E32 | Jacob Blumenfeld on Climate Barbarism and Managing Decline https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e32-jacob-blumenfeld-on-climate-barbarism-and-managing-decline/ S03E30 | Matt Huber & Kohei Saito on Growth, Progress and Left Imaginaries https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e30-matt-huber-kohei-saito-on-growth-progress-and-left-imaginaries/ S03E23 | Andreas Malm on Overshooting into Climate Breakdown https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e23-andreas-malm-on-overshooting-into-climate-breakdown/ S03E03 | Planning for Entropy on Sociometabolic Planning https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e03-planning-for-entropy-on-sociometabolic-planning/ S03E02 | George Monbiot on Public Luxury https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e02-george-monbiot-on-public-luxury/ S02E27 | Nick Dyer-Witheford on Biocommunism https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e27-nick-dyer-witheford-on-biocommunism/ S02E18 | Drew Pendergrass and Troy Vettese on Half Earth Socialism https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e18-drew-pendergrass-and-troy-vettese-on-half-earth-socialism/ S01E16 | Richard Barbrook on Imaginary Futures https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s01/e16-richard-barbrook-on-imaginary-futures/ --- If you are interested in democratic economic planning, these resources might be of help: Democratic planning – an information website https://www.democratic-planning.com/ Sorg, C. & Groos, J. (eds.)(2025). Rethinking Economic Planning. Competition & Change Special Issue Volume 29 Issue 1. https://journals.sagepub.com/toc/ccha/29/1 Groos, J. & Sorg, C. (2025). Creative Construction - Democratic Planning in the 21st Century and Beyond. Bristol University Press. [for a review copy, please contact: amber.lanfranchi[at]bristol.ac.uk] https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/creative-construction International Network for Democratic Economic Planning https://www.indep.network/ Democratic Planning Research Platform: https://www.planningresearch.net/ --- Future Histories Contact & Support If you like Future Histories, please consider supporting us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/join/FutureHistories Contact: office@futurehistories.today Twitter: https://twitter.com/FutureHpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/futurehpodcast/ Mastodon: https://mstdn.social/@FutureHistories English webpage: https://futurehistories-international.com   Episode Keywords #AnnaKornbluh, #JanGroos, #Interview, #FutureHistories, #FutureHistoriesInternational, #futurehistoriesinternational, #DemocraticPlanning, #DemocraticEconomicPlanning, #FutureImaginaries, #Art, #Literature, #Representation, #Immediacy, #ClimateChange, #ClimateBreakdown, #ClimateCollapse, #Capitalism, #Economics, #Collapse, #GreenNewDeal, #ClimateAnxiety

The libertarian is back. Not The Libertarian. But the libertarian, Richard Epstein, now fashioned as the classical liberal, and debuting his new show, On Liberty. On this first episode, Richard talks to host Charles C. W. Cooke about immigration. What powers was the federal government given over this area? What—and why—did those powers change? Can […]

How is the notion of “free speech” abused and misunderstood? What's wrong with “debate me” culture – and with the value placed on appearing to be “controversial”? And what happens when people who are actually pretty powerful claim they “can't say anything anymore”? Sociologist Aaron Winter, an expert on racism and the far right, joins Uncommon Sense to discuss all this and more.Showing what sociology has to offer to discussions of “freedom” often found in politics, Aaron describes how “free speech” has been invoked through the decades in North America and Europe, including in the victimisation narratives found in far-right discourse today. Plus, we reflect on the importance of no-platforming, and the need for critical thought when we hear that certain ideas are simply the “voice of the people”.Featuring discussion of Aaron's work with Aurelien Mondon on “Reactionary Democracy”. Also: celebration of influential American sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, author of “Racism without Racists”, and the UK band The Specials.Guest: Aaron Winter; Hosts: Rosie Hancock, Alexis Hieu Truong; Executive Producer: Alice Bloch; Sound Engineer: David Crackles; Music: Joe Gardner; Artwork: Erin AnikerFind more about Uncommon SenseEpisode ResourcesBy Aaron WinterReactionary Democracy: How Racism and the Populist Far Right Became Mainstream – co-authored with Aurelien Mondon, 2020Reading Mein Kampf, Misreading Education: The reactionary backlash goes back to school – co-authored with Aurelien Mondon, 2017Online Hate: From the Far-Right to the ‘Alt-Right' and from the Margins to the Mainstream – 2019Conflating antisemitism and anti-zionism emboldens the far right – 2023From the Sociological Review FoundationThe Cacophony of Critique – Tom BolandVoice, with Claire Alexander, Dan McCulloch and Belinda ScarlettPalestine: A Sociological IssueFurther resources"On Liberty" – John Stuart Mill"White Supremacy and Racism in the Post-civil Rights Era" – Eduardo Bonilla-Silva"Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America" – Eduardo Bonilla-SilvaThe SpecialsRead more about Jose Medina, Miranda Fricker and the concept of epistemic injustice, as well as Michèle Diotte at The University of Ottawa.Support our work. Make a one-off or regular donation to help fund future episodes of Uncommon Sense: donorbox.org/uncommon-sense

In this conversation from 2023, Alex speaks with Professor Jacob Levy about the concept of neutrality within the history of liberalism and how many historical thinkers have approached the subject within that tradition.  Episode Notes: Michael Oakeshott on “adverbial rules” https://lawliberty.org/forum/michael-oakeshott-on-the-rule-of-law-and-the-liberal-order/  John Locke's religious beliefs https://rb.gy/1yg43  Heresy of Americanism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_(heresy)  Deirdre McCloskey's Bourgeois Virtues Thesis https://www.deirdremccloskey.com/docs/bv_selection.pdf  Ronald Dworkin “Liberalism” https://www.scribd.com/document/313373358/Ronald-Dworkin-Liberalism#  Stephanie Slade, "Must Libertarians Care About More Than the State?" https://reason.com/2022/03/19/two-libertarianisms/  Alexis De Toqueville's concerns about the rising liberal democratic order https://www.economist.com/schools-brief/2018/08/09/de-tocqueville-and-the-french-exception  John Stuart Mill “On Liberty” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty 

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill is an essay about individual freedom and its limits. Mill argues that people should be free to think, speak, and act as they wish, as long as they don't harm others. He believes this freedom leads to progress and happiness. Governments and society shouldn't control people's choices unless those choices hurt someone else. On Liberty is pertinent to contemporary debates about free speech, personal rights, and social control and so retains its relevance, perhaps more urgently than ever. Mill's work is key to a proper understanding of the balance between freedom and responsibility, in a world where the exercise of power and the use of new technologies threaten liberty around the world.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill is an essay about individual freedom and its limits. Mill argues that people should be free to think, speak, and act as they wish, as long as they don't harm others. He believes this freedom leads to progress and happiness. Governments and society shouldn't control people's choices unless those choices hurt someone else. On Liberty is pertinent to contemporary debates about free speech, personal rights, and social control and so retains its relevance, perhaps more urgently than ever. Mill's work is key to a proper understanding of the balance between freedom and responsibility, in a world where the exercise of power and the use of new technologies threaten liberty around the world.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill is an essay about individual freedom and its limits. Mill argues that people should be free to think, speak, and act as they wish, as long as they don't harm others. He believes this freedom leads to progress and happiness. Governments and society shouldn't control people's choices unless those choices hurt someone else. On Liberty is pertinent to contemporary debates about free speech, personal rights, and social control and so retains its relevance, perhaps more urgently than ever. Mill's work is key to a proper understanding of the balance between freedom and responsibility, in a world where the exercise of power and the use of new technologies threaten liberty around the world.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill is an essay about individual freedom and its limits. Mill argues that people should be free to think, speak, and act as they wish, as long as they don't harm others. He believes this freedom leads to progress and happiness. Governments and society shouldn't control people's choices unless those choices hurt someone else. On Liberty is pertinent to contemporary debates about free speech, personal rights, and social control and so retains its relevance, perhaps more urgently than ever. Mill's work is key to a proper understanding of the balance between freedom and responsibility, in a world where the exercise of power and the use of new technologies threaten liberty around the world.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Today's revolutionary idea is one with a long history, not all of it revolutionary: David talks to the historian Fara Dabhoiwala about the idea of free speech. When did free speech first get articulated as a fundamental right? How has that right been used and abused, from the eighteenth century to the present? And what changed in the history of the idea of free speech with the publication of J. S. Mill's On Liberty in 1859? Fara Dabhoiwala's What Is Free Speech? is available now https://bit.ly/4jgcvDt Next time: Marx and the Paris Commune w/Bruno Leipold Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Misinformation, fake news, hate speech, satire, the arts, political protest. These are all examples of what you might call disruptive speech. A free speech absolutist would say that all of these forms of speech should be tolerated, if not welcomed. On the other hand, it does look as though some of them are disruptive in a good way, and others are disruptive in a bad way. But can we tell the good from the bad in a way that isn't just politically partisan? Carl Fox, Lecturer in Applied Ethics at the IDEA Centre, thinks we can, and that we should treat different forms of disruptive speech differently. Here is Carl's paper on the subject in the Journal of Social Philosophy.Carl co-edited The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy and Media Ethics with fellow Ethics Untangled alumnus Joe Saunders, which contains a chapter by Carl on satire and stability. For further reading, there's Amy Olberding's book on manners and civility.In the interview, Carl mentions a paper on lying by Don Fallis. That's here:Fallis, D. 2009. “What Is Lying?” Journal of Philosophy 106(1): 29–56. And then there's the classic text on freedom and its limits, John Stuart Mill's On Liberty: Mill, J. S. 1974. On Liberty. London: Penguin.Ethics Untangled is produced by IDEA, The Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds.Twitter/X: @EthicsUntangledBluesky: @ethicsuntangled.bsky.socialFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/ideacetlLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/idea-ethics-centre/

Unde se termină libertatea mea și unde începe libertatea celuilalt? Mill introduce 'principiul vătămării' care este atât de cunoscut în filosofia politică încât a devenit clișeu pe care îl spun toți suporterii înaintea meciurilor amicale sau din preliminarii: poți face ce vrei tu câtă vreme nu mă rănești pe mine. Sună bine, dar care sunt problemele acestui principiu? Octăvelu Capul Chelu' explică. "Despre libertate" (On Liberty) de John Stuart Mill este o lucrare fundamentală a liberalismului clasic, publicată în 1859. Mill susține că libertatea individuală trebuie protejată de stat și de presiunea socială, atâta timp cât acțiunile unei persoane nu dăunează altora (principiul vătămării). Unul dintre aspectele centrale este libertatea de gândire și exprimare. Mill argumentează că toate opiniile, indiferent cât de controversate, trebuie să fie libere pentru a permite progresul și confruntarea ideilor. Cenzura limitează descoperirea adevărului și dezvoltarea intelectuală. Un alt punct cheie este pericolul „tiraniei majorității”, adică impunerea de către societate a normelor dominante asupra indivizilor. Mill avertizează că nu doar guvernul poate restricționa libertatea, ci și opinia publică. Societatea nu ar trebui să impună un mod unic de viață dacă acesta nu afectează direct alte persoane. Mill respinge intervenția statului în aspecte private precum obiceiurile personale, moralitatea sau stilul de viață. Totuși, guvernul are rolul de a proteja cetățenii de violență, fraudă și exploatare. Educația și accesul la informație sunt esențiale pentru ca oamenii să ia decizii raționale. Lucrarea a influențat profund gândirea modernă despre drepturile omului, democrație și libertatea de exprimare, fiind o referință importantă pentru sistemele politice liberale de azi.☞ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/octavpopa ☞ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/podcastuldefilosofie☞ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/podcastuldefilosofie☞ Spotify, Apple: https://podcastfilosofie.buzzsprout.comSupport the showhttps://www.patreon.com/octavpopahttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC91fciphdkZyUquL3M5BiA

Die heutige Episode hat wieder viel Spaß gemacht. Zu Gast ist Prof. Christoph Kletzer. Ich bin auf ihn gestoßen über einen Artikel in der Presse mit dem Titel »Der humpelnde Staat« — und das soll auch der Titel dieser Episode sein. Prof. Christoph Kletzer ist Professor am King's College London und eine profilierte Stimme in politischen Debatten. »Eine seltsame Krankheit hat unsere europäische Staatsordnung befallen: Sie interessiert sich immer stärker für die kleinsten Details unseres Lebens, wird immer einfallsreicher bei der Tiefenregulierung des Alltags, lässt uns aber mit unseren brennendsten Nöten allein.« Wir beginnen mit der Frage nach den immer stärker werdenden staatlichen Eingriffen. Welche Beispiele kann man dafür nennen? »Im Grunde haben wir alle so kleine Sandboxen, in denen wir spielen dürfen« Und dennoch verlieren viele der westlichen Staaten zunehmend die Fähigkeiten, ihre Kernaufgaben zu erfüllen.  Erleben wir in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten einen zunehmenden Illiberalismus? Das Ganze scheint gepaart zu sein mit einer wachsenden Moralisierung aller möglichen Lebensbereiche. »Die Unfähigkeit im Großen wird durch aggressiven Kleingeist kompensiert.« Was ist die Rolle der einzelnen Akteure und des Systems? »Die Funktion des Systems ist das, was es tut« — »The purpose of a system is what it does«, Stafford Beer Woher kommt dieses Verrutschen des staatlichen Fokus? »Machtlosigkeit im Inneren wird mit technokratischem Verwaltungsstaatshandeln kompensiert. Das ist zum Teil in die DNA der Europäischen Union eingeschrieben.«  Sie wird als Neo-Funktionalismus bezeichnet. Was bedeutet dies? Wurden wir in eine politische Einheit geschummelt? Wer hat eigentlich welche Kompetenz und wer trägt für welche Entscheidungen konkret Verantwortung? »Das wirkt mir eher nach FIFA als nach einem demokratischen System.« Oder wie der Komplexitätsforscher Peter Kruse es ausgedrückt hat: »In einem Krabbenkorb herrscht immer eine Mordsdynamik, aber bei genauerem Hinsehen stellt man fest, dass eigentlich nichts richtig vorwärtsgeht.« Wie kann man komplexe Systeme strukturieren oder Ordnung in komplexe Systeme bringen? Gibt es einen verfassungsrechtlichen Geburtsfehler in der EU? Kann man diesen noch beheben? Wird das Problem überhaupt diskutiert? Welche Rolle spielen Preise in der Selbstorganisation komplexer Wirtschaften? Kann Innovation als Arbitrage betrachtet werden? Wie viel kann bei einer komplexen Einheit wie der EU zentral gesteuert werden und wie viel muss sich durch selbstorganisierende Phänomene gestalten lassen? Sollten wir bei Kernaufgaben (was sind diese?) zentralistischer handeln und mehr Staat haben, aber beim Rest viel weniger Staat zulassen? Was können wir von der Situation in Argentinien und Javier Milei lernen? Warum sind Preiskontrollen fast immer eine verheerende Idee? Gleiten Top-Down organisierte, etatistische Systeme immer in Totalitarismus ab? Was sind Interventionsspiralen, wie entstehen sie und wie kann man sie vermeiden? Erleben wir eine Auflösung der regelbasierten globalen Ordnung und wie ist das zu bewerten, vor allem auch aus europäischer Perspektive? Werden wir vom Aufschwung, der aus Nationen wie den USA oder Argentinien kommt, überrollt; haben wir mit unserer Trägheit hier überhaupt noch eine Chance, mitzukommen? Gibt es eine »Angst vor Groß« in Europa? Dafür aber dominieren Sendungsbewusstsein und Hochmut? Wie spielt diese Angst zusammen mit einer der aktuell größten technologischen Veränderungen, der künstlichen Intelligenz? Haben wir es im politischen und bürokratischen Systemen mit einer Destillation der Inkompetenz zu tun? Oder liegt das Problem eher bei einer Politisierung der Justiz? »Die künftige Konfliktlage ist zwischen Justiz und Parlament.« Wer regiert eigentlich unsere Nationen? Politik oder »Deep State«? War der »Marsch durch die Institutionen« erfolgreich und hat unsere Nationen nachhaltig beschädigt? Wer hat eigentlich den Anreiz, in die öffentliche Verwaltung zu gehen? Braucht es die überschießende Rhetorik von Milei, um überhaupt eine Chance zu haben, den Stillstand zu beenden? »By liberty, was meant protection against the tyranny of the political rulers.«, John Stuart Mill Erleben wir eine Umkehrung der hart erkämpften Werte der Aktivisten des 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhunderts? Ist der Schutz von Politikern wichtiger als die freie Meinungsäußerung? Wo sind wir hingeraten? Was bedeutet Liberalismus überhaupt und wie hat sich der Begriff verändert? Wie setzt sich der liberale Staat gegen seine Feinde zur Wehr? Aber wer entscheidet, wer der Feind ist Wie weit kann der Staat »neutral« bleiben, wie weit muss er Werte haben? Von der Wiege bis zur Bahre, vom Staat bevormundet? Ist das dann zu viel? Oder wollen das viele wirklich? »Die Schwierigkeit der Menschen, erwachsen zu werden, ist auch ein Wohlstandsphänomen. Der Wohlstand, den wir haben, führt auch zum ewigen Kind.« Aber dazu kommt noch eine weitere Dimension: »Auch die Hypermoral ist ja eine infantile Geschichte.« Woher kommen eigentlich die großen Veränderungen im späten 20. und 21. Jahrhundert? »Die neue Revolution ist nicht ausgegangen von der Arbeiterschaft, sondern von der administrativen Elite«, James Burnham Schafft der administrative Staat immer neue Situationen, die immer neue Eingriffe notwendig machen und die eigene Macht verstärken? Werden also immer neue paternalistische Strukturen notwendig, um die Probleme zu »lösen«, die selbst zuvor verursacht wurden? Und diese Problemlösung erzeugt wieder neue Probleme, die … Ist das Lösen der Probleme im Sinne der Machtstruktur gar nicht wünschenswert? Trifft dies nicht nur auf politische, sondern auch auf andere Organisationsstrukturen zu?  Was ist die »eisige Nacht der polaren Kälte« nach Max Weber? Kann man eine Bürokratie der Debürokratisierung und damit eine Multiplikation des Problems vermeiden? Lässt sich dieses Dilemma rational, vernünftig lösen oder stecken wir hier in der Pathologie der Rationalität fest? Braucht es einen Clown, um den gordischen Knoten durchzuschlagen? Aber steckt in dieser Irrationalität nicht auch eine Gefahr? Welches unbekannte Know-how steckt — nach konservativer Logik — in den etablierten Strukturen? Stehen wir vor der Wahl einer tödlichen Verfettung oder einer gefährlichen Operation? Was wählen wir? Welches Hindernis stellt Statusdenken und Verhaften in Hierarchien dar? Signalisierung vor Bedeutung? Hilft das Denken von Foucault, um diese Problemlagen besser zu verstehen? »Academia has a tendency, when unchecked (from lack of skin in the game), to evolve into a ritualistic self-referential publishing game.«, Nassim Taleb Spielen wir in der Wissenschaft Cargo-Kult im 21. Jahrhundert?  »Wenn man nur die richtigen Wörter sagt [passend zum jeweiligen Kult], dann ist es schon wahr.«  Und der Cargo-Kult applaudiert. »Status können wir in Europa. Und Status ist per definitionem Abwendung von Realität.« Wie gehen wir in die Zukunft? »Ich bin für den Einzelnen optimistisch, fürs Kollektiv weniger.« Referenzen Andere Episoden Episode 111: Macht. Ein Gespräch mit Christine Bauer-Jelinek Episode 107: How to Organise Complex Societies? A Conversation with Johan Norberg Episode 106: Wissenschaft als Ersatzreligion? Ein Gespräch mit  Manfred Glauninger Episode 103: Schwarze Schwäne in Extremistan; die Welt des Nassim Taleb, ein Gespräch mit Ralph Zlabinger Episode 99: Entkopplung, Kopplung, Rückkopplung Episode 96: Ist der heutigen Welt nur mehr mit Komödie beizukommen? Ein Gespräch mit Vince Ebert Episode 95: Geopolitik und Militär, ein Gespräch mit Brigadier Prof. Walter Feichtinger Episode 88: Liberalismus und Freiheitsgrade, ein Gespräch mit Prof. Christoph Möllers Episode 77: Freie Privatstädte, ein Gespräch mit Dr. Titus Gebel Episode 72: Scheitern an komplexen Problemen? Wissenschaft, Sprache und Gesellschaft — Ein Gespräch mit Jan David Zimmermann Christoph Kletzer Kings College X Fachliche Referenzen Christoph Kletzer, Presse Kommentar, Der humpelnde Staat: So geht sicher nichts weiter (2024) Stafford Beer, The Heart of Enterprise, Wiley (1979) Thomas Sowell, intellectuals and Society, Basic Books (2010) Friedrich von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, Routledge (1944) John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859) David Graeber, The Dawn of Everything, A New History of Humanity, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux (2021) Max Weber, Politik als Beruf (1919) Nassim Taleb, Skin in the Game, Penguin (2018) Steven Brindle, Brunel: The Man Who Built the World, W&N (2006)

Should we care about the personal lives of influential thinkers? In Marx's case, probably! In this episode, we discuss two more articles from Thomas Sowell: one evaluating John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, and the other giving a detailed description of Karl Marx. We also talk about Donald Trump's second inauguration and what it means for the country!Follow us on Twitter! https://twitter.com/UlmtdOpinionsGive us your opinions here!

Join the #McConnellCenter as we host Dr. Aurelein Craiutu for a conversation regarding John Stuart Mill's book On Liberty. Aurelian Craiutu (Ph.D. Princeton, 1999) is Professor in the Department of Political Science at Indiana University, Bloomington, and Adjunct Professor in the Lilly Family School of Philanthropic Studies at IUPUI, Indianapolis.  We all know we need to read more and there are literally millions of books on shelves with new ones printed every day. How do we sort through all the possibilities to find the book that is just right for us now? Well, the McConnell Center is bringing authors and experts to inspire us to read impactful and entertaining books that might be on our shelves or in our e-readers, but which we haven't yet picked up. We hope you learn a lot in the following podcast and we hope you might be inspired to pick up one or more of the books we are highlighting this year at the University of Louisville's McConnell Center. Stay Connected Visit us at McConnellcenter.org Subscribe to our newsletter  Facebook: @mcconnellcenter Instagram: @ulmcenter  Twitter: @ULmCenter This podcast is a production of the McConnell Center

Você que acompanha o Café Brasil sabe que estamos passando por um período de intensa polarização política e deve ter ficado preocupado como eu fiquei, com a privação de liberdade. De repente, eu me vi impedido de seguir alguns canais que passaram a ser censurados por motivos políticos. Além disso eu queria acessar séries e filmes dos Estados Unidos e Europa que ainda não estão disponíveis aqui no Brasil. Então eu fui procurar um VPN. VPN significa Virtual Private Network ou Rede Privada Virtual. As pessoas recorrem a VPNs para acessar conteúdos restritos de outros países, contornar bloqueios locais e encontrar melhores ofertas de produtos e serviços online. Além disso, VPNs protegem contra vigilância digital, assegurando liberdade de expressão e navegação segura. Sabe o que eu fiz? Eu assinei a NordVPN, com a qual passei a acessar o mundo todo sem deixar traços e com liberdade absoluta. Muito fácil, cara! E ainda ganhei a oportunidade de comprar passagens aéreas mais baratas, como se eu tivesse fora do Brasil, cara. É sensacional. E aqui a melhor parte. Se você acessar nordvpn.com/cafebrasil, eu vou repetir: nordvpn.com/cafebrasil, vai obter um ótimo desconto no seu plano. E além disso mais quatro meses adicionais grátis. Experimente! Se você não gostar, a NordVPN oferece reembolso total em 30 dias sem perguntas. De novo: nordvpn.com/cafebrasil. Comece sua jornada de navegação segura hoje mesmo. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) foi um importante filósofo e economista britânico, conhecido por suas ideias sobre liberdade e utilitarismo. Seu livro mais famoso, On Liberty – Sobre Liberdade - publicado em 1859, defende a importância da liberdade individual e os limites da interferência do Estado. Mesmo sendo um livro antigo, On Liberty mostra que as ideias de Mill continuam atuais.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Andrew M. Bailey is a Professor and co-author of Resistance Money: A Philosophical case for Bitcoin. We discuss the book's approach to communicating the idea of Bitcoin from a global perspective, providing strong arguments for Bitcoin's value as a net good for the world. We also talk about the history of political philosophy and how ideas spread as well as the new interdisciplinary Bitcoin Research Institute at the University of Wyoming where Andrew will be taking on a role as Professor of Philosophy. ‍--- Connect with The Transformation of Value X: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://x.com/TTOVpodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Nostr at: npub1uth29ygt090fe640skhc8l34d9s7xlwj4frxs2esezt7n6d64nwsqcmmmu Or send an email to hello@thetransformationofvalue.com and I will get back to you! --- Support The Transformation of Value: Bitcoin tip address: bc1qlfcr2v73tntt6wvyp2yu064egvyeery6xtwy8t Lightning tip address: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠codyellingham@fountain.fm If you send a tip please email or DM me so I can thank you! --- Credits: Music by Simon James French - https://www.simonjamesfrench.com/ --- Links: Resistance Money - ⁠⁠https://www.resistance.money/ Andrew M. Bailey - https://andrewmbailey.com/ University of Wyoming Bitcoin Research Institute - https://www.uwyo.edu/philrelig/bitcoin/index.html Second Treatise of Government by John Locke - https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm?ref=americanpurpose.com Jameson Lopp - https://www.lopp.net/ On Liberty by John Stuart Mill - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/385228.On_Liberty Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? by Mark Fisher - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6763725-capitalist-realism

This episode fits perfectly into my longer-lasting quest to understand complex societies and how to handle it. I am thrilled about the opportunity to have a conversation with Johan Norberg. The title of our conversation is: How to organise complex societies? Johan Norberg is a bestselling author of multiple books, historian of ideas and senior fellow at the Cato Institute. I read his last two books, Open, The Story of Human Progress and The Capitalist Manifesto. Both are excellent books, I can highly recommend. We will discuss both books in the wider bracket of the challenge how to handle complex societies. The main question we discuss is, how can we handle complex societies? Which approaches work, give people opportunity, freedom and wealth, and which do not work. The question can be inverted too: When systems are more complex, is also more control and commands needed, or the opposite? »The more complex the society, the less it can be organised—the more complex society gets, the more simple rules we need.« Knowledge and power behave differently, as Tom Sowell puts it: “It's much easier to concentrate power than knowledge.” The consequence seems to be: “If we centralise power we loose knowledge” We talk about the historic background of the idea of liberty, for instance John Stewart Mills On liberty, Friedrich Hayek Road to Serfdom. Did we lose our desire for liberty? The Austrian philosopher Konrad Paul Liessmann observes: “Dass das Volk nicht herrschen kann, sondern erzogen, belehrt, bevormundet und mehr oder weniger sanft in die richtige Richtung gedrängt werden soll, ist überall spürbar. Die ubiquitäre pädagogische Sprache ist verräterisch.” “The fact that the people cannot rule, but are to be educated, instructed, patronised and more or less gently pushed in the right direction, can be felt everywhere. The ubiquitous pedagogical language is treacherous.” How then, should we think about liberty and responsibility?  “There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.”, P. J. O'Rourke. That might be an uncomfortable truth for some, though. Freedom has consequences and responsibilities! The trend of the last decades points to a different direction. Every minute detail seems to be regulated by someone who allegedly knows better: “Large projects are essentially illegal in California and in Europe”, Elon Musk The consequence is, as I have discussed in previous episodes, stagnation since many decades. Follow the links below to other episodes. Now, did we become an old, risk-averse, dying society? This would not be good news because:  “With innovation comes the risk of failure” And the uncomfortable truth is: Our desire to reduce risks might actually increase risks.  “If we are saying that we should not accept anything until it is perfectly safe, that's the most unsafe and risky bet we could do.” How can we muddle out of this mess? “Nothing comes from a committee, nothing from a single genius fully developed. Innovation comes from a process of experiments, trial and error, feedback and adaptation, changes and more people getting involved.”  There is no such thing as an immaculate conception of a new technology. But what about volatility? Is volatility a risk? For whom? The individual, society? Is societal risk decreasing when we reduce volatility?  What does Johan mean by openness, and why is it Important? “Openness for me means openness to surprises. This is the only way for societies to thrive and function long term. […] Historically, life was nasty, brutish, and short. We need new things. We need new knowledge, new technological capacity and wealth.” So why did the industrial revolution happen in the West? What is the connection to openness? What can we learn about control in societies? “Societies have to be decentralised not top down controlled.” But Mervyn King discusses in his excellent book Radical Uncertainty the fact, that we cannot predict the future. What happens with innovation that we cannot predict? “Under open institutions, people will solve more problems  than they create.” Moreover, the opposite is not true. Not innovating does not reduce risk: “If we would do nothing, we would also be surprised by unpredictable developments. […] We solved the problems that were existential and created better problems and level up. […] I prefer those problems to the ones that made life nasty, brutish and short.” In Europe, the precautionary principle is in high regard. Does it work, or is it rather a complete failure of epistemology? But what about capitalism? Has it failed us or is it the saviour? Does the Matthew principle speak against capitalism? “Elites have an interest to protect the status quo” which is a reason why free markets were blocked in many societies. This does not speak against free markets, but rather is an argument for free markets. Is the idea of capitalism and free markets more difficult to grasp on a psychological level? Socialist ideas sound nice (when you are in a family or small group) but they do not scale. And even worse, if you try to scale them, do they create the opposite of the desired effect? In a society, we are the kids, and we have other ideas than some authoritarian figure, and we have the right to our ideas.  “The only way to organise a complex society of strangers with different interests and different ideas and different vantage points on the world is not to control it, but instead give them the freedom to act according to their own individual creativity and dreams.  […]  You can get rich that way, but only by enriching others.” Moreover, the distribution problem evidently is not solved by top-down political concepts. In authoritarian systems, poverty is equally distributed, but the elites still enrich themselves.  But is trade and economy not used as a weapon on an international scale? How does that fit together, and does that not open up massive risks when we stick to free markets? “If goods don't cross borders, soldiers will.” Why is diversification, important, and how to reach it? What happened in Argentina, a very timely question after the new presidency of Javier Milei. “Argentina should be a memento mori for all of us. […] 100 years ago, Argentina was one of the richest countries of the planet. It had the future going for it”. […] If Argentina can fail, so can we, if we make the wrong decisions.” There are countries on every continent that make rapid progress. What do they have in common? At the end of the day, this is a hopeful message because wealth and progress can happen everywhere. Since the turn of the millennium, almost 140,000 people have been lifted out of extreme poverty every day. For more than 20 years. Where did that happen and why? What can we learn from Javier Milei? “I am an incredible optimist once I gaze away from politics and look at society.” How can we repay the debt to previous generations that gave us the living standards we enjoy today? References Other Episodes Episode 103: Schwarze Schwäne in Extremistan; die Welt des Nassim Taleb, ein Gespräch mit Ralph Zlabinger Episode 101: Live im MQ, Macht und Ohnmacht in der Wissensgesellschaft. Ein Gespräch mit John G. Haas. Episode 96: Ist der heutigen Welt nur mehr mit Komödie beizukommen? Ein Gespräch mit Vince Ebert Episode 90: Unintended Consequences (Unerwartete Folgen) Episode 89: The Myth of Left and Right, a Conversation with Prof. Hyrum Lewis Episode 77: Freie Privatstädte, ein Gespräch mit Dr. Titus Gebel Episode 71: Stagnation oder Fortschritt — eine Reflexion an der Geschichte eines Lebens Episode 70: Future of Farming, a conversation with Padraic Flood Episode 65: Getting Nothing Done — Teil 2 Episode 64: Getting Nothing Done — Teil 1 Episode 44: Was ist Fortschritt? Ein Gespräch mit Philipp Blom Episode 34: Die Übersetzungsbewegung, oder: wie Ideen über Zeiten, Kulturen und Sprachen wandern – Gespräch mit Prof. Rüdiger Lohlker Johan Norberg Johan Norberg is Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute Johan Norberg on Twitter/X Johan Norberg on LinkedId Johan Norberg, Open. The Story Of Human Progress, Atlantic Books (2021) Johan Norberg, The Capitalist Manifesto, Atlantic Books (2023) Literature, Videos and Links John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859) Friedrich von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, Routledge (1944) Thomas Sowell, intellectuals and Society, Basic Books (2010) Johan Norberg, A Conversation with Elon Musk, The Cato Institute (2024) Reason TV: Nick Gillespie and Magatte Wade, Don't blame colonialism for African poverty (2024) Jason Hickel, The Divide – A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions, Windmill (2018) Victor Davis Hanson on subsidies and tarifs (2024) Konrad Paul Liessmann, Lauter Lügen, Paul Zsolnay (2023) P. J. O'Rourke, The Liberty Manifesto; Cato Institute (1993)

Summary Alex speaks with Jacob Levy about the concept of a liberal party, exploring its philosophical foundations, historical context, and touch on all of these points within the context of Jacob's article "The Liberal Party Idea" (2024). References The Liberal Party Idea by Jacob Levy: Link:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381323406_The_liberal_party_idea_and_American_ideology "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Liberty-John-Stuart-Mill/dp/1505851210 "The Constitution of Liberty" by Friedrich Hayek Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Constitution-Liberty-Friedrich-Hayek/dp/0226320847 "The Federalist Papers" by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Federalist-Papers-Alexander-Hamilton/dp/0486496363 "Reflections on the Revolution in France" by Edmund Burke Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Reflections-Revolution-France-Edmund-Burke/dp/0199539022 "Democracy in America" by Alexis de Tocqueville Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Democracy-America-Alexis-Tocqueville/dp/0140447601 "Two Treatises of Government" by John Locke Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Two-Treatises-Government-John-Locke/dp/1532846815 "Political Liberalism" by John Rawls Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Political-Liberalism-John-Rawls/dp/0231130899 Thanks to our patrons including: Amy Willis, Kris Rondolo, and Christopher McDonald. To become a patron, go to patreon.com/curioustask

How has 19th-century English philosopher John Stuart Mill influenced America's conception of free speech and the First Amendment? In their new book, “The Supreme Court and the Philosopher: How John Stuart Mill Shaped U.S. Free Speech Protections,” co-authors Eric Kasper and Troy Kozma look at how the Supreme Court has increasingly aligned its interpretation of free expression with Mill's philosophy, as articulated in “On Liberty.” Eric Kasper is professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, where he serves as the director of the Menard Center for Constitutional Studies. Troy Kozma is a professor of philosophy and the academic chair at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire - Barron County. Timestamps 00:00 Intro 02:26 Book's origin 06:51 Who is John Stuart Mill? 10:09 What is the “harm principle”? 16:30 Early Supreme Court interpretation of the First Amendment 26:25 What was Justice Holmes' dissent in Abrams v. U.S.? 30:28 Why did Justice Brandeis join Holmes' dissents? 36:10 What are loyalty oaths? 40:36 Justice Black's nuanced view of the First Amendment 43:33 What were Mill's views on race and education? 50:42 Private beliefs vs. public service? 52:40 Commercial speech 55:51 Where do we stand today? 1:03:32 Outro Transcript is HERE  

Paul Meany of Libertarianism.org walks us through the importance of John Stuart Mill through his powerful treatise On Liberty. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The ongoing crackdown on protests at many American universities prompts a discussion on the politics, ethics, and metaphysics of free expression. Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/weirdstudies). Buy the Weird Studies soundtrack, volumes 1 (https://pierre-yvesmartel.bandcamp.com/album/weird-studies-music-from-the-podcast-vol-1) and 2 (https://pierre-yvesmartel.bandcamp.com/album/weird-studies-music-from-the-podcast-vol-2), on Pierre-Yves Martel's Bandcamp (https://pierre-yvesmartel.bandcamp.com) page. Listen to Meredith Michael and Gabriel Lubell's podcast, Cosmophonia (https://cosmophonia.podbean.com/). Visit the Weird Studies Bookshop (https://bookshop.org/shop/weirdstudies) Find us on Discord (https://discord.com/invite/Jw22CHfGwp) Get the T-shirt design from Cotton Bureau (https://cottonbureau.com/products/can-o-content#/13435958/tee-men-standard-tee-vintage-black-tri-blend-s)! REFERENCES Virginia Woolf, A Room of One's Own (https://bookshop.org/a/18799/9780156787338) Federico Campagna, Technic and Magic (https://bookshop.org/a/18799/9781350044029) George Orwell, The Prevention of Literature (https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-prevention-of-literature/) George Orwell, Inside the Whale (https://orwell.ru/library/essays/whale/english/e_itw) New York Times, “At Indiana University, Protests Only Add to a Full Year of Conflicts (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/02/us/indiana-university-protest-encampment.html) John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (https://bookshop.org/a/18799/9780521379175) Indiana Daily Student, “Provost Addresses Controversy” (https://www.idsnews.com/article/2024/01/provost-addresses-controversy-suspension-palestinian-artist-bfc) Official government page for the Proposed Bill to address Online (https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/online-harms.html) Harms in Canada. Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (https://bookshop.org/a/18799/9781515436874) GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy (https://bookshop.org/a/18799/9781511903608) Daryl Davis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis), American musician and activist DavidFoster Wallace, Just Asking (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/just-asking/306288/)

»Ist der heutigen Welt nur mehr mit Komödie beizukommen?« Wer könnte diese Frage besser beantworten als der Gesprächspartner der heutigen Episode? Vince Ebert ist Diplom-Physiker und Kabarettist seit über 25 Jahren. In der ARD moderierte er jahrelang die Sendung „Wissen vor Acht“. Seine Bücher sind Bestseller und verkauften sich über eine Million Mal. Außerdem ist er ist einer der gefragtesten Vortragsredner Deutschlands. Wie kommt es, dass sich Vince Eberts Weg von Naturwissenschaft und Physik ins Kabarett und zum beliebten Vortragsredner, "Hofnarren" (wie er es selbst bezeichnet) entwickelt hat? Ist eine solide naturwissenschaftliche Ausbildung eine gute Basis für die meisten Anforderungen, die die moderne Gesellschaft stellt? »Ich habe nach dem Studium als Unternehmensberater gearbeitet. Als Physiker verstehen sie von Beratung genauso wenig wie wie ein BWLer auch, dafür in der Hälfte der Zeit.« Steht heute zu häufig Wunschdenken vor Fakten, und hilft das naturwissenschaftliche Denken bei diesen Problemstellungen? Aber können wir die Welt wirklich rational erfassen? Welche Rolle spielen emotionale Bewertungen in der modernen Welt?  »The only law of history is the law of unintended consequences«, Niall Ferguson Darf ein Politiker/Manager die Komplexität der Welt benennen oder muss er sie ignorieren? Muss er Sicherheit versprechen, wo keine ist? Was macht einen guten und (das könnte eine gänzlich andere Frage sein) erfolgreichen Politiker/Manager aus? Die Liste der gefeierten Manager und Unternehmer, die nur wenige Jahre später bankrott oder verurteilt sind, ist groß und reicht von Jeffrey Skilling und Bernie Ebbers bis zu Elizabeth Holmes und Sam Bankman-Fried. Haben wir Schwierigkeiten damit, Führungspersönlichkeiten differenziert zu betrachten? Andererseits hat die Covid-Krise nahegelegt, dass nur die wenigen Experten, die differenziert und selbstkritisch gehandelt haben, wie etwa der Schwede Anders Tegnell, ihre Vertrauenswürdigkeit nicht verloren haben. Vielleicht hat aber auch die Covid-, Energiewende- und Wirtschaftskrise die Situation verändert? »Es ist lange Zeit nicht aufgefallen, wenn man Mist gebaut hat.« Welche Rolle spielt (vermeintlicher) Perfektionismus im Versagen der letzten Jahre in zahlreichen Krisen? Gibt es in der komplexen Welt gibt es keine perfekten Lösungen, sondern immer nur Abwägungen von Dilemmata? Retten wir die Welt, wenn wir alle Ressourcen auf eine (wie ausgewählte?) Krise richten? Sind wir als moderne Gesellschaft nicht in der Lage breiter zu denken und wie kann man auf die Idee kommen, dass man auf eine kommende Katastrophe als Gesellschaft gut vorbereitet ist, wenn man zuvor Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft beschädigt? Reaktion auf fast alle kommenden Krisen benötigt funktionierende Strukturen, Kompetenz und Ressourcen. »Der Satz, wie müssen mehr verzichten, stammt ironischerweise immer von Menschen, die sowieso keine wirtschaftlichen Probleme haben.« Sind viele der aktuelle populären Aktivisten eher para-religiöse Bewegungen? Alle religiösen »Tugenden« sind zu finden: Verzicht, Propheten, man kann erlöst werden, indem man rituelle Handlungen vollzieht, Sinngebung erfolgt aus der Bewegung und man ist überzeugt absolute Wahrheiten zu verkünden? Erleben wir in der öffentlichen und politischen Diskussion einen destruktiven Effekt durch übertriebene Moralisierung? Was ist das neue Programm von Vince Ebert und wie spricht es die aktuelle Situation der Gesellschaft an? »Wir waren früher in Diskussionen schon weiter.« Es war früher auf der Bühne, im Film, in der Kunst viel mehr möglich. Warum machen wir in den letzten Jahren erhebliche Rückschritte? Wieso polarisieren selbst vernünftige, normalen Aussagen? Ist die Gesellschaft gar nicht gespalten, sondern nur die Rezeption kleiner und an sich wenig relevanter, aber lautstarke Randgruppen? Wie hat sich der Begriff der Freiheit von etwa John Stuart Mill bis heute verändert? Haben wir Angst vor Freiheit und wollen den Staat bis in unser privates Leben entscheiden lassen? Wie lange ist diese Vollkasko-Mentalität noch haltbar? »Politiker behandelnd uns als wären wir 10 jährige Kinder, aber viele von uns - das ist die bittere Wahrheit - wollen auch wie 10 jährige Kinder behandelt werden.« So kann aber eine komplexe Gesellschaft nicht funktionieren. Was dazu kommt: Derjenige, der etwas mit eigenem Risiko schafft wurde langsam aber stetig zum Feindbild aufgebaut. »Wir Deutsche können mit Freiheit schlecht umgehen.« Mit Vollkasko-Mentalität und dem Glauben an unsere unbesiegbare Überlegenheit werden wir die Zukunft nicht bewältigen. »Vor zwanzig Jahren hat China noch kopiert, inzwischen haben sie diese Stufe überschritten […] Es ist bei vielen Leuten in Deutschland immer noch nicht angekommen, dass wir in einer immensen Wirtschaftskrise stecken.« Es scheint, wir leben hier in mehreren Realitäten und große Teile der Elite kapseln sich in von der Realität immer stärker entkoppelten Enklaven ab. Vince Ebert kritisiert diese Entwicklungen auch in seinem Artikel »Vor Theoretikern wird gewarnt«. Häufig wird der Eindruck vermittelt, wenn es am akademischen Reißbrett steht, ist es auch möglich — und das stimmt schlicht nicht. Ist es folglich überraschend, dass viele Menschen Vertrauen in Expertise verloren haben, oder eher ein positives Zeichen, daß Veränderung fordert? Gibt es einen wesentlichen Unterschied zwischen Wissen und Expertise? Ist ein wesentlicher Teil des Problems, dass es für akademische Eliten kein »Skin in the Game« gibt, sprich: falsche Vorhersagen haben zwar für die Gesellschaft große Folgen, aber nicht für den falschen Propheten? »Wenn man nur im Elfenbeinturm sitzt, kann man bestimmte Faktoren einfach nicht abschätzen.« und dies gepaart mit »Theoretischer Arroganz — wenn ich diese Faktoren nicht in meiner Machbarkeitsstudie drinnen habe, dann existieren sich auch nicht.« Im Umfang der Nutzungsbedingungen einer simplen App hat man früher Staatsverträge gemacht. »Wir versuchen immer mehr uns vor Risiken abzusichern, und merken überhaupt nicht, dass das überhaupt das größte Risiko ist.« Zurückkommend auf das Dürrenmatt-Zitat. Ist der heutigen Welt nur mehr mit der Komödie beizukommen und besteht die Gefahr in den Zynismus abzugleiten? Zum Abschluss: Vergessen Sie nicht, das neues Programm von Vince Ebert: Vince of Change zu besuchen! Referenzen Andere Episoden Episode 92: Wissen und Expertise Teil 2 Episode 91: Die Heidi-Klum-Universität, ein Gespräch mit Prof. Ehrmann und Prof. Sommer Episode 90: Unintended Consequences (Unerwartete Folgen) Episode 88: Liberalismus und Freiheitsgrade, ein Gespräch mit Prof. Christoph Möllers Episode 84: (Epistemische) Krisen? Ein Gespräch mit Jan David Zimmermann Episode 81: Energie und Ressourcen, ein Gespräch mit Dr. Lars Schernikau Episode 80: Wissen, Expertise und Prognose, eine Reflexion Episode 76: Existentielle Risiken Episode 74: Apocalype Always Episode 62: Wirtschaft und Umwelt, ein Gespräch mit Prof. Hans-Werner Sinn Vince Ebert Vince Ebert Webseite Vince Ebert Programm/Tour Vince Ebert, Lichtblick statt Blackout: Warum wir beim Weltverbessern neu denken müssen, dtv (2022) Vince Ebert, Unberechenbar: Warum das Leben zu komplex ist, um es perfekt zu planen Vor Theoretikern wird gewarnt, Rowohlt (2016) Fachliche Referenzen ReasonTV, The Truth about Swedens Covid-Policy (2023) Niall Ferguson on Regulation (2023) John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Projekt Gutenberg (1859) Konrad Paul Liessmann, Lauter Lügen, Paul Zsolnay Verlag (2023) Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals an Society, Basic Books (2012)

Brendan McCord is the founder of Cosmos Institute — a non-profit dedicated to exploring the intersection of AI and philosophy. Brendan joins the show to discuss Cosmos' origins, the pursuit of philosophy as a technologist, the different schools of thought in AI, complex adaptive systems and MUCH more! Important Links: Brendan McCord's Reading List Cosmos Institute Substack Brendan's Twitter Show Notes: The Genesis of the Cosmos Institute Philosophy as a Quixotic Pursuit The Man of the System Dilemma Existential Risk & Scenario Agnosticism The AI Schools of Thought The Religious Nature of the E/Acc Movement What Tocqueville Can Teach Us About AI The Philosophy-to-Code Pipeline “Cars ignited the Sexual Revolution” and Other Unexpected Occurrences The Best Systems are Adaptive Heterogeneity & Resilient Systems Open Source and the US-China Situation Automation, Augmentation & Open-Ended Generation The Underrated Nuance of Russian Realism Cinematic Visions of the Future Great Talent & the Risk of the Tasmanian Devil Brendan as Emperor of the World MORE! Books Mentioned: Murray Rothbard, “For A New Liberty” David R. Hawkins, “Power vs. Force” Jung Chang, “Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China” Jung Chang, “Mao: The Unknown Story” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, “The Gulag Archipelago” Arthur Koestler, “Darkness At Noon” Adam Smith, “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” Lewis Carroll, “Alice's Adventures in Wonderland” Lewis Carroll, “What the Tortoise Said To Achilles” Eliezer Yudkowsky, “Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality” Marc Andreessen, “The Techno-Optimist Manifesto” Alexis De Tocqueville, “Democracy in America” 'Pericles's Funeral Oration' quoted in Thucydides' “History of the Peloponnesian War”. Plato, “Theaetetus” Plato, “The Republic” Nietzsche, “The Gay Science” C.P Snow, “The Two Cultures” Elinor Ostrom, “Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action” James M. Buchanan, "Freedom in Constitutional Contract: Perspectives of a Political Economist” Iain M. Banks, “Consider Phlebas” (Culture Series #1) Chen Qiufan and Kai-Fu Lee, “AI 2041: Ten Visions for Our Future” Christopher Buckley, “Thank You for Smoking” John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty”

Sabine speaks with Aeon Skoble about the harms of limiting access to information, including book bans and why a better understanding of ideas we disagree with often strengthens rather than weakens our arguments in support of the ideas we endorse. Episode Notes: - “Free Speech and the Function of a University” Aeon J. Skoble https://vc.bridgew.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2081&context=br_rev  - A brief history of Hume's works being banned: https://oll.libertyfund.org/publications/reading-room/2023-10-25-donway-hume-great-work-on-religion-banned  - A handy breakdown from the University of Notre Dame on J.S. Mill's case for disagreement and free speech in “On Liberty”: https://philife.nd.edu/j-s-mills-on-liberty-seek-disagreement/  - Jacob Mchangama's book “Free Speech: A History From Socrates to Social Media” https://a.co/d/8lcEV6a    

Jon Manson, ASeaOfRed.com On Liberty's Fiesta Bowl Experience, The 2023 Season & The Fallout by Ed Lane

John Stuart Mill's On Liberty has been a consistent and prominent reference point in the ongoing debates about free speech. In this episode we discuss an elegant and powerful critique of Mill by the twentieth century political theorist Willmoore Kendall. His essay “The ‘Open Society' and Its Fallacies” was published in the American Political Science Review in December of 1960. Our conversation covers various aspects of Kendall's critique. Kendall claims that Mill's argument for freedom rests on a false conception of the nature of society and human nature itself. We explore Kendall's understanding of Mill's thoroughgoing radicalism. “Mill,” Kendall writes, “is in full rebellion against both religion and philosophy, and so in full rebellion also against the traditional society that embodies them.” We also take up the phenomenon of what Kendall calls the “dispersal of opinion.” He contends that any society which guides itself according to Mill's prescriptions will “descend ineluctably into ever deepening differences of opinion, into progressive breakdown of those common premises upon which alone a society can its affairs by discussion.”   Our guest is James Stoner. Professor Stoner is the Hermann Moyse, Jr., Professor and Director of the Eric Voegelin Institute in the Department of Political Science at Louisiana State University, where he has taught since 1988.  He is the author of Common-Law Liberty (Kansas, 2003) and Common Law and Liberal Theory (Kansas, 1992), and co-editor of Free Speech and Intellectual Diversity in Higher Education with Paul Carrese and Carol McNamara—just published in September of 2023. He also contributed a chapter to this volume called “Was John Stuart Mill Right About Free Speech?” which will be of interest to anyone who listens to our conversation here.

Should we be outraged that Roger Waters has been accused of anti-Semitism for a dramatic piece that shows the downfall of an authoritarian leader? We believe with John Stuart Mill's On Liberty which insists that we should never close our ears to disagreeable ideas and always be open to discussion.   The Roger Waters video Jon mentions

تاریخ انتشار: 10 تیر 1402 تو این قسمت در مورد نظریه‌ها و دیدگاه‌های جان استوارت میل درباره آزادی صحبت می‌کنیم. حمایت مالی از خوره کتاب ما اینجاها فعالیم: اینستاگرام - تلگرام - یوتیوب - وبسایت منابع:1- کتاب آزادی (On Liberty) نوشته جان استوارت میل2- کتاب فایده‌گرایی (utilitarianism) نوشته جان استوارت میل3- کتاب موضوع زنان (The Subjection of Women) نوشته جان استوارت میل4- سخنرانی ریک رادریک (Rick Roderick) درباره کتاب “آزادی” موسیقی متن: ترک Lotus از Soen و ترک Girl On Fire از Alicia Keys The post مرز آزادی کجاست؟ از دیدگاه جان استوارت میل (قسمت سوم) appeared first on پادکست خوره کتاب.

Sure, you might be free from things, but now what are you free to do?! Coming up, negative and positive freedom! 

“Life and Liberty with Drew McKissick” “Labeled Hate Groups with Tina Descovich” “Corrupt Systems of Justice Bill Pascoe” “Biden's Distain for Freedom”

Alex speaks with Professor Jacob Levy about the concept of neutrality within the history of liberalism and how many historical thinkers have approached the subject within that tradition.  Episode Notes: Michael Oakeshott on “adverbial rules” https://lawliberty.org/forum/michael-oakeshott-on-the-rule-of-law-and-the-liberal-order/  John Locke's religious beliefs https://rb.gy/1yg43  Heresy of Americanism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_(heresy)  Deirdre McCloskey's Bourgeois Virtues Thesis https://www.deirdremccloskey.com/docs/bv_selection.pdf  Ronald Dworkin “Liberalism” https://www.scribd.com/document/313373358/Ronald-Dworkin-Liberalism#  Stephanie Slade, "Must Libertarians Care About More Than the State?" https://reason.com/2022/03/19/two-libertarianisms/  Alexis De Toqueville's concerns about the rising liberal democratic order https://www.economist.com/schools-brief/2018/08/09/de-tocqueville-and-the-french-exception  John Stuart Mill “On Liberty” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty 

Originally Recorded March 14th, 2023 About Professor Nadine Strossen: https://www.nyls.edu/faculty/nadine-strossen/ Check out Nadine's upcoming book, Free Speech: What You Need to Know: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/free-speech-9780197699645 Check out John Stuart Mill's landmark essay On Liberty: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm Get full access to Unlicensed Philosophy with Chuong Nguyen at musicallyspeaking.substack.com/subscribe

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill audiobook. Published in 1859, On Liberty details Mill's view that individuals should be left wholly free to engage in any activity, thought or belief that does not harm others. Simple though it sounds, it is a position that challenges our ideas on the very nature of government and society, and sheds light on some of the key issues we face today. A key text of political philosophy, On Liberty has been continuously in print since its first publication. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Published in 1859, On Liberty details Mill's view that individuals should be left wholly free to engage in any activity, thought or belief that does not harm others. Simple though it sounds, it is a position that challenges our ideas on the very nature of government and society, and sheds light on some of the key issues we face today. A key text of political philosophy, On Liberty has been continuously in print since its first publication. (Summary by David Barnes) --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/librivox1/support

Guest host Sigal Samuel talks with professor of philosophy and law Nita Farahany about her new book The Battle for Your Brain. In it, Farahany details the new brain-scanning tech that has already arrived, and the risks this poses to our privacy and freedom of thought. Sigal and Nita discuss what this technology can currently do (and what it can't), how new devices might be used by corporations or governments to infringe on our rights, and the prospect of using new technologies to rid ourselves of painful or traumatic memories — even, potentially, before they've been formed. Host: Sigal Samuel (@SigalSamuel), Senior Reporter, Vox Guest: Nita Farahany (@NitaFarahany), author; professor of philosophy & Robinson O. Everett Professor of Law, Duke University References:  The Battle for Your Brain: Defending the Right to Think Freely in the Age of Neurotechnology by Nita A. Farahany (St. Martin's; 2023) "Your brain may not be private much longer" by Sigal Samuel (Vox; March 17) "BGU develops wearable advanced warning system for epileptic seizures" (Jerusalem Post; Sept. 29, 2020) "Elon Musk shows off updates to his brain chips and says he's going to install one in himself when they are ready" by Ashley Capoot (CNBC; Dec. 1, 2022) "Brain-implant companies balk at moves to regulate their nascent tech" by Sarah McBride (Los Angeles Times; Feb. 19) "NHS trials headset that claims to zap depression" by Katie Prescott (The Times; Jan. 23) "Australian man uses brain implant to send texts from his iPad" by Kristin Houser (Freethink; Nov. 12, 2022) "Is 'brain fingerprinting' a breakthrough or a sham?" by Russell Brandom (The Verge; Feb. 2, 2015) "China Claims It's Scanning Workers' Brainwaves to Increase Efficiency and Profits" by Samantha Cole (VICE; May 1, 2018) "Incriminating Thoughts" by Nita A. Farahany (Stanford Law Review, vol. 64 (2); Feb. 2012) John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty" (1859) Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason (1788) "Non-conscious brain modulation may help PTSD patients forget their fears" by Brooks Hays (UPI; Feb. 23, 2021) No Mud, No Lotus: The Art of Transforming Suffering by Thich Nhat Hanh (Parallax Press; 2019)   Enjoyed this episode? Rate The Gray Area ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ and leave a review on Apple Podcasts. Subscribe for free. Be the first to hear the next episode of The Gray Area. Subscribe in your favorite podcast app. Support The Gray Area by making a financial contribution to Vox! bit.ly/givepodcasts This episode was made by:  Producer: Erikk Geannikis Engineers: Patrick Boyd & Brandon McFarland Editorial Director, Vox Talk: A.M. Hall Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

To celebrate 100 Episodes of On Liberty we flip the script and CIS executive director Tom Switzer interviews regular On Liberty host Salvatore Babones. Over 100 episodes, Salvatore has interviewed a wide range of guests on an incredible range of topics. We hear from Salvatore on what he has learnt about Classical Liberalism and political orthodoxy in Australia and around the world from his many interviews. As well as how On Liberty has shaped Salvatore's views, his new position as Director of China and Free Societies at CIS and what's next for the international affairs portfolio at CIS.

Phil Steele, PhilSteele.com On Liberty, ODU, JMU And Other VA Schools by Ed Lane

Substack — the popular newsletter and publishing service — has made a name for itself by swimming against the current: As many technology companies devise new ways to censor or moderate content on their platforms, Substack made free speech one of its core values and, in doing so, has attracted bloggers and journalists from across the political spectrum.“While we have content guidelines that allow us to protect the platform at the extremes, we will always view censorship as a last resort, because we believe open discourse is better for writers and better for society,” proclaimed Substack's founders.Lulu Cheng Meservey is Vice President of Communications for Substack. She went viral earlier this year when she tweeted about why free expression is an important principle for Substack. She joins us this week to discuss Substack, free speech, and the new media ecosystem. Show notes: Transcript Lulu's viral tweet thread “Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse.” by Hamish McKenzie, Chris Best, and Jairaj Sethi Substack's “Content Guidelines” Substackers mentioned: Andrew Sullivan, Casey Newton, The Fifth Column, Patti Smith, George Saunders, Salman Rushdie, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Freddie deBoer, Nikita Petrov, Blocked and Reported John Stuart Mill's “On Liberty” www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/SotoSpeakTheFreeSpeechPodcast Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org

Does the First Amendment of the Constitution Cover Freedom of Speech?The United States of America is the freest nation on Earth, for the time being. The Supreme Law of the land continues to be the Constitution. The founding document of our great nation on its own is the crowning achievement of the Founding Fathers, but before its ratification, ten articles were included as amendments.These ten articles became known as the Bill of Rights. The first of those rights, called the First Amendment, is:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."Today, we are going to provide Free Speech 101: The Essential Guide. There are many things which ought to be said in the realm of freedom of speech, but these things are the roots, the essence of the topic.What is Freedom of Speech?The Constitution's First Amendment protects the nation from Congress attempted to make laws abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. This is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy.Geoffrey Stone and Eugene Volokh, in conjunction with the National Constitution Center, provide a fantastic layman's version of this freedom: "Generally speaking, it means that the government may not jail, fine, or impose civil liability on people or organizations based on what they say or write, except in exceptional circumstances."The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution as protecting speakers from any and all government agencies and officials. Further, "speech" and "press" refers to talking, writing, printing, broadcasting, the Internet, and other forms of expressing oneself. Much to the chagrin of some, "freedom of speech also applies to symbolic expression, such as displaying flags, burning flags, wearing armbands, burning crosses, and the like (Stone, Volokh)."What Circumstances Are Not Covered as Free Speech Under the First Amendment?The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has a reputation as a liberal organization, to put it mildly. However, in an article regarding free speech, the ACLU wrote:"Over the years, the ACLU has represented or defended individuals engaged in some truly offensive speech. We have defended the speech rights of communists, Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, accused terrorists, pornographers, anti-LGBT activists, and flag burners. That's because the defense of freedom of speech is most necessary when the message is one most people find repulsive. Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if they're going to be preserved for everyone."Quite right! So, when is freedom of speech NOT covered by the First Amendment of the Constitution?First, certain types of speech are considered "low" value to the Supreme Court and thus provide circumstances under which the First Amendment barely applies or does not apply. These are outlined, with references to specific cases by Stone and Volohk:DefamationTrue threats"Fighting words"Hard-core obscenity (such as highly sexually explicit pornography)Child pornographyCommercial Advertising which is misleadingSecond, if the speaker is in a special relationship to the government, they are less protected. Government employees, such as public school employees can be restricted, even in the content of their speech.Third, the government can restrict speech under certain circumstances which are irrespective of content. For example, restrictions on noise, blocking traffic, and large distracting signs are constitutional, if they are reasonable. However, a law prohibiting demonstrations in public parks or handing out leaflets on public streets would be unconstitutional.Who was John Stuart Mill and What Did He Believe About Speech?Where did the American notion of freedom of speech which we possess come from? The lion's share of that work belongs to the British philosopher John Stuart Mill. In his 1859 book, On Liberty, Mill provided a bold argument for freedom of speech. Mill believed in the freedom of speech to discuss any topic at all, without molestation. The fullest expression of liberty in his mind was following topics of conversation to their logical limits. Social niceties be damned. He did, however, hold to what is called the "Harm Principle." Writing on this subject, Mill says, "... the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others (Mill, J.S., 1978. On Liberty, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing)." Application of this principle is the subject of not a few debates. However, it is important to take note of this principle because it is the default liberal position on almost everything. "Well... I'm not hurting anyone!!!"To find the most liberal position's boundaries, we need only determine if someone would be harmed by someone's else's free expression. Important to distinguish, however, is that Mill would not have argued that freedom of speech be limited simply because a person was harmed. Only when speech causes direct and clear harm should it be limited.What are the Critiques of John Stuart Mill? Do They Bear Any Merit?The extreme liberal position of John Stuart Mill was an important contribution to the debate on freedom of speech. Many topics would have remained undiscussed due to taboos and socially acceptable limits. One important critique comes from an article in the Boston Review by Jacob Stanley in 2018. Stanley rightly points out that, "Disagreement requires a shared set of presuppositions about the world. Even dueling requires agreement about the rules." In his estimation, John Stuart Mill believed that "true belief becomes knowledge only by emerging victorious from the din of argument and discussion, which must occur either with actual opponents or through internal dialogue." Stanley, therefore, argues that false claims and conspiracy theories must be defended, if we are to have a chance of achieving knowledge. Stanley, however, recognizes the limits of the idea of a "marketplace of ideas" saying that human nature does not really allow for the truth to always prevail.This pragmatic view seems to provide a tempering of John Stuart Mill's unadulterated view of freedom of speech. We must understand our own limitations, as humanity, if we are to understand what freedom of speech offers us. We also cannot forget what freedom of speech requires of us!Taking OffensePresently, hate speech and taking offense are unfortunately conflated. Hate speech is determined based on the intention of the speaker. Whereas, taking offense is based on the decision of the hearer. They are not the same. In fact, sometimes a person might say something which another person takes as offensive. Let us imagine, though, that the thing which the speaker said is absolutely true and the problem is with the hearer being out of step with the truth. At this point, we can start analyzing whether what was said needed to be said. Did it need to be said in the way that it did? Did it need to be said in the circumstances that it did? Did it need to be said by that speaker to that hearer at that time?We need to dispel this myth that we have a right to not be offended. Sometimes we need to be offended. We are not perfect, not one of us. And so, if a truth is given to us, we need to be receptive, even if it hurts. That is how we grow.So, it would seem that freedom of speech extends to being offensive? But what about offensive statements which are not based in reality and actually point to a deeper more problematic issue under the surface? True hate speech causes offense, more often than not. But it is not the offense which is the primary issue. Hate speech can do injustice to privacy, equity, and security. Speech which shows a blatant disregard for the equity of people based on skin color, religion, sexual orientation, or gender (biological sex - male or female) which intends harm, cannot be under freedom of speech. No one is free to threaten harm. The Limits of Freedom of Speech and Our God-Given RightsI have no desire to opine on every possible aspect of freedom of speech in which limitations might be appropriate. Instead, I want to call us back to seeing freedom of speech as a right which necessarily is accompanied by responsibility. Here I am going to stray into philosophy rather than legality. To be clear, I am not going to be discussing what is constitutional or not, but rather stating what I believe to be right or not. Rooted in respect for human dignity, all are called to seek the common good. An integral part of securing the common good is protecting the basic and inalienable rights of all people. This begins with the right to life. Mothers and fathers have a responsibility to protect their children (from the first moment of his or her existence) to the best of their ability. Generally, the best decision is made at the local level. And so, each family must make decisions for themselves and their neighbors. These micro-communities need to serve their macro-communities. Those communities need to serve the common good of the state, then the nation, then the world. Our rights do not come primarily from our government. They begin at home. They begin with life. Responsibility Accompanies Rights, AlwaysIn justice, as we seek the common good, we exercise these rights, but we must never lose sight of the accompanying responsibilities. Put another way: we are not given rights by the Creator to be kept for our sole use. When it comes to speech, we do not have freedom of speech so much as freedom FOR speech. Our rights are geared towards our duties and responsibilities. We have to use our gifts and powers well. As Pope John XXIII wrote well in his 1963 letter Pacem in Terris:"... in human society one man's natural right gives rise to a corresponding duty in other men; the duty, that is, of recognizing and respecting that right. Every basic human right draws its authoritative force from the natural law, which confers it and attaches to it its respective duty. Hence, to claim one's rights and ignore one's duties, or only half fulfill them, is like building a house with one hand and tearing it down with the other (30)."When we speak, we do not have a license to say whatever we would like. Certainly, we have the protected right to do so in the United States, under certain limitations. But I am arguing that we should use our freedom of speech wisely. By using it well, our words will have greater impact. Our well-chosen words will add social value and lift our neighbors up. Let us build up this common house and humanity, rather than tear it down.Thanks for reading Will Wright Catholic! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.Sources:https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-i/interps/266What is free speech? What is not considered free speech?https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/Freedom of Speech entry at Stanfordhttps://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1258/john-stuart-mill1st Amendment Encyclopediahttp://bostonreview.net/politics-philosophy-religion/jason-stanley-what-mill-got-wrong-about-freedom-of-speechLiberal critique of John Stuart Millhttps://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speechACLU on Freedom of Speechhttps://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/Text of the 1st Amendmenthttps://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/in-the-age-of-socia-media-first-amendment/Free speech and the internet This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit willwrightcatholic.substack.com

WHY IT'S DESIRABLE TO BE ECCENTRIC: "Originality is the one thing which unoriginal minds cannot feel the use of." In 1859 the great English thinker John Stuart Mill published, in Chapter Three of his treatise On Liberty, one of history's most cogent essays on the subject of Individuality, originality, genius, and eccentricity. To Mill's view, mass opinion (what we might call “mass culture” these days), is an undeniable blight to individuality, and therefore directly threatens freedoms civic and intellectual, cultural, and democratic. While explicitly political, Mill's argument reaches down to the foundations of human nature and culture, articulating many of the challenges artists and writers face in a media-driven society fixated upon dollars earned, hits per day, and “going viral.” Mentioned in this episode: John Stuart Mill; Mill's "On Liberty"; Victorian England; keeping up with the joneses; Ray Bradbury; bestseller lists; Billboard charts; Oprah endorsements; culture vs. commerce; becoming valuable to oneself and to others; despotism; John Gardner; the National Endowment for the Arts; the tyrannical majority; unpopular vs. uncommercial; persons of genius; arts funding.  Music: "Hands of Time" by Narrow Skies; "Interspacing" by Yehezkel Raz; "Fragments" by Borrtex; "Birds & Daisies" by Racoon Racoon (All music used courtesy of the artists through a licensing agreement with Artlist.) --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/in-the-atelier/support

Misinformation, hate speech, platforming, de-platforming, free speech, and censorship. Almost any recent controversy you can name touches on these topics. Should we allow people to spread hate online? Should we allow tech monopolies and governments to suppress the free expression of individuals? Who should decide and on what basis? John Stuart Mill articulated one of the most powerful, deep, and comprehensive arguments for free speech in an essay called On Liberty. His world-changing argument is as relevant today as it was 163 years ago, and arguably much more so. Dig into this deep and contentious topic with us on this episode of Reading Rebellion and transform your understanding of the nature of liberty.

This month, Toby Buckle, host of the Political Philosophy Podcast, returns to talk about John Stuart Mill's liberty principle! (Also sometimes called the ‘harm principle'.) The occasion for the episode is the recent release of Toby's cool new book, What is Freedom?, which is out now from Oxford University Press. Get it while it's hot!John Stuart Mill is probably one of the most influential intellectuals of the 19th century, having penned treatises on markets, logic, feminism, utilitarianism, and freedom of speech that people continue to pick up and read today. In this episode, we talk about how he had one foot in the free market-oriented tradition of liberalism and another in the more social justice-oriented type of liberalism, how he was raised under the world's most ambitious parenting/education regime, and how he had a lifelong collaboration with Harriet Taylor. We also introduce what gets called his ‘liberty princple'.The idea behind the liberty principle is that we want as much freedom for each person as possible: they should have the ability to set their own agenda and carry it out. But we also need to limit it somewhat, because if everyone was completely unconstrained in how they set their agenda and carried it out, they'd interfere with each other. We'd have one person's freedom detracting from other people's freedom. So in order to achieve the perfect equilibrium we want, the thing to do is aim for sort of a greatest lower bound: every person should be allowed to do whatever they want for whatever reason they want, only stopping shy once they reach the point where doing whatever they want would harm another person. It might seem like an obvious principle to us now, but arguably that's because we're all living in the shadow of Mill!Part of the background context for this principle is a worry about paternalism. There's a natural tendency for Person A to prevent Person B from doing what they want because Person A thinks it's obvious that what Person B wants to do right now is harmful to them. The liberty principle tells us that that's not a good reason to have laws prohibiting some course of action. We should only have a law prohibiting some course of action if allowing that course of action would interfere with other people's freedom. That way, Mill argued, we keep the decision about whether to pass a law prohibiting something grounded in empirical facts about what would actually happen if it were passed. He also wanted to emphasize that each person has the right to be their own arbiter of what kinds of risk they will assume.I hope you enjoy our discussion! It was a fun one.Further ReadingIf you'd like to hear more along the lines of what Toby and I discuss in this episode, you can do no better than to take a look at Mill's exquisite On Liberty, which you can get for free here:https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34901And if you missed the link up at the top, definitely check out Toby's edited volume, which gathers together a number of the interviews from his own podcast. The overarching theme is what freedom is and what it can be.What is Freedom?: Conversations with Historians, Philosophers, and Activists, Toby BuckleHappy reading!Matt Teichman See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

John Stuart Mill was born on May 20th, 1806, in London. His father James Mill was determined to mold John into a well‐​educated leader. John was given an extremely rigorous education from a young age. He learned Greek at the age of three, Latin at eight, and read Plato's dialogues in the original language before his tenth birthday.His book "On Liberty"; Published  in 1859, is a plea to find a balance between the state and individual. John Stuart Mill believed individual freedom has to be protected  at all cost and should never be restrained unless there is a threat of a physical harm. He states that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”

AVERSION TO COERCION NOVEMBER 14, 2021      AARON SMITH      SEASON 1      EPISODE 4     SHOW NOTES: In Episode #4, we take a look at the COVID-19 vaccine mandates and how the Nuremburg Code may apply to them. We dig into a few scientific papers related to the topic and also consider the ethical implications of coercive techniques being employed by governments and corporations. We recognize that this is a difficult and nuanced subject that has divided many people. It is not possible to present an exhaustive analysis of the issue. My intentions are only to bring some things to light that have not been covered adequately, if at all, by mainstream media. Hopefully this episode will help give you some new perspectives to consider.Thank you for your continued support! Please consider contributing via the links at the bottom of the show notes. Your contributions are a way to help produce this show, as I am not accepting any advertising money to mitigate the risk of having corporate interests influencing the content of The subtlecain Podcast!I am now on Substack: https://subtlecain.substack.comHere are the articles and quotes I referenced in today's episode:  Nuremburg Trials: https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/nuremberg-trials"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." — John Stuart Mill: https://www.azquotes.com/author/10083-John_Stuart_Mill“With respect to his thinking about coercion, Mill is most famous for his views, in On Liberty, about what coercion is not fit to do: namely, be used to regulate people's behavior for their own good.” (John Stuart Mill: Stanford paper) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/coercionNIH Articles: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34407747 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7843207FDA Media Release: https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/downloadCNBC on liability: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.htmlExperimental and Clinical Transplantation article: http://www.ectrx.org/forms/ectrxcontentshow.php?year=2021&volume=19&issue=7&supplement=0&makale_no=0&spage_number=627&content_type=FULL%20TEXTIs the Nuremburg Code law? https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199711133372006Feel free to email me at subtlecain@protonmail.com with any questions or suggestions. Your support is always appreciated! You can support the show in these ways:Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/subtlecainPayPal: https://paypal.me/subtlecain?country.x=US&locale.x=en_USVenmo: https://venmo.com/u/subtlecainSupport the show (https://paypal.me/subtlecain?country.x=US&locale.x=en_US)

John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) penned the most powerful and winsome defense of the freedom of speech, but it is not without its presuppositions. Those assumptions have eroded in our culture, which means the freedom of speech is eroding, too. Are human beings mouthpieces of power and prejudice, or is the truth a valuable common ground from which we can evaluate each other's ideas? Mill concludes that censorship is hubris and indoctrination is cowardice.LinksVisit our website: https://www.wellreadchristian.comCheck our our blog: https://www.wellreadchristian.com/blogFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/wellreadchristianInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/wellreadchristianTwitter: https://www.twitter.com/WellReadChrist1Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfGxz4OH1-hVD0fL9AWR4Xg

In this episode, Todd and Nathan discuss Nathan's recent article, “Reading John Stuart Mill's On Liberty in the Age of ‘Cancel Culture' and ‘Fake News'.” We discuss Mill's famous defense of free speech and its limits. Along the way, we talk about the implications for present-day issues like “cancel culture,” Antifa's answer to hate speech, and religious tolerance in a secular world.Reading John Stuart Mill's On Liberty in the Age of “Cancel Culture” and “Fake News”: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/reading-john-stuart-mills-on-liberty-in-the-age-of-cancel-culture-and-fake-news/Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_toleranceExamples of “cancel culture” we discuss:3 cases of people being fired for innocuous things: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firing-innocent/613615/Gina Carano: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Carano#Social_media_controversyCanceled young-adult novelist: https://reason.com/2019/02/28/he-was-part-of-a-twitter-mob-that-attack/For Todd's post-episode reflections, check out: https://todd-tavares.medium.com/Follow Nathan on Twitter: https://twitter.com/NathGAlexanderNathan's website: https://www.nathangalexander.com/If you find the podcast valuable and want to support it, go to https://anchor.fm/beyond-atheism and click the “Support” button. We are grateful for every contribution.

I'm delighted to kick off this season with an incredibly timely conversation with Dr. Jeffrey Howard (@jeffhowarducl).Jeff is an Associate Professor of Political Theory at UCL's Department of Political Science, where he works on political and legal philosophy, focusing on the moral challenges facing citizens and policymakers.Recently Jeff has been working on a project on “dangerous speech," exploring questions like, is there a right to incite? Is there a moral duty to refrain from dangerous speech? Is it right to restrict or punish dangerous speech?Given our current political climate, in which outgoing US President Donald Trump was impeached last week on the charge of incitement, and was banned from top social media platforms because of dangerous speech, I couldn't think of a better person to ask on the show than Jeffrey Howard.Resources:Jeff's paper on Dangerous SpeechBook recommendation: On Liberty, by John Stuart Mill