Uncommon Knowledge: Soft Despotism with Paul Rahe

Mr. Rahe so clearly sees the splinter in another's eye, yet fails to see the log in his own.

The fact that this professor is on the faculty at Hillsdale College is important as well. Hillsidale is among the last few truly independent colleges in America. They accept NO Federal Money. They do not accept students who intend to use Federal Money to pay. Therefore, they have do not have to follow federal requirements and intrusions and politicization of the college campus that most accept in exchange for feeding at the public trough.

I think this is an excellent discussion. Alexis de Tocqueville's book is a must read for anyone serious about politics and culture in their least partisan sense. As in most videos on this site dealing with issues of Libertarianism or individual liberty, most comments are from people whoi did not listen to the video. Serban and Scamper, I appreciated your thoughtful comments. Gnosisman, as usual, your big heart and serious concern about human beings and public policy clearly came through as well.

The misfortune of this program is that it starts off by mentioning the health care debate. The choice of words ("tyrannical") probably made some people give up on an otherwise interesting discussion. But on the other hand if one is so inclined as to discard the whole program based upon the opening sentences, that probably tells more about themselves than about the program.

If you want to get a historical perspective on the dangers to American democracy, going back to Montesquieu, de Tocqueville and the Founding Fathers, listen on; you may learn a thing or two even if you don't agree. If you are wondering what compels people to accept the encroachment of the "nanny" state upon their lives, or what drives the "tyrannical" impulse (especially in the more educated ones), listen on. There are many themes in the talk that are worth exploring and thinking about.

It is a hallmark of people who share what Thomas Sowell calls the "unconstrained" vision to see arguments adduced by people with a conflicting vision as insincere, uninformed or of dubious moral value (see post above with lots of words in capital letters). My advice is first listen to the talk, then make up your own mind.

@ethroson:

I'm not a religious person, and I don't see a whole lot in his talk about religion. It is more of tyrannical government and despotism.

Fundamentally, it is how we analyze things.

A liberal thinks:
Wouldn't it be great if the government gave everyone healthcare or gave everyone food and housing?

A person with a sense of history and logic recognizes:
the government doesn't provide anything.
Obama doesn't fix your leg. Other people do. Doctors and nurses provide healthcare. Engineers build roads. Farm workers provide food.

All the government can do is shift money around and FORCE people to do things.
FORCE is what creates despotism. If you have to FORCE people to do things... you can be darn sure there are victims. No one likes being a victim, and so you either use violence to FORCE them to do things, or the system collapses.

As an example. To provide good healthcare, we can either force doctors and nurses to work under price controls. When this occurs as you can see in history, people don't like being undervalued and so they don't do those jobs... and you get a shortage. Alternatively, you can FORCE your engineers or business people to pay more taxes so doctors can be paid more. Again, business people don't like being victims either, so then you end up with a shortage there.

Only an academic (most are pretty stupid) could think that communism would work. Indeed, if we all kept doing what we're doing and money was just redistributed, everything would work. Except that is not how people think.
Why should I go work in the mines of Siberia, while someone else works in a nice Moscow office? A very simple question. The only answer the government can give is: because we said so. And they will FORCE you to work in the mines.

Hence... the need for force...
Western societies increasing looking for government to solve their problems are submitting themselves to be ruled by despots with arbitrary power... as you need arbitrary power to solve all the arbitrary problems people want solved (transit, education, healthcare, smoking, drugs, consumer relations, climate change...).

Hence... soft despotism.
The very thing that made the western world great (the enlightenment, liberty, freedom) is being destroyed (has been destroyed).

What garbage! He makes the argument that giving social insurance and helping people live longer heathier lives is self-defeating and is not good for us. This argument presuposes that the world is better off with the old insecure large family system.
I just don't see how overpopulation is a winning strategy.
I think that the hidden agenda here is an appeal to social conservatives who are upset at the changes in morality. Why not come out and say, I am upset about the traditional family morality breakdown and I want to make some obscure scientific sounding arguments to take things back to the "good'ol", bad old days.
What is really funny is how these social conservatives fight for traditional family values in America, but destroy traditional family values in Afganistan. Oh, I keep forgetting that only "Christian" Traditional Family values count.

This isn't information. It's analysis.

Sounds about right. Liberal society empowers individuals with freedom. Freedom implies choice. Too much choice leads to paralysis. Barry Schwartz wrote a good book on that.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ba...of_choice.html

"The desire to run other people's lives - for their benefit of course! - is present in all of us." When I hear that, the theme tune to Pinky and the Brain won't stop playing in my head.

Every Uncommon Knowledge video has someone complain how the the interviewer is too soft of the interviewee.

Get over yourselves.

This is not a debate.
This is not CNN.
This is not a counter-punch style interview.

This is a place where the interviewee gets to explain their view points.

Expand your mind a little. Listen, and learn.
Disagree if you want, but not everyone thinks an interview is 2 people yelling at each other or a game where the interviewer tries to poke holes in the guest's argument.

This is no information at all. This is pure propagada. The world is thinking? In this case: not at all.

Mr Rahe is as biased as you can imagine. Calling Obama's policies tyrannical is is nothing more than fear mongering. Instead of fault finding, I'd like to see him hammer out solutions that can be truly transformational. The health care crisis is a crisis because both sides of the aisle are in bed with big Pharma and the insurance industry. By not saying anything about this, it is Mr. Rahe who is being tyrannical!! He is also LYING to the American people by the very fact of omission. There are billions at stake and by God the powers that be will do ANYTHING to control it. It is the corporate masters who are the despots and Mr. Rahe is part this cadre who are incompetent in truly understanding the health care crisis from a spirit of compassion oppose the free market insanity.
I'd like to see Mr. Rahe live in the poorest of cities for a year WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE with a minimum wage job. Only then will he know what compassion really is...

omg.. and that guy teach students? poor kids..