In Part 3, "Hobbes and the Democratization of the Prince," of our on-going series on the transition from Liberal Democracy to Authoritarian Democracy, we explore the way Hobbes agreed with Machiavelli's fundamental observations about human beings and the natural world, but rejected Machiavelli's political solution. In this episode we identify how Hobbes democratizes the Prince and in doing so creates a proto-form of Authoritarian Democracy. This move is both essential for the ultimate formation of Liberal Democracy and lays the foundation for its return to Authoritarian Democracy. Enjoy.

In Part 2 of our ongoing series that examines the philosophical origins of, and the reasons for, a possible transition from Liberal Democracy to Authoritarian Democracy, we return to very beginning of Modern and Proto-Liberal political philosophy, Machiavelli and the Great Prince. In this episode, "Machiavelli and the DNA of Authoritarian Democracy," we investigate Machiavelli's radical rejection of Classical Political Philosophy, what this means, and how his "political solution," the Great Prince, lays the foundation for the eventual transition to Authoritarian Democracy. enjoy.

It is commonplace to assume that Democracies and Authoritarian regimes are fundamentally different forms of political orders. It is believed that Democracies and Authoritarian regimes differ in their origins, institutions/processes, and ends. But, is this necessarily the case? Do modern Democracies have more in common with Authoritarian regimes than we like to acknowledge? Do modern Democracies share the same impulses that animate Authoritarian regimes, and can Liberal Democracies transform in to Authoritarian democracies? In our most recent episode, Part 1 of a Three Part series, "From Liberal Democracy to Authoritarian Democracy," we investigate this fascinating and chilling question.

In his classic treatise, "On Liberty," JS Mill makes some very powerful claims about free speech and radical democracy. Mill argues that individuals must be absolutely free to express their opinions, no matter how obnoxious, emotionally challenging, or offensive. Only opinions that lead to direct physical harm can legitimately be censored. Mill argues that this position empowers ALL individuals and, equally important, is essential to the creation of a strong, vital democratic political space. In our most recent episode, "Mill's Philosophy of Free Speech, Radical Democracy, and Trump," we argue that the current political environment is a fascinating example of Mill's theory about free speech and the creation of an intense, combative, and reflective democratic society. Do we have the intellectual and emotional courage to enact and live through Mill's account of free speech and democracy?