@Nielsio You're wrong, Professor Bell emphatically does not mean only monopolistic (statist) law. He has written extensively in favor of polycentric law.
If my individual rights are inalienable, then don't force me into your 'protection' scheme. You said without law (by which you mean: monopolistic law), there could only be simple barter. But from 'simple barter', any desired need can be built up. This is true for money, which arises without any planner, and can also be true for protection, reputation and arbitration. What is required for all this to work however is a widely held belief against violent monopolies. Your video argues the opposite.
I think the first mistake was enshrining hedonism in the constitution. What were they thinking? Compare to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person..." These rights can normally only be denied when the enforcement of "fundamental justice" is at issue. I believe this wording is balanced and more appropriate for a modern society - it was drafted in 1982.
@Theartful, because in business laws there are three prominent structures of business. Sole ownership, partnership, and corporation. Sole Ownership is self explanatory. A partner can get into legal trouble even if he did nothing or was not aware of what his partner was doing. If your partner/employee did something wrong, your in trouble too and it's you who has to pay for it. In a corporation, the law says that the corporation is a separate entity. That is, if someone does something wrong...
@qtutoringhelps You have the right to protect yourself and your property from harm. You also have the right to ask others to help defend you. You do not have the right to force others to pay for your protection. See my video 'How Could A Voluntary Society Function?' ( watch?v=tE9dZATrFak ) to learn how a peaceful market for these things can develop.
@bgd1968 The wording is irrelevant. Empirically, there are three methods to "pursue happiness". The first is through action, which is the liberty to act according to your will, and this is in the list already. The next is thought (and related speech) - which is most of the First Amendment. The last is through ownership of property, and security of that property - the Fourth. Plus, how the hell do you define "fundamental justice" if it doesn't mean "stopping people from hurting each other"?
Great important concepts how the rule of law is to principled. The rule of law is not the origin of natural rights. Rights, which protection is the aim of social life, can only be protected under an organization with the rule of law.
@bdrmongoose78 The concept of the Rule of Law is independent of whether the law is common law, statutory law, or regulatory law. It is the concept that the law applies even to the "ruling class", is applied justly and fairly to all citizens and residents, and is not crafted to benefit certain interest groups. The easiest way to achieve this is to limit the law to following the non-aggression principle, and only prevent individuals from harming others.
Why do they always stop at Aristotle when going back in history? Why not go a little bit further and show what other intellectuals have said about the rule of law? is it because they are non European, and if they did show them, that will destroy the narrative of the superiority of Europe, and America? Most of the ideas Aristotle had were copied of others, from India, Mesopotamia, Egypt etc.
Your point is....? My refutation was never whether or not your statement related to democracy or not. You haven't said anything to contradict my own statement. Whether or not capitalism is "good for the people" is HIGHLY arguable IMO, not one I'd certainly bother to argue about but it's worth saying that at the very least a nation can be fine under capitalistic principles.
This is all well and good, but not in the abstract. At least for now perhaps. Let's hope the definitive morals of the true meaning of the Rule of Law will eventually set humankind free......which is why people in some countries cannot read this comment or watch this video.
@bdrmongoose78 Again, I don't label myself - I think Paul tends to be more principled and in line with my political philosophy, so I would consider voting for him. We don't live under the Rule of Law - haven't since about 1913. You just seem to be failing to get the difference between the concept of the Rule of Law and arbitrary laws.
@bdrmongoose78 I am a classical liberal - I don't subscribe to labeling myself based on who I might support in elections. Furthermore, you have some lack of understanding about what the "law" actually is - by definition, the rules set up in place by the government. The concept of the Rule of Law is that those laws be just and apply equally to all, both the everyday people and the politically powerful. The Constitution, then, was to ensure the Rule of Law by setting up a just government.
But you're also assuming that all laws are naturally created by society itself, which they aren't. Are you seriously telling me that a law created by the likes of Stalin or Mao to be oppress others and keep themselves in power was something built as a consensus by society? Laws aren't necessarily built on consensus, if they were that'd be assuming everywhere in all times of history were a democracy. It's not unimaginable for leader to create oppressive laws and see the end to his life naturally.
I don't get this backward "faux-libertarian" thought. There's nothing monopolistic about the legal system or government. It's what every society of human beings has ever used, from the smallest and most rudimentary to the largest and most complex. Want to know why? Because people NEED a common authority. Do you like to be ruled by the laws of a State or country that you don't reside in? No, of course not.
@bdrmongoose78 Stop furthering the stereotype of Paul supporters as blithering morons. If you understood the concept of the Rule of Law, as well as the ideas present in literature like Hayek's Road to Serfdom, you would see that you are arguing against yourself. The Constitution is a form of the Rule of Law, and this very argument was made in the Federalist Papers.
This does not stand for the rule of law, this video is dumb. Yes, we understand that there is a law, but WHAT KIND OF laws we want is the argued question.
@Nielsio You're wrong, Professor Bell emphatically does not mean only monopolistic (statist) law. He has written extensively in favor of polycentric law.
If my individual rights are inalienable, then don't force me into your 'protection' scheme.
You said without law (by which you mean: monopolistic law), there could only be simple barter. But from 'simple barter', any desired need can be built up. This is true for money, which arises without any planner, and can also be true for protection, reputation and arbitration. What is required for all this to work however is a widely held belief against violent monopolies. Your video argues the opposite.
I've only watched 4 pre-roll ads to the end. This is one of them.
I think the first mistake was enshrining hedonism in the constitution. What were they thinking? Compare to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person..."
These rights can normally only be denied when the enforcement of "fundamental justice" is at issue. I believe this wording is balanced and more appropriate for a modern society - it was drafted in 1982.
@Theartful, because in business laws there are three prominent structures of business. Sole ownership, partnership, and corporation. Sole Ownership is self explanatory. A partner can get into legal trouble even if he did nothing or was not aware of what his partner was doing. If your partner/employee did something wrong, your in trouble too and it's you who has to pay for it. In a corporation, the law says that the corporation is a separate entity. That is, if someone does something wrong...
Professor Bell, Please do a video on Polycentrism!
"I should not be subject to the arbitrary will of another." -John Locke
.... Except that's exactly what the law is.
@qtutoringhelps You have the right to protect yourself and your property from harm. You also have the right to ask others to help defend you. You do not have the right to force others to pay for your protection.
See my video 'How Could A Voluntary Society Function?' ( watch?v=tE9dZATrFak ) to learn how a peaceful market for these things can develop.
@bgd1968 The wording is irrelevant. Empirically, there are three methods to "pursue happiness". The first is through action, which is the liberty to act according to your will, and this is in the list already. The next is thought (and related speech) - which is most of the First Amendment. The last is through ownership of property, and security of that property - the Fourth. Plus, how the hell do you define "fundamental justice" if it doesn't mean "stopping people from hurting each other"?
Great important concepts how the rule of law is to principled.
The rule of law is not the origin of natural rights. Rights, which protection is the aim of social life, can only be protected under an organization with the rule of law.
@bdrmongoose78 The concept of the Rule of Law is independent of whether the law is common law, statutory law, or regulatory law. It is the concept that the law applies even to the "ruling class", is applied justly and fairly to all citizens and residents, and is not crafted to benefit certain interest groups. The easiest way to achieve this is to limit the law to following the non-aggression principle, and only prevent individuals from harming others.
Ethan Couch is the best example of the RULE OF LAW.
Why do they always stop at Aristotle when going back in history? Why not go a little bit further and show what other intellectuals have said about the rule of law? is it because they are non European, and if they did show them, that will destroy the narrative of the superiority of Europe, and America? Most of the ideas Aristotle had were copied of others, from India, Mesopotamia, Egypt etc.
Your point is....? My refutation was never whether or not your statement related to democracy or not. You haven't said anything to contradict my own statement.
Whether or not capitalism is "good for the people" is HIGHLY arguable IMO, not one I'd certainly bother to argue about but it's worth saying that at the very least a nation can be fine under capitalistic principles.
Love this video.
This is all well and good, but not in the abstract. At least for now perhaps. Let's hope the definitive morals of the true meaning of the Rule of Law will eventually set humankind free......which is why people in some countries cannot read this comment or watch this video.
Corporations do not inherently have more money than individuals, but they should not be treated the same as individuals.
@bdrmongoose78 Again, I don't label myself - I think Paul tends to be more principled and in line with my political philosophy, so I would consider voting for him.
We don't live under the Rule of Law - haven't since about 1913. You just seem to be failing to get the difference between the concept of the Rule of Law and arbitrary laws.
Continued... Wrong, the person responsible is in trouble, not the owners who had no idea.
Compelling argument.
Through the whole video I was thinking, "Wow, this guy needs a haircut!"
Accept when it allows for slavery, racism, over regulation, genocide, corporations, etc. Legality does not establish morality. LP
@bdrmongoose78 I am a classical liberal - I don't subscribe to labeling myself based on who I might support in elections. Furthermore, you have some lack of understanding about what the "law" actually is - by definition, the rules set up in place by the government. The concept of the Rule of Law is that those laws be just and apply equally to all, both the everyday people and the politically powerful.
The Constitution, then, was to ensure the Rule of Law by setting up a just government.
You forgot the barber shop
But you're also assuming that all laws are naturally created by society itself, which they aren't. Are you seriously telling me that a law created by the likes of Stalin or Mao to be oppress others and keep themselves in power was something built as a consensus by society? Laws aren't necessarily built on consensus, if they were that'd be assuming everywhere in all times of history were a democracy. It's not unimaginable for leader to create oppressive laws and see the end to his life naturally.
can i have my bong now?
"Haircuts"
Criticizing porn?
On the internet?
Pffft. Stopped listening right there, buddy.
Cunning and deeply important stuff.
Porn AND pizza? Count me IN.
I don't get this backward "faux-libertarian" thought. There's nothing monopolistic about the legal system or government. It's what every society of human beings has ever used, from the smallest and most rudimentary to the largest and most complex. Want to know why? Because people NEED a common authority. Do you like to be ruled by the laws of a State or country that you don't reside in? No, of course not.
@bdrmongoose78 Stop furthering the stereotype of Paul supporters as blithering morons. If you understood the concept of the Rule of Law, as well as the ideas present in literature like Hayek's Road to Serfdom, you would see that you are arguing against yourself. The Constitution is a form of the Rule of Law, and this very argument was made in the Federalist Papers.
This does not stand for the rule of law, this video is dumb.
Yes, we understand that there is a law, but WHAT KIND OF laws we want is the argued question.