David Starkey: The Liberal International Order
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- This series of interviews is courtesy of Reunite, who are launching a campaign to stop Keir Starmer and New Labour 2.0's plans to "reform" Britain's constitution and further dilute the power of parliament. Please sign their petition for a referendum on the matter here: reunitegb.com/
Please join the David Starkey Members' Club via Patreon / davidstarkeytalks or Subscribestar www.subscribes...
Please do not re-upload any David Starkey Talks video without permission.
#Davidstarkey #Davidstarkeytalks #History
This series of interviews is courtesy of Reunite, who are launching a campaign to stop Keir Starmer and New Labour 2.0's plans to "reform" Britain's constitution and further dilute the power of parliament. Please sign their petition for a referendum on the matter here: reunitegb.com/
Signed
Signed
ditto!!@@philipdurling1964
Very important point at the end. The result of the Human Rights Act has been to allow Judges to make up the law as they go along.
But the entire common law system is judges making it up as they go along. It literally means judge-made law. The common law offence of murder is defined nowhere in legislation; its definition that was created by judges.
That is not the case. Law is very much based on previous cases and testing new rules too.
The UK has no complete written constitution. Does that make the UK making up ruling "as the goverment go along"?
Thank you, Dr Starkey. Petition signed.
Even if mess up yes Thomas he deviant yes. Way back yes Thomas. Bill butler Labour councillor Glasgow yes. You say as Italian he had surgery but did attend on Saturday yes would lose his job yes Thomas report him to Labour party in England London Britain.
From USA, Thank You Sir ! You explained far more than the specific items you discussed. Very Elegant
According to the historical record and contemporary data, it is impossible to effectively govern, police and defend a multicultural multiracial multireligious multidegeneracy society. Nationalism, correctly understood and presented, is fundamental to world peace and a cleaner natural environment. I would like to speak with the professor about this 🕊️❤️🙏☘️
"Hectoring" really. Hmm, i listen, sometimes i agree, sometimes i disagree, but never do i find these talks feel like hectoring. Maybe you do because you are on the opposite side to his particular world view. Still, each to his/her own.
The formal version of what Academic Agent calls the “boomer truth regime”
Yah, or others Nuremberg regime.
As always, my mind is now enlightened.
I must be honest here but if i hear David tell us once more about how we are born i might scream. Love his work though its brilliantly explained and made digestible.
Got to agree ….
There cannot be a right unless some person or body has a legal duty to provide it.
8:00 if you are true to Bentham, if there are universal rights, like any rights, they must be enforced by a state in its laws and acted upon by its courts otherwise it is "nonsense upon stilts" the limiting factor is the state, very Hobbiesan yes - though oddly it is Hobbes who was critiquing St Augustine on the nature of man and Kant took up under his Perpetual Peace. The point is there are no absolutes to any rights and if there isn't anyone to enforce those rights they are a fiction. Kantian idealism assumes good faith actors entered into a contract not to do war - the problem is there are bad faith actors.
Starkey sadly has not consulted the libraries written on the realist and liberal classic debate in international relations from what I can tell; it is an incredibly rich intellectual history from the Greeks to today that combines theology, philosophy and a hell of a lot of history.
The state has become the 'majority', the private citizen is in the minority.... how are we to be protected from the state?
we here in America have the 2nd amendment, The liberals in my country try every day to take this right away. Thank god its a constitutional right otherwise these nutbags would try.
Good point. But the nation state is the best vehicle to protect us from rule by international finance and the forces of open borders Globalisation.
Which we have now. Individualism can't control international finance capitalism.
12:12 giving the USSR and China does not pervert the entire system, it was the deal made at Yalta in February 1945. It is not a perversion, it is by design. The mythology of rights in the international state system under the liberal order as governed by the UN is set by the 5 permanent members; unified opinion is required which was assumed to be incredibly rare. Don't kid yourself, there is anarchy in the international state system and it is the powerful whom set the terms and conditions for rights to be enforced.
I wish one can more clearly read the name of the Danish scholar David mentions. Jacob Mchangama
Tony (The Dark Lord) Blair, has alot to answer for.
Absolutely brilliant. Thank you David for such an enlightening video.
Anyone who associated with the CND in the Sixties knows the truth of what Starkey has said
Who going to fix it. That they lies the problem . We can all see its broken . These MPs not able to fix it. Pherhaps David Starksy could advise PM how to fix our broken Domocracy because its not working.
I just have a query about the separation of powers and it is to do with the Rwanda plan. Basically there are the fundamental rights that we should all have. The government wants to put some of those aside for a group of people. The government then says well it does not matter what the law is, we can over ride it and you only have to look at Germany in the 1930s and see a government that uses it's position to oppress those it does not like (Jews, Homosexuals, Romanies etc in 1930s Germany)
Love Dr. Starkey's work, but his persistent misunderstanding of the U S Declaration of Independence is not only annoying but leads to erroneous assertions about American governance and history. "All men are created equal" is a political statement, not a philosophical or morphological one. It is the basis for that "conservative" constitution that Dr. Starkey so admire.
That we are all born "in shit" is also, when you think about it, a declaration of a universal condition.
Did mention Martin sellner Austrian to him yes that killed him or it his death warrant Bill Butler Labour councillor Glasgow.
I like rope.
It solves problems.
Knots are great.
Spot on David
10:03 The Versailles Treaty had a provision to set up a trail for Kaiser Wilhelm II - the Nuremberg Trails could have been do as part of any peace treaty as had been done many times before.
That's not his point (although I don't agree with the point he does make). He's saying that the entire Rules Based International Order came about because there were no treaties governing International Criminal Law to the extent applied at Nuremburg or Tokyo. The argument was and still is that Nuremburg was applying pre-existing Customary International law. Where he gets it slightly wrong (but to be fair he's giving a whistle-stop tour here) is to conflate "Natural Law" with "Customary International Law" which have similarities bur are not identical. Now...there are plenty of substantive criticisms of Nuremburg and of Customary International rules, but I don't think "it was used to justify the entire post 1945 International order" is one of them. Its also just not why it wad established. I can name one case that sums up why the International trade and investment rules came about and it has nothing to do with Nuremburg and that's the Oscar Shin Case from 1955. That explains more about the International Order than nuremburg, all dur respect to Starkey.
Dream debate/conversation: Curtis Yarvin and David Starkey.
This^
Or Academic Agent
No, the Rules Based International Order is a post Soviet construct of the anglo saxon west who, believing their own hegemony, have created rules as opposed to post war United Nations International Law. I only recall the term being widely or openly used in the last 15 years as the WEF has developed its tight grip on the west. It's a follow on from the Project for the New American Century which gave us 9/11 and middle east invasions. It basically means western based capital is in charge of all the rules and it reserves the right to militarily impose the rules anywhere it's powerful enough to. If it doesn't have the military clout it exerts illegal trade and financial blockades. It's also doomed and dragging us down with it.
😂
The Rules Based international order long predates the Soviet Unions fall.
@@adamjackson6887 well thanks we all stand corrected 🤣
Why have so few people listened to this
Awesome. Well said.
people just don't want to work in supermarkets
I don't blame them. My first job when I was 16 was in Kwik-Save, and it was crap and poorly paid
Working in supermarkets is truly soul destroying. That's why machines are replacing people at the checkout.
🙏💫😎
Wonderful insight…
4:30 there are forms of the fusion of powers in the US Constitution - consider the impeachment process.
4:00 - How can there be a true "separation of powers" if the Legislators and Judiciary receive an income from the Executive (with their regulators, tax-collectors and men with guns)?
10:55 previously when countries were defeated they paid in territory and treasury; nuclear weapons made the prospect of war more dangerous and they knew already once the second world war was over the cold war would begin - the UN was designed as a system to maintain the status quo, an illusion of llaw for why the USSR and the US control their spheres of influence with the added benefit of a talking shop and some folk to do demographic calculations. No one was fooling themselves at its creation. Slowing the rate of conflict escalation was the intention with sovereign states participating in diplomacy as they had done for centuries but in an organised way.
3:41 It was our Senators who were originally selected by the several States. Representatives have been since the very beginning always been the direct representatives of the people, elected by popular vote in their district. Because our House of Representatives is turned over every two years, our Congress is also not considered a permanant or continuing body. Rather, it is a new organization every two years.
The US DoI doesn't say "all men are born and created free and equal," nor is the added to line the opening statement. The line "all men are created equal " holds true to St. Augustine's observation.
1945 invented a law-based international order. You are talking about America's unilateral rules-based order post '89.
Best Regards.
9:32 Basically Americans wanted to avoid paying taxes for the military protection Britain provided and became libertarian, jumped to no taxation without representation totally forgetting no fear of Hobbes's war of man against man needed a military and that needed taxation.
Really interesting
Excellent.
brilliant
Earth calling planet Starkey, you're breaking up again
I’m a White Australian, in the throws of “The Voice” I am concerned with the “film flam” wording. It seems to be a wax apple of sorts, a carpet In witch to sweep first nation issues beneath. You would love it have a look.
I joined an English Police force in 1967, and a short while after homosexuality was made legal. So I never arrested a 'gay'. Lesbians didn't exist of course. I am sure this date is at the forefront of Starkey's mind.. Therefore I am sure he does not dismiss all aspects of the liberal State
I have given the thumbs down, not because I dislike the content. I enjoy it and find it thought provoking, but because I disagree with it. There used to be a verdict in Scottish courts between guilty or not guilty, but there is no icon for that. Nevertheless I shall continue to watch David with interest, even though he is far out of range of a tomato thrown from South Africa.
The UN veto only applies in the Security Council, and during sessions on issues it is looking into.
It does not interfere in the General Assembly, and that was put in the UN Charter from the beginning. It does not stop nations from acting of their own behest, such as what happened with the world helping fund Ukraine's defence against Russia's invasion.
The entire purpose of the UN, is to debate issues and disagreements between nations, that would in the past be settled by warfare.
The UN also is not the holder of International Law anyway. That is shared with both Geneva and the Hague, one that deals with the law during wartime, the other deals with the law during peacetime. If we want a world that is allows entire nations to survive well, we need something to use.
A Security Council Resolution IS International law
By the Hague you presumably mean the ICC which neither Russia or the United States recognise.
so what's the alternative? Even before WW2, Britain followed international standards. Many of these standards were defined by Britain. Such as the laws of the sea and time standards (GMT).
Follow our OWN. Open borders Globalisation has reached its high water mark.
I really value his masterly lectures, but in interviews or "discussions", he rather pedagogically and impatiently gives his interlocuters truncated university lectures
...because that's what he does.... he is a lector .... I wish I had a few of these lectors at college....
He is brilliant - but a conversation is a two-way, reciprocal exchange, which is different from a talk or lecture.
While I agree with the theory of some things, I believe in the American experiment. All European governments also include religious recommendations, requirements or references towards religions place in daily lives. Up until recently our Constitution gave freedom for people to practice their religion freely.
All Constitutional governments are interpreted differently, by that I mean some interpret these documents to the letter. I believe it was John Adams that felt our Constitution was a live document that can grow with the needs of country or state or individual. It was also John Adams who said may only good men serve in the presidency. That held meaning for many presidents, some we consider sketchy others open to criticism then there are the few jail doors should have gotten. I’m not able to comment fully on other foreign countries other than the Magna Charter etc and it is a lot to read
Just a little review
It does say “In God we Trust” on your money. Is that not religion incorporated into the state?
@@patriottothecore6215 In God We Trust was only added in the 1950s. It's not a foundational doctrine
@@patriottothecore6215
We all believe in God, Devine Spirit, Allah, A Higher Source that we spiritually believe in, along with others Gods.
It should be noted that “In God we trust” doesn’t mean God runs countries mere people do. I’m spiritual. One friend is a devout Methodist, another a fallen Catholic. There is also the Sunday Bible beater & weekday member of the Mean Girls.
They make a claim to trust in God.
The remark on a legal document does not mean anything in saying there is in control in how to do, act, or enforce a singular faith.
When the founding fathers developed the American Constitution , The demographics of the country was White Protestant , Black Slaves and Native Indians were inconsequential . Only one signatory was Catholic.
So the laws were made to suit those citizens , not Islamists , or Mormons , JW's etc. However intelligent some may have been , none possessed a Crystal Ball to predict the future.
Its said that when a lie is repeated often enough some think its the truth. That is exactly how I describe America , land of the Free and Democracy. Utter rubbish , there may have been a period when that prevailed , but not in the past hundred years .
To compare the "settlement of 1945" to Versailles and to say it is worse is utter stupidity (that's the nicest way I could put it). A cursory comparison of the period between the two world wars and the period from the end of WWII to the fall of the Soviet Union totally refutes that statement. Don't forget, the settlement and the rules-based international order was based on the goal of opposing the Soviets. One must also remember that the Soviet goal was world domination and imposition of communism everywhere. That is the essence of Marxism, as distinct from other forms of socialism including national socialism.
Frankly, Mr. Starkey's attempts to show the superiority of the English/British system have gotten a bit tiresome. The inherent problems and contradictions of the system are glaringly obvious. The whole structure of the government, especially the make-up of parliament, is so silly that it beggars belief. For example, that the UK should implement devolution without restructuring parliament shows a lack of sophistication. I lived in the UK, in England, earlier in the century. I would see graffiti on motorway overpasses reading "England for the English". This is just a tiny indication of what is silly and wrong with the British constitution. The UK is, quite frankly, being dragged down by its history rather than that history being an asset. Let's hope they can come out the other side of the current chaos with something better.
I don't think the American War of Independence was a revolution. George 3 was the one trying to radically rearrange the established order.
What an idiotic comment
David Starkey is opposed to the settlement of 1945 because it was followed by the demise of the British Empire. He is just another conservative engaging in imperial nostalgia.
Sorry but we are created free and equal. The world is a kaleidoscope of circumstances from DNA to concentration camps to passports to lemons to apples to politics, and our freedom to respond is what we all have, always.
I think Professor Starkey’s point is that from when we are born, until about the age of two, we are not free in the sense that we are utterly dependent on others for the most basic things, e.g., food, water, cleaning up our bodily fluids, etc. This sort of dependency is the very antithesis of freedom. And I’d also question your use of the word “equal”. If you mean equal under the law, then yes, I’d agree (at least in theory, that’s how it should be). However, if you really want to see absolute equality, then I’d recommend visiting a graveyard, because I don’t think you’ll find it anywhere else. Not in this world anyway.
We aren't equal. We aren't born equal.
Even race differences are real from IQ to testosterone levels.
There's a reason why DS's videos are not attracting the views they did when he launched the channel. They started off by being about history - they weren't overtly political, and because of that we didn't have to suffer the hectoring we are now exposed to now. Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook's 'The Rest Is History' blog plainly comes from a right-of-center position, but does so with wit and nuance, and has a massive international following. DS likes the sound of his voice too much. If you see him in interviews, he spends most of the time trying to shut everyone else up. Just look at the relative figures for Holland and Sandbrook's productions, compared with Starkey's, and you'll see which has relevance.
Ah ... but what a teacher be is
....imagine all the hours and effort to gain this knowledge.......and it's all offered to me bite-size on a plate, served at my table and comfortable chair at home, any time I want, no trouble making hastely notes, just play it again another time...... life is good....
I don’t think you know the meaning of the word “hectoring”.
7:30 This is when the DISGUSTING ENGLISH PHILISTNE goes crazy