So helpful, thank you!! I have been reading The concept of Law in preparation for Oxbridge applications this October, and once I have read a chapter, your videos are so helpful to ensure that I have understood everything I have read
I've watched perhaps a dozen of your videos, and I think this is the best one. In fact, I believe there's a publishable paper to be found in it based on your valley of sheep herders, because it makes for a lovely Hartian refutation of libertarianism. (If I write it myself, I'll certainly credit you!) Great stuff!!
Thank you! I will keep producing videos, though at a slower pace in the coming semesters, so be sure to check out all the videos already on this channel.
I'm working as public accountant and I don't know how I end up on your video. But I find it so interesting and well-explain even for someone like me that wasn't in the field could grasp the concept easily. There are more than 50 of your vids and I'm already excited to watch them all. Thank You
I'm glad you stumbled upon them as well. If you want some guidance as to the order in which to go through them, check out my playlists: ruclips.net/channel/UC_hukbByJP7OZ3Xm2tszacQplaylists
Thank you. As a french student I had difficulties finding explanations about Hart's theory (his theory had less impact here I guess). Your videos are a big help.
What is the basis of primary rule? Where did it came from? I mean like Austin said that law is a command "comes from" a sovereign and backed by sanctions. But hart didn’t mention any of the authorities. Where do we get primary rule from?
Hart answers exactly this question in the very next chapter of his book, chapter 6. Hart argues that every legal system as an (often unspoken) "Rule of Recognition" and it is the source of validity for all the other rules of the legal system. Here is my video on chapter 6: ruclips.net/video/4qtSYUccppc/видео.html
Didnt Hart say that the existence of customary law is a counter to Austins' command theory since through custom, authoritative law arises without a command? How can he now say that customary law is not law but only rules which are not authoritative?
I wish someone could tell me what is "law". I feel like there is a huge diversion if definition of the basic concept between different views. From Austin's perspective, law is the orders of the current monopoly of power in the most immediate sense. This matches well with legal positivist ideas. From this perspective the gun man is the law of the land until his threat is removed. Law is what is getting enforced by the legislator independent of morality. From a naturalists perspective (heavily personalized,) law is the rules which you are morally responsible to abide. A naturalist would consider someone a criminal in Natzi Germany even if they broke no laws there, since "the law" is the natural "correct response" and is independent of any entity claiming to be a legislator.
Do you not see, your primaries are actuality secondary? Around 19:50 you restated the primary, NOT DYING! If you, as you say...step back...and rethink the antecedent of secondary, you will find many laws and rules are secondary and that perhaps, ten, make it to primary and even two, or if I dare...one law that governess all. Logicically, laws must be congruent. Thanks for your vids...
I find 'secondary' and 'primary' unintuitive for this sort of distinction if only because modern constitution writers start with what Hart calls 'secondary' rules.
The intersting thing about the rule, 'women aren't allowed to wear pants', I think, there is this book The history of 5000 years...', it makes the case that women and slavery where closely related. That when the slaves where freed, women imposedly took over much. As seems that every society depends on some sort of free labor/pool. Now you can argue that women not allowed to wear pants, is a psychological tool of casting inferiority upon the other group, I don't know who invented the pants and skirts. But skirts and dresses happen to cover the most parts of the human body. Intestingly, in countries with very high temperature, whole body covering clothing is more unisex. Rules can be invented by anybody violent enough, powerful enough to sway others. Witch hunt being one of them. Having delusional paranoid characters on top positions is detrimental to large sway of populations. Then you haven't mentioned, political murders. Napoleon, who crownd himself. With other words, 'High elite ruling criminals' understood the one thing about the persistance of law. Killing matters, can circumvent outcomes! In smaller societies there are often councils. Wise men or women who act as these institutional roles. You don't need a church building to have a church! I do think by overlooking these proto-institurions, that we look down upon these. A scholarly blind spot. The West happily forgets, that they once were hunter gatherers, had druids and spooky animistic religions. These things are always mentioned in cases of 'black' history. But it is simply a state for every human civilization. Like our amphibian brains, our social structure left an imprint by these simple, bare bone rules. Like Christianity discovered. You cannot have Christianity without pagan, proto-religious elements.
Jeeeffrey... Jeeeeeeffrey... I'm your conscience Jeffrey... you need to phone your family Jeffrey... you don't want them to drift away... and you need to stop all your flings with your students Jeffrey... your partner will find out otherwise...
No, Hart does not seem obviously right. The story of a pre-legal state of nature, wherein people have primary rules but no authority, nor any other means of decision-making, is extremely ahistorical. It doesn't sit well with human nature, at the very least, and may be outright incompatible with it. Now, state-of-nature stories are almost never intended as literal representations of historical fact, but it's possible for them to be so far from any plausible past state of the world that they fail in their actual purpose of providing insight into the present state.
Thank you for saving my life at 4 am the night before a seminar. I owe you
Glad to save a life.
😊😊
Wow..I started thinking why we do not have a teacher for jurisprudence like u..Wonderful..action oriented. You made subject interesting 🙏👍
gg
excuse me, who gave you permission to save my entire jurisprudence module?
Who
secondary rules did lol
@@peaceuponyou4433 😂
This was amazing! the clarity of thought and examples used to explain the concepts were brilliant. Really look forward to the future videos!!
So helpful, thank you!! I have been reading The concept of Law in preparation for Oxbridge applications this October, and once I have read a chapter, your videos are so helpful to ensure that I have understood everything I have read
I've watched perhaps a dozen of your videos, and I think this is the best one. In fact, I believe there's a publishable paper to be found in it based on your valley of sheep herders, because it makes for a lovely Hartian refutation of libertarianism. (If I write it myself, I'll certainly credit you!) Great stuff!!
Amazing! You has saved me from my jurisprudence exam tomorrow! Millions thanks
Your videos are amazing, and your students were lucky to have you at Berkeley! I hope these videos keep on coming :))
Thank you! I will keep producing videos, though at a slower pace in the coming semesters, so be sure to check out all the videos already on this channel.
This channel is a blessing 😭 Watching all these videos before a major test, they're so great!
Glad they are helpful!
I'm working as public accountant and I don't know how I end up on your video. But I find it so interesting and well-explain even for someone like me that wasn't in the field could grasp the concept easily. There are more than 50 of your vids and I'm already excited to watch them all. Thank You
I'm glad you stumbled upon them as well. If you want some guidance as to the order in which to go through them, check out my playlists: ruclips.net/channel/UC_hukbByJP7OZ3Xm2tszacQplaylists
Big Thank you from Pakistan. I owe you the understanding of beloved Hart :-)
Thanks a lotttt for explaining so wholeheartedly! I can finally do well. Could you make a video on "Pure Theory of Law" of Kelsen please?
Best teacher. Made studying Juris completely easy!
Thank you. As a french student I had difficulties finding explanations about Hart's theory (his theory had less impact here I guess). Your videos are a big help.
your work is legit and commendable prof
This video made me enjoy jurisprudence
Awesome lecturer, love how the material is delivered to the audience.
This makes so much sense😭 thank you so much!!!
Very informative and entertaining! Thanks for posting!
Excellent teacher, so much respect,
Wow this is just fascinating
Are rules, that are about punishments for violating the rules, primary or secondary rules?
Hi Jeffrey, would you mind doing Hans Kelsen and Joseph Raz on the Hart's postscript as well?
Thank you so much 👏👏👏👏👏 you made it easy to understand. This lecture was great.
This is so helpful and well explained. Thank you
You're very welcome!
ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL
Nice to meet ya..will watch more.
This is so well versed explained 😇
From India
Very well explained. 👏👌
Thanks I passed my philosophy modules ✊
I wrote a paper in my Phil of Law course at UT Austin on chapter 5 - referring to the game of chess. Good times.
Damn i wish my lecturer explains it like this then i won't be this clueless
AMAZING VIDEO
great explanation! a foundation student here trying to understand secondary rules!
This is so helpful thank you!
This is amazing!! thank you :)
You're welcome!
really interesting video! I am writing my response paper about this Chapter. Do you have any critic points I could address? Thanks for your help!
What is the basis of primary rule? Where did it came from? I mean like Austin said that law is a command "comes from" a sovereign and backed by sanctions. But hart didn’t mention any of the authorities. Where do we get primary rule from?
Hart answers exactly this question in the very next chapter of his book, chapter 6. Hart argues that every legal system as an (often unspoken) "Rule of Recognition" and it is the source of validity for all the other rules of the legal system. Here is my video on chapter 6: ruclips.net/video/4qtSYUccppc/видео.html
Thank you sir
Would love a vid on the postscript!
just wondering what pages are these paragraphs on for reference
Very useful, Sir.
Do you plan to discuss Kelsen and Roscoe Pound too, in the near future?
Hopefully soon
@@profjeffreykaplan Look forward. Thank you.
What role does these rules play in Hart's theory
Please do videos on sociological school of thought
So can you say primary rules are statutes and the secondary is the constitution? Or are Hart’s rules norms?
Didnt Hart say that the existence of customary law is a counter to Austins' command theory since through custom, authoritative law arises without a command? How can he now say that customary law is not law but only rules which are not authoritative?
If Anyone from India saw this comment just remember you weren't the first who was completely mad about Jurisprudence and then find this saviour.
Glad I could save the day!
I wish someone could tell me what is "law".
I feel like there is a huge diversion if definition of the basic concept between different views.
From Austin's perspective, law is the orders of the current monopoly of power in the most immediate sense. This matches well with legal positivist ideas. From this perspective the gun man is the law of the land until his threat is removed. Law is what is getting enforced by the legislator independent of morality.
From a naturalists perspective (heavily personalized,) law is the rules which you are morally responsible to abide. A naturalist would consider someone a criminal in Natzi Germany even if they broke no laws there, since "the law" is the natural "correct response" and is independent of any entity claiming to be a legislator.
thank you so much！
You are welcome!
Do you not see, your primaries are actuality secondary? Around 19:50 you restated the primary, NOT DYING! If you, as you say...step back...and rethink the antecedent of secondary, you will find many laws and rules are secondary and that perhaps, ten, make it to primary and even two, or if I dare...one law that governess all. Logicically, laws must be congruent.
Thanks for your vids...
I find 'secondary' and 'primary' unintuitive for this sort of distinction if only because modern constitution writers start with what Hart calls 'secondary' rules.
Isn' this guy great?
love u
And God said, "Let there be blue-jean models, and let them strutteth their stuffeth across the face of the earth. And so it was."
Bernado Silva=Jeffrey Kaplan?🤣Excellent lesson though
The intersting thing about the rule, 'women aren't allowed to wear pants', I think, there is this book The history of 5000 years...', it makes the case that women and slavery where closely related. That when the slaves where freed, women imposedly took over much. As seems that every society depends on some sort of free labor/pool.
Now you can argue that women not allowed to wear pants, is a psychological tool of casting inferiority upon the other group, I don't know who invented the pants and skirts. But skirts and dresses happen to cover the most parts of the human body. Intestingly, in countries with very high temperature, whole body covering clothing is more unisex. Rules can be invented by anybody violent enough, powerful enough to sway others. Witch hunt being one of them. Having delusional paranoid characters on top positions is detrimental to large sway of populations. Then you haven't mentioned, political murders. Napoleon, who crownd himself. With other words, 'High elite ruling criminals' understood the one thing about the persistance of law. Killing matters, can circumvent outcomes!
In smaller societies there are often councils. Wise men or women who act as these institutional roles. You don't need a church building to have a church! I do think by overlooking these proto-institurions, that we look down upon these. A scholarly blind spot. The West happily forgets, that they once were hunter gatherers, had druids and spooky animistic religions. These things are always mentioned in cases of 'black' history. But it is simply a state for every human civilization. Like our amphibian brains, our social structure left an imprint by these simple, bare bone rules. Like Christianity discovered. You cannot have Christianity without pagan, proto-religious elements.
I bet he is a fan of Seinfeld..
Jeeeffrey... Jeeeeeeffrey... I'm your conscience Jeffrey... you need to phone your family Jeffrey... you don't want them to drift away... and you need to stop all your flings with your students Jeffrey... your partner will find out otherwise...
No, Hart does not seem obviously right.
The story of a pre-legal state of nature, wherein people have primary rules but no authority, nor any other means of decision-making, is extremely ahistorical. It doesn't sit well with human nature, at the very least, and may be outright incompatible with it. Now, state-of-nature stories are almost never intended as literal representations of historical fact, but it's possible for them to be so far from any plausible past state of the world that they fail in their actual purpose of providing insight into the present state.
Jeffrey every 1 or 2 min whatever i don't care