The current technological context appears to require a transition away from the nation-state paradigm. (We need to abolish war-making to foreclose the possibility of nuclear conflagration.) We can reconcile interest in freedom w/ the need of a State to raise funds for public purposes by allowing each citizen to decide which projects to promote the public interest they want to support. That each person must help promote community interests will be understood, but the *how* that that support is manifest is the choice of the individual, constrained by public opinion about what is to be called 'public interest'. We could use random polls to find whether this or that activity does, in fact, promote the public interest and should qualify to receive funds in that guise.
Locke's beliefs were not at all widespread as Russell would lead you to believe. The Whigs were not all that interested in Locke's social contract, with its ideas of natural law and democracy. They were very much more in favor of the social order of the time. And Locke's ideas, actually, appear to be quite original, in many ways. There are not any philosophers before Locke whom argued for our natural rights as limits on the power of the government, at least as strongly as he did. Before, those with the closest political ideas to his are Spinoza, an advocate of democratic government and religious freedom, or advocates of mixed republics, like Machiavelli and Cicero. Secondly, Russell is obviously biased against property and capitalism in this text. There is reason to have skepticism of the idea that Locke was committed to property only because he wasn't from the aristocracy, or the lowest class, but of the class in between. It is more likely that he was simply allowed more education and he developed his beliefs about property independently, coming from his critical analysis of state power. Socialists and those with socialist leanings don't respect the agency of individuals, and prefer to sum up their actions as being mostly influenced by class. It is an obnoxious fiction. And the "vast power" of corporations as stated by Russell is an exaggeration, as still, our interactions with corporations are voluntary.
Not to mention his various other ideas, including the labor theory of property, and tabula rasa. He also was the first to define the self with continual consciousness
How does the statement; "corporations do not hold vast power" follow from "our interactions with corporations are voluntary"? Even if i were to secede that our interactions with corporations are voluntary (which i don't), it is absurd to claim that they do not hold vast power, i'd argue that corporations in america hold more power, both political and economical than the people do.
@@adrianhoseini1334 Corporations are powerful, you're correct. They have sway over society in massive ways, but the author of this book in my opinion exaggerated the power of corporations by saying the biggest American corporations are as powerful as our government. I'd argue that they hold mostly arbitrary power (unless they are sort of like monopolies, like internet service providers), and what I mean by that is they really only have power so long as they make their customers and shareholders happy, and they don't pass laws like the government does. Their power comes from their ability to influence markets and their employees, which is considerably less power.
@@Ndhshdds the corporations have considerably more power than any legislature does. International monopolies are free to lobby any western government and control the "democratic" process. Neo-colonialism and capitalist imperialism, the reasons western countries stay wealthy while every other country stays poor, is mostly operated by corporations. There is no country in the world (except to some degree china) that has control over their megs corporations and billionaires, any leader that goes against capital interest is either murdered, sabotaged or overthrown. News channels owned by 6 big corporstions with similar interests, are watched by 90 % of americans, they control public thought and pit us against eachother so that we ignore rampant abuse by them. In this cspitalist system, money is power, and corporations own most of it. 62 % of returns go to corporations despite being 5 % of businesses
A mind's own faculties are the dearest sensibilities that the pleated sheets unravel the ammending orders of St. John's worth of mind and body unitarian ideal gas laws giving the rights of Kings to natural seniorities to each page of orders sequence modus operandum releasing the enzyme Locke and Keynesian adaptation to the appropriate relationships with the ethical inorganic growth and organic hierarchies seats of Judges and Jurist prudence.
@Ethan Mac just because we have a more refine consciousness than those of wild animals does not mean we are above it all, we like them drag our bodies on this earth, eat, sleep, and defecate. Animals strive to live and survive, just like we do. Everything we do in life is a strive for survival. "Civil" human beings, not sure what that means because if you look what people do in social media, we are still staring at our navel at awe and taking pictures of our floating turds and posting it for "likes", a cookie or a pat on the back.
@Ethan Mac i commend your optimistic view of man, however, I do not. Basic common sense is a rarity in this world or in this reality. Most people need an "app" just to show them how to properly wipe their rear end. Yes, God help us all and bless us!!!
@@andyayala9119 murder is natural *perhaps* of the outgroup. But the idea is to make all of humanity the entire group and hold all tribes accountable for the same rights "outside" as they maintain "inside" It comes down to the individual freedom. You are referring to a collective freedom. A way if thinking which, ironically, has a very non-collective affect and it is frankly quite dangerous
![Tee Grizzley - Robbery 8 [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/34_vkNV6wrU/mqdefault.jpg)
On Reminder of Compromise and common sense to attain a greater good, thank you.
16:51 I quite enjoy the subtle quips, haha
Thanks for adding some substance to youtube!
The current technological context appears to require a transition away from the nation-state paradigm. (We need to abolish war-making to foreclose the possibility of nuclear conflagration.)
We can reconcile interest in freedom w/ the need of a State to raise funds for public purposes by allowing each citizen to decide which projects to promote the public interest they want to support. That each person must help promote community interests will be understood, but the *how* that that support is manifest is the choice of the individual, constrained by public opinion about what is to be called 'public interest'.
We could use random polls to find whether this or that activity does, in fact, promote the public interest and should qualify to receive funds in that guise.
Locke's beliefs were not at all widespread as Russell would lead you to believe. The Whigs were not all that interested in Locke's social contract, with its ideas of natural law and democracy. They were very much more in favor of the social order of the time. And Locke's ideas, actually, appear to be quite original, in many ways. There are not any philosophers before Locke whom argued for our natural rights as limits on the power of the government, at least as strongly as he did. Before, those with the closest political ideas to his are Spinoza, an advocate of democratic government and religious freedom, or advocates of mixed republics, like Machiavelli and Cicero.
Secondly, Russell is obviously biased against property and capitalism in this text. There is reason to have skepticism of the idea that Locke was committed to property only because he wasn't from the aristocracy, or the lowest class, but of the class in between. It is more likely that he was simply allowed more education and he developed his beliefs about property independently, coming from his critical analysis of state power. Socialists and those with socialist leanings don't respect the agency of individuals, and prefer to sum up their actions as being mostly influenced by class. It is an obnoxious fiction. And the "vast power" of corporations as stated by Russell is an exaggeration, as still, our interactions with corporations are voluntary.
Not to mention his various other ideas, including the labor theory of property, and tabula rasa. He also was the first to define the self with continual consciousness
How does the statement; "corporations do not hold vast power" follow from "our interactions with corporations are voluntary"? Even if i were to secede that our interactions with corporations are voluntary (which i don't), it is absurd to claim that they do not hold vast power, i'd argue that corporations in america hold more power, both political and economical than the people do.
@@adrianhoseini1334 Corporations are powerful, you're correct. They have sway over society in massive ways, but the author of this book in my opinion exaggerated the power of corporations by saying the biggest American corporations are as powerful as our government. I'd argue that they hold mostly arbitrary power (unless they are sort of like monopolies, like internet service providers), and what I mean by that is they really only have power so long as they make their customers and shareholders happy, and they don't pass laws like the government does. Their power comes from their ability to influence markets and their employees, which is considerably less power.
@@Ndhshdds the corporations have considerably more power than any legislature does. International monopolies are free to lobby any western government and control the "democratic" process. Neo-colonialism and capitalist imperialism, the reasons western countries stay wealthy while every other country stays poor, is mostly operated by corporations. There is no country in the world (except to some degree china) that has control over their megs corporations and billionaires, any leader that goes against capital interest is either murdered, sabotaged or overthrown. News channels owned by 6 big corporstions with similar interests, are watched by 90 % of americans, they control public thought and pit us against eachother so that we ignore rampant abuse by them. In this cspitalist system, money is power, and corporations own most of it. 62 % of returns go to corporations despite being 5 % of businesses
@@Ndhshdds lobbying is legalizef corruption.
Locke's political philosophy
A mind's own faculties are the dearest sensibilities that the pleated sheets unravel the ammending orders of St. John's worth of mind and body unitarian ideal gas laws giving the rights of Kings to natural seniorities to each page of orders sequence modus operandum releasing the enzyme Locke and Keynesian adaptation to the appropriate relationships with the ethical inorganic growth and organic hierarchies seats of Judges and Jurist prudence.
At last, someone has said it. I bow in three directions at once.
Have you run out of your medication, Bobby?
The claim that "thou shat not kill" is natural law is incorrect. It is devine law as is supposedly came from god.
@Ethan Mac no difference. Murder, assassination, homicide all mickey mouse man made. Killing is natural.
@Ethan Mac just because we have a more refine consciousness than those of wild animals does not mean we are above it all, we like them drag our bodies on this earth, eat, sleep, and defecate. Animals strive to live and survive, just like we do. Everything we do in life is a strive for survival. "Civil" human beings, not sure what that means because if you look what people do in social media, we are still staring at our navel at awe and taking pictures of our floating turds and posting it for "likes", a cookie or a pat on the back.
@Ethan Mac i commend your optimistic view of man, however, I do not. Basic common sense is a rarity in this world or in this reality. Most people need an "app" just to show them how to properly wipe their rear end. Yes, God help us all and bless us!!!
@@andyayala9119 murder is natural *perhaps* of the outgroup. But the idea is to make all of humanity the entire group and hold all tribes accountable for the same rights "outside" as they maintain "inside"
It comes down to the individual freedom. You are referring to a collective freedom. A way if thinking which, ironically, has a very non-collective affect and it is frankly quite dangerous