Sir Mark, your presentation is amazing. I'm asking a permision was if I could slightly copy your presentation for my report in Philosophy, if that is okay with you. I will acknowledge you. Please reply ASAP. Thank you. Please allow me.
You mention that many congresspeople are not in the chamber, except for votes. That's right. They usually watch proceedings on CC TV, and only come in to speak, or to vote, unless they are particularly interested in talking to others. But they are in their offices, watching (or at least listening, and their advisors are watching) and doing other business. Otherwise they'd spend all day in Congress, not doing anything.
The Lockean model of the social contract was invoked into The Declaration Of Independence. The entire concept is to have a FREE and EQUAL (Anarchy)society with a neutral judge (FREE FROM OPINION) basing what constitutes a law of society on the guidelines of NATURAL LAW as to maintain the amount of free and equality found in anarchy, which in his opinion was the only thing that gave REASON for man to enter the social contract, to avoid the state of war found in Anarchy due to the "ill enforced" or "arbitrary OPINION" of the natural law not to harm others. This is the entire foundation of American principles and ethics founded in The Declaration of Independence. The Declaration declares that the people have a right to alter or abolish any government once it becomes destructive of their natural rights (Invasion of natural law which I pretty much sum up into victimless crimes). The turn away from the Articles of Confederation with the ratification of the Constitution was an action of this sort and so the Constitution's authority exists within the legal framework established by the Declaration. The Constitution cannot, then, be interpreted as though it were the foundation of constitutional law, in the absence of principles derived from the Declaration John Locke considers the state of nature in his Second Treatise on Civil Government written around the time of the Exclusion Crisis in England during the 1680s. For Locke, in the state of nature all men are free "to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature." (2nd Tr., §4). "The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it", and that law is Reason. Locke believes that reason teaches that "no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, and or property" (2nd Tr., §6) ; and that transgressions of this may be punished. This view of the state of nature is partly deduced from Christian belief (unlike Hobbes, whose philosophy is not dependent upon any prior theology). Although it may be natural to assume that Locke was responding to Hobbes, Locke never refers to Hobbes by name, and may instead have been responding to other writers of the day, like Robert Filmer. In fact, Locke's First Treatise is entirely a response to Filmer's Patriarcha, and takes a step by step method to refuting Filmer's theory set out in Patriarcha. The conservative party at the time had rallied behind Filmer's Patriarcha, whereas the Whigs, scared of another prosecution of Anglicans and Protestants, rallied behind the theory set out by Locke in his Two Treatises of Government; as it gives a clear theory as to why you should be allowed to overthrow a monarchy who abuses the trust set in it by the people. According to Locke there are three natural rights: Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created. Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right. Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights. The social contract is an agreement between members of a country to live within a shared system of laws. Specific forms of government are the result of the decisions made by these persons acting in their collective capacity. Government is instituted to make laws that protect these three natural rights. If a government does not properly protect these rights, it can be overthrown. "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that... no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions" (2nd Tr., §6). John Locke's conception of the social contract differed from Hobbes' in several fundamental ways, retaining only the central notion that persons in a state of nature would willingly come together to form a state. Locke believed that individuals in a state of nature would be bound morally, by The Law of Nature, not to harm each other in their lives or possession, but without government to defend them against those seeking to injure or enslave them, people would have no security in their rights and would live in fear. Locke argued that individuals would agree to form a state that would provide a "neutral judge", acting to protect the lives, liberty, and property of those who lived within it. While Hobbes did argue thus for near-absolute authority, Locke argued for INVIOLATE (: not harmed or changed) freedom under law in his Second Treatise of Government. Locke argued that government's legitimacy comes from the citizens' delegation to the government of their right of self-defense (of "self-preservation"). The government thus acts as an impartial, objective agent of that self-defense, rather than each man acting as his own judge, jury, and executioner-the condition in the state of nature. In this view, government derives its "just powers from the consent [i.e, delegation] of the governed,". We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created EQUAL ( IN A STATE OF ANARCHY ), that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE Rights ( NATURAL RIGHTS), that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (NATURAL RIGHTS).--That to SECURE THESE RIGHTS (NATURAL RIGHTS), Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT ( PRESCRIBED ABOVE SOCIAL CONTRACT) of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of THESE ends (NATURAL RIGHTS, EQUALITY AND THE SOCIAL CONTRACT BOUND TO PROTECT THEM), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such (of the type previously mentioned ) principles ( and organizing its powers in such (of the type previously mentioned ) form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety (PROTECTION OF NATURAL RIGHTS) and Happiness (PURSUANCE OF NATURAL RIGHTS INCLUDING PROPERTY) . The legal philosophy known as Declarationism seeks to incorporate the natural rights philosophy of the United States Declaration of Independence into the body of American case law on a level with the United States Constitution, since the unanimously agreed upon Doctrines of the Declaration of Independence is the foundational authority upon which the People and the Continental Congress of the 13 British Colonies of America based their power to legitimately separate from England and establish its own government (i.e. the Constitution of the United States). Declarationism philosophy, therefore, insists that if the United States rejects the natural rights philosophy of the Declaration of Independence upon which it was founded, it of necessity becomes, retro-actively, an illegitimate government in treasonous rebellion against its rightful government of Crown and Parliament in London; and therefore, the Declaration and Constitution must be held as legally inseparable throughout the entire United States of America (both Federal and State) and its territories. Declarationism is a legal philosophy that incorporates the United States Declaration of Independence into the body of case law on level with the United States Constitution. It holds that the Declaration is a natural law document and so that natural law has a place within American jurisprudence. Its main proponents include Harry V. Jaffa and other members of the Claremont Institute. Some proponents claim that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a follower of this school of thought; however, Thomas is more widely considered a member of the strict constructionist school. In Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901), the United States Supreme Court stated: The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." Proponents claim that the concept is derived from the philosophical structure contained in the Declaration of Independence and assertion that it was the Declaration that revealed the United States as a new emergent nation, the Constitution creating only the federal government. According to this view, the authority to create the Constitution derives from the prior act of nation-creation accomplished by the Declaration. ( As seen Above) The Declaration declares that the people have a right to alter or abolish any government once it becomes destructive of their natural rights. The turn away from the Articles of Confederation with the ratification of the Constitution was an action of this sort and so the Constitution's authority exists within the legal framework established by the Declaration. The Constitution cannot, then, be interpreted as though it were the foundation of constitutional law, in the absence of principles derived from the Declaration. Though philosophically conservative, Declarationists such as Jaffa have been outspoken critics of originalist construction jurists including Robert Bork, Antonin Scalia, and William Rehnquist, likening them to legal positivists. Bork and legal scholar Lino Graglia have, in turn, critiqued the Declarationist position, retorting that it is single-mindedly obsessive over the Dred Scott decision and resembles a theology rather than a legal doctrine.
Are you serious the Constitution is already in shambles. It is not in shambles because the two parties don't negotiate = its because they do. Gridlock was a major protection for the Constitution and was built into the system. The Constitution is or was our protection from majority rule. I imagine you know the founders = yes? Well than you know that they knew democracy would not work and they made it very difficult to enact more law and 51% just does not cut it. Madison even codified the first 10 federal laws as a restriction on government action and a protect for individual liberty. Good lecture though - by the way Natural Law is not only rational it is self-evident = of course its real.
John Locke is a terrible philosopher. Go back to St Thomas. If I see a damn rock there is a rock there to say there isn't is elitist pot smoking gibberish
Thank you! Very helpful!
Very useful presentation for the revision. Thanks!
Where is the lecture on Rousseau?
Min. 7.50: Tabula RASA, the blank slate.
Hello and many thanks! I can't find Rousseau's Lecture. Any suggestions? Thanks, again.
Very informative! Thanks.
This course has helped me to untangle the politics. i am very thankful. Do you also teach Philosophy of Technology?
awesome!
Sir Mark, your presentation is amazing. I'm asking a permision was if I could slightly copy your presentation for my report in Philosophy, if that is okay with you. I will acknowledge you. Please reply ASAP. Thank you. Please allow me.
Bookmark 38:30
Locke never used the term tabula rasa. Just saying...
Life is safe in each enzyme substrate correlation.
You mention that many congresspeople are not in the chamber, except for votes. That's right. They usually watch proceedings on CC TV, and only come in to speak, or to vote, unless they are particularly interested in talking to others. But they are in their offices, watching (or at least listening, and their advisors are watching) and doing other business. Otherwise they'd spend all day in Congress, not doing anything.
The Lockean model of the social contract was invoked into The Declaration Of Independence. The entire concept is to have a FREE and EQUAL (Anarchy)society with a neutral judge (FREE FROM OPINION) basing what constitutes a law of society on the guidelines of NATURAL LAW as to maintain the amount of free and equality found in anarchy, which in his opinion was the only thing that gave REASON for man to enter the social contract, to avoid the state of war found in Anarchy due to the "ill enforced" or "arbitrary OPINION" of the natural law not to harm others.
This is the entire foundation of American principles and ethics founded in The Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration declares that the people have a right to alter or abolish any government once it becomes destructive of their natural rights (Invasion of natural law which I pretty much sum up into victimless crimes). The turn away from the Articles of Confederation with the ratification of the Constitution was an action of this sort and so the Constitution's authority exists within the legal framework established by the Declaration. The Constitution cannot, then, be interpreted as though it were the foundation of constitutional law, in the absence of principles derived from the Declaration
John Locke considers the state of nature in his Second Treatise on Civil Government written around the time of the Exclusion Crisis in England during the 1680s. For Locke, in the state of nature all men are free "to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature." (2nd Tr., §4). "The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it", and that law is Reason. Locke believes that reason teaches that "no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, and or property" (2nd Tr., §6) ; and that transgressions of this may be punished. This view of the state of nature is partly deduced from Christian belief (unlike Hobbes, whose philosophy is not dependent upon any prior theology).
Although it may be natural to assume that Locke was responding to Hobbes, Locke never refers to Hobbes by name, and may instead have been responding to other writers of the day, like Robert Filmer. In fact, Locke's First Treatise is entirely a response to Filmer's Patriarcha, and takes a step by step method to refuting Filmer's theory set out in Patriarcha. The conservative party at the time had rallied behind Filmer's Patriarcha, whereas the Whigs, scared of another prosecution of Anglicans and Protestants, rallied behind the theory set out by Locke in his Two Treatises of Government; as it gives a clear theory as to why you should be allowed to overthrow a monarchy who abuses the trust set in it by the people.
According to Locke there are three natural rights:
Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.
The social contract is an agreement between members of a country to live within a shared system of laws. Specific forms of government are the result of the decisions made by these persons acting in their collective capacity. Government is instituted to make laws that protect these three natural rights. If a government does not properly protect these rights, it can be overthrown.
"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that... no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions" (2nd Tr., §6).
John Locke's conception of the social contract differed from Hobbes' in several fundamental ways, retaining only the central notion that persons in a state of nature would willingly come together to form a state. Locke believed that individuals in a state of nature would be bound morally, by The Law of Nature, not to harm each other in their lives or possession, but without government to defend them against those seeking to injure or enslave them, people would have no security in their rights and would live in fear. Locke argued that individuals would agree to form a state that would provide a "neutral judge", acting to protect the lives, liberty, and property of those who lived within it.
While Hobbes did argue thus for near-absolute authority, Locke argued for INVIOLATE (: not harmed or changed) freedom under law in his Second Treatise of Government. Locke argued that government's legitimacy comes from the citizens' delegation to the government of their right of self-defense (of "self-preservation"). The government thus acts as an impartial, objective agent of that self-defense, rather than each man acting as his own judge, jury, and executioner-the condition in the state of nature. In this view, government derives its "just powers from the consent [i.e, delegation] of the governed,".
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created EQUAL ( IN A STATE OF ANARCHY ), that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE Rights ( NATURAL RIGHTS), that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (NATURAL RIGHTS).--That to SECURE THESE RIGHTS (NATURAL RIGHTS), Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT ( PRESCRIBED ABOVE SOCIAL CONTRACT) of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of THESE ends (NATURAL RIGHTS, EQUALITY AND THE SOCIAL CONTRACT BOUND TO PROTECT THEM), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such (of the type previously mentioned ) principles ( and organizing its powers in such (of the type previously mentioned ) form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety (PROTECTION OF NATURAL RIGHTS) and Happiness (PURSUANCE OF NATURAL RIGHTS INCLUDING PROPERTY) .
The legal philosophy known as Declarationism seeks to incorporate the natural rights philosophy of the United States Declaration of Independence into the body of American case law on a level with the United States Constitution, since the unanimously agreed upon Doctrines of the Declaration of Independence is the foundational authority upon which the People and the Continental Congress of the 13 British Colonies of America based their power to legitimately separate from England and establish its own government (i.e. the Constitution of the United States). Declarationism philosophy, therefore, insists that if the United States rejects the natural rights philosophy of the Declaration of Independence upon which it was founded, it of necessity becomes, retro-actively, an illegitimate government in treasonous rebellion against its rightful government of Crown and Parliament in London; and therefore, the Declaration and Constitution must be held as legally inseparable throughout the entire United States of America (both Federal and State) and its territories.
Declarationism is a legal philosophy that incorporates the United States Declaration of Independence into the body of case law on level with the United States Constitution. It holds that the Declaration is a natural law document and so that natural law has a place within American jurisprudence. Its main proponents include Harry V. Jaffa and other members of the Claremont Institute. Some proponents claim that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a follower of this school of thought; however, Thomas is more widely considered a member of the strict constructionist school.
In Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901), the United States Supreme Court stated:
The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."
Proponents claim that the concept is derived from the philosophical structure contained in the Declaration of Independence and assertion that it was the Declaration that revealed the United States as a new emergent nation, the Constitution creating only the federal government. According to this view, the authority to create the Constitution derives from the prior act of nation-creation accomplished by the Declaration. ( As seen Above) The Declaration declares that the people have a right to alter or abolish any government once it becomes destructive of their natural rights. The turn away from the Articles of Confederation with the ratification of the Constitution was an action of this sort and so the Constitution's authority exists within the legal framework established by the Declaration. The Constitution cannot, then, be interpreted as though it were the foundation of constitutional law, in the absence of principles derived from the Declaration.
Though philosophically conservative, Declarationists such as Jaffa have been outspoken critics of originalist construction jurists including Robert Bork, Antonin Scalia, and William Rehnquist, likening them to legal positivists. Bork and legal scholar Lino Graglia have, in turn, critiqued the Declarationist position, retorting that it is single-mindedly obsessive over the Dred Scott decision and resembles a theology rather than a legal doctrine.
Please where can i get this notes or it's your own words
Great analysis. Wish he enunciated a little better. Sometimes difficult to understand his mumbly/nasal delivery.
Are you serious the Constitution is already in shambles. It is not in shambles because the two parties don't negotiate = its because they do. Gridlock was a major protection for the Constitution and was built into the system. The Constitution is or was our protection from majority rule. I imagine you know the founders = yes? Well than you know that they knew democracy would not work and they made it very difficult to enact more law and 51% just does not cut it. Madison even codified the first 10 federal laws as a restriction on government action and a protect for individual liberty.
Good lecture though - by the way Natural Law is not only rational it is self-evident = of course its real.
pas mal
John Locke is a terrible philosopher. Go back to St Thomas. If I see a damn rock there is a rock there to say there isn't is elitist pot smoking gibberish