Police Brutality, Libertarianism, & Human Rights - Philosophy Tube
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июл 2015
- Human Rights, Libertarianism, Abortion, Police Brutality, Government Torture - they’re all connected. But how?
Ethics Playlist: • ETHICS
Subscribe! ruclips.net/user/subscription_c...
Patreon: / philosophytube
More videos:
Should Britain Scrap the Human Rights Act? tinyurl.com/pbpedjm
Should You Save the Greatest Number? tinyurl.com/qg4ecbe
FAQ: / 460163027465168
Facebook: PhilosophyTu...
Twitter: @PhilosophyTube
Email: ollysphilosophychannel@gmail.com
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
realphilosophytube.tumblr.com
Recommended Reading:
Pogge, Thomas. “Repsonse to Critics.” In Thomas Pogge and his Critics edited by Alison M. Jaggar, 192-200. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010.
Pogge, Thomas. “Severe Poverty as a Violation of Negative Duties.” In Ethics and International Affairs 19, 55-83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Pogge, Thomas. World Poverty and Human Rights. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002.
Patrons:
Intimidating Scones
John Altmann
D.J. MacIsaac
Rich Clarke
Dominik
Kasey
Alec Chvirko
David Stewart
Eric Driussi
Troy R
Steve Usher
The LitCrit Guy
Andre Rodrigues
Jason Cherry
Juho Laitalainen
Joshua Reaid
Lennart Krause
Christian Mertes
John Gietzen
Alistair Gilmour
Tom Saleeba
All those others who chose to donate without reward!
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Music: ‘The Day I Die - Remastered,’ ‘Ciptune Anthem One,’ ‘My Little Medley,’ ‘Epic Chiptune Thunderdome,’ by TechnoAxe - tinyurl.com/kkrsfgg
Title Animation by Amitai Angor AA VFX - / dvdangor2011
Abortion Clinic Protest photo by Marklyon: tinyurl.com/yyp498
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it. 
Развлечения
You know, everyone has such productive things to say so I feel kinda bad, but "Famous German and his famous book" conjured up a completely different image in my head.
This was super good! I'm just barely starting to get into philosophy and it all seems very daunting, but I'm trying to take it a little bit at a time. This channel has definitely been helping!
stumbled across this binging your channel and all I can think about is Thomas POGGER
It's a miracle that this channel has not been infected by alt right, 'rational anti sjws' and other kind of trolls. I'm so glad for that.
fuck off inbred.
Ssh. Olly knows how to use the rlly big words that scare those people away. Don't tip them off by referring to them in language they can understand (offers secret lefty handshake ;D)
Any channel with Philosophy in the name is obviously gonna scare them off...
Why? Olly's clearly on the left. Why would the alt right be interested in watching this content?
Thankfully, the youtube algorithm doesn't put such high quality videos in the watch list of trolls
This video seems pretty pertinent
History has a way of doing that
This is probably one of my favorite videos so far! This is an INCREDIBLE argument for dismantling the oppressive economic systems - I really want to go read Pogge's book right now!
Morgan J I think it was one of my best too :)
More like Thomas Poggers am I right
i really needed your channel.
+Storesko Welcome :)
+Philosophy Tube I think you need to get your facts straight
I just got irrationally excited when Abigail cited Sherri Irvin. I had a class with her in undergrad, and she is one of the best instructors I've ever had. Brilliant thinker, excellent moderator for class discussion, and just a genuinely pleasant human being. She had a massive impact on how I viewed aesthetic preference and the societal and environmental implications of aesthetics.
Thomas Pogge for world's president? who's with me?
Jokes aside, his idea seems revolutionary. We could use it in education system, medicine, enslavement, poor countries salaries etc.
Adapting this would be the first step toward developing an economic system that affords all human beings the opportunity to utilize their basic human rights. Still a daunting task that we should all work toward. Very unifying video, well done.
RJ Jon There are ideas on how to achieve this, that I have found in The Venus Project, and The Zeitgeist Movement, which it appears you might be interested in.
So, what was the unique definition of creativity? Creativity and aesthetics is an interest of mine as well. I'm really curious how you defined it.
I think Pogge's system is definitely more intuitive than the interactive model in most cases. However, I can think of at least one case in which an individual can violate the human rights of another, and that would be to enslave them. This seems to me to be a situation in which an individual can systematically deprive another of their basic human rights, even if society would prohibit such an act.
Anyway, great video as always!
AndrianTimeswift Great counterexample!
Damn, you know what I really love about this channel? The fact that a lot of the time even when I don't fully agree or outright disagree with some of the comments, it's still really intelligent, civil, thought-out, non-antagonistic, and respectful a strong majority of the time which is so much more than I can say for so many channels - even educational thinkey brain-brain ones
I'm with Pogge and Pyotr Kropotkin on this one - I think libertarian socialism is the best way to secure human rights institutionally.
Nah i think any form of marxism is to rigid to store humans for long periods of time.
@@alexwhiting5881 Why?
@@voxomnes9537 If people who support/advocate for socialism weren't inclined in making/dedicating nr.1 spot of long term goal as communism, then even me, who's a liberatarian would go "socialism good", but the idea of not being able to generate capital, because some failed asses don't like you getting even slightlier rich (i value generating capital through small business chain as a way of expressing myself and my intrests), that just ain't sitting well with me. I'm all for helping the poor, even out of my pocket, but not for giving away things i worked day and night for.
10:14 “When an artist makes a work of art, they make all the choices that shape what the end product will look like... Whereas if you’re forging, some of the objectives that shape the final product will not be chosen by you.”
A really interesting (to me!) byproduct of this argument is how it also offers an explanation for the popular sentiment that commercial or commissioned art is somehow a less pure form of artistic expression.
I had not heard of "institutional rights" before, and I love Pogge's idea! I think that it makes a lot more sense to me to think in those terms, that we have human rights to a safe world that provides for our basic needs, and those very rights also confer on all of us a duty to do what we can to organize our societies to _secure_ those rights for ourselves and for everyone else. I am totally on board with that idea.
I have had friends that were much more on the "libertarian" side of things, such that the "injustice" that seemed to most anger them was that poor people seemed to them to think themselves entitled to their money. I did not quite know how to articulate the dissonance I felt at the time. It angers me more that people with far more than they need feel entitled to hoard those resources at the expense of those who need them more. I really like the way you presented the idea that the "poor" *_aren't_* just being "left alone". On the contrary, they are being systematically oppressed and exploited by a massive, powerful system that they have little to no way of escaping in most cases. Those of us who have privilege, therefore, have a duty to exercise what influence we have over society at large to re-organize it to cease the oppression and exploitation of the most vulnerable.
I’ve been looking for a vocabulary to help me articulate myself and beliefs for 30 years - this video and others like it here at this site have supplied that vocabulary for me
I WANT AN EPISODE ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WHAT'S MORALLY BAD AND AESTHETICALLY BAD! DO IT, DO IT, DO IT!
Philosophy Tube I usually don't comment on videos but this video really really got me thinking about how to look at Human Rights and I thought I'd try to take part in the discussion. Now it is completely possible that I am just not fully understanding your video and I'll honestly admit that.
Firstly, I think that the "interactional model" makes immediate sense: you are a human and as such you have human rights that no other human can break such as the right to bodily autonomy. It makes immediate intuitive sense to me to say for example that because somebody has a human right to life and bodily autonomy I cannot kill or otherwise hurt them. As an individual you have an obligation to respect everybody's human rights because they are humans. These are the individual duties you talked about and I would agree with. You said that Libertarians always believe in negative duties like "don't do _____" and never positive such as "you must do ____" and that is something I didn't understand from your video. Why is that, why don't libertarians believe in positive duties? Maybe I'm just a bad libertarian but I actually strongly agree with positive duties. Now moving on to the new model, the "institutional model". Unless I am missing something, don't we already have that? The argument that we must form our society in such a way that human rights are institutionally protected seems to be inherit within most modern governments. For example in the United States, in the Declaration of Independence there is a very famous quote speaking of the fact that it is self evident that all men are created equal and have human rights, namely in this particular case: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. It then goes on to say "To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" and that if a government becomes destructive to these ends it is the right of the citizens to alter that government or create a new one. So it seems to me that the very reason we have governments is to protect human rights, protecting human rights is basically the foundation of modern governments. That being said, don't we already have the "institutional model"? Next, I'd like to honestly ask if the "institutional model" gives a free pass on personal responsibility for upholding human rights? If it is primarily the government or "society at large"(that's a fun nebulous term) who is responsible for upholding human rights does that remove personal responsibility? I'm not trying to straw man or attack I'm just asking if the "institutional model" upholds personal individual responsibility in the same way that the "interactional model" does, and if it does would it then logically follow that the "institutional model" has the "interactional model" inside of it? If that is true It's hard for me to see these as two different counter-point models and one should be taken over the other. Maybe I am just genuinely not understanding something or not seeing the difference in the models. Building on that last point wouldn't you say that with with the qualifier of "individual people have a personal responsibility to respect and protect the human rights of other people"(basically the "interactional model" as I understand it) logically will naturally lead to the "institutional model" on it's own when carried to it's logical conclusion? If every individual person has a responsibility to respect(not break) and to protect the human rights of others wouldn't our government and society naturally do the same because of the fact that government is made of individuals? I know this post is dreadfully long already but let me, as quickly as I can, make an argument for individual responsibility to not only respect but also protect other's human rights. I believe that once that is in place we'll have individuals and governments that both institutionally protect human rights. Again it is entirely possible that I'm not understanding the difference between the two models.
Some people would say that we have a duty to not infringe on other's rights but we have no obligation to protect other's rights. I guess this would be a more radical libertarian view of "just leave everyone alone" but that doesn't work in principle. Human Rights violations do not affect me. If some terrible injustice happens somewhere else in the world it doesn't affect me personally and it's not in my "rational self interest" to care, I gain nothing from helping others or actively protecting the human rights of other people. Why not just leave them alone? Well again I guess I'm a bad libertarian because I absolutely disagree with that sentiment. Now my gut reaction is that you should care and be active in protecting the human rights of others "because it is the right thing to do" but somehow I don't think that counts as an argument so I'll take the argument of principle. If you believe in the principal of human rights you must logically actively protect the human rights of others. If you see a violation of human rights and you take the approach of not protecting you have just shattered the very principal of a human right. Human rights are universal in nature. Every single human has the same basic human rights because they are human. If you would concede that it is okay to break the human rights of even one person in some far off country that doesn't affect you in any way you are actually approving of breaking everyone and anyone's human rights. This sounds radical or like it's a jump in logic but it isn't. Human Rights are a base line. Something that everyone has by definition. If one human doesn't have a human right then that right isn't a human right. The principal of human rights is that they are universal and equal and that is why everyone has a personal individual responsibility to protect the human rights of every other person. Any individual case of a human rights violation is not just a terrible thing to happen to one person but a terrible thing to happen to the underline principal of human rights as a whole as well. That is my argument for individual personal responsibility to protect, as best you can, the human rights of other people. Now to wrap up my initial thought. If every person must logically do what ever is in their power to protect the human rights of other people that will naturally create a government that protects human rights. For example, personally I do not have much power, money, or influence in the world. If I personally see injustice there may be something I can do as an individual but in many cases my power is limited. Terrible things happen to people all over the world and I don't have much power or influence to do much about it. I am morally obligated to do what I can, however, which may be spreading awareness, donating money, praying, etc because I believe in the principle of human rights. There is not much I can reasonably personally do as an individual. I am not a powerful, wealthy, or influential person however if I were more powerful, influential, or wealthy there is more that I could do. For example if I were the president of the United States then I could personally affect things in a more tangible way but that feeds into my point. The government is made up of individuals, if those individuals followed the "interactional model" the government would logically institutionally protect human rights(I argue that it already does) so what is the point or difference in the "institutional model"?
Sorry for that long long long post, it went on longer than I intended and I didn't even cover everything such as if poverty is a human rights violation.I genuinely hope I added something of value to the discussion instead of wasting a lot of time rambling.
EDIT: I believe that the purpose of a government is to protect human rights, if that government violates human rights through unjust murder, torture, etc. It must be changed. As a U.S. citizen I can say that police brutality is a very real problem and a complex one. Some may argue that we have institutionalized racism, I think it has more to do with abuse of authority and a generally dangerous mindset within the police system, basically the mindset that citizens are threats instead of people to be protected, this comes from a lot of sources and reinforced in many different ways such as the way police are trained in the United States and is a multifaceted problem. At the same time race is obviously a factor and I'm not blind to that I just think that the problem is deeper than just that. These are HUGE problems and after much thought and watching the video more times I now see what you were trying to say about the "institutional model". Seeing Human Rights as larger than just individuals may lead to people pushing to change the corrupt government or a broken social system. It isn't removing personal responsibility but expanding it to a larger reach, as in individuals must push for larger institutional change. Sometimes I can be too idealistic. I'm sorry for the novel above this it just took me multiple views to fully understand the point of view of the "institutional model" .
this channel is really interesting and i can sort of follow it (im 13 so this stuff is still pretty advanced) and i really enjoy your videos, so maybe if i start watching now, i'll be prepared for my degree aswell! that is if i get one
I understand with the age, I'm 14 but it gets easier more you study
You both are older now. How's it going?
Way to go. I often watch your videos and discover my own personal philosophy. I started the video ready to figure out which side of the argument I fall on, then you take the argument away from me! Thanks, Olly. ;P
2:00 poggers
Was just ripping on another video of yours but this is great. Really well done.
It's strange to see this for the first time after being used to the more recent content. Still fairly solid stuff. The lighting and theatrics have vastly improved.
There should be fundamental rights for all sentient beings
I've never learned about Pogge but knowing that his book came out in to 2000s is really eye opening, you can see how it's affected our discussions today even without knowing about it
Hey Olly, really like the video and this series in general, what was your original definition of creativity?
Ηey, Olly!! Could you do a video on economic crises and maybe especially Greece's??
the institutional model does not change the original model tho, it just says we have a duty to apply the original model.
There's got to be more to it, but I'm having trouble understanding the institutional model of human rights as little more than a macro version of the interactional model. The model basically treats institutions as a tool that groups of people use to enforce or violate human rights?
I love this video! Great topic and interesting information! I would like to further some of these points in regards to discussion of Libertarianism in that I find it to be flawed, (in regards to how to set up governmental systems). I, personally, am a fan of more Socialist ideas, but mainly because of ideas discussed in this video, (and was done so quite well, if I might add). The issue I fine with Libertarian philosophy when referring to government structures is that it has a flawed premise in that 1) everyone can influence the market equally, thus everyone can help protect their own rights as well as others, and 2) everyone starts out at the same point, therefore any positives that one has must be a result of their own work, (and the same for negatives). (Or at least the first one leads to the second one and as such a person's poverty is their own fault or their inability to vote is their own fault) I wish more of the discussion in everyday society talked more about the failings of the system being an issue as opposed to the people themselves. I would like to thank anyone who has stuck through this long comment till here, and I hope it adds something to the conversation.
Only the new-Right's definition of libertarianism is solely about negative duties. Libertarian thought has historically been a left wing position which focuses on both positive and negative rights through collective democratic processes.
It is strange that Right-libertarianism is the main form of libertarianism most people know about, when it was a socialist, Joseph Dejacque, who first used the term to describe himself.
SetSutekh What a coincidence you just wrote this, 2 minutes before, in another thread, someone tried to tell me that if Proudhon were alive today he would be a "Libertarian anarchist" (meaning capitalist anarchist). It's completely absurd, but at least it's mainly just people from the US/UK who think this way.
no, it's only those from the US, who know nothing of the long Left history of libertarianism. They think it was invented in 1940 or thereabouts.
The reason that libertarians wouldn't agree with the institutional model is because they don't agree with the premise that social systems have disadvantaged the poor into poverty. Many conservatives I know in America have the opinion that poor people are in their position because they didn't work hard and deserve it. Although I disagree, libertarians lean more towards anarchy and less towards institutions. A libertarian would say "why let human rights be handled by a flawed institution when I can guarantee them myself with my guns".
Jay Beard You are wrong. Libertarians BLAME poverty on our present institutional model. It is true that one of the mechanism by which governemnt prevents progress against poverty is through welfare programs that encourage laziness. To a libertarian, free market economist, the question isn't why people are poor, but why have so many people risen out of poverty? Poverty is our natural condition. Our distant ancestors lived in caves and wore animal skind they cured and sewed into clothing themselves. What we consider prosperity now is a condition that has never existed before in all of Earth's history. The real question is why those who remain poor don't share in it. Minimum wage keeps a lot of people form getting on that bottom rung of the economic ladder, so they don't get to climb. Government violations of private property rights slow the capital accumulation that job creation and increasing productivity require. The fiat money and central banking system imposed on the economy causes the business cycle, periodically throwing people out of work in mass numbers. The libertarian explanation for poverty is not as simple as blaming the poor.
not really, I second @SaulOhio
but I would like to elaborate on the right to arms.
There are two aspects - an you may have objections based on the outcome or the principle - the first is that of being able to secure ones rights... If you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force against an attack on life or limb, then you the right be able the tools that enable you to effectively use such force. Such a right to self-defense is based on the right to life, that is self preservation.
The second is the objection to the notion that government should have a monopoly on violence - we can argue about the practical outcome and efficacy of such a right - is that if the government violates your rights repeatedly or fails to safeguard them, then you have a right to abolish said government and create a new one as it were to best secure your rights, that is the right to revolution, based on the right of the consent of the government, from this the right arms is also based.
As a recovering libertarian, I'd argue that most actually probably would agree that the harm is being done, but that they would claim it's because we're already interfering too much, and that we should pull back even more.
Olly, so what was the definition of creativity that you developed? Great work, thanks a lot!
What was the original definition of creativity did you come up with? If it's in a video already, you can point it out but I am quite curious and creativity (as well as time) is one of my favorite things to think about.
Taking a break at work to watch some philosophy :)
I’d love to see a video of your top 20 philosophers of the 20th and 21st centuries
The comment by Descartes was fantastically intersting, and I look forward to your video on that subject (I for one find it very difficult to impossible to enjoy art by someone I know to be morally deplorable). What was equally fantastic was how your replied, addressing the commenter as Descartes, which is just absolutely enjoyable to watch.
Would you at any point possibly talk about moralistic judgements on past figures, and if one can legitimately respect past figures who have partaken in horrible acts, like owned slaves. This is particularly relevant here in the United States, with the borderline deification of people of the likes of Jefferson and Washington.
ducttapeanddreams ooooh, that's an interesting idea!
The fundamental problem with Libertarianism is that it forces us to consider individual Humans. These are great but insignificant. Therefore, we must inevitably consider the Common Good.
While I agree, collectivism can be taken to an extreme.
Pragmatism always wins in my opinion :)
@Philosophy Tube Can you do a video that examines the question of whether "Natural Rights" actually exist independent of human thought?
Excellent episode! Regarding Pogge, I think one could argue that his institutional approach is in some way a sensible extrapolation of the interactional approach which pays tribute to the simple fact that humans refer certain powers and tasks to social&governmental institutions. We may have set up these institutions according to basic ideas of rights that would also apply in the interactional approach, but now that we have asked institutions & officials to do certain jobs for us (because of the scale of our society & simple division of labour), we are also kind of responsible for how they act indirectly on our behalf. (In other words, if we have hired a gardener who is supposed to take care of all the gardens in our neighborhood, then we are at least partially responsible if the gardener that we hired somehow neglects some of our neighbours or screws up their lawn. We can't lean back and say "Well, sry, wasn't me who destroyed your tulips. We might also want to ask some serious questions if the gardener seems to neglect some people's garden for no sensible reason, while treating others well, thus creating some unjustified (dis-)advantages)
This, however, obviously requires a certain awareness that social institutions exist because we, as individuals/people, somehow lend power to them. I guess that's easy to be forgotten or doubted, because we usually do not make explicit decisions to refer power to an institution (since we are often born/thrown into a already existing society), because we hardly ever think of the nature of our government on a daily basis & because we often feel that, given how small & insignificant we seem, we often don't have a real grasp on these institutions if we DO want to change/redirect them, especially if we, who technically employ the government, do not yet agree on the kind of people that we want to employ and the kind of principles we want our government to opperate on.
This leads to the obvious conclusion that a government can only adopt just principles, just actions and just employees if a sufficient number of people endorse respective principles in order to put such a government into power, which hints at another issue which, I think, is often neglected in the context of debating justice and human rights: The role of power. Quite often we talk about power in terms of its risks, its possible abuse and the many forms of government that use power in opposition(!) to justice and human rights. But it's easy to neglect the fact that any government that wants to adopt certain principles and put them into practice needs just as much power, even a government that exists of the people, for the people & by the people.
In contrast, I often hear people talk about human rights as if they were an objective, self-enforcing something that floats in the air and only waits to materialize itself (not in this video, to be clear, but in many public debates), simply because it is theoretically reasonable. And when such ideals are then violated, some people react with shock like "But...but...it's my right! How could you!"
Well, the answer seems easy: Rights are only as real as the power to enforce/protect/ demand them. We don't get what we deserve, we get what we have the power to negotiate for. The theoretical concept of human rights may be the most logical, reasonable conclusion of how we should treat each other in light of our common, existentially equal human nature, but as long as some people (who hold significant power) still don't see that, we often fail to establish such rights.
Hence, any attempt to effectively establish equal human rights is also necessarily a struggle to shift existing power balances (often against the interests of current holders of power), that is, to use once own individual and/or collective power to try and convince others to lend their power to the cause of equal rights AND sometimes to give up certain privileges (=forms of power) in favour of greater equality. This, however, also makes it quite clear, I think, that any attempt to establish such rights is necessarily the result of very pragmatic political, social & economic interactions. No real change in power will result purely from stating that we should create equality "because it's moral". After all, this still leaves the question "Why care?". Instead, any effective institutional change and change in power will require us to address people's empathy and/or self-interest, since these are the only real reasons for people to change their views, actions and allegiances.
Changing people's views on the basis of empathy might be the most positive, noble and also quite sustainable way of supporting equal rights, since people are obviously quite willing to support the equal treatment of others if they have learned to care about them. However, it can also be the most tedious and slowest form of creating change and it is particularly problematic when some of the people who hold the most power in opposition to equal rights are also those who are the least likely to react to empathy. In this case, operating on the basis of positive or negative self-interest may be required: a) by showing people that, even if they don't care about others as such, they themselves benefit from supporting equality or b) by showing that they could endanger their own interests by destabilizing a society due to excessive inequality. Crucially, any genuine, pragmatic attempt to establish equal rights must always choose the strategy that is the most suitable one, depending on the person one is dealing with. It is pointless to choose the strategy that we would "like" to be effective (=> "I wish this person was more empathetic" is a pointless complaint. If that person isn't empathetic, a different approach must be used).
In each case, the quest for the establishment of human rights relies on a pragmatic, patient approach of trying to change people's minds and getting them to lend their power to the cause of equal rights. Admittedly, this can be unsatisfying sometimes, especially when real change requires us to patiently change the mind of those who currently disenfranchise others. In that scenario, many people would rather like to shift the power balance by force than to wait for others to give up their power willingly. However, if certain groups simply have that much more power than others (e.g. minorities) than any kind of forced shift of power will simply be unfeasible. Excessive power cannot simply be taken sometimes, it has to be given away, either freely or after some stern demands & convicing reasons by those who long for it. This has the added benefit that the new power balance will be more stable if people have entered into it somewhat freely than if it purely results from a forced shift of power. Moreover, this pragmatic approach also takes into account that many institutional injustices do not necessarily exist because all people endorse them willingly, knowlingly or with malicious intent, but often because of individual ignorance about large-scale institutional arrangements and outcomes, such as in the case of certain privileges. In that regard, as tedious and unsatisfying this might be, the slow-paced process of changing people's minds relies on the idea that a lot of ordinary people are actually quite decent, but it may require some time to make them understand certain things and get them to endorse new principles. Once that has happened, the foundation on which these principles rest will be stronger for it.
GoodLifeDecoder Fantastic insight! I can't help but attribute your message to the plight of groups like The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement, as you seem to thoroughly understand what they are trying to achieve, and clearly, why progress is slow.
My personal opinion is that the interactional model and institutional model don’t contradict each other, and that they are actually both valid and necessary models.
This is still one of my favorite videos! I think I've watched this like 20 times! xD
Thankyou for giving a name and context for the to a thought I have always had.
I tend to agree on the first advantage of the institutional model -- certain cases will make better sense;
But I think there are a lot of issues with the second advantage.
"Rights give us the duties to design our social systems to secure access to the substance of the right"
1. I don't see any clever part - there is just replacement of the definition of the HR - so passive duty (what you call "negative") is
replaced with active ("positive") one(s).
- active duty of to design social system to a specification
- active duty of implementing the system
- active duty of preventing systematic circumventing of the system
2. "... access to the substance of the right should be reliable, and when necessary, protected"
a) that word "protected" means that even if you have the system designed to the specification, you still expect some deviation form the designed flow.
b) "when necessary" looks a bit like the interaction model - you need to action if there is a threat
3. How do you evaluate the different systems in which the right is "systematically secured"? I mean - it seems many of the current systems can claim to systematically secure the rights, and the real trouble is with specific groups of people that find a way to circumvent the system. People are inventive.
As for the global poverty - I'm far from convinced:
- "harm is caused by the design of global economic system" - what do you mean by design? There are number of treaties between countries or coalitions of countries that define some relations, and the actual trade is between private companies - there is no design.
- do you have an exact proposal for global economic system that is not "systematically disadvantaging and harming" for anyone involved?
- one can think that certain economic system is a good idea, but to turn out it causes more harm - are you prepared to take the risk, or are you that good of an economist?
- how would we globally(the world), agree/design/decide/implement a global economic system, when we cant agree on obvious things like climate change?
- how do you carry responsibility for the decision on a global level?
My view on the global economy is that you can never equalize everyone. Imagine that somehow magically the whole world's wealth got suddenly equally distributed between all 7+billion people. How soon do you think there will be poverty again? The best we can hope for is that everyone gets an equal chance for happiness, but that's no longer question just of economy, but of culture.
Careful you might upset marxists with the facts
Also, I have a question for you Philosophy Tube. A friend and I were arguing as to whether or not a blank canvas could be considered art and I argued that it could if the artist were to say that it is a statement about the subjectivity of art and our propensity to project meaning onto a work and/or a statement about the endless potential of human creativity. And so my question to you is: can something not be considered art if it intrinsically has no meaning, and is art something that intrinsically has meaning in its own right or does it require that we assign it meaning for it to be considered art? Why or why not? What exactly stops me from claiming that a blank piece of paper or canvas is or isn't art?
THOMAS POGGE LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ahead of his time
Have you read "The New Human Rights Movement" by Peter Joseph? I recommend it highly!
POGCHAMP
Interesting take, and it's along the lines of what I've been thinking myself for a while. I tend to become very wary whenever anyone mentions human rights violations. It seems to have become a tradition that whenever a Western leader visits China (for example - Asia is my area of interest), he or she must give the Chinese president a lecture about Human rights. This angers me almost to the point of rejecting the current concept of human rights because for most countries, it's extremely hypocritical, particularly mine, Australia (look up children in detention, and how we treat asylum seekers). It angers the Chinese for the same reason, and they claim that they've made great progress on human rights, such as dramatically reducing extreme poverty and raising the general standard of living, which is true. They have quite different priorities on human rights than we in the West usually do, and why shouldn't they?
The world really needs to have a debate on what should and shouldn't be a human right, and which ones deserve the highest priority. It's time to update the universal declaration and ask the question, should there even be a [b]universal[/b] declaration?
How did I not know about this? Seems like it should have come up in several of my courses.
Libertarianism (fun fact here) was originally invented in the 1890s. The anarchist movement was taking off in France when the government made anarchist literature illegal, and made the word anarchist illegal. The word libertarian was invented to replace it. The anarchist socialists etc were initially known as libertarians
Love the new intro, Ollie! Well done!
I know this is protruding into the realm of suggested topics to follow, but I think there's a lot of interesting stuff to say regarding the practical application of human rights. (This is sort of a pragmatism angle that I find compelling in some ways.)
According to Eric Posner (see: ruclips.net/video/jd9vuHSNFyA/видео.html), due to the fundamental divide between the cultures of the USSR & USA at the conclusion of WW2, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was deliberately written in a sort of floaty, idealistic fashion, with general ideas of things that all humans should have, but few legally enforceable commitments to definite courses of action for signing nations. (After all, if it was too specific about, say, how the "right to property" was to be enforced, either the US or the Soviet Republic wouldn't have signed it.)
For Posner, this set a precedent of feel-good international legislation that left just enough wiggle room for any nation to get away with anything, whilst appearing firmly committed to a general idea that "humans should have a lovely time." A dictator could claim that maintaining an authoritarian regime was in the interest of maintaining the citizenry's right to safety, or that threatening mobs around abortion clinics were protected by freedom of expression, & justify otherwise clear rights violations with the context of their particular cultural & political situation.
He posits that we adopt an empirical approach instead of abstract declarations of (often conflicting & yet supposedly inalienable) rights, measuring which specific policies improve the quality of life most drastically, & enforcing them from the bottom up.
Anyways, I don't think Posner means to discount the importance of establishing ideals of human existence to aspire to, but I think he definitely is more interested in the end-game of "How does right X translate to enforceable policy Y?" This certainly seems in line with the institutional model, as it takes into account not just the supposed duties individuals have to each other & actions they are allowed/disallowed from performing under those duties, but also the genuine capability of an individual under a system to take advantage of those supposed rights - a person in poverty might get a slip of paper that says: "You have the right to freedom of expression," but if they have to spend every waking hour scrabbling for food to survive, it's not going to mean a whole lot to them.
Great episode, as always!
My art teacher in school was called Thomas Pogge.
Can you do a video on why we have rights at all? It seems obvious but the more I think about it the harder time I am having with it. The best I have been able to come up with is the suggestion that as I want to avoid suffering it is reasonable to assume others do also, combine that with the idea that by working cooperatively with others we can reduce overall suffering more effectively than working alone and human rights seem a good way of focusing the efforts of large groups of diverse people towards that goal.
Problematically this doesn't give anyone any reason to put general suffering ahead of their own interests or rule out direct violation of small groups of people's rights in order to benefit a larger group.
Jon Durrant "Can you do a video on why we have rights at all? It seems obvious but the more I think about it the harder time I am having with it. "
Translating real world to be a video game it would be because the game mechanics can be abused.
A lawless society is not the most effective, so societies with laws have a natural benefit and have evolved larger and more dominant.
I think it would be more accurate to say that the institutional model is an extension of (rather than an alternative to) the interactional model.
That's cause the institutional model says we must make institutions/social systems that secure our access to the substance of rights. But what exactly are rights? For that, we must refer back to the interactional model.
It is for prevention of slaves’ rebellion that slavers’ declarations of human rights are designed. As the U.N. Universal Declaration (UDHR) reads: “Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law”.
Ever since I can remember I've been taught (in school) that in my country we have the right to education, the right to vote, and so on; and all these have to be secured by the government. So I wonder if this is new to the UK, US... or in general. (I'm from Europe)
I did not realize that we did not already have a systemic view of human rights...
Philosophy Tube This is an eye-opener, and a great way to look at human rights in my opinion. Over the past ten years perhaps, I've been coming more and more to see that the current system actively victimizes the poor in general, and other classes specifically. While I'm not a strident anti-capitalist (yet?), I can't spend an hour on the internet without finding numerous examples of corporate abuses, especially in the US.
From the perspective of Pogge, recent laws and court decisions have reshaped the US economic system to further disenfranchise the electorate and encourage mistreatment of employees and members of society in general. They are victimizing the poor with ever more zeal with one hand, and creating more poor to victimize with the other. I'd like to think it wasn't hopeless, but I'm not encouraged.
The idea of this Thomas Pogge seems to better match my own than anything I've managed to describe. Thank you for pointing it out. I think this is a book I need to read.
Usually, I describe my views as broadly libertarian, with a little socialism, which doesn't normally fit, and certainly doesn't fit British party politics. I _don't_ usually have much sympathy for organised charities though charity is more libertarian than taxation, (there is free will and choice, rather than imposition) but that's largely because I've seen to many of them filtering most of the proceeds into _very_ corporate ideas like marketing and brand awareness. However, I do feel a moral and social obligation to give what I can spare to individuals I can see are in need. I'm also very concerned with the way certain individuals are born into unfortunate circumstances, while other individuals are born into privilege, through no merit or failure of their own.
This kind-of explains why I feel this way. Because charity _is_ important, but the economic system promotes it's abuse when organised to the point it can be of _real_ benefit.
so, I'm in college, and one of the first discussion we had was whether virtue was taught or learned. he continued to debate that because virtue is a social construct there is no true altruistic acts or behaviors. I don't necessarily believe his stand point and was looking for some more insight
Olly! Friday! Yay!
great stuff man
I think Pogger's argument makes the semantics of human rights violations more important: because a violation is an 'action' going by the definitions I could find, while it could be argued that the state of global poverty is alot more complicated. Alot of it is caused by the inaction of governments in securing people's access to these rights, although in some cases like the abortion example you used, restricting people's access would definitely still be a human rights violation. Then you have the international issue to tackle: how far does the responsibility extend? But I feel like that's the start of the conversation Pogger wants to have going forwards.
As much as I like Pogger's argument because it moves the onus off of individuals and onto social institutions, I feel like it might be more effective to have separate human rights & responsibilities, in a similar fashion to how parental rights & responsibilities are laid out in the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 s.1. That would then allow people to sue their own government for not only breaches/violations of their human rights, but for their government's complacency in fulfilling their responsibilities to provide access.
I do have an example to illustrate this but I can't find the court reference so you're just gonna have to rely on my testimony i'm afraid, but long story short, someone in the year above us at uni successfully sued their parents in the small claims court for their tuition fees.
Speaking of Human Rights and Police Brutality, in the Netherlands there has been some media-attention about the police arresting someone from Aruba(Isle in the Caribbean) when they ended up with the situation of him being dead. That's the first time I've heard of anything like that happening in the Netherlands, through I've heard of this phenomenon happening in America multiple times. I still think you could elaborate on this subject: Why does this happen? and How could the average citizen do anything about it? or What do others think about this?(comment on this guys). Could it be the training of the Police?, Is it the attitude of the masses on foreigners(xenophobia)? or Could it be that the individual officers made the wrong decisions?
I'm curious to read what your theory of creativity is. I didn't even know that that was considered a field unto itself apart from philosophy or art / aesthetics now. Here's something I recently wrote on the topic:
Creativity seems to be popularly held to be some kind of random, or at least inherently nondeterministic (as if that didn't just mean "random") process of some kind of magical, metaphysically free will - a topic I will address at length in a later essay - but I hold that that is not the case at all. I hold that there really isn't a clear distinction between invention and discovery of ideas: there is a figurative space of all possible ideas, what in mathematics is called a configuration space or phase space, and any idea that anyone might "invent", any act of abstract "creation" (prior to the act of realizing the idea in some concrete medium), is really just the identification of some idea in that space of possibilities. It would be possible in principle to set out on a deterministic process of mechanically identifying every possible idea, though as that space of possibilities is likely infinite this process would likely never finish identifying all of them. Watching the output of such a process would not feel like watching a creative genius, though, even though the process would be continually spitting out new, previously unidentified ideas. But neither would watching the output of a process that generates (or picks from out of the possibility space) new ideas completely at random, however. That, I hold, is because it is not the determinism or randomness of the process of invention or discovery that makes it "creative" in a way that would be called such by audiences watching its output. Rather, it is a specific feature of the process, which requires that the process be at least partly deterministic, that grants the appearance of creativity.
That feature is that the invented or discovered idea must be recognizably similar to previously known ideas, and yet also noticeable different from them. That alone is only the bare minimum of creativity, however: something that is just like something else with a slight twist will be rightly called only a variation on a previous theme and not especially creative. However, something that is completely unlike any prior work will seem so random, out of context, and therefore unapproachable, that audiences will be unable to appreciate it. The kind of new ideas that seem really creative are the ones that make apparent the structure of the space of possibilities, connecting and re-contextualizing previously known ideas. If two genres of some medium are well-known, for example, with many variations on the same theme, and then a new work of art is made in that medium that blends elements of both genres in a way that shows them both to be the ends of a longer spectrum of genres, then that will be seen as very creative. It will also open up the potential of still further creativity later, as other works located along that same line in the space of possibilities can then have the context of that spectrum to anchor them, to give them purpose in filling in the unexplored regions in the middle of that spectrum and beyond its known ends. If one such spectrum of possibilities is already known, and a new work can bridge between it and ideas that lie off of it in such a way as to expand the spectrum into a new dimension, suddenly even more structure in the space of possibilities is made apparent, and even more opportunity for further creativity is opened up. In relating already known ideas to each other across a space of previously unexplored ideas, new works can give further context and significance to existing ones and draw context and significance from them, and it is that process of connection and contextualization, not mere nondeterministic randomness, that constitutes creativity.
Beardless Olly is vintage Olly
It is possible for an artist to meet no obvious objective standard by scribbling blindly on a piece of paper, yet the forger will always have to meet an objective standard of some sort during the entire copying process.
RuneScape 👀👀
Interesting distinctions. Both models have their issues and their good, the fundamentals of both pre application and theoretical is very important.
It's interesting to combine this thinking with 'Ought implies can' as that to me suggests the extend to which we are violating the poor's human rights depends on the extend to which we are able to influence the current situation. Which seems intuitive.
Mulan told me my duty was to my heart!
I would define creativity as a type of process or actions which aim is to either transform or reach a result with emergent properties. the whole essence of creation is making something mean more than the sum of its parts. the emergent properties could be abstract or concrete, wether it's a new function or perspective.
Does an institutional model for human rights mean that consequences (like being denied a job, being fired, being denied career advancement, being shunned socially, ...) for controversial speech (e.g. like defending nazi ideas, arguing against feminism, advocating for torture, ...) is de facto a restriction of our right to free speech?
Also what counts as an institution? Is the banking system an institution? Is the duopoly in the mobile computing market an institution? If so then building institutions giving us rights is more than a matter of having a solid and good government.
Rene D. He thought, and there he was.
Kropotkin actually brought up quite a while before 2006
The definition which you used for the interactional model seems to be derived from the harm principle. The first part specifically stating that a person can do as they wish so long as they do not harm others, so basically libertarianism. However the second part of that principle, as outlined by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, is to prevent harm to others which arguably remains solely negative duties. This, taken to its largest scale, would expand the interactional model from the personal to the societal level. Societal level in this case being every person making sure that they individually do not, say, kill people or allow them to starve to death and to prevent others from killing people or allowing others to starve. Though this does not yet reach the level of institutional model as presented by Pogge as it does not touch on institutions that might cause harm, it does present the necessity, as you put it, of even libertarians needing to care about things such as global poverty. However remaining solely with the interactional model at this point might leave those persons with no idea about how to remedy these problems. What the institutional model helps the best with is in the identification of non-individual causes for issues such as world hunger and global poverty, and then possibly how to best reform or remove those causes.
Excellent work on your original definition of creativity Olly. Thanks also for introducing me to Pogge. I had never heard of him before and I find his work to be very interesting.
Just a quick comment on Tyler Lambert's comment from last time...
I understand what he's saying regarding a Dylan song, and the passion he has in performing his song, but a great many songs are recognised for their genius in their covered form, and the original is seen in a worse light because of it. The most obvious example being Aretha Franklin's cover of 'Respect' - who even knows the Otis Redding version these days?
The point here is that with a song, there can be an element of collaboration between the new artist and the original artist, something that is not present in all covers, and not the intent with artistic forgery.
Economist Hernando de Soto argues that a lack of formal property rights is a major contributor to poverty in South American countries like Peru. But this is a problem created by the Peruvian government, not a "global" economic system. Would Pogge still say that "we" (people in the US & UK) need to do something about it? If so, that sounds like a violation of Peru's sovereignty. If not, what specific policies does Pogge have in mind? I can't think of any "global" economic systems that can be reformed where sovereignty issues won't be a problem. Does Pogge give any concrete examples?
I'm I mistaken in the sense that Pogge's views are very close to prioritism? Because I think that is of philosophy we should adopt...
Thomas Poggers
intro sounds like deep purple's bad attitude intro
(I don't remember this guy from Hogwart's) The speech is very professional and he has a greater knowledge than I do. I watched a Canadian guy from York U just a minute ago and he was not convincing about human rights at all! Mostly about dinosaurs and history. So the young chap here is already a huge step ahead plus he is animated, how do the English become so animated?? If the Interactional Model is being debated as to the case for negative or positive duties that sounds like it not determined and "undetermined" is a terrible case for the existence of human rights or anything else for that matter.
The problem I see is that by including any non-negative rights, the only means by which we can provide these is by infringing on the negative rights of others
Free market capitalism is based upon personal choice on the individual level. To "change the system in which we live" means either removing the freedoms of self determination and self sovereignty, or increasing them (more free market, more capitalist).
One can talk about changing the structure of interaction between the government and individuals, but only if such changes dont limit individual self sovereignty.
This debate has been in place long before Pogge. Locke was very much working on this basis when he argues that government exists as an extension of human rights. Indeed the Declaration of Independence justifies revolution on the basis " That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
As such institutional protections of liberty have long been seen as important. Now there are plenty of questions as to how to best achive such a government, and institutions have long evolved. There is for instance the question as to whether the nation should evolve based on democracy, or if the courts have the power to restrain the government.
There is also the question of equality vs patriarchy, again going back to Locke (The First Treaties on Government is a refutation of a book titled 'Patriaricha' arguing for the absolute right of kings as a national patriarch). Does the government have a right to monopolize guns to stop violence, or to ban abortion to protect life, or can the government only intervene when a mother kills a child, or a person uses a gun to commit a robbery?
There is also the economic question of practical benefits. Is it more beneficial for the government to activally fight poverty, or to create a legal environment that allows other institutions like corporations to create wealth, or charities to help the poor. I would point out that powerty has declined globally as governments have liberalized their economies.
The new model does seem to make more sence
Who becomes the arbiter of these positive duties in this model?
They already did pass a law that violates people's rights: Stop and Frisk. It violates a person's right to resist unlawful search and seizures and is typically used against ethnic and religious minorities.
THANK YOU !
Interesting video - Unfortunately, I haven't read Pogge's work so I am left with questions.
In Pogge's model who determines which human rights the institution will secure? What anchors these rights to human beings? According to this model how would someone lose their rights, and on what grounds or authority can the institution be said to have more importance and more privilege than the rights of the individuals it seeks to secure or "punish"?
Based on your video explanation of Pogge's institutional model I worry that it may be a civil re-iteration of Hobbes' scary state absolutism. On what ground could a citizen in such a country/world question the validity and morality of the human rights that institutions are bound to secure? Do citizens still have an appeal to the natural law? And if so, Pogge's model seems no more than a push to hide or obscure the argued about but perennial natural law from individuals. And if this is true, this "institutional model" would be a grave injustice itself.
Interesting. So if laws concerning interaction of people are the legislated instantiation of naturally occurring moral principles between people, then perhaps laws concerning human rights are the legislated instantiation of naturally occurring social stabilizing principles concerning the relationship between social constructs and individuals. This would suggest an individual cannot really make a human rights violation but he or she can cause the social construct he is a part of to do so through him. When an interrogator uses water boarding to gain information from someone, he individually is not doing anything wrong (in fact a failure to do so would be a failure to follow orders which could be considered wrong) but he is a part of those enabling the institution (a social construct) to commit human rights violations. This is a subtle but significant shift of blame from individual to organization. In this view, the individual is like a single neuron in the brain--a social construct. When the brain misbehaves, the blame, while still attributable to the individual neuron, is generally directed towards the brain as a whole instead. I think I just went full Thomas Hobbes.
If the institutional model can say "...your rights have not been secured because...", we need already to have determined what those rights should be in order to say how they were not met; in other words, the institutional model is neither self-contained nor self-sufficient, it necessarily refers back to what is indistinguishable from the interactional model it's meant to supplant. We already have systems in place to uphold humam rights, all the institutional model appears to offer is a naive utopian alternative which in itself is a means without an end and in practice incredibly inflexible, not to mention highly susceptible to authoritarianism and political intolerance. I should add that I'm neither libertarian nor anti-statist.
great video
5 years ago...
I find this especially interesting because I usually identify as a Left-Libertarian, which is something that generally speaking is unfamiliar to people and I need to explain. However, based on the reasoning in the video, it appears it's more accurate to describe my views as Libertarianism consistent with the model being discussed- systems which prevent individuals from exercising their economic freedoms are problematic and need to be intervened in by the agreed upon authority. But once the individuals are no longer being harmed by the system, that authority should leave them alone to the largest degree possible so that they can maximize their potential.
I've always been bothered by the blank check written by typical Libertarians to the actions of corporations- being as they are, like governments, composed of large organized groups of people generally acting in concert, the dangers they pose to the individual are of a similar nature to that of a government and require similarly imposed restraint. In either case, the burdens and dangers of opposition to a company or government by an individual are so significant that it's unreasonable to place the responsibility of doing so on each of us alone.
zincorium1 A suggestion: as an alternative to "prevent individuals from exercising their economic freedoms" I encourage you to consider ways that the government itself could be restricted to achieve the same goals. Ways of restricting government power so that there can be no harm from individuals acting freely. For example, many people think ethanol subsidies are a terrible idea for all kinds of reasons. And then they point to the ethanol manufacturers and corn farmers and lobbyists as the ones we should blame for the fact that these subsidies exist. And that's at least partially true. But what if the government simply didn't have the power to give subsidies? Then no amount of lobbying matters. This is just a tiny partial example, but I encourage you to consider how reductions in government power could achieve the same ends while preserving individual freedoms.
BobWidlefish Lobbying isn't the sort of problem I was talking about corporations causing. Not even remotely. Take the problem of pollution. If a company spills mercury into the water you drink, without a government to keep them honest there is no reason for them to EVER admit to having done so, even if you have the knowledge to order testing done AFTER you've experienced the health problems, and you're not going to be able to compete with them when it comes to publicizing the issue and getting the average person to take action. Ditto for asbestos in the workplace- as a worker, do you really think you're going to be able to exercise any influence on the company to literally defend your life? It doesn't take much to look into the actual history of that issue to see just how bad it can be. Your child's exposure to lead is sure going to do wonders for their economic prospects down the road, huh?
And that's with the various regulations that currently exist. It wasn't all that long ago that companies could pour so much filth into rivers that it made living next to them a liability and harmed the livelihoods of everyone downstream- how does letting them do that coexist with the rights of people who depended on that river for fishing and it's water for their crops? History has shown, conclusively, that letting companies compete with the average person always ends with the average person losing horribly. It's the same sort of power you're worried about government misusing, and it's used if anything with even fewer scruples attached, because companies are even more fluid and flexible than governments. If they're banned from one area, they still have all of the resources and techniques available to cause harm elsewhere in the name of enriching their owners. Someone needs to keep them in line, and if it's not a government, I dare you to tell me who.
zincorium1 Actually I totally agree with you that non-trivial externalities that can't easily be addressed privately need regulation. I'm of the Milton Friedman school of thought on that.
I misinterpreted what you meant when you said "systems which prevent individuals from exercising their economic freedoms are problematic and need to be intervened" I thought you were making a more blanket statement that you actually were, my bad. I think we're in violent agreement.
Air pollution is the classic example for me. There are legitimate cases to be made against over-regulation for sure. But I can't make sense of the people who admit that pollution from a smoke stack can dirty your shirt or give you cancer, and yet no regulation is required to control such externalities. Such a position seems morally indefensible to me. If a smoke stack would impose a cost or risk on me without my consent, there's a need for regulation.
I'm not sure if this is really directly relevant to the discussion of human rights, but I was reminded of one of the problems I have with Libertarianism - the notion that you can just leave people alone strikes me as flawed. Everything you do will impact those around you. At the very least the resources you use to survive are no longer available for other people to use in other ways, and it only gets more complex and intertwined from there. I don't see how negative rights alone could fully describe or encompass any kind of functional group larger than a single individual.
johnthenobody Its not a zero sum game. Another person is not just another mouth to feed. People PRODUCE resources. And it is for the very reason that we need to coordinate the use of resources that we need freedom, and in particular private property rights, money, and a price system. I suggest reading up on the economic calculation and coordination problem. Prices are an important signal used by the social network we call a market, to coordinate the use of resources. When a resource becomes more expensive, people are motivated both to use less, and to work to produce more. There is no other system that can work as well as a free market to balance the availability of resources with their use.
I think the argument that forgery has some decisions not made by you is on slightly thin ice, in particular with the example in the video about forgery: He decided to make a statement. He decided to restrict himself to this style, basically as a challenge to the world, which is something not *all* but certainly a *lot* of art is set out to do.
It'd, at first glance, work better if he had been commissioned to make these forgeries. Then, the restriction comes from somewhere else.
However, that actually also applies to a TON of art today! Probably, most of the art produced today - or at the very least a big chunk of it - is being commissioned. Some decisions are outside the artist's control.
And there is another level to it: Freedom of choice is actually kind of overwhelming. Typically, artists will deliberately or implicitly choose to adhere to certain restrictions in order to channel their creativity into a meaningful form. Very commonly, this is an explicitly invoked technique. Things like "I can only use these colors, these brushes, this perspective, simple shapes, everything must be in a single stroke..." and other rules like that. It's often about exploring what's still possible in spite of these restrictions. Now, the artists are in full control over what restrictions to adhere to (at least in so far as they aren't outright limited by the laws of physics), but how is that any different from him choosing to restrict himself to paint in somebody else's style?
You should check out libertarian socialism. I enjoy your channel.
My problem with authorities is that they may not explain why they think a certain rule is good for the public. Even if the rules and regulations DO benefit the people living under them I believe that they (the people) need to be educated on WHY the rules were put in place. Saying that a rule is good for me "because I said so as the authority" is more than annoying. It is borderline authoritarian and was used more than once to justify human rights violation. And that is in addition to people not necessarily obeying such laws because they see no point/choose to ignore the point.
I know the point may be obvious but I felt the need to state it nonetheless