“...as long as the state does not have the courage to adopt the death penalty, the crime of extermination, in my opinion, will be very welcome. If there is no room for him in Bahia, you can go to Rio de Janeiro. If it depends on me, they will have all my support ... In Bahia, due to the information I have - of course they are illegal groups -, marginality has decreased. Congratulations!” Who said that? President Bolsonaro speaking at the Chamber of Deputies. Check it out and spread the word. In Portuguese. www.camara.leg.br/internet/sitaqweb/TextoHTML.asp?etapa=5++++++++++++++++++++++++++++&nuSessao=138.1.52.O+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++&nuQuarto=13++++++++++++++++++++++++++++&nuOrador=1++++++++++++++++++++++++++++&nuInsercao=0++++++++++++++++++++++++++++&dtHorarioQuarto=14:54++++++++++++++++++++++++++++&sgFaseSessao=BC++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++&Data=12/08/2003++++++++++++++++++++++++++++&txApelido=JAIR+BOLSONARO,+PTB-RJ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++&txFaseSessao=Breves+Comunica%EF%BF%BD%25A
The footage of The Golden One flexing, combined with a serious explanation of the concept of justice in Roman law has to be the ultimate pinnacle of TH-cam as a medium XD
This is a really good take but the title makes it look like a muscular dragon is about to preach me on why sending 5 year olds to coal mines is good actually
1) So why is violent crime so low? 2)Property of ordinary people. The super-rich don't need a police, but shopkeepers? They do. Just look at Russia in the 1990s. Small bussiness people had no mechanism to protect property rights and had were ensnared into protection rackets by organised crime, while the oligarchs had massive private security forces.
william francis 1. It’s not. 2. Replace the police with a democratically-vetted force with the best interests of the working class so we can protect the interests of both the small-business owner from larceny and the minority citizen from fascism.
Then explain to me why most of our laws, including human rights/bill of rights, have to do with property? What property you're allowed to have, by what means, how much or little, etc, it's mostly about the regulation of property. The police's job is to enforce the law right? Simple logic my dudes.
Additionally, our police force originated in the South, and their primary task was to find and capture escaping slaves (i.e, the White Man's property).
@@williamfrancis5367 Violent crime rates are not low in my opinion, but to humor you.....because in the United States you are given a number at birth, and you become the property of the State. It's in the state's best interest to protect you like any other property it owns.
I think by self-evident it's something they could, as well as most people, could agree on. I may not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it if it doesn't directly order people to do violence. I may not agree with what you believe in but I will defend your right to believe in it so long as it does not require you to commit unprovoked violence. I may not like you but you have a right to defend yourself. I may not like you but you have the right to a fair trial. That usual thing.
@@gasmonkey1000 But what most people could agree on depends on the time and place they were raised in. Thousands of years ago it was "self-evident" tha prisoners of war became slaves. Only a hundred and some years ago it was self-evident that women shouldn´t be allowed to vote. Even the things you listed as self-evident now, weren´t not that long ago, and even today, not everywhere.
@@kevinschuckstyle You're right, morals change depending on time and place. The morals during the time of the Founders had changed drasitically from the time of Cromwell. Morals will continue to change and for the most part western values have become more liberal. Take premarital sex for example. If a girl lost her virginity before her marriage in the 50's she would be viewed with slight regard, my Memaw's sister was an example and while she wasn't scorned my great grandparents tried to keep my Memaw and her other sisters away from the aforementioned sister when my Memaw's sister was impregnated out of wedlock. (It was consensual and they did get married but they split up). Now? While parents might be disappointed they'll try to be more understanding and the community won't veer their children from the woman. And that's if they care. Heck most concern might be "oh did you get pregnant" or "did you use protection" or that both parties were of consenting age. Morals change, and while you find some similarities and roots of morals we have today they evolved beyond the values back then. Now I think it would be hard to find someone who can deny those aforementioned rights unless they are a fringe far-right or far-left extremist or a fundamentalist weirdo. I'd like to think it is a sign we are moving to a kinder future but I also fear we may be heading to a more hypocritical one too.
To paraphrase George Carlin, 'I guess God was doing sloppy work that week, because he had to go back amend that Bill of Rights 27 times.' and 'You have no rights folks, you have privileges. Temporary privileges."
Stop holding up this cynical comedian as if hes some intellectual philosopher. Hes not. He was an elitist ass who spouted universal truisms to appeal to peoples pessimism
Christians weren’t the first to conceptualize the soul. Plato also spoke often of the immortal soul as a foundation for his arguments on the Good and Just.
@@AyoRhymer What about the Hebrew Scriptures? You think Platonism had the concept of a Messiah, redemption of the world, divine miracles, biblical morality, etc.?
@Ranid Hi. I was reacting in my last comment to the equation "Christianity = Platonism + Jesus." But I also agree with the OP that the concept of soul is well established in the classical period, and certainly by late antiquity.
@@lisaw150 I am neither of the two, I'm a libertarian capitalist, I believe that liberty can exist even with the presence of capitalism. I choose not to engage in much consumerism and would like to see production turn down and not fund a central state however. It seems that many armchair socialists see capitalism as the source of our problems with the state, that is not true, the source of our problems with the state is the fact that we willfully participate in the practice of paying taxes! If everybody stopped paying taxes you will have no state and with no state you will not have laws to abide by including laws that oppress some peoples rights.
@@lisaw150 Why do you think so? Do you not have faith in yourself and fellow man? Sounds like you wish to remain a slave and don't actually have any intention of breaking free of the screwed up society we live in today.
@@steven_duller3841 The state is inherent to capitalism. No matter if people won't pay taxes, companies will always pay for someone to protect their property, that is the state. Do you think the state will just simply give up if people stopped paying taxes? They're gonna double down and repress any sentiment against it. Companies need the state to exist, if only to protect their property. The problem with your worldview of doing away with the state in capitalist society, is that another company will just fill the role the state had, but that company will not be in the slightest democratic.
@@comradewildcat1770 What are you talking about? What is stopping an individual to make a good, bring it to market and sell it to someone who needs/wants it with no state intervention whatsoever? Companies don't need the state to survive but the state needs companies to survive through contribute to their funding (taxes). The only benefit a company has from the state is when they can lobby lawmakers to make laws that benefit them so they can make more money. That's only the corrupt power hungry companies that have the capital to do so mind you. What I'm advocating for is for small family owned and handful of employee companies to satisfy its local area based off of barter, local currencies or nationalized currencies that aren't backed by the BS national banks and federal reserve. This is a common thread in libertarian thought though they may not talk about the economical side to their ideology too often.
Your description of rights as a tool of the powerful is something I've never thought of before. It reminds of a passage in Dostoevsky's The Idiot, wherein the group of rebellious youths break into the luncheon and start demanding their rights be recognized without having thought on hat it means to have rights, or what they are to begin with. Also, I would like to say that your use of Nietzsche always makes me happy given his typical treatment by leftist oriented folk. Thanks for the excellent video.
"Whenever we feel that some notion or idea is impossible to do without there is a kind of therapy we can utilize: it's called history."- CP *OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO*
It's rare when someone's content brings a smile to my face with anticipation. Yours does that every single time, without fail. Thanks for bringing a little more light and contemplation to this afternoon!
@Ranid It's in the letters between the founders, the first drafts of the constitution contained "god-given", but after some debate they changed it for the above reasons. Read up on your founding fathers, they wrote well!
But god-given was self-evident before , humans right as a concept have existed before , ex : aristote assumed that jusnaturalisme is based on given right "by nature".
Anon Bnon “God-given” isn’t an argument, and doesn’t pretend to be. I think it is a trait prescribed to these rights. This trait therefore has cosmic meaning and importance however, the argument that God has granted these rights is never given, and is simply waved away with “self-evident”.
Also, as Derrick Bell pointed out, human rights are always procedural and never substantive, i.e. they do not guarantee you the right to meet your physiological needs (food, water, shelter, sociality, etc) but only to abstract, state-managed processes which are only vaguely connected to what your body, mind, and spirit actually require to be happy and healthy.
I agree with your point and this may have been true for the ideas that gave rise to human rights, but article 25 in the UN declaration of human rights straight up states that everyone has a right to these things, including social services and security in the event of disease, accidents or old age
@@aytys013 it took them until the 25th article to say those things? Whereas the early articles were dominated by guaranteeing many political rights? UN and UN human rights were of course spearheaded by the Western allies initially. These were the same folks who today thought that they’re better off having rising poverty and inflation, goods shortage, and services being reduced to guarantee greater returns just because they give their citizens rights to vote and having “human rights”. Where is the humanity in all of that?
It's your and your freely built community's responsibility to supply those things. It's the state's duty to prevent robbers from stealing them from you. Freedom of association is essential because if you don't think that islam is right about women, then you shouldn't be forced to associate with them. (and their women shouldn't be forced to stay within that community under the state either). A state that supplies your substantive needs is one that may view women in the same way isalm does and so, I assume, you would not want their supply of meeting your "spiritual needs". I would make a similar argument but in reverse to an Islamist. Cultures aren't always compatible, but as long as they are not violent (violating the MAP), it's none of the state's business.
@@aytys013 It doesn't matter because all these rights are SUBORDINATED to the right of the private propriety of the means of production. All of these physiological needs as rights enters in direct contradiction with how capitalism works.
Rational Egoism is what a society should be based on, you are not individuals, however an important part of making society social you are a product of you circumstances.
yeah, that's a good way to put it. the boundaries of the system of rights cannot exceed the boundaries that constitute the structure of the state. power is primary - "might makes right."
he focuses on the money needed to pay for the government but he leaves out the other element needed for a republic to continue : the voters to elect the representatives...……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………...and through that voting process the non wealthy citizens exert an enormous of amount of power
@robinsss No, they really don’t hold much power in liberal democracy. The system is engineered so each individual has the as less saying on actual important stuff as possible
@@the_viriathus5719 if the voting bloc is large enough it can create change on any subject large or small not to mention the court system that can eliminate laws in one day voting blocs can and have changed the laws of this country and others too
I live in Austria and we have a very powerful social safety net that is how you point out the institutionalised result of countless often violent class struggles in the past. Nowadays people take these rights and privileges for granted and forgot that they had to be fought for and instead vote for parties that erode our social safety net in the name of neoliberal ideology.
One of your best videos yet. Really fascinating thesis that you defended in a convincing way. It probably won't get as many views as your other stuff because it's not clickbaity and "of the now" at a first glance, but it's incredibly relevant and a well-constructed work all the same.
So I'm a PhD researcher studying the relationship between human rights, neoliberalism and austerity and I have to say this is some sloppy material here. Like, I am not an uncritical supporter of human rights by any stretch but there's just a lot of issues with this video. For example, your history of human rights suggests that specifically "human rights" emerged with Lockean social contract and property rights but this is just not the case. Perhaps that could be seen as a moment of the emergence of property rights but it's separate from the emergence of "human" rights which can only really be seen to emerge from 1948 or probably more accurately in the 70s with the establishment of the associated legal covenants. So when we talk about the history of human rights we're really talking about a very short period. Extending beyond that like saying "the US and France were the first states to declare human rights" is just inaccurate. There are rhetorical similarities between the two discourses and there was influence but they are absolutely different phenomena and most researchers in human rights would make that point. Also, where are you finding the human right to humanitarian intervention? That doesn't even make sense within the framework of human rights because the state cannot claim a human rights. Only the individual or groups can. Unless you make the argument that when article 28 of the UDHR says that "everyone has the right to live in an international system that best realises human rights" then it justifies action against states and systems that are seen to not hold up those rights and that is related to power. But similarly it could be used to justify revolution against a capitalist system under which human rights could never be truly realised. Or are you talking about the responsibility to protect doctrine which is not directly a human rights but an international extra legal norm which is separate from them? Plus, you make no mention of economic and social human rights which include the right to unionise and the right to education and a whole host of other rights that imply in their execution at the very least mitigation of capitalism and I think if their discursive power was utilised properly could be used as powerful critiques against capitalism itself. Economic and social rights also emerged not from the Lockean or US revolutionary tradition but from a socialist one and were only allowed into the UDHR because of a massive compromise between the Western and Soviet Blocks. Like, the UK spent ages trying to entirely block ECSR because it was thought they were trying to force revolution. Sorry for the rant but this is my area and the information your presenting is frankly often just inaccurate. You have some interesting points about the presupposition of the state and there is something there with the individualisation effect of human rights but even that is massively contested. Like I say, I'm not an uncritical supporter of human rights discourse but I'd recommend reading up on the sociology of human rights because this is simplistic and often just inaccurate
I really liked how you posed your argument. In the video, you mention how once the State grants people rights, they can simply just take them away when it becomes inconvenient, or when the group that was protected by those rights can do nothing about it. I studied law in Venezuela, and the Venezuelan Constitution includes a mention to the "progressive nature of rights", which means that once the State recognizes a right, it cannot take it away, unless it makes the effective exercise of another right impossible. It is true that the State can still do whatever it pleases (in fact that's what it does), and I know that this "progressive nature" limit doesn't solve the fundamental issue, but on paper it seems like a better idea than not having that limit. I know life isn't lived on paper but I wonder what the viewers of this video might think.
I can't hold myself to say... Yeah we can see how that played out in Venezuela hehehehe I think we have a similar article in Brazil's constitution, which is another joke and will probably be thrown away in less than two decades.
@RED PILL PORTAL well said! Marxist theory (which is all it truly is since Marx did nothing but sit in his flat, paid for by his benefactor, and develop social hypothesis the he turned into unsubstantiated theory) is all about tearing down existing societal structures while just assuming some utopian world magically working out in favor of everyone on the other side. It's complete lunacy! And any person who objects is an enemy of the state.
You can’t get around the fact that what the state gives the state can take. That is what made the American constitution unique. Rights are god given, and the state exists to recognize and enforce those, not grant them. If you read the bill of rights, it’s not written as a list of rights granted, but rather as additional specific limitations on a government which is already limited.
Excellent video, even if I may disagree with your argument. My main gripe with this criticism of human rights is primarily on the basis that simply returning to a communitarian social order does not guarantee a better outcome for marginalised individuals, those who benefit the most from the protection of their well-being under human rights under the current “statist” form. Further, the value of rights lies precisely in the fact that it’s a product of negotiation within a society. Any system of values that requires enforcement requires a party with greater power to enforce those rights, which means that it will always be a question of how much that group with power is willing to give up. Of course one can argue that this is a moot question as the very system of power imbalance needs to be eliminated, but I cannot help but feel that even in a system with no power imbalance, the same question of enforcement, and even what protections an person should be given will still arise, particular when the community as a whole may have different opinions on how individuals should be treated. This will inevitably create a individual or groups of people who will have greater sway over the decisions of the community, creating power imbalance. Finally, I understand that since this video is a critique of human rights as a product of capitalism there is an emphasis on labour rights, however I feel that there are other facets of human rights (such as rights against discrimination and persecution of religious minorities) which cannot be encapsulated within this critique. Sorry for the wall of text.
I think what you're getting at is that in a world without explicit definitions of, and institutionalized limits on, social power, there is not a reliable method that is generally accepted by which to hold that power accountable. Informal and implicit power dynamics can lead to a proliferation of tyrannies that causes increased material suffering and decreased social trust (i.e. even more alienation). Thus, it's better to have a maximally democratically responsive state or governance system that is as de-alienated as possible while still able to function, so that at the end of the day there is still a broadly trusted, socially legitimized system that can be named and appealed to
Bang on. I think that your last point is reflected in the fact that the U.S. Founding Fathers may have been influenced by monotheism and appealed to a Creator, but were primarily deists rather than Christian thinkers. The idea of the soul might have allowed the Enlightenment thinkers to ground their idea of rights in the notion of equal, abstract individuals, but I don't think that's as important as the cultural struggles they were engaged in. Religious liberty was a pressing and radical cultural concern at a time when those in power mostly gained their legitimacy from religious institutions, and thus had material motives to suppress other religious beliefs. While capitalism might have been intertwined with the new conceptions of rights and freedoms, I think the evidence suggests that their formulation came as a response to what people identified as a source of oppression, rather than just an opportunistic way to justify the theft of the commons. The paradigm shift came as a newly wealthy and influential class of people were able to assert themselves. Capital then using this idea to further its interests shouldn't be surprising, because capital is so ideologically amorphous that it will use almost any popular idea to further its interests.
June 2020: "Wow I should do some research on police abolition, this is a pretty interesting social idea that leftists are bringing up" August 2020: "The Problem With Human Rights"
I have been thinking similar thing. Rights don't exist, only power is real. You can't protect your "rights" if you don't have power. Only by power you enforce your rights.
Sufficiently capricious and pervasive abuse of power is incompatible with a large, enduring community of rational agents. So wherever you find the latter you will not for long find the former.
As much as I like CP's videos, I can't help but feel that this genre of argument against the idea of human rights is a dead end for the Left. Since no alternative formulation is offered (a constant problem in Leftist arguments, and I say this as a Leftist), throwing out the concept of human rights in the current political and social climate would be no less disastrous than abolishing the state. As much as these goals may be appealing as pipe dreams, they are not feasible or desirable for the foreseeable future. I've always felt that the further abstraction and non-cynical expansion of human rights has formed the basis for a lot of positive social change, often in a Leftist direction. Taken to their logical conclusion, human rights like universal suffrage, liberty, and the right to life end up looking a lot like communism, in my opinion. A big problem is that the scope of human rights is not extended into the workplace; personal dignity is terminated at the door to the factory and office.
I agree with your main point that it isn't instanlty applicable. But I think that the main purpose of this video is to help us be more open to a different type of society and to lower the effects of capitalism realism, where we could see something as human rights as inherent truths that doesn't allow us think of a possible stateless society. Again, I do agree that this type of arguing is hard to use convincingly to someone that isn't a leftist but it can help us internally. Then we can "translate it" to change in policies, like the expansion of human rights, or to direct action, like union activism to increase our power outside of the state. And the great thing is that most likely both have to happen together. We first need power to reform the current system and while doing so we build the fundations for a better society.
Now every idiot claims human rights. Nowadays, participating in pro sport even claimed to be a human right (rather than privilege that it is in reality) by variety of hashtag activists.
Perhaps that isn't so much of an issue though, simply a part of the Hegelian Pendulum. We have a thesis (human rights as a concept and as they are implemented manifest inequality). Next should come a diametrically opposed position, and ultimately from the union of ideas we synthesize a new concept of rights
It is clearly a valid point that needs to be addressed. I fail to see why people treat this true statement without sincerity. In a video that is academic, or presents itself as such, it is a requirement that quotations be attributed correctly.
I come from a relatively traditional society where one is almost always viewed in the context of one's community and society and I have to say those societies, in my experience, tend to subjugate people quite as much as the Western societies that stress the human right do. Actually, probably more. You're not viewed as a monad in itself and never asked to bargain your opposition in the world against the much more powerful, but instead, you're given a niche in society and asked to conform to it. If you can't fit into that niche that's your own problem and you will be made to conform to it. In that context, you as a person, have no instruments to control the society you're part of at all. I struggle to see how that's any less tyrannical than the "tyranny of human rights."
@@Andrew-pn1kq Absolutely. You cannot have the community simply claiming an individual, some form of humans rights in necessary. At the same time you cannot have rabid individualism, since it, almost by definition, conflicts with other people's interests and we have learn to live together.
While I don't disagree with you overall, I'm not so sure you're right in the historical specifics you discuss. My specialty is Rome rather than Greece and late antiquity instead of classical, so it might be an artifact of my focus. However there was a pretty clear conception of individual rights in the classical world. The clearest example is the phrase "Civis Romanus Sum", which would most often be heard when a Roman felt their (fairly clearly demarked) rights weren't being respected. If anything the modern conception of rights is a result of early modern European and American politicians being a bunch of enthusiastic classics obsessed cosplay geeks.
Today my bike was stolen. I loved my bike, it was brand new and had those suspention springs or however you call them. It also had some orange parts (i love the color orange too). I came home feeling really sad, bought myself some beers and my mum (who doesnt like seeing me drinking) didnt say nothing because she understood that i was sad. So i started drinking, and got a little tipsy, i would have bought a second bottle but the store is closed. I know that it has nothing to do with the topic of the video, but i want to say thank you Cuck philosohpy guy. I love your videos, you speak very inteligently about subjects that i find intresting and do not fully comprehend. When i watch any of your videos i feel enlightened, i feel like i understand the world a little better, and makes me feel that understanding the reality that we live in and sharing this knowledge makes the world a little bit better. I have had some troubles in my life recently, and they made me come to the conclusion that only by being humble and doing "what is right" i can be happy, and make happy the people that sorrounds me. I want to thank you because your videos make me understand the phenomena that i find myself entangled with, and helps me come to my own moral conclusions, and those conclusions help me to not get so overwhelmed by the happenings of my life. You make me think, and that makes me move foward, thank you.
Am I the only one who actually LIKES being an “atomized individual” and has no desire to let the “larger community” tell me what “shared goals” I should work to accomplish? I just wanna do my own thing. Is that so bad?
I as an atomised individual would like to determine my own involvement in the community. In this society if I don't like the terms, I can leave or become less involved with my local community, especially with the internet.
That is absurd. We ignore our traditional duties at our peril, our freedom as the individual rests upon a great bedrock of commitment, what ails the modern soul is a lossof transcendence. It is one thing to adventure into the unknown it is another thing altogether Shivux to deny that you owe nothing to the human environment around you, however life would be awfully boring if there was no Angel to rebel against God...
@@jdmccue9722 Duty is a ridiculous concept. People are born free, and only incur debts and obligations willingly when they're old enough to do so. There is no legitimacy in compelling anyone to any action, no one around you is your slave. Your freedom as an individual rests on the whims of the state, and on your ability to defend yourself and your rights.
That's fine but you can't enjoy the privilege of the community without being able to help support it. The only way you can do your own thing is by being totally alone, independent of any service and good made by someone else.
I think this was my second time watching this. Given my feelings on the topic, I'm surprised I haven't commented. Never mind. After trying to put my thoughts into form, I remember this being difficult. I hope my thoughts will be adequately conveyed. I've felt somewhat uncomfortable with the conception of human rights for a while. They simply felt like a conclusion without premise. Perhaps because of my pantheist viewpoint, I tend to think view the happiness of others as critical to my own ultimate happiness. I feel that focusing on understanding others and cultivating empathy in my heart are the best ways to achieve this. From this position, things like rights and merits ring hollow. I feel empathy for other things not because they deserve it but because they exist.
"Not because they deserve, but because they do exist" I really felt that, I think it's something alucard would say. Unfortunately people aren't only interested on keeping their own rights, but in taking the other's.
You missed the fact majority of the time advocating for rights exists bc those right ARE taken away by the state. It’s like saying that the problem with giving the right for women and black people to vote is that it has to be violently enforced when in reality this isn’t the case. I agree with your overall thesis but it uses specific arguments to make it work when it’s not actually necessary
To comment on the point at 14:15 - Well, it is actually more interesting, to me at least, that in many (if not virtually all) modern democracies it is *not* the wealthy that primarily subsidize the state, but the vast majority of middle-low income citizens, and mostly in the form of both general (e.g. comsuption) taxes and individual (e.g. public service) taxes. That is, the fact that the wealthy have political power is less of an outcome of their actual contribution to the state, but rather an outcome of the process by which the State - as abstract set of laws and regulations - is materialized into the concrete institutions of people acting in accordance to, and enforcing such laws. The wealthy have the *financial* power to make the State objectives more aligned to their own objectives - stockholder profit maximization, if you will, or minimal corporate taxation, etc. - which in the context of the neoliberal state is almost trivial: the State is, indeed, (and this is true especially if you consider modern neoliberal thought, in Economics in particular) tasked mainly with enforcing and protecting the markets which enable the free accumulation of capital by the wealthy themselves. It is interesting then, because the wealthy are actually constantly trying to *reduce* their financial contribution to the state, unless it is allows them to exert some direct or proxy control over it (not taxes); yet at the same time, their socio-economical power has not wavered significantly. Just to remind you, Jeff Bezos' Amazon payed virtually no corporate taxes in the past fiscal year, while he himself, with his individual wealth, could potentially cover the costs of global climate change prevention measures.
It's a good point and I am glad someone has put it up. To comment on your comment: States do rely heavily on credits, granted by Banks. Banks, however, have unseperable ties to the industrial complex. This connection is then called the "finance capital". A capitalist state relies on bank credit, at the same time it has to ensure private companies to grow, in order to pay for revenues they owe to both banks and other capitalists. A state that wants to rule an economy which on its side relies on "economic growth" (e.g. widening its market, generating more profit to stay compatible) will have to ensure economic policies that support the growth of profit. The taxes paid by the many, mainly working people, are heavily used to subsidize capitalists businesses, infrastructure and many other things in order to stay compatitive, often also to keep the current state stable. The german state subsidizes infrastrucutre and sometimes the business of the car-industry itself in order for the car-industry to not lose profit. You should do your own research on this. The part with subsidizing is imo very interesting.
Ok, but I feel like you didn't really address the point of why human rights are supposedly not a net-positive, instead only elaborating on how they are granted. Can we agree that a state that provides basic human rights such as freedom of movement and speech, protection from arbitrary punishment, participation in democratic processes, gender equality, etc. is better than a state that does not guarantee such rights? Also, using Yugoslavia as an example of human rights being used to destabilize other countries is...strange to say the least.
Human rights (or really any conception of rights in this context) have almost always been implemented and propagated by those with the power to enforce and manipulate them whenever it is beneficial to the enforcer, typically the state. If some external entity is needed to validate your fundamental freedoms in society... then it seems as if you really have no rights at all to begin with. Ironically, the overcoming the concept of human rights as we know it will most likely be the day when people truly become free, in a certain sense of the word. Then again, I would not say that this conclusion is surprising given how contradictory liberal capitalist society is.
You'll become as free as you need to be when you dance with a loaded gun in your hand after one too many scotches. To be human is not complete when one has an incomplete understanding of humanness. Comphrensive understanding doesn't come until you've decorated your walls.
The question though is where does the freedom of one ends and the freedom of another begins? Theoretically yes fundamental freedoms should be inherent and should not require external enforcement. But in the absence of external authority, who is to say someone else will not say that killing you for sport is part of their freedom? Even in a communitarian system agreed rights require enforcement, who will then do the enforcement and does that then create people with more power than others?
The biggest problem with people yelling for rights and trying to enforce them, is that they forget that with those rights, also comes obligations and responsibility.... No rights without obligations
He mentions this in the video. He says that human rights were only fully codified in the 17th century, but then mentions their history and theological origin.
Michael Parenti's _Myths of The Founding Fathers_ is definitely worth viewing. I doubt someone like this channel's creator will learn anything new from it. I learned a couple of things watching it. Most of Parenti's lectures are well worth watching/listening to.
In the words of alasdair Macintyre, one of the greatest living moral and political philosophers,"There are no such rights. To believe in them is to believe in fairies and unicorns."
You see this plainly in works like “Meditations” by Aurelius. It, at no point, speaks of what’s described as subjective rights at any time. This is also underlined in Starship Troopers, where a personal investment(threat of death) is required to manipulate the political state, and presupposes that those who invest act in the communal interest.
Keep in mind that Meditations was written by Aurelius *for* Aurelius, and not as a general guide to how others should live, but a reflection on how Aurelius himself lived. There are lots of commentary within Meditations that makes absolutely no sense for the day to day needs of your average Roman, but are absolutely crucial for an autocratic ruler- someone who *certainly* wouldn't be handing out subjective rights.
@@raphsere Starship Troopers' society is unironically a liberal utopia. It is multicultural/multiracial globalist world where national boundaries have ceased to be important, has completely free expression and thought, and emphasises social work for the common good (in fact demands it in return for citizenship) over private business (though the latter still thrives)
What you discuss in this video relates really strongly with the work of Max Stirner, especially to his critique of humanism and his critique of the state.
< hears Yugoslavia mentioned, feels seen. Great video! The perspective I didn't know I needed. (and still don't know what to do with it, but it'll find its way in the puzzle my worldview is)
22:30 "It is only when we reject the political dogmas of our times that we can begin to envision emancipation." Great f*cking quote, I might have it framed.
It’s always nice to see obscure or at least largely unused footage to show visually as one gives a explanation instead continuing recycling commonly seen and obvious stock footage.
The longer I watched, the more I was reminded of this quote: "You talk of the people's rights. The people have only those rights which I choose to give them. And that is for their own good." -Daniel Dumile, reciting an excerpt of his landmark essay, _Beef Rapp,_ at the Mm.. Food venue in New York City, 2005
i raise you this quote fom Ellen Producto, at the Definite Juxtaposition convention, reciting his essay "Fantastic Damage" in 2002: "You need to haul that mega-dumb style to the antique roadshow, bitch The system bleeds for the radio angry, rock that wound aesthetic The name of this routine is live at man you just don't get it Please try to compartmentalize my dick" in other words: SHUT UP, RIGHTOID.
17:50 it's no wonder that the two first countries to declare human rights (USA and France) were the last one to abolish slavery EXCUSE ME?! France abolished slavery precisely in the name of human right during the french revolution and it was reinstated when they "undid" human rights also the right of humanitarian intervention is grade A bulshit I'd never heard of before it sound to me that you should read on european human rights and how they work because a lot of your arguments only work in an american context (IMHO USA does not have human rights, just the bill of right). you argue that as soon as the state think they have more power they will try to remove human rights when the story here has been that 1 we instituted supranational institution to avoid this (ICC and, at european level the ECHR and the ECJ) 2 every time we had the opportunity to change them we went on to expand human rights (see the edits of the ECHR and the creation of the charter of fundamental rights of the EU, that start with "those right should never be understood as undermining human right given by [other courts of human rights]") AND as a minor nitpick you mention at 14:00 that "the state mustby its very nature serve those who fund it" and then blame the elite, when the majority of funding come from the middle class (sure the wealthy have more money, but they aint paying it in taxes)
> you argue that as soon as the state think they have more power they will try to remove human rights when the story here has been that 1 we instituted supranational institution to avoid this (ICC and, at european level the ECHR and the ECJ) 2 every time we had the opportunity to change them we went on to expand human rights (see the edits of the ECHR and the creation of the charter of fundamental rights of the EU, that start with "those right should never be understood as undermining human right given by [other courts of human rights]") Tell that the to the working class. Trapped in abstract writing and the abstract citizen and missing the point.
@@zzzzzzzzzzzspaf Perhaps on paper. But its the material conditions that gave and continue to give rise to, while at the same time being in contradiction with, as well as the ideology behind the perceived necessity of the paper itself that he criticizes. Not that there aren't better words written on it.
@@Master00788. I don't know how to break it you but welfare states exist in Europe, and they while they aren't perfect they do a remarkable job in improving material conditions of ordinary citizens.
@@williamfrancis5367 I hate to break it to you but the dwindling welfare states of Europe are irrelevant to this video. Also, don't assume I'm American. I know the welfare states of Europe (well at least one of them) from experience.
So I went into this video preparing to be enraged with like "what can anyone have against human rights" and ended up being completely riveted by the argumentation. Amazingly well-made and compelling stuff to help challenge all sorts of blindly held notions!
One thing to point out is that, human rights gives the disempowered the language to criticise, recognise and fight the empowered classes errosion of the rights of all. Also you say the rights are granted by the elites but I think that's less of an argument to abandon rights, but instead those elites.
One of the best videos on Human Rights and Social construct that I have seen in a long time, Highly recommended and shared to my group of friends, thanks man.
1:38 and the biases start to show already, because the weight of the interpretation is shifted on the social context and the natural tendencies of humans are left on the side. History and human behaviour cannot be reconstructed with one OR the other. The whole video attempts to deconstruct the meaning and context that give rise to the idea of human rights which in my opinion is a good endeavour, but for every point mentioned I can mention two other interpretations of what happened at the individual level or social level... So the final interpretation seems heavily biased and in my opinion, unable to reach any other conclusion than what a pure marxist would conclude. If we want to better the human condition in terms of his power relationships and self perceptions, we need to develop further the ideas of the past, not repeat them.
I have just re-discovered your channel and I love it. I am not a native speaker and your content is very conceptually dense, so I have to watch it twice to fully appreciate it.
I didn't really understand the video, is he arguing for an abolishment of human rights and a return to the ruling class completely dictating the lives of the ruled, or restructuring the idea of Human Rights to mean that every Human deserves to live a comfortable life? If not either, than what is the goal of declaring human rights problematic? Is he saying that there is something more important in society than individuals attaining thier basic needs?
"From the beginning the paradox involved in the declaration of inalienable human rights was that it reckoned with an "abstract" human being who seemed to exist nowhere, for even savages lived in some kind of a social order. If a tribal or other "backward" community did not enjoy human rights, it was obviously because as a whole it had not yet reached that stage of civilization, the stage of popular and national sovereignty, but was oppressed by foreign or native despots. The whole question of human rights, therefore, was quickly and inextricably blended with the question of national emancipation; only the emancipated sovereignty of the people, of one's own people, seemed to be able to insure them" (Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism). "The sacredness of life, which is invoked today as an absolutely fundamental right in opposition to sovereign power, in fact originally expresses precisely both life's subjection to a power over death and life's irreparable exposure in the relation of abandonment" (Agamben, Homo Sacer).
I watched this alone in my room and I... literally applauded when it ended. It's going to take some time to fully process but I think this makes connections I've been looking for for a long time.
What a Nietzscheian and Marxian interpretation of human rights! I love it. You're analysis on how Christianity greatly influenced the modern concept of human rights really did surprise me. It was something so obvious but I hadn't pondered about it Thank you for posting it! Please do more!
The crazy thing about our founding fathers were in their 20s & 30s. Every picture you see of them makes them look older & more regal, but they were just young men, not even fully developed by todays standards.
The trouble with rights is they have to be granted by the powerful. Which kinda cramps your style if you were hoping for a classless society. Great vid by the way.
Your ideal society is legit the most terrifying thing that I've ever heard of. A society where I, and everyone else, is completely at the mercy of their local community. A world where the local community can declare that I must marry or have sex with certain person, that I must work a certain job (it would be most optimal for the community if I'd work full time everyday, and giving me some kind of compensation would obviously make the community poorer), or even decide that I need to be throen out or murdered for the greater good of the community. And no one would have any kind of defense since individuals have no rights or value and the community is the only thing that matters. Indeed the idea of not giving the community the full power to murder, torture and imprison whichever individual member they wanted with no reason or consequence would be absolutely anathema to such a society.
I don't think you fully comprehend what he's talking about. Talking about rights without talking about reinforcement and therefore talking about fundamental societal power structures is the real problem he is talking about. We al agree rights are important, but the idea of rights in the abstract sense is useless. What we need is a creation and enforcement of rights that envolves everyone. And in liberal capitalistic society the power is more or less in the hands of the capitalist. Therefor the abstract idea of human rights is simply an excuse in the hands lf capitalistic societies to enforce the rulers idea of right. So to conclude he's not advocating for dissolvement of human rights. He's advocating for full societal includement. Because capital ownership of the workingclass and abolishment of rulingclass will guarantee a more fair and just society without the possibility of biased human rights. Because they are already being represented by every individual that controls the enforcements of rights through their collective ownership over power.
In Chinese, "rights", as in human rights, is 权利, which basically means power. It is a totally different word and concept than "right", as in right and wrong.
As an engineer I suppose I view the concept of "The State" as a monolithic entity as a fallacy. While "The State" may in many ways be propped up by the wealthy few primarily for their benefit it is still actually comprised of a collection of many many individuals (the largest employer in the USA is the Federal Government). A capitalistic society that recognizes human rights as inalienable allows for an individual to act on their own in the way they view as best for themselves and society, two interests that are not divergent. A stronger society makes for a stronger individual. While there may be parallels, perhaps superficially, between human rights and divine rights of a ruler, only a free capitalistic society allows any individual member to advance their position and does so in a way that reflects the realities of the natural order itself and puts to light its hardest truth: everyone has human rights but no one has intrinsic value.
Could you elaborate on "-only a free capitalistic society allows any individual to advance their position-"? Do you mean this in any society or any way of living, or of between the different capitalist societies?
You make a really good point and it's not something he addresses in the video. It's strange that he simultaneously seems to glorify a collective community as positive yet also seems to demonize the individual, as if the individual doesn't contribute to the community. And yet he argues for the Roman understanding that the individual is owed as much as they give to the community, which is oddly meritocratic for someone who doesn't value people as individuals. He seems to be in favour of both the idea that we must be part of a larger collective and that we must be excel as individuals ( but only for the community itself). He never accounts for the actual benefits to real people because the sum of society hasn't conformed to some Greco-Roman ideal.
When two Chess players recognize the outcome of a game, they do not continue the game and instead begin a new one. Nuclear weapons have the capacity to wipe out the enemies of any country capable of producing significant quantities of them, but we are not yet living in the aftermath of a nuclear war or dead altogether. Conclusions being foregone eliminates the necessity for an actual conflict. Thus we have rights as the result of a state of tension. The workers cannot wipe out the ruling class because they lack the power. The ruling class cannot fail to give rights to the workers because it cannot function without their cooperation. This means that real human equality can only be possible if power is taken outside the capacity of human beings; Human beings are not equal before God they _could only_ be equal before God. As opposed to each other. It is for this reason that if God does not exist, it is now necessary to create Him.
I think you are right that the idea of human rights do necessarily imply that there is some kind of power imbalance that a claim is being made against, but that also seems to be true of non-human right conceptions of justice. For example, it seems difficult to imagine declaring that murder is wrong, a concept far pre-dating human rights, without recognizing that some have the power to kill others.
@Kathy Kat I agree that we can differentiate those two things, but the possibility of the other form undercuts the argument. As the video explained it, "In order for human rights to exist politically, there must be someone vastly more powerful than you giving you those rights in the first place." But that seems to be true of any conception of justice whatsoever. Even if we go to pre-capitalist communal ideas of justice, if we say murder is wrong, for that to exist politically there must be some method of enforcement. Likewise, if we say that that conception of justice could be enforced without relying on a monopoly on violence, it seems that human rights could be enforced that way too.
@Kathy Kat Sure. But what I'm saying is that, even in that primitive communist state, that sort of enforcement is entirely compatible with human rights. The fact that human rights imply enforcement to be politically relevant can be done by the community, and not necessarily from a monopoly on violence, and therefore does not imply the contradiction or inequality the video claims.
Basically there's computer planning, there's direct democracy, mixes of the two, mixes of direct and indirect democracy, etc. Lots of these models have already been tried and been successful.
Just like any other endeavor. Authority isn't hierarchy. Medicine is something we leave to the authority of doctors of medicine. It doesn't mean that we MUST obey their commands. It just means that we usually do as they say because we value their professional opinions. That this is in stark contrast with capitalism should be obvious.
Hi, I've sent you subtitules a month ago or so, translating this video to spanish. I.. wonder if you could put them up so I can show this to some friends that i'm eager for them to see. Thanks by the way for this material, very interesting.
Damn, this has to be one of the most informative lectures I've ever heard. In recent years, I have become fascinated by the story of Enclosure and the loss of the Commons, both across Europe and then in the 'colonies'.... I've been shaken with anger at what has been lost, but also the fact that this essential part of history is never taught. My thoughts now revolve around the creation of a Commoning party. Not that it will get far, but at least we would force the reality onto society that there is an alternative to nation state capitalism. It would also make it easier for 'us' to find each other and work together... Though all my friends are lefties, none of them think like me either politically (anarchist) or economically (Commoner).
He's still not applicable to leftist thought. The whole enterprise of doing away with human rights is ill-conceived and it's telling that one has to turn to the likes of Nietzsche to find rhetorical vindication of it. Remember where Nietzsche goes with his disavowal of human rights: He doesn't think the poor, oppressed, or "weak," have any legitimate claim to make against their oppressors. It's a bit rich to critique the supposedly rightwing baggage inherent in the concept of human rights, while ignoring the far less tenuous connection between ultra-conservatism and the philosophical _denial_ of human rights.
He really isn`t though but this Cuck Philosophy guy is quite radical in he`s belief in left-ist ideology so he can find words from anyone to suit he`s political purpose. Now that doesn`t make him right "Truthful words are not beautiful; beautiful words are not truthful."-Lao Tzu
@@thetruth4654 Did you guys watch the part where he talks about genetic fallacy? Actually before that, did you guys read the title? No one is suggesting doing away human rights. He's sighting the inherent problems when arguing for human rights or how the concept of human rights is a grossly different idea based on who you're talking to.
@@MatheusFernandes-xf4zm Well, for some people it is radical left if someone says that killing and murder should always be prevented. Left and right are very vage categories. I think we should just listen to arguments and then critically agree or disagree. Nietzsche said much, so there are probably arguments that are left and arguments that are right-wing
Falsehoods: 1) That subjective rights were impossible to declare in classical age Greece. 1a) The Republic is a treatise on justice, balancing subjective & objective rights. 2) That the Christians brought forward the soul. 2a) Plato balances subjective with objective rights or freedoms via the Psyche or Soul, which he describes in the Timaeus as well 350 yrs BC. ---Who are you?
Yeah he even mentions citizenship as if it were something invented with the modern NationState. The same Enlightment philosophers that he's saying were justifying Capitalism with Christian Universalism were literally LARPing as Romans half the time. Decartes is the only original Enlightment philosopher.
Elite sophistry I but like this guy, you can make good arguments. What you ignore is objective rights don't have a foundation outside of subjective rights. Objective: you have the right to bury the dead . You ignore that this attributes the right for a burial to the individual. The objective right is founded on a subject right, which is the right to a burial. Without that the objective doesn't exist.
I've worked in government and let me tell you...people claim their rights all the time. Yes, the idea that human rights exist independently of a state is a little farcical, considering something has to uphold and enforce those rights. But human rights are fundamentally individual; I know my rights as a human being and I can assert. Perhaps to no end. But it's better than this sort of "value connected to community" that you advocate for. Because ultimately, when dealing with humans, disagreement and dissent will occur. I don't want my rights and value to be tied entirely with a community. That only leads to death and despair, as numerous failed collectivist societies have shown us.
You said it yourself, people used to work in collectives for the community and yet, this power dynamics was still present arguably in a greater deegre than it exists today, this difference in power that human rights try equalize goes way deeper than capitalisms or any other social system, it's minor biological differences between individuals. We can change the system how much we want, in a few years, the differences in power will rise again.
Great essay, but I find the conclusion pretty weak and unsatisfying. It mentions that a society without human rights would have the community collectively make decisions not relying on the state. This is how decisions were made hundreds of years ago, without human rights you get witch hunts and mob lynching's. You also mention that people won't need human rights if they work for the community, instead of working for their own self interests. Well humans fundamentally need to be selfish in some form; eating, sleeping, staying healthy are all acts of self-interest. Removing self-interest from the equation, is removing one's freedom to be fundamentally human. Any society without rights for individuals are terrible places of human suffering and exploitation.
The witch hunts were carried out by the very people, both state and religious authorities, who stole our land and resources from us in the first place. Medicine was an important role for women in society, and so as to steal their skills and knowledge and to denigrate them in out society they fabricated the idea of witchcraft. It was specifically done to put women 'in their place'. It was never done by people who lived on Commons.
>Right of access to food. >Right of access to clean water. >Right of access to a clean bed. >Right of access to clean clothes. >Right of access to shelter. >Right of access to medical care. >Right of access to quality education. >Right of access to hygiene products. >Right of access to the workforce. These are the most important rights in my book. And none of them are recognized as rights by liberal regimes.
I disagree with some of the historical grounding here. I get how u came to your conclusions using documented usages of the term "human rights," but that betrays a long and rich history of individual rights across societies. If i were to philosophically ground marxism (equality of people and collective ownership) in a history of human rights i would look to ideas like the commons, and the behaviors of people in using those commons before a single person was allowed to own them. I have the right to drink from the lake, but my neighbor also has that right so i don't block him from doing so. I dont think its a good look to argue against human rights, community rights, or the rights of nature because we characterize our direction to the left through agreed upon rights. We call them rights, not privileges because society fights for what the people are owed, not for priveleges people belive can be taken from them. The language of rights is a good, and we should keep that language.
I don't think he was rejecting the idea of using human rights as a concept, I vaguely recall he mentioned positive rights favorably? But all in all, interesting comment and interesting take.
There are other contributing factors to individual rights that are independent of Christianity. Increase of resources and education to the general public made it more relevant to see the needs of the individual as factors to a society. The people that had access to education and had resources in surplus were often royalty. As a result, they were able to form the individual rights they bestowed upon themselves just as modern society does today with an increase in production, manufacturing and education. I would argue that as we look at history and look at modern examples through developing nations, we see these subjective rights are often a product of the general population being able to think for themselves and incorporate rights to the individual as opposed to something like survival by stockpiling food or chopping down trees for firewood.
People living in Commons were not just 'surviving', they lived rich healthy lives and kept within the limitations of nature's resources... They also worked a lot less than we do now.
Holy heck. This is like, legit the foundation of my theories on rights that influenced my anarchism. Just much more well-articulated. Im glad to have this video, I always have a tough time explaining this theory of human rights to others.
I mean what do we even mean by equal. Either way, if you want to force a person, or people, into slavery, or things around that nature; then YOU are less than equal and should be dealt with accordingly.
The bit about the serf finding it hard to imagine neoliberal capitalism reminds me of Capitalist Realism (the book and the concept). Partly because I can't not turn back to the book every other week, but partly because it highlights something you said early in this video, that "self-evidence" reflects bias, not truth.
Btw romans had a very clear concept of subjective rights such as property, possession and an even stronger subjective right they called "dominium" which goes even beyond modern ownership
TheIVEyed stirner is a known white supremacist - chapters in the ego and his own use anti Semitic slurs and describe the evil “mongoloids” etc I could go off but don’t idolize an openly racist hero as antifascist praxis
so, what you're saying is, we really *DO* live in a society
bottom text
*Bottom text*
I got the 69th like
:D i guess you could say human rights has actually demonised the 'society' :P
“...as long as the state does not have the courage to adopt the death penalty, the crime of extermination, in my opinion, will be very welcome. If there is no room for him in Bahia, you can go to Rio de Janeiro. If it depends on me, they will have all my support ... In Bahia, due to the information I have - of course they are illegal groups -, marginality has decreased. Congratulations!”
Who said that?
President Bolsonaro speaking at the Chamber of Deputies.
Check it out and spread the word.
In Portuguese.
www.camara.leg.br/internet/sitaqweb/TextoHTML.asp?etapa=5++++++++++++++++++++++++++++&nuSessao=138.1.52.O+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++&nuQuarto=13++++++++++++++++++++++++++++&nuOrador=1++++++++++++++++++++++++++++&nuInsercao=0++++++++++++++++++++++++++++&dtHorarioQuarto=14:54++++++++++++++++++++++++++++&sgFaseSessao=BC++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++&Data=12/08/2003++++++++++++++++++++++++++++&txApelido=JAIR+BOLSONARO,+PTB-RJ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++&txFaseSessao=Breves+Comunica%EF%BF%BD%25A
The footage of The Golden One flexing, combined with a serious explanation of the concept of justice in Roman law has to be the ultimate pinnacle of TH-cam as a medium XD
Tadek Łazuka It’s even better than E.
On behalf of us Swedes we are sorry for The Golden One and his childish ramblings,altough he's one buff bucko.....
The medium is the message........
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction - Walter Benjamin
@@Grandmaster-Kush On behalf of Americans, I have no idea where to even start with apologizing for all the people we need to...
"ideas don't just float around in the heavens"
*plato laughing in the distance*
xD
"Plato's philosophy is the most nerd shit in the world and he'd get shoved into a locker for it"
- something CuckPhilosophy said one time on Discord
@@radshiba3345 10/10 quote.
And Diogenes mocks his ingenuity.
@@radshiba3345 except plato was jacked. Imagine a jacked nerd. Bullying everyone into being a nerd.
This is a really good take but the title makes it look like a muscular dragon is about to preach me on why sending 5 year olds to coal mines is good actually
this is the best comment
I think that’s the point.
Growing up, my Dad always said, "The police aren't here to protect you, they're here to protect property."
1) So why is violent crime so low? 2)Property of ordinary people. The super-rich don't need a police, but shopkeepers? They do. Just look at Russia in the 1990s. Small bussiness people had no mechanism to protect property rights and had were ensnared into protection rackets by organised crime, while the oligarchs had massive private security forces.
william francis
1. It’s not.
2. Replace the police with a democratically-vetted force with the best interests of the working class so we can protect the interests of both the small-business owner from larceny and the minority citizen from fascism.
Then explain to me why most of our laws, including human rights/bill of rights, have to do with property? What property you're allowed to have, by what means, how much or little, etc, it's mostly about the regulation of property. The police's job is to enforce the law right? Simple logic my dudes.
Additionally, our police force originated in the South, and their primary task was to find and capture escaping slaves (i.e, the White Man's property).
@@williamfrancis5367 Violent crime rates are not low in my opinion, but to humor you.....because in the United States you are given a number at birth, and you become the property of the State. It's in the state's best interest to protect you like any other property it owns.
00:32 absolutely. When someone says "it's just common sense" what they actually mean is "my biases are the objective truth"
Damn right
The author of the video doesn't understand what the "self-evident" means in the context of constitution.
I think by self-evident it's something they could, as well as most people, could agree on. I may not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it if it doesn't directly order people to do violence. I may not agree with what you believe in but I will defend your right to believe in it so long as it does not require you to commit unprovoked violence. I may not like you but you have a right to defend yourself. I may not like you but you have the right to a fair trial. That usual thing.
@@gasmonkey1000 But what most people could agree on depends on the time and place they were raised in. Thousands of years ago it was "self-evident" tha prisoners of war became slaves. Only a hundred and some years ago it was self-evident that women shouldn´t be allowed to vote. Even the things you listed as self-evident now, weren´t not that long ago, and even today, not everywhere.
@@kevinschuckstyle You're right, morals change depending on time and place. The morals during the time of the Founders had changed drasitically from the time of Cromwell. Morals will continue to change and for the most part western values have become more liberal. Take premarital sex for example. If a girl lost her virginity before her marriage in the 50's she would be viewed with slight regard, my Memaw's sister was an example and while she wasn't scorned my great grandparents tried to keep my Memaw and her other sisters away from the aforementioned sister when my Memaw's sister was impregnated out of wedlock. (It was consensual and they did get married but they split up). Now? While parents might be disappointed they'll try to be more understanding and the community won't veer their children from the woman. And that's if they care. Heck most concern might be "oh did you get pregnant" or "did you use protection" or that both parties were of consenting age. Morals change, and while you find some similarities and roots of morals we have today they evolved beyond the values back then. Now I think it would be hard to find someone who can deny those aforementioned rights unless they are a fringe far-right or far-left extremist or a fundamentalist weirdo. I'd like to think it is a sign we are moving to a kinder future but I also fear we may be heading to a more hypocritical one too.
To paraphrase George Carlin, 'I guess God was doing sloppy work that week, because he had to go back amend that Bill of Rights 27 times.' and 'You have no rights folks, you have privileges. Temporary privileges."
carlin was a dogshit comedian and an even worse philosopher
Stop holding up this cynical comedian as if hes some intellectual philosopher. Hes not. He was an elitist ass who spouted universal truisms to appeal to peoples pessimism
He spoke some serious truth!
The biggest BS ever that stems from a complete lack of understanding of the concept of the American bill of rights.
@@abehambino someone has never actually watched carlin then lol
Christians weren’t the first to conceptualize the soul. Plato also spoke often of the immortal soul as a foundation for his arguments on the Good and Just.
Yeah but the development of human rights in the enlightenment came out of scholastism.
@@Theo_Caro But scholasticism was deeply Aristotelian, and Plato was Aristotle's teacher, of course.
You're right about this, but Christianity is just Platonism + Jesus.
@@AyoRhymer What about the Hebrew Scriptures? You think Platonism had the concept of a Messiah, redemption of the world, divine miracles, biblical morality, etc.?
@Ranid Hi. I was reacting in my last comment to the equation "Christianity = Platonism + Jesus." But I also agree with the OP that the concept of soul is well established in the classical period, and certainly by late antiquity.
How to make a libertarian genuinely scared:
"I believe in positive liberty."
What if you're a libertarian who also believes in positive liberty?
@@lisaw150 I am neither of the two, I'm a libertarian capitalist, I believe that liberty can exist even with the presence of capitalism. I choose not to engage in much consumerism and would like to see production turn down and not fund a central state however.
It seems that many armchair socialists see capitalism as the source of our problems with the state, that is not true, the source of our problems with the state is the fact that we willfully participate in the practice of paying taxes! If everybody stopped paying taxes you will have no state and with no state you will not have laws to abide by including laws that oppress some peoples rights.
@@lisaw150 Why do you think so? Do you not have faith in yourself and fellow man? Sounds like you wish to remain a slave and don't actually have any intention of breaking free of the screwed up society we live in today.
@@steven_duller3841 The state is inherent to capitalism. No matter if people won't pay taxes, companies will always pay for someone to protect their property, that is the state. Do you think the state will just simply give up if people stopped paying taxes? They're gonna double down and repress any sentiment against it. Companies need the state to exist, if only to protect their property. The problem with your worldview of doing away with the state in capitalist society, is that another company will just fill the role the state had, but that company will not be in the slightest democratic.
@@comradewildcat1770 What are you talking about? What is stopping an individual to make a good, bring it to market and sell it to someone who needs/wants it with no state intervention whatsoever? Companies don't need the state to survive but the state needs companies to survive through contribute to their funding (taxes). The only benefit a company has from the state is when they can lobby lawmakers to make laws that benefit them so they can make more money. That's only the corrupt power hungry companies that have the capital to do so mind you. What I'm advocating for is for small family owned and handful of employee companies to satisfy its local area based off of barter, local currencies or nationalized currencies that aren't backed by the BS national banks and federal reserve. This is a common thread in libertarian thought though they may not talk about the economical side to their ideology too often.
Your description of rights as a tool of the powerful is something I've never thought of before. It reminds of a passage in Dostoevsky's The Idiot, wherein the group of rebellious youths break into the luncheon and start demanding their rights be recognized without having thought on hat it means to have rights, or what they are to begin with. Also, I would like to say that your use of Nietzsche always makes me happy given his typical treatment by leftist oriented folk. Thanks for the excellent video.
a right is simply something that can never be declared illegal to do or have
"Whenever we feel that some notion or idea is impossible to do without there is a kind of therapy we can utilize: it's called history."- CP
*OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO*
man i see u everywhere
@@BUDGETBALLER lol, nice name btw
As a history major this made me wet
With the angel of times looking back at history, it was just too real... Had to pause the video hurt and totally spellbinded
Ok Meruem
It's rare when someone's content brings a smile to my face with anticipation. Yours does that every single time, without fail. Thanks for bringing a little more light and contemplation to this afternoon!
Agreed. I will be thinking about his all day now.
at some point "self-evident" was "god-given" instead; they just wanted to make it atheist- and future-proof
Can't really blame them. Can never have enough rat poison ready for that sort of infestation.
It's more like self-evidently God-given. #Deism
@Ranid It's in the letters between the founders, the first drafts of the constitution contained "god-given", but after some debate they changed it for the above reasons. Read up on your founding fathers, they wrote well!
But god-given was self-evident before , humans right as a concept have existed before , ex : aristote assumed that jusnaturalisme is based on given right "by nature".
Anon Bnon “God-given” isn’t an argument, and doesn’t pretend to be. I think it is a trait prescribed to these rights. This trait therefore has cosmic meaning and importance however, the argument that God has granted these rights is never given, and is simply waved away with “self-evident”.
Also, as Derrick Bell pointed out, human rights are always procedural and never substantive, i.e. they do not guarantee you the right to meet your physiological needs (food, water, shelter, sociality, etc) but only to abstract, state-managed processes which are only vaguely connected to what your body, mind, and spirit actually require to be happy and healthy.
True, but society is process, not substance.
I agree with your point and this may have been true for the ideas that gave rise to human rights, but article 25 in the UN declaration of human rights straight up states that everyone has a right to these things, including social services and security in the event of disease, accidents or old age
@@aytys013 it took them until the 25th article to say those things? Whereas the early articles were dominated by guaranteeing many political rights?
UN and UN human rights were of course spearheaded by the Western allies initially. These were the same folks who today thought that they’re better off having rising poverty and inflation, goods shortage, and services being reduced to guarantee greater returns just because they give their citizens rights to vote and having “human rights”. Where is the humanity in all of that?
It's your and your freely built community's responsibility to supply those things. It's the state's duty to prevent robbers from stealing them from you. Freedom of association is essential because if you don't think that islam is right about women, then you shouldn't be forced to associate with them. (and their women shouldn't be forced to stay within that community under the state either).
A state that supplies your substantive needs is one that may view women in the same way isalm does and so, I assume, you would not want their supply of meeting your "spiritual needs".
I would make a similar argument but in reverse to an Islamist. Cultures aren't always compatible, but as long as they are not violent (violating the MAP), it's none of the state's business.
@@aytys013 It doesn't matter because all these rights are SUBORDINATED to the right of the private propriety of the means of production. All of these physiological needs as rights enters in direct contradiction with how capitalism works.
A spooky critique of human rights near Halloween
Stirner's ghost sends his regards
You mean Sancho's spirit
Scary ideas, indeed.
Stirner has become the very thing he sought to destroy.
Yeah a Stirner reference would fit right in here
Rational Egoism is what a society should be based on, you are not individuals, however an important part of making society social you are a product of you circumstances.
So basically 'human rights' is the closed system that the state allows infinite movement within?
yeah, that's a good way to put it. the boundaries of the system of rights cannot exceed the boundaries that constitute the structure of the state. power is primary - "might makes right."
he focuses on the money needed to pay for the government but he leaves out the other element needed for a republic to continue : the voters to elect the representatives...……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………...and through that voting process the non wealthy citizens exert an enormous of amount of power
@robinsss No, they really don’t hold much power in liberal democracy. The system is engineered so each individual has the as less saying on actual important stuff as possible
@@the_viriathus5719 but when individuals vote together in a bloc then they can change the laws on any issue
@@the_viriathus5719 if the voting bloc is large enough it can create change on any subject large or small
not to mention the court system that can eliminate laws in one day
voting blocs can and have changed the laws of this country and others too
I live in Austria and we have a very powerful social safety net that is how you point out the institutionalised result of countless often violent class struggles in the past. Nowadays people take these rights and privileges for granted and forgot that they had to be fought for and instead vote for parties that erode our social safety net in the name of neoliberal ideology.
"Chinese With Socialist Characteristics" is my favorite patreon... don't know him personally, never talked with him/her online... but that name...
One of your best videos yet. Really fascinating thesis that you defended in a convincing way. It probably won't get as many views as your other stuff because it's not clickbaity and "of the now" at a first glance, but it's incredibly relevant and a well-constructed work all the same.
So I'm a PhD researcher studying the relationship between human rights, neoliberalism and austerity and I have to say this is some sloppy material here. Like, I am not an uncritical supporter of human rights by any stretch but there's just a lot of issues with this video. For example, your history of human rights suggests that specifically "human rights" emerged with Lockean social contract and property rights but this is just not the case. Perhaps that could be seen as a moment of the emergence of property rights but it's separate from the emergence of "human" rights which can only really be seen to emerge from 1948 or probably more accurately in the 70s with the establishment of the associated legal covenants. So when we talk about the history of human rights we're really talking about a very short period. Extending beyond that like saying "the US and France were the first states to declare human rights" is just inaccurate. There are rhetorical similarities between the two discourses and there was influence but they are absolutely different phenomena and most researchers in human rights would make that point. Also, where are you finding the human right to humanitarian intervention? That doesn't even make sense within the framework of human rights because the state cannot claim a human rights. Only the individual or groups can. Unless you make the argument that when article 28 of the UDHR says that "everyone has the right to live in an international system that best realises human rights" then it justifies action against states and systems that are seen to not hold up those rights and that is related to power. But similarly it could be used to justify revolution against a capitalist system under which human rights could never be truly realised. Or are you talking about the responsibility to protect doctrine which is not directly a human rights but an international extra legal norm which is separate from them? Plus, you make no mention of economic and social human rights which include the right to unionise and the right to education and a whole host of other rights that imply in their execution at the very least mitigation of capitalism and I think if their discursive power was utilised properly could be used as powerful critiques against capitalism itself. Economic and social rights also emerged not from the Lockean or US revolutionary tradition but from a socialist one and were only allowed into the UDHR because of a massive compromise between the Western and Soviet Blocks. Like, the UK spent ages trying to entirely block ECSR because it was thought they were trying to force revolution.
Sorry for the rant but this is my area and the information your presenting is frankly often just inaccurate. You have some interesting points about the presupposition of the state and there is something there with the individualisation effect of human rights but even that is massively contested. Like I say, I'm not an uncritical supporter of human rights discourse but I'd recommend reading up on the sociology of human rights because this is simplistic and often just inaccurate
I really liked how you posed your argument. In the video, you mention how once the State grants people rights, they can simply just take them away when it becomes inconvenient, or when the group that was protected by those rights can do nothing about it. I studied law in Venezuela, and the Venezuelan Constitution includes a mention to the "progressive nature of rights", which means that once the State recognizes a right, it cannot take it away, unless it makes the effective exercise of another right impossible.
It is true that the State can still do whatever it pleases (in fact that's what it does), and I know that this "progressive nature" limit doesn't solve the fundamental issue, but on paper it seems like a better idea than not having that limit. I know life isn't lived on paper but I wonder what the viewers of this video might think.
I can't hold myself to say...
Yeah we can see how that played out in Venezuela hehehehe
I think we have a similar article in Brazil's constitution, which is another joke and will probably be thrown away in less than two decades.
@RED PILL PORTAL well said! Marxist theory (which is all it truly is since Marx did nothing but sit in his flat, paid for by his benefactor, and develop social hypothesis the he turned into unsubstantiated theory) is all about tearing down existing societal structures while just assuming some utopian world magically working out in favor of everyone on the other side. It's complete lunacy! And any person who objects is an enemy of the state.
You can’t get around the fact that what the state gives the state can take. That is what made the American constitution unique. Rights are god given, and the state exists to recognize and enforce those, not grant them. If you read the bill of rights, it’s not written as a list of rights granted, but rather as additional specific limitations on a government which is already limited.
COD players when they lose a match to a minority
Excellent video, even if I may disagree with your argument.
My main gripe with this criticism of human rights is primarily on the basis that simply returning to a communitarian social order does not guarantee a better outcome for marginalised individuals, those who benefit the most from the protection of their well-being under human rights under the current “statist” form.
Further, the value of rights lies precisely in the fact that it’s a product of negotiation within a society. Any system of values that requires enforcement requires a party with greater power to enforce those rights, which means that it will always be a question of how much that group with power is willing to give up. Of course one can argue that this is a moot question as the very system of power imbalance needs to be eliminated, but I cannot help but feel that even in a system with no power imbalance, the same question of enforcement, and even what protections an person should be given will still arise, particular when the community as a whole may have different opinions on how individuals should be treated. This will inevitably create a individual or groups of people who will have greater sway over the decisions of the community, creating power imbalance.
Finally, I understand that since this video is a critique of human rights as a product of capitalism there is an emphasis on labour rights, however I feel that there are other facets of human rights (such as rights against discrimination and persecution of religious minorities) which cannot be encapsulated within this critique.
Sorry for the wall of text.
I think what you're getting at is that in a world without explicit definitions of, and institutionalized limits on, social power, there is not a reliable method that is generally accepted by which to hold that power accountable. Informal and implicit power dynamics can lead to a proliferation of tyrannies that causes increased material suffering and decreased social trust (i.e. even more alienation). Thus, it's better to have a maximally democratically responsive state or governance system that is as de-alienated as possible while still able to function, so that at the end of the day there is still a broadly trusted, socially legitimized system that can be named and appealed to
Bang on. I think that your last point is reflected in the fact that the U.S. Founding Fathers may have been influenced by monotheism and appealed to a Creator, but were primarily deists rather than Christian thinkers. The idea of the soul might have allowed the Enlightenment thinkers to ground their idea of rights in the notion of equal, abstract individuals, but I don't think that's as important as the cultural struggles they were engaged in.
Religious liberty was a pressing and radical cultural concern at a time when those in power mostly gained their legitimacy from religious institutions, and thus had material motives to suppress other religious beliefs. While capitalism might have been intertwined with the new conceptions of rights and freedoms, I think the evidence suggests that their formulation came as a response to what people identified as a source of oppression, rather than just an opportunistic way to justify the theft of the commons. The paradigm shift came as a newly wealthy and influential class of people were able to assert themselves.
Capital then using this idea to further its interests shouldn't be surprising, because capital is so ideologically amorphous that it will use almost any popular idea to further its interests.
June 2020: "Wow I should do some research on police abolition, this is a pretty interesting social idea that leftists are bringing up"
August 2020: "The Problem With Human Rights"
The me that started 2020 would genuinely not recognize the me that's ending it.
I'm happy that he grew so quickly, good for him
We live in a society
I have been thinking similar thing. Rights don't exist, only power is real. You can't protect your "rights" if you don't have power. Only by power you enforce your rights.
Harun Suaidi how 'bout that, spoken like a true 2nd amendment supporter💋💋💥💥
Funny, how you guys throwing guns around like bukkake mostly just led to lots of dead school kids and scared cops using any excuse to kill people.
power isn't real either. society itself is all fake. the world is an illusion
Sufficiently capricious and pervasive abuse of power is incompatible with a large, enduring community of rational agents. So wherever you find the latter you will not for long find the former.
As much as I like CP's videos, I can't help but feel that this genre of argument against the idea of human rights is a dead end for the Left. Since no alternative formulation is offered (a constant problem in Leftist arguments, and I say this as a Leftist), throwing out the concept of human rights in the current political and social climate would be no less disastrous than abolishing the state. As much as these goals may be appealing as pipe dreams, they are not feasible or desirable for the foreseeable future.
I've always felt that the further abstraction and non-cynical expansion of human rights has formed the basis for a lot of positive social change, often in a Leftist direction. Taken to their logical conclusion, human rights like universal suffrage, liberty, and the right to life end up looking a lot like communism, in my opinion. A big problem is that the scope of human rights is not extended into the workplace; personal dignity is terminated at the door to the factory and office.
Bingo. It would be toi much perhaps to call this navel gazing but it borders it because it's so out of context to any real solution we need in 2019.
I agree with your main point that it isn't instanlty applicable. But I think that the main purpose of this video is to help us be more open to a different type of society and to lower the effects of capitalism realism, where we could see something as human rights as inherent truths that doesn't allow us think of a possible stateless society.
Again, I do agree that this type of arguing is hard to use convincingly to someone that isn't a leftist but it can help us internally. Then we can "translate it" to change in policies, like the expansion of human rights, or to direct action, like union activism to increase our power outside of the state.
And the great thing is that most likely both have to happen together. We first need power to reform the current system and while doing so we build the fundations for a better society.
Now every idiot claims human rights. Nowadays, participating in pro sport even claimed to be a human right (rather than privilege that it is in reality) by variety of hashtag activists.
"is a dead end for the left"
welcome to the right side friend lmao
Perhaps that isn't so much of an issue though, simply a part of the Hegelian Pendulum. We have a thesis (human rights as a concept and as they are implemented manifest inequality). Next should come a diametrically opposed position, and ultimately from the union of ideas we synthesize a new concept of rights
Your Nietzsche quotations are from Daybreak, not the Genealogy of morals.
wow literally unwatchable
@@tarimali4466 LITERALLY UNPLAYABLE
I'm canceling my subscription and I suggest you all do the same
It is clearly a valid point that needs to be addressed. I fail to see why people treat this true statement without sincerity. In a video that is academic, or presents itself as such, it is a requirement that quotations be attributed correctly.
@@whoever79 He already updated his citations list
I come from a relatively traditional society where one is almost always viewed in the context of one's community and society and I have to say those societies, in my experience, tend to subjugate people quite as much as the Western societies that stress the human right do. Actually, probably more. You're not viewed as a monad in itself and never asked to bargain your opposition in the world against the much more powerful, but instead, you're given a niche in society and asked to conform to it. If you can't fit into that niche that's your own problem and you will be made to conform to it. In that context, you as a person, have no instruments to control the society you're part of at all. I struggle to see how that's any less tyrannical than the "tyranny of human rights."
Maybe a balance is key
@@Andrew-pn1kq Absolutely. You cannot have the community simply claiming an individual, some form of humans rights in necessary. At the same time you cannot have rabid individualism, since it, almost by definition, conflicts with other people's interests and we have learn to live together.
While I don't disagree with you overall, I'm not so sure you're right in the historical specifics you discuss.
My specialty is Rome rather than Greece and late antiquity instead of classical, so it might be an artifact of my focus. However there was a pretty clear conception of individual rights in the classical world.
The clearest example is the phrase "Civis Romanus Sum", which would most often be heard when a Roman felt their (fairly clearly demarked) rights weren't being respected.
If anything the modern conception of rights is a result of early modern European and American politicians being a bunch of enthusiastic classics obsessed cosplay geeks.
Today my bike was stolen. I loved my bike, it was brand new and had those suspention springs or however you call them. It also had some orange parts (i love the color orange too). I came home feeling really sad, bought myself some beers and my mum (who doesnt like seeing me drinking) didnt say nothing because she understood that i was sad. So i started drinking, and got a little tipsy, i would have bought a second bottle but the store is closed. I know that it has nothing to do with the topic of the video, but i want to say thank you Cuck philosohpy guy. I love your videos, you speak very inteligently about subjects that i find intresting and do not fully comprehend. When i watch any of your videos i feel enlightened, i feel like i understand the world a little better, and makes me feel that understanding the reality that we live in and sharing this knowledge makes the world a little bit better. I have had some troubles in my life recently, and they made me come to the conclusion that only by being humble and doing "what is right" i can be happy, and make happy the people that sorrounds me. I want to thank you because your videos make me understand the phenomena that i find myself entangled with, and helps me come to my own moral conclusions, and those conclusions help me to not get so overwhelmed by the happenings of my life. You make me think, and that makes me move foward, thank you.
Help sir... 🙏🇵🇭🇯🇵🇪🇹🇱🇷🥺
Am I the only one who actually LIKES being an “atomized individual” and has no desire to let the “larger community” tell me what “shared goals” I should work to accomplish? I just wanna do my own thing. Is that so bad?
I as an atomised individual would like to determine my own involvement in the community. In this society if I don't like the terms, I can leave or become less involved with my local community, especially with the internet.
You aren't, and there's nothing wrong with that. Don't let the ant aspirants tell you different.
That is absurd.
We ignore our traditional duties at our peril, our freedom as the individual rests upon a great bedrock of commitment, what ails the modern soul is a lossof transcendence. It is one thing to adventure into the unknown it is another thing altogether Shivux to deny that you owe nothing to the human environment around you, however life would be awfully boring if there was no Angel to rebel against God...
@@jdmccue9722 Duty is a ridiculous concept.
People are born free, and only incur debts and obligations willingly when they're old enough to do so. There is no legitimacy in compelling anyone to any action, no one around you is your slave.
Your freedom as an individual rests on the whims of the state, and on your ability to defend yourself and your rights.
That's fine but you can't enjoy the privilege of the community without being able to help support it. The only way you can do your own thing is by being totally alone, independent of any service and good made by someone else.
Human rights? Let's start with human wrongs
I think this was my second time watching this. Given my feelings on the topic, I'm surprised I haven't commented. Never mind. After trying to put my thoughts into form, I remember this being difficult. I hope my thoughts will be adequately conveyed.
I've felt somewhat uncomfortable with the conception of human rights for a while. They simply felt like a conclusion without premise. Perhaps because of my pantheist viewpoint, I tend to think view the happiness of others as critical to my own ultimate happiness. I feel that focusing on understanding others and cultivating empathy in my heart are the best ways to achieve this. From this position, things like rights and merits ring hollow. I feel empathy for other things not because they deserve it but because they exist.
"Because they exist" or because it is "critical to my own happiness" ?
"Not because they deserve, but because they do exist" I really felt that, I think it's something alucard would say. Unfortunately people aren't only interested on keeping their own rights, but in taking the other's.
You missed the fact majority of the time advocating for rights exists bc those right ARE taken away by the state. It’s like saying that the problem with giving the right for women and black people to vote is that it has to be violently enforced when in reality this isn’t the case.
I agree with your overall thesis but it uses specific arguments to make it work when it’s not actually necessary
To comment on the point at 14:15 - Well, it is actually more interesting, to me at least, that in many (if not virtually all) modern democracies it is *not* the wealthy that primarily subsidize the state, but the vast majority of middle-low income citizens, and mostly in the form of both general (e.g. comsuption) taxes and individual (e.g. public service) taxes. That is, the fact that the wealthy have political power is less of an outcome of their actual contribution to the state, but rather an outcome of the process by which the State - as abstract set of laws and regulations - is materialized into the concrete institutions of people acting in accordance to, and enforcing such laws. The wealthy have the *financial* power to make the State objectives more aligned to their own objectives - stockholder profit maximization, if you will, or minimal corporate taxation, etc. - which in the context of the neoliberal state is almost trivial: the State is, indeed, (and this is true especially if you consider modern neoliberal thought, in Economics in particular) tasked mainly with enforcing and protecting the markets which enable the free accumulation of capital by the wealthy themselves. It is interesting then, because the wealthy are actually constantly trying to *reduce* their financial contribution to the state, unless it is allows them to exert some direct or proxy control over it (not taxes); yet at the same time, their socio-economical power has not wavered significantly. Just to remind you, Jeff Bezos' Amazon payed virtually no corporate taxes in the past fiscal year, while he himself, with his individual wealth, could potentially cover the costs of global climate change prevention measures.
Most of those middle income citizens subsidize the state through income tax on wages paid to them by the wealthy though.
Edward Bernays "Propaganda" comes to mind as well
I thought the wealthy got their political power by bribing people
@@pooplenepe59 in many ways
It's a good point and I am glad someone has put it up. To comment on your comment: States do rely heavily on credits, granted by Banks. Banks, however, have unseperable ties to the industrial complex. This connection is then called the "finance capital". A capitalist state relies on bank credit, at the same time it has to ensure private companies to grow, in order to pay for revenues they owe to both banks and other capitalists. A state that wants to rule an economy which on its side relies on "economic growth" (e.g. widening its market, generating more profit to stay compatible) will have to ensure economic policies that support the growth of profit.
The taxes paid by the many, mainly working people, are heavily used to subsidize capitalists businesses, infrastructure and many other things in order to stay compatitive, often also to keep the current state stable. The german state subsidizes infrastrucutre and sometimes the business of the car-industry itself in order for the car-industry to not lose profit.
You should do your own research on this. The part with subsidizing is imo very interesting.
Ok, but I feel like you didn't really address the point of why human rights are supposedly not a net-positive, instead only elaborating on how they are granted.
Can we agree that a state that provides basic human rights such as freedom of movement and speech, protection from arbitrary punishment, participation in democratic processes, gender equality, etc. is better than a state that does not guarantee such rights?
Also, using Yugoslavia as an example of human rights being used to destabilize other countries is...strange to say the least.
Human rights (or really any conception of rights in this context) have almost always been implemented and propagated by those with the power to enforce and manipulate them whenever it is beneficial to the enforcer, typically the state. If some external entity is needed to validate your fundamental freedoms in society... then it seems as if you really have no rights at all to begin with. Ironically, the overcoming the concept of human rights as we know it will most likely be the day when people truly become free, in a certain sense of the word. Then again, I would not say that this conclusion is surprising given how contradictory liberal capitalist society is.
DANOV Truth
You'll become as free as you need to be when you dance with a loaded gun in your hand after one too many scotches. To be human is not complete when one has an incomplete understanding of humanness. Comphrensive understanding doesn't come until you've decorated your walls.
DANOV the full-human-potential-revolution will not be live streamed
The question though is where does the freedom of one ends and the freedom of another begins? Theoretically yes fundamental freedoms should be inherent and should not require external enforcement. But in the absence of external authority, who is to say someone else will not say that killing you for sport is part of their freedom? Even in a communitarian system agreed rights require enforcement, who will then do the enforcement and does that then create people with more power than others?
The biggest problem with people yelling for rights and trying to enforce them, is that they forget that with those rights, also comes obligations and responsibility....
No rights without obligations
The theory of human rights precedes the 17th century and is grounded on teleology and Natural Law.
He mentions this in the video. He says that human rights were only fully codified in the 17th century, but then mentions their history and theological origin.
Michael Parenti's _Myths of The Founding Fathers_ is definitely worth viewing. I doubt someone like this channel's creator will learn anything new from it. I learned a couple of things watching it. Most of Parenti's lectures are well worth watching/listening to.
"you have only as many rights as you are willing to take."
- emma goldman on stirner, anarchism and other essays
In the words of alasdair Macintyre, one of the greatest living moral and political philosophers,"There are no such rights. To believe in them is to believe in fairies and unicorns."
I would say that his "After Virtue" is one of the most important books for understanding modernity.
Me to my homies after a few pints:
I was going to recommend the Gegenstandpunkt article "The Human Right", but I see you quoted it in the video.
You see this plainly in works like “Meditations” by Aurelius. It, at no point, speaks of what’s described as subjective rights at any time.
This is also underlined in Starship Troopers, where a personal investment(threat of death) is required to manipulate the political state, and presupposes that those who invest act in the communal interest.
Oliver Allen ah yes, two truly great works of man
Aurelius’ Meditations and Starship Troopers
Keep in mind that Meditations was written by Aurelius *for* Aurelius, and not as a general guide to how others should live, but a reflection on how Aurelius himself lived. There are lots of commentary within Meditations that makes absolutely no sense for the day to day needs of your average Roman, but are absolutely crucial for an autocratic ruler- someone who *certainly* wouldn't be handing out subjective rights.
@@SliversRebuilt Well, the movie's pretty great. The book though is like The Republic for right-wing wankers.
@@raphsere it's been categorized as fascist but I think that's inaccurate tbh
@@raphsere Starship Troopers' society is unironically a liberal utopia. It is multicultural/multiracial globalist world where national boundaries have ceased to be important, has completely free expression and thought, and emphasises social work for the common good (in fact demands it in return for citizenship) over private business (though the latter still thrives)
What you discuss in this video relates really strongly with the work of Max Stirner, especially to his critique of humanism and his critique of the state.
When you posting new video it's like a gift
< hears Yugoslavia mentioned,
feels seen.
Great video! The perspective I didn't know I needed.
(and still don't know what to do with it, but it'll find its way in the puzzle my worldview is)
Not true
22:30 "It is only when we reject the political dogmas of our times that we can begin to envision emancipation."
Great f*cking quote, I might have it framed.
en visioin no work
Literally just "know thyself"
“Rights, rights, rights....” - Jordan 🅱️ 🅿️eterson
lo🅱️ster
Professor Lobsters
-Chinese subtitles during the Zizek v Peterson debate
Slavoj 🅱️i🅱️ek 😂😂😂💯💯💯
"...Individual liberties... personal responsibility..." -🅱️
@@DoratTheKiller THAT'S TURE
literally one of the most eye opening videos ive come across this year. thanks for making this video and many more
It’s always nice to see obscure or at least largely unused footage to show visually as one gives a explanation instead continuing recycling commonly seen and obvious stock footage.
The longer I watched, the more I was reminded of this quote:
"You talk of the people's rights. The people have only those rights which I choose to give them. And that is for their own good."
-Daniel Dumile, reciting an excerpt of his landmark essay, _Beef Rapp,_ at the Mm.. Food venue in New York City, 2005
RIP DOOM
i raise you this quote fom Ellen Producto, at the Definite Juxtaposition convention, reciting his essay "Fantastic Damage" in 2002:
"You need to haul that mega-dumb style to the antique roadshow, bitch
The system bleeds for the radio angry, rock that wound aesthetic
The name of this routine is live at man you just don't get it
Please try to compartmentalize my dick"
in other words: SHUT UP, RIGHTOID.
Help sir... 🙏🇵🇭🇯🇵🇪🇹🇱🇷🥺
17:50
it's no wonder that the two first countries to declare human rights (USA and France) were the last one to abolish slavery
EXCUSE ME?!
France abolished slavery precisely in the name of human right during the french revolution and it was reinstated when they "undid" human rights
also the right of humanitarian intervention is grade A bulshit I'd never heard of before
it sound to me that you should read on european human rights and how they work because a lot of your arguments only work in an american context (IMHO USA does not have human rights, just the bill of right). you argue that as soon as the state think they have more power they will try to remove human rights when the story here has been that
1 we instituted supranational institution to avoid this (ICC and, at european level the ECHR and the ECJ)
2 every time we had the opportunity to change them we went on to expand human rights (see the edits of the ECHR and the creation of the charter of fundamental rights of the EU, that start with "those right should never be understood as undermining human right given by [other courts of human rights]")
AND as a minor nitpick you mention at 14:00 that "the state mustby its very nature serve those who fund it" and then blame the elite, when the majority of funding come from the middle class (sure the wealthy have more money, but they aint paying it in taxes)
> you argue that as soon as the state think they have more power they will try to remove human rights when the story here has been that
1 we instituted supranational institution to avoid this (ICC and, at european level the ECHR and the ECJ)
2 every time we had the opportunity to change them we went on to expand human rights (see the edits of the ECHR and the creation of the charter of fundamental rights of the EU, that start with "those right should never be understood as undermining human right given by [other courts of human rights]")
Tell that the to the working class.
Trapped in abstract writing and the abstract citizen and missing the point.
@@Master00788 I mean what he argued may still be true in the US, but in europe Human rights have more tooth to them
@@zzzzzzzzzzzspaf Perhaps on paper. But its the material conditions that gave and continue to give rise to, while at the same time being in contradiction with, as well as the ideology behind the perceived necessity of the paper itself that he criticizes. Not that there aren't better words written on it.
@@Master00788. I don't know how to break it you but welfare states exist in Europe, and they while they aren't perfect they do a remarkable job in improving material conditions of ordinary citizens.
@@williamfrancis5367 I hate to break it to you but the dwindling welfare states of Europe are irrelevant to this video.
Also, don't assume I'm American. I know the welfare states of Europe (well at least one of them) from experience.
The title is gold
So I went into this video preparing to be enraged with like "what can anyone have against human rights" and ended up being completely riveted by the argumentation. Amazingly well-made and compelling stuff to help challenge all sorts of blindly held notions!
One thing to point out is that, human rights gives the disempowered the language to criticise, recognise and fight the empowered classes errosion of the rights of all. Also you say the rights are granted by the elites but I think that's less of an argument to abandon rights, but instead those elites.
One of the best videos on Human Rights and Social construct that I have seen in a long time, Highly recommended and shared to my group of friends, thanks man.
More like human wrongs 😏
😏
Bruh...
comedy gold
Are we human?
How about human lefts
Always look forward to your videos. Politics without philosophy is empty.
1:38 and the biases start to show already, because the weight of the interpretation is shifted on the social context and the natural tendencies of humans are left on the side. History and human behaviour cannot be reconstructed with one OR the other.
The whole video attempts to deconstruct the meaning and context that give rise to the idea of human rights which in my opinion is a good endeavour, but for every point mentioned I can mention two other interpretations of what happened at the individual level or social level... So the final interpretation seems heavily biased and in my opinion, unable to reach any other conclusion than what a pure marxist would conclude. If we want to better the human condition in terms of his power relationships and self perceptions, we need to develop further the ideas of the past, not repeat them.
Yeah this whole video reeks of a freshman in college taking his second philosophy class
You didn't understand anything, look again.
I have just re-discovered your channel and I love it. I am not a native speaker and your content is very conceptually dense, so I have to watch it twice to fully appreciate it.
Native speakers prob also need to watch it twice just to fully grasp all the concepts pouring over us. Well, I did anyway.
I didn't really understand the video, is he arguing for an abolishment of human rights and a return to the ruling class completely dictating the lives of the ruled, or restructuring the idea of Human Rights to mean that every Human deserves to live a comfortable life? If not either, than what is the goal of declaring human rights problematic? Is he saying that there is something more important in society than individuals attaining thier basic needs?
It's a critique of the idea of human rights. Human rights as a concept exists to give current power structures their justification.
"From the beginning the paradox involved in the declaration of inalienable human rights was that it reckoned with an "abstract" human being who seemed to exist nowhere, for even savages lived in some kind of a social order. If a tribal or other "backward" community did not enjoy human rights, it was obviously because as a whole it had not yet reached that stage of civilization, the stage of popular and national sovereignty, but was oppressed by foreign or native despots. The whole question of human rights, therefore, was quickly and inextricably blended with the question of national emancipation; only the emancipated sovereignty of the people, of one's own people, seemed to be able to insure them" (Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism).
"The sacredness of life, which
is invoked today as an absolutely fundamental right in opposition to sovereign power, in
fact originally expresses precisely both life's subjection to a power over death and life's irreparable exposure in the relation of abandonment" (Agamben, Homo Sacer).
I was starting to miss you
I watched this alone in my room and I... literally applauded when it ended. It's going to take some time to fully process but I think this makes connections I've been looking for for a long time.
What a Nietzscheian and Marxian interpretation of human rights! I love it. You're analysis on how Christianity greatly influenced the modern concept of human rights really did surprise me. It was something so obvious but I hadn't pondered about it Thank you for posting it! Please do more!
The crazy thing about our founding fathers were in their 20s & 30s. Every picture you see of them makes them look older & more regal, but they were just young men, not even fully developed by todays standards.
A person in his thirties back then was well past prime.
The trouble with rights is they have to be granted by the powerful. Which kinda cramps your style if you were hoping for a classless society. Great vid by the way.
Class is natural because some people are superior to others.
Your ideal society is legit the most terrifying thing that I've ever heard of. A society where I, and everyone else, is completely at the mercy of their local community. A world where the local community can declare that I must marry or have sex with certain person, that I must work a certain job (it would be most optimal for the community if I'd work full time everyday, and giving me some kind of compensation would obviously make the community poorer), or even decide that I need to be throen out or murdered for the greater good of the community. And no one would have any kind of defense since individuals have no rights or value and the community is the only thing that matters. Indeed the idea of not giving the community the full power to murder, torture and imprison whichever individual member they wanted with no reason or consequence would be absolutely anathema to such a society.
I don't think you fully comprehend what he's talking about. Talking about rights without talking about reinforcement and therefore talking about fundamental societal power structures is the real problem he is talking about. We al agree rights are important, but the idea of rights in the abstract sense is useless. What we need is a creation and enforcement of rights that envolves everyone. And in liberal capitalistic society the power is more or less in the hands of the capitalist. Therefor the abstract idea of human rights is simply an excuse in the hands lf capitalistic societies to enforce the rulers idea of right. So to conclude he's not advocating for dissolvement of human rights. He's advocating for full societal includement. Because capital ownership of the workingclass and abolishment of rulingclass will guarantee a more fair and just society without the possibility of biased human rights. Because they are already being represented by every individual that controls the enforcements of rights through their collective ownership over power.
In Chinese, "rights", as in human rights, is 权利, which basically means power. It is a totally different word and concept than "right", as in right and wrong.
As an engineer I suppose I view the concept of "The State" as a monolithic entity as a fallacy. While "The State" may in many ways be propped up by the wealthy few primarily for their benefit it is still actually comprised of a collection of many many individuals (the largest employer in the USA is the Federal Government). A capitalistic society that recognizes human rights as inalienable allows for an individual to act on their own in the way they view as best for themselves and society, two interests that are not divergent. A stronger society makes for a stronger individual. While there may be parallels, perhaps superficially, between human rights and divine rights of a ruler, only a free capitalistic society allows any individual member to advance their position and does so in a way that reflects the realities of the natural order itself and puts to light its hardest truth: everyone has human rights but no one has intrinsic value.
Could you elaborate on "-only a free capitalistic society allows any individual to advance their position-"? Do you mean this in any society or any way of living, or of between the different capitalist societies?
You make a really good point and it's not something he addresses in the video. It's strange that he simultaneously seems to glorify a collective community as positive yet also seems to demonize the individual, as if the individual doesn't contribute to the community. And yet he argues for the Roman understanding that the individual is owed as much as they give to the community, which is oddly meritocratic for someone who doesn't value people as individuals.
He seems to be in favour of both the idea that we must be part of a larger collective and that we must be excel as individuals ( but only for the community itself). He never accounts for the actual benefits to real people because the sum of society hasn't conformed to some Greco-Roman ideal.
When two Chess players recognize the outcome of a game, they do not continue the game and instead begin a new one. Nuclear weapons have the capacity to wipe out the enemies of any country capable of producing significant quantities of them, but we are not yet living in the aftermath of a nuclear war or dead altogether.
Conclusions being foregone eliminates the necessity for an actual conflict. Thus we have rights as the result of a state of tension.
The workers cannot wipe out the ruling class because they lack the power. The ruling class cannot fail to give rights to the workers because it cannot function without their cooperation.
This means that real human equality can only be possible if power is taken outside the capacity of human beings; Human beings are not equal before God they _could only_ be equal before God. As opposed to each other.
It is for this reason that if God does not exist, it is now necessary to create Him.
I think you are right that the idea of human rights do necessarily imply that there is some kind of power imbalance that a claim is being made against, but that also seems to be true of non-human right conceptions of justice. For example, it seems difficult to imagine declaring that murder is wrong, a concept far pre-dating human rights, without recognizing that some have the power to kill others.
Thou shalt not kill those who we do not actively want dead. ~Society
@Kathy Kat I agree that we can differentiate those two things, but the possibility of the other form undercuts the argument.
As the video explained it, "In order for human rights to exist politically, there must be someone vastly more powerful than you giving you those rights in the first place." But that seems to be true of any conception of justice whatsoever. Even if we go to pre-capitalist communal ideas of justice, if we say murder is wrong, for that to exist politically there must be some method of enforcement. Likewise, if we say that that conception of justice could be enforced without relying on a monopoly on violence, it seems that human rights could be enforced that way too.
@Kathy Kat Sure. But what I'm saying is that, even in that primitive communist state, that sort of enforcement is entirely compatible with human rights. The fact that human rights imply enforcement to be politically relevant can be done by the community, and not necessarily from a monopoly on violence, and therefore does not imply the contradiction or inequality the video claims.
@Kathy Kat Okay. But that's a problem of enforcement, not human rights, as the title claims.
I don't understand how production can be a "socially planned process" without an authority designating individual planners or a committee of planners.
Individuals founding and building up their own businesses constitutes a
Society engaged in planning its own production means.
Computer algorithms man shits wild
Basically there's computer planning, there's direct democracy, mixes of the two, mixes of direct and indirect democracy, etc. Lots of these models have already been tried and been successful.
Just like any other endeavor. Authority isn't hierarchy. Medicine is something we leave to the authority of doctors of medicine. It doesn't mean that we MUST obey their commands. It just means that we usually do as they say because we value their professional opinions. That this is in stark contrast with capitalism should be obvious.
Just look up how co-ops work.
Then imagine every business is a co-op and they all merged.
Hi, I've sent you subtitules a month ago or so, translating this video to spanish. I.. wonder if you could put them up so I can show this to some friends that i'm eager for them to see. Thanks by the way for this material, very interesting.
I should add that i agree with the essential marxist critique of law enforcement. That doesn't really explain away fuzzy thinking about the past.
Damn, this has to be one of the most informative lectures I've ever heard. In recent years, I have become fascinated by the story of Enclosure and the loss of the Commons, both across Europe and then in the 'colonies'.... I've been shaken with anger at what has been lost, but also the fact that this essential part of history is never taught. My thoughts now revolve around the creation of a Commoning party. Not that it will get far, but at least we would force the reality onto society that there is an alternative to nation state capitalism. It would also make it easier for 'us' to find each other and work together... Though all my friends are lefties, none of them think like me either politically (anarchist) or economically (Commoner).
I never thought I would see the day. Someone actually found a way to make Nietzche applicable to leftist thought.
He's still not applicable to leftist thought. The whole enterprise of doing away with human rights is ill-conceived and it's telling that one has to turn to the likes of Nietzsche to find rhetorical vindication of it. Remember where Nietzsche goes with his disavowal of human rights: He doesn't think the poor, oppressed, or "weak," have any legitimate claim to make against their oppressors. It's a bit rich to critique the supposedly rightwing baggage inherent in the concept of human rights, while ignoring the far less tenuous connection between ultra-conservatism and the philosophical _denial_ of human rights.
He really isn`t though but this Cuck Philosophy guy is quite radical in he`s belief in left-ist ideology so he can find words from anyone to suit he`s political purpose. Now that doesn`t make him right
"Truthful words are not beautiful; beautiful words are not truthful."-Lao Tzu
@@thetruth4654 Did you guys watch the part where he talks about genetic fallacy? Actually before that, did you guys read the title? No one is suggesting doing away human rights. He's sighting the inherent problems when arguing for human rights or how the concept of human rights is a grossly different idea based on who you're talking to.
outside the Anglophone world nietzsche is considered a left-wing intellectual
@@MatheusFernandes-xf4zm Well, for some people it is radical left if someone says that killing and murder should always be prevented. Left and right are very vage categories. I think we should just listen to arguments and then critically agree or disagree. Nietzsche said much, so there are probably arguments that are left and arguments that are right-wing
I've been thinking exactly along these lines for a long time, but without the philosophical background. Thank you for formulating it so well.
Falsehoods:
1) That subjective rights were impossible to declare in classical age Greece. 1a) The Republic is a treatise on justice, balancing subjective & objective rights.
2) That the Christians brought forward the soul. 2a) Plato balances subjective with objective rights or freedoms via the Psyche or Soul, which he describes in the Timaeus as well 350 yrs BC.
---Who are you?
Yeah he even mentions citizenship as if it were something invented with the modern NationState. The same Enlightment philosophers that he's saying were justifying Capitalism with Christian Universalism were literally LARPing as Romans half the time. Decartes is the only original Enlightment philosopher.
Do you have any examples as to why falsehood 1) is false?
@@jerommaat7789 (1a) is taken to justify (1), just as (2a) is taken to justify (2).
Elite sophistry I but like this guy, you can make good arguments.
What you ignore is objective rights don't have a foundation outside of subjective rights.
Objective: you have the right to bury the dead .
You ignore that this attributes the right for a burial to the individual. The objective right is founded on a subject right, which is the right to a burial. Without that the objective doesn't exist.
I've worked in government and let me tell you...people claim their rights all the time. Yes, the idea that human rights exist independently of a state is a little farcical, considering something has to uphold and enforce those rights. But human rights are fundamentally individual; I know my rights as a human being and I can assert. Perhaps to no end. But it's better than this sort of "value connected to community" that you advocate for.
Because ultimately, when dealing with humans, disagreement and dissent will occur. I don't want my rights and value to be tied entirely with a community. That only leads to death and despair, as numerous failed collectivist societies have shown us.
You said it yourself, people used to work in collectives for the community and yet, this power dynamics was still present arguably in a greater deegre than it exists today, this difference in power that human rights try equalize goes way deeper than capitalisms or any other social system, it's minor biological differences between individuals. We can change the system how much we want, in a few years, the differences in power will rise again.
You are right.
you got me nervous with the title and On The Jewish Question in the description 😅
Great essay, but I find the conclusion pretty weak and unsatisfying.
It mentions that a society without human rights would have the community collectively make decisions not relying on the state. This is how decisions were made hundreds of years ago, without human rights you get witch hunts and mob lynching's.
You also mention that people won't need human rights if they work for the community, instead of working for their own self interests. Well humans fundamentally need to be selfish in some form; eating, sleeping, staying healthy are all acts of self-interest. Removing self-interest from the equation, is removing one's freedom to be fundamentally human.
Any society without rights for individuals are terrible places of human suffering and exploitation.
The witch hunts were carried out by the very people, both state and religious authorities, who stole our land and resources from us in the first place. Medicine was an important role for women in society, and so as to steal their skills and knowledge and to denigrate them in out society they fabricated the idea of witchcraft. It was specifically done to put women 'in their place'. It was never done by people who lived on Commons.
>Right of access to food.
>Right of access to clean water.
>Right of access to a clean bed.
>Right of access to clean clothes.
>Right of access to shelter.
>Right of access to medical care.
>Right of access to quality education.
>Right of access to hygiene products.
>Right of access to the workforce.
These are the most important rights in my book. And none of them are recognized as rights by liberal regimes.
The first paragraph of the german constitution states that human dignity must not be violated, wich arguably all these rights follow from.
@@R0DisG0D The German Government doesn't take its own Constitution very seriously then.
@@DiscipleOfHeavyMeta1 It sure doesn't.
I disagree with some of the historical grounding here. I get how u came to your conclusions using documented usages of the term "human rights," but that betrays a long and rich history of individual rights across societies. If i were to philosophically ground marxism (equality of people and collective ownership) in a history of human rights i would look to ideas like the commons, and the behaviors of people in using those commons before a single person was allowed to own them. I have the right to drink from the lake, but my neighbor also has that right so i don't block him from doing so. I dont think its a good look to argue against human rights, community rights, or the rights of nature because we characterize our direction to the left through agreed upon rights. We call them rights, not privileges because society fights for what the people are owed, not for priveleges people belive can be taken from them. The language of rights is a good, and we should keep that language.
I don't think he was rejecting the idea of using human rights as a concept, I vaguely recall he mentioned positive rights favorably? But all in all, interesting comment and interesting take.
There are other contributing factors to individual rights that are independent of Christianity. Increase of resources and education to the general public made it more relevant to see the needs of the individual as factors to a society. The people that had access to education and had resources in surplus were often royalty. As a result, they were able to form the individual rights they bestowed upon themselves just as modern society does today with an increase in production, manufacturing and education. I would argue that as we look at history and look at modern examples through developing nations, we see these subjective rights are often a product of the general population being able to think for themselves and incorporate rights to the individual as opposed to something like survival by stockpiling food or chopping down trees for firewood.
People living in Commons were not just 'surviving', they lived rich healthy lives and kept within the limitations of nature's resources... They also worked a lot less than we do now.
Holy heck. This is like, legit the foundation of my theories on rights that influenced my anarchism. Just much more well-articulated. Im glad to have this video, I always have a tough time explaining this theory of human rights to others.
Help sir... 🙏🇵🇭🇯🇵🇪🇹🇱🇷🥺
That soul is from Dark Souls :D
It is self-evident that people are qualitatively different and therefore no two people are equal.
how do you react to this realization (curious)
I mean what do we even mean by equal. Either way, if you want to force a person, or people, into slavery, or things around that nature; then YOU are less than equal and should be dealt with accordingly.
The problem with rights is that you need to break other rights to have them so it's fucked
The bit about the serf finding it hard to imagine neoliberal capitalism reminds me of Capitalist Realism (the book and the concept). Partly because I can't not turn back to the book every other week, but partly because it highlights something you said early in this video, that "self-evidence" reflects bias, not truth.
Isnt it ironic that this video makes me want to be a billionaire to donate all the money I don't have to your Patreon. This was truly wonderful
Dare I say, spooked?
We cannot dismiss beliefs on grounds that "there is no scientific evidence" but not do the same for human rights.
Btw romans had a very clear concept of subjective rights such as property, possession and an even stronger subjective right they called "dominium" which goes even beyond modern ownership
Max Stirner Gang
Max Stirner Gang
TheIVEyed he’s a Nazi gang
He’s a Nazi gang
Stirner gang stirner gang stirner gang stirner gang stirner gang stirner gang stirner gang
@@crowstakingoff Spend ten racks on milk case
My property love do cocaine, ooh
@@lukaskrause6022 Stirner's Egoism is literally the opposite of Fascism but go off
TheIVEyed stirner is a known white supremacist - chapters in the ego and his own use anti Semitic slurs and describe the evil “mongoloids” etc I could go off but don’t idolize an openly racist hero as antifascist praxis