This is easily one of the most profound speeches I've heard in a while. 10+ years ago Epstein had already made the connection between Hamilton's rule, Game Theory, and Economics. If people understood that negative rights produce positive sum systems and positive rights produce negative sum systems then there would be nothing to argue about. Positive sum systems are the only ones which last. Love you Epstein!
Richard has taught us all an incredible amount about Law, property rights, pattent law, Roman Law, behavorial economics,etc.... He is a Giant.. Right up there with Bestiat, Richardo, Friedman, and Adam Smith!
I don't think he has ever read Hugo Grotius. Natural right is not something held by everyone similarly and equally. What is interesting about it is, it is relative to an individual's capacities. For example we may all have an equal right to breathe air even if a King orders us not to. Natural right limits a political authority's power. And some have a natural right to kill a Tyrant, if it would be good to kill him. So at a higher level natural right is only for the prudent.
I'm 45, listening to hours of Richard Epstein lectures for $15 per month. Who could argue that's not _'a Hell of a Good Price!'_? The _Actual value of 'Subscription'_ would have a completely different meaning 75 years ago. Consider now, in 4.5 decades of me waiting for this "inexpensive" access- these lectures have become available for free online implicitly through those who paid greater _Factually Higher Costs_ to attain this exposure.
I love that he is honest about his opinion. He says what he believes and why he believes it. Doesn't like Trump but admits that the Russia collusion story is nonsense.
Mesmerizing. However, not quite hypnotic enough to make us completely forget about Higher Law. William O. Douglas made reference to "pre-legal rights"--in effect, lifting us out of the realm of determinism. How Epstein manages to dance around a libertarian of Douglas' stature is a little bizarre. Whether or not one believes in a God, the most compelling argument for the libertarian position would be the emphasis on the creative aspect of the human being over and above the determinism which gushes forth here.
He should read chapter 42 in Leviathan where Hobbes states his fear of the emancipation of the capitalists. And then consider the origins of economics in William Petty, a student of Hobbes, who founded 'political arithmetic.'
Oh, Gawd. He started with a joke about political correctness. This lecture, I predict, will be painful. I’m bound by my best friend to listen and give this lecture fair hearing. Bring it on.
This is primarily faulty, because it proposes that natural law is existend becuase of a greater social goods claim and proposes that this is the same as the thheory of individual rights as natural rights. Those are fundermentaly distinct theorries, except that you can make a claim that the idividual natural rights are inherently a good and the absence a bad, what is (I am reapeatying it) a coincidence to the broadbased social goods proposition, not in essence similar or same.
what is then used in an argument against actions for the general well-being of people, what is hardly rational, except in the mind of this men, becuase the only possibly argument agianst actions for the weelbing of your fellow people in the broad social good sense is an inability to do so effectivly, what is an admission to current inability to do a substantive good, what is not a persuasive agrument in any sense
To what extent is “Law” from a legal positivistic perspective justThe Prince, through he machinery of government, being a bully ?? Petulant ? Judgemental ? Bigoted ? Opinionated ? Wrong ? Xxx
Agreed, it must be the case that many lawyers generally have poor classical education starting point, if none of this is philosophically obvious and basic.
This is easily one of the most profound speeches I've heard in a while. 10+ years ago Epstein had already made the connection between Hamilton's rule, Game Theory, and Economics. If people understood that negative rights produce positive sum systems and positive rights produce negative sum systems then there would be nothing to argue about. Positive sum systems are the only ones which last. Love you Epstein!
Doesn’t the intellectual virtues and four cardinals virtues come into equation regarding natural law? The social sciences isn’t the natural sciences.
You
"Nobody thinks we can privatize beaches, rivers and waterways"
*Walter Block intensifies*
Richard has taught us all an incredible amount about Law, property rights, pattent law, Roman Law, behavorial economics,etc.... He is a Giant.. Right up there with Bestiat, Richardo, Friedman, and Adam Smith!
The most elegant and loquacious orator of law and economics
I could listen to Prof Epstein all day long!!! Thanks so much for the post :-)
I don't think he has ever read Hugo Grotius. Natural right is not something held by everyone similarly and equally. What is interesting about it is, it is relative to an individual's capacities. For example we may all have an equal right to breathe air even if a King orders us not to. Natural right limits a political authority's power. And some have a natural right to kill a Tyrant, if it would be good to kill him. So at a higher level natural right is only for the prudent.
i agree with you , i think The rule that even a human being or God cannot be violated.
Richard Epstein is a true baller...he deserves every award he gets.
I am not a social construct of other people’s very limited beings. I am a phenomena of the universe and I am eating some cheese. Thank you
That settles it. I'll eat some cheese too.
Synchro.. 🍻
What about a mass debate ?
Where can I get transcript ?
I wonder what would happen if you gave him Adderall?
I'm 45, listening to hours of Richard Epstein lectures for $15 per month. Who could argue that's not _'a Hell of a Good Price!'_?
The _Actual value of 'Subscription'_ would have a completely different meaning 75 years ago.
Consider now, in 4.5 decades of me waiting for this "inexpensive" access- these lectures have become available for free online implicitly through those who paid greater _Factually Higher Costs_ to attain this exposure.
I love that he is honest about his opinion. He says what he believes and why he believes it.
Doesn't like Trump but admits that the Russia collusion story is nonsense.
@nancy122989 aged like milk
I am in love,I'm not gay but damn,I would kill to get taught by professor Epstein
starts c. 11.00.
27:15 the autonomy of the person!
Mesmerizing. However, not quite hypnotic enough to make us completely forget about Higher Law. William O. Douglas made reference to "pre-legal rights"--in effect, lifting us out of the realm of determinism. How Epstein manages to dance around a libertarian of Douglas' stature is a little bizarre. Whether or not one believes in a God, the most compelling argument for the libertarian position would be the emphasis on the creative aspect of the human being over and above the determinism which gushes forth here.
All of these Natural Law videos start with extended marginalia...
He should read chapter 42 in Leviathan where Hobbes states his fear of the emancipation of the capitalists. And then consider the origins of economics in William Petty, a student of Hobbes, who founded 'political arithmetic.'
Oh, Gawd. He started with a joke about political correctness. This lecture, I predict, will be painful. I’m bound by my best friend to listen and give this lecture fair hearing. Bring it on.
how was it?
Stop licking each other’s legs and get on with the subject !! You can kiss each other later !! Get on with it !! Get on with it !!
Great stand up @ 1:14
✨🌹✨ I have my own private beach. You people stay off my beach !! You people stay off my beach !!The King
10:48 to be exact.
My god, get to the punchline!
I couldn't. Mind blown after 1 hour.
This is primarily faulty, because it proposes that natural law is existend becuase of a greater social goods claim and proposes that this is the same as the thheory of individual rights as natural rights. Those are fundermentaly distinct theorries, except that you can make a claim that the idividual natural rights are inherently a good and the absence a bad, what is (I am reapeatying it) a coincidence to the broadbased social goods proposition, not in essence similar or same.
what is then used in an argument against actions for the general well-being of people, what is hardly rational, except in the mind of this men, becuase the only possibly argument agianst actions for the weelbing of your fellow people in the broad social good sense is an inability to do so effectivly, what is an admission to current inability to do a substantive good, what is not a persuasive agrument in any sense
To what extent is “Law” from a legal positivistic perspective justThe Prince, through he machinery of government, being a bully ?? Petulant ? Judgemental ? Bigoted ? Opinionated ? Wrong ? Xxx
This is meant to be a speech on the merits of Natural Law Theory!! Are you all drunk ? Are you all drunk ?? Dios Mio!!
Pretty sure this is Nihilism / Materialism. 💥
What the heck?
Phenomenal
I can't believe that this is an advanced level 😂😂I study on my own and this topic is simply the beginning I thought everyone started with 😅😅🤣🤣🤣
Agreed, it must be the case that many lawyers generally have poor classical education starting point, if none of this is philosophically obvious and basic.
@@anarkitype4017 trained like highschool students, taught nothing but programmed to do paperwork.
r/iamverysmart
@@aronastron9538 you see the problem is that you consider reddit as something smart ppl do, they don't, r/iamverysmart is a paradox
@@TheSkyballs I believe that would be the joke good sir.
Indeed !! Thank you !!!
I love this man. :D
HUH? lol
AND AM ENJOYING IT TONINGHT
Please can you stop kissing each other and get on with the subject of your meeting !!!