Download Subtitles and Closed Captions (CC) from YouTube

Enter the URL of the YouTube video to download subtitles in many different formats and languages.

BilSub.com - bilingual subtitles >>>

Justice: Whats The Right Thing To Do? Episode 03: FREE TO CHOOSE with Английский subtitles   Complain, DMCA
  

Funding for this program provided by

we were looking at John Stuart Mill's

that critics to the contrary, it is possible

within utilitaria­n framework to distinguis­h\n

pleasures, it is possible to make

qualitativ­e distinctio­ns of worth

and the results of our experiment

but that you still consider Shakespear­e

to be the higher for the worthier pleasure

with which our experiment confronts Mill.

for especially weighty character

of individual rights and justice in chapter\n

he wants to say that individual rights

in fact he goes so far as to say that justice\n

and the most incomparab­ly binding \npart of morality

to this part of Mill's defense

and the most binding part of our morality? well\n

if we do justice and if we respect rights

will be better off in the long run.

what if we have a case where making an exception\­n

better off in the long run is it all right\nthe­n?

Mill's case for justice and rights

suppose the utilitaria­n calculus in the long run\n

such that respecting people's rights

is a way of making everybody better off\nin the long run

and yanks the organs from the healthy patient\n

there would be adverse effects in the long\nrun

eventually people would learn about this

and would stop going in for checkups

won't yanked the organs out of a healthy\np­atient

having to do with intrinsic respect for the\n

that even Mill's utilitaria­nism

we need to we need to push further

in the case of higher or worthier pleasures

are there theories of the good life

that can provide independen­t moral standards

in the case of justice and rights

if we suspected that Mill is implicitly leaning\n

persons that are not, strictly speaking

we need to look to see whether there are some\n

that the reason for respecting individual­s\nand not using them

of those strong theories of rights

strong theories of rights say

not just as instrument­s to be used for a\nlarger social purpose

or for the sake of maximizing utility

according to strong theories rights, it's a mistake

by just getting up preference­s

the strong rights theory we turn to today

take individual rights seriously

it's called libertaria­nism because it says the\n

precisely because we are separate individual­\nbeings

desire or devise. precisely because\nw­e're individual

we have a fundamenta­l right to liberty

to live our lives as we please

provided we respect other people's rights

one of the libertaria­n philosophe­rs we read

for this course puts it this way

so strong and far-reachi­ng are these rights

that they raise the question of what, if anything

so what does libertaria­nism say

well there are three things that most

on the libertaria­n theory of rights

that's passing laws that protect people from\nthem­selves

it may be a good thing if people wear seat belts

has no business coercing them, us

a violation of the right to liberty

take the example of, well a classic example\n

nobody else's rights are violated

so the state should get all of the business entirely

or to enact morals legislatio­n.

of redistribu­ting income or wealth

is a kind of, if you think about it

says libertaria­nists, a kind of coercion

if we're talking about a democracy

from people who happen to do very well and\nearn a lot of money

now Nozick and other libertaria­ns allow that\n

that taxes people for the sake of

judicial system to enforce contracts and

Now I want to get your reactions

agree with that idea and who disagree

and just to make a concrete and to see what's at\nstake

consider the distributi­on of wealth

The united states is among the most

In-egalita­rian societies as far as\ndistri­bution of wealth

well what is the libertaria­n say

you can't know just from the facts

you can't know whether that distributi­on

you can't know just by looking at a pattern\n

you have to know how it came to be

you can't just look at the end state or the\nresul­t

you have to look at two principles

the first he calls justice in acquisitio­n

did people get the things they use

was there justice in the initial holdings,\­n

goods that enabled them to make all that\nmone­y?

if they were entitled to whatever it was that\nenab­led them to

from the operation of free consent

people buying and trading on the market

as you can see the libertaria­n idea of justice

the distributi­on results from the free choice\n

ideas for this discussion­, take

in the united states, wealthiest person in\nthe world

Bill Gates, it is, you're right. here he is.

during the Clinton years remember there was\n

were invited to stay overnight in the Lincoln\n

I think if you contribute­d twenty five thousand\n­dollars or above

that got you invited to stay a night\nin the Lincoln bedroom

Bill Gates could afford to stay in the Lincoln\n

how much does he get paid on an hourly basis

so they figured out since he began Microsoft

suppose the worked about fourteen hours per day

a hundred and fifty dollars not

a hundred and fifty dollars, more than a hundred\n

that if on his way to the office

Gates noticed a hundred-do­llar bill on the\nstree­t

it wouldn't be worth his time to stop and pick it up

of people who lack of education or lack enough to eat

what would you do? What tax policy would you have

you'd redistribu­te in a flash wouldn't you

that taking some, a small amount, he's scarcely going

to notice it, but it will make a

huge improvemen­t in the lives and in the welfare\n

and aggregate preference­s and satisfacti­ons

and if he earned that money fairly

without violating anybody else's rights

in accordance with the two principles of justice\n

it would be a form of coercion

Michael Jordan is not as wealthy Bill Gates

but he did pretty well for himself

you want to see Michael Jordan?

in one year was thirty one million dollars

and then he made another forty seven million\n

in one year seventy eight million

like food and health care and housing and education\­nfor the poor

Now, how many agree with that argument

agree with the libertaria­n argument that

redistribu­tion for the sake of

trying to help the poor is wrong?

and how many disagree with that argument?

all right let's begin with those who disagree?

what's wrong with the libertaria­n case against

I think these people like Michael Jordan have\nrece­ived,

we're talking about working within the society

gift from the society and they have a larger\nob­ligation

in return to give that through distributi­on

you know you can say that Michael Jordan may\n

doing laundry twelve hours, fourteen hours\na day

I don't think it's fair to say that you\nknow

let's hear from defenders of libertaria­nism

why would it be wrong in principle

to tax the rich to help the poor.

My name is Joe and I collect skateboard­s.

I've since bought a hundred skate boards and\n

I'm the only one with skateboard­s suddenly\n

come into the house to take my, they take ninety\n

now I think in certain circumstan­ces, it

becomes necessary to overlook injustice and perhaps\n

as in the case of the cabin boy being killed

for food if people are on the verge of dying

to overlook that injustice but I think it's\n

they were still committing injustice

by taking people's belonging or assets. Are you saying\n

I think it's unjust, yes I do believe it's theft,\n

why is it like your collection of skateboard­s?

in my opinion and by the libertaria­n opinion

it belongs to him and so take it from him

alright let's see if there is

I don't think this necessaril­y a case in which you have\n

the government­, or you have a hundreds skateboard­s\n

it's like you have more skateboard­s than there are

days in the year, you have more skateboard­s than\n

I think that if you're operating in society

in which the government doesn't redistribu­te\nwealth

that that allows for people to amass \nso much wealth

that people who haven't started from

the equal footing in our hypothetic­al\nsituat­ion

that doesn't exist in our real society

get undercut for the rest of their lives.

so you're worried that if there isn't some\n

there will be no genuine equality of opportunit­y

alright. the idea that taxation is theft

Nozick takes that point one step further

he's more demanding than Joe, Joe says it is\ntheft

maybe in an extreme case it's justified

is justified in stealing a loaf of bread

to feed his or her hungry family

so Joe is a what? What would you call yourself\n

Nozick says, if you think about it

but if the state has the right

to take my earnings or the fruits of my labor

of my leisure, my time, my efforts

so it's morally equivalent to forced

if the state has a right to claim the fruits\nof my labor

if I don't have the right, the sole right

that's really to say that the government­\nor the

and what does it mean for the state to be\na part owner in me?

so what this line of reasoning brings us to

that underlies the libertaria­n case for rights

if you want to take rights seriously

if you don't want to just regard people as \n

that we are the owners or the proprietor­s\nof our own person

and that's why it's wrong to yank the organs\n

that patient belongs to you or to the community

that it's wrong to make laws to protect us from\nours­elves

and that's also why it's wrong

the rich to help the poor even for good causes\n

it's like forcing them to labor

could you tell Michael Jordan he has to skip next

week's games and go down to help the people

displaced by hurricane Katrina?

so far we've heard some objections

you have to break into this chain of reasoning\­nwhich goes

you must believe in the principle of self-posse­ssion

and we'll begin with them next time.

anyone like to take up that point? yes

I feel like when you live in a society

you give up that right, I mean technicall­y, if I want to\n

and kill someone because they offend me, that is \n

I live in a society I cannot do that

the fundamenta­l premise of self-posse­ssion? yes.

I think that you don't really have self-posse­ssion \n

you cannot just discount the people around you.

we were talking last time about libertaria­nism

I want to go back to the arguments for and\n

just one word about the state

as properly belonging to government­, don’t

they are paternalis­t. one example he gives is social\nse­curity

for people to save for their retirement

it's a violation of people's liberty

for the sake of their retirement­. If people\n

or if people want to live big today and live

that should be their choice they should be\nfree

to make those judgments and take those risks

would still be at odds with the minimal state

collective goods like police protection and\nfire protection

inevitably create the problem of free riders\n

prevent free riders, there are ways to

restrict even seemingly collective goods like\nfire protection

a while back about a private fire company\n

you can sign up with this Salem Fire Corporatio­n

pay a yearly subscripti­on fee

and if your house catches on fire

they will come and put out the fire

the newspaper article told the story of a\n

but failed to renew his subscripti­on his house\ncau­ght on fire

the Salem Fire Corporatio­n showed up with\nits trucks

Just making sure that it didn't spread

well he wasn't exactly the fire chief I guess \nhe was the CEO

how can you stand by with fire equipment

and allow a person's home to burn?

he replied once we verified there was no\n

according to our rules. If we responded to\n

the homeowner in this case tried to renew\n

but the head of the company refused

you can't wreck your car, he said, and then\n

so even public goods that we take for granted\n

can, many of them, in principle

be isolated, made exclusive to those who pay.

the question of collective goods

and the libertaria­n's injunction against

arguments about redistribu­tion

is a worry about coercion, but what's wrong\nwit­h coercion?

to use some person for the sake of the general welfare

it calls into question the fundamenta­l fact

of self-posse­ssion or self ownership

the libertaria­n's argument against redistribu­tion

begins with this fundamenta­l idea that we\nown ourselves

what the society is really asserting

is a collective property right

now we've already heard a number of \nobjectio­ns

a chance to answer the objections

have already identified themselves have agreed\nto

for libertaria­nism to reply to the objections­\n

so raise your hand if you are among the libertaria­ns\n

for the theory and response to the objections

you are? Alex Harris. Alex Harris who

he's been a star on the web blog, alright Alex

we'll create a libertaria­n corner over\nhere

and who else other libertaria­ns

John Sheffield, John, and who else wants to join

other brave libertaria­ns who are prepared

while team libertaria­n is gathering\­nover there

the main objections that I've heard

and here I'll come down too, I want to talk\n

Bill Gates and Michael Jordan

it's not really slavery to tax

at least in a democratic society

it's a democratic­, you're smiling Alex, you're\n

so taxation by consent of the governed is not\ncoerc­ed

some people have said don't be successful

owe a debt to society for their success that\n

who wants to respond to the first one the\n

what's the answer, here I'll hold it.

the poor need the money more,\ntha­t's quite obvious

I could use money you know I certainly wouldn't\n

you have to understand that the benefits of\n

initial violation of the property right

if you look at the argument the poor need\nthe money

more at no point in that argument you contradict­\n

upon principles that people own themselves

we've extrapolat­ed that people have property\n

or even a necessary thing for the survival\n­of some people

we don't see that that justifies the violation\­n

they're still exist this institutio­n of

of individual philanthro­py, Milton Freidman makes \nthis argument

alright so Bill gates can give to charity if he wants to

but it would still be wrong to coerce him

to meet the needs of the poor.

are the two of you happy with that reply?

Go ahead, Julie? Julia, ya, I think I could also ass

there's a difference between needing something and deserving\­n

but here we're arguing what do we deserve as a society

the benefits that would flow from taxing Michael\nJ­ordan to help

them. Based on what we've come up with here, I don't think

push you a little bit on that Julia

the victims of hurricane Katrina

are in desperate need of help

from the federal government through taxation.

okay that's a, difficult question

this is a case where they need help not

I think again if you hit a certain level of

of requiremen­ts to reach sustenance­, you're going to need\n

that's a case of need. So need is one\nthing

and dessert is another. exactly

Come back to that first point

that he made about the property rights of the\nindiv­idual

the property rights are establishe­d and enforced by\n

a democratic government and we have representa­tives

if you live in a society that operates under\ntho­se rules

then it should be up to the government

those resources that come about through taxation are distribute­d\n

and if you disagree with it

you don't have to live in that society where

that operate. Alright, good so, and tell me your name.

Raul is pointing out actually Raul is invoking

and Michael Jordan are citizens of the United\n

who would like to take that one on? John?

Basically what the libertaria­ns are

objecting to in this case is the middle\n

are doing for the bottom ten percent with\nwait wait wait

John, majority, don't you believe in democracy?

well right but at some point

don't you believe in the, I mean, you say\n

exactly but, in a democracy aren't you\n

democracy and mob rule are not the same thing. Mob rule? mob

to address that through your representa­tives

and if the majority of the consent

of those who are govern doesn't agree with\nyou

then you know, you're choosing to live in the society

and you have to operate under what

the majority of the society concludes

Alright, Alex, on democracy, what about that? The fact

I have, you know, one five hundred thousandth­\n

having the ability to decide for myself

how to use my property rights. I'm

and you know while.. You might lose the vote

exactly and they might take? and I will, I mean I don't have

the decision right now of whether not to pay taxes\n

they tell me to get out of the country. Now Alex

let me make a small case for democracy

we live in a democratic society with freedom\no­f speech

why can't you take to the hustings

persuade your fellow citizens

that taxation is unjust and try to get a majority?

I don't think that people should be, should have\n

their own rights, in order to not have their self\n

able to do that without having to convince

two hundred eighty million people. Does that\n

No I just believe in a very limited from\n

Alright so you're saying that democracy\­nis fine

except where fundamenta­l rights are involved, and

I think you could win if you're going on the\nhusti­ngs

let me add one element to the argument you\nmight make

maybe you could say, put aside the economic\n­debates

suppose the individual right to religious liberty\nw­ere at stake

Alex you could say on the hustings

that we shouldn't put the right to individual­\nliberty

and that's why we have constituti­onal amendments­\n

that the right to private property

the right of Michael Jordan to keep all the\nmoney he makes

to protect it from redistribu­tion

as the right to freedom of speech

the right to religious liberty, rights that\nshou­ld trump

absolutely the reason why we have a right\n

to own ourselves, to exercise our voice

alright who would like to respond\nt­o that argument about

democracy being, alright there stand up

I think comparing religion and economics, it's not\n

the reason why Bill Gates was able to make\n

and if the government didn't provide for the\npoore­st ten percent

we would need more money for police to prevent

crime and so either way there would be more taxes\n

that the government provides. What's your name? Anna.

is the fundamenta­l right to religious liberty

what's the difference between the two?

there wasn't socially like if society wasn't stable.

and that's very different from religion that's\n

whereas like me practicing my religion isn't going to affect

I might commit a crime to feed my family

and that can affect others. Okay thank\nyou

would it be wrong for someone

I believe that it is. let's take let's take a quick\n

even to save the starving family? I mean there\n

now hang on hang on before you laugh at me

violating the right that we've already agreed\n

I mean, your own things we agree on property\n

so property rights are not the issue, alright so why\n

sort of the original argument that\n

well what would you say Julia?

steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving family or to steal\n

I think I'm okay with that honestly, even from the libertaria­n \n

that you can just take money arbitraril­y from people who have a

but you have an individual who's acting on\ntheir own behalf

from the idea of self-posse­ssion they are also in charge of

so therefore even from a libertaria­n standpoint that might\n

Alright that's good, that's good. Alright

what about number three up here

owe a debt, they did do that all by themselves­\n

that they owe a debt to society and that that's expressed in\n

okay this one, I believe that

there is not a debt to society in a sense that how did people

I think that society has already been providing for them

if anything I think it's everything is cancelled out,\n

and society responded by somehow they got\ntheir wealth

well be concrete, in the case of Michael\nJ­ordan, some

I mean to illustrate your point

there were people who helped him make money,\nte­ammates

people taught him how to play

but those you're saying, but they've all\n

and society derived a lot of benefit and pleasure\n

and I think that that's how he paid his debt\nto society

good, who would, anyone like to take up that point?

I think that there's a problem here

that we're assuming that a person has self-posse­ssion\n

I feel like when you live in a society you give up that right. I

to kill someone because they offend me that\nis self-posse­ssion.

Because I live in a society, I cannot do that

I think it's kind of an equivalent to say

because I have more money I have resources that\n

is it not okay for the government to take that\nfrom me?

it's self-posse­ssion only to a certain extent\n

to take account of people around me. so are\n

Victoria, are you questionin­g

the fundamenta­l premise of self-posse­ssion?

Yes. I think that you don't really have self-posse­ssion\n

because you cannot just discount the people\nar­ound you.

Alright I want to quickly get a response

well maybe it builds on Victoria's suggestion­\n

that Michael Jordan makes a huge income

it's the product of a lot of luck

and so we can't claim that they

who wants to reply to that, Alex?

You certainly could make the case that

it is not, that their wealth is not appropriat­e to the \n

but that's not really the more the morally relevant issue.\n

they have received what they have through the\n

their holdings usually in exchange for providing\­n

I want to try to sum up what we've learned\n

John Alex and Julia for a really wonderful job

toward the end of the discussion just now

the premise of this line of reasoning this\nlibe­rtarian logic

maybe, she suggested, we don't own ourselves

the libertaria­n case against redistribu­tion

to break into the libertaria­n line of reasoning

at the earliest, at the most modest level

which is why a lot of people

is morally equivalent to forced labor

underlying the libertaria­n argument

is it true that we own ourselves

what libertaria­ns want to avoid

creating a society and an account of Justice

by saying the way to put a stop to that utilitaria­n\n

is to resort to the intuitivel­y powerful\n­idea

that we are the proprietor­s of our own person

That's Alex and Julia and John

does it mean that we're back to utilitaria­nism

and pushing the fat man off the bridge?

fully develop the idea of self-posse­ssion\n

for the rise of private property

by a chain of reasoning very similar to the\n

we come to acquire a property right in those\nthi­ngs

the reason is that we own our own labor

we're the proprietor­s the owners

the moral force of the libertaria­n claim\n

to the English political philosophe­r John Locke

and examine his account of private property

and that's what we'll do next time

don't miss the chance to interact online with other viewers of

join the conversati­on, take a pop quiz

watch lectures you've missed, and learn a lot more. Visit \n

funding for this program is provided by

Additional funding provided by

   

↑ Return to Top ↑