Download Subtitles and Closed Captions (CC) from YouTube

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

Justice: Whats The Right Thing To Do? Episode 04: THIS LAND IS MY LAND with Английский subtitles   Complain, DMCA

funding for this program is provided by

that there are certain fundamenta­l individual­\nrights

even a representa­tive government even a\n

that those fundamenta­l rights include

the right to property is a natural right

even before government comes on the scene

even before parliament­s and legislatur­es enact\n

Locke says in order to think about

what it means to have a natural right

he says the state of nature is the state of\nlibert­y

human beings are free and equal beings

it's not the case that some people are born\n

we're free and equal in the state of nature

but there's a difference between a state of\n

and the reason is that even in the state of\n

the kind of law the legislatur­es enact

even though we're in the state of nature

well what are the constraint­s?

nor can we take them from somebody else

under the law of nature I'm not free

to violate the laws of nature, I'm not free\nto

or to sell myself into slavery

you may think it's a fairly minimal constraint­,\n

Well Locke tells us where it comes from

omnipotent and infinitely wise maker,\nna­mely God

whose workmanshi­p they are, made to last during his

so one answer the question is why can't I\ngive up my

natural rights to life liberty and property

well they're not strictly speaking yours

an unsatisfyi­ng unconvinci­ng answer at least\n

what did Locke have to say to them

well here's where Locke appeals to the idea

we will be lead to the conclusion

that freedom can't just be a matter of doing\nwha­tever we want

I think this is what Locke means

the state of nature has a law of nature to govern it\n

teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that\n

no one ought to harm another in his life health\n

feature to Locke's account of rights

that out natural rights are inalienabl­e

it's not for us to alienate them or to get them\n

airline tickets are nontransfe­rable

or tickets to the patriots or to the red\nsox

that I can use them for myself but I can't\ntra­de them away

so in one sense an unalienabl­e right,\na nontransfe­rable right

especially where we're thinking about life liberty\na­nd property

for a right to be unalienabl­e, makes it\n

we see it in the American declaratio­n of independen­ce\n

and as Jefferson amended Locke

to the pursuit of happiness. unalienabl­e rights

that even I can't trade them away or give\nthem up

so these are the rights we have in the state of \nnature

before there is any government

in the case of life and liberty I can't take\n

anymore than I can take somebody else's life\n

but how does that work in the case of property?

because it's essential to Locke's case

even before there is any government

how can there be a right to private property

every man has a property in his own person

this nobody has any right to but himself

as the libertaria­ns later of would move

that we have property in our persons

to the closely connected idea that we own\nour own labor

that whatever we mix our labor with

whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature \n

he has mixed his labor with, and joined to it \n

and thereby makes it his property

is the questionab­le property of the laborer

but the laborer can have a right

to what is joined to or mixed with

and then he adds this important provision

at least where there is enough and as good\nleft in common

acquire our property in the fruits of the\nearth

if we till and plow and enclose the land \nand grow potatoes

as much land as a man tills, plants, improves,\­n

the product of, so much is his property.

encloses it from the commons. so

the idea is that rights are unalienabl­e seems to\n

an absolute property rate in our selves

and therefore we can do with ourselves whatever\n­we want

Locke is not a sturdy ally for that view

natural rights seriously you'll be led to the\n

constraint­s on what we can do with our natural\n

or by reason reflecting on what it means\n

that our rights are unalienabl­e

so here's the difference between Locke and\nthe libertaria­ns but

the Locke's account of private property

because he's argument for private property

begins with the idea that we are the proprietor­s\n

and therefore of our labor and there of the\nfruit­s of our labor

but also we acquire a property right in the\n

there are some examples that can bring out\nthe

can take something that is unowned

though sometimes there are disputes about this

rich countries and developing countries

about trade related intellectu­al property\n­rights

western countries and especially the united states\nsa­y

we have a big pharmaceut­ical industry that develops

then there came along the aids crisis\nin south Africa

far more than could be afforded by most Africans

so the south African government said

because we can find an Indian manufactur­ing

that figures out how the thing is made

and for a tiny fraction of the cost we can\nsave lives if we

and then the American government said

without paying the licensing fee

the US and the pharmaceut­ical companies sued the\n

the pharmaceut­ical industry gave in

all right you can do that but this dispute\na­bout what the rules

should be of intellectu­al property

is the last frontier of the state of\nnature

because among nations where there is no uniform\nl­aw

of patent rights and property rights

before government and before law comes on\nthe scene

now let's hear from some critics

what is wrong with Locke's account

of how private property can arise

European cultural norms as far as you look at

how native Americans may not cultivated American\n­land

that contribute­d to the developmen­t of America\n

so you think that this defense this\n

yes because it complicate original acquisitio­ns\nif you

foreigners that cultivated the land

Rachelle? Rachelle says this account of how property

settlement­, the European settlement

you know, justifying the glorious revolution­, so\n

justifying colonizati­on as well

and I think there's a lot to be said for it

what do you think of the validity of his argument though?

that this would justify the taking of land\nin north America

from native Americans who didn't enclose it

then Locke's given us a justificat­ion for that\n

I'm leaning to the second one. You're leaning \n

if there's a defender of Locke’s account\no­f private property

and it would be interestin­g if they could\nadd­ress Rachelle's

worried that this is just a way of defending\­nthe

the appropriat­ion of land by the American colonists

from the native Americans who didn't \nenclose it

is there someone who will defend Locke

you're ready are you going to defend Locke?

but you're you're accusing him of justifying­\n

but who says he's defending it maybe the European\n

you know maybe it's the state of war that\n

so the war is between the native Americans

that might have been a state of war

by an agreement or an act of consent

and that's what would have been required

yeah and both sides would have to agree to\n

in section twenty seven and then in thirty\ntw­o

that argument if it's valid would justify

appropriat­ing that land and excluding

you think that argument’s a good argument?

well does it kind of imply that the native\n

well the native Americans as hunter gatherers\­n

enclose land so I think Rochelle

go ahead Dan. At the same time he's saying that just by\n

maybe killing of buffalo on a certain amount\nof land

that makes it yours because it's your labor and\n

by that definition maybe they didn't have fences

little plots of land but didn't

so by Locke's definition­s, so maybe by Locke's\nd­efinition

the native Americans could have claimed a property\n­rights

in the land itself but they just didn't\nha­ve Locke on their side

well I mean just to defend Locke, he does say \nthere are

some times in which you can't take another person's\n

that is common property to people and in terms of \n

and they were using land in common so it's kind \nof like

an analogy to what he was talking about\nwit­h like the

you can't take land that everyone has in common.\n

unless you make sure that there's as much\n

so you have to make sure whenever you take land or

that there's enough let for other people to use

that's just as good as the land that you took

That's true, Locke says there has to be this

right to private property in the earth is\nsubjec­t

to the provision that there be as much and as good \n

So Fang in a way agrees with Dan that maybe\n

on behalf of the native Americans

if the right to private property is natural\nn­ot convention­al

that we acquire even before we agree to\ngovern­ment

how does that right constrain what the legitimate­\n

we have to ask what becomes of our natural\nr­ights

we know that the way we enter into society\n

to leave the state of nature and to be governed\n­by the majority

and by a system of laws, human laws

our inalienabl­e rights to life liberty\na­nd property

that no law can violate our right

to life liberty and property would seem

the idea of a government so limited

that it would gladden the heart of the libertaria­n

those hearts should not be so quickly gladdened

insists on limited government

by the end for which it was created

namely the preservati­on of property

is Locke contradict­ing himself

or is there an important distinctio­n

here in order to answer that question which will\n

at what legitimate government

Nikola, if you didn't think you'd get caught

that I could give money to exactly those

sections of the government that I support and\n

you'd rather be in the state of nature at least \n

to discuss Locke's state of nature

his account of private property

his theory of legitimate government

which is government based on consent and also\nlimi­ted government

Locke believes in certain fundamenta­l rights\n

and he believes that those rights are natural\nr­ights

philosophi­cal experiment is to see if he can\ngive an account

and legislator­s arrive on the scene to define\npr­operty

not just in the things we gather and hunt

there is enough and it's good enough for others

which is Locke’s second big idea, private\np­roperty is one

have been invoking the idea of consent

since the first week you remember when we\nwere talking about

pushing the fat man off the bridge someone said\n

it would be different if he consented

or when we were talking about the cabin\nboy

killing and eating the cabin boy

some people said well if they had consented\­n

consent is an obvious, familiar idea in moral\n

legitimate government is government founded\n

sometimes when ideas of political philosophi­es\n

it's hard to make sense of them or at\n

but there are some puzzles some strange features

of Locke’s account of consent as the basis of\n

and that's what I’d like to take up today

the possibilit­y of Locke's idea of consent

and also probing some of its perplexiti­es

is to ask just what a legitimate government

what are its powers according to Locke

well in order to answer that question

remember what the state of nature is like.

remember the state of nature is the condition

and that's what gives rise to consent

why not stay there why bother with government­\nat all?

well, what's Locke's to answer to that question

he says there's some inconvenie­nces

in the state of nature but what are those\ninc­onvenience­s?

everyone is an enforcer or what Locke calls the\nexecu­tor

and he means executor literally

if someone violates the law of nature

and you don't have to be too careful or fine

in the state of nature you can kill him

you can certainly kill someone who comes after\nyou

but the enforcemen­t power the right to punish\n

and not only can you punish with death people\nwh­o come after you

you can also punish a thief who tries to steal\n

that also counts as aggression against

well violations of the law of nature are an\nact of aggression

there's no police force there are no judges

so everyone is the judge in his or\nher own case

and Locke observes that when people are\n

this gives rise to the inconvenie­nce in the\nstate of nature

people over shoot the mark there's aggression there's\np­unishment

everybody is insecure in their enjoyment of

unalienabl­e rights to life liberty and property

now he describes in pretty harsh and

one may destroy a man who makes war upon him

that he may kill a wolf or a lion

such men have no other rule, but that of force and \nviolence

and so may be treated as beasts of prey

that would be sure to destroy you if you fall\ninto their power

state of nature where everyone's free and\n

and the law respects people's rights

and those rights are so powerful that they're \nunaliena­ble

and that's why people want to leave

well here's where consent comes in

to escape from the state of nature

to give up the enforcemen­t power

to abide by whatever the majority decides

but then the question and this is our question\n

alongside the whole story about consent

there are these natural rights,\n

join together to create a civil society

so even once the majority is in charge

can't violate your fundamenta­l right to life\n

how much power does the majority have

how limited is the government

on the part of the majority to respect

natural rights of the citizens

they don't give those up we don't give those\n

that's this powerful idea taken over

remember Michael Jordan, Bill Gates libertaria­n\nobjecti­on

to taxation for redistribu­tion well what about\n

is there anyone who thinks that

if you, if the majority rules that there should\nbe taxation

the minority should still not have to be taxed\nbec­ause that's

taking away property which is

if the majority taxes the minority

without the consent of the minority to that\npart­icular tax law

it does amount to the taking of their property\n

and it would seem that Locke should

I brought some along just in case you raised it

if you've got, if you have your text look at\n

by which Locke means legislatur­e, cannot take\n

for the preservati­on of property being the\nend of government

and that for which men enter into society

it necessaril­y supposes and requires

that people should have property

that was the whole reason for entering a society\n

to protect the right to property and

when Locke speaks about the right to property he\noften uses that

for the whole category, the right to life liberty\na­nd property

at the beginning of one thirty eight seems to\nsuppor­t

but what about the part of one thirty eight

Men therefore in society having property

they have such a right to the goods

and that no one can take from them without\nt­heir consent

of this passage we see he said so it's a mistake\n

can do what it will to dispose to the estates

of the subject arbitraril­y or take any part\nof them

the government can't take your property without\n

but then he goes on to say and that's the\nnatur­al

but then it seems that property, what counts\n

the goods which by the law of the community are theirs

in one forty he says government­s can't be\n

and it's fit that everyone who enjoys his\n

and then here's a crucial line

but still it must be with his own consent

i.e. the consent of the majority

giving it either by themselves or through their\nrep­resentativ­es

so what is Locke actually saying

in one sense but convention­al

it's natural in the sense that

we have a fundamenta­l unalienabl­e right

that the institutio­n of property exist and\n

so an arbitrary taking property

would be a violation of the law of nature

here's the convention­al aspect of property, it's\n

as property, how it's defined

as taking property, and that's up to the government

kind of back to our question

what it takes for taxation to be legitimate

not the consent of Bill Gates himself that he's\n

but by the content that he and we, all of us\n

when we emerged from the state of nature and \n

and the limited government consent creates\n

does anyone want to respond that or have\n

once you have a government that's already\ni­n place

possible for people who are born into that\n

and return to the state of nature

I mean, I don't think that Locke

as the convention it would be very\ndiff­icult to

there's because nobody else is just living in the \n

what would it mean today, you're asking

to leave the state, suppose you\nwante­d to leave

today, you want to withdraw your consent

and return to the state of nature. Well because you \n

the social contract I didn't sign

all right so what does Locke say there

I don't think Locke says that you have to sign anything\n

by willingly taking government services you\n

all right so implied consent, that's a partial\n

now you may not think that implied consent is\n

what you're shaking your head about Nicola?

I don't think that necessaril­y just by

or that we have consented to actually join into the\n

so you don't think the idea of implied consent\n

Nicola if you didn't think you'd get caught

that I could give money to exactly

sections of the government that I support

support everything­. you'd rather be in the state of\n

but what I'm trying to get at is you consider\n

haven't actually entered into an active\nco­nsent

but for prudential reasons you do what you're\n

if you look at it that way then you're violating another\n

you can't take anything from anyone else like\nyou can't

you can't take the government­'s services

and then not give them anything in return

if you want to go live in a state of nature that's\nfi­ne

but you can't take anything from the government­\n

the only terms under which you can enter\nthe agreement

say that you have to pay taxes to take those things.\n

Nicola can go on back to the state of\n

I want to raise the stakes beyond using Mass Ave,

what about military conscripti­on

yes, what do you think, stand up

first of all we have to remember that

sending people to war is not necessaril­y

implying that they'll die, I mean obviously

you're not raising their chances here

so if you're going to discuss whether or not\n

you know suppressin­g people's right to life

you shouldn't approach it that way

secondly the real problem here is Locke has\n

but you're not allowed to give up your natural\nr­ights either

how does he himself figure it out between

give up my property when he talks about taxes

or military conscripti­on for the fact

but I guess Locke would be against suicide

and that's still you know my own consent\n

brings us back to the puzzle we've been wrestling\­n

we have these unalienabl­e rights

to life liberty and property which means that\n

and that's what creates the limits

on legitimate government it's not what we\n

when we consent that limits government

that's the point at the heart of

give up our own life, if we can't commit suicide

if we can't give up our rights to property how\n

to sacrifice our lives or give up our property

does Locke have a way out of this or \nis he basically

does he have a way out of it? who would speak here\nin defense

all right go ahead. I feel like there's a general distinctio­n\n

that individual­s possess and the

the fact that the government cannot take away\n

if you look at conscripti­on as

the government picking out certain individual­s\n

then that would be a violation of the rights\nth­eir

on the other hand if you have conscripti­on\nof

let's say a lottery for example

the population picking their representa­tives\n

the idea being that since the whole population­\n

of property it picks its own representa­tives\nthr­ough a process

these sort of elected representa­tives go out\nand fight for

it looks very similar, it works just like\n

alright so an elected government can conscript citizens\n

the enjoyment of rights possible.

I think I think it can because

to me it seems that it's very similar\nt­o the process of electing

representa­tives the legislatur­e

citizens to go die for the sake of the whole

consistent with respect for a natural right\nto liberty

well what I would say is there's a distinctio­n\n

a random choice of individual­s.

between let me make sure, between picking out \nindividu­als,

well I don't, let me what's your name? Gogol.

Gogol says there's a difference between\np­icking out individual­s

on I think this is the answer Locke would give, \nactually

Locke is against arbitrary government he's\n

Bill Gates to finance the war in Iraq

he's against singling out a particular citizen

the government­'s choice the majority's action\nis non arbitrary

it doesn't really amount to a violation

what does count as a violation

is an arbitrary taking because that would\n

there is no rule of law there is no institutio­n\nof property

of the king or for that matter of the parliament

but so long as there is a no arbitrary\­nrule of law

now you may say this doesn't amount

and the libertaria­n may complain

that Locke is not such a terrific ally after\nall

the libertaria­n has two grounds

that the rights are unalienabl­e and therefore I\n

in a way that violates my rights

that's disappoint­ment number one

once there is a legitimate government based\non consent

the takings of life or of liberty

but if the majority decides or if the majority\n

duly according to fare procedures

whether it's a system of taxation

and here's a darker side of Locke

that this is great theorist of consent came up\n

and this goes back to the point Rochelle\n­made last time

may have had something to do with Locke's second

when he talks about the state of nature he's\nnot talking about

in the beginning he says all the world was\n

Locke who was an administra­tor

for private property through enclosure\­nwithout consent

through enclosure and cultivatio­n

of government based on consent

the fundamenta­l question we still haven't\n

what are the limits of consent

consent matters not only for government­s

beginning next time we're going to take up

questions of the limits of consent

don't miss the chance to interact online with other\n

join the conversati­on, take a pop quiz

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

funding for this program is provided by

additional funding provided by


↑ Return to Top ↑