This entire lecture is liberal. He speaks of 'rights'. Describes the origins of those 'rights', the theories used to justify them, and gives examples of how they are challenged. AFAIK he's correct about everything in the lecture.
Here's the problem I see. Please skip to timestamp 45:08 of the video (Q&A portion).
If people reject the lesson of The Declaration of Independence (our rights are inalienable) ... then there's little hope for natural rights.
Judge Nap. just described the predicament America is in right now. Our opponents reject natural rights (rights justified by God and/or humanity) and insist on legal positivism (rights created by text of laws). How will our natural rights be protected when every public institution, corporation, and the state itself side with our opponents?
I don't say he's 'too' liberal. It's that all of his assumptions come from liberalism. So I see Judge Nap. as an ally. However, if we're going to keep liberalism as a guide to structure society then we must first root out its flaws and weaknesses.
21st century liberalism is very different from classical liberalism. You could call me a liberal in the most classical sense - I'm a fundamentalist for freedom, so long as the NATURAL law is not violated.
Yeah, well that was kind of the American project from the beginning. Liberalism itself is fine in an appropriate social context, such as what existed in those times.
As I mentioned, our opponents reject classical liberalism and Judge Nap.'s natural rights theory outright. In fact, they hate those ideas and resent you for holding them. Spend some time talking to progressives to confirm.
This is the outcome of the legal positivism as described in Judge Nap.'s lecture. People who believe the only rights which exist are those granted by text of law will feel justified in petitioning for 'rights'. That precedent has already been established, recently by the blatantly unequal enforcement of laws though it's been bubbling up from the bottom for many decades.
This entire lecture is liberal. He speaks of 'rights'. Describes the origins of those 'rights', the theories used to justify them, and gives examples of how they are challenged. AFAIK he's correct about everything in the lecture.
Here's the problem I see. Please skip to timestamp 45:08 of the video (Q&A portion).
Judge Nap. just described the predicament America is in right now. Our opponents reject natural rights (rights justified by God and/or humanity) and insist on legal positivism (rights created by text of laws). How will our natural rights be protected when every public institution, corporation, and the state itself side with our opponents?
I don't say he's 'too' liberal. It's that all of his assumptions come from liberalism. So I see Judge Nap. as an ally. However, if we're going to keep liberalism as a guide to structure society then we must first root out its flaws and weaknesses.
21st century liberalism is very different from classical liberalism. You could call me a liberal in the most classical sense - I'm a fundamentalist for freedom, so long as the NATURAL law is not violated.
Yeah, well that was kind of the American project from the beginning. Liberalism itself is fine in an appropriate social context, such as what existed in those times.
https://raccoons.space/illustration/john-adams-constitution-religious-moral-meme.O4xRUN
As I mentioned, our opponents reject classical liberalism and Judge Nap.'s natural rights theory outright. In fact, they hate those ideas and resent you for holding them. Spend some time talking to progressives to confirm.
https://raccoons.space/illustration/we-are-going-to-exterminate-white-poeple-kamau-kambon-cspan-screenshot.O4xaLL
This is the outcome of the legal positivism as described in Judge Nap.'s lecture. People who believe the only rights which exist are those granted by text of law will feel justified in petitioning for 'rights'. That precedent has already been established, recently by the blatantly unequal enforcement of laws though it's been bubbling up from the bottom for many decades.