Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 03: "FREE TO CHOOSE"
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 05. 2024
- To register for the 2015 course, visit www.edx.org/course/justice-ha....
ART ONE: FREE TO CHOOSE
Sandel introduces the libertarian conception of individual rights, according to which only a minimal state is justified. Libertarians argue that government shouldnt have the power to enact laws that 1) protect people from themselves, such as seat belt laws, 2) impose some peoples moral values on society as a whole, or 3) redistribute income from the rich to the poor. Sandel explains the libertarian notion that redistributive taxation is akin to forced labor with references to Bill Gates and Michael Jordan.
PART TWO: WHO OWNS ME?
Libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick makes the case that taxing the wealthy-to pay for housing, health care, and education for the poor-is a form of coercion. Students first discuss the arguments behind redistributive taxation. Dont most poor people need the social services they receive in order to survive? If you live in a society that has a system of progressive taxation, arent you obligated to pay your taxes? Dont many rich people often acquire their wealth through sheer luck or family fortune? A group of students dubbed Team Libertarian volunteers to defend the libertarian philosophy against these objections.
I love it how even after spending about 3 hours with him I haven't been able to gauge the professor's preferred ideology. He has points in favour and against every philosophy. Lack of bias is all we need from people involved in public services. Much respect :)
Ritu Meena he’s a communitarian.
My thought exactly! I have NO IDEA where this professor stands, and that is a good thing! Make people think for themselves and draw their own conclusion(s). Kudos to him for giving thought-provoking lectures without inserting his own opinions. We need more "educators" like him.
I was thinking the same while watching this episode :)
This is very clever of him actually
Even though I had the same opinion in the beginning, what was curious to me was that no student asked for his opinion...it is a different matter whether he would have expressed or not.
@Maria Callous A very CALLOUS reply!
In this episode:
Raoul´s heart breaks as he realizes the Prof doesn´t remember him from episode 1. Will he get over it and try again in episode 4?
DerInDenWindPubst bro his name is Rahul ..same as mine.. hes from india... And also yes i too believe he must have been shatered
Bahahahaha
Hahaha i noticed same
@@Rahul-op2vc It is Raoul and not Rahul!
Spoiler!:D
I admire these students, for their willingness to contest ideals in front of so big an audience.
I guess it takes some fortitude to claw your way into the top of your class and be eligible for Harvard. But yeah, it is brave. At one of the earlier lectures I thought I could the calculation on a guys face as to how many chances at a date he was losing as he went in lol.
That's what philosophy is though.
Yeah, students are really great! I very much appreciate their bold stances.
Everyone in the audience: "We live in a society"
"Need is one thing and dessert is another." 38:36
-the argument against chocolate cream pie
You just killed me :D
ylaenna you need the dessert
I laughed at it too, but only because of my woeful lack of maturity... however, the word is "desert" and is spelled like the arid sandy place we call a desert, however is pronounced as "dessert" and is also the same word with which we derive the saying, "just deserts" ... it has little to do with dessert as a dish, and more to do with what is deserved - the condition, I suppose, of deserving a thing, whether that thing be good, bad, or neutral. What Sandel is actually saying is that it's one thing to 'need' something, and it's a different matter to actually 'deserve' something.
saw that
@@OpinionStatedAsFact
Does deserve square with reality? Or is that it is and the possiblities of consequences that follow exist regardless of deserve? And maybe it is that it is and the possibilities of consequences that follows exist inspite of deserve, regardless of deserve and how ofter counter to deserve?
Interesting lecture. I like how the lecturer really grills the participants on both sides and doesn't let them get away with wishy-washy answers.
one of the smartest guys around today. thats why
Is it a matter of his innate intelligence, or his lifetime of refining his skills in understanding these subjects and explaining them in entertaining ways?
@@bradypostma3708 "Smart" doesn't make that distinction.
@@SortOfEggish- Doesn't it? I thought "smart" meant innate brainpower to the exclusion of cultivated brainpower.
@@bradypostma3708 why not both?
06:28 - Libertarianism - Robert Nozick
08:10 - The Libertarian View of Govt -
1. No Paternalist Legislation
2. No Moral Legislation - Example - Homosexual Laws
3. No redistribution of Income from rich to poor
11:02 - The debate over 3rd feature of Libertarian philosophy of Nozick- Minimalist state principle
Nozick - What makes Income Distribution Just ?
1. Justice in Acquisition
2. Justice in Transfer (free market)
- Example of Bill Gates, Micheal Jordan --> Utilitarian vs Libertarian
taxing rich people for welfare of marginal section -- Points to think upon - equality in opportunity
23:26 - Nozick argument of taxation being equivalent to forced labor --> Libertarian argument that taxation violates rights of self-possession
Utilitarianism approach always focuses upon maximizing utility without regard for individual rights - That is why it is not right to yank out the organs of a healthy person in doctor example in lecture 1. Utilitarian assumes that person belongs to society not to his self.
28:13 - Milton Friedman - Libertarian economist- argument against social security for old age in form of PF
32:40 - libertarian's argument against redistribution is based on belief of self-possession.
42:54 - Going with the Libertarian approach - that right to private property is an individual right but the question arises that are all rights equal? Should we consider right to free speech and right to religious practices on same moral platform as right to property ?
43:40 - How right to property holding and right to religious practice are different ?
48:00 - Argument against right to self-possession - You live in a society - considering society wants to stay stable, it has to adhere to some sort of guiding principles. When a person choose to live in society he give up some of his rights to enjoy being perks of society.
53:02 - John Locke proposition of property right
Conclude - Utilitaranian approach has some drawbacks, it feels morally wrong to apply it at some instances and Libertarian tries to overcome these drawbacks. But does that mean that Libertarian approach is better than Utilitaranian approach ? The debate over these two - points out many dilemmas where argument and anti-aruments are done to support these theories.
Great Job! 👍👍👍
Who are you saviour? Thanks much.
Ok now time stamp all the students with their names.
Superb job!
you are such a hard working person
I didn’t realize this was from 10 years ago until they said the richest person was Bill Gates. 😬
If you think about it, the discussion would look different now too. A trillionaire means something completely different than a billionaire.
And only 40 billion too 😑😬😬
@@thesavmaster1164 yeah when I saw this I chuckled...the richest people nowadays are worth more than 100 billion dollars
Haha me too until I noticed the date in third episode. Also watching now in 2021, 8 months after you did. Doesn’t get old 😊
With a net worth of 40 billions, now it’s like 4 times that much
It was really awkward how she kept violating the property rights of his microphone.
You win the comments.
Isn't the microphone a common good within that space? While she speaks, she can take momentary possession of it. If she were to grab on to the microphone while another spoke then that would be a violation I think.
@@illegalhunter7 He. she who?
@@maaletasatsachmet6815 The she OP's referring to.
@@illegalhunter7 - I don't think libertarianism accepts the definition of a common good. The microphone is a thing, a property of someone (or something, but let us not complicate stuff further). Someone also owns the lecture hall.
What is at stake is a contractual obligation. The students and visitors to the lecture (in the libertarian view) entered into a contract when they were given access to the lecture. A contract that most likely prohibited them from carrying a weapon, from engaging in rowdy behaviour, and somewhere along the fine print, to not monopolise the microphone.
Alas, not all people choose to stand by their words when it comes to contracts and decide to break the contract. Like, oh, Jim Acosta from CNN.
Thank you so much Harvard University. I live in a very small insignificant village somewhere in India that's not even on the map... I know I don't belong here, with regards to many like me, in terms of intellectual capacity but we feel a part of a GLOBAL human cognition... all thanks to you.
Thanks for changing my life. :)
You have now made your insignificant village distinctively significant!
Not at all, my friend . The very act of taking an effort to participate and better yourself and thereby positively affect change around yourself makes you a very significant player.
Thankfully this educational material can reach you. So true that we are all part of a larger cognition and all on this earth together. We should do our best to help each other learn and grow. Technology and education help us all. Love and respect from the US.
Hi Keisha, your voice matters. I heard you in 2020. Life has not been boring in lockdown when there was access to resources of knowledge.
Cringe
This professors wisdom is beyond fathomable. Not only did he perfect the art of teaching, every interactions with his students is strategically and properly executed. At my stage in life, I really don't know how he's able to keep track of so many things flawlessly. Explaining this philosophical topic is hard enough by itself, he does it eloquently. He explains everything in a way that every single listener is able to understand and relate to. You can tell the student is lost a lot of time due to the complexity and deepness of these fundamental yet difficult questions and still he is able to pick up where they speaker lose itself connect with them and guide them in the right direction. Really inspiration. I want to be like this man.
Well said!
He spoke at my university, and when they introduced him, they called him “the greatest and most famous political philosopher alive today”
You don't get to teach at Harvard by being half-assed. My college professors are a joke compared to what a professor is supposed to be. Paragons of higher learning, literal experts.
This is fascinating. I absolutely love how the professor encourages them to really push back at their own opinions and not give trite answers. He fosters such thought-provoking discussion. The worst thing is that I wish so much I could jump right into the conversation! I have answers and thoughts on a lot of these questions, and sometimes I've found myself shouting at the computer screen.
just the same!
Hahaha, I feel like the same!
Three times I shouted three times
Share your thoughts here. We can have our own small thought-class here
In this episode:
Raoul´s heart breaks as he realizes the Prof doesn´t remember him from episode 1. Will he get over it and try again in episode 4?
I have nothing to do with this field of study and yet I was utterly mesmerised by the lecture. I have no words to describe this experience. Thank you for uploading this lecture.
I’m Japanese and I started watching this video for studying English. First, the content was too difficult for me to understand by listening. So I bought his book ‘Justice-what’s the right thing to do?’ and read it. Then, I came back and I’m on this chapter. I realized that the main purpose of watching this video has changed into enjoying the content. It’s an amazingly interesting lecture.
Without using case, I had been able to defend myself successfully in a Canadian Court in Toronto, Ontario using the legal philosophy I have learned listening to philosophy contained in his legal philosophy and I got myself free and got a standing ovation in court.
I just watch this and realize how much of a hypocrite I am in my way of life
just the same!
@@DouglasHPlumb Yeah, buddy, I don't think people who are into moral philosophy are the right target group for religious doctrines. Try standing in front of Walmart instead.
@@lyrrr.8059 chill dude
@Nathan Desta Having listened to 3 episodes so far, there isn't a single question or scenario that can't be answered fairly and justly by the teachings of the Bible. I thought I'd learn a lot from these discussions but found that I already have all the answers in Christ.
Doctors sign hypocrite documents.
Sandel has such a rich disposition, it makes me want to read his books!
I read his book Justice, which covers much of this same material but quicker and without students taking odd positions. Based on that, I'd say he's a great writer and you'll enjoy it.
Finally I can attend Harvard University without costing any money 💵
You can't
@@raxmaxify She has just done it, here.
In order to attend, you'll need to be present at the lecture. Paying an auditing fee gives you access to some lectures (I think mostly law) for a non-degree seeking a higher learning experience.
That's why I'm here. I don't care about credits I was just curious about the difference between state college professors and a Harvard one.
@@delrosario7453 their yearly salaries, and the the motivation to make a curriculum that will be helpful in the real world scenarios. That is my guess.
Michael Sandel aka 'if Tywin Lannister had become a Maester'.
Most underrated CZcams Comment ever 👏👏👏
was thinking the whole time of who he resembles with..
FINALLY I FOUND THIS COMMENT
This guy really embodies the spirit of the subjects at hand, whether he really agrees with them or not. I like that. Not something you see in a positive light on the average college campus.
This lecture is still relevant, especially to the current Covid pandemic, 10 years later and the economic crisis with Gates at the forefront.
very true
I remember being in college and having no empathy for the poor. Then life happened and beat some sense into me. I really hope these kids wake up before life teaches them the hard way.
This is fascinating!
"Plandemic"
@@jeaninejeanine2670 have you voluntarily donated time and/or money to the poor?
Michael Jordon couldn't play basketball in the state of nature. There wouldn't be a court to play on, a stadium for people to watch, and consequently no possibility of earning huge sums of money for the game. So, thanks to the compact between individuals and the state, we are able to live in a society that provides laws, infrastructure, stability, education, basketball lessons, and so on and so forth. In return we sacrifice a portion of of income, which in turn helps ensure the ongoing vitality of society.
Exactly!!!
Exactly
Agreed... But is taxation for wealth distribution justified?! Tax to maintain infrastructure and run the govt is ok. But objection will be to giving free handouts to lazy bums or using (or misusing) that money to compromise national security.
@Motion Marketing and also to @ Manjesh Mahadevappa above.
Let's ask a hypothetical question: Can Michael Jordan safely earn the same amount of money he earned in, say, Somalia?
Of course not.
----------------------
Michael Jordan benefits enormously from being in a wealthy and stable market, which is in turn derived from a relatively wealthy and stable society. A middle class person can easily afford his ticket, and people instead of worrying about putting food on the table, can afford to pay a pretty penny to watch his games. Without said stability and societal wealth, Michael Jordan could never become a celebrity and millionaire that he is.
----------------------
Let's assume for the sake of argument, that there's no "compassion" tax, i.e. there's no redistribution of wealth, you keep whatever you earn, and people who can't manage to put food on the table will have to live in poverty, or worse, eventually starve to death.
But people don't just roll over and die. You would be surprised to see how quickly a hungry person with a hungry family abandon his libertarian ideals. They won't just say "oh, I can't work, so me and my family should starve to death so that more entrepreneurs people can get rich". They will resort to crimes: steal, rob, murder and kidnapping, whatever they can to survive.
They will band together because it's easier to survive that way. That's how organized crime started. The rich can afford to hire private security, but the average citizen who can't have to pay the crime lords protection money to avoid being targeted. Society descents into chaos, and the rich can't sell their product to the citizens anymore, who will be intimidated into buying the crime lords monopoly production chain instead.
OR, the poor can just revolt and transform society into Communism. Guess who will win, desperate people who are fighting for the survival of their family, or anti-tax, selfish people who fight among themselves on who has got to pay for the war against the desperate?
----------------------
You might want to argue that the solution to all this, without resorting to wealth redistribution, is charity. But there lies the problem: people who do charity is essentially subsidizing the "society maintenance fee" for those who don't. Charitable individuals therefore are less competitive than those who aren't as much, and will eventually be displaced by the less charitable, according to the free market principle. As such the "charity" solution will self implode.
----------------------
The fact remains that Michael Jordan did not get rich on his own. Besides his enormous talents, he benefited from being in a great society. And that great society has a maintenance fee associated with it - it is the cost it takes to maintain a relatively crime free society, with a wealthy middle class, who are well disposed to participate in a tremendous market that people can be free to make their profits.
My libertarian moral code is that *there is no free lunch* . Michael Jordan benefited enormously from the great society, so it is only fair he pay his fair share of its maintenance fee, in the form of income taxation.
Just like in restaurants those who eat lunch but don't wish to pay for it should be forced to do so by the guards, taxation should be forced as well upon those who benefit from the welfare of society, but do not wish to pay its maintenance fee.
Thus, my argument for redistribution of wealth from a libertarian stand point.
@Motion Marketing
Your argument falsely assumed that everyone in an unequal society has an equal interest in everyone else's success.
Let's say that you are Michael Jordan and you have 1 million paying viewers who pay him 1$ a week.
And let's say I am a homeless person who collect trash to sell to recyclers to survive.
Let's say that everyone in the society have 1$ a week in extra disposable income, and 1% of those decides to spend it to view Jordan, who have an extra 3 million viewers, and quadruple his income to $4 million a week.
Me, on the other hand, get an extra 1$ a week in income.
As such, Jordan benefits far more everyone else's success than a homeless trash collecting person.
To tax everyone the same amount of dollars is the same as having the other people subsidize the income of rich people.
Since in a libertarian society, there's no free lunch, and you have to pay for what you get, it is morally fair to tax you i.e. Michael Jordan much much more than me i.e. a homeless trash collecting person.
I have never had a class where we clapped at the end!? Is this a new thing or just the reaction to brilliant teaching, because it certainly is. I love the way he allows student participation, skillfully weaves it into the points of the class and then. Challenges them to lead them on to the next point. Never losing control of the class , or skipping a beat, and yet ending on time! Masterful! Really excellent teaching! A joy to watch!
It's a matter of status. He was already a very well-known and respected author and political philosopher prior to this class. It also could very well just be a part of the production of this series, but I think it's most likely a genuine response by students who respect his brilliant work and lectures.
falling in love with these lectures the more I watch them
I remember being in college and having no empathy for the poor. Then life happened and beat some sense into me. I really hope these kids wake up before life teaches them the hard way.
Being rich/ libertarian doesn't mean they don't have empathy for people in need, how to help though, should not be decided by the state. And why we automatically think gov makes better decision on how to use the money than the person who actually own and care about the money?
ya really think that billionares and multi-millionares give two shits about poor people? They got that rich from exploiting them in the first place. Have you ever heard a rich person talk about forced labour camps or child labour?
@@mikailkhan5454 mr beast has 9 million dollars and gives so much money to random people who need it it’s awesome
@@Coffeeisnecessarynowpepper yeah and Jeff bezos has billions upon billions and he over all his life have given less than a percent of his wealth to those in need, mr beast is one odd one out who gives his money away, but even he gives money away so he can make more money from CZcams.
I was thinking the same thing. I grew up conservative too. I know the exact kind of dad John, Julia, and the other dude have.
This is a wonderful series. Thumbs up Harvard for making it available.
I love how Mr. Sandel is animating the lessons! We need more of this discussions to happen in society and we have to bring it to more people so that we can grow together
Thank you Harvard !!! For making that accessible so easily
I live in Russia and currently teach English to very young learners. I just love Harward lectures! They give me a chance to both practise my listening skills and learn about various interesting topics. The professor is a real professional and the students are lucky indeed to have a chance to interact with such great teachers.
The question that wasnt asked, is "who gets to decide what is and isnt enough for one person?"
I think what a human need to live is agreed upon and it is no brainer to figure it out
@@shiningrose2348 except its not. You dont need a $1200 iphone, unlimited data etc. Which these people that "don't have enough to live" often have. (Over 70% of adults have smartphones)
second, never in history did people have what our poor have today. We are the first society in the history of the world where our poor are obese.
The person itself
@@phillipahn1655 you see a poor person with a smart phone & you ASSUME it's an expensive one. A smart phone is 100% necessary in our society. You need access to the internet to apply for jobs & a phone to be called on. If a bus doesn't run in your area, you need a phone to call an uber to drive you to work.
The problem is that the more someone acquires the more believes and justifies that needs. That’s why we have exploitation.
Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
Or could be 2 sheep and 1 wolf eating grass as lunch!
Usually ecologies have more prey then predetors.
Historically, the will of the majority had been supplanted by most "democracies", though democracies are more complex then simple majority rule.
Basically, resources are wielded to mold the society's viewpoint.
It's more like democracy is 1 wolf manipulating 99 sheep to vote in that the wolf should eat the sheep.
And we wonder why Exxon Mobil gets 4 billion in annual subsidies and no one says anything.
Culturally, majority tends to get their way. Economically and with foreign policy, the majority fails miserably.
John's brave. He stood his ground even though people might find his opinions absurd.
My dream, since I enrolled in the philosophy course at Eduardo Mondlane University, was to be surrounded by people discussing various relevant issues. It's a great honor for me to play a small part (albeit as a virtual viewer) of the best university of all time: Harvard. Thank you very much
Being a citizen in a society is equivalent to being under a contract. The government, for this reason, can tax you because they have provided all the necessary infrastructures for you and the rest of the society to make a living there.
Yes, right!
You might want to look into who provides all the necessary infrastructure (its the high end tax payers).
@@notsafeforchurch chicken and the egg. it is the high end tax payers who benefit the most from a stable society, because they are in a position to become high end tax payers.
His lectures are so powerful that it has the ability to change one's perspective. one of the most enlightened lectures I have ever heard.
We need a professor like him in every indian university.. He doesn't lean to any established belief, system or ideology while giving lecture to the class.. Putting an open window for the student to even have their opinion for or against the established ideology.. He does so to awaken the reasoning ability of our conscious mind and to unsettled all our belief that we had before
This was a very well handled lecture.
You think so? I felt the defense against Libertarian ideals was tepid. Given enough time, a Libertarian can subvert a society as a whole through monopoly, and exert on others through attrition, exactly the sort of slavery and dependence they oppose. I see Libertarianism as a long-con bad faith argument for manipulative oligarchs in the making.
@@nunyabidnis3815 This was years ago so I don't remember it but it sounds like I meant how it was discussed, not the points made.
@@nunyabidnis3815 Calling it a bad faith argument doesn't disprove the logic behind it. Also, it's ridiculous to dismiss it because you think all the adherents just want to control everyone when the entire premise of it is to reject that very idea.
It is fundamentally driven by a disgust response to seeing people be controlled.
@@PhyloGenesis I wouldn't assume most adherents consider it as such, because that would be ironic. When drawn to it's furthest extents however, it boxes itself into a corner. That's a blind spot if the goal is that no one is controlled by others.. as though no one's been a hypocrite before. Like someone whooping another with their own arms and saying, "quit hitting yourself," or a doormat to a plantation that says, "don't tread on me." I don't think it comes up, because most people are so far removed from that capacity to leverage heaven and earth against others.. however, that being far more possible than ever these days, the further wealth inequality expands, the more scarce and centralized the mineral rights and so on.. it's worth being aware of the capability. It's not that they Want to control others, it's that they'd be enabled to do so with that approach in the right circumstances.
@@PhyloGenesis yo man since you watched this years ago has your views changed?
Some of these kids are brilliant. I'd love to see where they are 10 years later and if they still hold similar values today...
Is amazing to see these lectures. It also amazes me on how people change the discourse of their opinions as soon as they listen anything related to economics ($$$). This is how much our society values money over their own freedom.
He says nothing about embezlement.
I have a counter. Its about perspectives. If we take the 'tax' as a fee to use resources of society instead of obligation to help the poor.
Taking of earnings won't be forced labour anymore, it will be an expense of an entity.
Yes. I thought the same. but the question was is it ok to take from rich to help poor.
This would be true if everyone was taxed at the same rate. but if two people are driving on the same roads and are protected by the same police and have the same expense on society why are they paying different bills?
Changing the word doesn't modify the exchange. My question is are the accountant(s) elected or selected? Cause I'm cool with paying my share I just want to see the books
I remember watching this when I was a kid.
Still love it.
TheSonicfanx1 nerd
r/iamverysmart
Yeah , 1965 . I still remember it being aired on Aristotle TV
Great Professor!
I strongly admired the generous explanations given by the professor Michael Sandel, particularly the way He interacts and encourages his students is unforgettable .
I love this professor
It’s a masterpiece to explain intelligence from both sides of a coin simultaneously staying beyond biases
Respected Professor Sir, the way you are enriching and exploring the students hidden talents is marvelous.Enjoying a lot throughout the sessions
"If you choose to live in a society, you give up the right to self-possession." How can one CHOOSE to live in a society?
Filbert Lam exactly! That’s the fundamental flaw with Rosseau’s social contract because there can not be an unanimous agreement to the social contract in the first place.
by staying in society instead of moving to live by yourself in Africa? what a dumb question...
@@jayjay-dr9pr exactly, by participating in capitalism is how you're choosing to live in society. If you call 911 for help, you choose to participate in this society, you choose not to pay taxes? that means the people on the other end of 911 will not be there because they aren't being paid.
Well, I think the good answer to your question is: precisely. The very fact we have to live in a society contradicts and knocks out the idea of self-possession, 'choice' being just an empty word in this context. The moment we have to figure out how to survive in the presence of other individuals, we are not 100% free to choose how to act. And this is so without even mentioning the biological determinism which is the reality of brains that have been shaped by evolution. If you take it seriously, nobody should really be praised by just being born at the right place and at the right time with the right set of biological skills to do something awesome which allows them to get rich. If we could choose that, who wouldn't?
It isnt a choice rather than a necessity. At least it starts out that way. Society is what you are a part of. Although later one can choose to live self sufficiently. Though that is questionable as to whether you can ever be completely that way. THere are so many ways people benefit from society. Most of us dont grow/pick/hunt/fish our own food. Didnt build the house we live in or build the car we drive or the myriad the tech devices we use. WE use the roads other ppl pave or electricity others have setup or maintain. Benefit from science and agriculture. Even the police and army that provides protection so we can live in relative peace. So all that one obtains or acquires in life is never done by his or herself. In my view, if you benefit from society you are a part of that society and have an obligation to return the favor.
I once talked about taxation with a Swedish person. Contrary to my previous knowledge, the person told me taxes are pretty low in Sweden. What I later realized is that he did not consider Social Security as taxation. From a technical point of view, it is taxation, but for him it was money to keep society healthy while taxation was to pay for non-socially related parts of the State, including the Government.
Such a good teacher! The way he argues With students makes them think twice before coming to a conclusion With terms they previously thought they already knew.
It is really amazing that how he manages to get out of students those questions which he wanted to address in coming lectures. It looks a sort of rehearsed scheme very well carried out. He is able to maintain the continuity of the arguments coming at him from different students without compromising the aim of discussion.
Let go of the microphone Julia! 37:35
lols
charleygordonFFA I really have waited to 37:35 to know what happened. And Imao😃😂😂
Right?!? I had to pause the video to check the comments for some validation here. Let it go!
hang in there until 47mins and you'll see her successfully rip the microphone free from his hand.... 🤣
@@MissLuella minutes before that
Victoria hit the nail RIGHT on the head. Good job, girl! :)
She was the one that blew my mind
I found the lectures quite useful. I can't wait to go through all the lecture series. Thank you for the opportunity to be part of this intellectual harvest.
Michael Sandel is the best of the best! I love it!
how happy the guy was to lead the talk in the second lesson following his 3 point list :)
good job
If only all professors in all university teach like he does! ❤️
I admire the professor so much. With that good looking and beautiful smile , beautiful mind , and so good to interact and teach the students, the students are really fortunate to have such proffesor and the university .
The subtitles on this are brillant. My favourite one: "Need is one thing, but dessert is another."
We discussed about this topic in our school last Jan. 2020 but I didn't appreciate it as much as I appreciate it now.. my teacher probably just teached the lesson for the sake of teaching
I paused right at the middle, so I didn’t yet hear the student’s responses, but my main point would be:
Without taxation we wouldn’t have schools, or hospitals, or tribunals, or police, or an army. As soon as people started developing a brain and saw the advantages of living in a community, taxes became obligatory for organizing purposes. We are not fully independent because we are part of a society, and we all need to contribute for it to work.
Also, the taxation = slavery point was such a leap of thought it completely threw me. Slaves do not get payed. Someone taking a part of your salary does not make you a slave. And when you consider how you might make use of that part later on, when going to a hospital or when your kids go to schools, for example, that seriously negates his point. Even feeling safe in your own home, knowing the police and the army protects you, makes parting with that sum worth it. It’s not like all taxes go to the poor. We all, as part of a society, make use of them.
Edit: My girl Victoria came through. I was getting ready to shout at my screen. Thank you, Victoria.
you are correct @Donald.
even us in Africa we need such kind of lectures
I have thought about wealth distribution on my own. And I think it's a good thing.
It's a way to hold the world economically together.
If we would design it in the right manner it will be beneficial for the individual as well as the group.
26:00 What if you look at taxation not being : 'taking a part of your income' to provide for 'basic minimum facilities like security, police, justice etc.' but rather: 'taking a part of your labor' to provide for the same. That's the most egalitarian way of asking people to contribute to a society - and not money. Not everyone can work in the police, be a judge, control the traffic or collect community waste. Hence, the most egalitarian way of sharing responsibility is to ask everyone to contribute x hours of their work towards the society. In a smaller, controlled environment, you could ask someone to take turns to police the town, to clean the town and so on. But when you scale it up, you say - "let's do what we want to do and contribute a proportionate amount of money instead of labor" because in a society, money is the only quantifiable proxy that we have for labor.
Valid point
I agree with Victoria, living in a society means that we can’t ignore other people. I think what makes us human is giving consideration to other people. We can’t just focus on what we want and what is our ‘belonging’
My humble view is that tax is needed for a number of things for a society to function - including, Law and Justice, Defence, assisting people who hit hard times or are less fortunate, assisting those who through no fault of their own need assistance, and so ALL should pay their fair share of Tax in the society/community that the profits were earned in. When talking of 'profit' I include profits that a company may make or pay (as profit) that a person may earn. This, therefore, includes NO Tax Havens, NO 'Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich' here in the EU.
What I think is missing now-a-days is that 'money' was initially a method of stepping between the principal of bartering. And it allowed a mechanism of 'bartering' unilaterally, in that you didn't require two separate good or goods to barter with - so, one person (A) has some axes, another person (B) has some apples. 'B' wants an axe, but 'A' already has all the apples he needs. So 'B' needs to find someone to swap his apples with another good that 'A' would be prepared to swap for an axe. Step in 'money.' 'B' can sell enough of his apples - 10lb - for, say, £5 to 'C', and 'A' is happy to accept £5 for one of his axes. He can then go to whomever he pleases to bargain for something he wishes to buy and he has £5 (£5 (pound) was originally 5lb of Silver) that he can use.
At the very basic level, money was based on the amount of effort - and a bit of risk - put in to making your good. If 'A' puts in, say, 20 man-hours to make an axe - with little other risk - and 'B' takes 15 man-hours to grow and harvest 10lb of apples - plus some risk of a bad harvest - then they may agree that one axe is the equivalent of 10lb of apples. But, remember, 'A' already had enough apples in the example above, so 'money' turned into a proxy for equivalent worth good - or worth based on rarity, or need.
But, very quickly, people realised that as 'money' was a proxy for any good, then why not cut out stealing the goods and go steal or take a slice of the 'money.' And here we have 'banking.' Originally, they were useful. But the casino banking of today is all about grabbing a slice of the money given by an investor(s) to those wanting to turn that money into something tangible. And between these two symbiotic groups sit the parasites. The parasites that try to grab a slice of the investment and/or profit for no real effort themselves.
As for economics. We are always told by economists that markets sort themselves out with the price elastisity of demand, etc. But, if these were true, then those people such as Bill Gates - as cited here - should never be able to make so much money. There are people fighting to just earn $0.0041667 per second - when working - but someone like Bill Gates earns over $150.0000000 per second. But 'does' he earn that amount? Is his labour effort really worth more than the guy earning $0.0041667? Now I'm not arguing for 'equal outcome' but I believe there are a number of issues with such a wide spread. I am also concerned with the 'political' clout this can give such a person or group of high-worth individuals. And, have we trully lost compassion for our fellow neighbours?
The most humbling thing I saw was a YT vid of a group who bought a pizza for a 'down-on-his-luck' guy. They then sent in another of their team, who pretended he too was down on his luck and asked the street guy for a share of the pizza. And that 'down-on-his-luck' guy didn't hesitate to 'share' that pizza. The same for an American Vet living on the streets. A car had been set up to see how honest people were...or not... with a laptop or something left on the seat and with the windows down. But the team got a shock when this 'tramp' looking guy reached in, took hold of the laptop... and put it in the glovebox. How the fuck is a Vet for the US living on the streets ffs? It's the same here in the UK, and it breaks my heart that these Vets and current military are prepared to sacrifice their lives so that the wanker-bankers can earn millions and we can get the latest Flat-Screen TV. The whole World is fvcked up!
Great series the young boldly use their own thoughts to reason with the human conscience. The professor interacts with great passion and intelligence with his students.
It is no secret that I have been very outspoken with my thoughts on social justice. It's good to hear other people's thoughts on such important subject matters.
I really enjoy seeing the smiles and hearing the laughter if the students responding to their creatively expressive professor. He really inspired the kids to think and express themselves.
Well-done everyone!👌🙃
hence, "no taxation without representation."
45:36 Asking other libertarians who agree with this argument: Do you then agree that the right to property is more important than the right to live? If taking someone's property rights to protect your right to live is wrong, then wouldn't it follow that property rights should be protected over the right to live?
I am not a core libertarian, but what i feel is it's not about whether right to property is more important than right to live, the whole point is stealing someone else's property for whatever means is wrong. This can be correlated to the idea of Douglas and Steven killing the cabin boy to protect their lives. Technically they stole the cabin boy's life to save their own lives.
Going to the taxation debate, i think it makes sense to not force the wealthy into paying more taxes for the sake of the poor. The rich have earned it, and if they have earned it fairly, it's upto them to use the money in ways they want. The government can infact create incentives to promote charity among them, so that they are motivated to use their earning for public welfare, by their own means
I like how this is what CZcams suggested and I'm now watching them all
I love this! This is why the COMPANY will have a GREAT JOB FOR you IN MY OWN LIFE WITHOUT HAVING any problems WITH YOUR OWN personal EXPERIENCE.
So many people coughing in that room it would be really awkward in 2020.
These debates of a modern society pre Covid are really a historic snapshot of where we “were”. What a great debate encompassing those who make up our current generation of leaders.
God give healthier and longer life to this great teacher.....Love and respect from Pakistan( Peshawar)
What a great teacher!
No wonder they are the students from HARVARD. The confidence and the knowledge they have have.
Sometimes I have to research the terms and then continue watching the video.
the guy JOE is very confident and always comes up with good examples
i love the way the teacher respects every student and vice versa.The way the teachers remember the names is phenomenal..In most Asian countries when you ask your teacher a difficult question He either throws you out of the class or threatens by saying they would not give you marks in semester exam.Thats the difference between east and west.
Joe looks like Jim Halpert from The Office
"If I want to personally go out and kill someone, because they offend me, that is self posession."
What is she even talking about? She is misinterpreting the arguments made by the libertarians. She is also kind of starting a circular reasoning. She is making the claim that because one has self posession, one can disregard other people's self posession. That is not what libertarians say. Libertarians say it's wrong *because the person getting killed also owns themselves*. She's also hinting towards the absurdity of her own example, because she obviously knows that everyone has self posession.
It's not fair to make an example that violates the libertarian principle, and then argue that it is wrong in a way that a libertarian would, and pretend that it must mean libertarianism is wrong. The conclusion should be the opposite!
Her argument works for unilateral self-posseasion, but not for the universal self-possession that libertarianism advocates.
Agreed, she's violating the self-possession of someone else in the scenario she's imagined up.
So if you earn or own all of the water in a region and you decide to hoard the water because it is your property and hence your's to do with as you wish; and in doing so, the side effect is that crops die and the side effect of that is that animals die and the side effect of that is that some people die, is self posession more of a right than natural rights? Or the right to existence?
What do you think of Nestle?
Will it be right that your employer applies the self possession principle and reduce your income? Are your self possession principles less that your employer one?
@@benjaminjiin8432 you can't own all the water in an area without the corrupt cronies in government getting involved. Which just proves how worthless governments are.
This is a great way of learning in the fight against biases
Thank you so much for these episodes, now I’m going to 4th episode. Wow this episodes were from 13 years ago already
I have my IT exam tommorow...but now thinking exam can wait...This is really captivating.
"Theft is defined by the taking of your property with the INTENT TO deprive you of it's benefit."
Then by this very definition when the federal government takes my money before I have the ability to make a choice with the amount taken and I also derive no benefit equal to the amount taken from me, I have been robbed.
heavyd777 that is a libertarian mindset with no regard to social contract theory.
I’ve actually argued this perspective before; however, taxation is not theft due to the social contract and tandem social contract theories.
@@michaeldaus9719 The "social contract" is a made up "contract". A contract requires the consent of both parties, here the government and the citizen. The citizen became a part of this imaginary contract by birth, and his participation in this contract is thus without consent and instead coerced. So, even when you assume the existence of this social contract, the citizen was coerced into a "contract" that deprived him of his self-ownership, which is morally the same as slavery.
@@fritsgeelhoed3197 You have free reign to leave society whenever you want and go live in the woods somewhere on your own. There is still public land out there that you can live on by yourself. Try to hunt or something to survive. You probably wouldn't like it too much. You'd probably die. But hey you have a right to yourself so it's up to you what you want to do. However if you want to live in a kushy society then you have to pay for that through taxation.
He says nothing about embezlement.
Thanks to Micheal Sandel and Justice team. This lecture is so interesting really
Sandel provides a lovely family atmosphere of law and philosophy students to openly reflect on what their views are to the history of utilitarian and Kant version of morality
Knowledge is like food, it leads to craving when it is good.
This vlog is still relevant and worth watching. May replace Bill Gates & Michael Jordan by Jeff Bezos or Ellon Musk & Lebron James for cases-study.
Thanks Harvard University for sharing education to the public or society.
"My property rights, my property rights." Who gave you that right in the first place? Isn't it the society that is then taxing you?
well at some point in history peasants lived on land owned by - you guessed it - landowners. they had to pay in crops as tax to be allowed to live on the land for protection from the landowner who was usually a lord or some titled man (mostly never a woman). individual rights for the peasantry are a relatively new thing.
Rights are considered to exist regardless of society. So no one gave them to you, instead you had possession of them all along. If this isn't true, you'd depend on society to grant you ownership of yourself. If society decided not to give AdmiralPrice ownership of themselves could they make him their slave?
Thank You Very Much Harvard form IRAN for allowing the people of the World be able to enjoy the BEST LECTURES IN LAW by the Best Professor Mr. Sandel and Very Smart Students contribution during lecture; and as it has been said correctly " Im not the same person with those mentality, after hearing all new views to different issues...
I'm watching right from the first to third episode., gaining soo much insight to understand the world, when it comes in deciding what is right and wrong. Deferring views. Thanks, to Harvard University, the speaker and the students.
Do not forget about corruption. Nowadays, laws pass because big corporations pay for it. Corruption has never been so bad before in our entire history.
There is great virtue in reaching into one's one pocket to help the fellow man. But is it virtuous to reach into other people's pockets to do so?
yes, its fair
Robin Hood
@@andrewbowen2837 From whom did Robin hood steal?
Who gets to say what is "enough" wealth? How can we presume to know what someone can do without when we do not know the circumstances of that person's life? If you want to redistribute wealth then do it but don't force others to do it for you.
There is a massive difference between a modern libertarian society ( neo liberalism) and classical liberalism that was actually inspired by Kant's cosmopolitan egalitarian society idea. I guess everything tends to get twisted for worst with time.
The classical liberalism of Humboldt and John Stuart Mill grew up in a pre-capitalist post-feudalist society in which the state had central authority and posed the most immediate threat to individual freedoms--it was a highly progressive ideology. But today, as the concentration of power and the agglomeration of property in a few private hands, especially multinational corporate actors, has created an entirely different condition of governance ie., the location of authority now lies predominantly in the hands of private actors whose power and influence depends on the dismantling of state powers, the meaning of classical liberalism using its true classical progressive intentions has totally broken off into what now might be called a sort of anarchist socialism, while the ideology of liberalism, that is individual freedoms as diametrically opposed to sate interference, is now a highly conservative ideology which serves and reproduces current power relations. I dont think most people would deny this.
See. thank you for catching that. Because here's Nozick's argument again.
-I trade my labor for earnings
-Taxation takes my earnings away
- Since earnings is traded for labor, taking my earnings is the same as taking my labor.
- Taking one's labor is what happens in slavery.
Therefore, TAXATION IS SLAVERY.
The question was posed in this or another lecture about a train with no breaks on a track. It was going to kill 5 people unless you redirect. 1 scenerio U pull a lever which redirect the train to kill a person. Scenario 2 U push a man onto said lever & he dies.
In truth these two things R the same. The difference is disassociation from your actions.
I.E.......(part 1)
Anna is so brilliant, I love her line of argument.
Watching this in 2023 feels like I travelled back in time and appeared in their class, hope the professor is doing ok❤
"If you choose to live in a society."
Choose? When did I choose?
it's hypothetical. Have you ever read about social contract theories?
JPVbio I have and I don't recall any mention of "choice" in any of it, but I'm open to being corrected on that.
Well, firstly, the idea of the contract is hypothetical. If you recall Hobbes and Rousseau, there isn't anything to be "chosen", yet, for John Locke, living in a society is something (still hypothetical) we choose when we contract with others and create a state. By doing this, we delegate our natural freedom and can even, as Locke states, repeal our "choice" to live in a society and "go back" to the "natural state". But I repeat, the choice and the contract are hypothetical. It's only a theory that helps us to try to understand our societies and freedom within them. For this reason, I think the girl shouldn't be crucified for saying we choose to live in a society.
*i'm sorry for my english.
JPVbio What Locke is saying basically is that so long as there's no revolution then the people have implicitly consented. That's a VERY hypothetical form of consent.
If the courts put me on trial for locking you in my basement would "but at no point did he fight back" allow a defense that you consented?
The point is that no individual can leave society.
Elis Pappila _Why isn't this possible?_
I should put on the record that I'm not advocating giving people that option. I'm just saying that appealing to the idea that people have "chosen" to live in society is disingenuous and a dishonest attempt to silence opposition to government or societal decisions.
Friedman went one step further than what you said. He said that rather than tax all of the people the 12% on all of their income, we would do far better to let them invest it. Some would invest and do very well. Some just fine. Others would squander it. When it is time to take care of those few that didn't provide for their retirement, we would have more wealth available to do so. We could then tax the people less than 12% to help those people. So not only is social security "wrong," but government is simply not a competent investment manager.
what you are saying is how to do it right in your opinion, however its not about that, its about the principle of doing it. taxing and forcing them to invest is essentially taking away their choice of keeping the money, although i personally would prefer investing it, BECAUSE ITS MORE ENTERTAINING!! (
Oh my gosh! Victoria is brilliant.
The argument in favour of taxation which might be consistent with libertarianism is that everyone starts at a different point on the race line. Some are privileged by the virtue of their birth, inheritance, neighbourhood, race, gender, etc and thus better positioned to exploit their rights while others aren't. Redistribution of Income essentially enables, to a certain extent, the not so privileged to exercise their right to liberty and achieve what they aspire to.
Humans don't start with same anything. Even the same person is not the same as he was yesterday.
Should the government start redistributing human organs, body parts, et al ?? It's not fair that some are born with body and psychological defects while some are extremely healthy, good looking and intelligent.
@@eJohndoe Point well taken. This where libertarianism helps as well. There are certain boundaries we draw that help us exercise our right to liberty. Organs, for instance, come within that boundary. And even income is only taxed to the extent that it doesnt materially affect the individual's life. And while we cannot solve every inequality, doesn't mean we don't solve any of them. Right?
23:05 doesn't it depend on what is done with the taxes? If the money taken away from you benefits you (in form of building streets, hospitals and the whole infastructure around you etc. ), it shouldn't be considered as "taken way" but as your contribution to society...
In that case it would only be right to pay taxes, because it's everybody's contribution benefitting society as a whole.
while forced labour would only benefit the one forcing you to work..
So the ends justify the means? So if come to you at gun point and demand that you give me your wallet with all your cash, but promise that I will give all the money I stole to a nearby orphanage, then it is not theft and you would be okay with that?
Jan Bruun Andersen let me see if I understand your point, just like in the vid discussion, you consider taxing people to be like stealing?
@@capubecks - more like robbery. How else would you describe an act where people with guns will ultimately threaten you with violence or kidnapping if you don't pay up?
@@JanBruunAndersen interesting, so how you solve things they mentioned in the vid...fire department or highways?would u not pay taxes for those?
@@capubecks - fire fighting could be handled by insurance companies. Highways could be handled the same way as toll roads, ferries and tunnels. If you want to use them, you pay for the privilege.