Very helpful lecture and thought provoking. This was not the kind of information or teaching I received when working on my degrees. Thanks.

I keep coming back to this talk.

That "AMONG" these rights, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... With the word "among" in there, our rights are unlimited... Among meaning "not limited to"... The founders were geniuses...

Thanks for posting this. I am a big fan of Hillsdale College and its mission. The above talk made me re-think some aspects of the current difficulties faced by conservative groups with respect to youtube, twitter, facebook. My initial thought had been that these were private enterprises and there was no right for me to complain about their internal policies even while I wished they did not discriminate against Praege U, etc. Now I am beginning to at least pursue the notion that such platforms may have moral (if not legal) obligations to allow conservative voices equal standing to the preferred views of the owners of these platforms as part of the common good they are voluntarily participating in. The speaker in the above video spoke of the University being a good in which people come together to pursue the truth (he separated the Ideal University from the particular Universities whose policies may in practice not be good). To a greater or lesser degree these internet platforms can be a part of that noble pursuit of serching for truth as well. It would seem because of that there is an obligation on the part of these platforms to treat the views of all people of good will equally. I haven't yet thought all this through and I realize it would be difficult to for conservatives to police these platforms. Further, I am still very reluctant to use the force of legislation to force these platforms to play fair. But thanks for posting this. It has made me think. I also express my gratitude for youtube in having made the platform available. KZread, please don't censor Praeger U, or Hilsdalle College. Thanks, H S

Nice thoughts, but this line in the DoI is directly from Locke, with property replace by pursuit of happiness. The DoI not talking about "profound happines". Pursuit of happiness: Property rights = our ability to act according to our own plans, because we can use our own property as we see fit. Pursuit of happiness. Locke: "Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, and uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty, and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men; but to judge of and punish the breaches of that law in others, as he is persuaded the offense deserves, even with death itself, in crimes where the heinousness of the fact, in his opinion, requires it."

Leo XIII was legitimate in his speech ,that doesn't mean that the state should say or follow him.

@hopelessstrlstfan181

5 жыл бұрын

Not quite sure what you meant. If your point was that we should not allow a Pope (such as Pope Leo XII) the political power to enforce his views, actually that is the traditional Catholic view.

@raurkegoose5233

5 жыл бұрын

@@hopelessstrlstfan181 No, it is the modern Catholic view. A perusal of history might be helpful here. And when I say modern, I do not include the current pope.

@hopelessstrlstfan181

5 жыл бұрын

@@raurkegoose5233 Some clarification would be very helpful here. My comment was in reference to the long standing Catholic understanding that the Church leaves secular political leaders the freedom to make the prudential judgement they feel are in order while the Church teaches moral theology and the principles upon which such political judgement should be made. For example, the Church teaches the principles behind what is often referred to as "Just War theory" and the politicians form the policy, tactics and strategies necessary to win a war. The author of the book "Triumph" demonstrated that this idea of separation of Church and State in the Traditional view should not be confused with the secular US constitution, btw. In the book "Triumph," the author of pointed to the example of the Bishop Ambrose who called the Emperor to public repentance after the Emperor killed Roman Citizens in the name of maintaining Civil order. The Church had a very powerful and recognized role of moral guidance, but the Church leadership did not engage in political decision making, etc. Many of us in the US (myself included) have imbibed a lot of post-reformation English mythology which suggests the Catholic Church wielded political power in the middle ages, etc. It isn't that simple and it is much the contrary as it was in fact the Protestant leaders who united Church and State in differing ways. John Calvin gave the Civil authorities in Geneva the power to make sinful acts actual crimes (much like sharia law) and he used the political leadership of Geneva to enforce his religious authority on its citizens. In the case of England, of course, the Protestants made the Monarch the head of both Church and state. Similar arrangements were made in the Lutheran States of Scandanavia which were given offical national State Churches rather than what had existed under Catholicism in which there was a Christian Church independent of any political power and which gave the political leadership freedom to form policy. The exception being the Papal States, of course. That is where I am "coming from," but I am primarily concerned with understanding your point more clearly so please provide additional info.about your position. BTW, I did look up your channel and I certainly agree that freedom of speech is not a right "bestowed" upon men by any government and that the proper role of a government is to protect our rights as creatures created in the image of God. Your pal, H S