 So why is the rule of law important, right? And what does it mean the rule of law? Does the rule of law mean the rule of laws? So first the rule of law is to separate from the rule of man The idea of the rule of law is that there's sudden objective knowable predictable Laws out there that one can live by that they're not dependent on the arbitrary whim of a ruler a Dictator authoritarian a judge a policeman or whoever whoever has a gun whoever has power So the whole idea is to subordinate society to Objectivity to objective laws rather than to subject society to subjugate society to The rule of human beings the rule of people the rule of a System and the idea of the rule of law is that these laws are not just arbitrary. They're not just whatever but they're guided by particular principles that there is a Reason for them justified not in In in arbitrary whim justified not in The whim of any one person or in the whim of many people in the whim of the majority The idea of the rule of law is that the laws are there to achieve a certain Purpose really a moral purpose Law should be grounded in morality. You don't legislate morality But laws have to be grounded in a certain view of morality and in the case of America in the case of a free country Those laws should be grounded on the idea that your life belongs to you in order to Live your life. You must attain property which belongs to you and The laws are really there to protect you your rights your right to your life You're right to your property your right to liberty your right to act Based on your own judgment based on your own reason in pursuit of the values that are necessary for your happiness So laws are supposed to be in the American legal system at least The way I see it. I'm not sure many people in the legal system see it this way laws are supposed to be grounded in the protection of individual rights their justification is Or should be the protection of individual rights property rights rights to liberty Right to your life laws are Not objective When they violate those rights When the consequence of the majority imposing itself on the minority and we know I'm right always said The smallest minority in earth is the individual so when the majority imposes themselves on the individual when the majority violates the rights of the individual That is not objective law. That is not the rule of law. That is the negation of the rule of law So law should be grounded must be grounded in morality It must apply to all we have equality before the law all of us have rights All of us have the right to life liberty property in the pursuit of happiness and the law must apply to all of us Equally the same It must be protecting our rights equally and the same and finally these laws must be knowable predictable objective Objective both in the predictability and nobility, but also in the fact that they are grounded on something real On the protection of rights now To some extent you know America's always Failed in this regard or for much of its history is failed starting with slavery Jim Crow laws obviously were not grounded on the protection of individual rights, and we're not applied equally to everyone laws that discriminated a Laws that don't constitute the rule of law The anti the rule of law the negation of the rule of law Because the negation for the purpose of law Which is the protection of rights and remember that this idea of the rule of law this idea of individual rights Even when it's not fully understood even when it's practicing consistently as it was in America But even in places like Europe and elsewhere where it was certainly practiced in inconsistently and To a large extent not even known it was implicit. It wasn't explicit. There wasn't The theory of individual rights did not motivate The legal agenda in Europe the way it did early on in the United States with a declaration and event of Constitution European countries did not have that kind of Constitution that Was centered around this concept of individual rights, but implicit because the modern world in which we live is a world based on enlightenment ideas based on Enlightenment philosophy based on enlightenment political theory even when they don't know it even Among people who don't recognize that we're not aware of it who didn't do it consciously The actual reality is that our system Modern system even system in places like Japan or in parts of Asia that are that are relatively free politically They're based on ideas of enlightenment They are based on ideas of individual rights whether they know it or not and almost all these systems have some protections For the individual against the majority Have some protections of those rights not consistent Not systematic certainly not as good as they have been At their best protected in the United States But what dominates the free world of these enlightenment ideas and Enlightenment ideas of the sanctity of the individual and the enlightenment political idea that the world of the state is To protect the rights of that individual to leave him free to pursue his own happiness to pursue his own life to pursue his own values to pursue property and to protect that pursuit From physical coercion. I mean that is the foundational base of all countries that are today call themselves democracies Because none of them are absolute democracies in a sense that the majority can vote on anything all of them have some Principles by which limit the power of the majority. So they're all inconsistent Applications of the rule of law. They're all inconsistent applications of the idea of individual rights But it's still the foundation for all of them Now what separates this modern era from previous eras? What makes what's obvious about this era as compared to previous era is the last 200 250 years is That we live in a civilized place we live in a civilized world We live in relative safety We live in Places wait for the most part again with exceptions, right? We had communism and we had fascism, which were the exception, but for the most part we live in places where you can Mostly do what you want to do say what you want to say live your life According to your values people don't intervene people don't interrupt and generally the police are there to protect you and to put away criminals put them in jail and The difference between living in such a civilized Environment where the laws are predictable, you know, what's going to happen You're not at the whim of the majority or the dictator. You're not at the whim of the people in power and The mobs don't control the streets and the criminals don't run things So that you can live life Not perfectly because we know the rule of law in the West is not being perfect. We have compromised on it forever Vanda, thank you. That's very generous, but for the most part we have lived in a world in which the rules were no objective Predictable and applied equally before the law with some exceptions around Jim Crow laws and other things but even that is somewhat behind us, although now we have other things like affirmative action, but Imperfectly as it is We've managed to build businesses create wealth own homes Live relatively safe life safe from violence. We can walk in the streets Drive around it's civilized and a lot of what civilized means is this piece We're not fighting in the streets and we can protect We don't have to arm ourselves to the teeth in order to protect our property and we're not constantly in fear of our own government or gangs of you know For the most part of the police themselves, but that is a thin line between civilization and barbarity It's only 300 years ago with this did not exist anywhere. I Mean there were better places and worse places. There were better kings and worse kings But generally it was a king and you were susceptible to his whim and the whim of those that he controlled and the Whim or those who controlled him depending on The place and the time Before that it was loving gangs and you know little towns and The church and just barbarity everywhere and violence and and and a threat to everything and you couldn't there was no Preserving and maintaining your property Without being armed to the teeth and wealth was associated with buying Firepower and buying protection That's what you use your wealth for There's nothing much to buy with wealth in those days. The rule of law is what allows us to live a civilized life It was allows us to Live in safety Not fear of our lives and our property constantly. So it's something to monitor It's something to be aware of it's something that's important to Make sure we don't lose So when you see people smashing storefronts rioting in the streets and The police doing nothing There is real reason to be concerned When you see people knocking down monuments look I am a Proponent of getting rid of monuments To the Confederacy I Don't believe they should be monuments to General Lee in public spaces Now I'm not bigger than public spaces to begin with but if we have them that we shouldn't be celebrating The Confederacy Jefferson Davis. These are the most anti-American people. These are people that committed treason and sedition These are people who fought against the legitimate government of the United States of America And these are people who did it in the name not a freedom But in the name of slavery and the name maintaining other human beings as their property And yeah, I would like to see every one of those statues toppled by the authorities By the people owned the property Not by mobs not by gangs who then cannot differentiate between Thomas Jefferson and Jefferson Davis between Lee and Between George Washington. It's a mob mentality Thinking is not strong in a mob History is not strong in a mob Violence fear anger Destruction that is what mobs are for and this is property And you think it's public property, so it's no big deal But once you abandon public property like that, then they're gonna come after your property They're gonna come after private property and they have right the riots smashed private property and nobody seems to carry them So I'm all for the monuments coming down all of them that names of the forts being changed The fact that secession was considered okay back then which I am very dubious of sounds like Sounds like rewriting of history Doesn't matter these are bad people Evil people evil people who maintained the right to cede in order to secede to maintain slavery Secession is only valid If you're succeeding to increase freedom It's never valid if you're succeeding in order to reduce freedom So these are the enemies of the United States of America the enemies of the Declaration of Independence The enemies of the right to life liberty in the pursuit of happiness the enemies of the quality of man Quality before the law quality of rights Finally we got to the point in American history. We were gonna apply the idea of rule of law equality before the law and These people objected these people rejected the Declaration of Independence and if you read the intellectuals of the South during this period they were anti American anti declaration anti constitution anti founding fathers They were influenced heavily by German philosophy. They were Hegelians They were really bad folks So monuments to them Now put them in a museum Where you explain how evil and bad they really are Alex Wow, that is very very generous. Thank you A lot of really generous contributions on super chat tonight Just terrific Thank you all for supporting me a good good chance to stop and say, you know You can support me in a variety of ways super chat is one way very much appreciated. You can also do it monthly on patreon or subscribe star calm or On my website to PayPal you're on book show calm slash support and also on locals Locals use stripe so you can do it straight PayPal credit card You know and of course super chat so thank you all so Monument should go But there was a way to get rid of them petition Demonstrate Right, let us do your congressman or state senators state congressman Get them to do their job What we need today what I called a new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason by the intellect Not by feelings wishes women's or mystic revelations Any man or woman who values his life and who does not give want to give in to today's cult of the spare cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist