The Battle of Ideas That Birthed Our Republic

Auto-generated captions from the recording, lightly edited for names. Select a timestamp to jump to that moment in the video.

0:00 I'd like all of you just to take a quick moment in your mind. I'd love to go around and we almost have a small enough group to do it, but I just want you to take a moment and think of your three favorite books or movies just in your head. Just take 10 seconds, think about it. It doesn't need to be anything amazing. You know, my favorite I'll tell you my favorites. I love Tequilla Mockingbird. I love The Giver. And I love East of Eden. Those are my three favorite books. None of them my favorite for such a long time. Such an exquisite book. I would still say it's one of my favorite like original top five. And I'm I'm hopeful that whatever books or movies you picked express a wide gamut of human nature and that's where I think we have to start before we get to the founders before we get to anything we have to start with human nature because you know we're we're the people. So there are different fundamental beliefs on what human nature is. There's something I'm sure all of y'all have heard of the state of

1:05 nature. Okay? It's basically what is humanity out in the wild. I'm a terrible artist. But what we're like out here and there is a school of thought. I'll talk to you about sort of the three most popular schools of thoughts that exist. One of them is one of the most quotable and if you've read the Leviathan, which you know, bless your heart if you have, it's a it's a long long odyssey, but that life is nasty, brutish, and short. Okay? There is a idea that this is terrifying and that we exist in this nature and that we're inherently extremely selfish that we are capable of great evil and that we only look out for ourselves. That's the idea that humans are like that. Uh and that's

2:05 Hobbes. Hobbes believes that human beings are not so good. Um, and that's a a very popular idea of what human nature is. There's another idea that we are benevolent beings that we live uh we live our life to help others through altruism that this state of nature is actually sublime. that there is an idea and if any of you have studied uh Karl Marx uh he writes about this thing called historical materialism which is the idea of history's changes through the different lifestyles uh that existed. He has this idea that we once lived in a primordial for sort of communism as tribes something that Joe had been talking about the other day um and that there was a tribes of equality. uh he then talks about the development of economic systems, division of labor uh leading to feudalism then leading to

3:10 capitalism and then what he goes to socialism and then communism and I'm not asking you to buy into all of Marx's beliefs or not but this is sort of his notion and it became very popular in a lot of different thought pools and it's this this idea that humans aren't the humans in nature itself is not evil that we're good so I want you all to just kind of take a moment like how you feel about people. I mean, are we greedy and evil or are we good? I mean, what's your what's your gut feeling? Greedy and evil. Greed and evil. That's I like that. I like that. Isn't I mean, isn't there a lot of variation in any group of people? You're jumping the gun, Joe. Like greedish. Let him finish. No, no. He's He's No, no, no, no. That's That's great, Joe. And just for everybody to hear, isn't there a variation in people? I I think we all recognize and Joe astutely put that that is absolutely true. Um I'll take the Hobsian rebuttal

4:11 and say yes there is variation but we do it for selfishness like we are good to other people because we're greedy and it's good if I help out your mama and she ends up baking me a pie and then I can take that pie back to my family and cook. Hob says that's great. That's exactly what I want. He's like, I don't look, humans are selfish. Nothing wrong with that. That's the way we are. And humans are not we're not necessarily evil, but we're we're greedy and we we don't care about that. And that's what Hobb says. Does anybody have a different They kind of agree with this benevolent view of human beings. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I mean, I think when your needs are met and you don't have to worry and you're free to think and live your life how you want. That's very much uh RWS's view. John RWS uh if you all he has something called the the veil of ignorance and he talks about if we all have our needs met. Um sort of the social safety net

5:18 ideology that we will be inherently good to one another. you know, he doesn't think that we'll necessarily all be Mother Teresa, although we talked about that earlier, but that he does think that we will be we are good. So, this was a classic argument that was happening from the Renaissance era upward. There was this debate on like a scale of how evil or not people were. You have uh if any of you are familiar with St. Augustine of Hippbo uh writes a great book on like how children are absolutely evil. He he's like children are menaces and society like changes them and Christianity changes them. Uh and you know we have this idea this this Hobbesian idea that life is nasty Bruce and short there's a lot of at least greed in the world and selfishness not always evil. Then we have this other idea that human beings are actually benevolent. were created in the image of God that we're all inherently good. Now, as Joe said, there was arguably on the scale there's a variation. Okay, I think we all

6:24 recognize there's maybe not this and maybe not that. And that's what a lot of debate was in philosophy. Uh particularly short for sure. What is it? Kids are short for sure. Kids are short for sure. So, the nasty British part. I like that. I might steal that. Um I was I was answering it um from an original sin original sin perspective. The analogy I always think about it that we have to teach our children to behave or to misbehave. Teach our children to behave. So the original sin kind of model fits for me that the evil aspect of a human being I think is the raw form. But it like you said there's interactions that happen over your life that can alter that. But I think if there's no interaction, then I think we stay true to our probably our original sin form. Well, and St. Thomas Aquinas says the exact same thing. Uh, in case you were that's very much he builds an entire political philosophy off of original sin. Uh, Thomas Aquinas does. Uh, and and states exactly that. So, very well put. Um, but there's this

7:30 debate going back and forth. Um, many of you probably know the uh the Protestant Catholic wars that happened in Europe in the uh basically 1600s that were pretty terrible. Uh, you might know about Luther's reform, Martin Luther's reforms, the 99 points on the church. Um, all this stuff in the backdrop and then there's the English Civil War uh, which is terrible and and bloody. And this is kind of where Hobbes and other great thinkers emerge and they see this horrific battle for the for the crown. uh many of you and if you're of Irish descent, I apologize, but Oliver Cromwell, uh a notorious and brilliant fighter in general. I mean, he talks about basically killing and enslaving all the Irish. Um anyways, this bloody civil war happens and Hobbes is like, "People are people are scary. People are very scary." Was that in 1066? No, that's the Battle of Hastings. That's when uh William the Conqueror went and uh Normanized uh England. Um, I love the battle of Hastings. But, uh, anyways, uh, Hobbes comes up with

8:37 this idea. We need to build a government for people because people are nuts. People are greedy. We're self-interested. This is the government. We need to build a government that tampers those things and makes society safe. Um he did anyone think of how he sort of what he does what kind of government he makes and if you've read Hobbs don't you know don't ruin it but if you do you think you know what kind of government he just makes if he thinks people are at least greedy self-interested at worst evil and he's grown up in the backdrop of this uh English civil war a terribly bloody civil war um does anyone think they they can guess what kind of government Hobbes builds martial law oriented very much so uh Hobbes very much builds a and it's kind of built off the platonic we'll get a little more into

9:40 platonic systems of governance that existed and build off of those but there is this idea that Hobbes writes the king and crown I'm not going to be able to draw a crown over this yeah tell my terrible writing um is the only way to have an effective government that people having any other form of government would be an absolute mistake. Now you you have to give you have to push back a little bit and this is why I think history is just as important for influence philosophy is vice versa. Um in the backdrop remember Cromwell there's this huge fight against the crown. A lot of Anglo jurisprudence and law, common law, is based off of this idea of a balancing of powers. And we'll we'll talk about that in later parts of my lesson, but it's this kind of tugofwar. And Hobbs sees all these uh different folks being killed that are in serv service to the king and he sees the chaos that parliament goes through and he's like, "Democracy

10:42 sucks." You know, it's not pure democracy, but it's this this notion of it of a parliament and it's very scary and it's very bloody and it's very unstable economically. Um England at this time is still uh not it's at best a regional power. um you know we we kind of have seen the beginning turfs of Elizabeth the first uh the merkantile state development of England but it has not become uh it's it's truthfully not really until the industrial revolution that England becomes and once it fully becomes Britain a true powerhouse u but so this is the backdrop Hobbs is writing about and he's also he's not really writing he does have some religious parts in there he but he's not writing with a fervor of the background of one with religious conviction. The other most famous thinker of this time is a guy named Lach and L Rock writes a great piece two treaties and government and Lach L lock lock takes a semi- opposing

11:49 view as Joe pointed out you know Lock says well look I think really at worst people are gray um and I think on the whole people are kind of good Um he says you know people are definitely good to their family and their community for the most part. You get the one or two people that are not. He says you know people are really in this in between state. They're not they're not evil. Now society or their background can make them bad just as it can make them good. Our community should enable us to be good. How do we feel about lock? I'd say I agree with his viewpoint a lot more. The idea that there's there's the capability of both the love and the evil in everybody. And there's most people are somewhere in the middle. You've got your extreme cases, of course. Sure. We could name a few. And I'll I'll play put my cards on the table that I'm a lock in. Okay. So, I don't mean to bismerch Hobbs.

12:55 Um this is where they both obviously they differ and there's lots of pamphlets. Uh David Hume writes on it if any of you are familiar with David Hume. Uh but there is a lot of back and forth uh in Britain and what also would become later the United Kingdom. Um the British channel or the British Isles I apologize are sort of having this discussion and I I focus on on Britain one because I'm a native English speaker. uh France is having some semi-imaril arguments at this time as well and France is very much the more of the center of political philosophy and what all gently coined like western civilization Paris is very much the place to be London people are still kind of crapping in the streets I mean it's not really a magnificent place at this time quite yet um and the center of thought has left Italy Um many of you probably know that the this from the 1500s and prior the papacy uh a lot of a

13:55 lot of beautiful thought emerges from the Catholic Church's dialogues um starting I mean St. Aquinas brilliant thinker Catholicism leads the way but then there's this fracturing uh the 1500s Protestant reformations um that leads to a totally different school of thought that procures and France ends up being a wonderful battleground for these ideas. Um France has a large Catholic population but also a large Protestant population. Uh Germany has a very similar uh issue so does Austria. you know, places like Italy and Spain are predominantly Catholic. Um, and and Britain is Britain becomes Protestant, but what's interesting about Britain's thing is Britain doesn't become it for religious ideologies. Britain becomes it because King Henry becomes pissed off at the Catholic Church and wants to keep marrying different women and uh he chooses for England to no longer be Catholic. But so England again it's not this uber diverse religious place but they are these thinkers are being

14:59 influenced by the outside world and there is a dialogue of what human nature ought to be and so then we move on to sort of the next parts oops what is this even the right way to think about building a government is building a government on human nature Good. I mean, does anybody have any thoughts on that? I would wonder what else you would like where else you would start. You'd have to start there. You believe that the greater cause or the people are the greater good? Why would you even need to go? That's a great that's a great question. How are we defining human? Who who are we looking to to define human nature? Well, we have two guys who clearly disagree with one another. Um who don't live that far from one another and are not that far apart in time frame either.

16:02 Um these are just two of the more leading thinkers, two of the most famous, but there's a lot of others who who who deal with this. Adam Smith deals with the idea of well let's build human an economy an economic idea off of human nature. This is very popular in uh well I should say that western thought I don't think there's a cohesive western thought. We'll talk about that in a little while. There's this idea that human nature is the groundworks for building a lot of things. And it kind of starts with Plato. um Ava who was a Middle Eastern uh Muslim thinker very much fashion makes it fashionable preserves it and brings it back again um and then that filtrates into St. Thomas Aquinas and then that proliferates into most of European thought. Um but there is a real question of you know if we do think humans are really really good and we got the Bible why do we need anything else? Um and there's a reason

17:06 that I didn't list that third thinker because it just that ends up losing that argument. People say yeah we do have that stuff but people keep messing up. So these two become really the lead thinkers on that. And then the other question I think Warren's right you know if we don't go on human nature what else do we go on and there's this idea you know I talked about that forest before of it became very popular it's called the state of nature things that we are entitled to out in nature or what we become out in nature you know and lock and hobs both talk about this and they say well all right what if we were if the if all of us were out here and we were you know butt naked out there, what would we do? Like, would we all just kill each other? Would we end up making some kind of hierarchy where Warren beats the out of me? He's like, I'm the king now. And we say, yeah, you know, you know, look, I'm I'm blind. I have asthma. I'm I'm not beating anybody in this room. Um, and any sort of physical confrontation. Um, but there's this idea of, okay,

18:14 well, do we even really need a society? Does that matter? Carl Marsh will talk about this later. Uh sort of the tribal tribal equality, tribal communism that exists and he talks about human nature and flourishment. And he says we do end up building a society no matter what because we're communicative beings. Uh that we actually do need each other. One because we actually really do suck living out in nature. Just there's this idea that as Hobbes astutely points out that life is nasty Bruce and shorts out in nature even wor alone may not last forever. He might he might I certainly am not okay you know I got to take my meds and things like that but that we need one each other one another and that we rely upon one another and and both of them actually agree on that. There's this idea that we do need some semblance of governance that like the Bible itself is not going to hold us alone that we we can't and even when we

19:17 look at the the papacy the it was not cohesive even popes became corrupt cardinals started making wars if any of you uh you know the papal state if you've seen house of cards the show it was very similar to that I mean people vying for becoming pope or cardinal there was a lot of power in the church uh even that was not a golden pinnacle. It was not Olympus by any means. So there was this thought that we did need we are communicative beings. We did need some form of society. Um now a lot of people disagree on what how far that needs to go. You know is the is bliss being in that tribal type state and that's what Karl Mar says. I mean Mark says the best way for us to live is in small communities in sort of more agrarian societies um and remember car Markx is writing much later um more egalitarian agrarian societies where you're a fisherman in the morning a poet at night and a chair

20:18 designer by a day um and that there is no difference between there is no greater weight on the chair designer than there is on the paramedic or the doctor or the lawyer that we are all incredibly important to the functioning of society and that leads marks to communism eventually. Marx though also is affected by his background. Carl Marx is a Jewish guy in Europe. Jews were not granted citizenship in most nations in Europe. Um they were forced to live in ghettos. And again we're writing about we're often influenced by our surroundings. I don't want to, you know, wholly say that there's it's very hard to make a division. You know it's why I forecasted and forewarned that I am very much more of a lock in. I believe in that and all of us are uh and it's fine you don't have to be uh and in fact two treaty two treaties is quite long um you can probably find a spark note I don't even know if spark node is used anymore spark notes um you just ask AI it'll tell you what you can do AI perfect um what's it called which one two treaties

21:24 on government and hobbs is the leviathan uh and I have to tell you if you're looking for the more entertaining read. It's hops. Um I started this uh talk with your favorite books and movies. I actually find they teach I love political philosophy and I love philosophy. We were having a conversation the other night about Haidiger and uh I it takes me forever to read a page in Haidiger, but it takes you it takes everybody only one minute to read a page in To Kill a Mockingbird. anybody can understand those messages. It's why we one of the reasons I love plays or or books or movies. There's a accessible form of humanity that comes from those. Uh and my guess is some of your favorite movies have a breadth of detail on human nature. Force Gump is one of my favorite movies. Okay. Jenny is a great character. Absolutely fascinating character. From certain points of view, she looks

22:29 uh inherently bad. In certain points of view, she looks good. I mean, she gives a purpose to somebody to help somebody. Uh we're we're very convoluted. Uh again, that's a lock in speaking in me saying that we're more gray. Uh but it's I think a lot of times literature and art and movies can teach us a lot more than a 4,000page book uh of philosophy. Not always. There are sometimes, you know, you need to read, but I swear for the life of life life of me, doss capital, which is Karl Marx's famous work. You can just read Communist Manifesto and it's probably pretty close to enough. Uh, but there's there's a beauty in this that helps capture and building a society off of human nature. It's kind of been the idea for quite a while. And one of the biggest reasons for that is because as Warren said, how else if you have a bunch of people, it makes sense to build one that works for a bunch of people.

23:31 Um, and I will say, we'll talk about this sort of later, but every set of peoples might be different and might require a different solution. And even the same people's might need to switch it up every now and again. Um, so we'll we'll get to that. That's a very uh Jeffersonian idea, but we we're not we're not quite there yet. I'm sorry. I'm still I know I'm setting the stage uh for a lot of this stuff. Um so these two thinkers are the idea and they are talking about this thing called the state of nature. Uh that none of us can really survive on our own out in nature that we need a society and we need a society that's works for us. But you do have to give up certain things when you join a society. um what becomes known as the social contract becomes really important when you enter into society you give up certain rights there's this idea Isaiah Berlin brilliant philosopher uh from England kind of coins it more eloquently on what rights we give up and don't give up called positive and negative liberty

24:37 and this idea of how can we maximize the way we're supposed to be in nature and maximize also freedom with also maximizing protecting others because there's this idea a lot of thought and this is this is kind of a western notion many of you probably know life liberty and the pursuit of happiness I'm guessing you've all heard of that phrase it's originally coined as life liberty and property and this idea of property is kind of a founding bedrock for a lot of not only Anglo thought but a lot of Western thought that we we're kind of territorial beings. Uh I don't know for y'all I have a very much a probably fake romantic nostalgic feeling for Southwest Tennessee and you might have that for your home. I talk with my wife. I tell her Carville, Tennessee is the best place on earth. Best place on earth. There's nowhere better. And I I truly believe that. Um

25:39 there are many people who disagree with that otherwise it would be a much bigger town than it is. Um but we we draw connection to our own in property doesn't mean necessarily in this sense this book although it can and absolutely can um it can also be your labor that you put into things that you build as property. It can just be literally a piece of land that you've built a sentimental value to. So property becomes a bedrock and it says okay property is important to humans to human nature. We feel an affinity with this stuff and how do we best protect that for one another? you know, if me and my family have got a little farmstead out there, how do we protect it so Cam doesn't come and just behead me and, you know, take take my farm and become become bigger? Because there there's this idea that we are at least gray when we can be tempted to take from one another. Um, even if we're even if we're

26:39 semi good, maybe we take a little advantage, maybe we do a few things. So there's this importance of property and the integrity of that and protecting that and that's kind of why one of the main reasons we enter society to protect property and to protect ourselves also from one another. Um, if Cam can just come and behead me, that's a pretty scary prospect. And there's one Joe talked about the other night about the tribes and kind of honor killings that keep people in check. And that's one of the reasons we enter society to protect ourselves from each other, to protect ourselves from nature. There's a lot of added benefits. So this is sort of the the main onus. And so what sacrifices do we give when we join society and I'm trying to What time is it? Was that a question? Yes. Free think. Do we sacrifice free thought? We might some people do. I would

27:42 say question. But and sacrifice you sacrifice total liberties. Total liberty. Privacy those for sure. I mean, you may have most of your liberties, but I mean, if you look around into society, like there's certain things we've all agreed through social agreement, construct, whatever that you don't do that, right? It's not appropriate just walk up to smack the hell out of somebody's like whether it be assault or battery. Then if you allow that to happen once, then who's to say who controls who gets to do that and who doesn't? Next thing you know, it's Wakanda, right? You have to offload some of that. Well, and we'll we'll get to both of those. Those those are great points. all all three of y'all. There's this idea of sort of the social contract. I am not going to just randomly, you know, slap Matt. Um, you know, someone's not going to just come randomly behead me. The these are sacrifices we give up. Um, and then this idea the spreads even further. We put limitations on ourselves. I don't want to see you doing heroin on the street.

28:45 And that's a form of negative liberty. I'm taking away your right to do heroin on the street. And now you're right. Doing heroin doesn't necessarily, there's an argument, doesn't necessarily hurt other people, but I'm putting that limitation on you as you join society. I'm saying, you know what? Uh, you can no longer uh defecate on them front porch. Well, it's not illegal for you to kill yourself, right? You think it's your life. It's not illegal. No, it's illegal to kill yourself. It's like it's one of those things. It's like, but I mean, if that's personal, if they just want to be gone, why not let them be gone? And that's part of the social contract. We have to sacrifice things when we join civilization. Property whether you realize it or not. Well, if you think about that concept, it's illegal to kill yourself. There's no repercussion or aftermath of that because right, you're dead. It's just one of those societal piece of control essentially. But there the to limit but we could today the attorney general and the president can issue an executive order and say you know what you kill yourself your estate

29:47 is going to be charged $50,000 and we the only our only repercussion to that is to impeach a president or wait or vote him out when it comes time. Your point is exquisite. I mean there's a real we certainly give up rights and we certainly lose things when we join society. There are uh I think many would argue the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Uh they would say anarchy is not real not a real good situation. Um there's a group if you're at all interested one step above anarchy is sociol libertarianism. Um there's a lot of interesting literature that's not really going to be the focus of mine. When you say step above, you mean one step away from the chaos of pure anarchy. It's a little bit more. It's a little bit more orderly. Um, but anyways, there's we put limitations and we give up sacrifices when we join society. And it could just be, you know, the government's goal is the protection of the people.

30:48 That's why we left nature. And then we all decided that, well, now it's illegal to kill yourselves. It's illegal to do heroin in the streets. who's eager to to poop on somebody's front lawn. Um, we've all decided that that's to the advantage of society. It doesn't have to be structured that way. Um, it could be that we are just a society or a culture that says, you know what, uh, you can honor kill somebody if they if they, and this is going to be, let me use a different example because I don't want to be too gruesome. Like eye for an eye. Yes. But this idea of in some cultures there's like a real idea of vigilante justice. Um we were talking about the McCoys the other day. There's very much an idea of a much stronger people than my people, the Appalachin people. Uh they uh there's this and many different groups. Mafia is a great example where you keep your own people in line. I mean Joe was talking about this and there's a a different expectation in that society. We something we'll talk about a little bit I and I find very special is

31:55 that we've kind of actually given a monopoly of power to the state and which is I I think a very radical and amaz truly profound notion when you think about it. Um, and it's not even done. I'm skipping ahead slightly. Uh, but in sort of Judeo-Christian ideology and cultures that have that, there's like a priest class of people uh that kind of keep check or in other ones there's a balance of both real government. So the papal states are a great example. Uh, take for take for instance Florence. Florence was a very important city particularly during the Renaissance. Florence had dual governing systems and Britain and the United States later will actually make a form of this but by different names but there's dual systems. You all can't read that. Let me as I like make an absolute mess of this thing. Oh, thank you. Thank you. Or you do what you want with it. You make a great

33:03 doctor. A terrible handwriting. So there's dual systems that occur at at the same level that both exist and the there's a Florence is sort of the but you can take any of the Italian citystates uh and and many other places where there's a priestly class that rules over from the papacy and the church and then there's actually princes that exist and you know we'll get to the might makes right part of this in a little bit. I don't want to quite get there. Um, but there's two systems at work at the same time. One of the amazing things and and there wasn't a clear idea of who had a monopoly of power. Um, was it the princes? Was it the warlords? Was it the the mob? Was it the church? Um, now it ends up happening that somebody wants to fill the vacuum and it ends up being the church for a long time. That monopolizes most of that power, not all of it. But there is a tug of war. One of the beautiful things is we in our society

34:07 said we're not going to do honor killings. Violence will be monopolized by the state. Not the church, not different thoughts, but it'll be monopolized by the states, which is very important for stability and order and continuity. Yeah, it is interesting to think. I was uh the the idea of what amount of violence we allow in society. Just recently, we pretty much just stopped doing duels. Like very recently, we stopped duels. Like the westerners pulling out the revolver suit and shoot each other. That's the last time that our society, this one had dueling. And that's not that long ago. It used to be a pretty common thing, just getting maimed in a duel and or killed in duels over little squables. And everybody was like, "All right, let's do it. Yeah, have your duel." Common is harsh. DS DS certainly existed. Um, every state had a very different approach. Uh it's one of the reasons I'm sure all of you are familiar with Alexander Hamilton's uh duel with Aaron Burr. Uh New York outlawed duels.

35:07 They had to go across the river. Uh there were different ideologies. I'm pacing too much. Uh there were different thought pools and different peoples that had different opinions and views on duels. So for example, Jefferson and Madison thought they were grotesque. Uh, a lot of the Virginia plantation class thought that this was unbecoming of a man and really was representative of an animal to do duels. Andrew Jackson and others said, "Y'all go yourselves." Uh, you like Virginia and uh other plantation folk are bunch of babies and wouldn't no honor if it hit you in the face. Um, and and it was something that I I talked about with with Joe the other night. I mean, There's a there's very much a and this is just in the south which I'm I'm more familiar with but it exists. There's the the pole the push and pull of the frontiersman culture of the mountain people's culture and then the the wealthy plantation class who had

36:09 different ideas on even though we think we have one society and this is sort of a meta idea and I don't want to detract there's a lot of commonalities I mean yes Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson uh had different interpretations of what the classy gentleman ought to be uh they did still belong to the same bigger uh system for sure. Uh but we we definitely have many many networks that work within these societies that have uh different cultural influences and impacts. If I hear somebody say iced tea and they ain't talking about sweet tea or something, I'm I instantly I'm like that person ain't from the south. I mean there's something but and there are cultural things. If I want to know about somebody, I ask them and you don't actually have to be take college football. I mean, college football is very important in the south. You don't even have to be a fan. You might not even like sports, but you know about college football. I mean, there are just weird things. Um, and dueling, you know, for example,

37:12 in the Southwest, uh, in Arizona, in Texas, it was more more part of the ethos in those places. Um, New Orleans a little bit, but it was mostly because of the drinking and gambling. Uh, so you have you have different parts. Uh, but these are, you know, we'll get to the sort of more meta questions of society in a bit. Um, does anybody have any questions thus far? Okay. I think maybe we'll do like a quick break if that's already there. Let's do like I don't know. You want five or 10? Five's cool. All right. So, we sort of left off doing the the classic hobbs versus lock human nature and building a government. We're going to spend a tiny bit more time on human nature. I just want to finish that out and then we'll go on like the different forms of governance. So somebody I think it was Matt who mentioned earlier the might versus right mentality that has if any of you are

38:16 familiar with Thusidities or any other writers that this is a very much an idea that human nature itself is not necessarily what's important. It's that who who wields the sword at the end of the day is the strongest is the best and that's who's going to make policy. um this develops and I don't know if any of you have read genealogy of morals I wrote it it's exquisite book niche is a great great author I disagree with everything he writes but absolutely great author and he writes this a wonderful piece um called it's within genealogy of morals it's called the slave revolt uh he nse hates the Jews and the Christians um it's an ideology he built a lot of his world on some I'll take a step machavelli if any of you you're familiar with the prince uh there it's very much you have to be brutal you have to run it might equates to right a lot of this is built on foundations from fusidities um there are questions about whether or

39:22 not machavelli was writing a satire or actually helping out uh he was in prison when he wrote part of this so we'll just take him at his word that the prince when he wrote it for the prince uh of the Italian city states that it was being genuine. Um Nijera takes a lot of this stuff and says Mike is right. Okay, we are meant to be more akin to the Greco Romans like strong people who value aesthetic beauty, strength, discipline, the he loved the Spartans. So this is like the ideal society, you know, people who are healthy, wise, uh manly, strong, that that is the way to live. And he writes, he says, "These these Jews and Christians have suckered us." He said, "They they're they're slaves. They're nobodyies. They're losers. They lose every war." And he's like, "Look, look at the Jews and Christians. The Romans enslaved the both of them. They never had were able to hold a state of their own. Their entire ideology is the meek shall inherit the earth." A wild concept. remember when when Judaism and Christianity were

40:27 coming out the fact that they it was about sacrificing to God about helping the weak and the poor that these were the ideals and the way to salvation being a good person that was not the gre common Grecoman understanding and certainly wouldn't uh going through much of time the might equates to right ideology nature writes these are slave people and they've turned the natural order on its head yes we left the state of nature the state of nature is scary, but the Spartans are right. We should live that way. He he doesn't mind Athens. He Nietzsche is not against He's not anti-intellectual at all. He says Athens has its place 100%. I mean it's a part of Sparta but those those are about pursuing a higher value of knowledge and strength and that these Christians and Jews they wrote their book and their ideas because they were losers and they wanted to change everything to make it so that they were winners and that you

41:29 if you have the ideology if you're losing in life it sounds really great when you say you're going to have a great life one day in the afterlife just got to be good you know God's got to focus and be a good person. Focus on community values. The weak are turn the other cheek. Well, the reason you turn the other cheek is because the other guy's going to beat you up anyways. That's what that's what NZ says. And it's a very po popular ideology. Nichze's ideas are taken even more forward by the Nazis later. This idea of making a perfect beautiful aesthetic culture. Um, and they certainly have some good ideas about the proper uh way to maybe model a life. I happen to disagree with most of them and I think and I'll just tell you my own personal opinion there are many people um and especially if you go down further rabbit holes like the bronze age pervert there are people who embrace nichse to the extreme um na taken to the degree becomes Nazism becomes the bronze age pervert but who you can take him as far as you like um

42:29 and then there's this other ideology the Judeo-Christian one where we don't want to be having the might right mentality makes us no different than you know as I was talking earlier it makes us no different than the animal that that one uh alpha whomever is the one who creates society and that that is not the right way and and and there can be disagreements and there can be compromise on where you meet a society as a whole. Um this is sort of though like the the proliferation of Christianity. Uh remember at the time when these ideas are first coming out when the Greco Roman ideas coming when Christianity obviously Christianity is getting dominated. I mean Jews and Christians are being enslaved and it's not until much later that Christianity becomes popular and it doesn't even infiltrate most of Northern Europe till well after 1100 AD. Um, so there's a long time from the founding of this till it becomes a lot

43:32 more popular. Um, and there are other versions. I mean, I don't want to say that it's just Christianity that does this. I'm more familiar with Western thought, but there are plenty of Eastern thought uh that deals with this that builds off of this. Um, I'm more familiar Islam more similar to this, but has some things in here, too. Um but there's an idea that we should model society off of being a good person and we should go toward being good in this life to be rewarded in the afterlife. Um so these two are also conflicting thoughts just like human the human nature scale there's a scale of NZ's ideology I'll just call might and and sort of the Judeo-Christian values and the the west in my opinion is a grappling of these two uh ideas. I hate to refer to the west because I don't think it's a cohesive thought pool, but it's always a back and forth almost like a bad mitten or tennis match between these two groups and it's very fun to watch and read and you get I mean genealogy morals is great and I really

44:35 highly recommend it. It's just a fascinating read. Uh Makavelli Thusidities they're very fun reads. Um I I tend to be more on this side but there are plenty of much smarter people than me who tend to be over here. Um, and you know, I recommend reading through all of them, uh, and just finding what you like. Um, but all these questions, human nature, and then these questions of might versus right, become sort of the idea of, well, all right, we kind of have the different chess pieces now to start or building blocks to start building our government. Um, I know many of y'all are familiar with Plato. Plato is sort of and Socrates. Socrates writes about the just city sort of some some of the first ideas of making uh trying to make a perfect society. Uh this is why I said Nietzsche is not quite as extreme. Uh Nichze does value Athens the idea of intellectual pursuit and thoughtpool. Um there are some who just value Sparta. Okay, Nichze is not one of those people. He's not there are more extremes than Nietzsche by far

45:35 on his own scale. Um but there's these ideas of governance that become hotly debated and you'll see hobbs and lock that we talked about sort of play with this a lot of intellectuals play with this uh including St. Augustine and St. Aquinas Thomas Quinus Plato says monarchy is the best form of government. What will later be coined and taken as like the philosopher king. Okay, that we want an enlightened person who is has yes has strength and and and health but is enlightened to lead. Bless you is enlightened to lead. That the common people cannot that they're too stupid, brutish. they they cannot be a part of the leadership. There are ideas of divinely anointed monarchs. We're not going to go into that. Uh that's sort of grappled at different parts. And then he says, well, all right, we can't have a monarchy and people are just rebelling and stuff. And look, there becomes wealthy people anyways. We need a pletocracy or plutoaucracy, however you'd like to say it, depending on where you're from.

46:41 Um a plutoaucracy is the idea that the the educated class uh as Joe I mean was talking about before sort of the brahinss of the different group are you don't necessarily need a king although it's good to sometimes have one but there becomes a wealthy class and that they let them handle it they're they're the educated they are the people the dukes who end up help rule who either rule themselves or help the king rule but says there. That's the next best form of government. Okay, we have an educated class. They're not quite philosopher kings, but they've been they've all gone to Oxford and Cambridge and they've they've been studying and we trust these people. And he says, the worst form of good government is democracy. He's like, well, if we have to do democracy, I've seen it work in Athens. It doesn't work great, but if we have to do some form of democracy, fine. educated people who are what will be

47:42 later coined sort of the petty bourgeoa the small business owners uh these the lawyers they can help us run the damn thing I I don't like it but it's still a good form of governance and then he says all right well what are the worst forms of governance he says well the least worst form is democracy like I guess if we have the mob and they go crazy uh that sucks but there are worse forms of government. He's like, "The mob quiets down." Later thinkers talk later thinkers will talk about sort of what happens uh in uh in Paris uh later when France deals with these uh if any of you are familiar with ropes pierre uh and and the terror. Uh this will sort of take on an oomph degree and I'm a big fan of Napoleon. Uh not someone I want to emulate, but someone I find fascinating. He ends up Napoleon turns this on his head and says, "Nah, this shit's crazy." Um he's like I the mob is

48:42 just murdering folks and we there is no government here. He's like that's just anarchy. So people disagree on the order of these. I'm just telling you the classic platonic ordering. Um but Plato's like yeah you get a mob they calm down eventually they tire out. And he says all right what's the next one? He says oligarchy. He's like man you get a rich group of folks who just end up becoming these like corporate lobbyists who control and dominate. They just send people out to die and kill people. He's like he he writes a little bit. Plato really likes certain ideas of Sparta, but he's like the the Spartan council. Sparta has a king and a council. So they just keep sending all of these Spartans and Helenic slaves out to die. He's like this is wild to me. He's like you y'all are just killing your own your own people now and you're doing it to extract money and things. And Sparta was a slave society. Uh he's like y'all are just going in to get more slaves but then you're losing your own people anyways. And he said that is not the way I want to see it. And he says the oligarchy is the next the second worst form of governance. He says the worst

49:44 form of governance is tyranny. Uh dictatorship uh one singular leader. And he says that's where the most damage can be done where if one person can control the entire government system, if they decide it's a bad day, they can kill half the population. So he says these are the two best you know even though and it's the same thing and monarchy are the two best well no no these are the two leading ones is monarchy is the best but tyranny is the worst and so that's his Plato's problem when he's talking about this he says the philosopher king is what you want you want a great king uh if any I love Lord of the Rings um has has worn those I Aragorn is one of these great philosopher kings. He grows up with the elves. He, you know, grows up in Rivendale and he's supposed to be bred to be a king. I mean, he's not he's from the right lineage. He learn gets the right education. A person like P like, yeah, that's who we want. That's

50:44 who we want to see. What we don't want to see is a person who becomes tyrannical um you know, a Stalin like figure who can who just kills half their populace to do something. Um, so Plato's like, "All right, even though the most effective form of government is monarchy and the most evil form is tyranny, maybe we shouldn't have a government on that." That's that's Plato's own understanding. Um, and I'll say Hobbes slightly agrees with him. Where Hobbes comes out as Hobbes says, "We want a combination of these two things, similar to Sparta." Um, Hob says you have the putoaucracy balance out the monarchy and the UK, uh, England at this time becomes a really good example of that. Um, it takes us I I think to our first part, which is probably the most amazing written work, also very boring, uh, piece of history, and I'm sure all y'all have heard of it. Oh, I forgot the A. Magna Carta. Okay. Probably one of

51:50 the most important documents of all time. Uh, do any of y'all know what the Magna Carta I know you've heard of it, but do you know what it does? No. Doesn't it organize the principalities and lords and the into a group of cooperative as opposed to competitive with a with a little bit of a constitution. That's that's almost exactly right. We're in the 1200s. Okay. Have any of you seen Robin Hood or know the story? Okay. That's that's King John. He I mean he's depicted very harshly in those fables. He was not that evil. I'm just going to be honest. Like the problem with John in England at this time and later you'll have the hundred years war. Uh if any of you familiar with the battle of Agon 1415 um there and from we talked about battle of Hastings 1066. There's this constant warfare between France and

52:52 England. Uh, and King John's living this time. It's about 12 12:15 and they King John says, "Well, I want to recapture part of France again. They just lost it." He said, "But that's that's mine." You know, he's he's of Norman descent. Um, and he says, "That that shit's mine. I want I want it back." And he convinces a bunch of the nobles to go take it back. So, they go down to Britany and they go down to Normandy and they start fighting and they get their butts kicked. Just absolutely smashed. And John spent a ton of money and took out a ton of loans to do this. And the baronss and nobles are pissed. And John says, "Okay, I know y'all are pissed, but let's do it again." And they say, "Hell no, we ain't doing it again." And John says, "You're doing it again or I'm going to kill all y'all." And the barrens, they get together and they say, "No, man. That ain't happening." And again, we have this, we do have wealthy people that end up emerging. and they pin John in a castle and they say you're not leaving here until you sign this document. And now the Magna Carta it does set out a cooperative and it gives out what's first I'll use colloially it

53:58 becomes later known as impeachment and remember at this time the king is still divinely anointed when he comes in but even the barrens are not having this. They say look we've got our property we've got our life liberty is not quite the same notion as we know about today. Uh they say, "We're gonna toss your ass out. There's g is gonna find a new king. We promise you real quick." And I'm praying real hard. And it sets the groundwork. This is why it's so amazing. It's the first written acknowledgement that the king serves at the behest of the people or supposed to. Um there are obviously other parts in history where they're say that the king serves for the people or things like that but it's it's one of the first real documented and it gives the power of another class to overthrow if they don't like him. What later becomes known as impeachment. It's truly a monumental and it does it doesn't happen anywhere else which is amazing that we we come from a thought pool that invented this. Um I I think it's really

55:01 beautiful. Um that's something that gives me a lot of inspiration. But there's this the only classes that were part of this is this is landmark and extremely important. But only two classes are really a part of this. I mean ain't nobody down here uh ain't no lawyers or bakers that are a part of that. Okay? That is uh the dukes and barons saying you keep it in check and if you lose my money just know we're you're not going to be king. And there's a balancing. Did you have a question? I was going to say in a way why would they do that because wouldn't that threaten their like doesn't that mean they could be overthrown by the people? Did they think through that or they That is a great question. Like the ruling class or the lesser whatever. Yeah. Yeah. Lesser rich people. Yeah. I mean so it goes from the king to the bajgeois and then beneath them the petty bajgeois. Uh you're absolutely right. They did not think about that. They said, "My family," and what's funny is in 1066, you have sort of a bunch of leading

56:01 Norman families come and they say, "My family will never be dethroned." Like, I'll be the Duke of um you know, North Umbrea for forever. Uh and that is never going to change. It did change. Uh they do end up getting overthrown because of this principle of this idea of impeachment, this idea that uh divine appointment, all this stuff isn't what's important. What's important is stability uh these sorts of things and also protection of rights which become paramount uh particularly property this idea that you have to protect property and the king is losing property losing rights and privileges of the people by his own shitty decisions that do say yeah it's a really bad idea they write it all down and then the petty bgeoa the bakers and the lawyers read this stuff later and they're like that's a great idea why don't we recycle that and they too. We're not quite there yet. Um, but Hobbes very much likes this idea of a Magna Carta. Very much likes this idea. He says we can take these two governing

57:05 systems. All right. I'm I recognize uh humans are bad. I recognize that a king alone maybe is not the best. Although he he would hope he actually writes that he does hope that it just becomes that. But he recognizes that economically speaking for us to provide and not have revolt that we probably do need a pletocracy there to also help. So that becomes kind of the structure for an existing what become the house of lords you know a parliamentary system of a king balanced out by a council type thing in a more real western way not the way that Sparta would have done it with the Spartan king and the council. Um so this becomes super directly relevant and then lock says well you know they impeach the king or brought the power to impeach the king why can't we be important you know why why can we not be a part of society this is ramped up intense intensely in France just you know there's a similar debate that ends

58:06 up happening where a lot of people also die uh but the lock says you I think there's nothing better about these people than there are about these people. And Lock says, "Yeah, I fear these guys a lot too." Um, and he buys into democracy being the least worst and least best notion, but says this is the right way to run something. There's nothing, the baker is not inherently worth less than the Duke, and we just want an educated populace to help run the government. And that's what you know, that's the best in accord with human nature to have that. Yeah. I just had a thought. Has anyone um discussed about there being a a like an accidental transition from the monarchy in the the best sense, the philosopher kings to quickly turn into tyranny? Because I think that's something that's a consideration is that there's a risk inherently in the best form of government that it could have like a

59:06 polarization shift at some point where he's been given too power for too much power for too long and he his mind changes and then it turns into a tyranny not overnight necessarily but yes and uh there's a lot of Italian uh thinkers who who later talk about this um but there is the idea of how long does the philosopher king last um this really particularly comes out of France actually and Napoleon is often equated as a philosopher king uh when he is during the revolution Napoleon is actually quite the philosopher. I mean, he's publishing philosophical works. Um, and he gets a lot of respect. I mean, Napoleon is from a the petty bushwis of a Italian island that is uh becomes French and he rises through the ranks and he's known he's like this guy is a, you know, professor warrior and he gets a lot of people to follow him. Um, and he comes up with these great things and Napoleon does great things. I mean, he brings order to France. He makes France the power in Europe and he writes a system of laws and governance that still exists today

1:00:11 and impact the world. Um his impact was truly remarkable but there's a studying and sli the slide of him people who saw him as the great philosopher king and then him becoming the tyrant and his eventual downfall. Um, so they they kicked him out and then they brought him back is I mean they kicked him out because he was heavily overextended and defeated and Napoleon he became good friends with Alexander of Russia, the the Zar of Russia and he thought that he finally found a friend and an equal in himself. um he miscalculated I I'll say on the thing and he dominated the uh the Prussians and the Austrians and those things le severely led to his downfall. Had he not overextended my guess is that Britain would not have become Britain and by extension the United States would not have become the central focus of the

1:01:15 west and it would still be France. Um, Napoleon was wildly popular. I mean, he was also very much a man of the people. Um, he spread out food. Uh, you know, the classic bread and circus ideology. Napoleon used to read Marcus Aurelius almost daily. Napoleon was wild. He hardly slept, but he slept in weird places. He'd like take naps on the battlefield. He would lead from the front, which was very unorthodox. Only Andre Msina, another very famous French general, would do these kind of things. um Archduke Charles of Austria would try it and uh ended up giving up but it was very very uncommon. Only other group that really did that was the British Navy. Um if any Horatio Nelson was a very odd but magnificent figure but uh very few people leaders would lead on the actual battlefield. They stayed behind strategized plan. Um it's one of the reasons I mean if we talk about like the Confederacy for instance uh Lee was

1:02:15 hardly he and Long Street were not often in the battlefield but uh Nathan Bedford Forest literally led from the front on almost every single campaign he was in and it's why he became so popular just amongst the common people. Um, so the Napoleon was really a larger than life figure, but it's the slide, right? The transition from the philosopher king to to this. And it's actually I guess we can kind of jump to So I'm I'm I'm I'm sorry. I'm just trying to track with you on the how, when, why did Napoleon slip from the philosopher king wildly popular to tyranny? Depends on your definition. I mean, a lot of these things are there's no good answer. The people never lost faith in Napoleon. It was this class that lost faith in Napoleon. And this class brought him to his knees. Napoleon did not get to power on his own. Napoleon almost was a little bit of a mobster in a sense that he rewarded his family and

1:03:16 his friends heavily in positions of power. He hated when people disagreed with him. um which is a common theme throughout mo most of people don't like when they're told they're wrong. And at first in the first Italian campaign, Napoleon outsmarted everybody. I mean, it was it was brilliant. I mean, he uses artillery in ways that nobody could dream of. Napoleon was an artillery commander at first, uh if if any weren't aware. um just a brilliant comes up with it. He ends up publishing his first published piece is on new artillery tactics that he learns in military school. Well, that he makes up in military school. He gets bad grades on that. He ends up publishing it anyways. Uh and he ends up becoming a fantastic field commander. And his first real command is in Italy. And the Italian campaign, he took 20,000 troops and whipped 40,000 people. I mean, and part of it was his artillery positioning and his motivation for troops, his leaning in the front line. I mean he's he's marching through and he'll do he'll do some of the same thing

1:04:16 in the Pyrenees in Spain. I mean just truly I mean the lecture is not fully about Napoleon. I think he's a very interesting figure. There's a great book by Andrew Roberts on Napoleon if any of you are ever interested. Um but needless to say the it was this class that lost faith in Napoleon. this class. Uh many of you probably know Lafayette. He was a famous famous military figure in the United States. He was French. Uh he was very good friends with Washington apprenticed for him. Uh came in toured a lot of the south. So we've named a lot of things after him. And I can't profess to be uh I'm not a Lafayette expert. I just uh I like him and I know about him through other figures. But uh Lafayette was uh he be he does become important in the French Revolution sort of leading the the bourgeoa class. what'll later in France be sort of like the republican movement for making a democratic republic. Lafayette is soundly his group is soundly defeated uh in France but they do come back eventually into power. Uh

1:05:16 Napoleon after the fourth coalition wars which is basically the predecessors pre I can't pronounce it uh the pre the previews for world war I uh we have continental giant battles in Europe during Napoleonic era that are really world wars. I mean, we're talking about confrontations in the United States, confrontations in Latin America, confrontations in Europe, confrontations in the Middle East. Um, I mean, Napoleon ends up taking Egypt. Uh, there there are these huge warfares that end up happening. Um, and eventually Napoleon realizes, well, we have a real monetary issue and he has to bring this class kind of back. You know, France is really running out of money because they're conquering becoming really important. Yeah. Sorry, this might be tangential, but who's lending all these guys money? Like even the the next um in some cases who's lending the monarchy money and who's lending the whatever is right below the monarchy. So there's a there's a lot of one the the Catholic Church ends up helping out to a

1:06:22 certain part at the beginning the French there becomes a historic really big disagreement between them. Napoleon ends up severing relations with the church for a while, then he ends up getting them back, which ends up pissing off a lot of his original supporters. Um, it's hard to be king. Uh, emperor. Uh, so the Catholic Church, one is one donor. Uh, the Bank of Netherlands. Uh, the Dutch are fiscally at this time basically the most prominent neutral nation. Um, if any you're familiar with like the ideas of the stock market, the rose and its value, uh, the Dutch are far and exceed everybody else. The next closest really would be the Brit, the Brits, and then the Danes, uh, who have strong economics. And then you have sort of the Bavarian dukes uh, and baronss, all these people. So those must boil down to private wealthy families. Private wealthy families who have been like thousand-y old family lines for some of them. So for the the Bavarians for instance, yes that is that's absolutely true but not for the Dutch. The Dutch

1:07:25 are relying on what becomes basically the stock market. Um and the Dutch have a class of people really become the bankers. Um you know only other place that had sort of a real economy like this but previously was Italy. Uh Italy did have a very strong banking economy uh really until its till the collapse of the power of the papsy uh in the 1600s but Italy was the banking the finance capital of the world for or at least of the west for a long time. Um the Dutch end up picking up the mantle and creating sort of this idea of a real market that ends up existing. Um Britain will follow in thatstead and take it to the max. uh Britain ends up becoming much wealthier than France and just an economic powerhouse. Um so Napoleon is taking money from these people. He's taking money from the treasury. I think I was talking with uh Matt the other night. Uh there's a real issue of the gold and silver standards that both

1:08:26 exist in the in in France. Napoleon's like, I can't pay my troops and I can't move gold and people are starting to abandon. I need to find something else. Uh so there's a movement away of different ways to pay for fund fund things. I will say though economically Napoleon reshaped a lot of France. He took it from an agricultural society to manufacturing one. Um that was one of the ways he was able to basically find money. Um a lot high productions of silks uh high productions uh more more production of trade. Um and again this is all kind of notwithstanding his impact on the law. uh but he this class goes ends up going against him and I think that kind of takes us to the the founders. So Napoleon's a contemporary with Thomas Jefferson and these people. Um I think we have to take one step back. Uh basically France is still a monarchy. Uh when the founders start to come up with

1:09:32 ideas, the founders I mean all of you I assume know what's the famous catchphrase for why the revolution happened? Give them let them eat American Revolution. Um no no taxation. I that was that was very astute. I should have been more precise with my words. Uh no taxation without representation. This was the the the phrase that led in what what do we have on the time because maybe this is a a good breaking point. Yeah, we can take a break. So, it's um we'll eat lunch at one. So, we have an hour and 10 minutes. All right, let's take like a an actual 10-minute break rather than like a 20-minut break and then we'll we'll jump into the founders. All these ideas on the different forms of government, the human nature are all being hotly contested in the United States. So the answer is why does that ever even become hotly contested? One of the main reasons are taxes that end up being levied upon uh

1:10:32 American colonies. Uh that's probably the most famous and well-known reason. The the underlying question is why is Britain imposing these taxes? And it's because of the seven years war that happened. There was a we also discussed it as the French and Indian War. Uh there was a big war all over Europe, America, uh between the French and the British and George Washington becomes famous during this time. He ends up becoming a captain and becoming really important. So Americans are the ones serving on the front line here against the French and the Indians. Um I I might use Indians and Native Americans interchangeably. I apologize. Uh just a forewarning. Um, the Washington becomes famous here and a lot of Americans spend a lot of money. I mean, the the colonies are funding the British war effort on this front. They're also being attacked, so they kind of have to. And the motherland doesn't really help them. And this

1:11:33 becomes a huge huge issue amongst a lot of different leaders in the United States at the time. I mean what really in the 1760s and even the 1770s Americans saw themselves as British. I mean someone we'll talk about who I think is a profound and impactful thinker is Ben Franklin. Ben Franklin was at first very against the revolution very and his own son I'm sure many of you know was until the end anti-revolutionary. Um it it takes a lot to be pushed to actual confrontation with Britain. The Stamp Act packs, the sugar acts packs were in the 1760s sliding into the 1770s and the limitation Thomas Payne, some of you probably heard of in common sense. there's these pamphlets that start coming out where both even even Britain's in the British Isles and Americans are saying why are we not why do we have no voice at all you might be able to levy taxes on us uh but this is

1:12:39 sincerely oppression um now there's different schools of thought who was responsible for that whether it was King George or Parliament this will be really important later because different founding fathers attribute the fault to different people in Britain which will help shape their idea of the best governing uh governing system. Um some blame King George uh but also in their first attempts Jefferson I think I was showing earlier in a predecessor document to this the summary of the rights of men 1774 uh he writes actually to the king and says your Congress is out of control dude like they're they're levying taxes on us and it's it's unfair. We need to be represented in parliament. Rectify this or there will be consequences. And you have sort of more fire breathers. One of my favorites is Sam Adams, the the brewer, cousin to John Adams. Uh Sam is just a fascinating fire breather. Uh he'll he starts these movements in pubs and in public places and starts just

1:13:44 hollering at people uh and getting folks to meet and talk about revolution. Um, and a lot of people fall in line with this. Franklin tries to stymade all this stuff and says, "Look, we are going to have an economic downfall if we leave the British Empire and we're going to be susceptible to foreign powers." Um, he ends up losing that argument. But what's really, I think, fascinating about Franklin is even though he disagrees with that, he just says, "You know what? This is kind of democracy in action and so I'll let it slide. But this is where all the the founding fathers sort of start discussing what is the best way to model a government. It's the first time we've ever gotten a chance to like build one from the ground up, right? Britain didn't have this. When you talk about long before the Romans, you have the Kelts, uh different systems that always existed. America didn't really have a centralized government. You had different forms in each colony. the House of Emergencies in Virginia, you have uh different groups, uh congresses

1:14:47 out of New York. Um and they all ran their system differently. I mean, they had different interpretations of the First Amendment, which we'll get to later. Um and it's just absolutely fascinating. So, these founders had the actual chance to create the best government that nobody else really through history later Napoleon will have the chance to build a government um that they would have the chance to do. And so they start writing essays and start debating on how to best build a government. Um, sure many of you have read or at least heard of the Federalist Papers. Um, and there ends up being two leading parties as there always ends up being the anti-federalists and the Federalists. Does all y'all uh you have you've heard of the Federalist Papers to an extent? They're right after the Revolutionary War, there's something that ends up happening called the Articles of Confederation. And the Articles make a make a a Confederacy, for lack of a better term. And that Confederacy has

1:15:57 huge fiscal problems. They cannot afford to pay back the soldiers that fought in the Revolutionary War. They have huge trade issues. there actually ends up being major trade uh tariffs between New Jersey and New York and they cannot figure it out. There's almost a war uh fought between uh New Hampshire and New York over Vermont. Um there's a lot of issues in Massachusetts. There's a rebellion that Washington goes and puts down. Part of the issue is getting troops to come help him put down that rebellion. So there's a lot of turmoil that is existing at this time. That rebellion called there's two. There's Sha's rebellion and the whiskey rebellion. Whiskey rebellion. Um which are taxes on whiskey, taxes on farmers, not paying back revolutionary soldiers. So the we have a very turbulent time in the early 1780s and everybody kind of well I shouldn't say everybody agrees. Everybody asks all

1:17:01 right what do we do next? So you have some leading intellectuals. My personal favorite founding father, Patrick Henry, give me liberty or give me death. Patrick Henry is one of Virginia's finest. Uh not and not a real intellectual actually. Uh and I think he's just a profound figure and very fun to read. He hated Jefferson and Madison. Thought that they were like very uppidity young POS's. And there's this idea that Henry says, "Look, I am deathly afraid of a monarchy. The king ruined our rights. I'm very afraid of what happens when a when a pope type figure or something like that controls the government." He says, "Let the states do what they want." The Articles of Confederation ain't perfect, but it never will be. Then you kind of have the o exact opposite view from a group

1:18:03 Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. And they say, well, we recognize you don't like the monarchy. And actually, John Adams is borderline a monarchist. Um, he actually has different titles that he wants the presidency to be called. His excellency is the term he would like them to be called. Um but believe yeah are they all in the cabinet at this point? The the cabinet as you understand does not exist. Okay. Because we still have not ratified the constitution. Gotcha. So George Washington I mean at this time George Washington is the president of the uh congressional congress that's happening constitutional convention. Um Ben Franklin is the senior spokesperson there. Gotcha. So we don't have a little no. Yeah. We we don't have yet the United States as we know it. So there's a bunch of guys and this is actually it happens kind of a couple of times through history a usert usurpation of power. Um everyone agrees to send

1:19:05 delegates uh to Philadelphia to start uh drafting changes to the Articles of Confederation. Um George Washington's invited to be the president of that conference. And what the congressional members do there is kind of really sneaky. They just say, "Well, the Article of Confederation. We'll just make a new thing." And Patrick Henry loses his Um, and basically says, "I'm going to have Virginia rebel." Um, now there's a there'll be a debate in Virginia about this uh a few years later, but everybody gets really pissed off that basically they're usurping not doing what they were supposed to be doing. Um, so, um, so I'm trying to just take this take a step back and remember. Um, so they're all arguing about what form of government is best. Adams, Hamilton, and John J, who will become the first Supreme Court justice, uh, are writing. Many, you've probably heard of Jay's treaty. Uh, but they're writing the Federalist papers saying the Articles of Confederation blow. You know, we can't

1:20:07 have a government like this. We're going to be invaded. France or Britain are going to control us. um we have real issues with our finances and Henry's in the opposing camp uh writing against it. And then you kind of get these people. Madison is probably the key figure behind this. And if I had to pick the two smartest founders, it's Madison and Hamilton. Um Hamilton goes and meets Madison. He says, "Yo, what can we do to make Virginia be a part of this?" uh Virginia and Pennsylvania and New York are the most powerful states at this time uh fiscally and population-wise followed right behind by Massachusetts. Um and he says, "Well, one, we've got to make the Constitution give explicit enumerated powers and limitations. You've got to stop talking about like this monarchy stuff." Okay? It's got we most Americans don't like it because they associate the revolution with the king. said, "Do you you can't

1:21:07 do that." And Hamilton's like, "All right, right." Adams takes a little more convincing to get over to that side. And Madison says, "So we'll have specific enumerated powers and limitations on the centralized government and then let the people, the states decide the rest of the stuff. So whatever's not in I don't have an actual just this is constitution plus a bunch of other works but whatever is not in the basically 30 pages pamphlet of the constitution that power goes to the states and Hamilton's like you know what fine let's do it and so the them along with John J start writing these federalist papers and they're publishing them everywhere and they discuss say hey we need a constitution because France and Britain will invade us hey we need a actual currency to fund and pay back people and run an economy. Um, and they have this convention and very sneakily they don't invite any of Patrick Henry's

1:22:08 contemporaries uh and those type of people to the convention. So you have uh and Jefferson's not here uh at this time. He's in France. So you have really the most anti-constitution constitutionalists are still constitutionalists who go to this convention uh which is very smart. I mean, you know, you create your own your own enemies in the same ballpark you want to play in. Um, wait, what do they what would they want instead of a constitution? Well, Henry didn't want a constitution at all. Patrick Henry says pure pure states control everything. And you have the articles of confederation just in case of invasion by articles couldn't build an army. So, it was really just did the state of Virginia feel like donating troops? Was France going to negotiate with just Massachusetts? You know, these sort of questions were the reasons why the articles were why a lot of the founders thought they were in insufficient. Is it more of like a medieval citystate model? You know, yeah, I think Henry's idea would be that would be look, Virginiaians ain't Massachusetts. I don't know what's the term for mass for people from Massachusetts. Um, a lot of this with the EU too, right? When they were forming their EU,

1:23:16 they have a hard time with the money and Yes. Absolutely. Um and and Henry and his camp were very opposed to a any form of a constitution that was this. He said, "Look, Virginia's got a constitution. Why do we need a federal one? We don't need any of that stuff." And there he's like, "There's no way France is going to come conquer Virginia." He says, "Even if France just makes a deal with us, screw all y'all." Is it because he was afraid of centralized power? He he very much feared tyranny. He said, "Look, we've got all these balances. I know my neighbor if I do something bad is just going to vote me out. He's going to talk smack about me and that's great, but nobody in Philadelphia is going to know any of this stuff. And so there's real issues. And he's like, I know that we're going to end up having a king. He says that's what happens to power. It just ends up corrupting and we end up creating a king. I mean, this is what Joe is talking about about Platonic ideas of tyranny that populism is going to make some king and he's just going to tyrannize. And so Henry says, "No, sir." Adam says, "Yes, please. These

1:24:23 people are wild. We need a king." And Madison and Hamilton say, "Well, maybe we can give some powers that a king or an executive would normally have, but limit them and let's write them down and have everybody sign it and be a part of it." And that's the only way to proceed. And so they have this huge debate in Philadelphia that goes on. But and finally in 1987, I'm sorry, 1787. Wow. uh they end up in 1987 uh they end up creating the the constitution and there's now ratification debates and a lot of states end up adopting it and arguing about whether it's sufficient insufficient Henry is livid when he sees it and he's like Virginia ain't adopting this just it ain't happening even Jefferson who comes back and Jefferson is very close with Madison and Monroe. They're all very good friends. Um, and Washington doesn't want to be a part of the debate. Um, Washington, I love Washington. He's very self-conscious of his reputation and wants to see be seen as above the fray.

1:25:29 So, he does not want to partake. So, there Henry uh is leading the charge to not have Virginia ratified. Virginia is the pivotal state for ratification. And Henry says, 'Well, we will consider ratifying if you do a bill of rights. If you put down explicit enumerated powers that are to the people only and protections against the federal government, I'll get Virginia to sign. Jefferson slips up and is like, "That's a great idea." And says it in public in front of Madison. And Madison's like, "Yo, what are you doing?" Um, we need a king. Well, Madison's not a pro king. Uh there uh so there ends up being this this sort of debacle with Jefferson on that issue. Uh they are able to Madison though there's an argument for two weeks. Madison speaks for four days. Madison hates speaking by the way and he's not a great public speaker. Madison is 5 foot4. Brilliant man. Asthmatic is one of the reasons I really love Madison. uh

1:26:34 he is not a towering figure although intellectually he's a giant I mean he Madison almost wrote the entire constitution him and Hamilton on their own I mean truly truly amazing figures Henry says I'm voting this down I'm taking this out Madison writes to Monroe Jeff and Jefferson says y'all need to help me like we need to we need to make this pass because we don't want another Sha's rebellion or whiskey rebellion and they're able get the the vote to pass by seven people in the House of Emergencies in Virginia. Ironically, in the first Congress after the ratification in 1791, uh Madison says, "Yo, we need a bill of rights." And he ends up writing a bill of rights and getting it pushed through. So, he was originally against the Bill of Rights and then pushes it through Congress and adds the amendments to the Constitution. So, uh, Madison is wonderful in the fact that he's willing to be wrong and try to fix things, which I think is amazing. But there's all this this back and forth

1:27:40 between sort of building and where the founders semi agree always. They say, "All right, we monarchy is not the right pick for us, but we do need some executive person to make decisions. If there's a time of war or there's foreign policy issues, there needs to be one person who can act immediately. But then we need a the most powerful body and it's why it's in article one, a congress, a legislative group." They said this is something you know Britain became so effective and so powerful because of their parliament. Having basically like a educated group of people who are not necessarily dukes uh having them be a part of it is where our good great ideas come from. You know we stagnation might occur if we don't. So there's this idea of we'll have the legislature be the most powerful. Article one they have the most power. They have the power of the purse. They create laws. The executive just execute those those laws. That that's

1:28:45 all. Um and they're they're all very the executive is extremely limited in the founders view. The president is quite weak. The Congress is quite powerful. The judiciary is also kind of weak at this time. They make as a third article kind of an afterthought. They're like, "Oh yeah, we probably need a court to like interpret some of these laws uh too." And so they end up passing all that. And these are real limitations that say yes, we need a centralized power. Yes, we need some form of king. We need some form of people. And we need some form of judiciary. All that needs to be limited. And these are explicit amendments that go directly to the people. And that sort of takes us, I think, to the this idea of dual sovereignty. And we talked about it before with sort of the the Papal States and the princes that existed, but really the Papal States were the leaders. When America was first made, there's this idea of dual governance that exists that really didn't exist anywhere else. That's one of the most fascinating things that

1:29:45 Madison came up with. We do have a federal government. It is the supreme law of the land, but is really limited. And then the 10th Amendment and the rest of the Constitution gives everything else to the people, to the states. So, if Tennessee decides that every Tuesday will be shoe day and we all agree on that and it doesn't uh intrude on the uh the other amendments, then Tennessee can do that. Um, you know, I'm being a bit facitious. Uh, but the police powers as they're known belong to the states. Um, and these the rest of these are what is in the constitution are the limited rights that the federal government has. This will become a problem later down the road. A lot of the founders anticipated this issue and they do debate it a lot later. But this is sort of the beginning uh fmentation of the United States and the idea of a bill of rights. These did exist uh in the

1:30:47 colonies and there was unwritten constitution and unwritten bill of rights in England. But the fact that they unwritten bill of rights and constitution in Britain that existed unwritten unwritten constitutions they're usually called uh unenumerated rights. Uh it's kind of a lot of it came down from common law ideology but it's uh the idea that there are rights in the const that exist for each American or every person in their nation that are not written down. So for example, it doesn't say in the constitution that the federal government can kill you for being a traitor. That's not in the constitution. But the thought is that that is a unenumerated power that the constitution perhaps grants. This stuff is argued about just there. It doesn't mean that it's I just want to say that these unenumerated rights are heavily debated. The right to privacy is another one. the right to parenthood to choosing how to raise your kids. These are like hotly contested, unenumerated powers. And Henry in his wisdom kind of foreshadowed

1:31:51 this and thought about it. Patrick Henry said, "Well, look, if that's we got to write stuff down because people are going to break and abuse this stuff." Um, and Jefferson said, "No, no, no. Like, let each generation have it. Like, let them fight it out." And Madison didn't want to deal with the whole drama. So, he said, "We'll we'll turn that. That'll be a problem for next generation. Very much ends up being a problem for next generation and it was and it was unenumerated powers and rights are like hotly contested. But these other nations have something they're called rights of the people rarified rights that exist that are considered higher law. Um the idea of higher law or natural rights natural rights in the Anglo understanding is like special privileges that are given to people that are not ever explicitly said. Um, usually it's through divine rights or through God is sort of how some canon interprets that. Um, the Anglo cannon being the least religious does not do it that way. Um, ours divine

1:32:59 or derives from the state of nature ideology and like concepts of positive and negative liberty, but it's weird weird stuff that's like really debated. So I don't have a good question and there's not a great answer. Um but it's called an unwritten constitution unenumerated rights that exist back for Meriwether too. Well well the answer is there there's not a good answer. Uh not a good answer. Hit 250 years right by the time we hit that one. Should have solved by then. Oh yeah. You could write down the rights that are that are argued about. Right. I could write down the ones that are argued about today. Yeah. But they change all the time. um you know the the the unenumer all although honestly the last 70 years they've been kind of steadfast for the most part women would a woman's right to choose yeah so that's one that is hotly contested um but there are I mean a lot of these controversial things we hear about from the courts we deal with unenumerated rights through the court system not every nation France France's civil code that Napoleon made

1:34:04 does not do that they literally write down every single thing. For us, the idea was kind of a putoaucracy type thing because I this is sort of my own limitation with the judiciary. People who become lawyers tend to be from at least the petty bourgeoa and they're highly educated from certain backgrounds and um they are the interpreters of these unenumerated rights and that's sort of the battle in common law. Um, and then a judge from that same group ends up making a determination. There are I love our system. I think our system is truthfully about as close as you can get, but it ain't perfect. And there are real concerns and limitations with every single branch of government. So on the question of states having different rights and interpretations and powers over time, the one that's

1:35:05 interesting to me is Louisiana is it has French Yeah. common law in a state is that are there any other states that remained had fidelity to the French? That's a great a really great question. I want to go to Louisiana, too. Uh yeah and uh yes it's the the civil code Napoleonic code that is followed in Louisiana uh the southwest Arizona Texas New Mexico inherited a lot of Spanish law uh which is very which is based off the civil code of France and so when you get divorced there are different property rights in those states Louisiana than there are in Tennessee. I am not a like divorce or family law attorney but in some states uh when you die the way your stuff is passed on if you don't have a will it's something called perurpies there are other ways to pass on your goods so the one is does it go to your there was arguments in in Europe uh and in the United States obviously about does it go all just to

1:36:09 your firstborn son do you split it 25% 25% 25% how does a wife get it how does an ex-wife does an ex-wife get any money how do you split the money if they were employed or not employed. It's a great question and so Tennessee developed those protocols through the court system and common law like lawyers just fighting about it be like no that ain't fair you know look to Magna Carta clearly shows some precedent for splitting the money 50/50 the civil law states Napoleonic code type states already had wrote it down Napoleon wrote down all this stuff and said the split it 50/50 if the man was the primary bread winner give the woman a bigger amount of monies um so he wrote all that stuff down and Spain did something similar. I mean they adopted Napoleonic code. A lot of Spain ended up belong going under French control. Um but uh so there are states that have impact and there are foreign nations that run mixed systems. Israel is a great example. Uh Israel has um Israel's predominantly Britishbased law. I mean,

1:37:15 uh, the UK owned owned Israel and, uh, but they still had impacts from Ottoman law. They also had impacts from rabbitical law. And so there's a hodgepodge and it's if you go to the Supreme Court of Israel and listen to an argument, they'll cite different sources. They'll bring the Bible, they'll bring uh the mandates, they'll bring uh British common law, and they just, it's actually quite fascinating. Um, and every different nation has, in the UK, for instance, the UK actually doesn't have a cohesive law. Uh, England and Wales have their own laws, and then Scotland and Northern Ireland have not the same laws, but their own laws. Common law is English and Welsh law. There's not Scottish law. Um, it's very interesting. I'm not an expert on the different forms of law. I mean, I'm not even an expert on family law in America, so I can't I I can't profess to know though all that stuff. that yes, there are still very much impact and each state does have different ways they do things and that they're allowed to do things because the 10th amendment says that the 10th amendment said all those things that

1:38:15 aren't talked about in those that 30-page pamphlet, you know, Tennessee have at it. Y'all can either pass stuff in your legislature, you can not. Tennesseeey's constitution when it came, you know, post the state of Franklin, which was like the predecessor for part of Tennessee, uh Tennessee writes a allegedly the best constitution. Jefferson writes it praising it and says, "Wow, that Tennessee constitution is amazing." It's fine. I mean, it's a little long in my opinion compared to the United States Constitution, but and the legislature passes there. I mean, this year there were 1,700 bills from the Tennessee legislature. Um, I think there's a argument. Again, I'm putting my own cards on the table. I think there are probably too many laws uh in general and it there are sometimes better ways to deal with societal problems than passing laws. Uh, that's all I'll say on that on that front. But uh so we have these founders though who basically fight on the balancing of

1:39:16 powers and they end up kind of agreeing on saying well we want to avoid tyranny and monarchy uh we want to avoid mob rule um and we sort of want the a mix to weaken the federal government but make sure each one kind of watches the other one. Uh so this there's dual sovereignty. The states that are existing sort of on a on a on this level states take care of more things. Govern federal government's ahead but only does a few things. And then there's the three branches that split out. And that's what the founders I mean after a lot of argument and a lot of disagreement that's how they come down. Um and I want to talk just a little briefly. How much time do I have? So, I know I'm going fast. Farm one. Okay. Is there a dissenting? Like in law and courts, there's dissenting opinion. Was there ever a dissenting equivalent opinion of the

1:40:18 Constitution? Those are the people who signed it. What about the dudes that said, "Fuck that." Yes. Uh, absolutely. Uh, I mean, Henry was livid. I mean, there was threats to rebel against the United States. Um, so there definitely was a dissenting opinion that was quite popular. The anti-federalists, they're the not as good version of the Federalist Papers. Um, they wrote prolifically uh throughout the United States. And the anti-federalists tended to be more of the populist movement that existed in the United States at the time. So a lot of frontier culture was very against the Constitution. Um, a lot of the Were they okay with the revolution? Yes. Okay. Um, their idea was Who were the Federalists? Were they the wealthy? For the most part, yes. The wealthy or the envisioners, uh, Alexander Hamilton, uh, was not wealthy, right? Hamilton came from poverty. His mom allegedly was a Caribbean Jew and his dad was a

1:41:22 Scottish immigrant. And, um, Hamilton really he got a scholar full scholarship to King's College, which later become Colombia. um he went and he wrote these he read the Smith and became infatuated with it and he thought the British Empire was was the right model to run a nation. He said look these people went from backwater to the elite of the world and I want that for America. Part of the reason that he loved that is America was actually really open to migrants and other nations weren't. He said look this is the recipe for success and he says the only way to do that is through financial power. Um that will be another debate that unfolds the balancing of powers but then the financial system. You have sort of the Hamiltonians and then the Jonians who really disagree. Um my heart says one, my head says the other. Uh there can be no doubt that the Hamiltonians were right that you have to have a strong economy to be a powerful nation.

1:42:23 Whether that's not the nation you want is a different question. But I mean particularly post this what I'll phrase the second industrial revolution uh post World War II there can be no doubt that Hamilton's model uh was the recipe for success that made the United States the world superpower. Um, and I, you know, there's real, I take Umbbridge with the the idea of a the capitalist banking corporate power in the United States, but there can be no doubt that they are the reason that we became the superpower. Uh, and that's very much a Hamiltonian thought. And he was I mean, this is a side debate that's happening at the same time. So you have like the balancing of powers, state powers, but then you have what sort of America do you want? Is are we a cohesive entity or are we are still a more separated confederacy? Um you know there's that brilliant song by the king and Hamilton in the play there's like

1:43:29 these three part you know that that play Hamilton and uh or what's is that what it's called? Yeah. M and at the the king is talking about at the end this you know tongue and cheek you know song about how it's hard to rule and you'll come crawling back to me you know it and it is very hard to rule um I I think we are the we are not a perfect system I mean there are I have significant critiques of the legislature the judiciary the executive branch but we're when the founders wrote the constitution They based it off of all this thousands of years of experience of not their own lived experience but reading and seeing all this and then they debated all of it. And I don't think people today are I don't think we're really any smarter. I don't think we're dumber. I mean it's but the debates that were happening they've just taken new form and there are changes to be made that can happen in my opinion. I hope they happen slowly. I think there are ways to effectively make change without having a mob rule or tyranny. But that's what the

1:44:35 United States's goal is to create a a ballpark for all of us to plan, for us to make those changes safely or do its best, you know, to correct course if we need to. That's why Congress makes the laws, the president executes them, and the judiciary makes sure that it's all still okay in the Constitution. Congress could pass an amendment to say everyone has to wear New Balance shoes on Tuesday and that literally could happen. And you know, if the Supreme Court struck down something that's unconstitutional, Congress could just amend the Constitution. That's why they're the most powerful branch. The others the president just executes, the judiciary just judges uh and the exe I mean the legislature is is the most powerful and they're the ones who deal with that document. And we that's like this balancing of powers is we are the ultimate check on that. So if if you decided a war between a near war within the states and tariffs causing

1:45:36 that and you decided you decided Congress has the power of the purse which is the taxation and yet we are maybe have heard of the Alien Sedicious Acts that passed, okay, under Adams. There's another one called the Alien Enemies Act that passed at the same time. Um and there are all these acts that essentially give the president the power in emergency statuses to take control of certain aspects of the economy. Uh particularly in what can

1:46:39 be coined as wartime. The president has is at his utmost power in foreign policy. It's this idea to be able to react instantly. It's one of the reasons why a lot of times we go to war without Congress declaring war. Uh because the president says there's a war. Now it's supposed to be time limited and there are supposed to be a lot of ways to reign in the president that has largely been more and more ignored. The executive has gotten much more powerful uh throughout time. Uh you know there are great moments of Thomas Jefferson being the first Louisiana purchase certainly unconstitutional. Um, he Thomas Jefferson, whom I adore, even wrote that what he was doing was unconstitutional, but he said, "As long as I do it real quick and nobody notices, I can get away with it." And he was right. He gets away with it. You know, the next time it happens, uh, Lincoln suspending habius corpus during the Civil War. Um, he and Lincoln actually just ignores the Supreme Court straight up. Andrew Jackson also famously says, "The court has made their order. Let them enforce it." Um because court I mean the court the

1:47:44 law something we talk about this is just words on a page. If everybody decided this book and just the court doesn't have any power. Law doesn't have any power. The guns have p power but we all believe in it. It's what gives it power. The fact that we all respect it is what makes it truly magnificent. And that's one of the reasons Russia and China have much longer bill of rights than the United States. Way more rights for the people allegedly. But we all believe in our rights. Like there's something really miraculous. We all actually value like the first amendment. It's it that is truly miraculous and has happened very few places all the time and even today like we all value the idea of you know Cam being able to speak on a campus and he and Cam can say you know what America and you won't be in prison for that. Um deported but not in prison. Well, they there are we all agree on certain what I'll call inaliable rights, but we just agreed on them, which is and we are a nation of 30 uh 330 million people. That has never

1:48:51 happened anywhere in history of the earth. I mean, it's truly miraculous. Yeah, I was say that's that's quite like shocking that they would like engineer things into the Constitution or or any of it that uh sort of could be dangerous to it. So like like free speech. Yeah. Right. But they thought the best way to confront there's uh the idea of the marketplace of ideas that the best place to confront opposition if you squash opposition ruthlessly and toss it out you will be overthrown anyways. And the idea was well let them debate and you know what we give them the tools to change it. So if we all decided that we wanted America to be communist economy I'm you know I'm just making these things up. We have the power to actually amend the Constitution to do that. We could vote in a legislature that passes that and then let's say the Supreme Court says, you know, no, then the legisle can amend it again and say you're wrong. It's it's truly a miraculous system. We just have to keep the system. It's almost reminiscent of

1:49:55 the principles around prohibition. The idea that if we make this completely illegal, then the criminals are going to still do it anyway behind closed doors. And then that becomes a festering thing in its own right. And if you allow it out in the open and have it regulated available, the free open discourse is a lot healthier than saying no one can speak about that. There's still people are still going to Yeah. So um if I could segue and and ask a question. So we're about to go on a tour of the farm here in 10 minutes and I'm wondering I don't know if you spoke on this or not, but Jefferson wrote some pretty beautiful things about his views on agriculture and what that type of a lifestyle does to a human and I was wondering if you could maybe kind of just speak to some of that and give us some stuff to think about as we kind of go walk around the farm. Yeah, I think that's a great a great place to finish. Um there is a group of people and there is a fracture in this group. I'll I'll let it

1:50:59 be known. uh and it's a a joke of a fracture of the south but America as a whole there's the sort of the Jeffersonian agrarians and a more populous form in the jonians uh to an extent but there's this idea that we we find a lot of value and enlightenment by being a part of we're a part of the world I mean the agrarian movement is that there is a place for religion and philosophy, but there's a lot of value to like being out there and a lot of insight and and love and we build I was talking about before my love of Collierville. There is a love of the land that we build. Jefferson writes about he writes about Virginia particularly um although he is obsessed with France uh and also writes about the beauties of the French landscape uh and he writes about the importance of that beauty in finding awe. Jefferson himself, I might have he writes his own Bible. Uh he's he's a a deist at best in

1:52:07 a lot of forms and he he's an amazing thinker. I mean I think Jefferson is truly a brilliant brilliant man who really grappled with humanity and he writes about there's this idea for flourishment of human nature. You have to be connected to nature to find the divine to find all uh to find purpose. you have to be part of that and part of a a a smaller community. Uh you know, you can still have a big community, too, but this is how you find yourself. And it's it's truly beautiful. And actually, and I'll take it further, Carl Marx, um who I've talked about a lot, and I really heavily encourage you all to read. It's very much an agrarian, very much pro that he, you know, I told you earlier, a fisherman in the morning, farmer in the afternoon, a chair designer, and not a poet. He writes about our connection to the land, our connection to agriculture and to siphon that to take that away from man is to kill part of humanity because we have to acknowledge that and I there's something primordial and

1:53:09 beautiful about being connect the balancing of powers to do my talk but the balancing of this with that is of the utmost important um with that I'll I'll conclude. Yeah. And that and you know that kind of is like Meriwether culture and wilderness like what you just described is what I want us to work on cultivating with this whole thing you know is that balance of the the heart the love of beauty with the intellectual side of life Jefferson I think embodied it quite well. Great job. Thank you.