"Law & Order" and Civil Disobedience | Philosophy Tube

What does “law and order” really mean? What can we learn about history and politics from it? And do you always have to obey the law?
Subscribe! tinyurl.com/pr99a46
Patreon: / philosophytube
Paypal.me/PhilosophyTube
Audible: tinyurl.com/jn6tpup
FAQ: tinyurl.com/j8bo4gb
Facebook: tinyurl.com/jgjek5w
Twitter: @PhilosophyTube
Email: [e-mail]
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
realphilosophytube.tumblr.com
Recommended Reading:
Martin Luther King, Jr. ‘Letter From A Birmingham Jail’ tinyurl.com/ovcktqb
Kwame Ture, “Stokely Speaks” tinyurl.com/hlfctnq
Carl Schmitt, ‘Political Theology’ tinyurl.com/mfvhzyn
Achille Mbembe, ‘Necropolitics’ tinyurl.com/z2cdxld
Falguni Sheth, ‘Toward A Political Philosophy of Race’ tinyurl.com/jtz2qrm
John Finnis, “Law and What I Should Truly Decide,” in ‘The American Journal of Jurisprudence’ and ‘Natural Law & Natural Rights’
Lon L. Fuller, The Morality of Law tinyurl.com/lj9vjuu
Joseph Raz, “Authority, Law, and Morality,” in ‘Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law & Politics’ tinyurl.com/km7tmtu
H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law tinyurl.com/kkwbazg
Music by Epidemic Sound (Epidemicsound.com)
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it.

[@Ice_Karma]

Oh god, separate water fountains... my mother likes to relay an anecdote where she was a young child, in the 1950s, and visiting relatives in the US (she is Canadian)... she saw a "Coloured" water fountain and wanted to drink from it, thinking the _water_ would be coloured, which of course horrified everyone she was with.

[@joshuahitchins1897]

My dad did because it was summer in Mississippi and the line was shorter, to a similar clutching of pearls.

[@aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa9068]

@@joshuahitchins1897 nice

[@free_siobhan]

I thought this was new, then I saw “3 years ago”

[@X-Warrior.1119]

Me too... 🤔🤔🤔

[@phthalo7401]

... just checking in after the riots

[@free_siobhan]

@Chere Mizwicki shut the fuck up

[@kerog6]

"Back in the old days, back in the _real_ old days... it was just every man for his self. Scrooblin' and scrat-scrobblin' for the good stuff, the greenest valleys, and scrat-scrobblin'. And the strongest, meanest men got the best stuff. They got the greenest valleys, and they were like, 'The rest of you, y'all scrats get sand.' And _that's_ when they made the laws, you see. Once the strong guys got it how they liked it, they said, 'This is fair now, this is the law!' Once they were winning, they changed the rules up." - Jake the Dog, summarizing Legal Positivism.

[@shattered_ceramics9575]

Absolutely brilliant

[@MrEddie4679]

really? i might give it another chance now.

[@jaredbumblecrum]

Adventure time was a show that just casually dropped shit like this on you. Like, you would be watching the lighthearted Christmas episode about watching the joke villains secret tapes, and then they just fucking drop a poignant metaphor for how alzheimers eats away at you. Or how our silly protagonist with a love of combat gradually becomes extremely jaded due to the fucked up shit hes seen and occasionally done. Or the fact that all the silly characters are products of an *actual nuclear genocide* . My point is, go watch adventure time.

[@phoebe9194]

oh how incredibly topically this is in June of 2020

[@Robert96902]

I’m watching this right now because of everything that has happened haha :(

[@aidensherman6146]

If only you guys knew how applicable it is now

[@steveharrison76]

January 2021: Hold my beer...

[@ghostcohort8412]

aaaaand in england it is again!

[@steveharrison76]

@@ghostcohort8412 more to come, tomorrow. The policing bill is to be rushed through. Makes protest much more difficult.

[@BadMouseProductions]

I find it incredibly frustrating when people still to this day keep on going "Its against the law". Yet when I bring up something like Drugs, they will then say "Well yeah I disagree with that, BUT..."

[@gravyjones9746]

Drugs generally only result in self harm - if you want to go around assaulting people or vandalizing their property you are causing harm to others. That's the key difference. My 2 cents.

[@ganon1028]

BADMOUSE, I LOVE YOU

[@ikendusnietjij2]

"Drugs generally only result in self harm" If you calculate this with every use of drugs as a separate case, most probably yes. Drug use does result in a whole lot of harm towards others than the self alone.

[@razzle_dazzle]

Darckense Onoda If you're not talking about harm done to others in individual cases, are you talking about societal harms like lost productivity? Because if so, some would counter that others in society are not entitled to your productivity and thus have no business making drugs illegal.

[@TheLilytron]

It's not that easy... First off you have racial biases in the Police and the Justice Departments, wich result in POCs actually being controlled by the police way more often and getting harsher punishments for their drug abuse. The other thing is, if drungs weren't ilegal, the way for example alcohol is, the state could regulate the quality of those drugs, and therefore it would be harder/impossible for the "official" drug-sellers to cut the drugs with harmfull substances, but instead could cut drugs, wich need to be cut, for example heroin, amphetamins or cokaine, with unharmfull substances... So it's a problem directly resulting from the illegality of those drugs... Legalization of drugs would also make it harder for people under a certain age, let's say 18 years old, to get those drugs at the official seller (like coffee shops in the netherlands)... So if anything the lawmakers are harming addicts, and by failing to help addicts, with programms either devoted to help them or programms to at least get them the substances they need to function, the society as a whole, and should be punished for that.

[@disciple3654]

People with power break laws all the time, nation states and corporation. It's rarely law for the person holding authority, which has a tendency to mean rich people do whatever they want. Tax evasion seems okey, but doing whatever you can to make sure you have food on the table, seems a crime.

[@ericborsheim6852]

How did you reply 4 weeks ago? i.imgur.com/D6IzF0e.png

[@disciple3654]

eric borsheim trade secret we shitposters keep to ourselves :P

[@disciple3654]

eric borsheim nahh i just donate on patreon

[@Glaaki13]

lol i see the same

[@drpattiethomas]

If you study Latin you have to memorize idioms that do not follow usual syntax rules. Why? Because a caesar made a mistake or typo and because he was divine, the error became part of the language. #covfefe suddenly comes to mind. 😫

[@eustacebenedictshostacovic4999]

I agree with Henry David Thoreau when he said: “Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them?”

[@JordanRibera]

The Algorithm just dropped this in my lap like a bomb. Extremely topical 3 years later in the US.

[@Glaaki13]

and its not that long ago it was illegal to be gay in many places

[@bertrandlecerf2565]

It still is in many places, today, sadly.

[@Glaaki13]

james roberts well I dont know your stupid or dumb

[@jamesroberts2282]

Glaaki13 From that response I'm guessing that there's quite a lot of things you're probably unaware of.

[@Glaaki13]

no but you made the stupidity of making a sentence that works both ways

[@jamesroberts2282]

Glaaki13 is English your second, or third language? You're very brave to try to write in English.

[@Frizzleman]

Perfect timing

[@redlorax5380]

In the Netherlands we have a saying "doe maar normaal, dan doe je al gek genoeg" which means "just act normal, thats already crazy enough". It is used to discredit any social "misbehaviour". Nowadays I see it is used to force unjust and illogical rules on socitety.

[@kameradkircheis8426]

It is not wisdom but Authority that makes a law. - Thomas Hobbes

[@jacksonduruy4303]

Tangentially related! Don't know if you're ever hear of ROAR Magazine Olly, it's a Rad-Left mag run by some LSE students. Well they did a issue on the issues of law and order and had a good piece called "Managing Disorder". In it they argued that the state doesn't really seek "order", it seeks "control". "Order" would entail dealing with the root causes of social issues so they'd cease being issues, "control" is simply containing the fallout of the problems with society, and making sure they don't damage the wrong people's interests. Link: roarmag.org/magazine/managing-disorder/

[@enfercesttout]

My fave mag

[@chocolatnoir93]

I think it’s time Olly came back and did a 30 minute video on this because I feel like there’s so much more to unpack

[@annieinwonderland]

I think there could be one done around Covid.

[@ChloeFisheri]

Fascinating video, thanks Ollie! Have really enjoyed this series. Two things: 1. The Law is definitely arbitrary. It is merely an algorithm, and those who wield it (police, lawyers, judges) can choose what data to input in order to generate certain output, within the constraints of that formula. Judges especially are tasked with making discretionary judgments, often as to what is "reasonable", both for an objective person and the subjective individual. But this can often be a good thing, allowing flexibility in order to get a more just outcome, and also contributing to the evolution of a more accurate law. Equally though, it can also be utilised for less noble reasons 2. I'd love to see more of the legal positivism vs. natural law debate! I'm especially interested International legal principles of "jus cogens" or peremptory norms. Basically the idea that some crimes are so _universally_ wrongful (e.g. genocide), that any individual or state can be held accountable for committing them, regardless of whether there is any posited law binding them (e.g. a treaty), and regardless of the existence of any of the usual criminal defences (e.g. self-defence or duress). Its kind of a natural law trump card, but it is definitely the subject of debate

[@beautifulcarpetdiagram]

Well, you don't have to obey the law... As long as you have a bigger army than the government

[@UserJWR]

Sulla approves.

[@AmandaTroutman]

Hearing Trump say "Law and Order" fills me with righteous frustration. 😤

[@user-tf4lk4fm7i]

Why? Are you some BLM moron?

[@nachfullbarertrank5230]

@@user-tf4lk4fm7i Why? Did you storm the Capitol?

[@user-tf4lk4fm7i]

@@nachfullbarertrank5230 Your question doesn't work in context to my question you muppet.

[@jose.montojah]

Oliver, if you ever read this I'd like to thank you for your efforts on presenting philosphical concepts in such an unbiased (I think, I hope) and clear way. With your channel name "philosophy tube" you are as a gatekeeper of human knowledge and provider of context for many of us lost souls. Thank you once more. I can only hope you continue in your efforts merrily and if ever be it that millions pay attention to you, you can have the fortitute to stay honest and uncorrupted. Have fun, and have a good one!

[@petersmythe6462]

I think king's concepts of negative peace vs positive peace are CRIMINALLY under-used. This is why for example I do not subscribe to all ideas of "peace in the middle east" being a good goal for the Palestine-Israel conflict. Like, in essence, "negative peace" or "peace without justice" would seem to be an extremely common and undesirable state of affairs.

[@vera9230]

off subject but Olly is really cute

[@OrElseEllipsis1945]

Damn him, even wearing his nerd glasses, he's so attractive.

[@browncoat697]

The first thing my wife said upon showing her this channel and his face appearing on screen was "Wow, he's _cute!"_ In other words, don't steal my wife, *Olly.*

[@chrismain3968]

@@browncoat697 my girlfriend said the same, but I kinda agreed. He is.

[@sisyphusmarble8460]

It is Known.

[@societysmostambiguousgirlb1495]

Olly is a cute fucking name too ugghh

[@louveteau3333]

The conclusion - Legalize duels!

[@enfercesttout]

Specifically, yugioh duels as legitimate ways of settling divorces!

[@PilkScientist]

existential. anarchist I agree wholeheartedly

[@louveteau3333]

Yu-Gi-Oh duels are for baby cats. I advocate for pistols and swords kind of duels.

[@OrElseEllipsis1945]

SIR! I DEMAND SATISFACTION!

[@tmcantine]

Look up the history of Holmgang to see why it was banned. From Wikipedia: "Professional duelists used holmgangs as a form of legalized robbery; they could claim rights to land, women, or property, and then prove their claims in the duel at the expense of the legitimate owner."

[@rolland890]

Anotha one that's relevant again - bravo 👏

[@jinkiesjess155]

[Sylvester Stallone voice] The LAW

[@Erika-gn1tv]

LOOOAAAW!

[@pmcgee003]

Dear god no, not Stallone. Only -Eomer- I mean Urban.

[@IXPrometheusXI]

You talked a little about how law can be a bit more arbitrary than we expect, but I think that deserves a fuller treatment. (Which I will only hint at here bc I'm on my phone.) The name Austin comes to mind. I think he said something about how the law boils down to what judges decide to enforce, and I think we could extend that to other authorities, like police and prosecutors. I don't think it's productive to think of law as a set of facts - A, B, and C are legal and X, Y, and Z are not - rather, the law is a body of statements issued by the sovereign (singular or otherwise) which is used by authorities to justify their actions. Prosecutors have discretion to apply or not apply laws as they please, judges can throw out cases on whatever grounds they choose, police officers (or perhaps departments) can detain and attack however they wish, so long as they can provide justification in terms of law. In practice, this can be surprisingly ad hoc, at least from what I've seen in my experience in civil law. The law, I would suggest, functions ex post facto to validate the action of authority. These authorities like to act as though they are mere instruments of an abstract machine that operates without them, but in practice this is just a way to deflect responsibility. A critic of this idea might say that there really is a "machine," and sometimes corrupt officials abuse it, but that doesn't change the fact that the law is settled and clear. I would disagree though. The law, at least in America, is so unmanageably complicated that there is almost always some statute, some precedent somewhere, some officially recognized way to reasonably justify whatever fucking outcome you want.

[@dukevulture4562]

June 2020 here... 🤔

[@rowan-m8850]

Laws should be used to keep people safe and uphold their rights. If a law doesn't do this it doesn't deserve to exist.

[@Vanessa-ew5ov]

those who oppose civil rights movements in Hong Kong should watch this and be enlightened

[@corhydron111]

I know this is not what this video is about, but I just need to get this out of my system: I frigging hate when people make this free association between following the law and fascism. I mean I know that we shouldn't follow unjust and oppressive laws, but e.g. recently I was watching an interview with a politician, the journalist questioned the legal legitimacy of a new bill and the politiian honestly replied with "Ha! You know who always followed the law and legal order? HITLER!" Actually, the thing that made Hitler rise to legal power was a series of gross and direct violations of the law. In 1932, Chancellor von Papen had already broken the constitution by overthrowing the democratically elected government of Prussia region. The Constitutional Tribunal ruled the act unlawful, but von Papen ignored the verdict and soon the Tribunal ceased to exist. On March 23rd 1933 the Reichstag passed the delightfully named Ermächtigungsgesetz, or 'The Enabling Act' that gave the Chancellor the power to pass laws by-passing both parliamentary houses, supposedly just for the "times of crisis". In order to pass this law, Hitler needed a 2/3 majority, so he achieved it by 1) declaring the communist party an illegal entity (despite having allowed them to run in the recent parliamentary elections, whereby they got 81 seats out of 647) and simply throwing them and some of the other left-wing politicians out of the hall, 2) counting each absentee as present but abstaining 3) having manipulated some of the local elections to disadvantage the leftist SPD, 4) making political deals with all non-left parties and, last but not least 4) having SS and SA in the hall during voting in order to keep everyone in line and on edge. Had there been a well-functioning legal system in place, such as an active Constitutional Tribunal, this may have been prevented or at least questioned, but alas, the bill passed and the Reichstag never voted on a bill again. Just needed to write this out to make sure people realize this, as obvious as it may sound: WHEN POLITICIANS FOLLOW THE LAW, IT'S A GOOD THING, OKAY? IF A POLITICIAN TRIES TO TELL YOU THAT BREAKING THE LAW MAKES THEM MORE LEGIT, THEY ARE TRYING TO FUCK YOU. PLEASE DON'T LISTEN TO THAT BULLSHIT.

[@pond666]

thanks, this is interesting

[@ameliamaciorowska5754]

+

[@flippydaflip5310]

Politicians only follow the law when it advantages them (which is why they are always trying to change existing ones to advantage them or introduce new ones for the very same reason). Therefore, politicians following the law is most definitely NOT a good thing. Politicians doing ANYTHING is most definitely not a good thing.

[@corhydron111]

I mean sure, what would be ideal would be for the ruling class not to exist in general, but alas the status quo is that it DOES exist and under present conditions having politicians who follow the existing law is preferrable to having them bend or change it.

[@StephenMeansMe]

"Law and order" is quite a top-down attitude: the LAO advocate decides what "order" is and punishes anyone who transgresses the order. "Rule of law," I think, is more bottom-up. It's the guarantee that there's a systematic way to mediate conflict between people, as opposed to anything-goes vigilantism. A key part with respect to civil disobedient is that the law and other systems should (IMO) make it very easy for a reasonable person to follow it. For example, if the speed limit of a street is 30 (pick your units), it should be designed so that it's obvious to any reasonable driver that 30 is a good speed.

[@tmcantine]

I like to articulate the difference this way: Law and order is when the people obey the law. Rule of law is when the government obeys the law.

[@swearwolfdj]

Thank you for this insightful content. I have been starving for honest philosophical content on the youtubes for a very long time. You Sir, are quite the Gentleman.

[@Raytherat911]

well this is timely

[@conorb6281]

which irish revolution? There have been a lot.

[@funkwolf1]

Sorry this is late, but he probably means the one called the GREAT Irish rebellion (that happened about 200 years ago). As it was inspired by French and American revolutions. Later ones, such as the Easter Uprising, took advantage of the fact that the English happened to be looking the other way at the time.

[@MarkusAldawn]

@@funkwolf1 probably not. If you're talking about Emmett's Rebellion, Olly surely wouldn't use that as an example of a justified rebellion. It's not very glamorous- British leftists tend to be very pro-Irish revolutions and paint them as justified or good, regardless of the actual circumstances of the event, and Emmett's rebellion would probably not have been covered in any course he studied. Plus, the one where it worked is just a sexier example than the "failure of all," by Emmett's admission. In terms of impact, it was a footnote that only served to "keep the flame alive" for Revolutionary nationalism. If you're talking about 1798, it was mostly sectarian violence, with Catholics killing large numbers of Protestants and Protestant yeomanry killing Catholics back. If Olly used that in his determination, he must've momentarily lost his mind. It was maybe motivated somewhat by land or constitutional concerns, but primarily it was motivated by sectarian conflict. If he was talking about 1916, he should know it didn't have popular support until after it had finished, and only because the British were pricks about it. He should also know that no Irish revolution had widespread public support or really could be justified as "breaking the law for the right reasons." Britain did awful things in Ireland. If you told me you were breaking the law to fight against Westminster passing a coercion act which suspended habeas corpus, that'd be one thing. But "let's murder those Prods" in 1798, "let's, all two hundred of us, try and do a France," in 1803, "let's fuck up any chance of a peaceful exit of the Union or a solid Home Rule parliament by demanding it but with guns, even though its already happening just fine without them" in 1916, or "let's do 1916 again but when civilians are seen to be supporting the UK we fucking murder them" in 1921, and then the Whole Donut which was the Troubles in some year to now, potentially, are not valid reasons for breaking the law, they're terrorism. And if Olly somehow sees this one comment on this two-year-old video, I have one thing to say: please tell all the people in the British branch of the leftist community to not stan the literal fucking IRA. From the Northern Irish perspective, it's really a dick move, regardless of which side you're on. It reeks of revisionism (or more accurately, bad history done to support the view that the British were bad in colonialism. There's better arguments than "the IRA were good, actually.")

[@saudade7842]

@@MarkusAldawn I'm pretty sure no revolutions had popular support until it's over, most people remain neutral just trying to make it through to the otherside mostly intact. I will admit that every side in the Irish Revolutions did some really fucked up things, catholics murdered protestants, protestants gunned down catholics, the English killed the Irish, the Irish killed the English and the Irish killed the Irish. I don't fully understand the Irish Revolutions as I am American and we don't talk too much about them (not to mention they were an utter shitshow) so I apologise if I got anything wrong.

[@TheDreadfulCurtain]

Stumbled across this, political philosophy is so interesting , thank you for this content much appreciated.

[@TJtheHuman]

I hope judges and jurors recognize this.

[@rubenotero7100]

January 6th here. They've barreled past irony into some kind of unabashed cognitive dissonance.

[@mr.classified6167]

Thank you for this series.

[@gwenrees7594]

Thank you Olly

[@zephaniahgreenwell8151]

Thanks, Ollie!

[@samanthabailey02]

Thank you

[@Waitwhat469]

I remember talking to people, that in one breath say that we need more "law and order" in the inner city AND talk about all of the laws they broke and crazy things they did when they were younger. It is really strange to me. [Place holder for furture thought, when not sleep deprived (PHFFTWNSD for short)]

[@grmpEqweer]

They've othered the "inner city people." Might be race, might be something else, but they don't identify with people in the inner city as being like themselves.

[@theboxygenie]

Jeez, how long have you been sleep deprived?! /s

[@Waitwhat469]

@@theboxygenie lmao, oddly mostly unchanged level of sleep

[@pissqueendanniella4688]

The glasses are an EXCELLENT new look. :)

[@hallamhal]

Respecting the law! Respecting the law! 🎸🎸

[@peterlux4317]

"My Lords, civil disobedience on conscientious grounds has a long and honourable history in this country. People who break the law to affirm their belief in the injustice of a law or government action are sometimes vindicated by history. The suffragettes are an example which comes immediately to mind. It is the mark of a civilised community that it can accommodate protests and demonstrations of this kind. " R v. Jones [2006] UKHL 16

[@junelawson5719]

I think “law and order” is a confusing term, because it sometimes means the enforcement of law, and sometimes merely means the maintenance of the public peace; I.e. There not being a riot, etc. I suppose that’s what makes it a good dog whistle.

[@bencrispe2497]

Here's my definition of Law: Law is when both the rulers and the rulers' enforcers work together to control the consequences of certain, uncustomary actions. This is because you can't talk about something like the law as though it is some sort of tangible entity. It only exists through some sort of medium, and its medium is the enforcers, and the rulers, so a definition of law has to be given in terms of the medium through which it exists at all.

[@JuergenNoll]

Just a quick hint: Before H.L.A. Hart's book "The concept of Law" there has been the Austrian Law Professor Hans Kelsen covering the basis of legal positivism in his book "Reine Rechtslehre" ("Pure Theory of Law", 1934) which is still the foundation of continental European legal thought.

[@JuliaSpeaksWithWords]

I'd really like to see a video on philosophy and how it relates to Net Neutrality especially since it's such a big topic right now in the US.

[@thatonewhiteguy991]

Looking like a snack, those glasses are sexy! I've been binging on your backlog, really great stuff, keep it coming please!

[@KaSousek58]

Great video, as always. Have you ever read Kelsen? considering that you've obviously done Carl Schmitt and Hart. Also, just a side note, legal positivism is called positivism because of its epistemological and ontological views on the law. Not because someone posited it. But overall, your videos on law and justice topics are some of your most interesting ones IMHO :)

[@skyclaw]

All the more relevant in the light of the situation in Catalonia.

[@mulllhausen]

great video

[@crispy2699]

The Empire is the Law and the Law is Sacred

[@Bildgesmythe]

June 2020. Olly, I know you don't believe in the supernatural but you're psychic. I've been watching your old shows, and Damn, they were meant for today!

[@thatssofetch3481]

Because nothing has changed.

[@Coffeeisnecessarynowpepper]

Yessss! Abigail is a psychic

[@AutobotChick25]

The fact that this was on my home page the morning after the capitol breach 😭

[@TheZarkoc]

I love your shirt

[@Pfhorrest]

the law is whatever you will be punished for disobeying, so the answer depends on what you mean by "have to": are you morally obligted to? not necessarily. will someone make you? yes, by definition.

[@user-pe1yc4pk2c]

Judas Priest also broke the law. And it was kickass.

[@grmpEqweer]

From what I was told, that was about gay sex, which was illegal in Britain at the time.

[@Swishead]

Hey you've got Postcapitalism on your shelf I'm reading that right now! :D

[@DanAI17]

Really liked this video. Would love to see a video on police abolition and anarchism :)

[@enta_nae_mere7590]

I find it interesting that we say "law and order" that we couple them but they are not synonymous. This shows that their can be some idea that laws cannot neccisssrily always provide order but that such is desirable and that we should associate that a law will bring order. It is therefore also telling that we don't couple law with justice or a phrase such as "under God" as much as we do order. A shift towards law and order being synonymous, or preferred use of "authority" or similar would pose a dangerous shift towards facism but so would a loss of "order" threaten us with a post-truth society of disorder but laws establishing control.

[@rikvulders2153]

Olly, can you make a video on Legal Positivism vs Natural Law theory for us jurisprudence nerds out here?

[@ChryssaBL]

In Massachusetts, where Thoreau wrote civil disobedience is a civil infraction (you can get fined).

[@Akumasama]

8:36 I lol'd.

[@puglosipher1666]

Another example: Traffic lights. It's against the law to walk across the road when the lights are red, but when there are no cars that you can see (which happens alot where I live) nobody that I know waits for the lights to turn green. I think the reason may be because we know the reason for the law being in place (which is to prevent traffic accidents) and when there are no risk (so far we can tell) of an accident occuring - we brake the law, thinking it's justified.

[@thisaccountisdead9060]

Law and Order - aka Piers Morgan in the Good Morning Britain TV studio. Buy it.

[@grandagitator]

A whole 9 minute video with civil disobedience in the title and no thoreau huh

[@scientifico]

I live in a state where ganja is illegal. It is good for my soul on multiple levels to smoketh my herbs including ignoring "law and order."

[@ruaoneill9050]

Great video! Love education! The law can also arbitrarily be enforced incorrectly; I've been listening to the podcast 'Undisclosed' and there was a very interesting episode on knife laws in Baltimore and how loads of people get arrested for possession of what is actually a legal knife because the Guards don't know that it's legal (as well as loads of race factors).

[@TJF588]

Don't know if it had ever clicked in my three decades of living, but just nonchalantly stating of racial segregation that it was "enforcing white supremacy". When I hear that concept, I envision it as something reactionaries want back, but it feels revelatory that the policies themselves where white supremacy. I suppose I've been viewing it from the perspective of a generation and the generations before them growing up with it as the norm, and so a generation only being at "fault" for desiring it after it had been struck down. But regardless the awareness of those in power by it, those segregational laws and the slavery beforehand were undoubtedly white supremacy, and those proactive toward them were white supremacists. Feels shameful, it took this long to register...

[@BookLover2311]

I had a realization a few years ago that all the countries we consider third world have been victims of colonialism, teachers just sometimes don't say obvious stuff, causing students to miss it.

[@Jason_Black]

I'd agree with you, on very broad terms. I probably break some virtually unknown laws all the time that are irrelevant to what I feel is moral or just. And some laws that I am outright opposed to. I just happen to agree with laws about destroying public property or hurting people because of political opinions. Those are usually laws that serve the dissidents as well as the established class. Do you actually *want* a world where violence and destruction are justified because of the political climate? What will your defense be when it doesn't serve the side you agree with?

[@Overonator]

How do you decide when "law and order" is law and order and when it's just a code word for something more nefarious?

[@gelatinocyte6270]

This is relevant again

[@sagittariusa2283]

Can you do a video on freeman on the land movement. Got a friend into who believes in the movement, been trying to talk sense to him but im running out of material.

[@hdouwes6492]

It looks like our idea of law, order and justice follows the same principle as the progress of science described by Kuhn, where not obeying the law (under certain circumstances) is the same as revolutionairy science.

[@index301_cyb5]

the practice of legislation of laws via politicians of any call to assets acquired by pursuit of appeal in attempt to re- establish control & regulation of what is freedoms assets allowed publicly accepted & aknolaged by these precetions based on rhetorically drafted terminology's

[@nmnoz]

i think what locke said about not obeying a sovereign is also applicable here yet not very realisticly.

[@justinlanan2565]

I would love to see a video on terrorism and the term terrorist.

[@annieinwonderland]

See when will security go back to normal.

[@MichaelZrobok]

Love your work but volume at minimum for background music if you're going to keep utilising it in production - it's too distracting

[@TalysAlankil]

When you listed examples of civil disobedience, you should have mentioned the Boston Tea Party

[@shefkimeka6577]

I wonder,is there a difference between "law and order" and self-interest?

[@JuuuDantas]

In Brazilian Portuguese we have a phase/meme that says "é proibido, mas se quiser pode" something in the lines of "it's forbidden, but if you want it, you can" it's more vague than that because we don't specify who, there is no "you" because portuguese is a null-subject language so it doesn't apply only to the regular person but to even the government that should be forbidden it in the first place. It comes from the fact that our country has the costume of not being very good at making people obey law and order. Other phase is "will this law catch?" mean, okay it's a law now, but will people obey it? Will the government employ force to make it be obeyed? And I think it adds to discussion of the degrees of grey between the concept of law and order and the actual thing in reality.

[@patrickcummins79]

8:36 Trump ~ "LOL!"

[@sebbychou]

So... What about laws that are good but are never legally enforced? (Like how not stopping at a pedestrian zebra line can have your license revoked, but that'll never happen?)

[@izhan6991]

what's the background song?

[@thisaccountisdead9060]

Which is better? - Ian Brown's "F.E.A.R", or, Marvin Gaye's "What's going on?"

[@izhan6991]

wasn't this posted before the London attack?

[@stevemiller4201]

Just realized philosophy tube and Contra points are one And the same person

[@grmpEqweer]

Just think of Olly as the handsome, manly version.

[@someindividualistdude4645]

The American Revolution.

[@infov0y]

Unless one believe what's moral is defined by the law (an untenable position unless one grants any possible law is moral, which almost no-one will do when pressed) it has to be immoral to uphold immoral laws. I don't see a way around that. I look at what's moral first (granted that's a huge question!) and only then at the law. The law is just the data on which one calculates the possible negative consequences of one's actions, that is, how one might be punished if for moral reasons one has to break them.

[@Mcampbell1297]

I've been watching for about 8 months now and I have never seen short haired Olly, this is so wierd!

[@imaginareality]

What's the name of that german (?) post WW2 philosopher who said that a law is not a law if it is super unethical and therefore you should not obey it? (I probably could have put that into better, more correct words but it's 3 a.m. so....) I can't remember his name anymore and I would like to read up on him now that I am older.

[@dharini09]

I can't seem to separate the concept of justice, and law and order. Shouldn't the law be just? Also, Ollie, you so fine...

[@ambermaximo7390]

"Absence of tension to a positive peace, which is justice " ? thats so raw. Negative peace is not justice, it has nothing to do with positive peace, which is justice. Dafuq?

[@ShawnRavenfire]

Drug laws (specifically marijuana) are kind of a complex topic in the U.S., because if you live in a state that has marijuana decriminalized, then using it isn't breaking the state law... but the federal government still has a ban in marijuana, which means that they CAN arrest anyone for using it, but choose not to enforce those laws... but to add yet another layer of complexity, the tenth amendment to the Constitution puts responsibility for making laws on the individual states, unless explicitly stated by the Constitution's description of federal powers, which makes no mention of drugs, which means that technically, the federal government broke the law when they wrote the law banning marijuana in the first place.

[@fighter4711]

Here's an idea I've pondered on a bit before: Do we derive our notion of Law from Morality/Ethics, or Morality/Ethics of already existing Laws? Or maybe from the way we think about certain principles of nature--like Newton' s laws. Or maybe it originates somewhere else entirely. What do you think?

[@AudibleAnarchist1]

"Laws" derived from morality would be followed regardless of laws. Morality could be "derived" from laws. The whole "if it's illegal the nit must be bad" argument. Human laws and natural law are two completely different things. Natural laws apply to everything and equally. Human laws do not apply to everyone and not equally to those to whom it does apply. I think that the law is just a social construct used to justify the use of violence by a ruling elite. The whole "The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime." argument.

[@enfercesttout]

Well, kings precede gods.

[@enfercesttout]

Though we used to call them gods as well. So idk

[@AudibleAnarchist1]

It's kind of funny actually. if you look at how people talked about such things the lines between king and god get pretty blurry. Cesar and a bunch of other crazy narcissistic rulers called themselves gods. Jesus get's called Lord and King and other titles. You also have the god emperors in china and the divine bloodline in Japan.

[@sinachiniforoosh]

I think the general idea is the law should be the part of morality that must be enforced? Lying, cheating in a game, not showing up on a date with no explanation, etc. are all dick moves but there's no one on earth who wants to make laws against them because they don't have long-lasting effects in principle.

[@drpattiethomas]

Could you address the idea of "personal sovereignty"? I have seen this idea alluded to in anarchistic writing and I think it is basically suggesting a primacy of personal freedom and responsibility over obedience ("No gods. No masters.") But I am wondering if the idea has been developed more philosophically. As a sociologist I think a lot about socialization and cultural influences and I think that would complicate this concept a lot. But I also tend towards anarchism when I look at power structures because of many of the issues you addressed in the video. Law and order have social control as a goal, imho. And while norms make for a nice shortcut to living daily, a little shake up, disobedience and disorder probably are healthier in human relations.

[@AudibleAnarchist1]

You really should give "The Ego and it's Own" are read or listen if you want to get acquainted with the more individualistic side of anarchism. Anarchism from what I'm experienced of it isn't very keen on the idea of "personal sovereignty" since it reduces the individual to property that owns itself.

[@drpattiethomas]

AudibleAnarchist thank you. I will take a look.

[@buddah5674]

What did I take from this video you ask... Law is quiet simply a subjective interpretation.

[@HolotapeDeepCuts]

LOL and Order.

[@tobiashagstrom4168]

Being the slightly autistic loser I am, I sometimes fantasize about various scenarios involving characters who often have very superhero-like abilities, and since at least one or two of those characters are supposed to be basically morally perfect, that makes for some interesting questions sometimes. What if such a person gets unjustly confronted by a police? They'd have the ability to run away(or kick the entire police force's ass for that matter), but should they? Should they set an example by behaving well and taking their complaints thought the proper official channels, or should they resist in some way, and if so, how? How do you run from the police whilst still being perfectly dignified? Is it worth causing a scene over? What if one of these characters are out doing their thing, and get confronted by the police, because they did something that is considered to be reckless(except that they're super-human and can do crazy stuff at no real risk to anyone), or maybe just because they were involved around a crime scene. Maybe they're to busy dong superhero(I don't like calling them that, but it's basically what they are) work and cant be bothered being dragged into an investigation or getting arrested. The police would be totally justified in that case, so what should the person do? Put themselves above the law, whilst not generally being for others doing the same? Are they being hypocritical? Are they basically being dicks to the police? Sorry if this is cringey, I feel as though it probably is, assuming anyone even read it.

[@KarolaTea]

"technically illegal but you go away with it" doesn't change that it's illegal tho? Like, if you commit a crime and just don't get caught, that's still illegal. Or if you're just filthy rich and can afford the best lawyers/bribes and get off the hook, you still broke the law that's written down, it's just not enforced. So, the "law" part doesn't change, but the "order" is flexible. Although I guess even laws aren't 100% clear, that's why courts can come to different decisions based on the same laws.