Speaker 0 00:00:00 <inaudible> of the Atlas society asks I'm Jennifer Grossman. My friends know me as JAG. I am the CEO of the Atlas society. We're the leading nonprofit organizations, introducing young people to the ideas of Iran in fun, creative waves, like our graphic novels, pocket guides, animated videos, and social media. Uh, I'm joined today by my colleague, professor Jason Hill, who is one of the senior scholars at the Atlas society. And without whom this interview would probably not be taking place since he's the one who brought Jonathan <inaudible> and his excellent new book, uh, the authoritarians to my attention, I'm going to introduce Jonathan, but before I do that, I wanted to remind all of you who are watching us on zoom on Facebook, on Instagram, on Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube. Please go ahead and start typing your comments or your questions into the, uh, the comment stream. We're really going to try to get to as many of them as we can so have at it.
Speaker 0 00:01:15 Um, Jonathan e-board is one of the nation's top constitutional lawyers. Uh, he's the author of five books, including freedom technology and the first amendment global censorship of health information. And most recently the authoritarians their assault on individual Liberty, the constitution and free enterprise from the 19th century to the present throughout his 35 year career practicing constitutional and administrative law before federal courts, he has worked to achieve full first amendment protection for speech and for the press. And he has the unique distinction of having defeated the FDA eight times in federal court, more than any other attorney in America. Jonathan, welcome again. And thank you for joining us. Thank you for having me appreciate it. So, um, I am going to let my colleague professor hill jump in here in just a moment, but I wanted to, uh, to first get to one of your earlier books, which was the rise of tyranny.
Speaker 0 00:02:30 You focused on the delegation of legislative executive and judicial powers too. I was surprised to learn over 200 independent regulatory commissions since the 1930s, uh, regulatory agencies that enact over 90% of all federal law. Um, you pointed out a tendency of such agencies to become captives of the industries that regulate citing the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry as an example, and a case for concern. Have, I'm just curious, given where we are right now, uh, in, in the many years after that book was written, have your concerns been effected, uh, one way or the other with the experience of the pandemic and the government's response?
Speaker 1 00:03:26 Yes. I think it's gotten worse. Uh, the association between government and industry, I think is closer today than ever before all across the board, uh, particularly in the communications area, we have, um, big tech, uh, that is essentially performing a censorship role for the government. So it is at, at, uh, the suggestion of leaders in the democratic party taking action to censor conservative communication. Um, and, uh, it, it comes in a form that, uh, traditional jurisprudence doesn't seem to, uh, latch onto. A lot of, a lot of parties have said, Hey, look, this is not censorship. Censorship only is that which is brought about by the government. These are private parties, they're exercising, independent, editorial control over their fora. The problem with that argument is that they bought into a regulatory regime where they became common carriers and they argued to the government at the time that had passed the communications act, the amendments that, uh, that they were, um, uh, a common carrier that they would not engage in editorial discrimination.
Speaker 1 00:04:42 They wouldn't, uh, delete communication based on its content. And indeed they were given legal protection against liability for that. Well, they've violated that trust and now actually they're very, very much tied to leading Democrats and, uh, they have enabled, uh, Democrats to win, uh, elective office in no small measure because of censorship of information. And they are promoting, for example, a complete censorship, both alternatives to a standard vaccine, uh, treatment for the COVID the, the mere suggestion of other treatments is, is, is blocked on the web. Uh, any, any, any effort in that regard. So that's just one example. Um, there are many examples that we could discuss, but that's an example I think, of, of that extension. I would say that it does violate the first amendment because the first amendment does restrict government, but when government uses industry to achieve its own ends, uh, that is a government action. And I think it should be recognized as such.
Speaker 0 00:05:50 You also wrote global censorship of health information, uh, at least a decade prior to concerns, um, about to what extent information about COVID its origins, potential therapies and vaccine efficacy and side effects, uh, is being filtered, um, according to political interests. And, um, while that book focuses more on efforts of government agencies to limit nutrition claims by food supplements, uh, companies, um, one of the things that I found most striking, uh, having run a nutrition Institute myself and having tangled with the FDA, uh, in the past over simply wanting to say, you know, bananas are, are, you know, have potassium and they might be good for this health concern. And, and having been told that, you know, we, we absolutely couldn't do things like that. Um, but just how absent in the current discussion about COVID is, uh, nutrition and diet, um, when it comes to reducing your, your risk of COVID. Um, so do do some of the dynamics that you identified in the book have implications that have skewed the way that we're thinking about immunity in the face of a contagious virus.
Speaker 1 00:07:13 Very definitely. We have a government, uh, voice that in this instance, the government is saying, that's the only voice that may be heard, uh, that any other competing voice is considered not only a one to be debated beyond that it's, it's one to be censored. And so they are not allowing a multiplicity of voices about scientific information. Sciences is, is somehow considered to be holy when it's communicated from the government a platform, but when science arises elsewhere, they censor it. When science becomes competitive with that view articulated by government, they get rid of it. This is Lysenkoism, this is a form of Lysenkoism and it is censorship. And what happens is a large amount of information, particularly in the area of nutrition, but also in the area of drugs, uh, is kept away from people so that they go, uh, completely unaware of what they should do in order to reduce the severity of the disease.
Speaker 1 00:08:17 If they, if they can track that. For example, just one example, mega three fatty acids, omega three fatty acids. There's an enormous amount of literature supporting their anti-inflammatory role, uh, inflammation as a key factor in the progression of this disease with a spike proteins, wreaking havoc throughout your body and all your organ systems. So I'll make it three fatty acids consumed daily, not only reduce the risk of vascular diseases. I proved in one a case over that matter against the FDA. Uh, it also, you know, eliminates inflammation helps reduce inflammation, also such things as, uh, if you go to any hospital and you have, COVID like symptoms they'll frequently prescribed, uh, ibuprofen ibuprofen actually increases the number of ACE, two receptor cells in your body, thus causing the disease to expand that is two to become more prolific throughout your body. So you certainly don't want to take ibuprofen, but there's no allowance for discussion of this in the marketplace.
Speaker 1 00:09:24 What you should be taking is aspirin instead, because aspirin doesn't have that effect. And it's also a pain reliever. Aspirin is far more effective because it doesn't increase number of phase two receptors that this is just a little bit of the information ivermectin, for example, and hydroxy chloroquine world round have been found via effective therapies. The evidence that for example, ivermectin is effective in treating COVID in, particularly when, uh, administered early on with symptoms is extraordinary. Uh, many people have had their lives saved by ivermectin and yet, um, and, and hydroxy chloroquine. And yet because, uh, Dr. Fowchee has ruled them out, uh, as treatments and is focusing entirely on the vaccine, which increasingly becomes a treatment because the vaccine isn't what they promised it would be. Um, people are denied access to that information, the consequences, great. There are people who are dying in America because they do not know that they ought to be taking ivermectin or that they ought to try hydroxychloroquine.
Speaker 1 00:10:28 And any debate as to the scientific merits of that is it is just eliminated entirely from the market. And the effect of that is of course, to Rob us of innovation, we only innovate in sciences. We do in most, most areas by an open marketplace of ideas in which individuals are allowed to contest. And we are given the privilege of reading it all and devaluating for ourselves, what we considered to be, and our own best interests this in classic, uh, collectivist, uh, uh, thinking, uh, the government has said, oh no, we're the experts. And we'll divine for you. What is right? And what we say is everyone should be vaccinated. And that's the only answer. They, they, they, they they're Luddites. The only thing they offer is a vaccine. And now they're embarrassed because their vaccine is not as effective as they promised. It looks as though after four or five months, the degree of immunity drops precipitously.
Speaker 1 00:11:27 And so what do they do? They don't look for innovation. They don't invite it. They don't invite the critics of the vaccine who are in the scientific community to offer opinion. Instead they say, oh, no, get more vaccines, uh, be vaccinated again. And again and again. So you'll be a person who's riddled with spike proteins delivered by the vaccine. There's no long-term safety studies on those. There's no long-term safety study indicating the extent to multiple injections. Would these spike proteins in your body will a will cause problems for you down the road. So I'd rather stick with things that we know ivermectin, hydroxy, chloroquine have an enormous history of safe use across the world. So why not give it a go if, uh, if that's a safer approach for the, they won't, they won't let us say that.
Speaker 0 00:12:16 Well, I want to switch gears now to your, your most recent book, the authoritarians. It is a historically and philosophically sweeping account of the 19th century to the present of trends and efforts to undermine, um, constitutional limits on government yet the, um, and I want to bring, uh, professor hill in here because he was absolutely, uh, passionately then recommending that we get you on the show. And so, um, perhaps Jason, you can kick it off by telling us what it was that you found, uh, most, most salient and most important about, uh, about this book at this time.
Speaker 2 00:13:03 Well, a number of things, um, and again, welcome Jonathan to the show. It's so great to have a year. Um, I'd read a number of texts or books on, you know, America's decline and on America's precipitous road towards authoritarianism. But what I had not really, um, encountered was a sort of, um, my new and, and, and detailed historical research on the antecedents, right? Most of us sort of myself included, although I have read a lot of critical theory and I've read a lot of German idealism and I've been acquainted with the Frankfurt school. I've done work with them for, for over a decade. I have not taken the time to explain to people. And they say, well, how do we get here? You know, I've said, well, the six days, and I, it's just, it's easy to point at the fixes and Jonathan, Jonathan's not satisfied with wrestling with six days, he's he points to the decline of classical liberalism and the decline of America going back to this, to, to, to 19th century Germany and, and ties the philosopher.
Speaker 2 00:14:13 John do his philosophy of education and his progressivism and his brand of socialism, along with Franklin D Roosevelt. And today we would call these people walk, or where did it, where did their walk? Cause I'm a rise in a rose from a philosophic system in 19th century Germany. And that's the thing I found fascinating with Jonathan's book that he did this legwork that could explain to people that this is not just a rise out of a vacuum, or in order to get a rise out of the 1960s, the 1960s, those individuals at the legatee, the beneficiaries of a philosophic system that they inherited. It's a long time for the chickens to come home and roast, but the eggs are family hatched. And we see these ugly ducklings walking around, who are destroying our culture. So kudos to this book that the John to Jonathan's writing this book. Um, yeah,
Speaker 1 00:15:09 Well, I, I might say that, um, I'm a big fan of yours. And so I, when you say these things, they, if I'm not blushing, I should be, I, uh, I'm very, very, uh, humbled by what you say, because I, I, I did take a different approach and that I looked at the history and knew, and I really start most of my assessment, um, from this constitutional law perspective, which is not, I don't mean to say it's the modern, constitutional law, which really is a deconstruction of the constitution in academia, but it's the founding principles and asking myself, uh, what are the greatest threats to the founding principles of this country? And that's where I fall upon this, this history that, uh, was shocking to see that in the antebellum south, uh, ideology, very akin to what we're seeing now, advocated by, uh, the far left, um, was commonplace among, uh, pro-slavery advocates, uh, in the 1830s that is essentially, Hey, galleon, socialism, uh, collectivism.
Speaker 1 00:16:22 They call it with Hagle, but it's really the, uh, the origin as we know of socialism. And, uh, Karl Marx was a student of Friedrich Kagel, and he merely advanced it to a more, um, applicable, uh, and violent, um, ideology that is replicated today in the far left thinking. Um, but to see that this glorious thing, the declaration of independence, the second paragraph of which really defines what it means to be an American, um, uh, that all men are created equal, that they're endowed by their creator with unalienable rights to life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that governments are instituted among men to protect the rights of the governed and the just governments derive their just powers from the consent of the government. These, these principles are the very essence of the genius. That is the American experiment, and it was kicked off nowhere else in the world.
Speaker 1 00:17:30 And nowhere else since, uh, but here, here it started. So I look at the threats to that, and nearly, um, 100 years after the founding, we have these enormous struggles, arising, and, uh, parties that are interested more in efficiency of government and achieving what they considered to be the common good and imposing it on others. They found these impediments to the exercise of power in the constitution, and they wished to defeat them. And so people like, for example, many people were shocked by this, but it's in a book in detail, Felix Frankfurter, for example, Felix Frankfurter was a socialist. He, uh, as a boy, he immigrated to the United States, uh, lived in the, in the Bronx and would go to lectures, repeatedly, love them, uh, to hear the socialist speakers, the socialists, labor speakers, and communists, who he admired greatly. And he absolutely despise free enterprise.
Speaker 1 00:18:37 Uh, and he shared much in common with Louis Brandeis in this regard who he viewed as a mentor. And then he went on to, uh, become a member of the Fabian society in England, uh, the precursor of the British labor movement. And he advocated all of the British labor movement policies, uh, and which were very socialistic. And then he became a strong advocate in law school of the progressive party. And the progressive party of 1924 was, uh, if anything, farther to the left of Bernie Sanders today. And then he became very influential with theater or with Franklin Roosevelt. And he ended up being the grandfather or the father, I should say, of the administrative state, uh, his whole concept that administrative law could circumvent the constitution was overt. He wanted to defeat the separation of powers. He wanted to invest in single hands, legislative executive and judicial power, and thereby create a autocratic, uh, regime and authoritarian regime.
Speaker 1 00:19:43 It would be independent of the constitutions allocation of power. And suddenly you have the system by the time of the new deal where the overwhelming majority of powers exercised or suffering, no constitutional check because they're being wielded by institutions that the constitution doesn't even contemplate. Indeed, the vesting clauses of articles, one, two, and three would deny the creation of an administrative state. And yet they created it. They didn't do it through constitutional amendment through article five because they didn't believe in the constitution. Woodrow Wilson despised the declaration, for example, major progressive. He believed that you said that you should get rid of the, the, the initial paragraphs in the declaration because they were just mere surplusage. And he despised the whole concept of limited power. Uh, he thought there was no problem that government ought not solved by imposing the will elites like himself on the population. Now he couldn't achieve that in his time, but he laid down the marker for it. And it's not just the Democrats who did this. It's also the Republicans who were part and parcel of the expansion of the administrative state. Richard Nixon was a major proponent of the expansion of the administrative state. Of course, we got wage and price controls from Richard Nixon. So little that he respects the free markets. So well, I'm, I'm saying too much not allowing you to ask me questions.
Speaker 0 00:21:23 So Jason, I'm going to let you ask a couple more questions, but we also have a few questions from our audience that I'd love to, to run by you, Jonathan, uh, Scott on YouTube asks, is anyone promoting any kind of legal reform to deal with? What many see, as a strong, progressive bias throughout the legal field now,
Speaker 1 00:21:49 Um, there's the campaign for Liberty, which, uh, norm Singleton heads, uh, Ron Paul, um, he used to be the, uh, legislative director for Ron Paul. Um, there are many libertarian legal organizations, uh, that, uh, Sue the government variously are people like me who my whole career I've been suing the government. I just, I did it even though I'm doing it in a for-profit mode, I'm representing companies and individuals and scientists who have been restricted or censored or have had their lives all through fundamentally without just cause. And I've, uh, spent, you know, 35 years suing the government. So there are precious few of us I might add. Um, but there are those who are swinging the ax in the other direction. Um, I think the greatest opportunity for legal reform to protect the constitution has to arise from a popular movement to, uh, to, to clip the wings of the Democrats and to replace them with Republicans and to bring about, and I say that only because today the democratic party's synonymous with the far left and the Republican party is the only vehicle left for us to effectively alter that course.
Speaker 1 00:23:11 But, um, when we put in a majority who are dedicated to elimination of the administrative state, which is I, I advocate and restoring the rule of law and positive law, instead of prior restraints as the normative way of proceeding, then, uh, we might have a chance of putting back the power into the limits can define by the constitution and, uh, creating a nation where Liberty is the most precious, uh, uh, value that is protected by state. The state should be in the business of limiting its powers to protect the expansion of Liberty. We should constantly be mindful that the constitution meant for the individual will be sovereign, but with that sovereignty comes individual responsibility. And it also, you carry with that, the burden of your own baggage and your own problems. So you can't look to have a nanny state, uh, and we have to divorce the public of the idea that the nanny state can cause them to have a higher standard living.
Speaker 1 00:24:17 I think the typical person out there today actually believes that you can have a wealthy existence if only the government redistributes the wealth of the very smallest percentage of the population to the rest of the country. Now, as Margaret Thatcher said, you know, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money to paraphrase her. And that's of course, what happens as soon as you go through a couple of these rounds of, of, uh, destroying the wealth, generating, uh, individuals and institutions and redistributing it to the population you end up with everyone impoverished, because it's not enough to, uh, increase the economic circumstance with someone for a lifetime, let alone a year or two. And yet you've taken down the very engines of productivity and growth that are responsible for the generation of that income. So you end up like that as well and no time. And if they just think beyond the moment, uh, get out of the haze of the COVID lockdown environment and, and accept a minimal dose of realism, they should come to the conclusion that it's been a pipe dream that they've been sold by the democratic party and that pilfering other people's goods and services, uh, to, to the nth degree is no way to ensure the creation of goods and services. That's the best way to destroy them.
Speaker 1 00:25:45 You want to jump in there?
Speaker 2 00:25:48 Well, it's sort of a followup question to, to what, uh, the question to, and, and the response to Jonathan. So, Jonathan, my question is, um, when I read your book, I, and I read about Wilson and more particular, the president that you've defined as the worst president giving me a little bit of your book, but not why is, uh, is Franklin D Roosevelt? My question too, is it's it reads like there's been a sort of moral eugenics program. That's been forced on the American people, um, where this sort of entitlement mentality and this sense of entitlement, uh, as soon as the birthright. So my question is how do we undo, or how is that entitlement mentality undone? Is it simply by removing the poison, which is the welfare state, or is there something like a resocialization people's sensibilities? I don't believe in government funded schools, um, anymore.
Speaker 2 00:26:48 I used to, at one time I've been converted, um, through reason and through observation, but my it's a serious question if I want, I'd like you to address that. Is it just simply by implementing a kind of administrative body of administrative government that, um, that is not predicated on the welfare state that is, that comes close to approximating capitalism and through default, through forced through, through, through sheer necessity people they're forced to, to revisit and to re, to, to re re socialize themselves, or is there some larger work that is to be done by intellectuals by, uh, by, by activists, in re schooling people sensibilities on a different level, because among other envelopes talking among other things, what I came to this country 36 years ago on a Mr. Reagan, and, you know, I worked four to five hours to put myself through school before getting a scholarship to get my PhD, but I never for once and the immigrants that of my generation, I'm 56, never thought that anything was owed to them by America. We just thought, keep out of our way, do not obstruct any efforts that we might manifest on behalf of our lives. And there's been a tremendous shift now where you have illegal immigrants who think they not only have the right to vote, but they also are entitled to a house and a job and a car and, and whatnot. So how do we, how do we begin this, this, this, I call it the sort of resocialization and we got some <inaudible>, but how do we begin this process of shifting the sensibilities of people?
Speaker 1 00:28:33 I think, uh, basic honesty is a good approach. And the truth is if people will only listen to it, that socialism is a bankrupt idea, it just doesn't work. Um, you can be promised any number of things, and you can view yourself as entitled to that, those things. But when they're given to you, they come at a cost and that cost is either inflation or, or taxation or both. So it's, it's a false paradigm. The idea that there is free education, free healthcare free, this and free, that is entirely absurd because it's not free. Anything of value is not free. The question is who bears the cost? Well, they're saying, well, I'm receiving these goods and I'm not bearing the costs. So I'm all for it. But what they don't understand is that they are actually paying for these goods and they're paying for it.
Speaker 1 00:29:31 And then in a series of ways that are indirect, but very, very, uh, devastating to them. And those ways are one inflation, two taxation, three, the reduction in innovation and, uh, the sophistication of the care with which they, there, they will get because they're going to get rationed care or they're going to get rationed education. They're going to get less quality and they will, there can be universality, but it will be at an enormous expense. That's unsustainable. And with a degree of quality, that is, that is a modicum of above nothing. So that you end up with false promises. You either go through this horror like Venezuelans and you, you, you accepted because you're, you're, you're unwilling to be, have your mind open to the reality, the truth, uh, or you can do something else, which this is where I think you come in professor hill in your books and where politicians, uh, ought to be, uh, taking, uh, a lesson from you and from others, that this is an opportunity society.
Speaker 1 00:30:47 That is to say so long as you are free, you can achieve. And that every time you create a artificial paradigm that limits your potential, and then then adopted as law, you are artificially preventing us from enjoying those natural few fruits that come from our freedoms. I mean, to be free to innovate without excessive regulation enables you to overcome all sorts of things. If the only limitation that I have is not on my freedom of speech and not on my ability to innovate, but simply on the extent to which I can comprehend something I'm in as free a state as possible, and in the best position to maximize my own self-interest and benefit and health and everything else. So if we focus on an opportunity society on the notion that if you have a free market that is, is, is maximized and a government that's minimized, you will have the greatest opportunity, the greatest diversity of products, goods, services, the greatest innovation, the greatest chance to raise the standard of living. And that, that has historically been the case that while you may not, uh, understand or, or agree with, uh, the invisible hand concept of Adam Smith, it is very much true. And the reason it's true, I'm sorry.
Speaker 0 00:32:19 Oh, I was just going to jump in there, um, to respond to professor Hill's, uh, question that I have, uh, you know, I agree with you on the whole, I have perhaps a slightly different take on it because I think we do need to discuss, um, the economic consequences. We do need to provide historical context. I think we need to talk about the law and talk about legal remedies, but at the end of the day, um, I think it's absolutely vital because we have been doing that, you know, Cato Institute and has been around you were there. I was there, uh, there, there are a lot of groups making, you know, the sort of economic policy arguments, but without really making the moral case to say, you know, even though Venezuela is right there for you to see, even though North Korea is right there for you to see, even though Cuba is right there for you to see, we don't even have to agree on whether or not factually historically socialism fails.
Speaker 0 00:33:29 Let's put a pause in that. What's just put that in the, in the parking lot. And let's address the question about the morality of socialism about whether or not it is right to be able to take from one person in order to give to another person, whether one, as an individual has the right to determine their own autonomy and make decisions for themselves. So I guess that's why I'm at the Atlas society, because I believe that no one better than Hein ran, made, made the taste and not just made the case in terms of, of the facts. She, she made it in a way that was designed, you know, to appeal to people's imagination, which was designed to excite them, to intrigue them, to seduce them. And I think that those who want to solve this problem really do need to think about how do we reach young people.
Speaker 0 00:34:31 And, uh, you know, you can say, read a book. And I, I think I do want young people to read a book and that's why we have our book club, but, but in terms of actually getting through to them as if our lives depended on it, and it does, uh, finding ways to make it in their self-interest make it delightful, make it fun, make it, um, make it something that's entertaining for them. And, and I think that's part of the part of our challenge as well. Um, so we have another question here, uh, going back to law, uh, from YouTube, Peter meteor asks civil versus common law. Why is the mix, uh, why is the mix of the two? Why do lawyers have their own language? Why can we no longer enter into court without filing paperwork created by the bar who runs the courts? So, okay.
Speaker 1 00:35:37 Um, if I can speak a little bit, just a little bit to this point that you're raising about morality for address that question. Um, I quite agree with you. I think that one of the, one of there are many ways into this, but one way is the recognition that there are certain fundamental truths. I mean, most people do not dispute that we are born with free agency or should be free. That is to say that individual freedom of choice is a defining characteristic of humanity. We wish to choose of our own accord and not have someone else dictate to us what we should choose. This is an underlying, uh, indirect, uh, argument that is raised by the BLM people and critical race theory people and so on. But that slavery is evil. Why slavery evil, because you have a master who denies you, your individual Liberty victimizes you and subjects you to their will, what we need to understand and what our young people need to appreciate is that it is morally evil in the same way as slavery to have the state be your master, to have the state take away from you, freedom of choice, and to have the state dictate to you the direction of your life.
Speaker 1 00:36:59 What you may hear, what you may think about, what you may communicate about all of those things, uh, cancel culture, this whole environment, where a dissent is not tolerated means that you as an individual are less valuable. You have less freedom. You are sacrificed for someone else's view of what the common good is. And it's not just a view. It becomes the law and it becomes imposed upon you now shifting to so, so it is immoral. Absolutely, but it's immoral fundamentally because it divorces from humanity, that characteristic that defines them, which has free agency. It takes away from you, freedom. It's circumscribed your freedom ever more until you end up being just a tool or an instrument or a robot of the state. And that is what you should fear most because once you lose your control, you are indeed a slave and you have no ability to, to rise to a level of happiness or self fulfillment, because it's, you're fulfilling the happiness of that person who gets to rule. That's it,
Speaker 0 00:38:19 That's an excellent, excellent point. Uh, in terms of connecting, you know, slavery is a moral, evil, and then going deeper, you know, why and what is the fundamental principle? And I think that's part of what we've tried to do with our, one of our animated videos on, um, uh, on, on slavery, on Frederick Douglas. My name is Frederick Douglas, and it was, uh, interesting in the process to also learn that he was a contemporary with socialism and had something to say about it and describe socialism as, uh, as slavery of all, uh, to all and as a barren nonsense. So, um,
Speaker 1 00:39:09 Yeah, John, as I explained in the book on John C Calhoun's mudsill theory, which Abraham Lincoln refuted is exactly the struggle between socialism and capitalism, essentially between a defense of free labor and the argument for slavery, the contrary, which account Hoon was justifying. So very much socialism is woven into all of this and is, and stands for the defense of slavery. But the question that was asked about, um, civil versus common law. So, um, common law is simply judge made law as to say when, when parties are, are in court, uh, contesting against one another, uh, the law will have, uh, will be before the judge, but the judge may act in ways that fill in the interest interest dis-ease between the law and the facts that are unique in a certain case that breadth or extension of law in decisions of a court constitute a common law.
Speaker 1 00:40:14 That is the English heritage that we acquired. Um, and so then the, the civil law positive law created by legislatures, um, is the other form of law. And then we have a third form that is not a part of the question of that is important to recognize. I believe it, to be a third form of law and that's regulatory law, which constitutes prior restraints. What we want is to ensure that we don't have a collectivist law. That is to say in, in the classical understanding, the law stands as a marker and individuals are assessed against it as to whether they have acted lawfully or unlawfully, but under the laws of the regulatory state, broad prescriptions, prior restraints are enacted and all who transgress those restraints are considered law violators, whether their actions are themselves culpable or not. So a person for example, could be completely as one of my clients.
Speaker 1 00:41:24 And I explained this and the authoritarians completely innocent of any wrongdoing who created, uh, a means to cause, uh, what would be non-biodegradable plastics to become biodegradable and, and, and that innovation threatened industry, uh, that had certain forms, biodegradable plastics that were not as competitive as this actually not as good. And they, they resorted to lobbying the FTC and the FTC adopted a rule that arbitrarily defined anything that did not completely break down into nature and elements within one year of disposal could not be marketed as biodegradable that remains a lot of the stay. And so something that would buy a great biodegrade over a long period of time, but nonetheless would save the environment of, of, of conventional plastics would have huge value and will be understood to be biodegradable by every scientific definition or every understanding. But this arbitrary limit then is used to rule out everybody, whether they're helping, whether they're telling the truth or not simply because it violates the decree.
Speaker 1 00:42:31 So, um, that is, is, is, is, is unlike something, because it's not the product of elected representatives who are accountable to the people and can be removed from office, but it, but an unelected bureaucracy that is in perpetuity capable of instituting restrictions that direct the nation into a quote unquote common good defined by the political leaders of these, uh, agencies who are unelected, not accountable. It creates another area of law. So those are the differences. Civil laws tends to be positive law, common laws, the filling in of the law by judges who decide on a case by case manner, and then the regulatory law, which is comprised of prior restraints, which caused those who are innocent of any couple of lacked action, nonetheless, to be considered law violators, and to be given none of the constitutional protections, by the way that article three courts have under the constitution, or even the fourth, fifth, six amendments to the constitution they're in applicable in the regulatory law context, even though property is taken away and Liberty is taken away by the regulatory state. Thank you, Jonathan Jason.
Speaker 2 00:43:42 Well, I want to ask a very general question. Um, uh, see, Bradley Thompson wrote a book called America's revolutionary mind, and, um, it is a very good book, uh, that I, that I interviewed him also for. So I, he thinks, you know, that there is something, um, quite American about, about, uh, America's founding fathers, that we are the negatives of. And we have become quite, we have embodied something called him uniquely the American mind, which is very different from Canada. Trudeau says that we are identity less people and we have no identity. Um, and I said, poof to that. So my question then is, do you think there's something that is uniquely, that we can uniquely the American mind, a and B, do you think America, as we stand today with the authoritarian movements and T4 black lives matter, um, certain whites with white supremacist movements, um, just the authoritarian movements that are on the, on the run, especially galvanized by this administration, I think, um, has America loss. So do you think that there is something unique about them? Is there an American mind that you can spot and has America lost its American night or we are, or are we in danger of losing or American mind right now?
Speaker 1 00:45:11 Well, there is a uniquely American legal and social, uh, construct that arises from our tradition in, in defense of individual Liberty, but is most aptly described. And I agree with professor Thompson in this respect, um, in the, in the declaration of independence, in the second paragraph of the declaration of brilliant Thomas Jefferson brilliantly summarized the essence of, of America for all time. Um, and that brilliant exposition in the second paragraph is etched on the, the DNA of every person who is, who is an American, whether grafted on to America or born here, it's white. Why we come here, if we're not from here, it's why we are proud of ourselves. If we live here. And I say ourselves, because you can't derive a sense of self-worth from something that someone else gave to you, by virtue of the exercise of state power, you derive a sense of self-worth by that pursuit of happiness that is referenced in the constitution, understood and lock in terms to be your effort that has been expended based on your intelligence, based on your physical talent, based on your sweat.
Speaker 1 00:46:40 Uh, it is that efforts that gives you a sense of self-worth when in the end, what you have produced is appreciated by others and, and causes others to experience a benefit of one kind or another. And that is understood all over the world, but it's understood to be uniquely American in the sense that here you're supposed to be able to do that without being lorded over constantly by government. So now we have a class and I don't believe, I think we can exaggerate their significance. I think the Joe Biden soul sold his soul to the socialists. Uh, and he, as a socialist government is not indicative of what the American people think. Or, and I think what you'll find is that like, like Abraham Lincoln found, even in the midst of the civil war, even with the socialism that was driving the south as a defense of slavery, Hey, galleon, socialism, as I talk about in the authoritarians, you find that there are these mystic chords of memory.
Speaker 1 00:47:49 Has he referred to the tie us back to the declaration? It is very hard to, uh, have an understanding of America and not appreciate that our greatness is tied inextricably to our liberties. We are only great because we're free. We only have Hollywood because they're free. They have freedom of speech. We only have a diverse culture because we have freedom of religion. And because we have this idea of property rights, where individuals can actually own something for themselves, not everywhere in the world. Can you say that? And when, when you combine all of these freedoms life, Liberty, and property, you have a fulsome defense of individuality because all of these are individual rights. We have to remember that our rights, we don't share a notion of collective rights. Joe Biden may believe in collective rights. Uh, Kamala Harris may believe in collective rights. Um, governor Newsome may believe in co uh, collective rights.
Speaker 1 00:49:01 This squad may believe in collective rights, but the American people don't believe in collective rights. They believe they go to work and they earn something for themselves and their families. They're driven to achieve by two factors, principally to make something of value for others. That is to really make something cool. And then the other thing is to feed their families, to feed themselves and to acquire wealth, because they want to have an existence that is defined by greatness or exceptionalism. That's what drives Americans. That's why other people outside the United States want to come here. They want to come here because they want to experience that. They want to have something of their own. They want their own plot of land. They want their own home. They want to have their own car. They want to have these physical things, but they also want to have pride, self pride.
Speaker 1 00:50:01 They want to believe that they're doing something to help the world. And that can be, uh, anything from building a home or working on an assembly line or being a lawyer or being a professor or whatever. It's just, that's where we are unique. We are driven to exceptionalism. We work harder than anyone else in the world. And we do so because we are in so many respects, selfless in the sense that we're giving all of this, but we're actually selfish because we expect that if we work hard enough, and if we give enough, and if we change the world and make it a better place, that in the end will be benefited. Bill gates may have forgotten how he got there, but he wanted to make a fortune, but he wanted to do it the old fashioned way. He didn't get it from government. He got it because he innovated and because he became a master of the market and because he hustled and was competitive and he did that to build an empire, which he, I believe wanted to build, because it would be great for him, but he also brought up a whole lot of people with them.
Speaker 1 00:51:20 But once you get there, I guess you can afford to be woke, or you can have a grandiose ideas that maybe it's not enough to be the head of a major international corporation. Maybe you need to rule the world. So there was a little bit of danger there too, right. But for the average American, I think they are still adherence of the second paragraph, the declaration of independence. And I think that it defines most of us. I think that these radicals who are pushing in the other direction are a minority, and I think they've pushed it probably too far. And I think we may see that in the midterm elections, maybe not, maybe we need more socialism before we recognize it's swill and regurgitate it out. But I think that we're probably already there,
Speaker 0 00:52:05 Jonathan, uh, and Jason and those joining us, we have just a few more minutes. Uh, I, there's another interesting question. And also if we had time, I wanted to see, uh, Jonathan, maybe just a, a real, um, nutshell kind of explanation of the, of the link between slavery and socialism kind of plantation socialism for those who have yet to read your book, perhaps give us a teaser on that. But I wanted to get to, uh, another question on YouTube from Scott in part, because Jason and I are going to be talking about this tomorrow on clubhouse and, um, unpacking, uh, Jason's great question, a great article that, uh, that he recently did on critical race theory, uh, and, and moral extinction. Um, so I've, I've got to ask our gremlins to also, uh, throw the links, both for our clubhouse chat and to Jason's article into, uh, into our chat stream. The question from Scott is what is the relationship between critical race theory and critical legal theory and how pervasive is critical legal theory within law schools today?
Speaker 1 00:53:21 Critical legal theory is very pervasive and it was when went to law school. And it, it has been since the eighties, um, Martin or, uh, I, I think, well, I I'm, it's not Martin radish. I was going to say Martin radish, but there's, there's a Harvard professor whose name escapes me at the moment. Who's is the giant in the area of critical legal theory. Um, and pardon me, Derek bell, is it Derek bell? Yes. There at bell for critical race theory, too. Um, but they're, they're, they, they call themselves initially differently. They, they referred to themselves as deconstructionists, or as essentially opponents of the constitution, uh, as it had, uh, the classical liberal view of the constitution and what they argued for in the area of, um, uh, the 14th amendment and, uh, equal protection was this idea that the discrimination, uh, is not just overt action, that it is implicit in that, that they created this whole argument of implied discrimination as their initial, uh, movement.
Speaker 1 00:54:33 And so they would argue, for example, that affirmative action was appropriate because even though you, as an individual had never discriminated against someone in your life and having to be white, you nonetheless should lose your place at the university in favor of someone who was of color because of the history of discrimination of the people who are of color. And even though you didn't actually intend to discriminate, there is an implied discrimination, or it's implicit in the institutions that surround us. And so critical race theory is simply an application of this socialist notion of critical legal theory. Uh, again, they, they, why do I say socialists? Well, because they refer to oppressed and oppressors. They, they, rather than having the bourgeoisie and the proletariat they have as oppressed and oppressors, they have the, uh, people predicated upon race. So they imbued race into everything. They view everything as necessarily a distinction predicated upon race or gender.
Speaker 1 00:55:37 And, and they, they ascribe, uh, all manner of ills to, uh, what they say is, is an implied racism and their cure for it is government power use to read reorient our social relationships, our economic standing, and our political power. So when critical race theory comes along, this is really child abuse. And the reason why it's child abuse when it's an educational form, is that it causes children of color to be, to understand that no matter what they do in life, no matter what talents they have, no matter what education they acquire and in detail, uh, and no matter what their, their physical attributes, they nonetheless, uh, will be held back by whites because of systemic racism, which has said to them view every single institution in society, government, the private sector, education, everything is systemically racist. Why, because it's implicit, it's implicit in these institutions.
Speaker 1 00:56:45 And they're tainted in, in, in, in inextricably and for all time, because they were put together by, by a white supremacist society. And so then they take a white children and they also, uh, engage in child abuse against them because they teach white children that there are oppressors and that no matter what they do, their pigment alone causes this oppression. It's implicit, it's implicit in their pigment. And so no matter what they do wherever they are, they will be understood by those of color to be the oppressor. And they will always have a better shake at every opportunity in this white supremacist society. So this is what they teach kids. Now, what does this do? This causes children to hate themselves. It causes children to hate each other. It causes children to hate every institution causes children to hate our government caused them to hate the constitution.
Speaker 1 00:57:40 In other words, they hate being Americans. So it's no surprise then that they become revolutionaries, which is what they want them to become. And the same was true of critical legal theory. As I was going through law school, I knew it was a bunch of rot and I argued against it. But the fact of the matter was they were indoctrinating, uh, law students with a philosophy that was contrary to the constitution, designed to destroy the constitution as an impediment, by causing these rising generation of attorneys, to become activists, Marxist, uh, individuals. That was their hope and their goal, their aim. And it's very deceitful and it's very manipulative and they distort history to achieve it. And they deny the truths that underlie the constitution and the declaration of independence. And they ascribe, uh, uh, racist motivations to everyone, every American hero, no matter who they are.
Speaker 1 00:58:33 And they make those racist connotations, uh, define the person, even though they may have, they may have been racist. They may, you can't write someone off completely because of their time and their communication if they've offered a contribution, but they nonetheless completely ignore the contributions, but they also falsely declared that the founding fathers, uh, are racist. And in point of fact, they say that they were advocates of slavery as Thompson points out in his book that professor hill mentioned, um, the history is to the contrary, they were advocates of the abolition of slavery. They wanted it done through political means. They realized that individually, they couldn't do it and survive economically. And they were in that respect subject to, to fault, but certainly they can't be faulted for creating a declaration of independence that was overtly intended to be applicable to all mankind, men, women, people of all races. There's 168 word paragraph to the declaration that Jefferson wrote, which he condemns George the third for the institution of slavery. And he refers to the rights of those who are in bondage. And those rights are directly referenced, uh, in the second paragraph. He meant for us to understand that all human beings are possessed of inalienable rights. It is false, a false statement that the declaration was a racist document.
Speaker 0 01:00:01 Well, thank you for that. We are perfectly at time. Uh, so I want to thank professor hill. Thank you, uh, Jonathan, and, um, I want to thank all of you who joined us and, uh, gave us your great questions. We are actually going to continue this conversation in a, in a way, uh, tomorrow on clubhouse, um, with, uh, myself and professor hill. So, uh, please go to the Atlas societies website to our event section. I also think we just put it into our comment section, which you can see there, and I hope you'll join us. And if you are enjoying the work of the Atlas society and believe in the importance of making the moral case, imaginatively creatively, uh, with, with fun, um, and entertainment, then consider supporting the outside with a tax deductible donation. And we will also see you next week for our discussion, uh, on current events with the Atlas society scholars. Thank you so much by Jonathan's book. Absolutely. It's been the link. Okay. Thank you.