Popular in Law

Law

Diversity and Social Mobility in the UK legal profession

Law Society I. Stephanie Boyce

Internet Law

The Law of AI for Good

University of San Diego Orly Lobel

Human Rights Law

Transforming Restorative Justice for Transitional Settings

University of Nottingham Kerry Clamp

Law

Surrey’s Silence: Subpart F and the Swiss Subsidiary Tax that Never Was

Boston University Steven Dean

Criminal Law

Prosecuting Misdemeanors

American University Jenny Roberts

Human Rights Law

Siege Starvation: A War Crime of Societal Torture

Tufts University Tom Dannenbaum

Corporate Law

Data Valuation and Law

University of Southern California Jordan Barry

Critical Legal Thought: The Case for a Jurisprudence of Distribution

View more insights in Professional - Law - Jurisprudence and Legal Theory

View more figures from Boston College

View the page of Paulo Barrozo

Read the Study

Paulo Barrozo discusses the jurisprudence of distribution. The analytical framework for concentrative and decentrative distributions is here placed in the context of a struggle for the standards critical legal thought must meet.

Image courtesy of interviewee. December 20, 2023

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video video discusses the concept of the "Great Alliance," a political and intellectual movement in the 19th century that integrated rationalist and conservative thought. This video video alliance shaped modern constitutional orders and provided the foundation for stability and governance in Western societies.

Key points include:

1. **Dual Camps of Thought**: The two main perspectives were rationalism, which emphasized scrutiny through reason, and conservatism, which valued the gradual evolution of society. In the 19th century, these camps converged, leading to a synthesis that impacted legal thought.

2. **Constitutional Legitimacy**: The convergence of these perspectives legitimized 19th-century constitutional frameworks, including the separation of powers, individual rights, and an independent judiciary.

3. **Political Masses**: The rise of political masses through electoral reforms and revolutions introduced challenges to established orders, demanding a balance between stability and necessary change.

4. **Criticism as Stability**: Societies thrive through ongoing criticism and adaptation. This video video idea points to the importance of change and responsiveness in governance.

5. **Understanding Equality and Freedom**: This video video argues that equality is essential to maintaining human freedom and that equality must be understood as both the distribution of resources and access to opportunities that sustain freedom across generations.

6. **Analytical Framework for Distribution**: The author introduces a framework for analyzing distributive justice, emphasizing the need to consider various elements when addressing violations of equality, recognizing the complex interplay between distribution and concentration of resources.

7. **Call to Critical Legal Thinkers**: The work encourages those in the field to move away from reliance on networks and superficial critique and to engage deeply with the complexities of societal organization and the pursuit of freedom.

Overall, the text advocates for a systematic and comprehensive approach to legal thought that reconciles the need for order with the inevitability of change, emphasizing the ongoing need for discourse around freedom, equality, and the distribution of resources in society.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.025 --> 00:02.685
So the Great Alliance is a phenomenon

00:02.685 --> 00:05.805
that is not totally understood, even is,

00:06.065 --> 00:09.365
is just not detected by most of the scholarship

00:09.365 --> 00:11.485
of all law in, in modern times.

00:12.345 --> 00:15.805
So the Great Alliance was a phenomenon, political

00:16.105 --> 00:20.165
and intellectual in the 19th century that set the basis

00:21.055 --> 00:22.075
for how we live together

00:22.255 --> 00:24.555
and how we relate to the constitutional orders

00:25.455 --> 00:26.955
in the West and throughout the world.

00:27.455 --> 00:31.955
It wasn't alliance between two camps of thought that were

00:32.465 --> 00:36.075
polarized around the time of the French Revolution.

00:36.895 --> 00:40.475
On one camp, you had rationalism that believed

00:41.065 --> 00:45.315
that human reason had to scrutinize institutions practices,

00:46.015 --> 00:48.195
belief systems,

00:49.175 --> 00:52.075
and to the extent that they failed to pass rational

00:52.875 --> 00:56.315
scrutiny, that that reason out to sort

00:56.595 --> 01:00.035
of engineer an answer to those questions,

01:01.095 --> 01:02.115
to those institutions,

01:02.115 --> 01:04.035
to those practices, to those set of beliefs.

01:04.655 --> 01:09.365
On the other camp, we had conservatism, well, ReSTOR

01:10.145 --> 01:12.405
and the view there was human society.

01:12.435 --> 01:14.645
Such a delicate flaw, the delicate crystal.

01:15.505 --> 01:17.565
It evolves over the longest period of time,

01:18.345 --> 01:23.325
and we should not, try to, to, to expedite

01:24.325 --> 01:25.505
its natural evolution.

01:26.125 --> 01:29.105
We ought to be stewards of the lessons of history,

01:29.925 --> 01:34.105
transgenerationally and let, law and the ecosystems

01:34.105 --> 01:35.225
and the legal systems and the constitution origin

01:35.335 --> 01:39.665
that we inhabit, be authentic in the sense

01:39.665 --> 01:42.905
that they reflect this a slow incremental cycle development.

01:43.085 --> 01:45.865
So these two capital, very polarized around the time

01:45.865 --> 01:49.715
of the French Revolution, what happened in the 19th century

01:50.295 --> 01:54.515
in legal thought, which, consequences to outdate,

01:55.255 --> 01:59.235
is that these two camps met at the middle line.

02:00.245 --> 02:04.295
They converged. So the

02:04.855 --> 02:07.235
Historicist Camp Outdoor,

02:07.595 --> 02:10.675
recognizing the incremental revolution of society,

02:11.715 --> 02:16.205
gave reason a massive function in the system throughout the

02:16.205 --> 02:20.685
role of reason here is to conceptually organize the product

02:21.545 --> 02:26.285
of historical development without which history just,

02:26.465 --> 02:28.485
disappears, dissipates in,

02:28.865 --> 02:31.365
in thin air on the other camp.

02:31.545 --> 02:33.805
The Rationalists said that, well,

02:33.805 --> 02:35.565
when you think carefully about it

02:36.105 --> 02:38.765
in the historical development, you already find out

02:39.455 --> 02:42.995
the footprints of reason because history is made by actors.

02:43.095 --> 02:46.435
Actors are acting out reason some degree in the world.

02:47.215 --> 02:50.395
And when you look at the institutional framework

02:50.395 --> 02:54.635
of any society, you'll find already a footprint

02:55.295 --> 02:56.515
of reasonable over time.

02:56.615 --> 02:59.965
You just have to identify that, that, that those footprints

02:59.965 --> 03:02.125
and so bring them to light, right?

03:02.865 --> 03:06.285
So these two camps, when they came together in this way,

03:06.335 --> 03:11.255
these study system ISTs, what they did was they hyper

03:12.465 --> 03:16.065
legitimize the constitutional framework

03:16.485 --> 03:18.865
of 19th century western world.

03:19.745 --> 03:21.725
Things that we are very, very familiar with.

03:22.425 --> 03:27.085
Uh, the three apartheid, division of power, strong,

03:27.085 --> 03:30.725
independent, judiciary, the market separate from the state,

03:31.105 --> 03:34.405
the family, separate from the market, from the state, and,

03:34.585 --> 03:38.615
and the notion that we have individual rights

03:38.615 --> 03:43.145
that we can bring to the judiciary to protect.

03:44.285 --> 03:46.265
So it, this is so powerful

03:46.455 --> 03:49.025
that we can not even hardly imagine

03:49.245 --> 03:50.945
how the world would be otherwise, right?

03:51.205 --> 03:53.265
But there is a third element to the greater lives.

03:53.445 --> 03:57.425
The third element was that the political masses

03:57.575 --> 04:01.505
that in the 19th century had come to the state, to the stage

04:01.525 --> 04:03.625
of, of, of Western politics,

04:04.125 --> 04:07.945
and throughout the world, eventually the political masses

04:07.945 --> 04:12.305
that came onto the political stage through electoral reforms

04:12.305 --> 04:14.145
that expanded the franchise

04:14.925 --> 04:19.885
or in unconstitutionally through revolutions, revolts,

04:20.005 --> 04:23.645
protests, that political mass brought up a dimension

04:24.585 --> 04:28.125
of instability of what was experienced by the elite

04:28.125 --> 04:31.365
of the time of instability to the constitutional orders.

04:32.925 --> 04:36.865
But the, the intellectual promise of the Great Alliance

04:37.705 --> 04:40.505
stumbled together of recent histories telling us

04:40.505 --> 04:43.785
that these institutions that we have are both authentic

04:44.555 --> 04:45.745
historical speaking,

04:46.325 --> 04:50.505
and legitimate rationally speaking, are the best promise

04:51.325 --> 04:53.415
for emancipation and equality

04:55.175 --> 04:56.675
and the masses body to it.

04:57.215 --> 05:00.715
So to the extent that we have enjoyed the stability,

05:01.145 --> 05:05.745
over the course of the last 200 years is in large measure

05:06.585 --> 05:09.395
because of the great alliance, how we thought

05:10.195 --> 05:11.555
citizens came together

05:12.455 --> 05:15.315
and how the masses brought into that promise

05:15.855 --> 05:17.275
of authenticity with prison.

05:17.855 --> 05:21.195
One of the things that the great alliance made possible is

05:21.195 --> 05:24.875
that, that societies that are highly complex, such

05:24.875 --> 05:28.765
as our societies, they they can accommodate,

05:30.065 --> 05:34.365
daily dose of criticism or self-criticism.

05:35.995 --> 05:39.775
In fact, our societies are only stable

05:40.795 --> 05:42.885
because they change all the time,

05:43.585 --> 05:44.965
and they change all the time

05:44.965 --> 05:48.975
because they're constantly under criticism.

05:49.365 --> 05:53.495
Criticism can be more modest or can be more general,

05:54.355 --> 05:57.925
but criticism is very, very stabilizing

05:58.665 --> 05:59.925
in our high complex society.

06:00.085 --> 06:04.205
I think one thing that, that, liberals

06:04.205 --> 06:07.605
and conservatives tend to miss is that liberals tend to miss

06:07.705 --> 06:09.885
how important it is to have social order.

06:09.885 --> 06:12.605
Because without social order, you do not have

06:13.305 --> 06:15.005
the other values.

06:15.005 --> 06:18.365
Aspiration. We have freedom, justice, equality,

06:18.705 --> 06:20.405
but the conservatives fail to see

06:21.075 --> 06:25.225
that societies only hang together over a longer period

06:25.225 --> 06:27.615
of time if they change all the time.

06:29.005 --> 06:31.625
So the greater lives made it possible for societies

06:31.625 --> 06:32.745
to change all the time

06:32.975 --> 06:35.345
because it sort of created a,

06:36.115 --> 06:39.195
a medical convent about institutions that are essential,

06:39.375 --> 06:40.675
the values that are essential.

06:41.215 --> 06:44.395
So if you have that convention at the top, a lot

06:44.395 --> 06:47.035
of change can be accommodated on the ground level.

06:48.475 --> 06:52.055
And so juris lawyers, judges,

06:53.885 --> 06:57.665
those who, act in legislation,

06:59.585 --> 07:01.475
they are in the boat

07:01.585 --> 07:03.875
because the bottom mind is very restive.

07:04.265 --> 07:07.555
They are in the boat of taking a slice of the liberal order,

07:10.705 --> 07:14.265
redefining or re describing that slice as policy,

07:15.615 --> 07:17.825
then engaging the critique of that policy,

07:18.045 --> 07:19.745
the critique in terms of means and

07:19.765 --> 07:23.545
or efficiency by ti in light of some value, justice,

07:24.465 --> 07:26.065
equality, freedom, dignity,

07:27.285 --> 07:30.065
and then make a proposal as to how to reform

07:30.895 --> 07:32.695
that particular policy

07:33.785 --> 07:37.285
and then translate back into legal reform.

07:37.905 --> 07:41.235
So this is a standard mode of critique,

07:41.495 --> 07:42.995
of juries everywhere.

07:44.785 --> 07:48.965
Now, you ask me, what is critical legal thought is that

07:48.965 --> 07:51.645
what it is is, is just, is sort of the bread

07:51.645 --> 07:53.965
and butter of thinking about law

07:54.025 --> 07:56.365
and any law in modern societies

07:56.465 --> 07:58.005
or critical thought to something else.

07:59.075 --> 08:02.935
So my strong thesis in, in the, in this work is to say that,

08:02.995 --> 08:04.815
critical thought has to be something else.

08:06.395 --> 08:10.215
Uh, and I said three characteristics, to sort

08:10.215 --> 08:11.415
of begin the conversation.

08:12.075 --> 08:14.935
So I say the critical of thought has to operate

08:15.675 --> 08:18.215
in the ground rationalist tradition,

08:19.315 --> 08:23.135
but the first target of critical of thought has to be

08:23.915 --> 08:27.375
the early justified criticisms that we may have

08:28.125 --> 08:29.835
about any aspect of society.

08:30.825 --> 08:34.045
And it's interesting that I, that I, that I noticed

08:35.285 --> 08:38.415
over time that those who consider themselves

08:38.435 --> 08:41.975
as critical legal theories of critical legal thinkers

08:43.675 --> 08:48.285
did not have a definition that would set them apart

08:48.915 --> 08:51.685
from either the standard mode of critique, the breath

08:51.685 --> 08:53.645
and body criticism of day-to-day law,

08:54.305 --> 08:57.485
or from all the global traditions

08:58.105 --> 08:59.845
of critical legal theory.

09:00.455 --> 09:01.805
There are other,

09:01.895 --> 09:04.525
large traditions like libertarian tradition,

09:05.105 --> 09:08.925
the natural law tradition, the cooperatives

09:08.925 --> 09:12.805
of fascist tradition, in legal modern legal thought.

09:13.505 --> 09:15.565
So how can we tell that we are

09:15.565 --> 09:17.525
before what I'm called a pre political thought

09:18.265 --> 09:19.965
and not one of these other traditions?

09:20.465 --> 09:24.515
Uh, and I think that I, over time I realized that that

09:25.105 --> 09:26.755
many juris operating

09:27.255 --> 09:31.715
and think of themselves as critical political jurists, only

09:32.615 --> 09:35.515
at the end of the day identify themselves and,

09:35.515 --> 09:39.315
and all critical legal thinkers in terms of network,

09:40.505 --> 09:42.335
those who read and cite each other.

09:43.705 --> 09:44.755
Then I found that

09:44.755 --> 09:48.355
that was profoundly dissatisfied in correctly speaking

09:49.505 --> 09:52.835
that how to be, criteria

09:53.925 --> 09:57.055
that would allow us to identify what we mean

09:57.055 --> 09:59.175
by critical legal theory, critical thought

09:59.605 --> 10:02.855
that distinguish it both from the standard level of critique

10:03.275 --> 10:05.855
as well as from this, all the global critiques of law.

10:06.235 --> 10:09.855
And I say that the first search that criteria is

10:10.245 --> 10:13.055
that it's simply the ground rationally tradition

10:13.605 --> 10:18.055
that subject as its first target, this value over reliance

10:19.035 --> 10:22.275
on networks in order to distinguish

10:22.835 --> 10:25.995
critical thought from other modes of, of legal critique.

10:27.975 --> 10:32.635
Um, then I, I I say also that critical legal thought

10:33.375 --> 10:34.915
is normative.

10:36.855 --> 10:40.595
It is normative in the, in the constructive, normative way.

10:42.145 --> 10:43.845
It, it does not rely

10:44.845 --> 10:49.425
on intuition preference convention as a base

10:49.445 --> 10:53.225
of socialization, as a basis of our judgment of the world,

10:53.285 --> 10:54.665
of the state of affairs world,

10:54.805 --> 10:56.305
of the sign of a course of actions.

10:56.855 --> 11:01.065
Then we have to construct a theory as to why,

11:01.925 --> 11:05.185
the state of affairs is it perfect ways we say it?

11:05.185 --> 11:06.785
Is it perfect and why

11:07.445 --> 11:09.905
it should be improved in the direction we

11:09.905 --> 11:10.985
say it should be through?

11:11.835 --> 11:15.495
So critically thought is therefore not only rationalists,

11:16.505 --> 11:21.365
but it is, committed to, normative enterprise

11:21.785 --> 11:25.835
of spelling out the reasons why,

11:25.835 --> 11:28.515
that which we criticize this criticizable

11:29.375 --> 11:32.795
and the, the desirable outcome

11:33.535 --> 11:37.035
of social change is at the end of the day desirable.

11:38.375 --> 11:39.785
Then a third element.

11:40.445 --> 11:42.145
And these elements, you can arrange them in

11:42.145 --> 11:43.265
any order you like.

11:43.325 --> 11:47.985
The third element is, is a critical legal thought has

11:48.005 --> 11:49.945
to be systematic and comprehensive.

11:52.225 --> 11:55.875
It has to operate, historically

11:56.655 --> 12:00.585
at the highest altitude because

12:00.735 --> 12:03.945
otherwise, if you fly too close to the ground

12:05.775 --> 12:10.435
as a, as a, as a, as a critic of the law, you can't tell

12:11.485 --> 12:14.915
where your critique fits in the largest scheme

12:15.495 --> 12:18.355
of the evolution of one in high complex societies.

12:19.825 --> 12:24.565
So I say, that is in this word that there is no place

12:25.115 --> 12:29.965
outside one of these major comprehensive theories about law

12:30.495 --> 12:31.625
that is only knowing

12:32.205 --> 12:34.825
or not knowing that are inside one of those.

12:35.915 --> 12:39.125
Therefore, your thought has to be rationalist, has

12:39.125 --> 12:40.525
to be normative,

12:41.585 --> 12:46.005
and has to accept the structural, comprehensive, systematic,

12:46.295 --> 12:50.245
grand theoretical, aspect of its enterprise, even

12:50.425 --> 12:52.725
as an acknowledge that it is our fashion.

12:53.695 --> 12:56.965
But I think the intellectual price we pay for

12:59.005 --> 13:01.245
surrendering to the convention in favor

13:01.305 --> 13:04.045
of intellectual minimalism is too high a price.

13:05.055 --> 13:08.075
And that, critical thought should be the first one

13:08.075 --> 13:10.475
to be reject at that too high price.

13:11.095 --> 13:13.275
So when, when it comes to the issue of equality,

13:13.875 --> 13:17.955
I arrive at it, from a perspective that is not

13:18.525 --> 13:23.075
novel, but it's, often misunderstood or or forgotten.

13:23.955 --> 13:27.075
I arrive at it from the commitment to freedom.

13:28.205 --> 13:30.865
So I say the critical of thought as a commitment

13:30.945 --> 13:33.375
to human freedom, but the commitment

13:33.375 --> 13:35.215
to human freedom has two moments.

13:36.495 --> 13:39.865
That is a moment of identification, naming

13:40.565 --> 13:45.265
and resisting that which, is an obstacle to freedom.

13:46.495 --> 13:49.075
But let's say that that critical thought

13:49.495 --> 13:50.635
and social agents

13:50.815 --> 13:54.555
as successful at any particular moment in time to

13:55.065 --> 13:58.275
demolishing one of one of these obstacles

13:58.985 --> 14:00.275
that become freer.

14:01.255 --> 14:03.035
Now comes the second moment of freedom.

14:03.695 --> 14:06.275
The second moment of freedom is what I call stewardship

14:06.275 --> 14:09.965
of freedom is the identification, the naming

14:10.345 --> 14:14.205
and protection of the conditions necessary

14:15.045 --> 14:18.385
for the maintenance of freedom transgenerational,

14:19.835 --> 14:22.295
and what are one of the central elements

14:22.835 --> 14:24.135
for the maintenance of freedom.

14:25.015 --> 14:28.895
Equality. Equality in two respects, equality

14:29.035 --> 14:31.135
as in the equal distribution of freedom,

14:33.055 --> 14:37.695
but equality also in the access,

14:38.455 --> 14:41.095
sufficiently to the distribution of, of,

14:41.235 --> 14:44.775
of material symbolic codes without which

14:45.365 --> 14:48.335
freedom cannot be experienced at the individual level.

14:48.395 --> 14:49.775
And it's not sustainable

14:50.725 --> 14:54.005
As a collective enterprise intergenerationally.

14:54.185 --> 14:55.885
That's where all strong generationally.

14:57.005 --> 15:00.625
So if I arrive at equality through freedom

15:01.545 --> 15:03.885
as a condition, one of the conditions of freedom,

15:04.075 --> 15:08.625
stewardship, and there the, I ask,

15:09.535 --> 15:13.575
following question,

15:14.675 --> 15:19.485
what approach to equality would best honor

15:20.225 --> 15:21.725
the fundamental commitment to freedom?

15:23.595 --> 15:26.735
And then I say that the, the best approach to equality

15:27.045 --> 15:29.975
that would honor a commitment to freedom

15:30.615 --> 15:34.135
combines two aspects, combines

15:35.165 --> 15:39.445
a ground or floor below which,

15:40.005 --> 15:43.405
scarcity of materials involved resources are not compatible

15:43.515 --> 15:45.125
with a free dignified life.

15:45.825 --> 15:48.325
Uh, but for everyone who is above that floor,

15:49.705 --> 15:51.965
the focus ought to be on

15:53.285 --> 15:56.855
unjustified violations of the principle of equality.

15:58.555 --> 15:59.735
So I look at equality

16:00.125 --> 16:03.815
therefore in the second one in terms of

16:05.555 --> 16:09.565
what kind of violations by what kind of agents, with

16:09.565 --> 16:11.605
what kind of objects, with what kind

16:11.605 --> 16:16.205
of consequences the quarterly, are of relevance

16:16.755 --> 16:20.925
through the lenses that wanna see equality as part

16:20.925 --> 16:25.325
of the project of freedom, stewardship, the preoccupation,

16:25.945 --> 16:30.045
or with the quality in the package

16:30.305 --> 16:34.285
of debt, which takes for the exercise of stewardship

16:34.425 --> 16:35.885
of freedom over time,

16:37.105 --> 16:41.045
and a focus on violation of the brings of equality

16:43.125 --> 16:47.325
leads me to ask, so what is it when

16:47.625 --> 16:50.645
by equality is violated, what is it

16:51.445 --> 16:55.575
that is been taken away, deprived,

16:55.875 --> 16:57.135
not given access to?

16:58.245 --> 17:02.455
So, so everything is, is distributed in the world.

17:02.585 --> 17:06.095
There is distribution of rain, there is distribution of,

17:06.715 --> 17:09.855
of, of cold or, and, and, and hot weather.

17:10.515 --> 17:15.105
Uh, there is distribution of genes,

17:15.435 --> 17:17.265
there is distribution of everything.

17:17.965 --> 17:21.865
So what, what, what matters for us in terms of stewardship

17:21.865 --> 17:26.735
or freedom, in, in, in regards to distribution

17:27.515 --> 17:28.895
and how to think about it?

17:30.315 --> 17:34.895
So then I come up with the analytical framework

17:36.075 --> 17:39.165
that I think improves our thinking about distribution

17:40.135 --> 17:41.355
and this analytical framework.

17:41.355 --> 17:45.295
We're just trying to identify nearly 20 elements

17:46.895 --> 17:51.045
that are to be under consideration, both

17:51.105 --> 17:54.805
to identify violations of the principle of

17:55.485 --> 17:59.725
distributive equality, but also to sort of to to,

17:59.745 --> 18:02.365
to help us design the kind of intervention

18:03.285 --> 18:06.315
that is corrected, of violation

18:06.315 --> 18:08.395
of the principle equality in the name of freedom.

18:09.295 --> 18:13.635
Uh, and some of the, of the elements, that are,

18:13.745 --> 18:17.315
that in the work, I think, are,

18:18.585 --> 18:21.205
obvious, but others out the office,

18:21.345 --> 18:22.725
but turn out they are not.

18:23.425 --> 18:27.165
So I think it, in, in it's common for people to say

18:28.265 --> 18:32.725
that distribution is good, concentration is bad,

18:33.925 --> 18:37.945
at least among sort of progressives in, in,

18:38.245 --> 18:39.425
in, in our societies.

18:39.865 --> 18:42.385
I think that is that it, that that a simulation

18:43.005 --> 18:45.825
of distribution is good concentration of that,

18:46.845 --> 18:50.865
but I think we don't understand the, the process whereby

18:51.695 --> 18:55.905
society is organized and support equality.

18:56.775 --> 18:58.155
So there is a whole range,

18:58.155 --> 19:00.115
and I try to give this examples of the paper,

19:00.655 --> 19:05.195
but there is a whole range of distributive action

19:06.135 --> 19:10.225
that is necessarily preceded by call ative action.

19:11.205 --> 19:12.705
So there is a dialectic

19:14.125 --> 19:18.985
or a dynamic between concentration and distribution,

19:20.015 --> 19:21.915
and not all distribution is good.

19:23.495 --> 19:28.145
Sometimes you distribute too widely violence and punishment

19:28.805 --> 19:32.025
and not all kinds of concentration are bad.

19:32.675 --> 19:35.905
There is no way of providing sort of free

19:36.815 --> 19:38.145
universal medical

19:38.525 --> 19:42.905
and education resources, for example, if it's not preceded

19:43.365 --> 19:45.505
by an enormous conservative effort.

19:46.865 --> 19:50.855
So the paper therefore tries to, to problematize

19:51.915 --> 19:56.115
our sort of common approach to issue of distribution,

19:57.195 --> 20:00.015
how they align with certain positions in the political

20:00.015 --> 20:02.615
theological spectrum, and give tools

20:03.035 --> 20:06.015
for thinking more precisely, more richly.

20:06.595 --> 20:10.295
Uh, we've greater depth and greater theoretical

20:10.555 --> 20:13.695
or ization potential about distribution.

20:14.195 --> 20:15.895
But think about the importance of this.

20:16.195 --> 20:19.295
Uh, think about this sort of long-term social

20:19.755 --> 20:23.895
and political effects of distribution, which the, the, the,

20:23.895 --> 20:25.135
the world also highlights.

20:26.155 --> 20:29.375
So not less than social ability

20:30.805 --> 20:34.435
over a longer period of time hinges on

20:34.455 --> 20:36.995
how well we do distribution society.

20:38.345 --> 20:41.115
We have witnessed,

20:42.275 --> 20:44.595
recently over the last perhaps 15 years,

20:45.575 --> 20:50.235
the greatest challenge, level against

20:50.855 --> 20:55.755
the sort of post second world war welfare, state democracy

20:56.595 --> 21:00.835
consensus that prevailed and spread all over the world,

21:01.545 --> 21:06.275
because there are elements of society that think

21:06.275 --> 21:10.195
of themselves as certain being unjustly,

21:11.055 --> 21:14.315
harmed in the distribution, distribution pattern,

21:15.145 --> 21:16.525
in those societies.

21:17.585 --> 21:19.245
So, and we have witnessed that

21:19.505 --> 21:22.685
unless that is an effective

21:23.695 --> 21:28.025
distributed scheme in social life, that's, that, that

21:29.015 --> 21:31.465
that is consistent with the principle of equality

21:32.495 --> 21:35.555
and allows us to be good steward of freedom,

21:36.585 --> 21:39.915
society may lose its cohesion, may lose its, its stability,

21:40.735 --> 21:44.195
and we, we stand to pay an enormous price for that.

21:44.775 --> 21:47.515
So connectively, there is also this political effect

21:47.515 --> 21:52.285
of distribution, how the public general think about

21:52.825 --> 21:54.805
the institutions under which they, they leave

21:54.865 --> 21:58.085
and institutions that we, they they have it,

21:58.085 --> 22:01.645
whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, just, or just,

22:02.265 --> 22:07.205
and there is no institutional order, institutional landscape

22:07.625 --> 22:12.245
or institutional framework that can survive over

22:12.875 --> 22:16.155
time unless it is supported

22:16.985 --> 22:19.405
by those own habits.

22:19.815 --> 22:24.245
Those orders, those who nurture those orders, those

22:24.245 --> 22:25.485
who populate those orders,

22:26.505 --> 22:30.005
and those individuals, they will withhold

22:31.325 --> 22:32.475
their legitimation

22:32.735 --> 22:37.225
or justification of their order if they think

22:37.225 --> 22:40.505
that the institutional patterns to which they're subject,

22:41.835 --> 22:44.755
the screws them up, harms them

22:45.175 --> 22:49.155
and harms their, their, their, their, their the children,

22:49.295 --> 22:50.315
the children of the children.

22:51.215 --> 22:53.635
So unless we take distribution very seriously,

22:54.775 --> 22:58.835
we put in check the socially political order of society,

23:00.245 --> 23:05.145
and once the social on society by check, we tend

23:05.205 --> 23:06.385
to lose freedom.

23:07.025 --> 23:11.185
I think the work is a challenge to critical legal thinkers,

23:12.285 --> 23:14.345
to abandon their reliance

23:14.845 --> 23:19.625
or networking for self-identification

23:19.725 --> 23:23.985
as critical thinkers, the challenges, their reliance

23:24.605 --> 23:28.785
on being just rebellious or contrarian or performative

23:28.885 --> 23:29.985
or experimentalist

23:30.685 --> 23:35.095
and engaging the very hard work of building up

23:35.865 --> 23:40.165
at the highest level of scholarship, a traditional thought

23:41.375 --> 23:44.625
that fits the size of the challenges

23:44.695 --> 23:45.845
That we have in front of us.

23:45.865 --> 23:49.685
The challenge of describing in all its complexities,

23:49.905 --> 23:51.565
the societies in which we have it,

23:52.315 --> 23:56.255
and innovative challenge of figuring out how is it

23:56.365 --> 23:57.975
that we get ever more free

23:58.435 --> 24:01.175
and how is it that we sustain every inch of freedom

24:01.845 --> 24:04.015
that we can gain over time.

24:04.635 --> 24:06.975
But I think, I think that the, the first takeaway is,

24:07.075 --> 24:11.725
is really this call to, to intellectual arms,

24:12.425 --> 24:13.685
to those who think of themselves,

24:13.685 --> 24:14.925
those very critical thinkers.

24:15.425 --> 24:18.045
And this and the other one, which I think is, is

24:18.605 --> 24:21.965
I hope helpful to all is how to think well

24:22.575 --> 24:27.025
about distributive issues by using the analytical framework

24:27.455 --> 24:29.425
that I, that I begin to develop in this work.

00:00 - So the Great Alliance is a phenomenon that is not totally understood, even is, is just not detected by most of the scholarship of all law in, in modern times. So the Great Alliance was a phenomenon, political and intellectual in the 19th century that set the basis

00:21 - for how we live together and how we relate to the constitutional orders in the West and throughout the world. It wasn't alliance between two camps of thought that were polarized around the time of the French Revolution. On one camp, you had rationalism that believed that human reason had to scrutinize institutions practices, belief systems, and to the extent that they failed to pass rational scrutiny, that that reason out to sort

00:56 - of engineer an answer to those questions, to those institutions, to those practices, to those set of beliefs. On the other camp, we had conservatism, well, ReSTOR and the view there was human society. Such a delicate flaw, the delicate crystal. It evolves over the longest period of time, and we should not, try to, to, to expedite its natural evolution. We ought to be stewards of the lessons of history,

01:29 - transgenerationally and let, law and the ecosystems and the legal systems and the constitution origin that we inhabit, be authentic in the sense that they reflect this a slow incremental cycle development. So these two capital, very polarized around the time of the French Revolution, what happened in the 19th century in legal thought, which, consequences to outdate, is that these two camps met at the middle line. They converged. So the Historicist Camp Outdoor,

02:07 - recognizing the incremental revolution of society, gave reason a massive function in the system throughout the role of reason here is to conceptually organize the product of historical development without which history just, disappears, dissipates in, in thin air on the other camp. The Rationalists said that, well, when you think carefully about it in the historical development, you already find out the footprints of reason because history is made by actors.

02:43 - Actors are acting out reason some degree in the world. And when you look at the institutional framework of any society, you'll find already a footprint of reasonable over time. You just have to identify that, that, that those footprints and so bring them to light, right? So these two camps, when they came together in this way, these study system ISTs, what they did was they hyper legitimize the constitutional framework of 19th century western world.

03:19 - Things that we are very, very familiar with. the three apartheid, division of power, strong, independent, judiciary, the market separate from the state, the family, separate from the market, from the state, and, and the notion that we have individual rights that we can bring to the judiciary to protect. So it, this is so powerful that we can not even hardly imagine how the world would be otherwise, right? But there is a third element to the greater lives.

03:53 - The third element was that the political masses that in the 19th century had come to the state, to the stage of, of, of Western politics, and throughout the world, eventually the political masses that came onto the political stage through electoral reforms that expanded the franchise or in unconstitutionally through revolutions, revolts, protests, that political mass brought up a dimension of instability of what was experienced by the elite of the time of instability to the constitutional orders.

04:32 - But the, the intellectual promise of the Great Alliance stumbled together of recent histories telling us that these institutions that we have are both authentic historical speaking, and legitimate rationally speaking, are the best promise for emancipation and equality and the masses body to it. So to the extent that we have enjoyed the stability, over the course of the last 200 years is in large measure because of the great alliance, how we thought

05:10 - citizens came together and how the masses brought into that promise of authenticity with prison. One of the things that the great alliance made possible is that, that societies that are highly complex, such as our societies, they they can accommodate, daily dose of criticism or self-criticism. In fact, our societies are only stable because they change all the time, and they change all the time

05:44 - because they're constantly under criticism. Criticism can be more modest or can be more general, but criticism is very, very stabilizing in our high complex society. I think one thing that, that, liberals and conservatives tend to miss is that liberals tend to miss how important it is to have social order. Because without social order, you do not have the other values. Aspiration. We have freedom, justice, equality,

06:18 - but the conservatives fail to see that societies only hang together over a longer period of time if they change all the time. So the greater lives made it possible for societies to change all the time because it sort of created a, a medical convent about institutions that are essential, the values that are essential. So if you have that convention at the top, a lot of change can be accommodated on the ground level.

06:48 - And so juris lawyers, judges, those who, act in legislation, they are in the boat because the bottom mind is very restive. They are in the boat of taking a slice of the liberal order, redefining or re describing that slice as policy, then engaging the critique of that policy, the critique in terms of means and or efficiency by ti in light of some value, justice, equality, freedom, dignity,

07:27 - and then make a proposal as to how to reform that particular policy and then translate back into legal reform. So this is a standard mode of critique, of juries everywhere. Now, you ask me, what is critical legal thought is that what it is is, is just, is sort of the bread and butter of thinking about law and any law in modern societies or critical thought to something else.

07:59 - So my strong thesis in, in the, in this work is to say that, critical thought has to be something else. and I said three characteristics, to sort of begin the conversation. So I say the critical of thought has to operate in the ground rationalist tradition, but the first target of critical of thought has to be the early justified criticisms that we may have about any aspect of society. And it's interesting that I, that I, that I noticed

08:35 - over time that those who consider themselves as critical legal theories of critical legal thinkers did not have a definition that would set them apart from either the standard mode of critique, the breath and body criticism of day-to-day law, or from all the global traditions of critical legal theory. There are other, large traditions like libertarian tradition, the natural law tradition, the cooperatives

09:08 - of fascist tradition, in legal modern legal thought. So how can we tell that we are before what I'm called a pre political thought and not one of these other traditions? and I think that I, over time I realized that that many juris operating and think of themselves as critical political jurists, only at the end of the day identify themselves and, and all critical legal thinkers in terms of network, those who read and cite each other.

09:43 - Then I found that that was profoundly dissatisfied in correctly speaking that how to be, criteria that would allow us to identify what we mean by critical legal theory, critical thought that distinguish it both from the standard level of critique as well as from this, all the global critiques of law. And I say that the first search that criteria is that it's simply the ground rationally tradition that subject as its first target, this value over reliance

10:19 - on networks in order to distinguish critical thought from other modes of, of legal critique. then I, I I say also that critical legal thought is normative. It is normative in the, in the constructive, normative way. It, it does not rely on intuition preference convention as a base of socialization, as a basis of our judgment of the world, of the state of affairs world, of the sign of a course of actions.

10:56 - Then we have to construct a theory as to why, the state of affairs is it perfect ways we say it? Is it perfect and why it should be improved in the direction we say it should be through? So critically thought is therefore not only rationalists, but it is, committed to, normative enterprise of spelling out the reasons why, that which we criticize this criticizable and the, the desirable outcome

11:33 - of social change is at the end of the day desirable. Then a third element. And these elements, you can arrange them in any order you like. The third element is, is a critical legal thought has to be systematic and comprehensive. It has to operate, historically at the highest altitude because otherwise, if you fly too close to the ground as a, as a, as a, as a critic of the law, you can't tell

12:11 - where your critique fits in the largest scheme of the evolution of one in high complex societies. So I say, that is in this word that there is no place outside one of these major comprehensive theories about law that is only knowing or not knowing that are inside one of those. Therefore, your thought has to be rationalist, has to be normative, and has to accept the structural, comprehensive, systematic, grand theoretical, aspect of its enterprise, even

12:50 - as an acknowledge that it is our fashion. But I think the intellectual price we pay for surrendering to the convention in favor of intellectual minimalism is too high a price. And that, critical thought should be the first one to be reject at that too high price. So when, when it comes to the issue of equality, I arrive at it, from a perspective that is not novel, but it's, often misunderstood or or forgotten. I arrive at it from the commitment to freedom.

13:28 - So I say the critical of thought as a commitment to human freedom, but the commitment to human freedom has two moments. That is a moment of identification, naming and resisting that which, is an obstacle to freedom. But let's say that that critical thought and social agents as successful at any particular moment in time to demolishing one of one of these obstacles that become freer.

14:01 - Now comes the second moment of freedom. The second moment of freedom is what I call stewardship of freedom is the identification, the naming and protection of the conditions necessary for the maintenance of freedom transgenerational, and what are one of the central elements for the maintenance of freedom. Equality. Equality in two respects, equality as in the equal distribution of freedom, but equality also in the access,

14:38 - sufficiently to the distribution of, of, of material symbolic codes without which freedom cannot be experienced at the individual level. And it's not sustainable As a collective enterprise intergenerationally. That's where all strong generationally. So if I arrive at equality through freedom as a condition, one of the conditions of freedom, stewardship, and there the, I ask, following question,

15:14 - what approach to equality would best honor the fundamental commitment to freedom? And then I say that the, the best approach to equality that would honor a commitment to freedom combines two aspects, combines a ground or floor below which, scarcity of materials involved resources are not compatible with a free dignified life. but for everyone who is above that floor, the focus ought to be on

15:53 - unjustified violations of the principle of equality. So I look at equality therefore in the second one in terms of what kind of violations by what kind of agents, with what kind of objects, with what kind of consequences the quarterly, are of relevance through the lenses that wanna see equality as part of the project of freedom, stewardship, the preoccupation, or with the quality in the package of debt, which takes for the exercise of stewardship

16:34 - of freedom over time, and a focus on violation of the brings of equality leads me to ask, so what is it when by equality is violated, what is it that is been taken away, deprived, not given access to? So, so everything is, is distributed in the world. There is distribution of rain, there is distribution of, of, of cold or, and, and, and hot weather. there is distribution of genes,

17:15 - there is distribution of everything. So what, what, what matters for us in terms of stewardship or freedom, in, in, in regards to distribution and how to think about it? So then I come up with the analytical framework that I think improves our thinking about distribution and this analytical framework. We're just trying to identify nearly 20 elements that are to be under consideration, both to identify violations of the principle of

17:55 - distributive equality, but also to sort of to to, to help us design the kind of intervention that is corrected, of violation of the principle equality in the name of freedom. and some of the, of the elements, that are, that in the work, I think, are, obvious, but others out the office, but turn out they are not. So I think it, in, in it's common for people to say that distribution is good, concentration is bad,

18:33 - at least among sort of progressives in, in, in, in our societies. I think that is that it, that that a simulation of distribution is good concentration of that, but I think we don't understand the, the process whereby society is organized and support equality. So there is a whole range, and I try to give this examples of the paper, but there is a whole range of distributive action that is necessarily preceded by call ative action.

19:11 - So there is a dialectic or a dynamic between concentration and distribution, and not all distribution is good. Sometimes you distribute too widely violence and punishment and not all kinds of concentration are bad. There is no way of providing sort of free universal medical and education resources, for example, if it's not preceded by an enormous conservative effort. So the paper therefore tries to, to problematize

19:51 - our sort of common approach to issue of distribution, how they align with certain positions in the political theological spectrum, and give tools for thinking more precisely, more richly. we've greater depth and greater theoretical or ization potential about distribution. But think about the importance of this. think about this sort of long-term social and political effects of distribution, which the, the, the, the world also highlights.

20:26 - So not less than social ability over a longer period of time hinges on how well we do distribution society. We have witnessed, recently over the last perhaps 15 years, the greatest challenge, level against the sort of post second world war welfare, state democracy consensus that prevailed and spread all over the world, because there are elements of society that think of themselves as certain being unjustly,

21:11 - harmed in the distribution, distribution pattern, in those societies. So, and we have witnessed that unless that is an effective distributed scheme in social life, that's, that, that that is consistent with the principle of equality and allows us to be good steward of freedom, society may lose its cohesion, may lose its, its stability, and we, we stand to pay an enormous price for that. So connectively, there is also this political effect

21:47 - of distribution, how the public general think about the institutions under which they, they leave and institutions that we, they they have it, whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, just, or just, and there is no institutional order, institutional landscape or institutional framework that can survive over time unless it is supported by those own habits. Those orders, those who nurture those orders, those who populate those orders,

22:26 - and those individuals, they will withhold their legitimation or justification of their order if they think that the institutional patterns to which they're subject, the screws them up, harms them and harms their, their, their, their, their the children, the children of the children. So unless we take distribution very seriously, we put in check the socially political order of society, and once the social on society by check, we tend

23:05 - to lose freedom. I think the work is a challenge to critical legal thinkers, to abandon their reliance or networking for self-identification as critical thinkers, the challenges, their reliance on being just rebellious or contrarian or performative or experimentalist and engaging the very hard work of building up at the highest level of scholarship, a traditional thought that fits the size of the challenges

23:44 - That we have in front of us. The challenge of describing in all its complexities, the societies in which we have it, and innovative challenge of figuring out how is it that we get ever more free and how is it that we sustain every inch of freedom that we can gain over time. But I think, I think that the, the first takeaway is, is really this call to, to intellectual arms, to those who think of themselves,

24:13 - those very critical thinkers. And this and the other one, which I think is, is I hope helpful to all is how to think well about distributive issues by using the analytical framework that I, that I begin to develop in this work.

Faculti AI can make mistakes