Comments by "harvey young" (@harveyyoung3423) on "Woke Monarchy Takes Up Cancel Culture and Abandons Lady Hussey" video.

  1. You claim that the problem here, going forward from Lady Hussey, is really with the consequences for people. Thus the "instant removal" along with others by "cancel culture", as a result of this type of case is that "people feel utterly confused about what they can and can not say in Britain today", then this might imply a tacit agreement with the new rules, and that the issue is not the rules e.g. the "what" but is merely the "how" of the rules. In this later connection you discuss problems of fear driven self censure ship, and self conscience even for those of Good Will, and with recognised maxims: about whether you have the right rules; and whether you have the right interpretation; and whether you have the right context of application. If this was the key problem then you would surly be in agreement with the left interpretation of natural law as natural rights, equality, justice. That is, you would be in tacitly agreement with the absolutist notion of right here, in terms of positive freedom capacity and capability. Further, you would agree that any specific rule that is claimed as being derived from positive capacity capability and freedom as legal right, necessarily must also be agreed up on. Thus you are in agreement with the general policy program and its institutional implementation and application etc. It seems then that under this absolutist notion of right there is only disagreement with what to do with those who only either cannot or will not follow the rule. That would imply that the absolutist view, and the rule, both, are seen as unconditionally legitimate and lexographically prior in all contexts. that is like Aquinas claims for disagreement in natural law is not disagreement of principle but of application. Aquinas claims differences of application are due to differences of the agents, differences of virtue and upbringing as a result of education and Bilder. On this then you seem in agreement with the absolutist lefts solution to the ignorance problem is more education. So infringement of the rules means at best clearer instructions on the rules, a process of re-education for those who had left school by this time. one needing tens of thousand of professional equity-ists and government tax and charity funded policy for the creation of massive instituional system of education in absolutist natural law and its casuistry. I mean it would be great, you can bring in an army of medical psychologists and discourse linguistics to risk asses everybody over the age of say 20 for rights reflected linguistic competence. For those who fail the this mental heath medical linguistic fitness tests, then an army of "happy to kelp" educators can be supplied to facilitate correct knowledge of the rules, correct interpretation, and correct application. Acknowledging this type of program then would apparently halt the problem of being "cancelled" because more people would be trained in the rules so less infringements. For those waiting the test or training we would have a restricted public freedom ordinance, and once you complete the training a certificate and card for the wallet. These programs have dubious results though since people might not agree with whole lot and so resent it or play the game "fake competence" eg act in accord wit the rule not out of the rule. A mere pretence, a semblance of Good Will. The ideology of the left has trouble recognising the difference here, making force the prime mover. There discussion of "unconscious bias" says as much. the recognition by the left of the possibility of following rules in ill will makes them set continuous informal tests to try and see inside your soul by what you do immediately before the reflection in contrast to answers in an "agreed to" and recognised test. You know the sort of informal games they play. These are genuine problems for those that agree to the absolute unconditional legitimacy of this modern international rights based natural law. But for those who do not agree, recognise, and bestow absolute unconditional legitimacy on rights based natural law, the programs are not just useless or even counter productive but is appropriate. this is exasperated by the fact non of the people teaching or running these courses have any idea beyond the simple de facto text book how to justify the content. in the end they just say: this is what we have to do, this is what i am payed to teach you, don't go to deep on this stuff, its just basic easy to learn stuff, stop asking to many questions. Its compulsory if you don't complete this we stop your money. This new international rights institutions based natural law. Is never really explained justified or legitimised. We are to take it as the truth, the good, and the right, in themselves. We are to take it that there are clear defined rules for all "given" content. we are ton accept without Critique that all the institutions, the homogeneity of difference and up rootedness, the nepotism, the cronyism, the revolving door of charity like organisations and government funding are all absolutely correct. one way this absolute natural law is taught is via a straw man version of monarchy as absolute monarchy. Here the absolute monarchy of James I is held as a architype of monarchy through which it can be placed as a member of the same set as dictator totalitarianisms. This is of course a false myth of monarchy, it is not and never has been absolutist without being brought down. So it is the final irony that the legal rights based natural law Critique of mythical absolutist Sovereignty and Monarchy, has itself become an absolutist unreflective system that requires no agreement. Much of this stems form the myth that law is always in opposition to totalitarianisms, which is absurd. The first question of legitimacy is not how can i follow the law but why ought i to follow the law.
    1