Arguments for Bills of Rights -- Part 2 of 4 -- Video

G. Stolyarov II
 
Issue CLXXVIII 
December 1, 2008
Recommend this page.

A sample image

In the second part of this four-part presentation, Mr. Stolyarov delves into some arguments historically made against bills of rights. One argument is that a culture and tradition of respect for liberty should suffice to protect rights. Another argument, espoused by Alexander Hamilton, is that bills of rights are necessary under monarchies, but not under representative government, where “the people” are governing themselves. Both of these arguments, however, are grievously wrong, and neither culture and tradition nor popular sovereignty and representative government come even remotely close to bringing about a desired level of protection for individual liberty. It is easy for each of these to be subverted by power-hungry demagogues without a concrete, written statement of rights to ward off usurpations and coordinate resistance.

Please help promote this video by going to this page and giving it a rating of five stars, as well as embedding it on your websites and sharing it with others.


Recommend this page.

This TRA feature has been edited in accordance with TRA's Statement of Policy.

Click here to return to TRA's Issue CLXXVIII Index.

Learn about Mr. Stolyarov's novel, Eden against the Colossus, here.

Read Mr. Stolyarov's comprehensive treatise, A Rational Cosmology, explicating such terms as the universe, matter, space, time, sound, light, life, consciousness, and volition, here.

Read Mr. Stolyarov's four-act play, Implied Consent, a futuristic intellectual drama on the sanctity of human life, here.