Prima Secundae
226. The Power of Human Law (ST I-II Q96 a1–4): General Laws, Vices, Virtues, and Obligation in Conscience
Class of 2015-06-18
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/226-the-power-of-human-law-st-i-ii-q96-a1-4-general-laws-vices/

[0:00] Then we ought to consider about the power of the what human law, right? And about this six things are asked. First, whether the human law ought to be laid down in what general, I guess, huh? Community. Secondly, whether the human law ought to what. Impede all vices. Yeah, that's interesting. Easy to ask that.

[0:32] Whether it what should order the acts of all the virtues, son? There'd be complaint now. Nebraska is complaining about the Colorado and the people going over there buying their drugs and coming across the border, you know, causing trouble.

[1:00] Fourth, whether it lays upon man necessity in the form of what conscience, huh? Did you drive over the speed limit? Did you get a hunting license? I could go around the corner there. You see, in the way to Mass this morning, and there's that's to get the Floral Street School there, you know. And says on a school day you're supposed to go 20 miles an hour. Say, if I go 25 instead of 20.

[1:30] Yeah, is that is that that? Fifth, whether all men are subject to the human law. No one is above the law. I thought that that's I hear that saying. No one is above the law. Tell that to the people in law For sixth, whether to those who are under the law is licit to act right outside the words of the law.

[2:16] The wife and I have eaten in London there a couple of times in this little restaurant, right, which is a famous one that Samuel Johnson used to go to, and so on. But it's right there where the legal thing is, right? And so you go in there, you know, they've got a picture of they got they have one of under glass there one of Samuel Johnson's dictionaries, you know.

[2:41] And it's open to the page law. See how these lawyers coming in from the from the you know, the schools there. To the first, then one proceeds thus: It seems that the human law ought not to be laid down in common, but more in particular, right?

[3:12] For the philosopher says in the fifth book of the Ethics that legal things or whatever are laid down, right, by law singular matters, I guess, and even what? Yeah, which are also singulars.

[3:33] Oh, that takes place the Supreme Court, right? They take a precedent, you know. Something singular, right? Isn't it precedent, right? Because about singular acts, sentences are what laid down, yeah.

[3:51] Therefore, law ought not only to be laid down in common, but also in the singular. Moreover, law is directive of human acts, but human acts consist in singular. Therefore, human laws ought not to be brought in in common, but more in the singular.

[4:19] Moreover, law is a rule and a measure of human acts, as said above. But the measure ought to be most certain, as is said in the tenth book of the Metaphysics. You

[4:35] don't need a binder to measure, right? Because it changes its length, you know. Since, therefore, human acts there cannot be what something universal that is certain, but that is going to fail in some what particulars. It seems that it be necessary for the laws to be what laid down not universal, but in the what singular.

[5:07] Well, against this is what Juris peritus says. what? Legal expert says What? The legal expert. Yeah. Peritus means experienced, right? Man experienced the law.

[5:24] That laws are constituted in those things which what happen most of the time, right? For from those things which perhaps are able to happen just one case, right? Laws are not what constituted, right? This touches upon one of the big debates in the law today with the European Union versus the United States. In any sort of future creation of legal systems, our constitution is very short and general, as per St.

[6:06] Thomas. Yeah. But the European approach is much more specific. It's the Napoleonic Code builds upon the Justinian Code, which was more general, but the Napoleonic Code became more specific. And now the Europeans are using statutory law to codify almost everything. So the proposed EU constitution was about 400 pages, if not longer, because it was so detailed. And this gives rise to a hyper-regulatory mentality. I think I mentioned before they even regulated the curvature of bananas in interstate commerce in the European Union.

[6:42] So these are two different schools of thought. that... In Washington, all these agencies that can make their own rules, you know, so this. Yeah. And they give the figures sometimes, you know, I forget them always, but they how many, you know, The Jews had an easy it was only 600

[7:04] And the administrative, state, which is on the executive branch, skews the balance of powers of government. Yeah. Even more, you know, the Supreme Court's usurped a lot of power, so that third part of government now is much more powerful than it ever was intended to be. And the executive branch also has all its administrative agencies, which further distort that balance of power that checks and balances system.

[7:29] Well, it's off there the biography of John Quincy Adams. You know, he's got one on Washington too, and one on John Marshall, who was the big shot, big guy in the Supreme Court there. And kind of things they invented, you know, to some extent, you know, but the things were not specified, you know.

[7:55] Did Jefferson have a right to Louisiana Purchase? you know, I think it was a good thing to do, but you know, I think they distort it. These things are not that clear, you know.

[8:20] I answered. Should be said that each thing is an account that is an account of an end. Is necessary that it be what Proportioned to that end, right? Now, the end of the law is the common good, because as Isidore says in the Book of Etymologies, for no private right. Commodious. But for the common usefulness of the citizens, the law ought to be what written.

[8:56] Interesting, Matthew. You were conscripted, huh? Get in the army. Written down. Whence is necessary that the human laws be proportioned to the what? Common good, right? Now the common good stands what? Is constituted for many things, huh? And therefore, is necessary that the law look towards many things, both according to what? Persons and according to activities, yeah. And according to what? Time.

[9:40] The community is constituted. The community of the city is constituted from what? Many persons, huh? And his good is what? Procured through many actions, and it's good.

[9:58] Nor is this own instituted. That might endure for some little time, but that it persevere for all time through the succession of what citizens, as Augustine says in the twenty-second book of the City of God.

[10:19] Does that mean he's coming down the side of the common? Sounds kind of like it He'll probably make he won't make he'll see some distinction then

[10:35] To the first, therefore, it should be said that the philosopher, in the fifth book of the Ethics, which is the book on justice, right? He lays down three parts of what legal justice, which is the positive law. For some are what laid down simply in general, right? And these are the common laws, huh?

[11:03] And as regards these things, it is said that the legal is that which, from its beginning, doesn't differ, whether it be thus or otherwise, right? When however it is laid down, it does differ, right?

[11:19] That captives be redeemed by a certain what? Some, however, which are there are which are common as regards what, and single as regards something, and these are said to be privileges, as were private laws, huh? Which regard singular persons, and nevertheless their power extends to many what?

[11:53] Yeah. And as regards this, he adds, still some things are laid down what by law in singular matters, huh? I don't know what that's referring to. She's talking about the rules that guide the president or the speaker of the house or somebody?

[12:18] Some are called lawful not because they are laws, but on account of the what application of the common laws to some particular facts, and these are called what? Judgment. sentences, yeah, which are had for what? For law. Yeah.

[12:38] And as regards this, he adds, and sentences, huh? So he's taking coming down on one side, or he's coming making distinctions, as you say, right?

[13:00] Interesting. Use the word "sentence" there in the courtroom, don't we? Huh? It's an individual being sentenced, right? You're applying some common law, right? I guess it's kind of—you'd say it's a particular kind of a judgment.

[13:17] Yeah. Yeah. Because obviously, you're judging or at least the judge saying, "You have what? It's guilty or not guilty? " You judge just different things in different kinds of cases. Yeah. We—we kind of restricted the word to mean one particular kind of. judgment What was I hearing today in the news about—is it 240 people, something like that, who are overcharging, you know, in the health business, you know?

[13:49] There's a lot of that going on, you know. Surprise. Okay. Now the second one was more the directed argument, right? Human acts are in the singular, right? To the second should be said that that which is directive, right, ought to be directive of what many.

[14:23] Whence, in the tenth book of the metaphysics, the philosopher says that all things which are of one kind, right, are measured by something one, which is first in that what genus. If then there were as many rules or measures as there are things measured or ruled, there would cease the utility or usefulness of the rule or the measure, which is that from one many are able to be what Known.

[14:55] And thus not there be no usefulness of the law if it did not extend except to one singular act. To singular acts, directing them are given what singular precepts of those who are what prudent. But law is a what? Common. Common precept, as has been said, huh? That makes sense, doesn't it?

[15:27] So you guys are driving under the speed limit. Mm-hmm. I tell you about the reading about the guy who arrested, huh? Coming out with the drugs, you know, from from Colorado there, but these guys from Minnesota, right? They drive down once a week to Colorado, and somehow they get three thousand dollars worth of drugs, go back to Minnesota and sell them for six thousand. It's a good profit, huh?

[15:58] As the, of course, what happened was they they were going you know eighty five miles an hour instead of seventy where it was and they got stopped and that was into their game for a while anyway. But the cops said you know that's the more I make you know. Especially good though, huh? Yeah, you know I'm from Minnesota, you know, and I like to see this. Yeah, yeah.

[16:22] This uh industry The entrepreneurial spirit that made this country what it is today Yeah. That's why all our jobs are in China. It seems kind of simple. Just drive down there and. Pick up some dough Yeah.

[16:41] Easy money. They might be passing it here in Massachusetts before too long, you know. Okay. Now to the third, huh? To third, it should be said that there is not the same certitude to be sought in all things. Whence in contingent things, as are in actual human things, it suffices such certitude that something be true, ut in pluribus, right? Although it sometimes fails and. they but it's already some okay.

[17:30] Now this is what I want to know about this article two. It suffices I can. Practice here, fellow. That's what I'm interested in. To the second, one precedes us. It seems that it pertains to the human law to what restrain all vices, huh? All vices. Oh, good. I was going to take to the side, I think. Isidore says in the book of etymologies that laws are made, huh?

[18:01] That people what audacity might be forced by what the fear of them, huh? But this is not sufficiently what. Forced, yeah. Unless any evils, right, are inhibited or restrained. by the law. Yeah. Therefore, the, human law ought to be what. Restrain

[18:30] any evil. Yeah. Yeah. Moreover, it's the intention of the legislator to make the citizens virtuous, huh? I don't know if they ever seen anybody say that in Congress. Have you had that? Yeah. Not laws, laws permitting the sale, of liquor that make. people virtuous Laws forbidding the sale.

[18:50] One cannot be virtuous unless he is what. What does that mean? Compescere from all vices. Is that a word for restraining or checking. curbing, blocking? Therefore, it pertains to human law to prevent all vices,

[19:16] huh? Moreover, the human laws derive from the natural law, but all vices are repugnant to the natural law. Therefore, the human law ought to. Prohibit all vices. Yeah. What? The teetotalers love this one. Yeah. The prohibitionists they love this one.

[19:37] Yeah, I was reading in the biography of John Quincy Adams. You know, the Baptist minister, you know, thought that all dancing was wrong. You know, there should be no dancing. Because he couldn't see that today, he thought that was kind of innocent. I remember that the carry of arms. He had the little chapel in his. Thank you, Saint John the Baptist. He was trying to discourage dancing.

[20:07] So he had over the arch of the altar, you know, he suffered martyrdom for a dance or something like that. Nothing like that. The first governor, or one of the early Puritan governors of Massachusetts, I think it might have been Winthrop, I can't recall the name. He said, "It is not yet time for Massachusetts to dance."

[20:46] Okay, but against this is what is said in the first book of what? Free judgment, huh? I guess that's our friend Augustine. I guess. It seems to me, right,

[21:01] that the law, right, which is written for ruling the people, rightly what permits such things, and what leads to divine providence, right? Vengeance is mine, says the Lord, to vindicate, huh? But the divine providence does not vindicate except vices, huh? Therefore, rightly the human law permits some vices by not what? Impeding. Yeah.

[21:35] Let's see what this. Okay, he's gonna say. Answer: It should be said that this has been said, huh? That the law is laid down as a certain rule or measure of human acts. But a measure ought to be what homogeneous with the measured, huh? So measure a length by a length, right? As is said in the tenth book of wisdom. For diverse things are measured by diverse measures.

[22:05] Whence it is necessary also that the laws be laid down for men according to their what condition? Because, as Isidore says, the law ought to be possible, and according to nature, and according to the custom of one's what country, right?

[22:27] Looks like he's making there's a system of checks and balances there. Nature, checks and balances, customs. Yeah. So now according to customs of our country now though. Yeah, that's what we need to think of it actually. Yeah.

[22:47] Now. Now the power or capacity of acting from interior habit or disposition proceeds, right? So the power or ability to what act proceeds from an interior habit or disposition, right?

[23:16] Now the same thing is not possible to the one who does not have the habit of what virtue, right? And what is possible for the virtuous man, right? Just as the same thing is not possible for the boy, and from the perfect man.

[23:36] In account of this, there is not laid down the same law for boys as is laid down for what adults, huh? For many things are permitted to boys, which in adults are punished by what law? Or at least blame were blame.

[23:58] And likewise, many things are permitted to men not perfect in virtue, which are not tolerated in virtuous men, right? So some things are tolerated as men out here in the world. They're not tolerated in the monastery, huh? Right.

[24:22] Now, human law is laid down for the multitude of men, in whom the greater part is of men. Why, that's a good understatement for modesty. Yeah. In which the greater part of men are not perfect in what virtue, right? And therefore, by human law, are not prohibited all vices, from which the virtuous what abstain, right, huh? But only the more what grave ones, huh? From which it is possible that the greater part of the multitude what stain, huh?

[25:03] And especially those things which are in the harm of others, right? Without the prohibition of which human society cannot be what, yeah. Just as are prohibited by human law homicides and thefts, these things. Yeah, but what is prated, Thomas?

[25:30] Notice how quiet is the neighborhood when I go to mass on Sunday. You know, how quiet is the neighborhood when I go to mass on Sunday. if it's everybody listening Yeah, yeah.

[25:47] Now, what about audacity, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that audacity pertains, seems to pertain to the what invasion of others, right, huh? Whence it especially pertains to those sins by which injuries to one's what neighbor are what, yeah. Which should be prohibited by what, which are prohibited by human laws, has been said, right,

[26:16] huh? Okay. To the second, it should be said that human law intends to lead men to virtue, not suddenly, but gradually, huh? And therefore, not at once does it impose upon or place upon the multitude of the imperfect those things which are now the virtuous, right? That to it they abstain from all evils. Otherwise, the imperfect, not being able to what bear these precepts, burst forth into worse evils, as is said in Proverbs thirty.

[27:11] Who what? He wounds it. Yeah. Violently bloweth his nose bringeth out blood Yeah In Matthew 9 it said that. If new wine, that is the precepts of the perfect life, are placed in the old skins, that is, in perfect men, these skins are what? Burst and wines out. That is the precepts are what? Condemned. And men from contempt break forth to what? Worse evil. It's kind of interesting, huh?

[27:59] State and how our current condition is, huh? In the United States, and the the concept of the common good has been divorced from the concept of virtue, and the understanding of our type of political system, our type of culture, we need a virtuous citizenry. But virtue has been thrown out the window and replaced by something more of like values. And in addition to that, the notion of the common good is morphed into something very different than something that St.

[28:33] Thomas is talking about. Reading the framers of the Constitution, there's a Senator Moynihan's famous essay, "Defining Deviancy Down," where he was looking at the rise in crime and vice in society, and how certain politicians, namely of his own party, especially, were instead of trying to deal with the problem, or the way that they they dealt with the problem was to just redefine what's unacceptable behavior, so that what used to be unacceptable is now acceptable, and hey, look, the crimes disappeared because we redefined it, and so, but this has a corrosive effect because, as Thomas is pointing out here,

[29:16] it just I think leads people. He implies it anyway, or could imply it here, that it it brings people, it drags them down even further, and and allows them to sort of wallow in greater and greater evil. And you can see that today with social sort of chaos in the West,

[29:42] which is increasing in all sorts of strange and small ways as well as big. And people say you can do anything if you don't harm others, right?

[29:56] I never want to hurt anybody. God's got me going to heaven. So they talk about homosexual marriage. They say, well, you're not harming other people. You know, they can, you know, have the kind of marriage they want. No. It's equality. It's equality. But the interesting thing is, it's not the common good as traditionally understood. The idea is we have to get away from this general notion of common good and look at individual interest groups and individuals themselves for their own personal or group good.

[30:27] And you can see this with, well, as white males, we have a certain perspective on history and philosophy and stuff like that, but. There are other perspectives. A black male has a very different perspective. A white woman, a black woman has a very different perspective as well. And then, looking in the realm of theology, you have well, there's the theology of the white man, like at Union Theological Seminary in New York, but then there's black theology, and that's totally different.

[30:54] And so it's just kind of this strange tower of babel kind of stuff that's happening. Well, then, then the extent you see the idea of harming others, though you see to having opinions that other people are bad, right? Then you're, then you're prejudiced, right? You're homophobia or some other, yeah, yeah, hate, yeah, yeah, hate speech, and then you're harming somebody else, right? Because they don't feel good about it, you know.

[31:19] But this is just an excuse for harming the people who disagree with you. Yeah, yeah, or political correctness, as he calls it, you know. I mean, it's, yes, you're harming people.

[31:34] That's when they say about judge not, so forth. That's that's when our Lord said that it was right after he said, "Don't give what's holy to dogs." So why he thought some people were dogs? It's a dog give you pearls, catch a pearl before a swine. And even when he said, "Don't look at spaking to brothers, I only have to be in your own." He then, but he said, "First take this out, then you can do that."

[32:00] Yeah, yeah. So actually, he's not he's not prohibiting. He's permitting certain acts. Talking about judging the what not the who, so that always distinguishes. To the

[32:33] third, it should be said that the natural law is a certain partaking of the eternal law, in us, right? But the human law, from the eternal law, for Augustine says in the book on free judgment that this law, which is what, which is brought forth for ruling cities, conceives many things, right, and leaves unpunished many things, right, which are vindicated through what? By providence. Yeah. For not, because it is not what to all things.

[33:20] Therefore, the things it does do should be what disproven, right? Hence, also the human law is not able to what. Prohibit all things which the law of nature prohibits.

[33:39] That was taking the third objection, saying it's derived the natural law, which is against all bases. Therefore, it should be against all bases. But it's imperfect, right? And what it takes from the natural law.

[33:56] Okay, we got time for that. To third. As one proceeds, it seems that the human law does not command the acts of what all the virtues.

[34:10] For the acts of the virtues are opposed to what vicious acts are opposed to the acts of the virtues. But as you see in the previous article, the human law does not prohibit all vices. Like eating what. Yeah.

[34:33] Therefore, also does not command the acts of all the virtues. What mistake? Moreover, the acts of virtue proceed from virtue. But virtue is the end of the law. And therefore, what is from virtue is not able to come under the what precepts of the law. Therefore, the human law does not command the acts of all the what virtues.

[35:06] Moreover, the law is ordered to the common good. But some acts of the virtues are not ordered to the common good, but to the private good. Therefore, the law does not command the acts of all the virtues.

[35:22] So, is my eating ordered to the common good or not? My drinking. So why did they tell me I should eat too much or get drunk or whatever it is?

[35:36] But against this is what the philosopher says in the fifth book of the ethics that the what commands right one to do what strong works yeah brave works yeah and temperate acts right huh and mild ones likewise according to the other virtues and their malices the evil ones commanding the former and prohibiting the the latter right huh

[36:15] answer it should be said that the species of the virtues are distinguished according to their objects as is clear from the things foresaid huh now all the objects of the virtues can be referred to either the private good of some person right or to the common good of the multitude just as those things which are of what fortitude or courage someone can carry out either on account of the conserving of the what preserving of the city or preserving the what yeah and similarly in others but the law as has been said is ordered to the what common good

[37:03] And therefore, there is no virtue about whose acts the law is not able to what command. But nevertheless, human law does not what command about all the acts of all the virtues, but only about those which are able to be ordered to the common good. Either those that what yeah come about for the sake of the common good, or in a what immediate way. When these are ordered by the legislature, as pertaining to what the common discipline, right?

[37:53] Through which citizens are formed that they conserve the common good of justice and what peace. Peace huh That was Channel Twenty Third's model right Justizia et Pax Justice of peace like the same model The first, therefore, should be said, huh? That the human law does not prohibit all vicious acts, right? According to the obligation to precept, just as it does not command all what virtuous acts. It prohibits or prevents prohibits some acts of what.

[38:42] Singular virtues. Yeah, Just as if commands some acts of singular virtues, huh? So the guy goes behind you like this, you guys go forward, you know. It's commanding you to be brave, right? Well, you must uh, get shot. The enemy is shot by your commanding officer, right? Go forward, right? In the English common law, at least, if you see somebody who's drowning in a pond, you have no legal duty to go and rescue them.

[39:16] Which is something that shocked a lot of people first year law. I thought, well, you know, it's not the right thing to do, but there's sort of policies behind not prescribing that particular type of virtue. And supposedly, it for whatever reason they thought that that would make people less prone to want to rescue people. There's some strange sort of negative psychology behind the policy of that. But it's an example of one act of virtue that you would think might be enforced by law, but it's not.

[39:55] No duty to rescue. To the second should be said that some act is said to be a virtue in two ways. In one way, from this that a man does virtuous things, just as the act of justice is to make something right, and the act of fortitude to do something brave, yeah. And thus the law commands some acts of virtues. In another way, something is said to be an act of virtue, which someone does virtuous things in that way in which the virtuous man does it.

[40:53] And such an act always precedes a virtue, nor does it fall under the precepts of law, but is the end to which the legislature intends to what? Yeah. If only it were so Yeah. But then the one does it out of what? He likes the act, right?

[41:18] So it's maybe like paying your taxes. That's what. Maybe I know she just wrote a book on chastity, and it's a book written for adults to learn, you know, what is it and why should we practice it? Yeah. And she was interviewed by some guy in Belfast recently. He's trying to figure out what this justice thing is like. Well, I mean, because she she suffered sexual abuse as a child.

[41:54] Yeah. And then so she acted out as an adult before conversion. She acted out like typical total chaos in her moral life, and she said that was partly due to her bad choices based on her warped psychology and everything because of her sexual abuse. So the guy says, "Oh, so this chastity thing is just another form of your warped behavior because of your sexual abuse as a kid.

[42:23] You just want to rule it out in your life." And she says, "No, no, no, no." She started to explain herself, and then so he tries to come around to understand. So you really just want to be a nun? He can't understand chastity. You either get your warped, or you want to be a nun, or both. He can't figure out it's a virtue. It just never occurred to the guy.

[42:42] To the third, it should be said that there is not any virtue, right? Whose acts are not able to be ordered to the common good, either immediately or immediately.

[43:13] Okay. To the fourth one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the human law does not place upon man necessity in the form of conscience, right? For a lower power cannot place

[43:34] a what a law in the judgment of superior power. But the power of man, which makes the human law, is below the what divine power. Therefore, the human law cannot impose a law as regards the what which is the judgment of conscience. Moreover, the judgment of conscience most of all depends upon or divine man commands. But whenever the divine commands are made what void human laws, according to that of Matthew fifteen six, irritum fecistis mandatum Dei.

[44:16] You have made what non existence, so to speak, the command of God in account of your traditions. As he says to the Pharisees and so on. Therefore, the human law does not impose necessity on man as regards his what conscience.

[44:33] Moreover, human laws frequently bring about calumny and injury to men, according to that of Isaiah ten. Woe to you who bring in laws that are what Iniquitous and write down,

[44:51] yeah, and oppress in judgment the poor and make strength of cause against the humble of my people. But is licit to each one to what avoid oppression and violence. Therefore, human laws do not impose necessity in men as regards conscience.

[45:15] But these laws are trying to stop there, having these support of abortion, you know, and our insurance and so on. But against this is what is said one Peter two nineteen. This is what a grace, if what for the sake of conscience, one sustains sadnesses, suffering things, justly. Hence, it should be said that the lay

[45:48] that the laws laid down humanly are either just or unjust, right? If they are what just, they have the strength of obligating us in the form of conscience from the eternal law from which they are what derived, according to that of Proverbs eight. Through me kings rule, and the makers of laws discern just things.

[46:19] Now laws are said to be what just both in the end when they are ordered to the common good and from their what author when the law given did not exceed the power of the one making it and from the form when it is according to the equality of proportion imposed upon the burdens of the subjects, I guess. yeah in order to the common good huh okay when when when weights you might say or burdens huh are imposed right upon those subject to it according to the equality of proportion right not paying your fair share of the taxes that's a total right we're discussing with a few people in the night class an assumption you know you know should should the rich be taxed more

[47:11] than the poor right and then later on if they say yes and should they be taxed proportionally more or or in a larger amount right it's very hard to justify those things by reason right to have a progressive income tax right huh you know and I said do you know Of course the only reason they give is that they can afford it right I said well should I charge the rich man twice as much or ten times as much for a loaf of bread than I charge you poor guys right for a loaf of bread is that just well they can afford it they can pay afford to pay ten times as much for a loaf of bread that that you pay see they might

[47:52] be able to afford it does that justify yeah yeah yeah see or you know if you buy a car you know you know you pay ten times the same amount for the getting the same car that I get for one tenth of what you pay is that right you can scratch your heads it up you know what to say you know it's just not clear countries like Sweden adopted the proportional taxation but one reason why it never flew here at least before the massive illegal immigration which is giving rise to a lot of voting power now was because in this country there's so much mobility you can start poor as a student yeah and even if you come from humble backgrounds you can end up

[48:31] being in the wealthiest classes there's so much flexibility that it's not in the interest of most people to have a proportional taxation because they'll have the opportunity to be earning a lot and they can see the injustice in that view of taxation but now with the massive immigration you have a dependency class which is forming in its tens of millions which has a very different perspective on things yeah and so that might come up

[49:05] okay. Since then, one man is a part of the multitude, right? Each man, this that he is and what he has, is of the what multitude, just as any part is what it is, is of the whole. Whence nature, right, infers some detriment to the part that it might save the what whole. And according to this, laws of this sort, inferring burdens proportionally, are just and obligate in the what form of conscience and are legal laws.

[50:01] Now unjust laws are what two sort. In one way, through contrariety to the human good, contrary to the fourth thing said, either from the end, as when someone presiding imposes laws that are onerous to those subject to it, not pertaining to the what good, but more to his own what glory, or even from the author, as when one brings forth a law beyond the one he has power committed to him, like Obama does, or even from the form, as when one unequally dispenses burdens upon multitude, even if they are ordered to the what common good, and these are more what violence than laws, because as Augustine says in the book on free judgment, that does not seem to be a law which is not what

[51:08] just, whence such laws do not obligate in the form of conscience, except perhaps on account of avoiding scandal or what. Disturbance. Why did Christ you know? Why did Christ pay pay the thing?

[51:25] On account yeah, on account which also man ought to what to to the law right? According to that of Matthew five, the one who forces you to go a hundred thousand steps, go with him another two, and it takes away your tunic, give him your coat.

[51:52] Other laws are able to be what unjust by contrariety to the divine good, just as the laws of tyrants inducing one to idolatry, or to anything else that is against the divine law. Such laws in no way ought to be observed, because as is said Acts five. We ought to obey God more than what men. Sing joyfully to the Lord, all your land serve the Lord with gladness.

[52:19] To the first, therefore, it should be said that the Apostle says in Romans thirteen, every human power is from God, and therefore who resists a power in those things which pertain to the order of power, would seem to be what resisting the order of God. And according to this, something is what guilty,

[52:44] form of conscience, yeah. To the second, should be said that that argument proceeds about human laws which are ordered against the command of God. This is the text of Christ there, and to this order of power it does not extend. Whence in such things to human law will not not to be what. Obedient I guess Yeah To the third, should be said that that argument proceeds about the law, which bestows a what unjust grave to the ones under it.

[53:21] To which also the order of divine of power, divinely conceded, does not extend. Whence neither in such things is man obligated to obey the law, if without scandal and greater detriment he is able to what resist. Okay, good. Maybe stop here because.