Good video. I'm happy to know that there are coherent people my age, haha. Have you ever read Lysander Spooner's "No Treason"? If not, it's basically about the illegitimacy of social contracts. You should check it out.
@Manueeel64 First of all the "property" bit does not appear in the USA Declaration of Independence. Nor did the Founding fathers of the USA believe in an "innate" right to property. Secondly as Socialism, just like libertarianism did not exist in 1776 LMAO neither claim is valid. Each age lives for it's own time, no one can usurp the ideas of the past as theirs. That is intellectual theft, Or as Jefferson said civilized society should not be held to ransom by the barbarous past
Pure libertarianism is anarchy which libertarians do not believe in. That is the missing aspect of the equation here. The constitution is libertarian, just becuase the videos poster doesn't understand what socialist and libertarian means. You can apply your own ideas to any word you want... but that doesn't make you right. Socialist can't be librarians they are on opposing ideological sides. Socialist believe in group gov/control, lib.s believe in individual (and so did the founding fathers).
Well, socialists actually believe in worker control, the reason so many libertarians see a conflict here is that they don't believe workers are individuals worthy of consideration.
More seriously, there really is no reason that some conceptions of socialism should conflict with libertarianism, it all comes down to considerations of property. The classical libertarian concept of self ownership does not necessarily lead to a right-libertarian view of the ownership of resources.
That describes my own political views. If government was out of business and business was out of politics, then we would have socialist democracy where the government would actually be for the people.
However, I'm too cynical. As long as powerful corporations exist, a powerful government will be required. But as long as both of these exist, the people are disempowered. I don't see either willingly giving up power and I don't see the potential for a revolution that could force change.
Seriously, are you joking? I've never seen such confusion, except as a joke. You seem to be making it all up as you go along. But at least you're trying....
Property is a small slice of your life in that you must devote a set amount of time to earn that property( or money to buy). When some one or a entity takes your property without consent they are stealing part of your life. That is the definition of slavery. So all you socialists are advocating enslaving the tax payers to support your friends. And the Constitution is meaningless as long as Congress ignores the 10th amendment limiting the Federal goverment . This country is socialist now!
@titans797979 ........No, no it's not. I'm not defending socialism or abhoring capitalism but socialism is a complex school of thought based more around the belief that capitalism inadequately distributes wealth, not where control should lie.
Wow, I think you should read the constitution more carefully and actually know what the real definition of socialism is. Socialism - State ownership of capital! The constitution is not socialist because it lays down a set of rules. Take a philosophy of law class, read a book....something!
"To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States." US constituion Article 1, section 8(Power of congress).
How can you mistakenly say that the constitution is socialist? I do agree with you about Government being out of business and Business being out of government, but many of your other opinions are erroneous. You cant be a constitutionalist and a socialist at the same time, because they are two entirely different perspectives. One upholds, protects and cherish individual rights, while for the other it needs to destroy them for it to fully work. You have your definitions blurred go pick up a book.
No disrespect, redliterocket4, but one intellectual to another, you have a very useless definition of socialism whereby any form of gov't is considered as such simply because it was a product of people.
Are you suggesting Conservatism and Liberalism are all subsets of Socialism then?
The definition of socialism was in beginning pure economic,- "you earn in proportion to how much you work as fairly it could be"-distrubition should be organized so that would be possible.communism was defined as a society there your need was fullfilled and your worked as good you was able.You shared in proportian to your "needs".And many Christian village in US in beginning was Communistic in that sence.And it is some of it reflected in Constiution,but mostly it is based on Liberalism.
I agree there is too much emotional attachment to political names and too much concern over small points of political philosophy. Let's concentrate on the big issues first, whether you want to call it Libertarian, Constitutionalist, basic rights, whatever - no colonial empire, no wealth redistribution schemes, no central bank, protection of human rights, public resources, and due process.
Libertarianism is natural law which is very close to the constitution as the constitution is supposed to be natural law in positive law form. Libertarian and Conservative is very close Libertarian is a society governed by natural law conservative is a society governed by positive law. Socialism and Libertarianism are very similar in the strive for equality.
I guess that's my problem with Libertarianism. When you talk about Natural Law you're talking about Darwinism. Saying that Libertarianism is the closest thing to Natural Law, you're basically admitting that it's Social-Darwinism.
If Civilization is supposed to be the antithesis of Savagery ("law of the jungle" NATURAL LAW) then Libertarianism really just amounts to complete Barbarism under a cloak of modern social etiquette and monetary based economies.
Where is the humanity under socialism? There is always an optimistic view on socio-economic philosophies. One must assume that the people follow the incentives lain out. So under a libertarian republic, people would respect each other's rights and would expect theirs to be respected.
The government doesn't give morality to the people; the people give the morality to the government. And the same applies under libertarianism.
You sort of answered the question when you say that the people give morality to the government. A pro-social government would merely be a reflection of the moral values of the people. If the majority of people agreed that we have a responsibility to participate in society to solve socio-economic issues, as well as respecting each others rights, I believe that would be a more balanced type of citizenship. I am not 100% socialist, but I feel like freedom implies both rights AND responsibilities.
Libertarianism is a largely misidentified with something it is not thanks to Ron Paul and people like him.
Libertarianism is the principle political philosophy surrounding the issue of Liberty. But rather than debating what liberty is and if property does in fact belong as a factor of freedom remainsly largely debateable.
You see the issue having property as a factor of liberty and freedom, greatly complicates the difference between slavery and freedom.
Slavery is the property of one person to another. As still falling under the definition of property and was largely advocated as such by Southern American Politicians such as Calhoun who saw it is a necessary good in all civilizations, it complicates the issue of liberty.
Because how can liberty involve properity and yet properity involve slavery and yet slavery be the opposity of liberity. How can liberity be comprised of that which it is the opposite of?
What I am showing is not any argument against liberty or property, but the wrongful accusation of associating them together and why such is wrong.
It cannot be right to argue that property is essentially a part of liberty. Slavery cannot be right. And Liberty cannot involve slavery.
This shouldn't be confusing or have anyone to argue against such. Anyone who argues against this premise that Property is not a part of Liberty is a fool. I just proved to you that it cannot be.
Now for those who have been paying attention, but wish to debate peacefully.
Allow me to answer some of your concerns. In the declaration of independence, it speaks of the "Pursuit of Property" and many believe this is part of liberty. Were the founders wrong?
Of course not. Pursuit of Property is not the same thing as Property it self. Having the right to simply pursue having a property is different from having property.
One is a part of liberity. One is not. I'll explain. Continued
Liberty is having ability or access to choices or person freedom according to his or her own will.
Property is a means to establish a distinguish in territory from one entity to another. Effectively creates one's own state. And like all states, sovereignty is vested not in the people but in their state or estate and that all individuals and associations upon his or her estate exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state."
Property is a clevery and devil like lie made to be perceived as something as good and pure as though it were a part if liberty.
Now you are right to be free and do whatever. It doesn't matter if such was good or bad. Drugs, sex, candy, killing, property, or self-enslavement. It doesn't matter. But just because you should have liberty and the freedom to do whatever you want doesn't mean what you do or want is right (like drugs, illicit sex, and as I have pointed out, property).
I see what you're saying and I completely agree w/you. It's part of why I won't adhere to Libertarianism - the whole property issue doesn't add up.
But the main reason I reject Libertarianism is because I base my world view on an axiom of "interconnectedness" and interdependence. TRUE Liberty is an almost mythological concept - what is it you are trying to be free OF? And as far as "Happiness" - Fulfillment arguably comes from the VALIDATION one receives from the collective. That's based on...
extensive scientific research (I read a lot about this on wiki and @ the library last summer).
Ayn Rand says "An axiom.. defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it." Interdependence is truly an axiom of Nature: We are essentially SOCIAL beings - we have to face that, & in order to make a more perfect union we have to work together. In order for civilization to move forward, some things will have to give/change/be compromised.
Well we are a social species, this is something property libertarians have a hard time grasping.
But you should know, most people who say they adhere to libertarianism really don't.
Try liberty is the found the principles of social libertarianism, many property libertarians would disagree, but they would have to degree with what species they belong to if they think independence matters more than our social well being?
You should look up Social Libertarianism, you'll probably like it.
but the more you take from those "10%" the less they are worth; if they are worth less; then you will say the top 20%; and when their worth drops it will be the top 30%; eventually everyone will be worth the same and no one will have the money to own a business; son the government will own all the businesses; then everyone will own everything and no one will own anything
Your understanding of what socialism is, is flawed. Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, when the working class 'takes' the means of production, the state, and every other institution, and uses it in its own interest. Property becomes irrelevant. Theft becomes a meaningless word, what matters is who has the guns - the workers.
Free healthcare and social security are two examples of things we call privilages, they are not human rights. Why? Because nobody has a right to things that are not theirs. Its impossible to. The healthcare is someone elses property..how do you have the right to get it for free? The government doesnt pay for it, rather it moslty is from us...the tax payers. Im sure the founders invisioned a world where we paid for the healthcare of others and gave up our property rights.
Your a fucking idiot. I knew this before watching the video and seeing how you wrote the constitution is socialist. If jefferson was still alive today he would spit in your face. And so would I. socialism is about the government controlling people and taking ownership in their own property. The constitution gives all people individual freedoms and protects them from a "socialist government." A little word of advice...READ THE CONSTITUTION! And stop posting lies!
Your an idiot to. The word socialism did not exist yet, but the evil concept behnd it did. That is what the constitution protects us from. It protects us from a government that wants to take to much ownership of the people. The government was only made to protect our individual rights and freedoms. Today, the government is a mix between socialism and capitalism but is headed in a more socialist direction with the Obama era ahead of us.
Ok first, learn how to spell before you call someone an idiot, jackass. Second, ill bet a hundred dollars that you don't know anything about socialism, besides what some dumbass told you. So stop making a fool of yourself and shut up.
No. Id be more of a jackass if I actually worried about my spelling over youtube. So not only did you make yourself seem like a jackass for worrying about spelling in a youtube comment, but you are a jackass. Second, I know a whole lot about socialism. Actually, everyone knows what socialism is if they know FDR and his socialist policies he set up. Obama is a good example too. Basically as I said, a government that wants to take ownership in people and their earnings..."idiot"
Only slightly correct, people think that they currently have the right to private property. They also think that socialists want to take away that "right". However, we cannot take away something you don't have, as the right for private property has already been taken away for 9/10ths of the population. Want proof? If "buy" a house, you end up paying a mortgage to the bank for 30+ years of your life, so in reality you are just renting the house from the bank.
Yea, how bout the money that people make...the money that people earn. Socialists believe that money doesnt belong to you, and that the government can take it and redistribute the wealth. I qute frankly dont believe in that. ts nice to help por people but money you make shuld be yours and the government should not be able to redistribute the wealth. Thats an example of the government taking away "property." Property taxes and police are understandable, not healthcare, Soc security, etc.
I think you completely misunderstand rights and how the Constitution regards them. The founders understood that the document they were writing did not grant any rights - rights are inherent in us. They were simply attempting to document a small few of the rights they found very important - but made it clear that all other rights remain with the people.
I suppose I wasn't interpreting the Constitution through the eyes of the founders, but through a postmodern lens. I was describing the Constitution as we would consider it today. Most of us are not deists anymore, so we understand that rights come from intersubjective agreements instead of divine decrees. Rights are not inherent. We construct them through our social action as what we come to know as good and just. They may change as our societies continue to evolve.
I am not a deist, nor do you need to be to believe in natural rights that are inherent in us. Regardless of how nature was created we can all agree that the primary human motivation is to exist. We inherently have a right to pursue whatever we need to exist and develop that existence to our liking, so long as we don't infringe on other's same rights.
Rights do not change as societies evolve because rights are negative, not positive.
I must humbly disagree that the Constitution is a socialist document. Socialism is more of an economic policy (Communism, the most strict form of socialism, is the exact opposite of a true Capitolist economy). The Bill of rights was added to the Constitution as a clarifier of rights all Americans have that government cannot take away. I don't see your connection
I must non-humbly disagree that the constitution is "a socialist document". How is it socialist? How and where does it guarantee to the working class complete political and economic power? Where does it provide for the nationalization of industry under control of the working class? The constitution guarantees and protects private property rights of the rich. It is in no way socialist.
Now that I've read the comments I see that my point has already been made. You counter with the bill of rights. The bill of rights is a list of rights that the GOVERNMENT may not interfere with. Read the first sentence of the bill of rights to see what I mean.
First off I really enjoy your vids. Especially the ones regarding Alan Watts. That being said, I must say that the constitution is not a socialist document in the slightest. It sets limits on the government only (a small but growing fraction of our society), and is not in any sense a rule book for the people.
I believe that this country is more a corporate oligarchy. To me the constitution exist as an idea only. All these political terms trying to define us into groups is yet another tool used to separate the masses. And even then the only real groups I trust are the extreme right (religious) and extreme left (old school revolutionaries who want change by any means necessary). They do not waiver in their ideals, they do not switch sides in order to get votes. The rest in between are the day dreamers.
I dont really think the US govt is a monarchy but it is definitely fascist or specifically corporatist.
Interestingly, back in 1788 an anonymous poem was published that said: "congress and president full proof shall bring / a mere disguise for parliament and king." i have the full text @ icmps[dot]org/newconstitution.html
business should stay out of government, but government can't help but involve itself in business.
government is a regulation of power by the people, and business is a power that the people should have control over for their safety, and for their needs.
i wasn't replying to anything you said, i was replying to your Ron Paul video just because i'm not sure about him. I do think america needs some revitalizing change, but i don't think libertarianism is the answer.
if government is put back in the hands of the people and funding and attention are directed toward things like education and healthcare instead of warfare and prisons, i think we're in good shape.
As Matt said, we need to reverse this trend of corporatism and interventionism. Through corporate subsidies and war, we have redistributed our money to arms manufactures, Halliburton, etc. Once we change those things, we can focus on domestic issues. Ron Paul is not going to just get rid of everything. He believes in transition and following the will of the people to decide if we need these entitlement programs
I dont think the constitution really says or even was intended to say anything about individual rights-- it merely declares the legitimate functions of the federal government.. The bill of rights on the other hand declares various rights of the people/states and restricts (preamble) the feds from violating them (at least in theory).
I agree that the Constitution was not created to talk about rights because the Founders believed that we have inalienable rights. The Constitution does not grant rights because we have rights whether or not government exists or not. However, they recognized that people fall victim to tyranny, so the Bill of Rights was added as a declaration of the existing rights...to make sure that they are protected.
It IS part of the constitution in so far as it amends the original meaning in my opinion -- that's the only reason why I try to differentiate the two.. It's almost like saying "the constitution guarantees women suffrage" when in reality it did no such thing until 1920.
I agree with you on the points you made...I'm just not familiar with the term 'socialism' being used outside a system of wealth redistribution and collectivism. The FED is an example of corporatism. It contradicts the very idea of a free market and is also not accountable to the people. This fiat system is seriously flawed and we should allow for gold and silver to be used once again
Could you clarify why you believe the Constitution is 'socialist'. I tend to associate socialism with domestic economic policy. The Constitution tends to deal with individual rights such as free speech, free press, freedom of religion, privacy, etc. are not 'socialist'. In fact, socialist governments tend to infringe on these rights.
it's socialist in the sense that it gaurds the common rights of all people. i don't mean an economic socialism, though respecting certain personal/social rights sometimes requires that the economy be regulated. monopoly is not good for the people, especially when the monopoly owns the money itself. but in general i just think if the government is really representative of the people, then the people have to decide at a very basic level what it's going to mean to be a part of their society.
Trolling? I certainly hope so.
labrusca10 5 months ago
See my video in You Tube :"Anarchists and robots"
metacosmos 1 year ago
Good video. I'm happy to know that there are coherent people my age, haha. Have you ever read Lysander Spooner's "No Treason"? If not, it's basically about the illegitimacy of social contracts. You should check it out.
briananderson1 1 year ago
@Manueeel64 First of all the "property" bit does not appear in the USA Declaration of Independence. Nor did the Founding fathers of the USA believe in an "innate" right to property. Secondly as Socialism, just like libertarianism did not exist in 1776 LMAO neither claim is valid. Each age lives for it's own time, no one can usurp the ideas of the past as theirs. That is intellectual theft, Or as Jefferson said civilized society should not be held to ransom by the barbarous past
franks2732 1 year ago
The thing you're talking about at 1:00 is called the Iranian Oil Bourse.
elsquibbs 1 year ago
i like the transition from economics to the war in iraq
dougmzr 1 year ago
FDR called it "Economic Royalism" which is EXACTLY what we have today.
PerditaLupo 1 year ago
Pure libertarianism is anarchy which libertarians do not believe in. That is the missing aspect of the equation here. The constitution is libertarian, just becuase the videos poster doesn't understand what socialist and libertarian means. You can apply your own ideas to any word you want... but that doesn't make you right. Socialist can't be librarians they are on opposing ideological sides. Socialist believe in group gov/control, lib.s believe in individual (and so did the founding fathers).
jetrpg22 1 year ago
@jetrpg22
Well, socialists actually believe in worker control, the reason so many libertarians see a conflict here is that they don't believe workers are individuals worthy of consideration.
More seriously, there really is no reason that some conceptions of socialism should conflict with libertarianism, it all comes down to considerations of property. The classical libertarian concept of self ownership does not necessarily lead to a right-libertarian view of the ownership of resources.
23discordians 1 year ago
you lost me in the first 'sentence' of your description. "the Constitution is socialist" LOL
Robys1st 1 year ago
oh my god, try reading some books and practicing in front of the mirror before sharing your ignorance....for gods sakes..
whothehellgivesadamn 2 years ago
That describes my own political views. If government was out of business and business was out of politics, then we would have socialist democracy where the government would actually be for the people.
However, I'm too cynical. As long as powerful corporations exist, a powerful government will be required. But as long as both of these exist, the people are disempowered. I don't see either willingly giving up power and I don't see the potential for a revolution that could force change.
MarmaladeINFP 2 years ago
Seriously, are you joking? I've never seen such confusion, except as a joke. You seem to be making it all up as you go along. But at least you're trying....
marti0668 2 years ago 2
Property is a small slice of your life in that you must devote a set amount of time to earn that property( or money to buy). When some one or a entity takes your property without consent they are stealing part of your life. That is the definition of slavery. So all you socialists are advocating enslaving the tax payers to support your friends. And the Constitution is meaningless as long as Congress ignores the 10th amendment limiting the Federal goverment . This country is socialist now!
JonKevinCherry 2 years ago
socialist is complete government control. America was founded on the opposition of that and now we are leading away from that. very sadning.
titans797979 2 years ago
titans- Socialist is government control of the means of production. Keeping business and government separate is the antithesis of socialism.
causeimthesquid 2 years ago
That sounds confusing. The govt owns everything but has no part in business. how does that work?
titans797979 2 years ago
@titans797979 ........No, no it's not. I'm not defending socialism or abhoring capitalism but socialism is a complex school of thought based more around the belief that capitalism inadequately distributes wealth, not where control should lie.
5anjii 1 year ago
we just need to impeach Obama asap. our freedoms are going to be gone soon. fk obama and ur socialist freedom hating ass.
titans797979 2 years ago
Wow, I think you should read the constitution more carefully and actually know what the real definition of socialism is. Socialism - State ownership of capital! The constitution is not socialist because it lays down a set of rules. Take a philosophy of law class, read a book....something!
MrXZodiacInfinitY 2 years ago
"To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States." US constituion Article 1, section 8(Power of congress).
It does sound socialistic.
allgoo19 2 years ago
How can you mistakenly say that the constitution is socialist? I do agree with you about Government being out of business and Business being out of government, but many of your other opinions are erroneous. You cant be a constitutionalist and a socialist at the same time, because they are two entirely different perspectives. One upholds, protects and cherish individual rights, while for the other it needs to destroy them for it to fully work. You have your definitions blurred go pick up a book.
Kirkegaard 2 years ago
No disrespect, redliterocket4, but one intellectual to another, you have a very useless definition of socialism whereby any form of gov't is considered as such simply because it was a product of people.
Are you suggesting Conservatism and Liberalism are all subsets of Socialism then?
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
Thanks for confusing the crap out of me...lol
BBCcashville 2 years ago
Dude, you need to come to our Poli Sci grad program. They're a bunch of lotus-eaters too.
The idea that the banks and the government are separate is a farce. Research what a central bank actually is and a national banking system.
knab69 2 years ago
I think oligarchy is the word you are looking for.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
this kid is high!
fetuscreampie 3 years ago
The definition of socialism was in beginning pure economic,- "you earn in proportion to how much you work as fairly it could be"-distrubition should be organized so that would be possible.communism was defined as a society there your need was fullfilled and your worked as good you was able.You shared in proportian to your "needs".And many Christian village in US in beginning was Communistic in that sence.And it is some of it reflected in Constiution,but mostly it is based on Liberalism.
franz9z 3 years ago 2
The Free market accurately decides what labor and productivity is truly priced, not a gov't.
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
It was 1913 when the congress gave thier constitutional power of the monetary policy over to a Central Bank. Not 1918.
FATToney12 3 years ago
I agree there is too much emotional attachment to political names and too much concern over small points of political philosophy. Let's concentrate on the big issues first, whether you want to call it Libertarian, Constitutionalist, basic rights, whatever - no colonial empire, no wealth redistribution schemes, no central bank, protection of human rights, public resources, and due process.
lorax2013 3 years ago
Libertarianism is natural law which is very close to the constitution as the constitution is supposed to be natural law in positive law form. Libertarian and Conservative is very close Libertarian is a society governed by natural law conservative is a society governed by positive law. Socialism and Libertarianism are very similar in the strive for equality.
MichaelPeterHyde 3 years ago
I guess that's my problem with Libertarianism. When you talk about Natural Law you're talking about Darwinism. Saying that Libertarianism is the closest thing to Natural Law, you're basically admitting that it's Social-Darwinism.
If Civilization is supposed to be the antithesis of Savagery ("law of the jungle" NATURAL LAW) then Libertarianism really just amounts to complete Barbarism under a cloak of modern social etiquette and monetary based economies.
Where is the humanity?? the CIVILITY??
Aspetta17 2 years ago
Where is the humanity under socialism? There is always an optimistic view on socio-economic philosophies. One must assume that the people follow the incentives lain out. So under a libertarian republic, people would respect each other's rights and would expect theirs to be respected.
The government doesn't give morality to the people; the people give the morality to the government. And the same applies under libertarianism.
WSidis 2 years ago
You sort of answered the question when you say that the people give morality to the government. A pro-social government would merely be a reflection of the moral values of the people. If the majority of people agreed that we have a responsibility to participate in society to solve socio-economic issues, as well as respecting each others rights, I believe that would be a more balanced type of citizenship. I am not 100% socialist, but I feel like freedom implies both rights AND responsibilities.
Aspetta17 2 years ago
Libertarianism is a largely misidentified with something it is not thanks to Ron Paul and people like him.
Libertarianism is the principle political philosophy surrounding the issue of Liberty. But rather than debating what liberty is and if property does in fact belong as a factor of freedom remainsly largely debateable.
You see the issue having property as a factor of liberty and freedom, greatly complicates the difference between slavery and freedom.
Tom101229 2 years ago
Slavery is the property of one person to another. As still falling under the definition of property and was largely advocated as such by Southern American Politicians such as Calhoun who saw it is a necessary good in all civilizations, it complicates the issue of liberty.
Because how can liberty involve properity and yet properity involve slavery and yet slavery be the opposity of liberity. How can liberity be comprised of that which it is the opposite of?
Tom101229 2 years ago
What I am showing is not any argument against liberty or property, but the wrongful accusation of associating them together and why such is wrong.
It cannot be right to argue that property is essentially a part of liberty. Slavery cannot be right. And Liberty cannot involve slavery.
This shouldn't be confusing or have anyone to argue against such. Anyone who argues against this premise that Property is not a part of Liberty is a fool. I just proved to you that it cannot be.
Tom101229 2 years ago
Now for those who have been paying attention, but wish to debate peacefully.
Allow me to answer some of your concerns. In the declaration of independence, it speaks of the "Pursuit of Property" and many believe this is part of liberty. Were the founders wrong?
Of course not. Pursuit of Property is not the same thing as Property it self. Having the right to simply pursue having a property is different from having property.
One is a part of liberity. One is not. I'll explain. Continued
Tom101229 2 years ago
Liberty is having ability or access to choices or person freedom according to his or her own will.
Property is a means to establish a distinguish in territory from one entity to another. Effectively creates one's own state. And like all states, sovereignty is vested not in the people but in their state or estate and that all individuals and associations upon his or her estate exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state."
It is self-enslavement and statism
Tom101229 2 years ago
Property is a clevery and devil like lie made to be perceived as something as good and pure as though it were a part if liberty.
Now you are right to be free and do whatever. It doesn't matter if such was good or bad. Drugs, sex, candy, killing, property, or self-enslavement. It doesn't matter. But just because you should have liberty and the freedom to do whatever you want doesn't mean what you do or want is right (like drugs, illicit sex, and as I have pointed out, property).
Get it?
Tom101229 2 years ago
I see what you're saying and I completely agree w/you. It's part of why I won't adhere to Libertarianism - the whole property issue doesn't add up.
But the main reason I reject Libertarianism is because I base my world view on an axiom of "interconnectedness" and interdependence. TRUE Liberty is an almost mythological concept - what is it you are trying to be free OF? And as far as "Happiness" - Fulfillment arguably comes from the VALIDATION one receives from the collective. That's based on...
Aspetta17 2 years ago
extensive scientific research (I read a lot about this on wiki and @ the library last summer).
Ayn Rand says "An axiom.. defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it." Interdependence is truly an axiom of Nature: We are essentially SOCIAL beings - we have to face that, & in order to make a more perfect union we have to work together. In order for civilization to move forward, some things will have to give/change/be compromised.
Aspetta17 2 years ago
Well we are a social species, this is something property libertarians have a hard time grasping.
But you should know, most people who say they adhere to libertarianism really don't.
Try liberty is the found the principles of social libertarianism, many property libertarians would disagree, but they would have to degree with what species they belong to if they think independence matters more than our social well being?
You should look up Social Libertarianism, you'll probably like it.
Tom101229 2 years ago
but the more you take from those "10%" the less they are worth; if they are worth less; then you will say the top 20%; and when their worth drops it will be the top 30%; eventually everyone will be worth the same and no one will have the money to own a business; son the government will own all the businesses; then everyone will own everything and no one will own anything
puremilkgenius 3 years ago
Your understanding of what socialism is, is flawed. Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, when the working class 'takes' the means of production, the state, and every other institution, and uses it in its own interest. Property becomes irrelevant. Theft becomes a meaningless word, what matters is who has the guns - the workers.
mellowmaromi1 3 years ago
You are correct, he really distorts both the term libertarianism and socialism, but I guess he has been jaded by the debate in America.
AndersFriedrichsen 3 years ago
Free healthcare and social security are two examples of things we call privilages, they are not human rights. Why? Because nobody has a right to things that are not theirs. Its impossible to. The healthcare is someone elses property..how do you have the right to get it for free? The government doesnt pay for it, rather it moslty is from us...the tax payers. Im sure the founders invisioned a world where we paid for the healthcare of others and gave up our property rights.
dreamstar14 3 years ago
Your a fucking idiot. I knew this before watching the video and seeing how you wrote the constitution is socialist. If jefferson was still alive today he would spit in your face. And so would I. socialism is about the government controlling people and taking ownership in their own property. The constitution gives all people individual freedoms and protects them from a "socialist government." A little word of advice...READ THE CONSTITUTION! And stop posting lies!
dreamstar14 3 years ago
Umm, socialism didnt even exist when Jefferson was alive. So i doubt he would do anything.
madman564323 3 years ago
Your an idiot to. The word socialism did not exist yet, but the evil concept behnd it did. That is what the constitution protects us from. It protects us from a government that wants to take to much ownership of the people. The government was only made to protect our individual rights and freedoms. Today, the government is a mix between socialism and capitalism but is headed in a more socialist direction with the Obama era ahead of us.
dreamstar14 3 years ago
Ok first, learn how to spell before you call someone an idiot, jackass. Second, ill bet a hundred dollars that you don't know anything about socialism, besides what some dumbass told you. So stop making a fool of yourself and shut up.
madman564323 3 years ago
No. Id be more of a jackass if I actually worried about my spelling over youtube. So not only did you make yourself seem like a jackass for worrying about spelling in a youtube comment, but you are a jackass. Second, I know a whole lot about socialism. Actually, everyone knows what socialism is if they know FDR and his socialist policies he set up. Obama is a good example too. Basically as I said, a government that wants to take ownership in people and their earnings..."idiot"
dreamstar14 3 years ago
Only slightly correct, people think that they currently have the right to private property. They also think that socialists want to take away that "right". However, we cannot take away something you don't have, as the right for private property has already been taken away for 9/10ths of the population. Want proof? If "buy" a house, you end up paying a mortgage to the bank for 30+ years of your life, so in reality you are just renting the house from the bank.
madman564323 3 years ago
So really, we will just take away the property from the upper 10% of society, and redistribute it amongst the the lower classes.
madman564323 3 years ago
Yea, how bout the money that people make...the money that people earn. Socialists believe that money doesnt belong to you, and that the government can take it and redistribute the wealth. I qute frankly dont believe in that. ts nice to help por people but money you make shuld be yours and the government should not be able to redistribute the wealth. Thats an example of the government taking away "property." Property taxes and police are understandable, not healthcare, Soc security, etc.
dreamstar14 3 years ago
"if you 'buy'" my bad.
madman564323 3 years ago
hey i just posted a new viProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0
o on lady gaga s just dance misheard lyrics ...
watch it please
kalaniman1 3 years ago
I think you completely misunderstand rights and how the Constitution regards them. The founders understood that the document they were writing did not grant any rights - rights are inherent in us. They were simply attempting to document a small few of the rights they found very important - but made it clear that all other rights remain with the people.
nessfan 3 years ago
I suppose I wasn't interpreting the Constitution through the eyes of the founders, but through a postmodern lens. I was describing the Constitution as we would consider it today. Most of us are not deists anymore, so we understand that rights come from intersubjective agreements instead of divine decrees. Rights are not inherent. We construct them through our social action as what we come to know as good and just. They may change as our societies continue to evolve.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
I am not a deist, nor do you need to be to believe in natural rights that are inherent in us. Regardless of how nature was created we can all agree that the primary human motivation is to exist. We inherently have a right to pursue whatever we need to exist and develop that existence to our liking, so long as we don't infringe on other's same rights.
Rights do not change as societies evolve because rights are negative, not positive.
nessfan 3 years ago
I must humbly disagree that the Constitution is a socialist document. Socialism is more of an economic policy (Communism, the most strict form of socialism, is the exact opposite of a true Capitolist economy). The Bill of rights was added to the Constitution as a clarifier of rights all Americans have that government cannot take away. I don't see your connection
neitzezc 4 years ago
I must non-humbly disagree that the constitution is "a socialist document". How is it socialist? How and where does it guarantee to the working class complete political and economic power? Where does it provide for the nationalization of industry under control of the working class? The constitution guarantees and protects private property rights of the rich. It is in no way socialist.
sber222 3 years ago
Now that I've read the comments I see that my point has already been made. You counter with the bill of rights. The bill of rights is a list of rights that the GOVERNMENT may not interfere with. Read the first sentence of the bill of rights to see what I mean.
reventropy2003 4 years ago
First off I really enjoy your vids. Especially the ones regarding Alan Watts. That being said, I must say that the constitution is not a socialist document in the slightest. It sets limits on the government only (a small but growing fraction of our society), and is not in any sense a rule book for the people.
reventropy2003 4 years ago
I believe that this country is more a corporate oligarchy. To me the constitution exist as an idea only. All these political terms trying to define us into groups is yet another tool used to separate the masses. And even then the only real groups I trust are the extreme right (religious) and extreme left (old school revolutionaries who want change by any means necessary). They do not waiver in their ideals, they do not switch sides in order to get votes. The rest in between are the day dreamers.
ossito 4 years ago
I dont really think the US govt is a monarchy but it is definitely fascist or specifically corporatist.
Interestingly, back in 1788 an anonymous poem was published that said: "congress and president full proof shall bring / a mere disguise for parliament and king." i have the full text @ icmps[dot]org/newconstitution.html
icmp 4 years ago
business should stay out of government, but government can't help but involve itself in business.
government is a regulation of power by the people, and business is a power that the people should have control over for their safety, and for their needs.
i wasn't replying to anything you said, i was replying to your Ron Paul video just because i'm not sure about him. I do think america needs some revitalizing change, but i don't think libertarianism is the answer.
aerrunus 4 years ago
if government is put back in the hands of the people and funding and attention are directed toward things like education and healthcare instead of warfare and prisons, i think we're in good shape.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
@redliterocket4 So you are for PRIVATE prisons?
BillHicks420 1 year ago
As Matt said, we need to reverse this trend of corporatism and interventionism. Through corporate subsidies and war, we have redistributed our money to arms manufactures, Halliburton, etc. Once we change those things, we can focus on domestic issues. Ron Paul is not going to just get rid of everything. He believes in transition and following the will of the people to decide if we need these entitlement programs
AppleCider99 4 years ago
"As long as government has something to sell, business will have something to buy." forgot who said that but it seems to be pretty accurate.
icmp 4 years ago
Regulation is the primary source of most market distortions, leaving aside its moral aspect.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
I dont think the constitution really says or even was intended to say anything about individual rights-- it merely declares the legitimate functions of the federal government.. The bill of rights on the other hand declares various rights of the people/states and restricts (preamble) the feds from violating them (at least in theory).
Just think that needed to be clarified.
icmp 4 years ago
the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, isn't it?
redliterocket4 4 years ago
I agree that the Constitution was not created to talk about rights because the Founders believed that we have inalienable rights. The Constitution does not grant rights because we have rights whether or not government exists or not. However, they recognized that people fall victim to tyranny, so the Bill of Rights was added as a declaration of the existing rights...to make sure that they are protected.
AppleCider99 4 years ago
It IS part of the constitution in so far as it amends the original meaning in my opinion -- that's the only reason why I try to differentiate the two.. It's almost like saying "the constitution guarantees women suffrage" when in reality it did no such thing until 1920.
icmp 4 years ago
I agree with you on the points you made...I'm just not familiar with the term 'socialism' being used outside a system of wealth redistribution and collectivism. The FED is an example of corporatism. It contradicts the very idea of a free market and is also not accountable to the people. This fiat system is seriously flawed and we should allow for gold and silver to be used once again
AppleCider99 4 years ago
Could you clarify why you believe the Constitution is 'socialist'. I tend to associate socialism with domestic economic policy. The Constitution tends to deal with individual rights such as free speech, free press, freedom of religion, privacy, etc. are not 'socialist'. In fact, socialist governments tend to infringe on these rights.
AppleCider99 4 years ago
it's socialist in the sense that it gaurds the common rights of all people. i don't mean an economic socialism, though respecting certain personal/social rights sometimes requires that the economy be regulated. monopoly is not good for the people, especially when the monopoly owns the money itself. but in general i just think if the government is really representative of the people, then the people have to decide at a very basic level what it's going to mean to be a part of their society.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
@redliterocket4
Then please call it ''social''.
It's very confusing and misdirecting.
Mopfin 11 months ago