got two minutes into this before I realized he was just confusing the issue by playing with semantics.... maybe an unemployed Philosophy Student? .... I want those two minutes of my life back.
Pedantic, childish nitpicking of word choice. Instead of dealing with the concepts and the obvious implied meaning of the terms, he chooses to be the dictionary policeman.
It's amazing how even despite how basic these concepts are, some refuse to understand.
This video response was clearly posted by a naive first-year law student (or lawyer wannabe) who yet hasn't read, pondered or understood John Locke and the conditions that pre-exist (and therefore trump) legal constructs. Oh well.
"...it isn't voluntary then, is it?" that's the point. again, you're playing games semantics. a person may decide that they want to drive their car in michigan without a seat belt on. but they cannot make that decision without the fear of being punished. what is meant by "desicion" in this case is the decision with the ability to act on that decision (granted it does not conflict with another person's legitimate decision) without the threat of force against them.
property is not merely a legal construct. humans have an innate respect for property in varying cultural and circumstantial manners, irrespective of law. devoid of law when a person takes a clearly un-owned tree and builds a chair from it, it is clear to most rational people that he is the owner of the chair, and any attempt to take it from him (without permission) or damage it, is unjust.
to the extent that a person is free and alive, they are able to create things. that is what is meant by product of life and liberty. they are talking about physical property. to have something stolen from you or vandalized is to one degree or another, an assault on a product of your life and liberty. you grossly misunderstood this idea.
you don't want to nit-pick but your going to argue that the claim of losing your liberty is losing your present is not true because a prisoner still has some semblance of freedom? it seems you are so desperately seeking an argument, that you're willing to ignore the fact that this is an 8 minute summary. if you deny someone their liberty you deny them their complete present. there are obviously varying degrees, and most rational people can understand this from the claim in the video.
I tend to agree that we don't "own" ourselves as one owns tangible things. but that is merely a semantic argument. We however do have personal responsibility and control over ourselves that no one can have a higher claim on. That is what is meant by "own" in this case. Should you not have the ultimate say in what you do?
I gave you a thumbs up because criticism is healthy, I think it is very possible he could have worded the video better, but perhaps not as concisely.
That said, I didn't think any of your points were very strong (in that they don't strike the root of any of the ideas) other than that this video necessitates anarchism for its adherents. I think that is true, and there are a lot of other historic, economic and philosophical reasons to support mutualist anarcho-capitalism.
Oh yeah, and this is not a debate. You are speaking at us in response to a video, not debating. Unless the original maker of the video replies to you, which, sadly, it appears he has not.
Just plain lulz. "I just finished philosophy 101 at community college!" is all I hear. You seem to agree with the actual points of the video, but are hypercritcizing abstract ideas. Also, you seemed to be confused about the difference between liberty, which is the subject of this video, and democracy, which is majority rule. AND, you can only be taught things that have been learnt before, you can only innovate through trial and error, hence, failure is good. AND all the other shit. Lulz.
@Killswitch125 It was certainly not politely stated and i haven't seen adequately refuting arguments by others yet.Since philolibx points out much deeper philosophical issues,facing impermanence and being in itself as well as questioning ownership in general.But if it's not worth your time to bring counterarguments,then my comment was an unnecessary question to an unnecessary opinion...sorry for that and i wish you a good life.
You make no sense. My life is my own, no one elses. If I choose to take my own life I am not infringing upon any one else's liberty, life or property. If I choose to take someone else's life, then I AM infringing upon their life, liberty and property and we in civilized society call it murder.
@Killswitch125 this is no countercritique but one judgemental term put after another and by doing so,just a dooming opinion of yours.Would you please try to make counterarguments,instead of using degrading&violent blablabla.
since we are born into this life(which wasn`t our free will)& everything that defines us is made out of factors that are going beyond ourselves,we don't own anything(e.g.Name&Body).If nobody OWNS anything,how can someone else make a claim over me without being violent?Ownership always was&still is a justification for violence!
to understand nonownership shifts the view from Rights to needs,their fulfillment&sharing with others in a nonviolent manner as lifetime guests on this earth.
u have absolutely no sense of what is freedom and what is an inalienable right. If u have no natural rights, what rights do u have? lol And u do not even understand where rights come from and how its different from privilege. Thus ur entire opinion remains null & void
At 4:20 you state: "The implication here is that dissenters in a democratic election ought to have veto power" NO... The implication is that government should not have the ability to make laws that infringe on the rights of minorities. The government should take money from those that earn and save and redistribute through the political process. Just one of your many logical fallacies.
I was a bit worried when I saw all the False, False, False, at the beginning, but watched to the end anyway.
Seems like you basically agree with the original video apart from the 'owning of self' point - not exactly what I would call "arguing against the core premises"
As for you not owning yourself, that's ok with me but telling my I don't own myself.... fuck off
This here is why I have, over the past several years learned to hate to debate politics, philosophy and theology. It is 98% semantics, and it is few and far between where I get into a debate that is not rooted in semantics.
Most of your points are true as are the video's points are true. From a dictionary perspective, you destroyed it. From a common sense perspective, the video can be nitpicked with definitions but the message is the same and is still logically sound.
Sorry, but your rights are inalienable and thus inherent. You're born with them, government does not grant them. Also, tort has to do with punishment for damages on someone's life, liberty, or property. Lastly, saying life/self is intangible is false, I think therefore I am.
I like, and encourage the fact that you're attempting to think critically about a topic. I think this video may have gotten you a tiny bit confused over semantics. The philosophy that you own your life simply means you are the direct controller of it. Just like owning any object gives you direct control, which you are allowed to sign or barter away. You mention also that in a properly democratic society... I wanted to remind you, America is a Republic, not a democracy. Ask Ben Franklin!
@savaship you wrote:"The philosophy that you own your life simply means you are the direct controller of it."
Not even that is true,ask every cancer or brainstroke patient,or Tsunami and earthquakevictim if you can't accept that!we may live in an illusion of control,yes!
we are guests on this earth,with a certain ability to modify things,but we are never in control!
The basic philosophy is exact and sound. The very reason behind life liberty and property is inherently natural and evident. I think philolibx purports his or herself as a counter philosopher but fails dramatically.
I believe your reasoning is flawed. The arguments you make are pretty insubstantial and when thought through more, it is quite infantile. If you refuse to believe in these really basic concepts of life and liberty, then you must be quite content to be a servant of another person.
You (philolibx) truly are unable to see the point of Schoolands presentation aren't you? Is it because you are of the type of personality who must always take an opposing side; must always play the role of "Devil's Advocate"?
The fact is that with anything you can always find at least 1 opposing argument and so most of your arguments fail to deliver as the ratio of of dislikes to likes on your video clearly shows; 4 to 1.
I say this with sincerity when I say you should speak to someone.
Life is the only thing in the universe that can be created or destroyed, thus it is the only thing that has inate value. Further, your life can affect others and other objects, can do work and exists in the universe. Thus it is tagable and real, and thus can be owned just as the copyright on a book can be owned as previously mentioned.
The rest of your argument falls apart from that point and becomes laughably stupid when you say that we live in the present and not the past or the future. Idiot
@JohnGalt1717 therefore accordingly it (your body) can be sold, if you do it of your own free will. Funny slaves owners would agree, it was one of the most common ways of getting slaves without having to go to all the trouble of just taking people and selling them. The Romans, The Greeks etc all had laws giving a person the right to sell themselves into servitude. And Most countries up until about the American Civil war had no laws against it. So are you advocating a persons right to do so
Yes, because you own your body, you have the right to sell it and indeed use it however you wish. That's entirely up to you. It is however, not up to someone else. Thus you cannot be forced, coerced or defrauded.
And btw, this in't slavery, this is called "a job". We sell our bodies every day. The carpenter sells the product of his mind and body to build a house. He is agreeing by contract to work until it is done. The key is that it is voluntary.
1. You misused the left-libertarian/right libertarian distinction. Left-libertarians do not begin from a different ethical position than right-libertarians, and if anything, they take the standard libertarian morality to conclusions undreamed of by right-libertarians.
2. Defining government's rights as different from those of the governed leads to all imaginable tyrannies.
3. Indirectly empowering evil does not make one evil, it just means one doesn't know better.
0:08 This proposition is not incoherent. Consider the set A, defined such that one of the members of A is the set A. A both is A, and A belongs to the set A.
0:19 Life is not intangible. The physical and chemical processes are measurable, observable, and effect physical and chemical change which is also measurable and observable.
0:25 The claim is false because it need not imply that life is claimed by any. The idea of owning your own life is coherent. That doesn't mean it must be accepted.
0:39 You should have rejected this claim. It is based on the prior claim that an individual must own their own life, and that such ownership must be exclusive. Both of those assertions are coherent, but not necessarily true.
0:45 This assertion follows the same form as the previous and can be rejected on the same grounds.
1:04 This comment is a result of your existing in the past. Your reading it will be the result of your existing in the future.
1:13 The definitions being presented here are not dependent on the time claim, rather they are evidencing it. You have property because your efforts in the past have generated it.
1:17 Being condescending when you cannot find a flaw to strike at is not a valid way to dismiss a claim.
1:24 The use of the word "lose" here is in the context of ownership, not misplacement. Otherwise you would be correct.
1:29 Life produces physical and chemical transformation of many kinds. Sometimes this is new life. Other times it is a beaver dam. Liberty is a state. A state combined with a motive force produces a result. These results are part of your new state. To be deprived of them is to return to a previous state and be set behind the time used in achieving them.
1:39 Your assumption is not his intent. There are more things to achieve than simple labor, and more things to own than mere goods.
1:49 The legal construct is built to recognize ownership of property, not to create the concept of it. It does this imperfectly due to the need for uniformity in enforcement.
1:58 Under a state of liberty, which was a stated prerequisite, it does. The legal construct which claims otherwise is an imperfect attempt at enforcement.
2:10 You fall under your own knife here. The legal construct may make many kinds of mutually consenting voluntary exchanges illegal, such as drugs and prostitution.
2:24 Tort law is the correction of a previous exchange which was not mutually consenting. The legal construct imperfectly enforces liberty by assigning blame to the malicious or reckless and using it to restore the lost liberty to the victim so they are in the position they were in before. It is arguable whether such compensation is involuntary-- nobody makes you commit these crimes, and you consent to the punishment when you choose to live in a nation with that rule of law.
You seem to have a problem with the "ownership" of one's own life. Perhaps "control" would be more accurate. Don't get lost on semantics.
There are ways to deal with torts without taking property. There is the anarcho-capitalist concept of Dispute Resolution Organizations (DRO), which is a quasi-insurance company.
Yes, I am an anarchist. If you wish to form a collectivist society, do not force your beliefs on me, (or others), and I will not force mine on you. I am not an anarcho-fascist.
Ahhh, a lawyer, that took econ and philosophy.. I enjoy the debate and it begs a few questions. However, I think the original as a framework for further discussion is quite good.. It could be hammered out much in the way the Founders did, would arrive at many of the same solutions..
In a free society, a person or group of persons may mutually consent to create a community under which they are governed by whatever socio-economic principals they want. This freedom is not awarded a people seeking to live under "a particular socio-economic" construct as you implied. I disagree with most of what you said but I am very aware that liberty is God-given, and so inherent to our being. With that said, I disagree that a free people can't choose to live under whatever system they want.
You are attempting to nullify any conceptual abstractions and rely solely on absolute concretes. This is irrational and impractical. Conceptual abstractions such as "self" "life" "past effort" are logically valid within the context of human experience.
I can own my life, and another can, immorally, "lay claim" to my life. If I do not have a right to my past efforts, I have no rights at all.
"Nurturant Parent"? Is "Free Adult" a conceptual abstraction you wish to nullify as well?
In short, your entire position can be summed up as: "I disagree with your definition of that term." The entire first three minutes of the video establishes a set of axioms, and your response is essentially, "No".
Everything after that is a logical extension of the axioms provided, to which your response is generally some sort attempt to attach today's definitions, positions and societal constructs to an inductive argument that is attempting to create new definitions, positions, and constructs.
This attack of a simplified demonstration of a position over the ambiguity/definitions of the terminology used is ridiculous. For example, you assert that ownership of intangibles is impossible a priori (which is correct given a particular definition of 'ownership'), while the opposing position clearly holds that ownership of intangibles is possible a priori.
Proclaiming an axiom/premise 'false' simply because you hold an opposing axiom is not a 'debate' nor does it create a coherent argument.
@Killswitch125 I second this notion. The debate of this comes from two different mind sets, one (Ken's) being free of/from government I take it, and the uploaders trying to contradict his idea's with the idea's derivied from modern and ancient political systems. I'm still building my own philosophy of life and I like the simplicity of this video, but the debate was clearly useless.
I think the conflict with the statement at 4:12 is our modern idea of governence. if 49% of the people choose to not be ruled by said ruler then by his own theory they are not obligated to be ruled by that individual. where as the other 51% consent to. but if they are allowed to not be ruled by that person then two different societies form and a nation is not unified.
Humans operate best in a democratic tribal system In my opinion with leaders not dictators. save that for Insects.
Most of your criticisms are semantics and definition based. But many of your criticisms are logical fallacy. the idea that empowerment of evil is evil. You haven't even considered the the empowerment is unknowing and therefore simply naivety. Hitler was voted in, are you suggesting all those people who thought Hitler represented change were evil people? No, they were just tricked.
@alistairproductions When you create your own definitions as to what a logical fallacy is based on your ideology. You really are admitting what a clusterfuck of a belief system libertarianism is. Thank Goodness unlike what Rothbard would have wanted. I have not been "Converted". I am not a doctrine driven moron. I still have the ability to think for myself. A function libertarians cannot do
@franks2732 But what libertarians want to do IS think for themselves. It's about freethinking, individuality. Obendience to the STATE or CHURCH is doctrine. And I didn't create my own definition of a logical allacy based on my beliefs. There's a certain assumption when this annotator suggested that empowering evil is evil.He hadn't considered that when most people vote for a candidate they believe they are doing a good thing. There is a clear assumption which is why it's a fallacy.Not my opinion
@alistairproductions Crap, you only want everyone to think for themselves as long as they agree with your idea as to what "thinking for yourself means". You certainly do define your own logical fallacies but that aside and in your comments to me you even state as much. "certain assumption when this annotator suggested that empowering evil is evil". Your making that assumption NO ONE ELSE. The creator of this video has not made any mistake in rhetoric or otherwise. Assumption is improvable
@franks2732 Well of course I want people to agree with me, that's only natural. I just wouldn't force anyone to. And how am I making that assumption that empowering evil is evil? On the contrary... What I've said is that the annotator has made this assumption. I've said precisely the opposite!!! What I clearly stated with TWICE was that sometimes people give power to evil unknowingly, live when Hitler was elected. At the time he was voted in because he wanted "Change"
@alistairproductions really so unlike Rothbard when enough people have been "converted" (his words) You would not introduce laws to "protect" your libertarian freedumbs. LMFAO. He has made no less than your ideology has produced and at least he provides tangible evidence to support his claim. Unlike you. You rather say this is so, then find the "so called evidence to suit"
@franks2732 but seirously though what are you even on about, I feel like I've landed myself into an irritating discussion with a 7th grader who probably inserts random Chomsky quotes into his essays where they have to relevance. You probably walk around with a Che Guevara shirt and go dumpster diving with your skater buddies instead of eating your mom's home cooked meals. If you want to formulate some sort of real argument about something go ahead but don't waste my time
@alistairproductions Assumption the mother of all fuck ups. And one of the main reasons libertarians can only ever gather fringe supporters. Their ideas are plainly whacked. Personally I admire Chomsky but I would not call him a fan, too individualistic for my taste. Olaf Palme and some of the better know French Socialists come to mind. And my diet or choice of shirts is really irrelevant to the conversation. Like all other libertarians you cannot accept that your ideas are held in contempt
This is less a "debate" than a series of peanut-gallery one-liners belying a greater interest in nitpicking semantic argument than truth. Don't fault Schoolland's appeal to unjustified first-principles when you do the same. Why _can't_ a person own himself? "Logic is a feeble reed, friend. 'Logic' proved that airplanes can't fly and that H-bombs won't work and that stones don't fall out of the sky. Logic is a way of saying that anything which didn't happen yesterday won't happen tomorrow."
@bellington007 And further to my last statement. That is the problem with the political process. The real arguments are getting lost, stupidity is being wrapped in a flag with a bible following. If you cannot measure the worth of an argument then the argument has no grounds. And that is Libertarianism, the argument of rhetoric, stupidity and blind faith. Thank goodness the idea is so disgusting as to be shelved as nothing more than the ravings of the "loony right". It's plan gibberish
@TheWolverine314 Your Constitution went so far as to assert it rather than mention property. It said the pursuit of happiness. This was actually deliberately done. Because those involved in writing the thing could not assert individualistic blind faith. As Ben Franklin said property comes from the state and if need be the state can take it as needed. But still it makes no difference they lived in their day, they were not gods and their statements were not commandments. LMFAO
@TheWolverine314 NO. Complete and utter garbage and if you understand "social contract theory" at all you will note Locke like others opposed "blind faith" assertions of property rights. Secondly Your point is moot and of course "political parties" existed long before even your nation existed. Locke also rightly asserted "law must exist for the common good" Not as individualistic as you wish to claim. tbc
@ frank - regarding the oil spill in the Gulf (stopped, BTW, by the evil private corporation that caused it (no, seriously, they are state-connected and therefore evil, ask the Iranians). But we libertarians (at least some of us) were calling out BP AND the government for the oil spill, which was a direct result of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which limited their legal liability to $85 MILLION;
@lifesabeachnj Load of Bollocks, complete toss. And anyone would think your the only political group holding people to account. Grow up. You lot did not invent "holding the system to account" and when I am out protesting I don't look over my shoulder and go Oh theres a libertarian. The only thing libertarians have ever protested is the fact everyone else thinks your a bunch of crackpots with a similar world view to the Church of Scientology
@lifesabeachnj No ask any indigenous person and you cannot own the land. And I am sorry to tell you Native Americans had clearly defined states and borders.
@TheWolverine314 If you think John Locke is a reflection of the modern political ideology of libertarianism you are really deluding yourself. Firstly Libertarianism did not exist in the 16,17 or 1800's it is an invention of the 1950's your political party did not exist until the 1970's. To claim ownership of the dead as apparent supporters (founders) of your ideas is disgusting. it would be like me calling Adam Smith a socialist because he favored taxation to help prevent poverty. LMFAO
If you don't own yourself, then why can't someone or something make a claim over you?
Things you get completely wrong:
You can in fact own intangible things. Think "copy-write".
In order to move something, you need to apply force over a period of time (Newtonian Physics). We can move things, therefore we exist in the past and the future.
@ArmednSafe Firstly "intangible" does not mean outside of reality. And your claims are "outside of reality. An Atom is an Atom but applying "physics" to explain a metaphysical innate concept i.e. Your "natural law" philosophy does not hold weight in any field of study. "You need to apply force to move something" "Wow" take a bow, that sentence must have taken a while to construct. The statement does not validate your claim.
@franks2732 I never said that intangible means outside of reality. What does that have anything to do with anything? Owning a patent or a copy write is owning an intangible thing. You can't touch, see or taste it.
I merely used the force example to show that we exist in past, present and future because you said in the video that you only exist in the present.
@ArmednSafe well actually it really does not prove your point. You don't exist in the past or the future that is a scientific fact. It is stupid and makes you look like an idiot. To try and link science with philosophy and garnish credibility is just plain dumb. What is really funny is you guys just don't get it.
@franks2732 By the way, calling someone who is making logical arguments an idiot without making any logical arguments yourself, makes you look like an idiot.
@ArmednSafe What you do is decide what logic is then if anyone disagrees with your opinions you claim their arguments are logically flawed. You don't even have the decency to argue in the real world but speculate on a make believe one. What trash
@ArmednSafe I have not.You do not exist in the past or future it is scientifically impossible for you to do so. You can only live in the present. Do you possess a time machine? Are you capable of going back and altering a decision. You only ever exist in "the point of time" you existed in the past and may well in the future but you do not it is impossible.
As to point 2 watch the video, I share exactly his view word for word
Point 2 and point 3 are supposition "if" is not fact but speculation
@franks2732 Just because you can't control the flow of time doesn't mean you didn't exist in the past. If you're locked in a cell, you can't go out. But just because you can't go out, doesn't mean that outside the jail cell doesn't exist.
For point 2, you just say "False. Life, like the self, is intangible and cannot be owned." But you can in fact own intangible things. And if a life can't be owned because it's intangible, then a body can be owned to the same effect.
@ArmednSafe Bullshit, completely untrue, claptrap. Unscientific dribble based entirely on your preconceived POV that is dictated by your undying acceptance of your version of natural law. Fucking downright religious if you ask me. Secondly intangible is not innate, you are swapping meaning to suit your ideology, weak and very stupid
@franks2732 Don't you think it's funny how you have molded your believes through "thinking for yourself" to fit what benefits the government's power? It's funny that you claim your thinking for yourself and libertarians are not. However, your views are very mainstream "liberal".
Don't you realize how dangerous government power is? Governments killing their own people was the leading cause of unnatural death in the 20th century.
@ArmednSafe No not at all and I firmly believe in my views. My views are not Liberal, I am a Socialist and reject Liberalism. I do realize how dangerous government is but I find your alternate view Worse. in the 20th century we as humanity have the ability to feed, cloth and educate the entire worlds population, we simply do not have the will. That is due to greed. Libertarianism, is the ultimate greed driven ideology. Your position is so far removed from reality it is rejected
@franks2732 Do you know what a central bank is? Do you know what the IMF does? I don't think you would say that the world is hungry and unclothed because of greed if you did.
@ArmednSafe I am a Socialist you idiot. Have you not seen those big posters where we Argue that "The World bank and the IMF are used by the west to maintain control. That it is those organizations that contribute to the disparity. Along with the free market and Western imperialism. Greed to us just does not mean Private Capital. And force (as you would interpret it) does not stop at the businessman's door. I don't see business as being bad but as part of the bad. Greed in any form is wrong
In a truely free society people could set up socialism comunities. California could go all socialist and navada could not. They would be competing with each other and anyone could move away from either place to a state that they preferr the conditions in. Would a non socialist community be allowed in a socialist society? However if a socialist society was forced on everyone in the u.s. they might not be able to get citizenship in another nation and would be forced to live as others see fit.
You do know that it's a idea about society, not someone being a parent, right? Should society force the child to behave or is that a parents job? Dumb argument.
Maybe it isn't the only solution, no one claimed that. well, I guess he kind of did. I'll give you that 1.Tolorance means not stopping it. If you see someone being mugged and don't help cause u r scared it doesn't make u evil. You empower them by not stopping them. it doesn't mean u encourage.
yes slavery is immoral. According to you it is impossible also, since no one can own anothers life. Failure is an incentive not because it build caracter, that is nonsense. Failure could just as easily crush you. It's an incentive because you don't want to fail and therefore try not to. Again you don't understand or choose to change the meaning to suit your argument. you could learn just by sitting and a chair and watching what happens but you need incentive to actively go out and seek knowledge
@michaelgibson420 This the counterpoint in your argument and if you examine the answers given in libertarian chat rooms nearly all consent it should be legal for someone to be able to sell themselves into servitude if they wish. They only claim it will not happen, like matt they also claim that because I concede my will by majority consent to the mass of the population I am conceding to any laws if introduced such as allowing rape etc . It is simply false. A typical libertarian debating tactic
@franks2732 We sell ourselves into servitude every day. It's called our jobs. Alot of contract work is basically agreeing to work for someone for x amout of time(in servitude to them) in exchange for something. Selling your labor is essisially selling yourself. As long as you agree to it and to what you get in return I don't see what the problem would be.
@michaelgibson420 I find it an absurd statement of yours. You are not only actively supporting servitude you are all out in favor of it. People who work really have no choice in working, without a job they would not be able to survive. They have no real choice but to work. Leaving them open to exploitation. They may dependent of circumstance and education choose a different job, or choose to work for themselves. But except for those who have wealth all have to work. tbc
@michaelgibson420 "As long as you agree to it and to what you get in return I don't see what the problem would be".So how much is your pound of flesh worth? So much for freedom (well the libertarian understanding of it anyway), That you would sing the praises of control and force. The admission by you exposes the Big Lie of Libertarianism, for all it's rhetoric it simply advocates a change in who/how does the forcing and control. Freedumb by the Libertarian for the libertarian
dissenters views are to be protected and considered. That's why the get a vote and powers are divided. if a sole leader was elected with no laws protecting ppl or term limits that would be an issue.
True in a true democracy we could vote to give some people more rights that others. That's why we don't have a true democracy in the u.s. Then the majority could vote to oppress a minority. Instead we elect leaders who are bound by laws(a constitution)
that's why it says force OR fraud. yes force isn't necessary. neither is fraud. that what OR means.
In a democracy we all agree that majority rule. It means that we can't elect ppl to rule over others who have no say in the process. You either are changing or don't understand the meaning. and ppl are free to emigrate. i agree completely. if it's that unbearable, leave.
It takes you time and energy and talents and labor in order for you to gain property. I don't even see how you could argue with that.
If I take a tree that's not owned and cut it down and build a boat, that's my boat. Whether it's a legal construct or not, It's my boat. I built it.
your right about them being capable but that's what's meant. Being forced to make compendation because of tort law is because someone took or made someone lose something involuntarily, that what compensate means
My labor is time that I take. As before, if I work 1hr thats 1hr of my life that I gave to gain something. I am free to do that with my life, my liberty. IBecause I have my liberty I can take time from my life to labor in order to gain property. That's why life(time that I labored)+liberty(my freedom to do as I wish, such as labor)=property
Yes if you lose your liberty you still exist. That's not what they mean when they say losing your present. Your changing the meaning again. or maybe you just don't understand the meaning.
Your labor in the past produces your property. past time+past labor=present property. If that is taken from you then they have taken your past time. If I labor 1hr and take my income and buy something and you steal it then you have taken the poduct of my past. That was 1hr of my life. You took it.
being and owning is not the same as being and possesing. Invalid argument.
If it was truely inpossible to own a person than slavery would have never happened.
You deny it's possible so do you deny that slavery happened?
You existed in the past, you exsit in the present, and you will exist in the future. That's what it means. Changing the meaning to suit your argument is lazy. of course you don't exist it the future at this moment. but you will exist tom unless you die.
If life was intangible the it couldn't be taken through slavery and murder. I have a life, that's not an idea. I am alive. Intangible is things like love, hopes, dreams. He's catigorizing life with things like that. Invalid argument. My self is not intangiable. I'm physically here, you can touch me. You can hit me. That's also not intangiable. I don't think he knows what intangiable means.
@matthew00123 Nope sorry Frank you are very wrong:) ANY NATION THAT HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL IS A REPUBLIC :D What is the constitution Frank? :) Did you know that a human right thats protected by the constitutions ONLY EXIST in a republic form of government? You have NO RIGHTS in a "representative democratic" society :D DICTIONARY FRANK!!!!!!! EDUCATE YOURSELF MAN!
matthew00123 4 weeks ago . Matt your a moron and a liar
@matthew00123 THE COPURTS CAN SAY ANYTHING THEY WANT BUTY THEY MADE THE PLEDGE TO THE REPUBLIC AND WHAT IT STANDS FOR TOO WHEN THEY STAND UNDER THE PLEDGE TO THAT FLAG HAHAH FRANK YOU GET MAD SOOO EZ
matthew00123 3 weeks ago Matt you will not even accept the ruling of the courts, and you have said that you have never claimed Representative democracies don't exist. On That you are a liar also . You have stated that. your simply an indoctrinated idiot
@matthew00123 Nope sorry Frank you are very wrong:) ANY NATION THAT HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL IS A REPUBLIC :D What is the constitution Frank? :) Did you know that a human right thats protected by the constitutions ONLY EXIST in a republic form of government? You have NO RIGHTS in a "representative democratic" society :D DICTIONARY FRANK!!!!!!! EDUCATE YOURSELF MAN!
matthew00123 4 weeks ago
Matt you are a moron, a liar and a two bit indoctrinated fool
@matthew00123 yep, that is right because you are al libertarian you are right so right in fact you can make up your own meaning to words, concepts and ideas, claim them as your own and refuse to accept anything else regarding it as not relevant or even worse a sin against the ideology. Fucking libertarians the religion political ideology
@matthew00123 I firmly state that directing someone to a video written to support your predisposed opinion in no way makes the shit that comes out of your mouth a fact and if you say that if you really don't believe in a diversity of "beliefs" or ideologies as to "how the world works" You are kidding yourself. And to label ideologies as nothing more than two opposing forces of collective & individual action is the height of false rhetoric. tbc
@matthew00123 Thats OK I am sorry you feel that way. But alas the failure of you to present a coherent argument as to why you are right is the reason I reject your ideas. It is a shame that you feel the need to label everything an example as to why your "innate metaphysical belief system" works rather than evaluating the evidence and forming a balanced view. Today people value substance over belief
@matthew00123 I state this firmly if you Matt As you have now admitted Representative democracies exist. I would like you to Name one for me. If you do not name a country I will conclude that your Answer is purely a diversionary action. I will give you a hint, go to the United nations or the World bank Lists of modern democracies (which are called Representative democracies) and name one. You have about over 100 to choose from. I will also name a Representative democracy. My Own Australia
I think you and the videos original creator have a differing idea of what "Life" is. I disagree with several of your premises but its difficult to respond to any given point because you nitpick almost every word. Generally in a debate we construct several key points with supporting facts. Much like an essay in school, if you extend far beyond 5 key points it ceases to be a coherent argument and becomes a laundry list.
@matthew00123 So matt after one months of debate you now finally accept that today Representative Democracies exist. Could you name me a few countries. I mean I know heaps, why don't you tell me one . Come on matt "cat go your" ass
@matthew00123 I have not lied on one single video or on any comments placed on this site I simply disagree with your claims. If you cannot accept that you are well that is your right but hey it took one month for you to accept and admit that Representative Democracies exist. So is the United Kingdom a Representative democracy? What about Germany? A simple yes or no
@matthew00123 att as you now finally have admited that Representive democracies exist could you please give me an answe is Canada a representive Democracy? A simple yes or no
@matthew00123 actually what you are saying is you must be right by default if I leave. Well if that must have been the case what more could I say. How brilliant you are in your assessment that the only way people are right is if they stay but if they lose they are wrong. This is you tube you fucking imbecile it is not a civil law action. The rules of legal maxims (not that they really ever apply as you state them) does not extend outside of the courtroom. he who leaves does not lose LMFAO idiot
@matthew00123 Matt let me state this. The criminal code of Canada does not determine the type, function or form of government or support your claim. All it does is protect the rights of the individual in relationship to the law. This in no way validate your clam. Nor does it mean you ae right. Nor does your claim of "got you" prove that you are right nor does it prove that what you are saying IS A FACT. IT SIMPLY PROVES YOU WILL DO ANYTHING TO SUPPORT YOUR POV WHICH IN NOT A FACT BUT OPINION
@matthew00123 Matt let me state this. The criminal code of Canada does not determine the type, function or form of government or support your claim. All it does is protect the rights of the individual in relationship to the law. This in no way validate your clam. Nor does it mean you ae right. Nor does your claim of "got you" prove that you are right nor does it prove that what you are saying IS A FACT. IT SIMPLY PROVES YOU WILL DO ANYTHING TO SUPPORT YOUR POV WHICH IN NOT A FACT BUT OPINION.
Liberal democracy is a form of government. It is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities (see civil liberties).
from Canadas Senate :Canada is a constitutional monarchy. Since 1534, when the King of France claimed possession of what is now Canada, the history of our country has been marked by the reigns of an uninterrupted succession of monarchs, both French and British, who have had a significant influence on our country's development.
From Canada's Senate: The most important characteristic of Canada's constitutional monarchy has been its ability to adapt to changing conditions over the course of our evolution from colony to nation. In the Senate Foyer and the Salon de la Francophonie hang the portraits of the kings and queens in whose names our laws have been, and continue to be, enacted.
@matthew00123 Canada’s Parliament consists of three parts: the Queen (our Head of State), represented by the Governor General; the appointed Senate; and the elected House of Commons.The Governor General calls Parliament together after every general election, reads the Speech from the Throne outlining the government’s objectives, and approves all bills passed by the Senate and the House of Commons.
@matthew00123 from the Canada’s Parliament, as conceived by the Fathers of Confederation in 1867, Canada continues to be a vibrant example of democracy in action. In Parliament, our representatives examine the top issues of the day, decide on policies and laws, and hold the government accountable for its actions.
@matthew00123 List of the 33 Developed Democracies. From freedom House World bank with Populations Greater than One Million Australia Austria Belgium Canada Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea (South) Latvia Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Trinidad and Tobago Taiwan United Kingdom United States
got two minutes into this before I realized he was just confusing the issue by playing with semantics.... maybe an unemployed Philosophy Student? .... I want those two minutes of my life back.
franklcarleii 4 weeks ago
Pedantic, childish nitpicking of word choice. Instead of dealing with the concepts and the obvious implied meaning of the terms, he chooses to be the dictionary policeman.
It's amazing how even despite how basic these concepts are, some refuse to understand.
NativeNewMexican 2 months ago
This video response was clearly posted by a naive first-year law student (or lawyer wannabe) who yet hasn't read, pondered or understood John Locke and the conditions that pre-exist (and therefore trump) legal constructs. Oh well.
arationalguy 4 months ago
"...it isn't voluntary then, is it?" that's the point. again, you're playing games semantics. a person may decide that they want to drive their car in michigan without a seat belt on. but they cannot make that decision without the fear of being punished. what is meant by "desicion" in this case is the decision with the ability to act on that decision (granted it does not conflict with another person's legitimate decision) without the threat of force against them.
prattleon 5 months ago
property is not merely a legal construct. humans have an innate respect for property in varying cultural and circumstantial manners, irrespective of law. devoid of law when a person takes a clearly un-owned tree and builds a chair from it, it is clear to most rational people that he is the owner of the chair, and any attempt to take it from him (without permission) or damage it, is unjust.
prattleon 5 months ago
to the extent that a person is free and alive, they are able to create things. that is what is meant by product of life and liberty. they are talking about physical property. to have something stolen from you or vandalized is to one degree or another, an assault on a product of your life and liberty. you grossly misunderstood this idea.
prattleon 5 months ago
you don't want to nit-pick but your going to argue that the claim of losing your liberty is losing your present is not true because a prisoner still has some semblance of freedom? it seems you are so desperately seeking an argument, that you're willing to ignore the fact that this is an 8 minute summary. if you deny someone their liberty you deny them their complete present. there are obviously varying degrees, and most rational people can understand this from the claim in the video.
prattleon 5 months ago
I tend to agree that we don't "own" ourselves as one owns tangible things. but that is merely a semantic argument. We however do have personal responsibility and control over ourselves that no one can have a higher claim on. That is what is meant by "own" in this case. Should you not have the ultimate say in what you do?
prattleon 5 months ago
This was pretty crappy.
gguuffrr 5 months ago
haha defcomexperiement, I had the same experience. Philosophy is not the poster's strength, that is for sure, lol.
04Tamster 6 months ago
Anarchism, FTW.
I gave you a thumbs up because criticism is healthy, I think it is very possible he could have worded the video better, but perhaps not as concisely.
That said, I didn't think any of your points were very strong (in that they don't strike the root of any of the ideas) other than that this video necessitates anarchism for its adherents. I think that is true, and there are a lot of other historic, economic and philosophical reasons to support mutualist anarcho-capitalism.
=)
FreiheitKampfer 7 months ago
Oh yeah, and this is not a debate. You are speaking at us in response to a video, not debating. Unless the original maker of the video replies to you, which, sadly, it appears he has not.
DynamicUnreality 7 months ago
Just plain lulz. "I just finished philosophy 101 at community college!" is all I hear. You seem to agree with the actual points of the video, but are hypercritcizing abstract ideas. Also, you seemed to be confused about the difference between liberty, which is the subject of this video, and democracy, which is majority rule. AND, you can only be taught things that have been learnt before, you can only innovate through trial and error, hence, failure is good. AND all the other shit. Lulz.
DynamicUnreality 7 months ago
Comment removed
DynamicUnreality 7 months ago
Comment removed
DynamicUnreality 7 months ago
Comment removed
DynamicUnreality 7 months ago
Comment removed
DynamicUnreality 7 months ago
Comment removed
DynamicUnreality 7 months ago
don't undhestaind why 231 people dislike this?
juhadvdsg 8 months ago
@juhadvdsg Because the guy is nitpicking a wonderful video, with pointless overly esoteric observations? Nah, just because they are douchebags.
DynamicUnreality 7 months ago
Ron Paul 2012-Debate Day Bomb May 5 2011
RunLiberty 9 months ago
@Killswitch125 It was certainly not politely stated and i haven't seen adequately refuting arguments by others yet.Since philolibx points out much deeper philosophical issues,facing impermanence and being in itself as well as questioning ownership in general.But if it's not worth your time to bring counterarguments,then my comment was an unnecessary question to an unnecessary opinion...sorry for that and i wish you a good life.
agnostoatomo 9 months ago
You make no sense. My life is my own, no one elses. If I choose to take my own life I am not infringing upon any one else's liberty, life or property. If I choose to take someone else's life, then I AM infringing upon their life, liberty and property and we in civilized society call it murder.
pglogue 9 months ago
@Killswitch125 this is no countercritique but one judgemental term put after another and by doing so,just a dooming opinion of yours.Would you please try to make counterarguments,instead of using degrading&violent blablabla.
agnostoatomo 10 months ago
VERY GOOD !
since we are born into this life(which wasn`t our free will)& everything that defines us is made out of factors that are going beyond ourselves,we don't own anything(e.g.Name&Body).If nobody OWNS anything,how can someone else make a claim over me without being violent?Ownership always was&still is a justification for violence!
to understand nonownership shifts the view from Rights to needs,their fulfillment&sharing with others in a nonviolent manner as lifetime guests on this earth.
agnostoatomo 10 months ago
There are no citizens, according to the supreme courts.
thered702 10 months ago
Mindless quibbling. You can own your own life, why? Do you own your eyes? Yes. Do you own your skin? Yes. Do you own your heart? Yes. Take the limit.
Individualism101 11 months ago
IGNORANT
bigchiefv 1 year ago
Killswitch125 snatched away my comment. Please help vote his comment further up; it is the correct answer to this video.
ForceDestroyer 1 year ago
u have absolutely no sense of what is freedom and what is an inalienable right. If u have no natural rights, what rights do u have? lol And u do not even understand where rights come from and how its different from privilege. Thus ur entire opinion remains null & void
swu880 1 year ago
i wish philolibx was smarter
snarfels 1 year ago
@snarfels A person cannot be stupid and smart at the same time, so it aint going to happen.
rapidfireXring 1 year ago
At 4:20 you state: "The implication here is that dissenters in a democratic election ought to have veto power" NO... The implication is that government should not have the ability to make laws that infringe on the rights of minorities. The government should take money from those that earn and save and redistribute through the political process. Just one of your many logical fallacies.
HSL 1 year ago
I was a bit worried when I saw all the False, False, False, at the beginning, but watched to the end anyway.
Seems like you basically agree with the original video apart from the 'owning of self' point - not exactly what I would call "arguing against the core premises"
As for you not owning yourself, that's ok with me but telling my I don't own myself.... fuck off
zppz 1 year ago
"I can't see! I can't see!"
"What's the matter?"
"I have my eyes closed."
ladiner9 1 year ago
I hardly agreed with any of your rebuttals. Are you an adult?
4thstuning 1 year ago
This here is why I have, over the past several years learned to hate to debate politics, philosophy and theology. It is 98% semantics, and it is few and far between where I get into a debate that is not rooted in semantics.
Most of your points are true as are the video's points are true. From a dictionary perspective, you destroyed it. From a common sense perspective, the video can be nitpicked with definitions but the message is the same and is still logically sound.
ThePearberr 1 year ago
Sorry, but your rights are inalienable and thus inherent. You're born with them, government does not grant them. Also, tort has to do with punishment for damages on someone's life, liberty, or property. Lastly, saying life/self is intangible is false, I think therefore I am.
viru52000 1 year ago
i was so happy when i seen your first point, because it meant that i did not have to go any further with the video.
defcomexperiment 1 year ago 11
I like, and encourage the fact that you're attempting to think critically about a topic. I think this video may have gotten you a tiny bit confused over semantics. The philosophy that you own your life simply means you are the direct controller of it. Just like owning any object gives you direct control, which you are allowed to sign or barter away. You mention also that in a properly democratic society... I wanted to remind you, America is a Republic, not a democracy. Ask Ben Franklin!
savaship 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@savaship you wrote:"The philosophy that you own your life simply means you are the direct controller of it."
Not even that is true,ask every cancer or brainstroke patient,or Tsunami and earthquakevictim if you can't accept that!we may live in an illusion of control,yes!
we are guests on this earth,with a certain ability to modify things,but we are never in control!
agnostoatomo 10 months ago
The basic philosophy is exact and sound. The very reason behind life liberty and property is inherently natural and evident. I think philolibx purports his or herself as a counter philosopher but fails dramatically.
standsresolute 1 year ago
If life is tangible and cannot be owned, why do/did slaves exist?
curtissboggs 1 year ago
@curtissboggs because of violence and to claim ownership is a mental form of violence!
agnostoatomo 10 months ago
I believe your reasoning is flawed. The arguments you make are pretty insubstantial and when thought through more, it is quite infantile. If you refuse to believe in these really basic concepts of life and liberty, then you must be quite content to be a servant of another person.
tasuki78 1 year ago
people want justice and life on earth. BALANCING OF THE SCALES OF INJUSTICE (qUEEN VICTORIA'S NEPTUNE). Walter John Lin
walterjlin 1 year ago
people want justice and life on earth. BALANCING OF THE SCALES OF INJUSTICE.
walterjlin 1 year ago
You (philolibx) truly are unable to see the point of Schoolands presentation aren't you? Is it because you are of the type of personality who must always take an opposing side; must always play the role of "Devil's Advocate"?
The fact is that with anything you can always find at least 1 opposing argument and so most of your arguments fail to deliver as the ratio of of dislikes to likes on your video clearly shows; 4 to 1.
I say this with sincerity when I say you should speak to someone.
NeverForget1776 1 year ago
Life is the only thing in the universe that can be created or destroyed, thus it is the only thing that has inate value. Further, your life can affect others and other objects, can do work and exists in the universe. Thus it is tagable and real, and thus can be owned just as the copyright on a book can be owned as previously mentioned.
The rest of your argument falls apart from that point and becomes laughably stupid when you say that we live in the present and not the past or the future. Idiot
JohnGalt1717 1 year ago
@JohnGalt1717 therefore accordingly it (your body) can be sold, if you do it of your own free will. Funny slaves owners would agree, it was one of the most common ways of getting slaves without having to go to all the trouble of just taking people and selling them. The Romans, The Greeks etc all had laws giving a person the right to sell themselves into servitude. And Most countries up until about the American Civil war had no laws against it. So are you advocating a persons right to do so
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732
Yes, because you own your body, you have the right to sell it and indeed use it however you wish. That's entirely up to you. It is however, not up to someone else. Thus you cannot be forced, coerced or defrauded.
And btw, this in't slavery, this is called "a job". We sell our bodies every day. The carpenter sells the product of his mind and body to build a house. He is agreeing by contract to work until it is done. The key is that it is voluntary.
JohnGalt1717 1 year ago
YOU ONLY EXIST IN THE PRESENT??!!?
You must have superpowers or something, my misguided friend.
ConradMcGrigglepuff 1 year ago
this...critique was very disturbing. If I do not own my own life...who does? Very disturbing.
flik221 1 year ago
1. You misused the left-libertarian/right libertarian distinction. Left-libertarians do not begin from a different ethical position than right-libertarians, and if anything, they take the standard libertarian morality to conclusions undreamed of by right-libertarians.
2. Defining government's rights as different from those of the governed leads to all imaginable tyrannies.
3. Indirectly empowering evil does not make one evil, it just means one doesn't know better.
vaguelyhumanoid 1 year ago
0:08 This proposition is not incoherent. Consider the set A, defined such that one of the members of A is the set A. A both is A, and A belongs to the set A.
0:19 Life is not intangible. The physical and chemical processes are measurable, observable, and effect physical and chemical change which is also measurable and observable.
0:25 The claim is false because it need not imply that life is claimed by any. The idea of owning your own life is coherent. That doesn't mean it must be accepted.
rkyeun 1 year ago
0:39 You should have rejected this claim. It is based on the prior claim that an individual must own their own life, and that such ownership must be exclusive. Both of those assertions are coherent, but not necessarily true.
0:45 This assertion follows the same form as the previous and can be rejected on the same grounds.
1:04 This comment is a result of your existing in the past. Your reading it will be the result of your existing in the future.
rkyeun 1 year ago
1:13 The definitions being presented here are not dependent on the time claim, rather they are evidencing it. You have property because your efforts in the past have generated it.
1:17 Being condescending when you cannot find a flaw to strike at is not a valid way to dismiss a claim.
1:24 The use of the word "lose" here is in the context of ownership, not misplacement. Otherwise you would be correct.
rkyeun 1 year ago
1:29 Life produces physical and chemical transformation of many kinds. Sometimes this is new life. Other times it is a beaver dam. Liberty is a state. A state combined with a motive force produces a result. These results are part of your new state. To be deprived of them is to return to a previous state and be set behind the time used in achieving them.
1:39 Your assumption is not his intent. There are more things to achieve than simple labor, and more things to own than mere goods.
rkyeun 1 year ago
1:49 The legal construct is built to recognize ownership of property, not to create the concept of it. It does this imperfectly due to the need for uniformity in enforcement.
1:58 Under a state of liberty, which was a stated prerequisite, it does. The legal construct which claims otherwise is an imperfect attempt at enforcement.
2:10 You fall under your own knife here. The legal construct may make many kinds of mutually consenting voluntary exchanges illegal, such as drugs and prostitution.
rkyeun 1 year ago
2:24 Tort law is the correction of a previous exchange which was not mutually consenting. The legal construct imperfectly enforces liberty by assigning blame to the malicious or reckless and using it to restore the lost liberty to the victim so they are in the position they were in before. It is arguable whether such compensation is involuntary-- nobody makes you commit these crimes, and you consent to the punishment when you choose to live in a nation with that rule of law.
rkyeun 1 year ago
2:57 Tort law is the undoing of a previous theft of property through fraud or force.
4:11 In a democratic election, the populace to be governed are all bound by their prior consent to be lead by the majority choice.
4:14 This is a correct conclusion of the author's statement. Additionally, one should not annex foreign peoples by fiat.
I have no major disagreements with the rest of your critique.
rkyeun 1 year ago
This video ought to be renamed "Nit-Picking Ken Schooland's 'Philosophy of Liberty'". Most of your comments are inane and worthless. Major fail bud.
howser12 1 year ago
You seem to have a problem with the "ownership" of one's own life. Perhaps "control" would be more accurate. Don't get lost on semantics.
There are ways to deal with torts without taking property. There is the anarcho-capitalist concept of Dispute Resolution Organizations (DRO), which is a quasi-insurance company.
Yes, I am an anarchist. If you wish to form a collectivist society, do not force your beliefs on me, (or others), and I will not force mine on you. I am not an anarcho-fascist.
mikemat3307 1 year ago
Ahhh, a lawyer, that took econ and philosophy.. I enjoy the debate and it begs a few questions. However, I think the original as a framework for further discussion is quite good.. It could be hammered out much in the way the Founders did, would arrive at many of the same solutions..
A most enjoyable exercise...
1962beachboy 1 year ago
In a free society, a person or group of persons may mutually consent to create a community under which they are governed by whatever socio-economic principals they want. This freedom is not awarded a people seeking to live under "a particular socio-economic" construct as you implied. I disagree with most of what you said but I am very aware that liberty is God-given, and so inherent to our being. With that said, I disagree that a free people can't choose to live under whatever system they want.
Sfan985 1 year ago
You are attempting to nullify any conceptual abstractions and rely solely on absolute concretes. This is irrational and impractical. Conceptual abstractions such as "self" "life" "past effort" are logically valid within the context of human experience.
I can own my life, and another can, immorally, "lay claim" to my life. If I do not have a right to my past efforts, I have no rights at all.
"Nurturant Parent"? Is "Free Adult" a conceptual abstraction you wish to nullify as well?
Pure fail.
1RationalMind 1 year ago 2
In short, your entire position can be summed up as: "I disagree with your definition of that term." The entire first three minutes of the video establishes a set of axioms, and your response is essentially, "No".
Everything after that is a logical extension of the axioms provided, to which your response is generally some sort attempt to attach today's definitions, positions and societal constructs to an inductive argument that is attempting to create new definitions, positions, and constructs.
HeyItzMeDawg 1 year ago
This attack of a simplified demonstration of a position over the ambiguity/definitions of the terminology used is ridiculous. For example, you assert that ownership of intangibles is impossible a priori (which is correct given a particular definition of 'ownership'), while the opposing position clearly holds that ownership of intangibles is possible a priori.
Proclaiming an axiom/premise 'false' simply because you hold an opposing axiom is not a 'debate' nor does it create a coherent argument.
HeyItzMeDawg 1 year ago
@Killswitch125 I second this notion. The debate of this comes from two different mind sets, one (Ken's) being free of/from government I take it, and the uploaders trying to contradict his idea's with the idea's derivied from modern and ancient political systems. I'm still building my own philosophy of life and I like the simplicity of this video, but the debate was clearly useless.
skaterkp420 1 year ago
I think the conflict with the statement at 4:12 is our modern idea of governence. if 49% of the people choose to not be ruled by said ruler then by his own theory they are not obligated to be ruled by that individual. where as the other 51% consent to. but if they are allowed to not be ruled by that person then two different societies form and a nation is not unified.
Humans operate best in a democratic tribal system In my opinion with leaders not dictators. save that for Insects.
WarrivarNeo 1 year ago
@philolibx You debate like Dwight Schrute.
DMFK1981 1 year ago
This is certainly the philosophy of a confused mind!
72tubecat 1 year ago
Most of your criticisms are semantics and definition based. But many of your criticisms are logical fallacy. the idea that empowerment of evil is evil. You haven't even considered the the empowerment is unknowing and therefore simply naivety. Hitler was voted in, are you suggesting all those people who thought Hitler represented change were evil people? No, they were just tricked.
alistairproductions 1 year ago
@alistairproductions When you create your own definitions as to what a logical fallacy is based on your ideology. You really are admitting what a clusterfuck of a belief system libertarianism is. Thank Goodness unlike what Rothbard would have wanted. I have not been "Converted". I am not a doctrine driven moron. I still have the ability to think for myself. A function libertarians cannot do
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 But what libertarians want to do IS think for themselves. It's about freethinking, individuality. Obendience to the STATE or CHURCH is doctrine. And I didn't create my own definition of a logical allacy based on my beliefs. There's a certain assumption when this annotator suggested that empowering evil is evil.He hadn't considered that when most people vote for a candidate they believe they are doing a good thing. There is a clear assumption which is why it's a fallacy.Not my opinion
alistairproductions 1 year ago
@alistairproductions Crap, you only want everyone to think for themselves as long as they agree with your idea as to what "thinking for yourself means". You certainly do define your own logical fallacies but that aside and in your comments to me you even state as much. "certain assumption when this annotator suggested that empowering evil is evil". Your making that assumption NO ONE ELSE. The creator of this video has not made any mistake in rhetoric or otherwise. Assumption is improvable
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 Well of course I want people to agree with me, that's only natural. I just wouldn't force anyone to. And how am I making that assumption that empowering evil is evil? On the contrary... What I've said is that the annotator has made this assumption. I've said precisely the opposite!!! What I clearly stated with TWICE was that sometimes people give power to evil unknowingly, live when Hitler was elected. At the time he was voted in because he wanted "Change"
alistairproductions 1 year ago
@alistairproductions really so unlike Rothbard when enough people have been "converted" (his words) You would not introduce laws to "protect" your libertarian freedumbs. LMFAO. He has made no less than your ideology has produced and at least he provides tangible evidence to support his claim. Unlike you. You rather say this is so, then find the "so called evidence to suit"
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 but seirously though what are you even on about, I feel like I've landed myself into an irritating discussion with a 7th grader who probably inserts random Chomsky quotes into his essays where they have to relevance. You probably walk around with a Che Guevara shirt and go dumpster diving with your skater buddies instead of eating your mom's home cooked meals. If you want to formulate some sort of real argument about something go ahead but don't waste my time
alistairproductions 1 year ago
@alistairproductions Assumption the mother of all fuck ups. And one of the main reasons libertarians can only ever gather fringe supporters. Their ideas are plainly whacked. Personally I admire Chomsky but I would not call him a fan, too individualistic for my taste. Olaf Palme and some of the better know French Socialists come to mind. And my diet or choice of shirts is really irrelevant to the conversation. Like all other libertarians you cannot accept that your ideas are held in contempt
franks2732 1 year ago
This is less a "debate" than a series of peanut-gallery one-liners belying a greater interest in nitpicking semantic argument than truth. Don't fault Schoolland's appeal to unjustified first-principles when you do the same. Why _can't_ a person own himself? "Logic is a feeble reed, friend. 'Logic' proved that airplanes can't fly and that H-bombs won't work and that stones don't fall out of the sky. Logic is a way of saying that anything which didn't happen yesterday won't happen tomorrow."
bellington007 1 year ago
@bellington007 Dam straight.
franks2732 1 year ago
@bellington007 And further to my last statement. That is the problem with the political process. The real arguments are getting lost, stupidity is being wrapped in a flag with a bible following. If you cannot measure the worth of an argument then the argument has no grounds. And that is Libertarianism, the argument of rhetoric, stupidity and blind faith. Thank goodness the idea is so disgusting as to be shelved as nothing more than the ravings of the "loony right". It's plan gibberish
franks2732 1 year ago
@TheWolverine314 Your Constitution went so far as to assert it rather than mention property. It said the pursuit of happiness. This was actually deliberately done. Because those involved in writing the thing could not assert individualistic blind faith. As Ben Franklin said property comes from the state and if need be the state can take it as needed. But still it makes no difference they lived in their day, they were not gods and their statements were not commandments. LMFAO
franks2732 1 year ago
@TheWolverine314 NO. Complete and utter garbage and if you understand "social contract theory" at all you will note Locke like others opposed "blind faith" assertions of property rights. Secondly Your point is moot and of course "political parties" existed long before even your nation existed. Locke also rightly asserted "law must exist for the common good" Not as individualistic as you wish to claim. tbc
franks2732 1 year ago
Frank, Google" libertyguys" and see how quiet I was about the oil spill.
lifesabeachnj 1 year ago
@lifesabeachnj why Google a bunch of fuckwits with a chip on their shoulder about a perceived whatever.
franks2732 1 year ago
Screw Youtube
lifesabeachnj 1 year ago
@ frank - regarding the oil spill in the Gulf (stopped, BTW, by the evil private corporation that caused it (no, seriously, they are state-connected and therefore evil, ask the Iranians). But we libertarians (at least some of us) were calling out BP AND the government for the oil spill, which was a direct result of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which limited their legal liability to $85 MILLION;
lifesabeachnj 1 year ago
@lifesabeachnj Load of Bollocks, complete toss. And anyone would think your the only political group holding people to account. Grow up. You lot did not invent "holding the system to account" and when I am out protesting I don't look over my shoulder and go Oh theres a libertarian. The only thing libertarians have ever protested is the fact everyone else thinks your a bunch of crackpots with a similar world view to the Church of Scientology
franks2732 1 year ago
Test
lifesabeachnj 1 year ago
@franks2732 - property preceded the state. Just ask any Native American.
lifesabeachnj 1 year ago
@lifesabeachnj No ask any indigenous person and you cannot own the land. And I am sorry to tell you Native Americans had clearly defined states and borders.
franks2732 1 year ago
@TheWolverine314 If you think John Locke is a reflection of the modern political ideology of libertarianism you are really deluding yourself. Firstly Libertarianism did not exist in the 16,17 or 1800's it is an invention of the 1950's your political party did not exist until the 1970's. To claim ownership of the dead as apparent supporters (founders) of your ideas is disgusting. it would be like me calling Adam Smith a socialist because he favored taxation to help prevent poverty. LMFAO
franks2732 1 year ago
So, what is your philosophy? Is it that we all own each other, and a large number of people can do with you as they will?
ArmednSafe 1 year ago
@ArmednSafe he does not state what his philosophy is. Or what his beliefs are and he does not have to. He is providing a critique of your ideology.
franks2732 1 year ago
At first I thought this guy was a socialist, but then I realized he was a full on communist, the minute he said property was a "legal construct"
fluff125 1 year ago
Points you fail to make clear:
Why can't a being own itself?
If you don't own yourself, then why can't someone or something make a claim over you?
Things you get completely wrong:
You can in fact own intangible things. Think "copy-write".
In order to move something, you need to apply force over a period of time (Newtonian Physics). We can move things, therefore we exist in the past and the future.
ArmednSafe 1 year ago 27
@ArmednSafe Firstly "intangible" does not mean outside of reality. And your claims are "outside of reality. An Atom is an Atom but applying "physics" to explain a metaphysical innate concept i.e. Your "natural law" philosophy does not hold weight in any field of study. "You need to apply force to move something" "Wow" take a bow, that sentence must have taken a while to construct. The statement does not validate your claim.
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 I never said that intangible means outside of reality. What does that have anything to do with anything? Owning a patent or a copy write is owning an intangible thing. You can't touch, see or taste it.
I merely used the force example to show that we exist in past, present and future because you said in the video that you only exist in the present.
ArmednSafe 1 year ago
@ArmednSafe well actually it really does not prove your point. You don't exist in the past or the future that is a scientific fact. It is stupid and makes you look like an idiot. To try and link science with philosophy and garnish credibility is just plain dumb. What is really funny is you guys just don't get it.
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 Can you explain why you believe we don't exist in the past? This concept doesn't make any sense to me.
ArmednSafe 1 year ago
@franks2732 By the way, calling someone who is making logical arguments an idiot without making any logical arguments yourself, makes you look like an idiot.
ArmednSafe 1 year ago
@ArmednSafe What you do is decide what logic is then if anyone disagrees with your opinions you claim their arguments are logically flawed. You don't even have the decency to argue in the real world but speculate on a make believe one. What trash
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 You still haven't even attempted to answer any of my questions. You've only insulted me. I'll restate them again.
1) Why don't you think we exist in the past?
2) Why can't a sentient being own itself?
3) If we don't own ourselves, why can't someone else make a claim over us?
ArmednSafe 1 year ago
@ArmednSafe I have not.You do not exist in the past or future it is scientifically impossible for you to do so. You can only live in the present. Do you possess a time machine? Are you capable of going back and altering a decision. You only ever exist in "the point of time" you existed in the past and may well in the future but you do not it is impossible.
As to point 2 watch the video, I share exactly his view word for word
Point 2 and point 3 are supposition "if" is not fact but speculation
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 Just because you can't control the flow of time doesn't mean you didn't exist in the past. If you're locked in a cell, you can't go out. But just because you can't go out, doesn't mean that outside the jail cell doesn't exist.
For point 2, you just say "False. Life, like the self, is intangible and cannot be owned." But you can in fact own intangible things. And if a life can't be owned because it's intangible, then a body can be owned to the same effect.
ArmednSafe 1 year ago
@ArmednSafe Bullshit, completely untrue, claptrap. Unscientific dribble based entirely on your preconceived POV that is dictated by your undying acceptance of your version of natural law. Fucking downright religious if you ask me. Secondly intangible is not innate, you are swapping meaning to suit your ideology, weak and very stupid
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 There you go again, not making arguments and just insulting me. Way to go...
ArmednSafe 1 year ago
@ArmednSafe No not at all, you simply don't like the fact that others hold your "Religion of Rand" to account.
franks2732 1 year ago
Comment removed
ArmednSafe 1 year ago
@franks2732 Don't you think it's funny how you have molded your believes through "thinking for yourself" to fit what benefits the government's power? It's funny that you claim your thinking for yourself and libertarians are not. However, your views are very mainstream "liberal".
Don't you realize how dangerous government power is? Governments killing their own people was the leading cause of unnatural death in the 20th century.
ArmednSafe 1 year ago
@ArmednSafe No not at all and I firmly believe in my views. My views are not Liberal, I am a Socialist and reject Liberalism. I do realize how dangerous government is but I find your alternate view Worse. in the 20th century we as humanity have the ability to feed, cloth and educate the entire worlds population, we simply do not have the will. That is due to greed. Libertarianism, is the ultimate greed driven ideology. Your position is so far removed from reality it is rejected
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 Do you know what a central bank is? Do you know what the IMF does? I don't think you would say that the world is hungry and unclothed because of greed if you did.
ArmednSafe 1 year ago
@ArmednSafe I am a Socialist you idiot. Have you not seen those big posters where we Argue that "The World bank and the IMF are used by the west to maintain control. That it is those organizations that contribute to the disparity. Along with the free market and Western imperialism. Greed to us just does not mean Private Capital. And force (as you would interpret it) does not stop at the businessman's door. I don't see business as being bad but as part of the bad. Greed in any form is wrong
franks2732 1 year ago
your a retard
WAffenTDR 1 year ago
In a truely free society people could set up socialism comunities. California could go all socialist and navada could not. They would be competing with each other and anyone could move away from either place to a state that they preferr the conditions in. Would a non socialist community be allowed in a socialist society? However if a socialist society was forced on everyone in the u.s. they might not be able to get citizenship in another nation and would be forced to live as others see fit.
michaelgibson420 1 year ago
What is the basis of a free society then?
You do know that it's a idea about society, not someone being a parent, right? Should society force the child to behave or is that a parents job? Dumb argument.
Maybe it isn't the only solution, no one claimed that. well, I guess he kind of did. I'll give you that 1.Tolorance means not stopping it. If you see someone being mugged and don't help cause u r scared it doesn't make u evil. You empower them by not stopping them. it doesn't mean u encourage.
michaelgibson420 1 year ago
yes slavery is immoral. According to you it is impossible also, since no one can own anothers life. Failure is an incentive not because it build caracter, that is nonsense. Failure could just as easily crush you. It's an incentive because you don't want to fail and therefore try not to. Again you don't understand or choose to change the meaning to suit your argument. you could learn just by sitting and a chair and watching what happens but you need incentive to actively go out and seek knowledge
michaelgibson420 1 year ago
@michaelgibson420 This the counterpoint in your argument and if you examine the answers given in libertarian chat rooms nearly all consent it should be legal for someone to be able to sell themselves into servitude if they wish. They only claim it will not happen, like matt they also claim that because I concede my will by majority consent to the mass of the population I am conceding to any laws if introduced such as allowing rape etc . It is simply false. A typical libertarian debating tactic
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 We sell ourselves into servitude every day. It's called our jobs. Alot of contract work is basically agreeing to work for someone for x amout of time(in servitude to them) in exchange for something. Selling your labor is essisially selling yourself. As long as you agree to it and to what you get in return I don't see what the problem would be.
michaelgibson420 1 year ago
@michaelgibson420 I find it an absurd statement of yours. You are not only actively supporting servitude you are all out in favor of it. People who work really have no choice in working, without a job they would not be able to survive. They have no real choice but to work. Leaving them open to exploitation. They may dependent of circumstance and education choose a different job, or choose to work for themselves. But except for those who have wealth all have to work. tbc
franks2732 1 year ago
@michaelgibson420 "As long as you agree to it and to what you get in return I don't see what the problem would be".So how much is your pound of flesh worth? So much for freedom (well the libertarian understanding of it anyway), That you would sing the praises of control and force. The admission by you exposes the Big Lie of Libertarianism, for all it's rhetoric it simply advocates a change in who/how does the forcing and control. Freedumb by the Libertarian for the libertarian
franks2732 1 year ago
dissenters views are to be protected and considered. That's why the get a vote and powers are divided. if a sole leader was elected with no laws protecting ppl or term limits that would be an issue.
True in a true democracy we could vote to give some people more rights that others. That's why we don't have a true democracy in the u.s. Then the majority could vote to oppress a minority. Instead we elect leaders who are bound by laws(a constitution)
michaelgibson420 1 year ago
that's why it says force OR fraud. yes force isn't necessary. neither is fraud. that what OR means.
In a democracy we all agree that majority rule. It means that we can't elect ppl to rule over others who have no say in the process. You either are changing or don't understand the meaning. and ppl are free to emigrate. i agree completely. if it's that unbearable, leave.
michaelgibson420 1 year ago
It takes you time and energy and talents and labor in order for you to gain property. I don't even see how you could argue with that.
If I take a tree that's not owned and cut it down and build a boat, that's my boat. Whether it's a legal construct or not, It's my boat. I built it.
your right about them being capable but that's what's meant. Being forced to make compendation because of tort law is because someone took or made someone lose something involuntarily, that what compensate means
michaelgibson420 1 year ago
My labor is time that I take. As before, if I work 1hr thats 1hr of my life that I gave to gain something. I am free to do that with my life, my liberty. IBecause I have my liberty I can take time from my life to labor in order to gain property. That's why life(time that I labored)+liberty(my freedom to do as I wish, such as labor)=property
michaelgibson420 1 year ago
Yes if you lose your liberty you still exist. That's not what they mean when they say losing your present. Your changing the meaning again. or maybe you just don't understand the meaning.
Your labor in the past produces your property. past time+past labor=present property. If that is taken from you then they have taken your past time. If I labor 1hr and take my income and buy something and you steal it then you have taken the poduct of my past. That was 1hr of my life. You took it.
michaelgibson420 1 year ago
being and owning is not the same as being and possesing. Invalid argument.
If it was truely inpossible to own a person than slavery would have never happened.
You deny it's possible so do you deny that slavery happened?
You existed in the past, you exsit in the present, and you will exist in the future. That's what it means. Changing the meaning to suit your argument is lazy. of course you don't exist it the future at this moment. but you will exist tom unless you die.
michaelgibson420 1 year ago
lol, same ppl everywhere I go.
If life was intangible the it couldn't be taken through slavery and murder. I have a life, that's not an idea. I am alive. Intangible is things like love, hopes, dreams. He's catigorizing life with things like that. Invalid argument. My self is not intangiable. I'm physically here, you can touch me. You can hit me. That's also not intangiable. I don't think he knows what intangiable means.
I'm going to pick this apart.
michaelgibson420 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@matthew00123 Nope sorry Frank you are very wrong:) ANY NATION THAT HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL IS A REPUBLIC :D What is the constitution Frank? :) Did you know that a human right thats protected by the constitutions ONLY EXIST in a republic form of government? You have NO RIGHTS in a "representative democratic" society :D DICTIONARY FRANK!!!!!!! EDUCATE YOURSELF MAN!
matthew00123 4 weeks ago . Matt your a moron and a liar
franks2732 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@matthew00123 THE COPURTS CAN SAY ANYTHING THEY WANT BUTY THEY MADE THE PLEDGE TO THE REPUBLIC AND WHAT IT STANDS FOR TOO WHEN THEY STAND UNDER THE PLEDGE TO THAT FLAG HAHAH FRANK YOU GET MAD SOOO EZ
matthew00123 3 weeks ago Matt you will not even accept the ruling of the courts, and you have said that you have never claimed Representative democracies don't exist. On That you are a liar also . You have stated that. your simply an indoctrinated idiot
franks2732 1 year ago
@matthew00123 your a moron
franks2732 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@matthew00123 Nope sorry Frank you are very wrong:) ANY NATION THAT HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL IS A REPUBLIC :D What is the constitution Frank? :) Did you know that a human right thats protected by the constitutions ONLY EXIST in a republic form of government? You have NO RIGHTS in a "representative democratic" society :D DICTIONARY FRANK!!!!!!! EDUCATE YOURSELF MAN!
matthew00123 4 weeks ago
Matt you are a moron, a liar and a two bit indoctrinated fool
franks2732 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@matthew00123 every nation thats part of UN is a republic frank dictionary my boy dictionary!!!
matthew00123 4 weeks ago" matt Your lying moronic sack of shit . mathew you are really a fucking joke,
franks2732 1 year ago
@matthew00123 your a moron
franks2732 1 year ago
@matthew00123 yep, that is right because you are al libertarian you are right so right in fact you can make up your own meaning to words, concepts and ideas, claim them as your own and refuse to accept anything else regarding it as not relevant or even worse a sin against the ideology. Fucking libertarians the religion political ideology
franks2732 1 year ago
@matthew00123 Simply as a means of using "slight of hand" to direct the unknowing towards your own idealogical beliefs
franks2732 1 year ago
@matthew00123 I firmly state that directing someone to a video written to support your predisposed opinion in no way makes the shit that comes out of your mouth a fact and if you say that if you really don't believe in a diversity of "beliefs" or ideologies as to "how the world works" You are kidding yourself. And to label ideologies as nothing more than two opposing forces of collective & individual action is the height of false rhetoric. tbc
franks2732 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@matthew00123 Thats OK I am sorry you feel that way. But alas the failure of you to present a coherent argument as to why you are right is the reason I reject your ideas. It is a shame that you feel the need to label everything an example as to why your "innate metaphysical belief system" works rather than evaluating the evidence and forming a balanced view. Today people value substance over belief
franks2732 1 year ago
@matthew00123 I state this firmly if you Matt As you have now admitted Representative democracies exist. I would like you to Name one for me. If you do not name a country I will conclude that your Answer is purely a diversionary action. I will give you a hint, go to the United nations or the World bank Lists of modern democracies (which are called Representative democracies) and name one. You have about over 100 to choose from. I will also name a Representative democracy. My Own Australia
franks2732 1 year ago
I think you and the videos original creator have a differing idea of what "Life" is. I disagree with several of your premises but its difficult to respond to any given point because you nitpick almost every word. Generally in a debate we construct several key points with supporting facts. Much like an essay in school, if you extend far beyond 5 key points it ceases to be a coherent argument and becomes a laundry list.
thesystemsfailed 1 year ago 10
@matthew00123 So matt after one months of debate you now finally accept that today Representative Democracies exist. Could you name me a few countries. I mean I know heaps, why don't you tell me one . Come on matt "cat go your" ass
franks2732 1 year ago
@matthew00123 I have not lied on one single video or on any comments placed on this site I simply disagree with your claims. If you cannot accept that you are well that is your right but hey it took one month for you to accept and admit that Representative Democracies exist. So is the United Kingdom a Representative democracy? What about Germany? A simple yes or no
franks2732 1 year ago
@matthew00123 att as you now finally have admited that Representive democracies exist could you please give me an answe is Canada a representive Democracy? A simple yes or no
franks2732 1 year ago
@matthew00123 you don't actually get how stupid you look right now, I mean you really don't get it. LMFAO
franks2732 1 year ago
@matthew00123 actually what you are saying is you must be right by default if I leave. Well if that must have been the case what more could I say. How brilliant you are in your assessment that the only way people are right is if they stay but if they lose they are wrong. This is you tube you fucking imbecile it is not a civil law action. The rules of legal maxims (not that they really ever apply as you state them) does not extend outside of the courtroom. he who leaves does not lose LMFAO idiot
franks2732 1 year ago
@matthew00123 go away you imbicile
franks2732 1 year ago
@matthew00123 It makes you look like a fuckwit,
franks2732 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@matthew00123 Matt let me state this. The criminal code of Canada does not determine the type, function or form of government or support your claim. All it does is protect the rights of the individual in relationship to the law. This in no way validate your clam. Nor does it mean you ae right. Nor does your claim of "got you" prove that you are right nor does it prove that what you are saying IS A FACT. IT SIMPLY PROVES YOU WILL DO ANYTHING TO SUPPORT YOUR POV WHICH IN NOT A FACT BUT OPINION
franks2732 1 year ago
@matthew00123 Matt let me state this. The criminal code of Canada does not determine the type, function or form of government or support your claim. All it does is protect the rights of the individual in relationship to the law. This in no way validate your clam. Nor does it mean you ae right. Nor does your claim of "got you" prove that you are right nor does it prove that what you are saying IS A FACT. IT SIMPLY PROVES YOU WILL DO ANYTHING TO SUPPORT YOUR POV WHICH IN NOT A FACT BUT OPINION.
franks2732 1 year ago
Liberal democracy is a form of government. It is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities (see civil liberties).
franks2732 1 year ago
from Canadas Senate :Canada is a constitutional monarchy. Since 1534, when the King of France claimed possession of what is now Canada, the history of our country has been marked by the reigns of an uninterrupted succession of monarchs, both French and British, who have had a significant influence on our country's development.
franks2732 1 year ago
From Canada's Senate: The most important characteristic of Canada's constitutional monarchy has been its ability to adapt to changing conditions over the course of our evolution from colony to nation. In the Senate Foyer and the Salon de la Francophonie hang the portraits of the kings and queens in whose names our laws have been, and continue to be, enacted.
franks2732 1 year ago
@matthew00123 Canada’s Parliament consists of three parts: the Queen (our Head of State), represented by the Governor General; the appointed Senate; and the elected House of Commons.The Governor General calls Parliament together after every general election, reads the Speech from the Throne outlining the government’s objectives, and approves all bills passed by the Senate and the House of Commons.
franks2732 1 year ago
@matthew00123 from the Canada’s Parliament, as conceived by the Fathers of Confederation in 1867, Canada continues to be a vibrant example of democracy in action. In Parliament, our representatives examine the top issues of the day, decide on policies and laws, and hold the government accountable for its actions.
franks2732 1 year ago
franks2732 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@matthew00123 matthew00123 it makes no difference it does not support your claim that Canada is a republic. Canada is a Representative democracy
franks2732 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@matthew00123 matthew00123 it makes no difference it does not support your claim that Canada is a republic. Canada is a Representative democracy
franks2732 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@matthew00123 matthew00123 it makes no difference it does not support your claim that Canada is a republic. Canada is a Representative democracy
franks2732 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@matthew00123 matthew00123 it makes no difference it does not support your claim that Canada is a republic. Canada is a Representative democracy
franks2732 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@matthew00123 it makes no difference it does not support your claim that Canada is a republic. Canada is a Representative democracy
franks2732 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@matthew00123 it makes no difference it does not support your claim that Canada is a republic. Canada is a Representative democracy
franks2732 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@matthew00123 it makes no difference it does not support your claim that Canada is a republic. Canada is a Representative democracy
franks2732 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@matthew00123 it makes no difference it does not support your claim that Canada is a republic. Canada is a Representative democracy
franks2732 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@matthew00123 it makes no difference it does not support your claim that Canada is a republic. Canada is a Representative democracy
franks2732 1 year ago
@matthew00123 it makes no difference it does not support your claim that Canada is a republic. Canada is a Representative democracy
franks2732 1 year ago