How does Bill Whittle justify Defence and infrastructure spending? Just like health-care someone is going to pay involuntarily to keep the military up-to-snuff and the infrastructure ticking over. Is it ok to force people to pay for roads they may not have asked for (you never know) public buildings (they again may have never asked for). I'd say the government is going to have to take some of your money at least.
@way2tehdawn Defense spending is part of the constitution. Roads are interstate commerce. Federal building house the people who work for the Federal Gov. The Government has Constitutional power to tax. I don't agree with all the things Gov does. The basics you described are in the Constitution maybe you should read it.
I think that some people have issues with what life was like during the founding and throughout our countries history, what they have to understand is that the constitution has been the driving force for the legal equality that we have today.
There are still many ways that law treats people unfairly because of their race, religion etc. However it is a constant pursuit to try and make the country not stray from the constitution.
You say that natural laws are created by a "force far greater than people". No, the idea of natural laws were created by man just like every other laws.
@maychorian Wow. First, where is the evidence that natural law is evident?. It also seems to me that since John Locke wrote of Natural law it has been prone to tweaking and quite 'inconsistent'. For instance, natural law obviously didn't apply to the blacks living in your country, you guys couldn't grant them 'basic' so called natural laws until the damn 1960s. Natural laws are just like any other 'rights', this means they can be taken away whenever someone has reason to do so.
@maychorian No i'm admitting that natural laws are not self-evident, they don't reveal them self and they weren't here before us. This is because they don't exist, they're a human construct. You haven't provided with evidence that natural laws are self-evident.
@MichaelPolios (1) Because men are imperfect, natural law has not always been perfectly understood or implemented. That doesn't mean it isn't real--it means that people are imperfect, and should therefore not be trusted with complete control over others. Everything you're saying about contradictions in law is only more proof that people are imperfect, including the founding fathers. That is not in dispute. But the reach for perfection--isn't that the crux of civilization? Think about what you're
Even beasts understand that they have the right to life and the right to defend themselves. Every creature on the planet struggles to provide for itself, its community (in various measures), and its children (again, in various measures). This is natural. And natural law is therefore build on this idea, that everyone has a right to live, choose their lives, and gather for themselves what they consider necessary for their lives.
@MichaelPolios (3) Human civilization is exponentially more complicated than the lives of animals, and so our laws and our understanding of laws are exponentially more complicated. But basics are those. and are so expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
As Bill Whittle said, these concepts are ancient. They were not discovered by John Locke three hundred years ago, only articulated then. I'm don't everything about history, but every successful civilization I've studied has been built on
@MichaelPolios Sigh. Fine, one last reply. The evidence natural law proponents argue from is the nature of man. If you disagree with us about the nature of man, then of course you will disagree with the conclusions. Therefore, no evidence I can offer will help.
YouTube won't allow links, or I would send you to an article that provides evidence. It's at jim dot com, slash rights dot html. I don't know if YouTube will allow even that. Or, you can just keep insisting that there's no evidence.
@MrDarudin On the contrary, as a Christian I believe that natural law was created by God. An atheistic libertarian believes that it was created by nature. Liberals believe that law is created by man, and is not natural, and therefore is subject to be changed with every new generation. I believe that law is as timeless as the universe, and as eternal as the moral God who laid the physical foundations of the universe, as well as the moral and spiritual underpinnings of the world.
@maychorian I , as a British tory democrat do however disapprove of this view as it operates with absolute terms. I do believe that law and laws should be the expression of the cultural , traditional and social values that our respective countries at the contemporary moment in time. Hence my view of legal morality is based upon the believe that since humanity itself is imperfect and bound by time it would be ludicrous to establish invasive categorical principles.
@MrDarudin If you don't believe in absolute principles, how can you determine what is a good law and what is a bad law? Purely based on the social sensibilities of the time? So then, slavery was not a bad law, because it matched up with the social sensibilities of its time? It only BECAME a bad law later, when sensibilities changed?
@maychorian Directly speaking , yes , slavery was not seen as a bad law up until the point where it became obsolete due to the fact that it didn't pay society to use it any more which led to the subsequent abolition of slavery in 1807 here in Britain , which was a result of a change in attitude . However by today's measures slavery is of course unacceptable as it opposes our traditional values of equal moral worth of the individual .
@maychorian No since under a utilitarian concept of society it served the benefit of our society and the expense of fractional exploitation , hence the exploitation of slaves allowed the majority of the British population at the point of time to flourish , however once attitudes have changed and personal liberty became more important than common progress it became an outdated concept. This was an organic process based upon the wishes of all society rather than an ideological struggle.
@MrDarudin Very well then. I will respectfully disagree. In my view, slavery was a bad law because it violated the rights of the humans who were used as slaves--namely, their rights to choose where to live, what work to do, and sometimes it even took away their lives. In my view, slavery was eventually acknowledged to be a bad law because people better understood natural law, not simply because society's sensibilities had a shift.
@maychorian Perfectly valid point , I believe that only through continuing permanent exchange of ideas can we truly progress as peoples since it does lead to a continuing selection of those ideas , which suit each society best at that point of time at which it chooses to adapt those.
PS: I do want to mention that I honestly enjoyed our little conversation as you are one of the few individuals who does not seem to resort to personal insults. Best Regards :D
@maychorian Natural law does not change, as G_ds law does not change. It is written on the heart of man. It is wrong to lie. It is wrong to take what is not yours to take.
@MrDarudin TRUE conservatives understand natural law. As a part of an established society, one agrees to conform to the standards of that society and question the standards when those standards violate natural law: "The law that is "written on the hearts of man".
(Part done of done) (…) The history of America is just like the history of any other country on this planet. It is a history of deception, fraud and corruption. There is nothing to return to for the integrity was never there to begin with. We must move forward, not backwards.~ Peter Joseph: Where Are We Going
@MyMindTank I was following most of what you were saying up until you quoted Peter Joseph. The entire Zeitgeist movement is based on a fundamental error of casting away the price system, a system that in itself is the most efficient way to determine cost effectiveness between product utility and resource consumption, where human labor is one of those resources. Without a price system, you can either have a steady-state economy (think Amish), or an inevitable collapse.
@MyMindTank If the Zeitgeist movement had not decided to cast out the concept of the pricing system, perhaps their lofty goals might be one day attainable and perhaps even somewhat sustainable. We already have a currency based on nothing, a hugs and kisses backed currency is no better. History has shown that central planning wrecks things. If anything, we need a distributed currency like Bitcoin, and a distributed government (self-government), and a distributed marketplace (real free market).
(Part 10 of done) They certainly are but we need to hone our focus to resolving the actual problem. And by the way, for all the nationalists out there I am not attacking the US Constitution once again. However, it is not the answer and it’s naive to think that this document really has that much relevance.
(Part 9 of done) The Fourth Amendment is an attempt to protect people from State power abuse. That is clear. But it avoids the real issue, and that is: Why would the state have an interest to search and seize to begin with? How do you remove the mechanisms that generate such behavior? We need to focus on the real cause. To be clear again, I’m not saying that laws, rights are not needed at this time.
(Part 8 of done) It is meaningless semantically, therefore it cannot be trusted. None of them can. In other words, legal definitions are not empirical. All the amendments are subject to the whims of interpretation which is why they are abused by the police Homeland Security and the IRS on a daily basis. Therefore, back to my original point: There is no such thing as rights as the reference can be altered at will.
(Part 7 of done) What is “probable cause”? The only way to figure this out is to find a legal working definition that is culturally accepted. A common definiton of probable cause in this context is: A reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. So the qualifier is now reasonable, right? Reasonable: This is often defined as “fair” not excessive or extreme. Then I guess we have to move on to the word “excessive”. You see my point, I hope.
(Part 6 of done) I know many people like this. I’m a fan of many people who are proponents of this, in part, because I think there’s a place for it. But this document is not the “savior” of America. (...) The Fourth Amendment details how people have “Protection from unreasonable searches and seizures”. This statement is basically qualified by the termed notion of “probable cause” in the amendment.
(Part 5 of done) Now, while I understand the value of this document and the temporal brilliance of it in the context of the period of its creation that does not excuse the fact that it is a product of social inefficiency and nothing more. In other words, declarations of laws and rights are actually an acknowledgment of failures of the social design. There are many people today in the so-called “Patriot” and “Liberty” movements.
(Part 4 of done) An intelligent commandment would be something like: “Thou shalt continually re-orient thyself and society to reduce reactionary propensities that lead to aberrated consequences such as stealing and murder.” The same surface irrelevancy applies to any Constitution or Bill of Rights of any country on this planet. In the Bill of Rights of the United States, there is an attempt to secure certain freedoms and protections by way again of mere text on paper.
(Part 3 of done) As a classic example of this, let’s take the notion of divine law the famed Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not murder”. Why? These are surface notion cop-outs created by men who didn’t have any real information who did not understand that we live in a cause-and-effect reality. Telling people this does virtually nothing, as history has proven. Morality is an empty idea that has no empirical referent.
(Part 2 of done) And once again, instead of seeking a true solution to a problem we invent these patches by way of paper proclamations in an attempt to resolve them. This does not work. It has never worked. There is really no such thing as an unalienable right outside of the culture in which it is assumed. We are making this up! Therefore, liberties need to be inherent in a social system by design not alluded to ambiguously on paper.
(Part 1 of done) Today we use paper proclamations, as we call them to denote a person’s so-called rights. And just like laws, they are culturally biased artificial concoctions, which attempt to solve reoccurring problems by simply declaring something with words on paper usually. Rights, infact, have been invented to protect ourselves from the negative by-products of the social system itself.
This sounds good but it is total nonesense. There are no natural rights. Presumably the right to life is 'natural' if any rights are. But what happens if I shoot you dead and there is no goverment to bring me to account? Nothing. I get away with it. Remove governments and you have no rights. Not nice but obviously true. 'All men are created equal' is totally man made, as the slave owning founding father knew. Is this man stupid or what?
Natural Law = Divine Providence, is real and unalterable. Know your place people. American exceptional-ism = derives its existence, not from mortals nor governments.
Bill, after reading through a smattering of comments I'm at a loss to explain how the concept of Natural Law, which you explained so elegantly and succinctly could be so misconstrued by so many people.
@yonahrr Because everything should be debatable in essence . I for one do find it hard to believe in the truth that their is any form of natural law as this would require the possibility of a technically perfect society where only natural laws would exist. Such a society would however ignore traditional and democratic values hence rendering our communities bare and empower individual members at the expense of others. It is hence libertarian and antidemocratic.
Interesting insight into the atheist mind. Seems pretty arrogant to say there is "higher" authority than man. Yet if God didn't make you then who did? Certainly not yourselves. Natural law existed long before mankind arose from the slime.
I find that natural law is too religion biased toward belief in God. As an Atheist I see this as an unnessasary criteria that is a religious excuse to implement god into something that does not require him (struggle to survive). I'm glad he mentioned nonbelievers but I completely disagree that a 'higher' ultimately powerful force is in charge of what laws WE ourselves can create with the need to survive.
Bill - Thanks for your inclusion of those who do no believe in a god. As an atheist myself, I tend to keep finding myself in the crosshairs of those in my party [R] who state that I shouldn't be in this country due to my lack of belief in a supernatural entity. They state that I'm immoral and unable to respect the constitution since it requires a belief in god. I do believe that we have natural unalienable rights as you explained. I enjoy all your videos. Cheers.
Why oh why don't more people believe and talk like this! The reason that many people today, whether they be in politics or are just window shopping through life, don;t believe in, or at least wont admit that natural law is exactly what we have and should be still following, is because of the absence of true faith in God. Gods law was good enough for men since the days of Abraham and through the birth and maturity of our nation with our founding fathers. But with His law socialism isn't allowed !
Joseph Smith, Mormon church founder, had 35 wives, some as young as 14 & 12 who were already married. Smith had 2 great Apostles - Brigham Young who had 56 wives, & Parley Pratt who had only 12 wives b/c he was killed by the husband of the 12th wife
Parley's son Helaman had 4 wives & fled to Mexico after getting out of the pen. Miles Romney had 11 wives & losing his US citizenship rights to vote or serve on a jury, jumped bail & also sought sanctuary & citizenship in Mexico
Helaman's daughter Anna m. Miles Romney’s son Gaskell in Chihuahua, Mexico & they had a son George Romney & although they’d lived in Mexico for yrs & set up schools & houses, a revolution caused these Mexican family members to sneak over the USA border.
George Romney was 5 when he came over as an illegal alien but was still allowed to go on public assistance & to public schools at taxpayers expense
In elementary school George was known as “l’il Mex” b/c he was an illegal alien w/ jet black Mexican hair (maybe Mexican wives were somewhere in the mix) & b/c he was born in Mexico & thus given Mexican citizenship, his son Mitt doesn’t qualify as being “natural born” & thus is ineligible to be President
But b/c his ancestors were great Mormon leaders, Mitt's surely a Mormon High Priest & he & his wife are entitled to wear the sacred Mormon underpanties & Mitt will be in Level #3 in Heaven
Whether or not he is ineligible due to his birth in my opinion remains to be seen, if he was born in Hawaii, then yes he is eligible. By the way Bill Whittle speaks clearly in his video on "Dreams from my Father" about Stanley Ann Dunham's nationality as American so I can't see why he would say President Obama's parents were foreign. For the record I do not agree with everything Whittle puts forth.
@JustusNeverFails The definition of natural born citizen known to the founding fathers at the time the Constitution was written required that both parents be citizens, and therefore Obama is inelligible.
I know some argue that we use a different definition today, as put forth in US code. But one cannot change the Constitution by changing definitions of words, terms, or phrases. Only by the amendment process can we legally change the original meaning of the Constitution.
@DillonDee1 Right or wrong, this man is hardly an idiot. Name calling is pointless, if you disagree, say you disagree, don't call him an idiot and leave no explanation as to why you feel this way. You are protected by the anonymity of the internet, speak wisely lest You be called a coward for fielding pejorative terms vicariously and with no explanation.
"guy" on which he claimed there was a difference between native born & natural born & that Obama was native born because he was born in the USA but not natural born because both parents werent American citizens - so he was not eligible to be president.
@DillonDee1 I would have to see the video, from your description, it seems that Whittle is arguing the difference qualitatively between natural and native born citizens. According to you, Whittle claims that even though President Obama was born in the USA, because his parents were not, that
(which he doesn't from what I have seen, President Obama's mother is most definitely American even according to whittle) President Obama is not qualified to be the President of the USA; with which I would disagree. If President Obama was born in the USA, then by that rule he is qualified. Whether is qualified to be the president or not is a different matter. If you would be so kind as to refer to me the link, I will respond appropriately
Another truth that is self-evident is your laughable lack of any form of expertise in history (and sociology, for that matter). The US constitution was a COMPROMISE that the Constitutional Convention fought tooth and nail over.
As I'm listening, I realize that when I hear this from a republican candidate for president, I will know who to vote for. I'm thinking, a smart candidate would have you for a speech writer!
@Drago19930713 You have a bad case of "meme infestation". Businessmen applying free trade create wealth in the pursuit of their own success. Villains applying "friends in high places" and "threat of force" violate the natural laws as discussed. I would recommend going back to the first two videos and seeing about shedding some of those more popular self-defeating memes you're carrying.
@Lamarth1 And that is my problem. Violating natural law, which concept of capitalism tends to do. I have problem with people who take their goal of gaining infinite profits too seriously. Thats all. I dont say all businessmen are like that, but even a small number of those f**ked up people can mess up everything.
Mr. Whittle, I respect You for your intelligence and good intentions. But your views are too idealistic. In reality things are quite different. You see, when you mention businessmen intentions like creating jobs and quality goods etc. its not always true. Theres essentially only one thing that business is really interested in. And that is profit. And they are doing what ever it takes to make higher profits. They are not interested in people or employees. Greed is basic rule of this game.
Respond to this video... Higher value of economy= ?
To where does the long road go? Creating new jobs? Creating higher standard of living for everyone? I highly doubt that. If this mechanism is working so well, the why even in ''high on business'' country you can find unemployed working class people, people that live in poverty.
@Drago19930713 And you know what has contributed to higher unemployment? Minimum wage laws; all in the interest of "government knows best." And what do you propose? Government redistribution of wealth? There is no great mechanism of personal socio-economic mobility than a free market economy. Your precious politicians have screwed it all up and capitalism took all the blame. What other system do you propose that involves the greatest economic freedom with the biggest opportunities for growth?
@Drago19930713 How can you make people not be greedy? What economic system would eliminate greed? Aren't you greedy? Don't you want the best for yourself, generally speaking? People act in their own self-interest at most times. It's human nature.
@adamkajones Well, actually I am not greedy. Best for me would mean best for everybody. People do act in their interest. And personal human values has to do a lot with that. In many cases personal interest differs between individuals. Some seek only for material gain, some take that as secondary thing. Economic system cant eliminate greed. Understanding can... I dont propose any governmental systems that humans are in complete charge, because humans are driven by human interests.
@Drago19930713 The definition and the labeling a greedy differs from person to person. Everybody is naturally greedy. I could call you greedy for whatever reason.
You cannot take the greed away from people, its their natural self interest to be for themselves, that is how the US became the best nation on the planet. Everybody acting in their self interest which helped everybody else through voluntary trade.
Nothing eliminates greed, nothing. Stop trying to fight human instinct.
@superlucci You know whats interesting about human ''nature''? That human ''nature'' is dependent on conditions. So ''marketing'' stereotype that EVERYBODY is naturally greedy is lame.
@superlucci Too bad for you, then... Survival is natural. We do what we need to survive. Greed is different thing. Not so natural, because its seek of loot, wealth (which is more than you need to survive) in expense of the others. Survival can be achieved trough co-operation (as it was trough out history) and such thing as greed is opposing to it.
@Drago19930713 Once again, the definition of greedy differs from person to person.
One could say if somebody ate a sandwich and then some chips, that person is greedy for eating the chips. But if he just ate the sandwich, he wouldnt be greedy.
Do you see why arbitrary definitions of greedy mean absolutely nothing?
And this is where you make the mistake of greed. Greed is never at the expense of others, unless it is forced. When you get a job, you make the wage you agree upon
@Drago19930713 Your definition of co-operation means forcing me to give up more of my money. Thats not co-operation at all, thats thievery.
Voluntary charities do much better at finding the people who truly need help in society, rather than give a nice blanket to every single person under an arbitrary means of poor.
We didnt become the best nation on earth through socialism. We did it through free trade aspects and innovation, then government came and fucked it up.
@Drago19930713 Your definition of co-operation means forcing me to give up more of my money. Thats not co-operation at all, thats thievery.
Voluntary charities do much better at finding the people who truly need help in society, rather than give a nice blanket to every single person under an arbitrary means of poor.
We didnt become the best nation on earth through socialism. We did it through free trade aspects and innovation, then government came and messed it up
@superlucci My definition of greed is quite simple:greedy person who lives just to gain money. Addiction to paper to me is greed. When I said co-operation I meant people working together from beginning of human race. Hunter, gatherer TRIBES lived in groups and every member had a job to do. This co-operation has changed by the time, it got more sophisticated in many ways, but the need for it- did not. I did not meant socialism. Its too hard for humanity to sustain it anyway.
@Drago19930713 Who doesnt want to gain money? Do you think *greedy* people dont think about other things during their life? Maybe about what shirt to wear? How much time do you need to think about money in order to be greedy? How much money do you need to have in order to be greedy?
You cant answer these, you know why? Because they are arbitrary random reasons you give. None of them which has any logic to them whatsoever.
@superlucci Greed is a state of mind, not some thing that could be physically analyzed. Usually people want to gain money to get something in exchange of them. Be it items or services. But greedy mind has one goal- to gain as much as possible for no real reason. Its obsession. Dont tell me you havent seen rich spoiled people who dont know what they want, but would do anything for extra mill... THATS what I'm fucking talking about.
@superlucci Forget the fuckin money for a moment at least. The IDEAL of communism is too high for humanity to stick to. Actually its K.Marx's ideas, that communism was found upon. Problem is, theres no way to put them into working practice without changing moral values of the people.
@Drago19930713 Any system could work if the people were sheep and would just listen to it.
But you see, we have things called self interest, which means every single human being wants a system where they have the chance to succeed in. And that is the free market, capitalism.
@superlucci Its not necessarily to be brainwashed sheep, indoctrinated particular political ideology. Moral value system doesnt actually depend on politics, but rather politics depend on moral value systems accepted in society. Every one wants system where they have decent social guarantees and conditions to be happy. Capitalism needs some adjustments to that. If people would be fair, capitalism would do fine. It seems like whatever the system is, people are those who make a real difference.
@Drago19930713 My friend, you seem to be slightly confused with the word "money." Money is an arbitrary term that has no real meaning. Greedy people want to amass as much wealth as possible, but not in monetary form, in the form of luxuries and such. Now, capitalism works on its own, all the government needs to do is make sure people don't lie, cheat, and otherwise break the laws that are rational, such as paying debts (in this case, when able) and such.
@adamkajones Regulating system shouldnt be driven by ambitions or emotions. Decisions should be done by computers, in this way, no human intentions would corrupt them. At least I think that, because human leadership doesnt work very much.
Very eloquently put, but I can't help feeling that your argument is rather simplistic. When the Founding Fathers said that it was self evident that all men were created equal, they meant literally that. Men. Not women. (And the less said about slaves, the better.) Now however, we would consider it self evident that women are just as equal as men. (And that slavery is abominable.) If Natural Law is as unchanging and eternal as you claim, then who is right?
@telanian The answer to your question as to "who is right," is not able to be answered as you may imagine because it is not a question of "who" so much as "what."
In so far as Natural Law is discovered through the use of reason, then reason is the arbiter, not any one or several personalities. As the guy in this video says, natural law is "revealed" through observation and reason.
@telanian In the time of the Founders, there were many intellectuals that felt slavery was unreasonable, and in the French Revolution there was even an attempt to give women full political rights. While they did not receive this, they did get citizenship.
Remember that just because society at large does not make a moral or reasonable decision does not mean the associated rights do not exist.
"Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers."
"If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people."
"About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter."
"natural rights" may be a misnomer, it doesn't deny their basic logical validity.
@Trauncher was correct, your counter "argument" about slavery, genocide etc. supports his argument. Societies that follow these practices have been proven to be less effective than societies without them when all other things are generally equal.
Based on a cold calculation. Each human has the capacity for labor, demand for stuff is in essence unlimited so each laborer could produce SOMETHING of value, killing off laborers reduces your overall productivity and that productivity could be for economics or military. It's a fact of resource capabilities.
With slavery, the same thing happens, except it's the loss of work of the guards and the resentful slaves that sabotage things. Short term slavery can out produce, but not long
Romans had slaves and used mass genocide, true. Compared to what at their time? There is no comparable non slave using non mass genocide using state with the same military technology during the same era. If there were, the Romans would have been out performed. Find an example of one where there is an equivalent alternative without these things that did better. You can't. Actually the Romans and Greeks both had LESS slavery and genocide than their equivalents of the time.
For example to Athens wich didnot relay on slavery that much.And to be fair mass slave labour was no employed by ancient romans utill the conquest of Grece when mass flown of slaves lowerd he market price.
As for geonice the Romans employed as much as anyone else at their times if not to even a greater extend.Furthermore you outomaticly assume that genice or exploatation will always be directed inwards rather then externally like in forementioned case.
I'm not a nag on grammar and spelling, but could you please try a little. It makes reading your stuff difficult.
Romans did NOT have more slaves/genocide acts than the Gauls or the when you compare them on a per capita basis. Who are you comparing them with to suggest that they did more than the comparable allegiances of the time?
It doesn't matter if the slavery or genocide is outward. Trade is just as powerful as internal productivity. Rome's policy was mostly "join us".
Sorry can't do.The internet conection is getting hick-ups recently an I have write as fast as possible,otherwise I am forced to start over agian.
Agian not true.the barbarian trobes loved to indulgde themselfs in mayeh but it was the Romans that brought it to a whole new level.Furthermore as I've foremention earliear I am comparing them with Athens.
Why bother trading when you can simply take all you want by force and have not only a flow ofcash but also slaves.
Pull up notepad, write your comment, then copy and paste it into the reply. It works wonders.
25% of Roman population was slaves and 30% of Greek population were slaves, proving my claim. Athens was an exception, and guess what it was the most productive city within the Greek world, again proving my claim.
Why bother trading instead of taking & killing? Why not kill the goose that lays the golden egg. It's obvious, because they don't lay more eggs.
No, the point has not been disproved. Athens had more ownership of slaves, but the truth is that for a very large part slaves were rented out to work in the countryside. All that indicates is that Athens had more wealth, not that they actually had more slavery within the city proper.
Also, even with ONE example to the contrary (if you were to make it, which you haven't), my point stands, the trend and overwhelming evidence supports it.
I didn't say civilizations that employed slavery and genocide weren't able to flourish. Read what I said. Quote it back, then explain how everything we have said doesn't completely support my statement.
Show me where it dose.You claim that there are natural human rights that are valid due to their practicality.I've just showed you that a society can do quite well without them.Ergo here is no such thing as natural law only positivistic one.
"Societies that follow these practices have been proven to be less effective than societies without them when all other things are generally equal."
Which has been proven in all of our discourse. It is supported mathematically and historically. I didn't say societies can enslave or commit genocide and due to that they will not prosper.
4.Why bother leaving your potential enemies alive??Why not simply kill scores of them and enslave the survivors,take the loot and settle newly conquered lands with loyal population.
@Kharmazov like the right to live. one community may love this and perceive it as a basic right, while another community might think that none has a right to life, and just kill everyone when they are born... that community would survive quite well don't you think? your argument is quite flawed.
Yeah,wars,slavery,genocide,honor killings proove otherwise.Furthermore you you've just showned that any "right" or law requaires validations from the group,comunity,society etc. and can't exists on it's own;-)
As to the Constitution & religion: The 1st Amend. uses the word "establishment," which was being used as we today might use incorporate. It was only barring Congress from incorporating a Church of the United States, like the U.S. Army or U.S. Navy. The original & primary meaning of the clause about "free exercise" referred to the variouis state churchs then still existing. Congress was disbarred from OBSTRUCTING the states on matters of religion. What the SCOTUS has doen is Orwellian.
@VictorLepanto What has the Court done that is "Orwellian"? And what does the First Amendment mean to you, if it doesn't exist to protect the religious freedoms of the individual citizen?
@chiachuck: The 1st Amend. is meant to bar the Federal gov't from interferring in the state's religious affairs. The courts have taken it & transformed it into a LICENCE to interfer in those affairs. If Congress is barred from interferring in religious matters, the SCOTUS is doubly barred. The state churchs continued to operate for several years after the present Constitution was established. Obviously the Founders did not adhere to the modern court's absurd "interpretation."
@VictorLepanto So, from what I'm gathering, you think that States should be allowed to establish churches, and the government cannot interfere with this?
@chiachuck: That fact is that the states DID have precisely such Churchs. Not that I'd like to see the states establish any new Churchs. Christ established His Church, I can't see how anyone imagines they could improve on His efforts. It actually took several years for the states to quit maintaining their churchs, mainly from lack of popular interest. If the states want to have public organised prayer or any other religious demonstrations, it is their perogative, subject to voters.
@VictorLepanto From what I'm gathering, the States ceased to support established churches for a reason that is not at all surprising; there were too many denominations for there to be a clean all-encompassing "state religion". Much like I said to Native below, the moment the government, (state or federal) shows favor to one system of belief, it is discriminating against another...even if the difference is denominational. And this is why I support their separation.
@chiachuck: You really don't grasp the Orwellian bill of goods you've been tought to accept regarding religion in public life. The American people are free to express their religion in public life. They are not merely to be tolerated by a state which assumes de facto atheist posture but allows people some option to indulge their primitive superstitions. This last sentence truly expresses the real mentality underlying the modern SCOTUS' attitude towards religion.
@VictorLepanto First, Matthew 7:1-6. Second, there is a difference between secular reasoning, and some "de facto atheist posture". Government, in order to govern in the most fair way possible, must take a secular stance, as I pointed out in my last statement.
I am amazed at how Victor could get some of this stuff right despite how wrong he is in my other discussion with him.
He is correct, the Constitution does not bar states from establishing or endorsing a church/religion. That being said, the Constitution should probably have been amended to fix that. At some point in time, a Muslim, Sharia law state could very well develop if we don't fix this hole.
And yes, we pretty much agree chia, we're splitting hairs.
@chiachuck: You might want to go back & read the SCOTUS decisions in the original school prayer decisions. I've read some of their quotes. They, for instance, talk about the psychological damage that religion can do. There is a difference b/t a respectful deferance by the state towards the religious sensibilities of the people, the original secular posture of the Founders, & a SECULARIST anti-religious posture tha seeks to supress religion as an undo influence on society.
@VictorLepanto None of their quotes could possibly be any worse than many of the founders' quotes. Also, there can be no respectful "deference" when the "religious sensibilities" of the people lead them to think prayer should be in schools, God in the Pledge, and creation in science class. If you are doing these things peacefully in church, fine, but if you try to move it into the public forcibly, you can't expect others to just stand by and be "respectful"...
@chiachuck: What Founders quotes are "worse" about what? I really can't comprehend what you're talking about. The gov't is the people's gov't. It exists to serve their interests. It should reflect, not disparage & marginalize their values. The only place where the Founders expressed any thought on religion in public schools was in the NWO for the NW Territory. In it they expressed their belief that the very PURPOSE of public education was to FOSTER religion.
@VictorLepanto The founders had wildly varying views on religion, and you know it. Their writings are filled with both praise and condemnation for organized religion. As for reflecting the interests of the people, you are correct, it should reflect their interests, right up to the point where their interests infringe on someone else's rights. For example, an opinion (religion) held by one group, has ZERO right to infringe on another. This way all views are protected, as I've said repeatedly.
@chiachuck: You have had a typical modern revisionist treatment of the Founders, you've obviously never been given a good comprehensive treatment of their views. The Founders encourage, public, collective, organised, & vigorous expressions of religion. They practiced it. As for the matter of religion in school the only collective expression of their view on the subject was the NWO, where they said that the very purpose of public education was to FOSTER religion.
@VictorLepanto You're contradicting yourself. I have no "absolute view" of the founders, as you can see in my posts. They produced a constitutional foundation which set some principals in place , yet was capable of evolving with the times, which it did. Did they practice religion? Sure, but that doesn't mean everyone has to. Did they think that religion was a crucial part of human life? Maybe, but if they did (and you may want to sit down for this one), they were wrong.
You're right actually it wasn't a straw man, it was a falsehood. The Tea party HAS attacked corporate welfare over and over again. You hear what you want to hear.
I have NOT misinterpreted your statement, I made an ACCURATE interpretation of your statement and applied it to something that made you uncomfortable to prove a point. If you want gov't to to conscript doctors to provide medical care, why not us for military service?
AGAIN, We don't care if it's an R or a D abuse, it's still abuse!
Comment removed
knightoftheday1 5 days ago
too bad that document got stepped all over in 1887 and later in 1913 and even later still
rarelibra 2 weeks ago
How does Bill Whittle justify Defence and infrastructure spending? Just like health-care someone is going to pay involuntarily to keep the military up-to-snuff and the infrastructure ticking over. Is it ok to force people to pay for roads they may not have asked for (you never know) public buildings (they again may have never asked for). I'd say the government is going to have to take some of your money at least.
way2tehdawn 3 weeks ago
@way2tehdawn Defense spending is part of the constitution. Roads are interstate commerce. Federal building house the people who work for the Federal Gov. The Government has Constitutional power to tax. I don't agree with all the things Gov does. The basics you described are in the Constitution maybe you should read it.
obomasucks012 2 weeks ago 3
I think that some people have issues with what life was like during the founding and throughout our countries history, what they have to understand is that the constitution has been the driving force for the legal equality that we have today.
There are still many ways that law treats people unfairly because of their race, religion etc. However it is a constant pursuit to try and make the country not stray from the constitution.
Dethreid 1 month ago
This is one brilliant man. Very libertarian video.
kiddynamo41 1 month ago
You say that natural laws are created by a "force far greater than people". No, the idea of natural laws were created by man just like every other laws.
MichaelPolios 1 month ago
@MichaelPolios We hold these truths to be self-evident...
Self.
Evident.
maychorian 1 week ago
@maychorian Wow. First, where is the evidence that natural law is evident?. It also seems to me that since John Locke wrote of Natural law it has been prone to tweaking and quite 'inconsistent'. For instance, natural law obviously didn't apply to the blacks living in your country, you guys couldn't grant them 'basic' so called natural laws until the damn 1960s. Natural laws are just like any other 'rights', this means they can be taken away whenever someone has reason to do so.
MichaelPolios 1 week ago
@MichaelPolios So you're admitting, then, that people are imperfect and sometimes make bad laws?
Wow. Sounds like you agree with the video.
maychorian 1 week ago
@maychorian No i'm admitting that natural laws are not self-evident, they don't reveal them self and they weren't here before us. This is because they don't exist, they're a human construct. You haven't provided with evidence that natural laws are self-evident.
MichaelPolios 1 week ago
@MichaelPolios (1) Because men are imperfect, natural law has not always been perfectly understood or implemented. That doesn't mean it isn't real--it means that people are imperfect, and should therefore not be trusted with complete control over others. Everything you're saying about contradictions in law is only more proof that people are imperfect, including the founding fathers. That is not in dispute. But the reach for perfection--isn't that the crux of civilization? Think about what you're
maychorian 1 week ago
@MichaelPolios (2) saying.
Even beasts understand that they have the right to life and the right to defend themselves. Every creature on the planet struggles to provide for itself, its community (in various measures), and its children (again, in various measures). This is natural. And natural law is therefore build on this idea, that everyone has a right to live, choose their lives, and gather for themselves what they consider necessary for their lives.
maychorian 1 week ago
@MichaelPolios (3) Human civilization is exponentially more complicated than the lives of animals, and so our laws and our understanding of laws are exponentially more complicated. But basics are those. and are so expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
As Bill Whittle said, these concepts are ancient. They were not discovered by John Locke three hundred years ago, only articulated then. I'm don't everything about history, but every successful civilization I've studied has been built on
maychorian 1 week ago
@MichaelPolios (4) these or similar laws, and then began to fail when they moved away from them.
What more evidence do you need?
maychorian 1 week ago
@maychorian You've provided with an 'ought' statement not what 'is'. Look at what 'is' and ask do natural laws exist?
MichaelPolios 1 week ago
@MichaelPolios Everything I've said has been an "is" statement.
You don't believe in natural law. Fine. I, and other libertarians and conservatives, do. I don't think this conversation is going anywhere.
maychorian 1 week ago
@maychorian ok
MichaelPolios 1 week ago
@maychorian but you still haven't provided me with evidence
MichaelPolios 1 week ago
@MichaelPolios Sigh. Fine, one last reply. The evidence natural law proponents argue from is the nature of man. If you disagree with us about the nature of man, then of course you will disagree with the conclusions. Therefore, no evidence I can offer will help.
YouTube won't allow links, or I would send you to an article that provides evidence. It's at jim dot com, slash rights dot html. I don't know if YouTube will allow even that. Or, you can just keep insisting that there's no evidence.
maychorian 1 week ago
@maychorian Well, i don't know how you see the nature of man
MichaelPolios 1 week ago
@maychorian Sorry , but I as a conservative do disagree with you ! Natural laws are a liberal invention .
MrDarudin 6 days ago
@MrDarudin On the contrary, as a Christian I believe that natural law was created by God. An atheistic libertarian believes that it was created by nature. Liberals believe that law is created by man, and is not natural, and therefore is subject to be changed with every new generation. I believe that law is as timeless as the universe, and as eternal as the moral God who laid the physical foundations of the universe, as well as the moral and spiritual underpinnings of the world.
maychorian 6 days ago
@maychorian I , as a British tory democrat do however disapprove of this view as it operates with absolute terms. I do believe that law and laws should be the expression of the cultural , traditional and social values that our respective countries at the contemporary moment in time. Hence my view of legal morality is based upon the believe that since humanity itself is imperfect and bound by time it would be ludicrous to establish invasive categorical principles.
MrDarudin 6 days ago
@MrDarudin If you don't believe in absolute principles, how can you determine what is a good law and what is a bad law? Purely based on the social sensibilities of the time? So then, slavery was not a bad law, because it matched up with the social sensibilities of its time? It only BECAME a bad law later, when sensibilities changed?
maychorian 6 days ago
@maychorian Directly speaking , yes , slavery was not seen as a bad law up until the point where it became obsolete due to the fact that it didn't pay society to use it any more which led to the subsequent abolition of slavery in 1807 here in Britain , which was a result of a change in attitude . However by today's measures slavery is of course unacceptable as it opposes our traditional values of equal moral worth of the individual .
MrDarudin 6 days ago
@MrDarudin So then, it WASN'T a bad law until people decided it wasn't? You say it wasn't SEEN as a bad law. But was it one?
maychorian 6 days ago
@maychorian No since under a utilitarian concept of society it served the benefit of our society and the expense of fractional exploitation , hence the exploitation of slaves allowed the majority of the British population at the point of time to flourish , however once attitudes have changed and personal liberty became more important than common progress it became an outdated concept. This was an organic process based upon the wishes of all society rather than an ideological struggle.
MrDarudin 6 days ago
@MrDarudin Very well then. I will respectfully disagree. In my view, slavery was a bad law because it violated the rights of the humans who were used as slaves--namely, their rights to choose where to live, what work to do, and sometimes it even took away their lives. In my view, slavery was eventually acknowledged to be a bad law because people better understood natural law, not simply because society's sensibilities had a shift.
maychorian 6 days ago
@maychorian Perfectly valid point , I believe that only through continuing permanent exchange of ideas can we truly progress as peoples since it does lead to a continuing selection of those ideas , which suit each society best at that point of time at which it chooses to adapt those.
PS: I do want to mention that I honestly enjoyed our little conversation as you are one of the few individuals who does not seem to resort to personal insults. Best Regards :D
MrDarudin 6 days ago
@maychorian Slavery encroached upon the person of others. It violated natural law.
ggallman 7 hours ago
@ggallman Yes, that's what I believe.
maychorian 3 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrDarudin Slavery encroached upon the person of others. It violated natural law.
ggallman 7 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrDarudin Slavery encroached upon the person of others. It violated natural law.
ggallman 7 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@maychorian Slavery encroached upon the person of others. It violated natural law.
ggallman 7 hours ago
@MrDarudin Principles do not change with time.
ggallman 7 hours ago
@maychorian Natural law does not change, as G_ds law does not change. It is written on the heart of man. It is wrong to lie. It is wrong to take what is not yours to take.
ggallman 7 hours ago
@MrDarudin TRUE conservatives understand natural law. As a part of an established society, one agrees to conform to the standards of that society and question the standards when those standards violate natural law: "The law that is "written on the hearts of man".
ggallman 7 hours ago
Lol, the constitution is littered with religious connotations and/or primitive assumptions of reality.
MyMindTank 1 month ago
@MyMindTank Wow, an imperfect political law. How odd.
maychorian 1 week ago
(Part done of done) (…) The history of America is just like the history of any other country on this planet. It is a history of deception, fraud and corruption. There is nothing to return to for the integrity was never there to begin with. We must move forward, not backwards.~ Peter Joseph: Where Are We Going
MyMindTank 1 month ago
@MyMindTank I was following most of what you were saying up until you quoted Peter Joseph. The entire Zeitgeist movement is based on a fundamental error of casting away the price system, a system that in itself is the most efficient way to determine cost effectiveness between product utility and resource consumption, where human labor is one of those resources. Without a price system, you can either have a steady-state economy (think Amish), or an inevitable collapse.
theredscourge 1 month ago
@MyMindTank If the Zeitgeist movement had not decided to cast out the concept of the pricing system, perhaps their lofty goals might be one day attainable and perhaps even somewhat sustainable. We already have a currency based on nothing, a hugs and kisses backed currency is no better. History has shown that central planning wrecks things. If anything, we need a distributed currency like Bitcoin, and a distributed government (self-government), and a distributed marketplace (real free market).
theredscourge 1 month ago
@theredscourge By distributed, I mean decentralized.
theredscourge 1 month ago
(Part 10 of done) They certainly are but we need to hone our focus to resolving the actual problem. And by the way, for all the nationalists out there I am not attacking the US Constitution once again. However, it is not the answer and it’s naive to think that this document really has that much relevance.
MyMindTank 1 month ago
(Part 9 of done) The Fourth Amendment is an attempt to protect people from State power abuse. That is clear. But it avoids the real issue, and that is: Why would the state have an interest to search and seize to begin with? How do you remove the mechanisms that generate such behavior? We need to focus on the real cause. To be clear again, I’m not saying that laws, rights are not needed at this time.
MyMindTank 1 month ago
(Part 8 of done) It is meaningless semantically, therefore it cannot be trusted. None of them can. In other words, legal definitions are not empirical. All the amendments are subject to the whims of interpretation which is why they are abused by the police Homeland Security and the IRS on a daily basis. Therefore, back to my original point: There is no such thing as rights as the reference can be altered at will.
MyMindTank 1 month ago
(Part 7 of done) What is “probable cause”? The only way to figure this out is to find a legal working definition that is culturally accepted. A common definiton of probable cause in this context is: A reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. So the qualifier is now reasonable, right? Reasonable: This is often defined as “fair” not excessive or extreme. Then I guess we have to move on to the word “excessive”. You see my point, I hope.
MyMindTank 1 month ago
(Part 6 of done) I know many people like this. I’m a fan of many people who are proponents of this, in part, because I think there’s a place for it. But this document is not the “savior” of America. (...) The Fourth Amendment details how people have “Protection from unreasonable searches and seizures”. This statement is basically qualified by the termed notion of “probable cause” in the amendment.
MyMindTank 1 month ago
(Part 5 of done) Now, while I understand the value of this document and the temporal brilliance of it in the context of the period of its creation that does not excuse the fact that it is a product of social inefficiency and nothing more. In other words, declarations of laws and rights are actually an acknowledgment of failures of the social design. There are many people today in the so-called “Patriot” and “Liberty” movements.
MyMindTank 1 month ago
(Part 4 of done) An intelligent commandment would be something like: “Thou shalt continually re-orient thyself and society to reduce reactionary propensities that lead to aberrated consequences such as stealing and murder.” The same surface irrelevancy applies to any Constitution or Bill of Rights of any country on this planet. In the Bill of Rights of the United States, there is an attempt to secure certain freedoms and protections by way again of mere text on paper.
MyMindTank 1 month ago
(Part 3 of done) As a classic example of this, let’s take the notion of divine law the famed Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not murder”. Why? These are surface notion cop-outs created by men who didn’t have any real information who did not understand that we live in a cause-and-effect reality. Telling people this does virtually nothing, as history has proven. Morality is an empty idea that has no empirical referent.
MyMindTank 1 month ago
(Part 2 of done) And once again, instead of seeking a true solution to a problem we invent these patches by way of paper proclamations in an attempt to resolve them. This does not work. It has never worked. There is really no such thing as an unalienable right outside of the culture in which it is assumed. We are making this up! Therefore, liberties need to be inherent in a social system by design not alluded to ambiguously on paper.
MyMindTank 1 month ago
(Part 1 of done) Today we use paper proclamations, as we call them to denote a person’s so-called rights. And just like laws, they are culturally biased artificial concoctions, which attempt to solve reoccurring problems by simply declaring something with words on paper usually. Rights, infact, have been invented to protect ourselves from the negative by-products of the social system itself.
MyMindTank 1 month ago
This sounds good but it is total nonesense. There are no natural rights. Presumably the right to life is 'natural' if any rights are. But what happens if I shoot you dead and there is no goverment to bring me to account? Nothing. I get away with it. Remove governments and you have no rights. Not nice but obviously true. 'All men are created equal' is totally man made, as the slave owning founding father knew. Is this man stupid or what?
shitaye12 1 month ago
All men are created equal....until they want to engage in evil buttsex or anything else he doesn't agree with.
tyrrax 1 month ago
@tyrrax Exactly! And the problem is the basic premise so hopelessly wrong.
shitaye12 1 month ago
These videos are better than ANY college course!
davenetdog 2 months ago 38
@davenetdog you're the reason this country is full of morons
Mrinebriation 1 month ago
Natural Law = Divine Providence, is real and unalterable. Know your place people. American exceptional-ism = derives its existence, not from mortals nor governments.
davenetdog 2 months ago
Bill, after reading through a smattering of comments I'm at a loss to explain how the concept of Natural Law, which you explained so elegantly and succinctly could be so misconstrued by so many people.
yonahrr 2 months ago 22
@yonahrr Romans 1:18-32
comichound 1 month ago
@yonahrr Because everything should be debatable in essence . I for one do find it hard to believe in the truth that their is any form of natural law as this would require the possibility of a technically perfect society where only natural laws would exist. Such a society would however ignore traditional and democratic values hence rendering our communities bare and empower individual members at the expense of others. It is hence libertarian and antidemocratic.
MrDarudin 6 days ago
Interesting insight into the atheist mind. Seems pretty arrogant to say there is "higher" authority than man. Yet if God didn't make you then who did? Certainly not yourselves. Natural law existed long before mankind arose from the slime.
yonahrr 2 months ago
I find that natural law is too religion biased toward belief in God. As an Atheist I see this as an unnessasary criteria that is a religious excuse to implement god into something that does not require him (struggle to survive). I'm glad he mentioned nonbelievers but I completely disagree that a 'higher' ultimately powerful force is in charge of what laws WE ourselves can create with the need to survive.
ElTorroXL 2 months ago
i believe in natural, unalienable rights...but I don't believe in a creator :o
j03y2fly 2 months ago in playlist More videos from BillWhittleChannel
Bill - Thanks for your inclusion of those who do no believe in a god. As an atheist myself, I tend to keep finding myself in the crosshairs of those in my party [R] who state that I shouldn't be in this country due to my lack of belief in a supernatural entity. They state that I'm immoral and unable to respect the constitution since it requires a belief in god. I do believe that we have natural unalienable rights as you explained. I enjoy all your videos. Cheers.
RandomTask008 2 months ago
Why oh why don't more people believe and talk like this! The reason that many people today, whether they be in politics or are just window shopping through life, don;t believe in, or at least wont admit that natural law is exactly what we have and should be still following, is because of the absence of true faith in God. Gods law was good enough for men since the days of Abraham and through the birth and maturity of our nation with our founding fathers. But with His law socialism isn't allowed !
TheJmpeters 3 months ago
Joseph Smith, Mormon church founder, had 35 wives, some as young as 14 & 12 who were already married. Smith had 2 great Apostles - Brigham Young who had 56 wives, & Parley Pratt who had only 12 wives b/c he was killed by the husband of the 12th wife
Parley's son Helaman had 4 wives & fled to Mexico after getting out of the pen. Miles Romney had 11 wives & losing his US citizenship rights to vote or serve on a jury, jumped bail & also sought sanctuary & citizenship in Mexico
DillonDee1 4 months ago
Helaman's daughter Anna m. Miles Romney’s son Gaskell in Chihuahua, Mexico & they had a son George Romney & although they’d lived in Mexico for yrs & set up schools & houses, a revolution caused these Mexican family members to sneak over the USA border.
George Romney was 5 when he came over as an illegal alien but was still allowed to go on public assistance & to public schools at taxpayers expense
DillonDee1 4 months ago
In elementary school George was known as “l’il Mex” b/c he was an illegal alien w/ jet black Mexican hair (maybe Mexican wives were somewhere in the mix) & b/c he was born in Mexico & thus given Mexican citizenship, his son Mitt doesn’t qualify as being “natural born” & thus is ineligible to be President
But b/c his ancestors were great Mormon leaders, Mitt's surely a Mormon High Priest & he & his wife are entitled to wear the sacred Mormon underpanties & Mitt will be in Level #3 in Heaven
DillonDee1 4 months ago
Whether or not he is ineligible due to his birth in my opinion remains to be seen, if he was born in Hawaii, then yes he is eligible. By the way Bill Whittle speaks clearly in his video on "Dreams from my Father" about Stanley Ann Dunham's nationality as American so I can't see why he would say President Obama's parents were foreign. For the record I do not agree with everything Whittle puts forth.
JustusNeverFails 4 months ago
@JustusNeverFails The definition of natural born citizen known to the founding fathers at the time the Constitution was written required that both parents be citizens, and therefore Obama is inelligible.
I know some argue that we use a different definition today, as put forth in US code. But one cannot change the Constitution by changing definitions of words, terms, or phrases. Only by the amendment process can we legally change the original meaning of the Constitution.
write2topcat 2 months ago
How dare he flash up T. Jefferson's image -- he'd never support this idiot's crap --
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is
to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the
higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they
rise." --Thomas Jefferson
DillonDee1 4 months ago
@DillonDee1 Right or wrong, this man is hardly an idiot. Name calling is pointless, if you disagree, say you disagree, don't call him an idiot and leave no explanation as to why you feel this way. You are protected by the anonymity of the internet, speak wisely lest You be called a coward for fielding pejorative terms vicariously and with no explanation.
JustusNeverFails 4 months ago
@JustusNeverFails -- I just listened to another video by this
"guy" on which he claimed there was a difference between native born & natural born & that Obama was native born because he was born in the USA but not natural born because both parents werent American citizens - so he was not eligible to be president.
Agree?
DillonDee1 4 months ago
@DillonDee1 I would have to see the video, from your description, it seems that Whittle is arguing the difference qualitatively between natural and native born citizens. According to you, Whittle claims that even though President Obama was born in the USA, because his parents were not, that
JustusNeverFails 4 months ago
(which he doesn't from what I have seen, President Obama's mother is most definitely American even according to whittle) President Obama is not qualified to be the President of the USA; with which I would disagree. If President Obama was born in the USA, then by that rule he is qualified. Whether is qualified to be the president or not is a different matter. If you would be so kind as to refer to me the link, I will respond appropriately
JustusNeverFails 4 months ago
@JustusNeverFails -- I cant follow your comment -- do you agree w/ him that Barack is ineligibe?
DillonDee1 4 months ago
@JustusNeverFails - in yhis video he says Barack is not eligible -- do you agree?
DillonDee1 4 months ago
this is total bullshit
DillonDee1 4 months ago
Another truth that is self-evident is your laughable lack of any form of expertise in history (and sociology, for that matter). The US constitution was a COMPROMISE that the Constitutional Convention fought tooth and nail over.
Natural law my ass.
InnerPartisan 4 months ago
As I'm listening, I realize that when I hear this from a republican candidate for president, I will know who to vote for. I'm thinking, a smart candidate would have you for a speech writer!
browneyes9158 4 months ago
Youtube messed up my comment...
Drago19930713 5 months ago
@Drago19930713 You have a bad case of "meme infestation". Businessmen applying free trade create wealth in the pursuit of their own success. Villains applying "friends in high places" and "threat of force" violate the natural laws as discussed. I would recommend going back to the first two videos and seeing about shedding some of those more popular self-defeating memes you're carrying.
Lamarth1 5 months ago
@Lamarth1 And that is my problem. Violating natural law, which concept of capitalism tends to do. I have problem with people who take their goal of gaining infinite profits too seriously. Thats all. I dont say all businessmen are like that, but even a small number of those f**ked up people can mess up everything.
Drago19930713 5 months ago
Mr. Whittle, I respect You for your intelligence and good intentions. But your views are too idealistic. In reality things are quite different. You see, when you mention businessmen intentions like creating jobs and quality goods etc. its not always true. Theres essentially only one thing that business is really interested in. And that is profit. And they are doing what ever it takes to make higher profits. They are not interested in people or employees. Greed is basic rule of this game.
Drago19930713 5 months ago
@Drago19930713 Higher profits = higher value added to the economy.
adamkajones 5 months ago
Respond to this video... Higher value of economy= ?
To where does the long road go? Creating new jobs? Creating higher standard of living for everyone? I highly doubt that. If this mechanism is working so well, the why even in ''high on business'' country you can find unemployed working class people, people that live in poverty.
Drago19930713 5 months ago
@Drago19930713 And you know what has contributed to higher unemployment? Minimum wage laws; all in the interest of "government knows best." And what do you propose? Government redistribution of wealth? There is no great mechanism of personal socio-economic mobility than a free market economy. Your precious politicians have screwed it all up and capitalism took all the blame. What other system do you propose that involves the greatest economic freedom with the biggest opportunities for growth?
adamkajones 5 months ago
@Drago19930713 How can you make people not be greedy? What economic system would eliminate greed? Aren't you greedy? Don't you want the best for yourself, generally speaking? People act in their own self-interest at most times. It's human nature.
adamkajones 5 months ago
@adamkajones Well, actually I am not greedy. Best for me would mean best for everybody. People do act in their interest. And personal human values has to do a lot with that. In many cases personal interest differs between individuals. Some seek only for material gain, some take that as secondary thing. Economic system cant eliminate greed. Understanding can... I dont propose any governmental systems that humans are in complete charge, because humans are driven by human interests.
Drago19930713 5 months ago
@Drago19930713 The definition and the labeling a greedy differs from person to person. Everybody is naturally greedy. I could call you greedy for whatever reason.
You cannot take the greed away from people, its their natural self interest to be for themselves, that is how the US became the best nation on the planet. Everybody acting in their self interest which helped everybody else through voluntary trade.
Nothing eliminates greed, nothing. Stop trying to fight human instinct.
superlucci 5 months ago
@superlucci You know whats interesting about human ''nature''? That human ''nature'' is dependent on conditions. So ''marketing'' stereotype that EVERYBODY is naturally greedy is lame.
Drago19930713 5 months ago
@Drago19930713 EVERYBODY does things in their self interest. Period.
You cannot take away self interest, its just as natural as feeding yourself
superlucci 5 months ago
@superlucci Too bad for you, then... Survival is natural. We do what we need to survive. Greed is different thing. Not so natural, because its seek of loot, wealth (which is more than you need to survive) in expense of the others. Survival can be achieved trough co-operation (as it was trough out history) and such thing as greed is opposing to it.
Drago19930713 5 months ago
@Drago19930713 Once again, the definition of greedy differs from person to person.
One could say if somebody ate a sandwich and then some chips, that person is greedy for eating the chips. But if he just ate the sandwich, he wouldnt be greedy.
Do you see why arbitrary definitions of greedy mean absolutely nothing?
And this is where you make the mistake of greed. Greed is never at the expense of others, unless it is forced. When you get a job, you make the wage you agree upon
superlucci 5 months ago
@Drago19930713 Your definition of co-operation means forcing me to give up more of my money. Thats not co-operation at all, thats thievery.
Voluntary charities do much better at finding the people who truly need help in society, rather than give a nice blanket to every single person under an arbitrary means of poor.
We didnt become the best nation on earth through socialism. We did it through free trade aspects and innovation, then government came and fucked it up.
superlucci 5 months ago
@Drago19930713 Your definition of co-operation means forcing me to give up more of my money. Thats not co-operation at all, thats thievery.
Voluntary charities do much better at finding the people who truly need help in society, rather than give a nice blanket to every single person under an arbitrary means of poor.
We didnt become the best nation on earth through socialism. We did it through free trade aspects and innovation, then government came and messed it up
superlucci 5 months ago
@superlucci My definition of greed is quite simple:greedy person who lives just to gain money. Addiction to paper to me is greed. When I said co-operation I meant people working together from beginning of human race. Hunter, gatherer TRIBES lived in groups and every member had a job to do. This co-operation has changed by the time, it got more sophisticated in many ways, but the need for it- did not. I did not meant socialism. Its too hard for humanity to sustain it anyway.
Drago19930713 5 months ago
@Drago19930713 Who doesnt want to gain money? Do you think *greedy* people dont think about other things during their life? Maybe about what shirt to wear? How much time do you need to think about money in order to be greedy? How much money do you need to have in order to be greedy?
You cant answer these, you know why? Because they are arbitrary random reasons you give. None of them which has any logic to them whatsoever.
Greed is never bad unless you go against the law.
superlucci 4 months ago
@superlucci Greed is a state of mind, not some thing that could be physically analyzed. Usually people want to gain money to get something in exchange of them. Be it items or services. But greedy mind has one goal- to gain as much as possible for no real reason. Its obsession. Dont tell me you havent seen rich spoiled people who dont know what they want, but would do anything for extra mill... THATS what I'm fucking talking about.
Drago19930713 4 months ago
@Drago19930713 Its too hard to sustain it because it just does not work. Nobody wants to have their money taken from them. Common sense.
superlucci 4 months ago
@superlucci Forget the fuckin money for a moment at least. The IDEAL of communism is too high for humanity to stick to. Actually its K.Marx's ideas, that communism was found upon. Problem is, theres no way to put them into working practice without changing moral values of the people.
Drago19930713 4 months ago
@Drago19930713 Any system could work if the people were sheep and would just listen to it.
But you see, we have things called self interest, which means every single human being wants a system where they have the chance to succeed in. And that is the free market, capitalism.
superlucci 4 months ago
@superlucci Its not necessarily to be brainwashed sheep, indoctrinated particular political ideology. Moral value system doesnt actually depend on politics, but rather politics depend on moral value systems accepted in society. Every one wants system where they have decent social guarantees and conditions to be happy. Capitalism needs some adjustments to that. If people would be fair, capitalism would do fine. It seems like whatever the system is, people are those who make a real difference.
Drago19930713 4 months ago
@Drago19930713 If government would be fair, people would do fine.
superlucci 4 months ago
@superlucci So central goal would be making government fair. I dont have any suggestions to accomplish that other than AI idea...
Drago19930713 4 months ago
@Drago19930713 My friend, you seem to be slightly confused with the word "money." Money is an arbitrary term that has no real meaning. Greedy people want to amass as much wealth as possible, but not in monetary form, in the form of luxuries and such. Now, capitalism works on its own, all the government needs to do is make sure people don't lie, cheat, and otherwise break the laws that are rational, such as paying debts (in this case, when able) and such.
TheMoron64 4 months ago
@adamkajones Regulating system shouldnt be driven by ambitions or emotions. Decisions should be done by computers, in this way, no human intentions would corrupt them. At least I think that, because human leadership doesnt work very much.
Drago19930713 5 months ago
@Drago19930713 And who would program those computers?
*sigh*
superlucci 5 months ago
@superlucci WoW... Indeed, WHO? Experts, maybe?
Drago19930713 5 months ago
Great clip! Please USA, keep on being the shining beacon of freedom for the rest of the world. Don't turn into Europe.
datott 5 months ago
Very eloquently put, but I can't help feeling that your argument is rather simplistic. When the Founding Fathers said that it was self evident that all men were created equal, they meant literally that. Men. Not women. (And the less said about slaves, the better.) Now however, we would consider it self evident that women are just as equal as men. (And that slavery is abominable.) If Natural Law is as unchanging and eternal as you claim, then who is right?
telanian 5 months ago
@telanian The answer to your question as to "who is right," is not able to be answered as you may imagine because it is not a question of "who" so much as "what."
In so far as Natural Law is discovered through the use of reason, then reason is the arbiter, not any one or several personalities. As the guy in this video says, natural law is "revealed" through observation and reason.
Jack95912 5 months ago
@telanian In the time of the Founders, there were many intellectuals that felt slavery was unreasonable, and in the French Revolution there was even an attempt to give women full political rights. While they did not receive this, they did get citizenship.
Remember that just because society at large does not make a moral or reasonable decision does not mean the associated rights do not exist.
Jack95912 5 months ago
"Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers."
TravisTCleveland 7 months ago
"If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people."
TravisTCleveland 7 months ago
"About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter."
TravisTCleveland 7 months ago
There is no natural law.What one comunity might percive as basic and fundamental
right the other wll concive as abhorent and abominable.
Kharmazov 7 months ago
@Kharmazov Oh no, sir. There are natural laws that all human beings have just because they are human beings
TravisTCleveland 7 months ago
@TravisTCleveland
I've wished you where right good sir I trully do.Unfortunetly that is not the case.
Kharmazov 7 months ago
@Kharmazov
"natural rights" may be a misnomer, it doesn't deny their basic logical validity.
@Trauncher was correct, your counter "argument" about slavery, genocide etc. supports his argument. Societies that follow these practices have been proven to be less effective than societies without them when all other things are generally equal.
NativeNewMexican 6 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
And they are logical because of what,a human emotion wich hey are based on,or rather cold logical cauculation.;-)
Really how?In what terms where those societies less efective??Economicly,militarly??Seriously do your history lesson;-)
Kharmazov 6 months ago
@Kharmazov
Based on a cold calculation. Each human has the capacity for labor, demand for stuff is in essence unlimited so each laborer could produce SOMETHING of value, killing off laborers reduces your overall productivity and that productivity could be for economics or military. It's a fact of resource capabilities.
With slavery, the same thing happens, except it's the loss of work of the guards and the resentful slaves that sabotage things. Short term slavery can out produce, but not long
NativeNewMexican 6 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
Agian not true.Civilization like Rommans for example thrived while employing genocide and mass slavery.
Cheap labour is almost always sought after.That's why China has such economic growth.
Kharmazov 6 months ago
@Kharmazov
Romans had slaves and used mass genocide, true. Compared to what at their time? There is no comparable non slave using non mass genocide using state with the same military technology during the same era. If there were, the Romans would have been out performed. Find an example of one where there is an equivalent alternative without these things that did better. You can't. Actually the Romans and Greeks both had LESS slavery and genocide than their equivalents of the time.
NativeNewMexican 6 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
@NativeNewMexican
For example to Athens wich didnot relay on slavery that much.And to be fair mass slave labour was no employed by ancient romans utill the conquest of Grece when mass flown of slaves lowerd he market price.
As for geonice the Romans employed as much as anyone else at their times if not to even a greater extend.Furthermore you outomaticly assume that genice or exploatation will always be directed inwards rather then externally like in forementioned case.
Kharmazov 6 months ago
@Kharmazov
I'm not a nag on grammar and spelling, but could you please try a little. It makes reading your stuff difficult.
Romans did NOT have more slaves/genocide acts than the Gauls or the when you compare them on a per capita basis. Who are you comparing them with to suggest that they did more than the comparable allegiances of the time?
It doesn't matter if the slavery or genocide is outward. Trade is just as powerful as internal productivity. Rome's policy was mostly "join us".
NativeNewMexican 6 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
Sorry can't do.The internet conection is getting hick-ups recently an I have write as fast as possible,otherwise I am forced to start over agian.
Agian not true.the barbarian trobes loved to indulgde themselfs in mayeh but it was the Romans that brought it to a whole new level.Furthermore as I've foremention earliear I am comparing them with Athens.
Why bother trading when you can simply take all you want by force and have not only a flow ofcash but also slaves.
Kharmazov 6 months ago
@Kharmazov
Pull up notepad, write your comment, then copy and paste it into the reply. It works wonders.
25% of Roman population was slaves and 30% of Greek population were slaves, proving my claim. Athens was an exception, and guess what it was the most productive city within the Greek world, again proving my claim.
Why bother trading instead of taking & killing? Why not kill the goose that lays the golden egg. It's obvious, because they don't lay more eggs.
NativeNewMexican 6 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
1.Sorry won't do.Some sort of copy paste countermeasures.
2.What time period??Because only after the punic wars cheap slave labour becamed avialiable to Romans
3.Athens practised slavery,furthermore they had large population (200 000) and silver mines.
Kharmazov 6 months ago
@Kharmazov
1. Shame, it undermines your points by not being legible.
2. It's an average across time.
3. Yes, they had slaves, but as you said yourself, "Athens wich didnot relay on slavery that much"
Again, your examples prove my point.
NativeNewMexican 6 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
3.Acually I've been wrong.Almost every Athenian owned a slave or several.
So no your poin't has been just disaproved;-)
Kharmazov 6 months ago
@Kharmazov
No, the point has not been disproved. Athens had more ownership of slaves, but the truth is that for a very large part slaves were rented out to work in the countryside. All that indicates is that Athens had more wealth, not that they actually had more slavery within the city proper.
Also, even with ONE example to the contrary (if you were to make it, which you haven't), my point stands, the trend and overwhelming evidence supports it.
NativeNewMexican 6 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
Not only in country but also in workshops,child care,housekeaping etc.Virtually every possible facid of life.
Athens had more wealth because they had silver mines and alongside Sparta where the most powerfull city state.
No ofence but nothing so far supports your arguments.Civilizations that employed both slavery and genocide where able to flourish.
Kharmazov 6 months ago
@Kharmazov
I didn't say civilizations that employed slavery and genocide weren't able to flourish. Read what I said. Quote it back, then explain how everything we have said doesn't completely support my statement.
NativeNewMexican 6 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
Show me where it dose.You claim that there are natural human rights that are valid due to their practicality.I've just showed you that a society can do quite well without them.Ergo here is no such thing as natural law only positivistic one.
Kharmazov 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kharmazov
Here's what I said:
"Societies that follow these practices have been proven to be less effective than societies without them when all other things are generally equal."
Which has been proven in all of our discourse. It is supported mathematically and historically. I didn't say societies can enslave or commit genocide and due to that they will not prosper.
NativeNewMexican 6 months ago
@Kharmazov Athens had more wealth because of the protection racket they were running after the end of the second Persian War.
MiltiadesOfMarathon 5 months ago
@MiltiadesOfMarathon
Among other things yes.Trade was probably also a major factor.
Kharmazov 5 months ago
@Kharmazov But the people always throw them down!
rehwr 5 months ago in playlist More videos from BillWhittleChannel
This has been flagged as spam show
@NativeNewMexican
4.Why bother leaving your potential enemies alive??Why not simply kill scores of them and enslave the survivors,take the loot and settle newly conquered lands with loyal population.
Kharmazov 6 months ago
@Kharmazov like the right to live. one community may love this and perceive it as a basic right, while another community might think that none has a right to life, and just kill everyone when they are born... that community would survive quite well don't you think? your argument is quite flawed.
Trauncher 6 months ago
@Trauncher
Yeah,wars,slavery,genocide,honor killings proove otherwise.Furthermore you you've just showned that any "right" or law requaires validations from the group,comunity,society etc. and can't exists on it's own;-)
Kharmazov 6 months ago
As to the Constitution & religion: The 1st Amend. uses the word "establishment," which was being used as we today might use incorporate. It was only barring Congress from incorporating a Church of the United States, like the U.S. Army or U.S. Navy. The original & primary meaning of the clause about "free exercise" referred to the variouis state churchs then still existing. Congress was disbarred from OBSTRUCTING the states on matters of religion. What the SCOTUS has doen is Orwellian.
VictorLepanto 7 months ago
@VictorLepanto What has the Court done that is "Orwellian"? And what does the First Amendment mean to you, if it doesn't exist to protect the religious freedoms of the individual citizen?
chiachuck 7 months ago
@chiachuck: The 1st Amend. is meant to bar the Federal gov't from interferring in the state's religious affairs. The courts have taken it & transformed it into a LICENCE to interfer in those affairs. If Congress is barred from interferring in religious matters, the SCOTUS is doubly barred. The state churchs continued to operate for several years after the present Constitution was established. Obviously the Founders did not adhere to the modern court's absurd "interpretation."
VictorLepanto 7 months ago
@VictorLepanto So, from what I'm gathering, you think that States should be allowed to establish churches, and the government cannot interfere with this?
chiachuck 7 months ago
@chiachuck: That fact is that the states DID have precisely such Churchs. Not that I'd like to see the states establish any new Churchs. Christ established His Church, I can't see how anyone imagines they could improve on His efforts. It actually took several years for the states to quit maintaining their churchs, mainly from lack of popular interest. If the states want to have public organised prayer or any other religious demonstrations, it is their perogative, subject to voters.
VictorLepanto 7 months ago
@VictorLepanto From what I'm gathering, the States ceased to support established churches for a reason that is not at all surprising; there were too many denominations for there to be a clean all-encompassing "state religion". Much like I said to Native below, the moment the government, (state or federal) shows favor to one system of belief, it is discriminating against another...even if the difference is denominational. And this is why I support their separation.
chiachuck 7 months ago
@chiachuck: You really don't grasp the Orwellian bill of goods you've been tought to accept regarding religion in public life. The American people are free to express their religion in public life. They are not merely to be tolerated by a state which assumes de facto atheist posture but allows people some option to indulge their primitive superstitions. This last sentence truly expresses the real mentality underlying the modern SCOTUS' attitude towards religion.
VictorLepanto 7 months ago
@VictorLepanto First, Matthew 7:1-6. Second, there is a difference between secular reasoning, and some "de facto atheist posture". Government, in order to govern in the most fair way possible, must take a secular stance, as I pointed out in my last statement.
chiachuck 7 months ago
@chiachuck @VictorLepanto
I am amazed at how Victor could get some of this stuff right despite how wrong he is in my other discussion with him.
He is correct, the Constitution does not bar states from establishing or endorsing a church/religion. That being said, the Constitution should probably have been amended to fix that. At some point in time, a Muslim, Sharia law state could very well develop if we don't fix this hole.
And yes, we pretty much agree chia, we're splitting hairs.
NativeNewMexican 7 months ago
@chiachuck: You might want to go back & read the SCOTUS decisions in the original school prayer decisions. I've read some of their quotes. They, for instance, talk about the psychological damage that religion can do. There is a difference b/t a respectful deferance by the state towards the religious sensibilities of the people, the original secular posture of the Founders, & a SECULARIST anti-religious posture tha seeks to supress religion as an undo influence on society.
VictorLepanto 7 months ago
@VictorLepanto None of their quotes could possibly be any worse than many of the founders' quotes. Also, there can be no respectful "deference" when the "religious sensibilities" of the people lead them to think prayer should be in schools, God in the Pledge, and creation in science class. If you are doing these things peacefully in church, fine, but if you try to move it into the public forcibly, you can't expect others to just stand by and be "respectful"...
chiachuck 7 months ago
@chiachuck: What Founders quotes are "worse" about what? I really can't comprehend what you're talking about. The gov't is the people's gov't. It exists to serve their interests. It should reflect, not disparage & marginalize their values. The only place where the Founders expressed any thought on religion in public schools was in the NWO for the NW Territory. In it they expressed their belief that the very PURPOSE of public education was to FOSTER religion.
VictorLepanto 7 months ago
@VictorLepanto The founders had wildly varying views on religion, and you know it. Their writings are filled with both praise and condemnation for organized religion. As for reflecting the interests of the people, you are correct, it should reflect their interests, right up to the point where their interests infringe on someone else's rights. For example, an opinion (religion) held by one group, has ZERO right to infringe on another. This way all views are protected, as I've said repeatedly.
chiachuck 7 months ago
@chiachuck: You have had a typical modern revisionist treatment of the Founders, you've obviously never been given a good comprehensive treatment of their views. The Founders encourage, public, collective, organised, & vigorous expressions of religion. They practiced it. As for the matter of religion in school the only collective expression of their view on the subject was the NWO, where they said that the very purpose of public education was to FOSTER religion.
VictorLepanto 7 months ago
@VictorLepanto You're contradicting yourself. I have no "absolute view" of the founders, as you can see in my posts. They produced a constitutional foundation which set some principals in place , yet was capable of evolving with the times, which it did. Did they practice religion? Sure, but that doesn't mean everyone has to. Did they think that religion was a crucial part of human life? Maybe, but if they did (and you may want to sit down for this one), they were wrong.
chiachuck 7 months ago
You're right actually it wasn't a straw man, it was a falsehood. The Tea party HAS attacked corporate welfare over and over again. You hear what you want to hear.
I have NOT misinterpreted your statement, I made an ACCURATE interpretation of your statement and applied it to something that made you uncomfortable to prove a point. If you want gov't to to conscript doctors to provide medical care, why not us for military service?
AGAIN, We don't care if it's an R or a D abuse, it's still abuse!
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago