Government is magic

[jryan1971]

lol government really is magic according to Inoue

[MaikUniversum]

what is government if not the people? If people do not have right to rob others, then government LOGICALLY can not have such right either. You can't create something out of nothing.

[PatMende]

Fallacy of division.

[2daewoo4u]

Hawaii is ashamed. 

[klingande]

People want a system with a tax man. People do not want to be robbed by a random schmuck.

[spol07]

@klingande In other words, it feels better to be robbed by the same man over and over again than trying something more logically consistent.

[bothawker]

Jan Helfeld is clearly a nut job.

[WuTubeish]

This is very scary that this guy is a senator! I think he belongs in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany.

Ron Paul 2012!

[machwon]

That's one loud tie. :3

[larrybud]

A perfect example of a person who doesn't believe in the US Constitution. Just because the majority says the government can do something doesn't make it Constitutional.

[muttsa]

the think the term is gestalt, when the whole is more than the sum of is parts

[ladyattis]

@muttsa social wholes are not gestalt by any stretch of the imagination.

[mushmouth4life]

This is one of those things that comeand together back to origins of government issues. Did governments arise from family and clans plotting and conquering their neighbors and forcing them to pay tribute until the distinction between master and slave disappeared for tax purposes or did groups of people band together and agree to contribute to some common fund for defense and support which developed into modern taxation and the real problem is the growing number of claims of the common fund?

[zg76]

Nice bashing ! !

[apotheounSTK]

Sen. Inouye is past his sell-by date.

[cfaz10]

this attitude is why Hawai'i let the US take it over.

[AceOfHeart2012]

Governments don't exist in nature. Whatever it is that this usurper (Inoue) is smoking how can I get some? He's living in total fantasy land. (And these are the spanks YOU keep voting for? F**king scary...)

[klingande]

@AceOfHeart2012

Ant hills etc. Not that it even matters

[AceOfHeart2012]

OK then, but I don't vote for these scumbags nor do I consent to be 're-presented'. I am present. Only fictions (dead entities) can be 're-presented'. This Inoue P.O.S. is 'inoue-ing'! Arrogant fuck.

[aristotlestudent]

Yeah, leave it that way, hypocrite. This is why politicians avoid answering questions and softball reporters go far who don't ask tough questions.

When politicians from either party are faced with the reality of what they do, it's indefensible.

This interviewer was right on the mark.

[DougKendall]

He should have asked, "But who is the government? Government is made up of other people, just like you and I! So, I ask again...""

[DougKendall]

The senator is an idiot.

[TreachMarkets]

"You can authorize the government to take over my residence." Is this guy a communist?

[dchamberss]

This is pretty strict Objectivist philosophy, or so it appear to me. I have read Atlas Shrugged. Not in my impressionable youth, but after reading 100's of other (nonfiction) magnum opera. I was impressed in her philosophy as a logical extension of the Natural Law and Rights of Man philosophy (Hobbs -> Locke -> Jefferson). Certainly we have never seen such in practice (which must be the litmus test), but I'm inclined to argee. I suspect it may be a bit too utopian. Keep Nail 'em Jan.

[dchamberss]

What the Senator should have said is this - The citizens, through their representatives, can give up certain of their rights for the benefit of the country (society). The draft would be a classical example of this, taxation would be another. The founders understood this, hence their argument against taxation w/o representation - not simple against taxation. I would agree this should be explicit in the form of a const. amend. (if necessary). Care to comment JAN?

[dchamberss]

So it is OK for the government to do it... I believe it's immoral, but it's OK for the government to do it.

[Aliothemage]

OMG, Jan's tie is a crime against humanity!

[Helionaeic]

"the authorization comes from the people".

I am a person, one of 'The People'. I formally rescind my authorization to the state to rob 'The People' (myself included) under threat of violence.

now what.

[RiNSpy]

A minimal state would need to have at least that function.

[RiNSpy]

Jan, your argument is incorrect.

Originally, people do have the right to intiate physical violence against other people who did not threaten them - it's a natural right.

But with the formation of a state, the people delegate that right to the government. They agree that the government is the only body that can use physical violence against others, and define the circumstances in which it is allowed to do so. In fact, that is the primary function of the state.

[ekeyra]

a wonderful exercise in seeing precisely how far that guy from hawaii has managed to shove his head up his ass

[AZCARDSFAN89]

Even though this video cracks me up, I understand what the senator was saying.

[ekeyra]

@AZCARDSFAN89 please share, because im pretty sure he doesnt know what the fuck he is talking about

[Idefaulttofreedom]

Love this guy and his interviews. Politicians never follow logic so its like talking to a wall...what's the use.

[pbeaird]

Here, again, is a Leader who is so lost in his concepts that he is literally unable to understand the question. Rights are inherent in human nature, not given by joining society. A democracy may vote any violation of individuals and their property, because it is NOT based on rights. Rights are those things that beling to you and may not be voted on. Life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, and all that is entailed by those: free speech, gun ownership, self-medication, free trade.

[Infomaniack]

I like the style and ultimately I believe in the premise.

However, the individual does gain certain rights when he/she enters the society. Liberty must be sacrificed for any degree of protection, that is what society is. And I am well aware of the famous quote, so if you want to reply please explain why you feel the quote is accurate to any degree.

[bdrake529]

"the individual does gain certain rights when he/she enters the society"

How does this happen? Magic?

"Liberty must be sacrificed for any degree of protection"

You couldn't be more wrong. Liberty is simply the recognition of each person's self-ownership. There is NOTHING that requires sacrificing this. People can voluntarily trade with each other for EVERY good and service they need, including protection.

[SnakeDoctor33]

@bdrake529 People should opt to protect themselves and they should do so by any means.Liberty sacrificed is a death sentence for freedom imo.In this reality,there are no "liberties or rights,there are only privileges delegated to us by the corporation.People should abandon this masonic constitution in favor of a newly written and better structured one,again,imo.We have seen clearly these elect wish only to serve themselves so why people continue to capitulate this is a mystery to me.End elitism

[bdrake529]

...continued

No liberty (self-ownership) is "sacrificed" in voluntary contracts. When I trade with a farmer for food, I do not "sacrifice" my liberty. In fact, by voluntarily trading, I am re-affirming both his and my liberty since otherwise, I would just take from him with out respecting his property rights (in himself and in his external property). Contracting with a defense agency or private court system is no different.

[Infomaniack]

Except that living under a government is not voluntary at all is it? We are born into this "voluntary social contract" Trade between two people is far different from contracting with a defense agency, in this case the army or police department because the members of those departments are not merely exchanging their services for money, they are required to perform services by law. The act of joining the army impedes a persons future individual liberty in a way that more than obvious.

[Infomaniack]

the appearance of volition should not be confused with actual liberty.

[bdrake529]

Please go back and actually read what I wrote. It is you who is confused.

"defense agency" and "private court system" are not references to State armies or courts. The exact opposite.

I am not confused about "actual liberty". It is VERY simple:

liberty = the recognition of your self-ownership

Nothing else.

There is no "voluntary social contract". And of course government isn't voluntary, that's why it is illegitimate. Unless...like video title implies...it is somehow magic.

[Infomaniack]

Where did you get that definition? You can state that you believe that is the case and we can go from there.

Liberty does not = recognition of self-ownership. That relegates liberty to a state of mind and not a state of being. If one refuses to acknowledge their own self-ownership does that mean that they have no liberty?

There are degrees of liberty and unfortunately we are all confined , restricted, controlled in some way.

Society limits ones Liberty the second they are born.

[loganachilles1982]

@bdrake529 very true

[TheCurtisnixon]

@Infomaniack s/he who sacrifices freedom for liberty deserves none. have fun in the fema camps.

[heyheymonkees]

Does not compute, does not compute.

[heyheymonkees]

This gets exactly to the issue. Its funny when he calls the clarification of the issue to be a distortion.

[jryan1971]

"you can authorize the government to take over my residence" scary

[deltapunk21]

Inoue is all about shitting on the US Constituion.

[deltapunk21]

Hatfeld owns.....

[Cybercontadino]

Why can't the distinguished congressman admit that it is the tyranny of the 51%....sheesh!

[tesla921]

As long as it's a king or gov't they can do whatever they want to you just beause they are named king or gov't.

Typical philosophy of the parasite class. ...the recievers of your stolen property.

[smthngdffrnt]

"...the authorization comes from the people..."

I never gave any such authorization!

"...through their representatives."

Oooohhh, I see. Wait, what representatives? I never elected anyone to represent me. Are you saying that people who don't have the right to steal my money (apparently they have a desire to but are too cowardly to do it personally) elected representitives and gave them the authority to steal from me on their behalf? Oh, it's called government? Well, that's okay I guess.

[RimmersFamily]

"So be it."

I've seen plenty of people voicing opinions against things like, oh, say, bailouts, and the politicians don't listen to the populist sentiment.

How can you authorize the government to do something when the law seems to suggest the people are not qualified to delegate the right in the first place?

"Tortured route."

Awkward!!!

"We disagree." = Gun in the room!

[haveabeer123]

you live in a democracy don´t you? there is one other way and that´s dictatorship where you don´t have a say... pick your choice and move to venezuela or cuba where the people are not qualified to delegate anything... I rather stay in the US where at least my vote counts...

[bdrake529]

Your vote doesn't count. If you're old enough to vote, you're old enough to not believe in fairy tales anymore.

There is another way other than dictatorship, it's called liberty. Society runs itself, it doesn't need a parasitical criminal institution (aka government) to "run".

YOU MOVE. I'm not willing to have my property and liberty stolen because you want to be a slave.

[moolikeacow2]

Canaduh. :D lol.

[justino81]

Fantastic