If the government wasn't there to pay for every corporations mistake, corporations would act much more responsibly. How is that hard to understand? Apply that to real life and see what happens. Every time you get a ticket, your parents pay it and you don't get in trouble.....most people are going to keep speeding.
Libertarianism is hilarious. Its an ahistorical position and its adherents pretend its the ONLY logical position to hold. Its never been tested, and theres evidence to suggest it would be a disaster. Give it up already.
@2edsajdmsa your a disaster , you have no idea what libertarianism is , what evidence do you have , I would like to hear your [ facts ] you obviously have no idea what liberties and freedoms are , RON PAUL 2012
@MaffickProductions I used to be a Libertarian, I know very well what it is.
One can stand for individual freedoms and liberty (as I do, down with the FCC, down with the war on drugs and many more things) and still want regulation on what companies can put in our food and water.
Name one country in the last 100 years which has successfully pulled off Libertarianism, that is what I meant by ahistorical.
@2edsajdmsa I agree it's never been tested, but that doesn't mean it's bad. However, it indeed is the most logical political philosophy. I think we can both agree that harming someone is a bad thing. So we say we take that one rule that you never can harm a non-aggressor. Libertarianism now is the only political philosophy I know of which goes on and derives ALL of it's believes from this one rule, which makes it consistent. Consistency spares you the contradictions most other ideologies bear.
Gawd, I fall in love with Cenk all over again around 10:00 on in this video . . . Even if I dont 100% completely agree with him all of the time, its nice to see someone speak with such intelligence and authenticity, based on real facts . . . not purchased talking points . . it has become so rare in todays culture . . .
France isn't the largest economy because it's socialist? what about the fact that France has 60 mil people and the US 300 mil?
if you are going to compare Europe and US... compare US with EU!! and GUESS WHAT!!! the EU has a LARGER ECONOMY THAN THE US!!! Greatest economy in the world is the EU
@force3264 Yes, because that's the very reason d'etre of the EU; it is a hybrid intergovernmental organization that has some attributes of statehood; EU-member states have national powers and the EU institutions have the rest of the power that would normally be part of national power;
and the economy is the no1 aspect of the EU that is supposed to be integrated; the EU is supposed to be 1 single economy; it is represented as a country in G8, G20 and WTO meetings; not sure if in UN too
@force3264 that last part: along side the countries themselves; so at the G8 for example you have the German Chancellor, the French President, the Italian PM and the President of the European Commission;
@bbphnix Yeah but that's not a fair comparison. You have to compare an economic union with another economic union. Something close to that would be NAFTA but that's still not a good comparison as they are not really the same. A good comparison to the US would be China which have provinces which are like states. China's economy is growing and there are over a billion people compare to 300 million but their economy sucks.
@bbphnix Then you might as well compare the African Union with the US. The AU economy sucks and it's bigger than the EU. Union of South American Nations also sucks compare to the US and it's just as big.
@force3264 for heaven's sake..... there is no other union like the Eu; the EU is a transitional form of government between a union and a federation; maybe the ASEAN, AU, USAN, CIS etc will integrate to that point too (if the latter does that essentially the Soviet Union would be recreated.... but that's beside the point); there's much debate in the Eu over this status of the Eu; Euroskeptics are hell-bent on preventing the formation of an USE; again, beside the point; here's the main point:
@bbphnix Europe is a continent with many different traditions and languages, but also with shared values. The EU defends these values. It fosters co-operation among the peoples of Europe, promoting unity while preserving diversity and ensuring that decisions are taken as close as possible to the citizens.
In the increasingly interdependent world of the 21st century, it will be even more necessary for every European
@bbphnix It's only unique in that it only represents the European countries on the world stage. By that same logic, the USAN is the same except it represents South American countries on the world stage. The USAN is modeled after the EU. The EU is NOT unique. It's just more globalism and unification.
@force3264 yes, it is; no other union of states is like the EU; maybe in the future there will be; like I said "MAYBE the ASEAN, AU, USAN, CIS etc WILL INTEGRATE TO THAT POINT TOO (if the latter does that essentially the Soviet Union would be recreated.... but that's beside the point); "
the Eu is meant to give a voice to european nations in the face of such countries as the US, Russia China etc; so YES the Eu is directly comparable to the US; that's what I think; can we agree to disagree?
@bbphnix That's like saying democrats and republicans are different when they're the same. The policies are the same as well as the goals. The EU is no different than the others. The EU is meant to give a voice to European nations only and that is the only difference.
@force3264 The European Union (EU) is a family of democratic European countries, committed to working together for peace and prosperity. It is not a State intended to replace existing states, but it is more than just another international organisation. The EU is, in fact, unique. Its Member States have set up common institutions to which they delegate some of their sovereignty so that decisions on specific matters of joint interest can be made democratically at European level.
The libertarian party is corrupt as all hell. I watched the runoff vote with the delegates at the convention back in 08. I actually overheard this guy and mike gravel talking about shifting delegates as a deal to shore up the vote to get the vp slot. It was on c-span in between speeches when crowds of people are talking on the floor.
That over-leveraging and risk-taking was the government's attempt to create universal home ownership. It was the Fed slashing interest rates and granting )% down, adjustable-rate mortgages. It was the centralization of interest rates, instead of IR structures.
No, Cenk, the two issues are ONE AND THE SAME. The free market would have never tolerated those risks by itself, because they were, as you point out, TOO RISKY. The reason the market accepted those "risks" was because they weren't risks--all the losses were guaranteed by the government.
@EnergizerBunny804 well if you think people who don't work have a right to YOUR money be a traditional liberal. If you feel like you have the right to your own money and that it's your property be a libertarian.
True. The republicans are dishonest to a certain extent. I mean every politician has to hide one of their personal beliefs to get elected. You wouldn't want to just publicly say you believed the drinking age should be 18 as a politician because you wouldn't be voted in even if you believed that it doesn't make sense for someone to go to war and have bullets wizzing pass their head and develop war trauma, but not be able to have a beer.
The libertarian is not going to grow legs unless we reach out to liberals and conservatives equally. Wayne Allen Root is way too antagonistic to persuade
get rid of the IRS AND EPA. screw these corrupt organizations. the IRS steals my money, the EPA thinks they can tell me what I can and can't do on my OWN property, damn the EPA and IRS and long live Libertarianism and death to Liberalism.
I have to admit I voted for this guy for VP on the Barr/Root ticket, but he is a very burlesque Libertarian. He really gets off track here throughout the whole interview, & his responses are not that great. Talking about Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, etc is to argue over secondary causes. The mortgage meltdown is merely the "spark" that set off the fire that burned everything down. No one talks about the "gasoline" that was poured on the floor beforehand. It's been the same for every recession.
The argument over the "oversight" issue is a semantic argument. Root almost hit the nail on the head when he started to talk about "quasi-private". Once you have something that is not quite public or private, by definition the gov't has created an artificial entity that wouldn't exist in a free market, so arguing over "more" or "less" gov't is false way to frame the questions. It already IS government involvement, so you are merely arguing over HOW it is to be regulated..
So that takes us to the gasoline that is the underlying cause of every recession: central banking. Central banks, being a government sponsored monopoly, is a kind of central planning. And the flaw with it is that a central bank will always keep interest rates too low for too long. This in turn leads to other irresponsible policies such as having reserve rates too low, which make a credit collapse inevitable. The only thing that changes is the "spark" that sets off the recession.
Unfortunately, most Americans aren't educated about the monetary system, and they're too apathetic to get educated. The short term solution, I think, rather than wasting time arguing about secondary causes is to put a floor on reserve requirements, so that the recessions aren't as deep. This will lead to higher interest rates since the money supply cannot be multiplied as many times thru fractional reserve lending, but it would allow the banks to function more like they would in a free market.
the federal reserve flooded the market with cheap "easy" money, government encouraged risky loans
simple solution , gold standard. can't just print off gold and flood markets with paper gold. with the inability to quadruple your bottom line with fractional reserve banking, "easy" credit disappears and legislation promoting risky loans becomes toothless
Cenk should have pressed him a little bit harder instead of trying to be polite. That guy kept agreeing with cenk on everything he didnt have an answer for and when cenk would clarify his answer the guy would change the topic. overall good debate.
Sweet Jesus, when I was first listening to that guy on the phone, the more he talked the louder he got. Eventually it felt like he was yelling at me through the screen.
All that CEO guy kept saying was "stop telling me what to do" over and over. Look, part of being a grownup is following rules. Without rules and oversight you'll get people who'll say "it's only a crime if a cop sees it". But with no oversight and no cops . . . You end up with corrupt companies hoarding too much wealth to themselves and when they fail, they take too much down with them.
No rules in personal or economic issues? No accountability except to yourself? Yeah, that's anarchy.
So "real men" are for anarchy. I the founders wanted anarchy, they were quite aware that they could have picked a more efficient way to enact it other than writing a document that would collectively brand themselves as traitors to the British Empire. None of the founders were looking for a cop-out like not having to follow any rules. "Real men" break rules? WISE men recognize their necessity and work to change unjust rules into rules that are fair to as many as possible.
Yeah real men don't follow the rules that are unjust. So what about all the laws the where broke in the south during the civil rights movement. What about Gandhi. Huh I say as they're handled in a non violent I see nothing wrong with. But if done violently I do no honor the person. They use anger instead there Intellect and there will to endure whatevers thrown there way.
The laws broken in the south during the Civil Rights movement is a testament to the need of government. If there was no government, those same conditions would still exist as horridly & openly today. When a government takes an unjust policy on an issue, the only way to change it is to entreat the heart & core of government - the people - by protest. If the people don't bother to watch the news or follow politics at all, then government won't work. It can't work with an uninvolved electorate.
I'm a far right libertarian but I want to comment this guy (the Turk guy). He's more reasonable and sensible than anyone I've seen on MSNBC. He's a sensible guy - though one I disagree with a lot.
I wish there were more on the left like him - without all the vitriol of the Olbermanns, Schultzs, Maddows, Garafalos....etc.
yeah thats becuase people like me and to some degree him although im a socialist we like to talk to libertarians becuase they are the only only ones that start the debate from logic. but capitalism has a few major flaws
@pandasftuw Of course they have the right to voice their views. They're shrill dimwits - but hey have every right to be shrill dimwits. It's constitutionally protected.
@ritwingr well seem as you a a "ritwingr" I would say you are a complete cunt, but unfortunately you have the right to be one kind of like how the kkk have rights
garafalo and hitchens would not wipe their arse with you
Uttered by a guy who couldn't spell "Strauss" if you spotted him 3 s's. You clearly don't have a clue what a "Neocon" is. You just spew stuff people like Garafa-No-Talent put in your head. It's amazing what knee-jerking fools leftists are.
I realize this is way, way over your head, but for others who might be reading, I'm a Rothbardian anarchocapitalist - as far from a "neocon" as it gets. Thanks for the laugh, though!
@pandasftuw ROFLMFAO! "great spelling there" from a guy who typed the word "conculsion," and used "whose" to contract "who is." World class ignorance even for a socialist!
As for Garafalo, unless she said "I'm a mentally challenged hideously ugly cunt," she's never said a single CORRECT thing.
Defending a retarded comedian, throwing around terms you don't understand and correcting spelling whilst mangling the language. Stupid, hypocritical AND ignorant - the Leftist Trifecta!! ROFLMAO!
@ritwingr Weird, I'm a left libertarian and I really don't like Uygur that much. I've seen him sub on MSNBC before and that surprises me. If Cenk represents the future of news media, I don't see the future being much different than the past.
Haha, Wayne favors an SEC! This got does not understand libertarianism. It's not a complex philosophy for Christ's sake--it's based on ONE specific principle!
@JumpShotHero Yea you're right. It's hard to tell when there are so many agencies that do so many things, they're bound to get confused: the CCC, FCC, RFC, SEC,
Look douche, you can't tell these institutions you will not back them or back them to a small degree, then turn around and tell them exactly what risks they can and can't take. THATS NOT CAPITOLISM! Let them take their own risks and deal with their own consequence or reward. Vote Libertarian in 12!!
Sure It was too little regulation... Back when Barney Frank told the financial institutions they had to give home loans to low income individuals or they were bigots. That was non regulated capitolism at its best huh? This dude is a douche, who probably pleasures himself to Obama's speaches. Vote Libertarian in 12!!!
Wayne is a low quality Libertarian. Either talk to Ron Paul or someone who can explain in SPECIFIC economic terms why the financial collapse was a failure of government and not free markets.
Interestingly, the only presidential candidate that I've ever hear advocating peace and non-violence was, at the core, a libertarian...what was that guy's name again???
omd that is exactly what I thought listening to this too....car salesman/multilevel marketing scheme pusher...you know the way they get pushy if you just don't want to buy into the bullshit
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I don't think you can have peace with capitolism... capitalism produces greed then greed makes hate then hate leads to violence. and war. everybody is so worried about there little piles of shit. Everybody thinks they are so special, but we are all part of the same pile of floating shit we call Earth.
Provide me one example of a war between a truly democratic and capitalist country and bear in mind that socialism doesn't work with democracy(social democracy does but that's partially capitalism so it doesn't count.)
Think of all the inventors, the scientists, the engineers, the economists that are stuck outside of the beltway and what they could do if they could just propose law as a citizen and have us vote on it. once you see the potential behind what this country could do once given the freedom to do so it's life changing.
The Prop 8 people are on the wrong side of history. That was a pyrrhic victory for them. The more the issue reaches national attention, the less it works in their favor in the long run.
Actually I think this example could be used as a strong argument for supporting the NI4D to improve the process. It takes a narrow top-down view of history to dismiss direct democracy on the basis of this. The people are collectively ahead of their representatives on civil rights issues.
So I guess you fell asleep during history class of the days of slavery and Jim Crow. The KKK was very popular and even a part of the police and other areas of the law. You've never lived in the south have you?
I was born and raised in Montgomery, Alabama, cradle of the confederacy. I suggest you read Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen, a history professor whose perceptions of U.S. history were changed by teaching in Mississippi, mind you. Also you should read (or listen to)Chapter 12 of Citizen Power like SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR. (I can link you to the chapter if you don't have it.) You are both elitists on different ends of the political spectrum who think they know what is best for the people.
I also recommend Zinn's A People's History of the United States for an alternative to the usual narrative of the intelligent leaders saving the people from themselves. :P
You're the one who's ignorant if you don't understand how the superstructures of racism and slavery served the interests of the few not the many.
No, you're missing the point. Slavery would have ended much, much earlier had we had provisions for referenda in the constitution. They kept that out for a good reason.
You're kidding right? Where the KKK was very popular and even in the police departments and lawyers etc? Again I ask: have you ever lived in the south?
I have lived in Alabama all my damn life, you elitist commie. If you want to project the political manipulations of the good ol' boys on the rest of population, go ahead if it makes you feel better about yourself. We suth'ners is too damn stupid to help ourselves.
You like "representative" government without popular sovereignty because it is more prone to extremism and you thrive off of the separation created by its control tactics. You and SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR are birds of a feather.
Oooo now I'm a elist because I don't think like you. LOL! Hey at least you're calling me a commie though so that's a start. I am a southerner dumbass and have been my whole life here in the good ol state of TN. Uh you don't know what communism is do you?
I called you an elitist based on the way you were attacking people. SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR was stating his point of view on voluntarism, and you made him out to be an inhuman murderer. Elitist was probably a bad choice of wording in retrospect. :/
I am a guy from Alabama. Why should it matter? I kind of wish I wasn't, because it shouldn't have been an issue in the first place.
You were one who immediately accused me of being ignorant of history in the South. I made a valid point that you were conflating the abuses of corrupt leaders with the will of the people, and you just dismissed me as ignorant. Then you attacked my integrity by suggesting that I was lying about where I lived. You were wrong on both counts.
Yeah, I created this account to fool you in 2007 because I'm psychic like that. Even my support for Gravel and the National Initiative for Democracy was a ruse just to fool you, because you are such an important person that I would lie to you about my heritage to hide my ignorance of the South.
You've got me pegged! Whoop-de-frickin-do! You're a frickin genius! I bow to you superiority, LittlePinky82! I cannot hide from your omniscience! I think I am in the presence of God himself!
Well you're one who thinks that the people in pre-civil rights days would've voted to give African-Americans and other minorities the right to vote. This at the time when the KKK had thousands of members and members in public office and police officers etc. You're really fooling yourself if you believe that shit.
And why were they there to begin with? What was the source of the nadir of race relations from 1890-1930? How does this challenge my view that for the most part the people are collectively ahead of their leaders? Obama was not supporting same-sex marriage in his campaign.
And if you took a poll of people down here in the south majority of the people do not support same-sex marriage either. Who protects the minority from the mob? Again as I said here in TN we have that dumbass ban shit and every time I'm a part of 10% who votes AGAINST it. You do the math. Maybe up north or west or some midwest areas they are but not everywhere. And again the KKK was involved in the police depts, lawyers, local governments etc.
In Cuba for example in the 90s same sex equality became legal. Gays in Cuba don't even have to be married to be treated the same as a married couple. However homophobia is still majority yet it was the govt who said the people were wrong. They also do free transgendered surgery. Now it is better but from what I understand it's still not a majority and in communism everyone gets the same rights or is supposed to and that's a good example of it working.
I may not be your typical Southerner, but you are just simply wrong. Wrong in so many ways. You are so pompous. I don't like everything SSSLLLAAYYEEERRR says (far from it!), but you just go down another extreme. Both of your ideas ultimately rest upon appealing to the public, but you don't want to let them decide anything yet... because they are too stupid and have yet to reach your level of intelligence (ahem, indoctrination). You want to achieve consensus without consensus. Good luck!
Than you have NO clue what socialism/communism is. None at all especially since you apparently think people don't have a say. That's bullshit and anyone and everyone who has read and studied socialism/communism (and not propaganda against it) knows that true socialism/communism is very much democratic and can only survive when the public supports it. I'm wrong? Apparently you don't know your own southern history or present.
Oh and we also do not live in a tyranny govt which is what you want. We live in a Democratic Republic with a Constitution that protects the rights of the minority. What you want is tyranny plain and simple. LOL! If I was indoctrinted hon I'd be a republican right now since I am in the south and raised around a family full of republicans until recently and I came to communism on my own thank you very much and before two members of my family became non-republican.
You project the deficiencies of representative government on the people to discredit the concept of direct democracy and then you expect me to believe that you believe in democracy because you call yourself a communist?
Are you saying that I want tyranny because I support the NI4D? This would create an amendment to the constitution actually that would allow the people to create laws and amend the constitution through initiatives. Do the Swiss live in tyranny because they can amend their constitution?
Simple question. Do you believe in this statement?
"It is the People who are inherently invested with all authority and legislative power to create and alter governments, constitutions, charters, and laws."
This is the "First Principle" of governance. It is an axiom. If you do not agree with this, there is nothing to talk about. Just as you cannot reasonably call someone stupid for accepting in the axiom of choice in set theory, you simply sound ignorant if you attack me on this.
There are actually constitutional scholars who believe in popular sovereignty in their interpretion of the constitution. Akhil Amar is a well-known scholar who has written several books on the subject.
"tyranny=mob rule" is not argument. You are just repeating yourself over again and again. I am merely looking at what you are writing. Do you see how I could think you have an uninformed opinion? You are using an unfair double standard. Our leaders in representative government are not sacred cows.
Doy. That's why you have elections so those "leaders" can be replaced. Of course there are some jobs in the government which aren't up for elections but since I assume you're talking about Congress, the Senate and president I would say that. And yes it is an argument because that is what it is. Simple as that.
Honestly, you don't sound like any socialist or communist I've ever encountered. You sure like to sound like a far left partisan on American politics. It's not the same thing. The idea of popular sovereignty in interpretations of the constitution seems to be threatening to both the far left and the far right. Many will call it mob rule, but the reality is this:
With a structured deliberative process with citizen juries independent of rep. gov't, extreme factions will have less power.
So you apparently don't know any socialist or communist. Not every single commie or socialist agrees on every single little thing. Doy. I am for a communist state but going about it I go the democratic socialist way. What the hell? Popular sovereignty is nothing more than tyranny. No hon we live in a democratic republic where the rights of the minority are protected too. That's why Prop 8 in California was deemed illegal. Doy. My God. This is basic shit!
I have had and observed interactions on YouTube with communists (and I know there are several different approaches--that's one reason why I cannot read your mind when you call yourself one), libertarian socialists, anarchocapitalists, Obama supporters, etc.
You can make all the assumptions you want about me. You seem to be calling NI4D tyranny?
I was not saying I approved of the procedures regarding Prop 8. I was saying it could make a good case for reform in the initiative process.
If you think every commie thinks a like you're mistaken. There's all sorts from Maoist's to Trotsky's. I'm more on the side of Marxist-Leninist. So there's wide range of different views on things. And what do you think tyranny is? Mob rule. What about the rights of the minority? Prop 8 is a good example of NI4D. A good case? How? By voting to take away people's rights? What's next? Voting to say women can't vote anymore or slavery returning? Extreme I know but you get the point.
Prop 8 is not the same as the NI4D. The NI4D is designed to improve the quality of existing initiative processes. The laws people made through initiatives would be subject to the Constitution, although people would then have the power to amend the Constitution (but it is a intentionally much more difficult than regular laws). If more than half of the registered voters wanted to amend the Constitution to reinstitute slavery, then theoretically they could I suppose.
I could address your concerns about protection of the minority from a practical standpoint (and you could also refer to the National Initiative for Democracy), but this every discussion of the NI4D is rooted from the First Principle of governance. We can talk about the process from there if you accept that principle. If you think our leaders are doing a fine job, don't worry about it.
Constitutional republics and the concept of popular sovereignty are not mutually exclusive. As Gravel says with respect to government, "the creators should not have to ask for permission from the createes." There is a series of videos on ChampionOfTheNI4D's channel where Gravel discusses the legislation. If you simply dismiss this as tyranny, you are taking an easy route out and it discredits you.
Switzerland is a republic with a constitution modelled after ours, but with added provisions for amending the constitution by referendum. It has been amended many, many times over the past 150 years. They are not a tyranny. They have a very diverse citizenry. Majorities tend not to act like majorities in other societies due to the reciprocal relationships that have developed through the practice of direct democracy. Debunking this is not "basic shit." This is a serious point of controversy.
So take for example Prop 8. That's an example of NI4D. The Supreme Court in California said it's Un Constitutional because of the rights in the Constitution to everyone having happiness etc. So when the Supreme Court says no to something that the people vote on the NI4D fails.
How does this challenge the idea of the NI4D? I admit the California initiative process has its flaws. No system is perfect and I am not suggesting the judicial branch should be removed. I should also add that laws like the Defense of Marriage Act and the Patriot Act are not creations of the people.
State intiatives were created by popular movements challenging undemocratic institutions in government. Many of the flaws we see today are result of the process being corrupted by representative gov't. Bills like Prop 8 become shouting matches taking attention away from other important issues, and the public is not given a clear independent hearing on the case for an initiative. It's better than nothing, but it is greatly flawed compared to the deliberative nature of the Swiss system.
You still haven't answered my question. What happens if you have something like Prop 8 and it goes through the system you want and there is an amendment in the Constitution that bans gays from marrying. Who protects the minority in your system? I would like an answer. At least in Communism the ideal is everyone is treated the same.
Do you think we should abolish state initiatives because of Prop 8? You are using an unfair double standard against the people, when there is much more to find fault with our broken representative government. Keep in mind the state initiatives are not independent of representative government and that is a major source of the flaws within the process.
Sorry but we don't live in Switzerland where we have people who do shit like Prop 8 all the time. Not just Prop 8 either but things like banning abortion. We do have laws in our Constitution for how an amendment is made to the Constitution from the founding fathers.
Theoretically, the people could repeal the whole Bill of Rights if they wanted to. Do you believe in the First Principle of governance as I stated earlier? If you don't, we will have to agree to disagree.
Do you think state initiatives should be abolished because of Prop 8? Only representatives can amend the constitution. They are the "createes." The people are the "creators" from Gravel's usage of the word. This understanding is rooted in the First Principle of governance.
Any thing that takes away the rights of others. Once again mob rule mentality. The same opportunities are not being given to everyone especially if you are doing initiatives like Prop 8. You even said yourself people could vote to bring back slavery and you'd be fine with that. Again no hon the people aren't the creates. Those who were involved in the Constitution Convention and the signers of the Constitution are the creators. That's our govt and social contract.
How do you and I amend the constitution? We can ask our representatives to hold a constitutional convention. We're still locked out of the process. We have to ask permission from the people who should be serving us.
You're missing the whole point of what a representative government is which is what we have and was set up for us. If you don't understand that concept how can I have a discussion with you? That's the whole damn point of a representative government which is what we have. If you don't like how you're being represented you work on getting the person voted out. Doy. American Government 101 here.
Many challenge that view, arguing that the system is broken and not serving the interests of the people. Why should we not be able to hold our representatives accountable if they vote on a law that does not have popular support? We give our power away at the election booth.
You do that at the voting booth by voting those out. Do I seriously have to explain basic American govt information to you? Go and read the Constitution where it talks about making amendments. Good God!
You can't challenge individual decisions. You have to wait years to vote them out and then how can you do that effectively challenge the system when there cooperation between both parties to oppose the will of the public? This happens all the time. That's why the system is broken. It is serving the interest of the few not the many. It is a form of "manufactured consent" as Chomsky says.
*You have to wait years to vote them out and then how can you effectively challenge the system when there is cooperation between both parties to oppose the will of the public?
Don't you see the staged good cop, bad cop routine that plays out?
How many communist politicians are being elected? Wouldn't you prefer to work on individual issues where you could appeal to the public through a transparent deliberative process independent of representative government?
For instance, wouldn't you like to change ballot access laws so it wouldn't be as difficult for third parties to make the ballot? The public is generally in favor for having options outside of the two parties.
The party system was not in the Constitution, but it has considerable influence in practice. The NI4D would dilute the power of factions within representative government.
Libertarians (roll eyes).
RMJChannel 1 month ago
If the government wasn't there to pay for every corporations mistake, corporations would act much more responsibly. How is that hard to understand? Apply that to real life and see what happens. Every time you get a ticket, your parents pay it and you don't get in trouble.....most people are going to keep speeding.
theUSER101 2 months ago
"the public's money" explains it all
he thinks that your money is his too
judoskeleton 5 months ago
TYT SUCKS! this guy doesnt understand anything - he is a terrible host and interviewer.
Guitarlicks4free 6 months ago
Comment removed
Guitarlicks4free 6 months ago
Libertarianism is hilarious. Its an ahistorical position and its adherents pretend its the ONLY logical position to hold. Its never been tested, and theres evidence to suggest it would be a disaster. Give it up already.
2edsajdmsa 7 months ago
@2edsajdmsa your a disaster , you have no idea what libertarianism is , what evidence do you have , I would like to hear your [ facts ] you obviously have no idea what liberties and freedoms are , RON PAUL 2012
MaffickProductions 5 months ago
@MaffickProductions I used to be a Libertarian, I know very well what it is.
One can stand for individual freedoms and liberty (as I do, down with the FCC, down with the war on drugs and many more things) and still want regulation on what companies can put in our food and water.
Name one country in the last 100 years which has successfully pulled off Libertarianism, that is what I meant by ahistorical.
2edsajdmsa 5 months ago
@2edsajdmsa I agree it's never been tested, but that doesn't mean it's bad. However, it indeed is the most logical political philosophy. I think we can both agree that harming someone is a bad thing. So we say we take that one rule that you never can harm a non-aggressor. Libertarianism now is the only political philosophy I know of which goes on and derives ALL of it's believes from this one rule, which makes it consistent. Consistency spares you the contradictions most other ideologies bear.
semperFi4ever100 3 months ago
Gawd, I fall in love with Cenk all over again around 10:00 on in this video . . . Even if I dont 100% completely agree with him all of the time, its nice to see someone speak with such intelligence and authenticity, based on real facts . . . not purchased talking points . . it has become so rare in todays culture . . .
JahSpect 8 months ago
holy crap, that is TOTAL BULLSHIT!!!!!
France isn't the largest economy because it's socialist? what about the fact that France has 60 mil people and the US 300 mil?
if you are going to compare Europe and US... compare US with EU!! and GUESS WHAT!!! the EU has a LARGER ECONOMY THAN THE US!!! Greatest economy in the world is the EU
bbphnix 8 months ago
@bbphnix #LOL you want to compare the economy of 1 country to 27 countries combined. That's TOTAL BULLSHIT!!!!!
force3264 7 months ago
@force3264 Yes, because that's the very reason d'etre of the EU; it is a hybrid intergovernmental organization that has some attributes of statehood; EU-member states have national powers and the EU institutions have the rest of the power that would normally be part of national power;
and the economy is the no1 aspect of the EU that is supposed to be integrated; the EU is supposed to be 1 single economy; it is represented as a country in G8, G20 and WTO meetings; not sure if in UN too
bbphnix 7 months ago
@force3264 that last part: along side the countries themselves; so at the G8 for example you have the German Chancellor, the French President, the Italian PM and the President of the European Commission;
see? Hybrid
bbphnix 7 months ago
@bbphnix Yeah but that's not a fair comparison. You have to compare an economic union with another economic union. Something close to that would be NAFTA but that's still not a good comparison as they are not really the same. A good comparison to the US would be China which have provinces which are like states. China's economy is growing and there are over a billion people compare to 300 million but their economy sucks.
force3264 7 months ago
@force3264 the EU is MORE than an economic union; on some aspects is a wannabe nation;
I think comparing the EU and US is just; that's what I think
bbphnix 7 months ago
@bbphnix Then you might as well compare the African Union with the US. The AU economy sucks and it's bigger than the EU. Union of South American Nations also sucks compare to the US and it's just as big.
force3264 7 months ago
@force3264 for heaven's sake..... there is no other union like the Eu; the EU is a transitional form of government between a union and a federation; maybe the ASEAN, AU, USAN, CIS etc will integrate to that point too (if the latter does that essentially the Soviet Union would be recreated.... but that's beside the point); there's much debate in the Eu over this status of the Eu; Euroskeptics are hell-bent on preventing the formation of an USE; again, beside the point; here's the main point:
bbphnix 7 months ago
@bbphnix Europe is a continent with many different traditions and languages, but also with shared values. The EU defends these values. It fosters co-operation among the peoples of Europe, promoting unity while preserving diversity and ensuring that decisions are taken as close as possible to the citizens.
In the increasingly interdependent world of the 21st century, it will be even more necessary for every European
bbphnix 7 months ago
@bbphnix citizen to co-operate with people from other countries in a spirit of curiosity, tolerance and solidarity.
taken from europa(dot)eu
you see there? unique, partially like a state, made to represent the European countries on the world stage etc.
bbphnix 7 months ago
@bbphnix It's only unique in that it only represents the European countries on the world stage. By that same logic, the USAN is the same except it represents South American countries on the world stage. The USAN is modeled after the EU. The EU is NOT unique. It's just more globalism and unification.
force3264 7 months ago
@force3264 yes, it is; no other union of states is like the EU; maybe in the future there will be; like I said "MAYBE the ASEAN, AU, USAN, CIS etc WILL INTEGRATE TO THAT POINT TOO (if the latter does that essentially the Soviet Union would be recreated.... but that's beside the point); "
the Eu is meant to give a voice to european nations in the face of such countries as the US, Russia China etc; so YES the Eu is directly comparable to the US; that's what I think; can we agree to disagree?
bbphnix 7 months ago
@bbphnix That's like saying democrats and republicans are different when they're the same. The policies are the same as well as the goals. The EU is no different than the others. The EU is meant to give a voice to European nations only and that is the only difference.
force3264 7 months ago
@force3264 yeah, I disagree; can you leave me alone now?
bbphnix 7 months ago
@force3264 The European Union (EU) is a family of democratic European countries, committed to working together for peace and prosperity. It is not a State intended to replace existing states, but it is more than just another international organisation. The EU is, in fact, unique. Its Member States have set up common institutions to which they delegate some of their sovereignty so that decisions on specific matters of joint interest can be made democratically at European level.
bbphnix 7 months ago
here's how I see it: you have too much government involvement: communism, too little: corporatism;
government is an asshole, corporations are money making amoral machines; they're both bad and untrustworthy;
what you need is a balance between they're powers; a capitalist-socialist balanced government; that's the key to a successful state;
and they do just that in countries like Sweden and Norway;
so I think Wayne Allyn and Libertarians are wrong;
bbphnix 8 months ago
Cenk should study Blue Dog Democrats... he MIGHT fit into that group...
YoungIvyScholar 8 months ago
The libertarian party is corrupt as all hell. I watched the runoff vote with the delegates at the convention back in 08. I actually overheard this guy and mike gravel talking about shifting delegates as a deal to shore up the vote to get the vp slot. It was on c-span in between speeches when crowds of people are talking on the floor.
catbuffalo 9 months ago
The TYT keeps sounding stupider and stupider... Wayne is the only logical one here
YoungIvyScholar 1 year ago
That over-leveraging and risk-taking was the government's attempt to create universal home ownership. It was the Fed slashing interest rates and granting )% down, adjustable-rate mortgages. It was the centralization of interest rates, instead of IR structures.
LiberalCast 1 year ago
normally political parties have smart people representing them.
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
for the ones who didnt know like cenk's guest. France isnt Europe.
gatskillz 1 year ago
@gatskillz well no shit, France is in Europe
noyouaintgettingit 1 year ago
"The Whole Point Of Capitalism Is To Be Greedy" ------- Hahahahaha! That's sad. I turned it off after that statement...
Yanirakarola 1 year ago
@Yanirakarola well, denial isnt the way.
gatskillz 1 year ago
@Yanirakarola That's all it was. A statement. Jokingly even. Don't take things so seriously. Geez
possm88 1 year ago
and this guy wonders why he didn't get elected
Kingucktoad 1 year ago
@Kingucktoad I'd rather have Wayne Allyn Root than Barack Obama or George Bush.
noyouaintgettingit 1 year ago
No, Cenk, the two issues are ONE AND THE SAME. The free market would have never tolerated those risks by itself, because they were, as you point out, TOO RISKY. The reason the market accepted those "risks" was because they weren't risks--all the losses were guaranteed by the government.
twk373 1 year ago
I'm caught between traditional liberalism and libertarianism when it comes to political views
EnergizerBunny804 2 years ago
@EnergizerBunny804 well if you think people who don't work have a right to YOUR money be a traditional liberal. If you feel like you have the right to your own money and that it's your property be a libertarian.
zanariot 1 year ago
The problem I have with liberals is that they more often than not are dishonest about their true beliefs
Sivels 2 years ago
how so?
It seems libertarians are the ones that are dishonest and misleading about their beliefs.
pdaniels9000 2 years ago
Everyone group has their dishonest individuals and dishonest individuals.
Noahthebeast09 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
I mean every group has their honest individuals and dishonest individuals.
Noahthebeast09 2 years ago
True. The republicans are dishonest to a certain extent. I mean every politician has to hide one of their personal beliefs to get elected. You wouldn't want to just publicly say you believed the drinking age should be 18 as a politician because you wouldn't be voted in even if you believed that it doesn't make sense for someone to go to war and have bullets wizzing pass their head and develop war trauma, but not be able to have a beer.
Noahthebeast09 2 years ago
Free market Paleo-libertarianism is total bullshit.
LuchadorporLibertad 2 years ago
amen.
pdaniels9000 2 years ago
The libertarian is not going to grow legs unless we reach out to liberals and conservatives equally. Wayne Allen Root is way too antagonistic to persuade
BikiniBabe1985 2 years ago 2
get rid of the IRS AND EPA. screw these corrupt organizations. the IRS steals my money, the EPA thinks they can tell me what I can and can't do on my OWN property, damn the EPA and IRS and long live Libertarianism and death to Liberalism.
KentuckyThunder1863 2 years ago 2
saying that the credit default swaps are a separate from the mortgage crisis shows how little the host understands the financial crisis.
qnahum 2 years ago 3
I have to admit I voted for this guy for VP on the Barr/Root ticket, but he is a very burlesque Libertarian. He really gets off track here throughout the whole interview, & his responses are not that great. Talking about Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, etc is to argue over secondary causes. The mortgage meltdown is merely the "spark" that set off the fire that burned everything down. No one talks about the "gasoline" that was poured on the floor beforehand. It's been the same for every recession.
TheExRepublican 2 years ago
The argument over the "oversight" issue is a semantic argument. Root almost hit the nail on the head when he started to talk about "quasi-private". Once you have something that is not quite public or private, by definition the gov't has created an artificial entity that wouldn't exist in a free market, so arguing over "more" or "less" gov't is false way to frame the questions. It already IS government involvement, so you are merely arguing over HOW it is to be regulated..
TheExRepublican 2 years ago
So that takes us to the gasoline that is the underlying cause of every recession: central banking. Central banks, being a government sponsored monopoly, is a kind of central planning. And the flaw with it is that a central bank will always keep interest rates too low for too long. This in turn leads to other irresponsible policies such as having reserve rates too low, which make a credit collapse inevitable. The only thing that changes is the "spark" that sets off the recession.
TheExRepublican 2 years ago
Unfortunately, most Americans aren't educated about the monetary system, and they're too apathetic to get educated. The short term solution, I think, rather than wasting time arguing about secondary causes is to put a floor on reserve requirements, so that the recessions aren't as deep. This will lead to higher interest rates since the money supply cannot be multiplied as many times thru fractional reserve lending, but it would allow the banks to function more like they would in a free market.
TheExRepublican 2 years ago
you voted for him???
iwinallarguments29 2 years ago
the federal reserve flooded the market with cheap "easy" money, government encouraged risky loans
simple solution , gold standard. can't just print off gold and flood markets with paper gold. with the inability to quadruple your bottom line with fractional reserve banking, "easy" credit disappears and legislation promoting risky loans becomes toothless
fourdoorchevelle 2 years ago 2
The private loans that this guy is talking about were sold to the government...
If the option wasn't there in the first place we wouldn't in this problem...
The issue is too much oversight not too little...
dex1391 2 years ago
Cenk should have pressed him a little bit harder instead of trying to be polite. That guy kept agreeing with cenk on everything he didnt have an answer for and when cenk would clarify his answer the guy would change the topic. overall good debate.
david3188col 2 years ago
i agree good point he could have proved the problems capitalism
thesparitan 2 years ago
Awesome debate.
Awesome.
Mastikator 2 years ago
Sweet Jesus, when I was first listening to that guy on the phone, the more he talked the louder he got. Eventually it felt like he was yelling at me through the screen.
Hybrid5784 2 years ago
All that CEO guy kept saying was "stop telling me what to do" over and over. Look, part of being a grownup is following rules. Without rules and oversight you'll get people who'll say "it's only a crime if a cop sees it". But with no oversight and no cops . . . You end up with corrupt companies hoarding too much wealth to themselves and when they fail, they take too much down with them.
No rules in personal or economic issues? No accountability except to yourself? Yeah, that's anarchy.
vcdaniels 2 years ago
Our Founding Forefathers Were for no rules in personal and economic issues. Real men do not follow the rules of society they break them.
ErowsRLD 2 years ago
So "real men" are for anarchy. I the founders wanted anarchy, they were quite aware that they could have picked a more efficient way to enact it other than writing a document that would collectively brand themselves as traitors to the British Empire. None of the founders were looking for a cop-out like not having to follow any rules. "Real men" break rules? WISE men recognize their necessity and work to change unjust rules into rules that are fair to as many as possible.
vcdaniels 2 years ago
Yeah real men don't follow the rules that are unjust. So what about all the laws the where broke in the south during the civil rights movement. What about Gandhi. Huh I say as they're handled in a non violent I see nothing wrong with. But if done violently I do no honor the person. They use anger instead there Intellect and there will to endure whatevers thrown there way.
Bigdeezy74 2 years ago
The laws broken in the south during the Civil Rights movement is a testament to the need of government. If there was no government, those same conditions would still exist as horridly & openly today. When a government takes an unjust policy on an issue, the only way to change it is to entreat the heart & core of government - the people - by protest. If the people don't bother to watch the news or follow politics at all, then government won't work. It can't work with an uninvolved electorate.
vcdaniels 2 years ago
I'm a far right libertarian but I want to comment this guy (the Turk guy). He's more reasonable and sensible than anyone I've seen on MSNBC. He's a sensible guy - though one I disagree with a lot.
I wish there were more on the left like him - without all the vitriol of the Olbermanns, Schultzs, Maddows, Garafalos....etc.
Well done.
ritwingr 2 years ago 13
yeah thats becuase people like me and to some degree him although im a socialist we like to talk to libertarians becuase they are the only only ones that start the debate from logic. but capitalism has a few major flaws
thesparitan 2 years ago
@ritwingr Maddows, Garafalos have a right to voice their views and are very similar to cenk the turk guy
pandasftuw 1 year ago
@pandasftuw Of course they have the right to voice their views. They're shrill dimwits - but hey have every right to be shrill dimwits. It's constitutionally protected.
ritwingr 8 months ago
@ritwingr well seem as you a a "ritwingr" I would say you are a complete cunt, but unfortunately you have the right to be one kind of like how the kkk have rights
garafalo and hitchens would not wipe their arse with you
no responsible person can be a neo con
pandasftuw 8 months ago
@pandasftuw "Neocon!" ROFLOL!
Uttered by a guy who couldn't spell "Strauss" if you spotted him 3 s's. You clearly don't have a clue what a "Neocon" is. You just spew stuff people like Garafa-No-Talent put in your head. It's amazing what knee-jerking fools leftists are.
I realize this is way, way over your head, but for others who might be reading, I'm a Rothbardian anarchocapitalist - as far from a "neocon" as it gets. Thanks for the laugh, though!
"Neocon..." What a simpleton.
ritwingr 8 months ago
@ritwingr wow yeah nobody really cares about your political affiliations you typical narcissistic NEOCON
And I based my conculsion on your username "ritwingr" great spelling there btw
you couldn't spell "Strauss" if I spotted you 3 s's
wow I'm a european socialist whose a progressive GOOD FOR ME
Janeane garofalo has not said one incorrect thing if so point it out?
pandasftuw 8 months ago
@pandasftuw ROFLMFAO! "great spelling there" from a guy who typed the word "conculsion," and used "whose" to contract "who is." World class ignorance even for a socialist!
As for Garafalo, unless she said "I'm a mentally challenged hideously ugly cunt," she's never said a single CORRECT thing.
Defending a retarded comedian, throwing around terms you don't understand and correcting spelling whilst mangling the language. Stupid, hypocritical AND ignorant - the Leftist Trifecta!! ROFLMAO!
ritwingr 8 months ago
@ritwingr Weird, I'm a left libertarian and I really don't like Uygur that much. I've seen him sub on MSNBC before and that surprises me. If Cenk represents the future of news media, I don't see the future being much different than the past.
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@ritwingr It's hard to take some seriously who puts Maddow on that list.
noellennon 8 months ago
wow, he's an idiot.
wout4yt 2 years ago
This may sound confusing: I agree with both of them. They both have valid points.
MishuTaste 2 years ago
Haha, Wayne favors an SEC! This got does not understand libertarianism. It's not a complex philosophy for Christ's sake--it's based on ONE specific principle!
atrickpay11 2 years ago
for every complex problem there is a simple and wrong anwser
thesparitan 2 years ago
thesparitan: can you logically prove that statement? Is it true in ALL instances? Or is is true in just some instances?
atrickpay11 2 years ago
i can say that it is true in most instances
thesparitan 2 years ago
Turk: why not drop the statism? It's pathetic.
atrickpay11 2 years ago
"I'm not a Liberal...." What a spineless remark.
Provide one instance where you've held a "Conservative" stance on an issue.
NEVER!
notyourfriendbuddy 2 years ago
Maybe he's a moderate.
MishuTaste 2 years ago
I believe there shouldn't be an FCC...
guyjohn59 2 years ago 24
@guyjohn59 You're right. Fuck censorship. We have freedom of speech for a reason.
noyouaintgettingit 1 year ago
@guyjohn59 What exactly does the FCC do that's beneficial? (no sarcasm intended, I really don't know)
Norway2011 1 year ago
@guyjohn59 i think they were talking about the SEC in the video
JumpShotHero 10 months ago
@JumpShotHero Yea you're right. It's hard to tell when there are so many agencies that do so many things, they're bound to get confused: the CCC, FCC, RFC, SEC,
guyjohn59 10 months ago
Look douche, you can't tell these institutions you will not back them or back them to a small degree, then turn around and tell them exactly what risks they can and can't take. THATS NOT CAPITOLISM! Let them take their own risks and deal with their own consequence or reward. Vote Libertarian in 12!!
josephrl82 2 years ago
Sure It was too little regulation... Back when Barney Frank told the financial institutions they had to give home loans to low income individuals or they were bigots. That was non regulated capitolism at its best huh? This dude is a douche, who probably pleasures himself to Obama's speaches. Vote Libertarian in 12!!!
josephrl82 2 years ago
Wayne is a low quality Libertarian. Either talk to Ron Paul or someone who can explain in SPECIFIC economic terms why the financial collapse was a failure of government and not free markets.
TimeWarp66 2 years ago
I definately lean libertarian, but this guy's a blowhard
KeepGoing81321 2 years ago 2
Interestingly, the only presidential candidate that I've ever hear advocating peace and non-violence was, at the core, a libertarian...what was that guy's name again???
AaronAlexanderD 2 years ago 3
omd that is exactly what I thought listening to this too....car salesman/multilevel marketing scheme pusher...you know the way they get pushy if you just don't want to buy into the bullshit
thanks4tuningin 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't think you can have peace with capitolism... capitalism produces greed then greed makes hate then hate leads to violence. and war. everybody is so worried about there little piles of shit. Everybody thinks they are so special, but we are all part of the same pile of floating shit we call Earth.
filthyfun 2 years ago
what kind of system would actually provide peace?
iGen3sis510 2 years ago
Provide me one example of a war between a truly democratic and capitalist country and bear in mind that socialism doesn't work with democracy(social democracy does but that's partially capitalism so it doesn't count.)
GreyAutumn 2 years ago
Think of all the inventors, the scientists, the engineers, the economists that are stuck outside of the beltway and what they could do if they could just propose law as a citizen and have us vote on it. once you see the potential behind what this country could do once given the freedom to do so it's life changing.
oldhacks 3 years ago
And if it's a law that takes away people's civil rights as in with Prop 8? Sorry I don't think so.
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
The Prop 8 people are on the wrong side of history. That was a pyrrhic victory for them. The more the issue reaches national attention, the less it works in their favor in the long run.
Actually I think this example could be used as a strong argument for supporting the NI4D to improve the process. It takes a narrow top-down view of history to dismiss direct democracy on the basis of this. The people are collectively ahead of their representatives on civil rights issues.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
So I guess you fell asleep during history class of the days of slavery and Jim Crow. The KKK was very popular and even a part of the police and other areas of the law. You've never lived in the south have you?
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
I was born and raised in Montgomery, Alabama, cradle of the confederacy. I suggest you read Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen, a history professor whose perceptions of U.S. history were changed by teaching in Mississippi, mind you. Also you should read (or listen to)Chapter 12 of Citizen Power like SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR. (I can link you to the chapter if you don't have it.) You are both elitists on different ends of the political spectrum who think they know what is best for the people.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
I also recommend Zinn's A People's History of the United States for an alternative to the usual narrative of the intelligent leaders saving the people from themselves. :P
You're the one who's ignorant if you don't understand how the superstructures of racism and slavery served the interests of the few not the many.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
No shit. You're missing the point. And I already own Zinn's book thank you very much and have for a good while now.
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
No, you're missing the point. Slavery would have ended much, much earlier had we had provisions for referenda in the constitution. They kept that out for a good reason.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
You're kidding right? Where the KKK was very popular and even in the police departments and lawyers etc? Again I ask: have you ever lived in the south?
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
I have lived in Alabama all my damn life, you elitist commie. If you want to project the political manipulations of the good ol' boys on the rest of population, go ahead if it makes you feel better about yourself. We suth'ners is too damn stupid to help ourselves.
You like "representative" government without popular sovereignty because it is more prone to extremism and you thrive off of the separation created by its control tactics. You and SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR are birds of a feather.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Oooo now I'm a elist because I don't think like you. LOL! Hey at least you're calling me a commie though so that's a start. I am a southerner dumbass and have been my whole life here in the good ol state of TN. Uh you don't know what communism is do you?
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
I called you an elitist based on the way you were attacking people. SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR was stating his point of view on voluntarism, and you made him out to be an inhuman murderer. Elitist was probably a bad choice of wording in retrospect. :/
I am a guy from Alabama. Why should it matter? I kind of wish I wasn't, because it shouldn't have been an issue in the first place.
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
You were one who immediately accused me of being ignorant of history in the South. I made a valid point that you were conflating the abuses of corrupt leaders with the will of the people, and you just dismissed me as ignorant. Then you attacked my integrity by suggesting that I was lying about where I lived. You were wrong on both counts.
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
You know what. I'll let you be the expert on the South. There are so many around the world. haha
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
So you haven't lived in the south ever. Go figure.
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
Yeah, I created this account to fool you in 2007 because I'm psychic like that. Even my support for Gravel and the National Initiative for Democracy was a ruse just to fool you, because you are such an important person that I would lie to you about my heritage to hide my ignorance of the South.
You've got me pegged! Whoop-de-frickin-do! You're a frickin genius! I bow to you superiority, LittlePinky82! I cannot hide from your omniscience! I think I am in the presence of God himself!
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
Well you're one who thinks that the people in pre-civil rights days would've voted to give African-Americans and other minorities the right to vote. This at the time when the KKK had thousands of members and members in public office and police officers etc. You're really fooling yourself if you believe that shit.
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
And why were they there to begin with? What was the source of the nadir of race relations from 1890-1930? How does this challenge my view that for the most part the people are collectively ahead of their leaders? Obama was not supporting same-sex marriage in his campaign.
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
And if you took a poll of people down here in the south majority of the people do not support same-sex marriage either. Who protects the minority from the mob? Again as I said here in TN we have that dumbass ban shit and every time I'm a part of 10% who votes AGAINST it. You do the math. Maybe up north or west or some midwest areas they are but not everywhere. And again the KKK was involved in the police depts, lawyers, local governments etc.
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
In Cuba for example in the 90s same sex equality became legal. Gays in Cuba don't even have to be married to be treated the same as a married couple. However homophobia is still majority yet it was the govt who said the people were wrong. They also do free transgendered surgery. Now it is better but from what I understand it's still not a majority and in communism everyone gets the same rights or is supposed to and that's a good example of it working.
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
I get it now. SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR is Satan himself and you're ...
Oh, I am so sorry!
All bow to the omnipotent LittlePinky!
Become a communist or suffer his wrath!
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
I'm actually a female and you don't understand communism to make that point.
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
I may not be your typical Southerner, but you are just simply wrong. Wrong in so many ways. You are so pompous. I don't like everything SSSLLLAAYYEEERRR says (far from it!), but you just go down another extreme. Both of your ideas ultimately rest upon appealing to the public, but you don't want to let them decide anything yet... because they are too stupid and have yet to reach your level of intelligence (ahem, indoctrination). You want to achieve consensus without consensus. Good luck!
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
Than you have NO clue what socialism/communism is. None at all especially since you apparently think people don't have a say. That's bullshit and anyone and everyone who has read and studied socialism/communism (and not propaganda against it) knows that true socialism/communism is very much democratic and can only survive when the public supports it. I'm wrong? Apparently you don't know your own southern history or present.
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
"...and can only survive when the public supports it."
Umm, isn't that what I just said?
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
Oh and we also do not live in a tyranny govt which is what you want. We live in a Democratic Republic with a Constitution that protects the rights of the minority. What you want is tyranny plain and simple. LOL! If I was indoctrinted hon I'd be a republican right now since I am in the south and raised around a family full of republicans until recently and I came to communism on my own thank you very much and before two members of my family became non-republican.
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
You project the deficiencies of representative government on the people to discredit the concept of direct democracy and then you expect me to believe that you believe in democracy because you call yourself a communist?
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
Are you saying that I want tyranny because I support the NI4D? This would create an amendment to the constitution actually that would allow the people to create laws and amend the constitution through initiatives. Do the Swiss live in tyranny because they can amend their constitution?
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
If you understood the definition of tyranny.
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
You keep saying "tyranny" over and over again, and it is not even clear what you are responding to.
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
You're kidding right? I've only said it about a million times.
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
Simple question. Do you believe in this statement?
"It is the People who are inherently invested with all authority and legislative power to create and alter governments, constitutions, charters, and laws."
This is the "First Principle" of governance. It is an axiom. If you do not agree with this, there is nothing to talk about. Just as you cannot reasonably call someone stupid for accepting in the axiom of choice in set theory, you simply sound ignorant if you attack me on this.
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
There are actually constitutional scholars who believe in popular sovereignty in their interpretion of the constitution. Akhil Amar is a well-known scholar who has written several books on the subject.
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
And I bet there are others who aren't. So?
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
So are saying that the constitutional scholar who support the concept of popular sovereignty support tyranny?
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
*are you
*scholars
ugh
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
You don't know what a democratic republic is do you? It's NOT a tyranny.
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
So you think the NI4D would introduce tyranny? Why is it a tyranny?
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
Because tyranny is mob rule. What about the minority? Who is going to protect their rights? That's why there is a Supreme Court.
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
"tyranny=mob rule" is not argument. You are just repeating yourself over again and again. I am merely looking at what you are writing. Do you see how I could think you have an uninformed opinion? You are using an unfair double standard. Our leaders in representative government are not sacred cows.
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
Doy. That's why you have elections so those "leaders" can be replaced. Of course there are some jobs in the government which aren't up for elections but since I assume you're talking about Congress, the Senate and president I would say that. And yes it is an argument because that is what it is. Simple as that.
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
Honestly, you don't sound like any socialist or communist I've ever encountered. You sure like to sound like a far left partisan on American politics. It's not the same thing. The idea of popular sovereignty in interpretations of the constitution seems to be threatening to both the far left and the far right. Many will call it mob rule, but the reality is this:
With a structured deliberative process with citizen juries independent of rep. gov't, extreme factions will have less power.
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
So you apparently don't know any socialist or communist. Not every single commie or socialist agrees on every single little thing. Doy. I am for a communist state but going about it I go the democratic socialist way. What the hell? Popular sovereignty is nothing more than tyranny. No hon we live in a democratic republic where the rights of the minority are protected too. That's why Prop 8 in California was deemed illegal. Doy. My God. This is basic shit!
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
I have had and observed interactions on YouTube with communists (and I know there are several different approaches--that's one reason why I cannot read your mind when you call yourself one), libertarian socialists, anarchocapitalists, Obama supporters, etc.
You can make all the assumptions you want about me. You seem to be calling NI4D tyranny?
I was not saying I approved of the procedures regarding Prop 8. I was saying it could make a good case for reform in the initiative process.
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
If you think every commie thinks a like you're mistaken. There's all sorts from Maoist's to Trotsky's. I'm more on the side of Marxist-Leninist. So there's wide range of different views on things. And what do you think tyranny is? Mob rule. What about the rights of the minority? Prop 8 is a good example of NI4D. A good case? How? By voting to take away people's rights? What's next? Voting to say women can't vote anymore or slavery returning? Extreme I know but you get the point.
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
Prop 8 is not the same as the NI4D. The NI4D is designed to improve the quality of existing initiative processes. The laws people made through initiatives would be subject to the Constitution, although people would then have the power to amend the Constitution (but it is a intentionally much more difficult than regular laws). If more than half of the registered voters wanted to amend the Constitution to reinstitute slavery, then theoretically they could I suppose.
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
And what would happen to the people who were made into slaves and for YEARS the people were on the side of slavery? Again who protects the minority?
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
I could address your concerns about protection of the minority from a practical standpoint (and you could also refer to the National Initiative for Democracy), but this every discussion of the NI4D is rooted from the First Principle of governance. We can talk about the process from there if you accept that principle. If you think our leaders are doing a fine job, don't worry about it.
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
*NI4D website (nationalinitiative * us)
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
Constitutional republics and the concept of popular sovereignty are not mutually exclusive. As Gravel says with respect to government, "the creators should not have to ask for permission from the createes." There is a series of videos on ChampionOfTheNI4D's channel where Gravel discusses the legislation. If you simply dismiss this as tyranny, you are taking an easy route out and it discredits you.
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
Actually the createes of our government were those who were involved in the Constitution Convention and the people who signed the Constitution.
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
Switzerland is a republic with a constitution modelled after ours, but with added provisions for amending the constitution by referendum. It has been amended many, many times over the past 150 years. They are not a tyranny. They have a very diverse citizenry. Majorities tend not to act like majorities in other societies due to the reciprocal relationships that have developed through the practice of direct democracy. Debunking this is not "basic shit." This is a serious point of controversy.
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
Once again you fail to reply to what about the rights of the minority.
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
The NI4D does not abolish the judicial branch nor the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
So take for example Prop 8. That's an example of NI4D. The Supreme Court in California said it's Un Constitutional because of the rights in the Constitution to everyone having happiness etc. So when the Supreme Court says no to something that the people vote on the NI4D fails.
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
How does this challenge the idea of the NI4D? I admit the California initiative process has its flaws. No system is perfect and I am not suggesting the judicial branch should be removed. I should also add that laws like the Defense of Marriage Act and the Patriot Act are not creations of the people.
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
State intiatives were created by popular movements challenging undemocratic institutions in government. Many of the flaws we see today are result of the process being corrupted by representative gov't. Bills like Prop 8 become shouting matches taking attention away from other important issues, and the public is not given a clear independent hearing on the case for an initiative. It's better than nothing, but it is greatly flawed compared to the deliberative nature of the Swiss system.
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
You still haven't answered my question. What happens if you have something like Prop 8 and it goes through the system you want and there is an amendment in the Constitution that bans gays from marrying. Who protects the minority in your system? I would like an answer. At least in Communism the ideal is everyone is treated the same.
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
Do you think we should abolish state initiatives because of Prop 8? You are using an unfair double standard against the people, when there is much more to find fault with our broken representative government. Keep in mind the state initiatives are not independent of representative government and that is a major source of the flaws within the process.
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
Sorry but we don't live in Switzerland where we have people who do shit like Prop 8 all the time. Not just Prop 8 either but things like banning abortion. We do have laws in our Constitution for how an amendment is made to the Constitution from the founding fathers.
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
Theoretically, the people could repeal the whole Bill of Rights if they wanted to. Do you believe in the First Principle of governance as I stated earlier? If you don't, we will have to agree to disagree.
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
Do you think state initiatives should be abolished because of Prop 8? Only representatives can amend the constitution. They are the "createes." The people are the "creators" from Gravel's usage of the word. This understanding is rooted in the First Principle of governance.
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
Any thing that takes away the rights of others. Once again mob rule mentality. The same opportunities are not being given to everyone especially if you are doing initiatives like Prop 8. You even said yourself people could vote to bring back slavery and you'd be fine with that. Again no hon the people aren't the creates. Those who were involved in the Constitution Convention and the signers of the Constitution are the creators. That's our govt and social contract.
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
Also the Constitution I believe, the last time I checked, tells you how to amend the Constitution.
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
How do you and I amend the constitution? We can ask our representatives to hold a constitutional convention. We're still locked out of the process. We have to ask permission from the people who should be serving us.
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
You're missing the whole point of what a representative government is which is what we have and was set up for us. If you don't understand that concept how can I have a discussion with you? That's the whole damn point of a representative government which is what we have. If you don't like how you're being represented you work on getting the person voted out. Doy. American Government 101 here.
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
Many challenge that view, arguing that the system is broken and not serving the interests of the people. Why should we not be able to hold our representatives accountable if they vote on a law that does not have popular support? We give our power away at the election booth.
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
You do that at the voting booth by voting those out. Do I seriously have to explain basic American govt information to you? Go and read the Constitution where it talks about making amendments. Good God!
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
You can't challenge individual decisions. You have to wait years to vote them out and then how can you do that effectively challenge the system when there cooperation between both parties to oppose the will of the public? This happens all the time. That's why the system is broken. It is serving the interest of the few not the many. It is a form of "manufactured consent" as Chomsky says.
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
*You have to wait years to vote them out and then how can you effectively challenge the system when there is cooperation between both parties to oppose the will of the public?
Don't you see the staged good cop, bad cop routine that plays out?
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
Yes hon that's why I'm a communist and why I vote for people who are as close as I can get to communism and in the mean time help to build the party.
LittlePinky82 3 years ago
How many communist politicians are being elected? Wouldn't you prefer to work on individual issues where you could appeal to the public through a transparent deliberative process independent of representative government?
BamaGravelian 3 years ago
For instance, wouldn't you like to change ballot access laws so it wouldn't be as difficult for third parties to make the ballot? The public is generally in favor for having options outside of the two parties.
The party system was not in the Constitution, but it has considerable influence in practice. The NI4D would dilute the power of factions within representative government.
BamaGravelian 3 years ago