I think I understand what you're saying -- though maybe not, it's complicated -- and I wish you were right. (Or, since maybe you ARE right, I will say, I wish I could agree that you're right.) But I don't think words on paper can protect us. In any form of government, no matter what we call it, I fear we have only those rights our neighbors decide to allow us to keep. In case of conflict, someone (in our case the Supreme Court) will interpret the words as needed to deprive us of the right.
@mrphoo67 No, you need it to keep a few big cities from deciding the election. Since this is a republic and not a democracy, that should NOT be allowed to happen.
With that said, I think state's electors should have proportional representation. Other than that I'm happy with it.
@mrphoo67 The difference is in what the representatives can do. In a democracy they abide by the will of the people, whatever that may be. In a republic, they're bound by a constitution and/or other rules and restrictions.
Democracy is rule of men, republic is rule of law.
@shanedk Would agree with our system of government has a democracy like tenacy, We vote on our representatives. It seems like its a democracy on whom our leaders are.
@mrphoo67 The House represents the people, and are chosen by them. But they are absolutely bound by the Constitution and cannot do anything that isn't a granted power in Article I Section 8. They can't just do whatever the hell they want, even if it's what the people want.
@ManOfDeath567 Anarchy isn't a system of government. It's a system (several systems, actually, since there are several forms of anarchy) of no government.
The labeling of a perticular goverment system as a rebulic only states that the head of the state (wich dosen't necessary be synomous with lawgiver/sovering)
dose not hold any regal title such as emperror/king/prince etc. but by no means automaticly prevent him/her wielding great power.
Seriously this is horeshit and elbow greas.I am honestlydisapointed especially after wathing one about separation of church and state wich was very enlightening.
Fist of all i think you've got the denocracy translation wrong all it means is simply rule of the people as for the "repulic" it is combination of two words "res"-thing/issue and publica wich simply translates as public matter/issue.
Furthermore the Roman republic and Athens Democracy where almost identical.
And a constitutional republic is also a democracy in a way because that constitution was made by someone and a majority agree with it and a minority will certainly always disagree with it and it's imposed on them!
I don't intend to break your heart but a constitutional republic will almost certainly not work because there will always be people who disagree with your constitution!
@shanedk So, taking my homeland Singapore into this, does that mean that since Singapore has a Singaporean and PR population of 4 million that Singapore would have 32 congressmen if this math was used and if Singapore had USA's political system?
Don't you find it ironic that the Constitution is a government document? Or that the recourse to rights explicitly delineated in the Constitution are organs of government such as the court system? Or that even though our rights are "inherent" and "inalienable", they morph, expand, and contract as we cross invisible lines? Weird how that works.
Democracy, which you often confuse with 'Majoritarianism' and Necrocracy, where the theories and thoughts of dead people override the needs of the living.
Just as an aside, it seems reasonably incomplete not to explain the term 'representative democracy' and its bearing on the conversation. Not to say by any means that your points are incorrect or I'm arguing with them, merely that I think its an important point that could be added. Some people somehow get the impression that the only real democracy is direct, where everybody votes on everything.
Well, I'm skeptic about the argument that people will see democracy in the old greek view, thats the reason for my first question a few hours ago. is it the normal view in your country?
If thats the normal view, then your argument seems valid, but from a middle EU view, if I say democracy, the people will think of voted leaders BUT restricted by inherent human rights, just like the republic you mentioned.
Is your definition an established view or just personel?
At first, one question: You use the word democracy in the ancient greek view, is that the normal use in the US?
If so then you're correct. But from my (german) modern view of the word I'd say you've created a false dichotomy. Because "democracy" just describes the legitimation (elected by the people) and not the Intention (case of the people: res publica). So the words are not contrary and you can have a democratic republic, as the US and germany. Federal repub. with elected leaders.
Or to put it the other way round. Although the leaders are interested in the welfare of the people, they must not have been elected by the people. OK thats a non realistic Utopia ;)
As I said in the video, people here when confronted will say they're using it the "modern" way, but as soon as an issue comes along they have majority support for it's back to the old definition in a heartbeat.
We live in a Democracy and it shows. Unlimited Governmental power which restricts the availability of unbiased info and Government control over what we see and hear.
Shane! I think there is no word "poblicus" in Latin. It's called "publicus" meaning "public". There is also a word called "populus" meaning people, nation, population. "Republic" derives from res publica "public matters".
I think your concept of rights is imagined. You try to secure your concept rights by a god which you dont call god or by dogmaticly stating that they are inherently there. (you do admit you do not know where your rights come from if not from the people) The constitution seems to be your bible. Its dogma instead of reasoning. Your figure at 7:40 seems to me like reality vs your ideology. Could you support your idea that rights are inherent by more than appeal to what feels right?
Then you're fucking ignorant of your own country's history. And the UK's. And France's. His writings inspired major upheavals in EACH of those countries.
Seriously. How does the electoral system protect you? All those presidents you oppose got elected using that system. In your lifetime, only once did the popular vote disagree with the electoral vote, and I doubt you'd say the electoral vote for bush was much wiser than the popular vote for Gore as you probably opposed them both.
Because our current (unconstitutional) electoral system forces the narrowing of the options down to only two, with little voice from the people in the process.
A system that doesn't make different rules for the incumbent parties than it does for other parties. Or, better still, a system that refuses to acknowledge parties at all.
Let's assume you get your way and government shrinks and the regulations are trashed. In a free market society with most of the wealth in the hands of a small minority of the people, and the majority of the people not being very interested in the finer points of the constitution, how does one stop corporatism from reconstituting itself within a generation while everybody's watching reality TV?
Ok, if you won't accept international studies and won't accept any comparison to any extant health care sytem, then there is nothing I can do to help you other than this simple principle: If no owner, shareholder or partner has to make a profit from providing a service (like is the case with any truly public service) then that service always has the potential to be done cheaper and more efficient. Mind you I said "potential", it is not always like that.
Larger units have the potential to work more efficiently by concentrating resources. Therefore any public service can more be done more efficiently by a large unit such as a state. Mind you I'm still talking potential. Exessive bureaucracy may slow things down, but I maintain that bureaucracy is not inherent in any public or private organization.
And to the person who is painstakingly downthumbing every single pos of mine: I hope that you find your task worthwhile. I'm sure you'll change everyones oppinion of me with every single click.
So basically you're denying my claim that the Danish health care system is more effecient. I suggest you take that up with WHO and OECD. No country in the world spends more on health care per capita or as percentage of GDP than the US (30% more than no. 2 based on %GDP and around 60% based on per capita expense) I actually checked the numbers this time, just go to OECD's webpage. You simply can't blame all of this on an overall more unhealthy population.
Ok, I accept that, the default position isn't necessarily the null hypothesis.
My main argument would be efficiency. The Danish health care system, which is mostly publicly funded, has a much higher approval rating (90%) than the American and costs far less (I think it's about 1/3 - but don't quote me on that number) Even if we constantly complain about high costs and low efficiency, we are A LOT better off than the US. We also have a (slightly) higher life expectancy.
In recent years the Danish public service (especially transport and healthcre) has lagged behind our neighboring countries, which is most directly seen in our much lower life expectancy. This is due to liberalizations in the public sector, where services are licenced to private companies. This has raised costs and lowered quality.
My second argument would be a common sense of fairness, not all may agree to this, but certainly a large majority in Denmark do (I canhear you cry: BRAINWASHED)
You seriously want evidence that any civilization needs at a minimum public infrastructure to function?
And private police and courts are better because,,,?
You know actually I think the burden of proof rests on YOU this time, because you're describing a state that quite frankly doesn't exist exept for small tax evasion states that live off the money their residents make in the rest of the world.
Your idea of a difference in where rights come from in a democracy and in a republic is based on the erroneous assumption that there is a way to recognize rights that is not dependent on other people. There is not. Rights can only exist between people and be agreed upon by people. And when people stop doing that they disappear.
No, they don't. They only disappear when force is used. In order for something to stop being a right, the use of force has to be justified against it.
If we have an agreement that gives you the right to do something, and eventually we end the agreement, you stop having that given right. Scale doesn't matter.
Well the burden of proof is hard to lift, when I have little concrete evidence from unbiased scources. However, I can apply the logic that if people as per default carry effective means of killing one another, then people will occationally resort to these means to the detriment of society. Carrying firearms on a daily basis serves no useful purpose other than threatening and harming other people, and therefore it's downsides can only count against them.
BTW a dont accept the dichotomy of good and evil, in math the absolute value of something is always a real number positive and negative are relativistic constructs depending on which side of the scale you preseve your self to be on
I noticed that he didn't provite any citations, so the stats were pretty hard to confirm. Coincidence does not imply causality, and blaming gun control for the genocides of the 20th century was just downright silly, by the same logic I could "prove" that the proliferation of guns througout the Old West was resposible for the genocide of the native Americans. They tried to defend themselves and it didn't help them one bit.
"Care to say why not? Or is it just easier to assert it?"
- Seriously, I'm not going to debunk a whole other video that I watched some time ago. Basically I have never seen that "natural state" that the free market is supposed to be work in real life.
Come on Shane, this is politics, not natural science. The burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence that the free market is a "natural state".
It doesn't work like that in a political debate. There the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim for the most extensive change of the system to show how those changes would actually work. You know that's how it works, you only have to begin defending status quo after someone has challenged it.
There is NO SUCH PRINCIPLE OF LOGIC WHATSOEVER. EVER. The status quo NEVER gets a free ride just because it's the status quo. You are anti-logic, anti-science, and anti-reason.
The status quo ALWAYS needs defending. ESPECIALLY when it hasn't met its burden of proof.
You're so cute when you get angry Shane :-) I was just teasing you a bit. Of course you're right. The status quo must always be defended, even if that's how it usually goes in a political debate (and trust me I'm NOT defending the staus quo)
I haven't watched the video in question for a while, and I'm not really in a position to debunk it right now, so I guess you can claim this one. All I can say is that it didn't convince me when I first watched it, and it's propably not going to now.
If I can give you one last piece of advice Shane, it is that you learn to control your temper. You're a smart guy (REALLY smart) and I love the fits you throw in your old "Bogosity"-vids, but in a live debate you're just putting off a lot of people by getting so mad. Both people who disagree (like me on economics and politics) and people who agree (like me on science and conspiracies)
Once you start writing most words in capitals I find myself not paying attention - even if you're making sense.
i cant tell from ur idolized comments that you have never had to deal with violent crime before pray you never do with your navie attudid youd be truly helpless and thus quikly disposed of having delt with sages before the only thing they understand is force thats what you dont get try and reason with the guy holding a gun to your head and then tell me about how my mentality works till then your just a spoild kid who has never dealt with it and your opinions are as pointless as they are stupid
Oh believe me, I've dealt with violent crime before. Both as a victim of it as well as working with violent youth criminals, so don't come and tell me that I know nothing about it! I've never have to deal with someone pointing a gun at me however, and you know why? Because guns just aren't widespread here! I don't constantly have to worry about wether or not the guy I'm arguing with has a friggin' gun. How is that bad?
If I had employed the idea that the only thing violent people understand is more violence when working with violent youngsters, you know what would've happened? I'd have turned them from disturbed young kids into full fledged psychos!
I've said it before: A mentality like yours is downright dangerous in a modern society. It might have been good for surviving on the savanna 100.000 years ago, but we've moved past that now, and it's time you move with us.
I've got no more patience for you. If you want to practice your ideas of "kill or be killed", I'm glad you're doing it over there in your "free" society, where everyone apparently is so afraid of their fellow man that they have to carry guns around. Or maybe you can get yourself a job as a private contracter in Iraq? I hear they are looking for men with guns and the right "incredible hulk" mindset.
No, not a bot; it happens when you copy a certain amount from another post. Why the YouTube programmers thought that might be spam, I can't begin to guess.
Asa "leftist" I naturally disagree. I think your belief in the free market is entirely utopian and not grounded in reality. But at least by now we seem to have cleared up the misunderstandings.
"By our readiness to allow arms to be purchased at will and fired at whim... we have created an atmosphere in which violence and hatred have become popular pastimes."
Martin Luther King was definately not a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment. And bear in mind that it was you, not me, who brought King up in the first place in a discussion about gun rights.
I brought him up as a rebuttal to YOUR insane logic, NOT about gun rights. But if you want to play duelling authorities:
"The only thing I've ever said is that in areas where the government has proven itself either unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of Negroes, it's time for Negroes to defend themselves. Article number two of the Constitutional amendments provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun." --Malcolm X
What is this about duelling authorities? Never used King as an authority. I was merely pointing out that I wasn't putting words in anyones mouth.
And BTW when you first brought up king, it wasn't in a reply to me but someone else, I came in afterwards and pointed out that your logic was as flawed as his.
Yes, you did! You JUST used him as someone against the second amendment to try and defuse my critique of your logic. That's CLASSIC argument from authority.
I do not remember the exact way my original post went, and since you deleted it, I cannot go check it out. I believe you're right about me using his views of gun ownership as an argument, BUT what I was adressing was exactly the flawed logic of using the Civil Rights Movement and King as an analogy to the fight for 2nd amendment rights, and that point still stands.
I DIDN'T. I used it to point out his faulty logic. "We can deny X because Y country does just fine without X" IS faulty logic, regardless of what X is.
"...by allowing our movie and television screens to teach our children that the hero is one who masters the art of shooting and the technique of killing; by allowing all of these developments..."
And no I do not agree with King about this. But then again, I wasn't using him as an authority. You were the one who brought him up, you were the one accusing me of putting words in his mouth, and I simply used the quote to prove you wrong.
Yes, now do you think that King wanted to ban or censor movies and television? If so, he was a fascist. If not, then there's no reason to claim that this quote means he was against the Second Amendment as a right, merely questioning the cultural view of guns (a COMPLETELY different thing).
That's arguable, but there is no question that he's adressing and condemning the easy acces to guns in the American society which is very much a 2nd amendment issue. I don't want to start a war on quotes though, as you can propably dig them up faster than I can and it's kind of pointless. If you can give me a quote that definitively shows King as a supporter, then I'll gladly back down, but untill then I'll stand by my claim that King was not fond of the 2nd amendment.
Other than that I think it is propably time to end this discussion. It has become far removed from the topic of your video, and here we are discussing semantics of a Martin Luther King quote.
Oh and more to the point of the video: Are all people who want to censor movies and television automatically fascist? I'm not a fan of cultural censorship, but I don't immediatly jump to the conclusion: suppression of free speech = fascism.
I completely disagree. If you define suppression of speech as broadly as to include media censorship, then there isn't a single country in the world that isn't fascist. The very act of you deleting my comment becomes fascist (and don't get me wrong: I think you had every right to delete my comment if you found it grossly inappropriate) To me fascism denotes a specific political ideology. And suppression of free speech is surely not restricted to fascist societies.
@Finkeren Isn't that something of an appeal to consequences, though? 'If you define fascist as suppression of speech, then every country would be fascist' doesn't really have anything to do with the original statement. It could very well be true that every country is at least a little bit fascist, at least in this way.
Fascism is a political ideology of which suppression of free speech is an integral part, but to say that that makes all who want to suppress speech in some way inherently fascist (as Shane didwith MLK) is quite frankly a bit silly. Supression of speech happens in all societies and was around long before fascism or even its presumed Roman origins.
No, I wouldn't. I'm glad that we have laws against committing libel, and I don't think people should be allowed to directly incite violence or hate against other people (though I do think there should be a wide margin there) I don't think companies should be allowed to lye in commecials, and a don't think that government officials should be allowed to lye to the public. Any extremism is bad, and that includes having completely free speech.
That's when you publish material critical of those in power. And it IS fascism in those countries that have it. The US doesn't, not since the Sedition Act was overturned.
Of course, Europe is a LOT worse than we are. Even with our fascistic DMCA, those Pirate Bay decisions just could not happen here.
Well what can I say? I'm obviously not a Libertarian. I'm also against the crackdown against Pirate Bay, but I don't see it as any kind af fascism. If anything it is simply the usual story of governments and courts curtailing to corporate interests.
In my country we have lots of restrictions on free speech. Advertizing tobacco products is illegal, child porn is illegal, overtly rascist utterings (as well as other kinds of hae speech) is unlawful, as well as libel and other more common things. But I can assure you, that I do not live in a fascist society.
You REALLY don't get the difference, do you? The censorship is suppression of speech by GOVERNMENT FORCE, and that IS fascism. But a network deciding for themselves what they want to air, or a person deciding he doesn't want a comment on his own YouTube channel, is NOT in ANY WAY censorship.
Of course it is. Look up "corporate censorship". Any kind of suppression of any kind of human expression IS censorship. Again don't get me wrong: I think that you have every right to delete whatever comments you find inappropriate. I believe even you called Venomfangx's supression of debate on his comment-boards "censorship" (I might be wrong about that)
I agree that we should keep government censorship in check but to say that it's only censorship if the government does it is just plain wrong.
Damn :-P I unintentionally deleted my last comment, hope you got around to read it. But it still brings us back to the same problem: Is the governments suppression of free speech in Denmark, where I live, inherently fascist? And does that mean that I live in a fascist state? No! Fascism is a specific political ideology. Supressing free speech doesn't make a state fascist any more than having a neck makes you a giraffe.
"sigh" ok I'm gonna stop here. If you want to pretend that forceful government censorship = fascism then go ahead. I'm just gonna mosy over to my fellow students at the institute and tell them that according to Shane (whose videos we all like BTW) Denmark was a fascist state during the period of absolutism.
If they were interfering in the marketplace (including the marketplace of ideas), then they WERE fascist by definition, despite what people want to believe.
By what definition? According to Webster's "fascism" (non-specific) is defined as: "A political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)." Doesn't say anything about censorship, even though it might be inferred that censorship is a part of being authoritarian.
Definition of "censorship" is: "Deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances." Doesn't say a thing about fascism.
Both of these definitions are obviously quite insufficient, but the point is that when you say "by definition", you should be sure to at least use a definition, that most people, or at least the one you're arguing with, can agree upon.
"A political regime, having totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based on a relationship between business and the centralized government, business-and-government control of the market place, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights."
That coalition between government and business is what fascism is all about.
See, that definition I can subscribe to. That seems about right. But I don't see that the fact that the government enforces censorship automatically relates to the entirety of that definition.
Again we come back to my "giraffe" example: The fact that you have a neck doesn't make you a giraffe. The giraffe has a lot of neck, and fascism enforces a lot of censorship, but that doesn't mean that any animal with a neck is a giraffe or that any state who enforces censorship is fascist.
No, and as a matter of fact didn't you bring up the definition because you think it supports your conlusion?
I simply say that you can't take one part of a definition and make that diagnostic of the entire concept. So government censorship = fascism just isn't true by the definition you posted yourself.
Federally, not recognizing gay marriage is unconstitutional, and states not recognizing gays from states where gay marriage is legal as married is unconstitutional.
It doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is on the one saying that force should be used against others. In this case, ALL rights are presumed (just as the Null Hypothesis is presumed in science).
I would think that the analog of the null hypothesis is to assume that something does *not* exist until it can be proven that it *does*.
But supposed for the sake of argument that I grant you that. If all rights should be presumed to exist unless they can be shown not to, why list rights in the positive? Why not just list the refutations of proposed rights?
In that line, can you show an example of a refutation of a right? That is, an inference showing it to not exist?
Well the issue of ignorance I agree might be up for debate, though I still stand by my statement that the US population genrally IS too ignorant to be able to push for a change in the system. However there is no denying that the political system IS rigged in favor of the powers that be and is largely controlled by economic interests. Which would still make the US an oligarchy as far as I'm concerned.
What a stupid argument! By that "logic," the rights that Martin Luther King fought for are unnecessary since most nations do fine without black people!
Oh come on Shane, that makes even less sense than zelos' argument. Black people fighting for recognition as equal citizens are NOT comparable to inanimate objects like firearms.
I think you're a quite reasonable guy Shane, but in a heated argument you tend to lose your temper.
In a society where the public is largely ignorant of the political proces, the constitution and the laws of the land, where money and connections are absolutely necessary to get elected to any office of political power, and where government and the legislative body is ruled by lobbyists, I say it's more reasonable to say that USA is an oligarchy, dressed up as a democracy, dressed up as a republic.
Then I don't understand how you can support the recent Supreme Court decission about allowing unlimited campaign finances. Complete freedom for corporations are not compatible with freedom for the people in my book. And yes, I did watch your video on the subject.
Didn't Judge Andrew Napolitano recently go over this whole constitution thing already? Guess it never hurts to repeatedly beat it into peoples heads. It's sad to see that so many people don't know this stuff.
Shane, you have MASSIVE balls for speaking out against democracy. And thanks to this, I actually know what a republic is. But through this video I had one idea. A constitutional democracy. Basically a democracy that functions as a republic. You have a constitution protecting rights and all that good stuff, laws preventing the persecution of the few by the many (As already exist in most democracies) and generally with a more libertarian stance.
Tell this shit to gay people who just got voted to the back of the bus (so to speak).
I don't say this to be disrespectful, only to point out that most Americans think we have a democracy and seem to want it that way. I, on the other hand, don't support the idea at all. I fully agree with you that we are supposed to be a republic and that being a republic is preferential to being a democracy.
Oh here again with that 2nd amendment shite. In a world where automatic firearms (and WMDs) exist, I very much prefer limiting peoples 2nd amendment rights. And don't give me that BS about how "you don't need WMDs for personal protection". If you are Kim Jong Il or Osama bin Laden, you might very well need them. There is nothing "natural" about the right to carry around means of killing other people.
Well supposedly "natural rights" don't just apply to the US do they? My point is that restrictions of peoples' rights is justified in cases where those rights may potetially cause great harm to other people. There are limits to that of course. I do not support warrantless wiretapping or anything like that, but to call the right to possess the power to kill scores of people isn't all "natural" to me.
Because your natural state is to be living until you die. The cause of your death does not mean that it gave you your life. The violation of your right does not mean the violator gave you that right.
I didn't say killing, i said cause of your death so it could be anything. So if a tree falls and kills you at the age of 31 it's still obvious the tree wasn't not responsible for your coming to life 31 years ago. Supplant tree with society.
I think I understand what you're saying -- though maybe not, it's complicated -- and I wish you were right. (Or, since maybe you ARE right, I will say, I wish I could agree that you're right.) But I don't think words on paper can protect us. In any form of government, no matter what we call it, I fear we have only those rights our neighbors decide to allow us to keep. In case of conflict, someone (in our case the Supreme Court) will interpret the words as needed to deprive us of the right.
gmsherry1953 7 months ago
@gmsherry1953: Only problem is, we the people have the final say, not the Supreme Court!
TheRealRockgod 6 months ago
understanding that we are republic, do you think we should have the ectoral college system. Or is that just bogosity.
Pro, cons.
mrphoo67 11 months ago
@mrphoo67 No, you need it to keep a few big cities from deciding the election. Since this is a republic and not a democracy, that should NOT be allowed to happen.
With that said, I think state's electors should have proportional representation. Other than that I'm happy with it.
shanedk 11 months ago
What do think of terms of representative democracy or representative republic. are there any difference in them?
mrphoo67 11 months ago
@mrphoo67 The difference is in what the representatives can do. In a democracy they abide by the will of the people, whatever that may be. In a republic, they're bound by a constitution and/or other rules and restrictions.
Democracy is rule of men, republic is rule of law.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk Would agree with our system of government has a democracy like tenacy, We vote on our representatives. It seems like its a democracy on whom our leaders are.
mrphoo67 11 months ago
@mrphoo67 That's certainly how they rule, but that's not how it's supposed to be.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk Now I know if we didn't have the 17 amendment we would be voting for our senators
But what about our president house of representatives? Are we not suppose to elect them too.
mrphoo67 11 months ago
@mrphoo67 The House represents the people, and are chosen by them. But they are absolutely bound by the Constitution and cannot do anything that isn't a granted power in Article I Section 8. They can't just do whatever the hell they want, even if it's what the people want.
shanedk 11 months ago
shane I I am going to make my self loud and clear on this. I absolutely love the answer you just given me. it was a very good answer.
with your answer in mine, even if constitution gave us democracy, a democracy does not have the power to voilates the constitution.
I will be cool with a democracy that does not have the power voilates individual liberties. A republic democracy.
mrphoo67 11 months ago
You left anarchy out.
ManOfDeath567 1 year ago
@ManOfDeath567 Anarchy isn't a system of government. It's a system (several systems, actually, since there are several forms of anarchy) of no government.
shanedk 1 year ago
You need an annotated link to part 5 here as it isn't showing up in the links at right.
massspectrician 1 year ago
The labeling of a perticular goverment system as a rebulic only states that the head of the state (wich dosen't necessary be synomous with lawgiver/sovering)
dose not hold any regal title such as emperror/king/prince etc. but by no means automaticly prevent him/her wielding great power.
Kharmazov 1 year ago
Monarchy dosen't also exclusively mean the rule of one.Althou both ancient "despotic" and more modern absolutist monarchy woudl fall under it .
The monarch can his/her power limited by either constitution as in modern times
or by some other legal act such as if was in Poland since ate XV century.
Kharmazov 1 year ago
Seriously this is horeshit and elbow greas.I am honestlydisapointed especially after wathing one about separation of church and state wich was very enlightening.
Fist of all i think you've got the denocracy translation wrong all it means is simply rule of the people as for the "repulic" it is combination of two words "res"-thing/issue and publica wich simply translates as public matter/issue.
Furthermore the Roman republic and Athens Democracy where almost identical.
Kharmazov 1 year ago
And a constitutional republic is also a democracy in a way because that constitution was made by someone and a majority agree with it and a minority will certainly always disagree with it and it's imposed on them!
rebelq1 1 year ago
@rebelq1 No, see Lecture 1: the Constitution DOES NOT impose anything on the people, ONLY on those who hold political office.
shanedk 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shanedk
Do me a favour!
Pay close attention to what I said!
rebelq1 1 year ago
I don't intend to break your heart but a constitutional republic will almost certainly not work because there will always be people who disagree with your constitution!
rebelq1 1 year ago
is a representative government the same thing as a republican?
Yikai7 1 year ago
@Yikai7 No, a republic is the rule of law (as opposed to rule of men, which is democracy). A representative government can be either one.
shanedk 1 year ago
shane where do you think peoples rights come from?
funisverygood 1 year ago
That would mean that Congress would have one person in it for every 125,000 people, correct?
Denon3333 1 year ago
@Denon3333 Something like that. There'd be about 1500 Congressmen.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk So, taking my homeland Singapore into this, does that mean that since Singapore has a Singaporean and PR population of 4 million that Singapore would have 32 congressmen if this math was used and if Singapore had USA's political system?
Denon3333 1 year ago
Don't you find it ironic that the Constitution is a government document? Or that the recourse to rights explicitly delineated in the Constitution are organs of government such as the court system? Or that even though our rights are "inherent" and "inalienable", they morph, expand, and contract as we cross invisible lines? Weird how that works.
clownpenisfart 2 years ago
Two forms of government you should also consider:
Democracy, which you often confuse with 'Majoritarianism' and Necrocracy, where the theories and thoughts of dead people override the needs of the living.
clownpenisfart 2 years ago
Just as an aside, it seems reasonably incomplete not to explain the term 'representative democracy' and its bearing on the conversation. Not to say by any means that your points are incorrect or I'm arguing with them, merely that I think its an important point that could be added. Some people somehow get the impression that the only real democracy is direct, where everybody votes on everything.
dbrandow 2 years ago
Yeah, did you see how much running time I DIDN'T have left?
shanedk 2 years ago
@shanedk I take it your not a partner then.
johnrainrules 2 years ago
@johnrainrules You're, sorry. Damn 3rd shifts.
johnrainrules 2 years ago
Yup, understood, just a thought.
dbrandow 2 years ago
Well, I'm skeptic about the argument that people will see democracy in the old greek view, thats the reason for my first question a few hours ago. is it the normal view in your country?
If thats the normal view, then your argument seems valid, but from a middle EU view, if I say democracy, the people will think of voted leaders BUT restricted by inherent human rights, just like the republic you mentioned.
Is your definition an established view or just personel?
Lichtbieger 2 years ago
Yes, lots of people here still use democracy to mean the will of the people. Look at our health care debate and you'll see this all over the place.
shanedk 2 years ago
finally I got your point. I underestimated the small but important difference between "the masses" and "all people".
Lichtbieger 2 years ago
Hi Shanedk
At first, one question: You use the word democracy in the ancient greek view, is that the normal use in the US?
If so then you're correct. But from my (german) modern view of the word I'd say you've created a false dichotomy. Because "democracy" just describes the legitimation (elected by the people) and not the Intention (case of the people: res publica). So the words are not contrary and you can have a democratic republic, as the US and germany. Federal repub. with elected leaders.
Lichtbieger 2 years ago
Or to put it the other way round. Although the leaders are interested in the welfare of the people, they must not have been elected by the people. OK thats a non realistic Utopia ;)
But its logically possible.
Lichtbieger 2 years ago
As I said in the video, people here when confronted will say they're using it the "modern" way, but as soon as an issue comes along they have majority support for it's back to the old definition in a heartbeat.
shanedk 2 years ago
We live in a Democracy and it shows. Unlimited Governmental power which restricts the availability of unbiased info and Government control over what we see and hear.
Satanicallyfree 2 years ago
Shane! I think there is no word "poblicus" in Latin. It's called "publicus" meaning "public". There is also a word called "populus" meaning people, nation, population. "Republic" derives from res publica "public matters".
Elvikowsky 2 years ago
Thanks for the great video!
ALittleBitPregnant 2 years ago
I think your concept of rights is imagined. You try to secure your concept rights by a god which you dont call god or by dogmaticly stating that they are inherently there. (you do admit you do not know where your rights come from if not from the people) The constitution seems to be your bible. Its dogma instead of reasoning. Your figure at 7:40 seems to me like reality vs your ideology. Could you support your idea that rights are inherent by more than appeal to what feels right?
Evilanious 2 years ago
I'm talking about the approach the Constitution takes to rights, not my own opinion. But you've shown quite clearly what YOUR dogma is.
shanedk 2 years ago
What is it, then?
Evilanious 2 years ago
You're showing yourself to be less and less peaceful as time goes on. Perhaps a new epithet is in order?
shanedk 2 years ago
Then you're fucking ignorant of your own country's history. And the UK's. And France's. His writings inspired major upheavals in EACH of those countries.
shanedk 2 years ago
Yeah, that Thomas Paine, what a useless twat...
shanedk 2 years ago
No, you presented the only possible options as fight, be silent, or leave. You HATE free speech.
shanedk 2 years ago
Seriously. How does the electoral system protect you? All those presidents you oppose got elected using that system. In your lifetime, only once did the popular vote disagree with the electoral vote, and I doubt you'd say the electoral vote for bush was much wiser than the popular vote for Gore as you probably opposed them both.
SilentMike0 2 years ago
Because our current (unconstitutional) electoral system forces the narrowing of the options down to only two, with little voice from the people in the process.
shanedk 2 years ago
What would be the "correct" electoral system then? And why is it better than any popular vote system?
SilentMike0 2 years ago
A system that doesn't make different rules for the incumbent parties than it does for other parties. Or, better still, a system that refuses to acknowledge parties at all.
shanedk 2 years ago
OK. No parties. Still, one conservative candidate and one liberal candidate will get all the media attention and 90%+ of the votes.
SilentMike0 2 years ago
Then let's break up the media oligopoly, too. The recent Supreme Court decision is one tiny step in this direction.
shanedk 2 years ago
Let's assume you get your way and government shrinks and the regulations are trashed. In a free market society with most of the wealth in the hands of a small minority of the people, and the majority of the people not being very interested in the finer points of the constitution, how does one stop corporatism from reconstituting itself within a generation while everybody's watching reality TV?
SilentMike0 2 years ago
Ok, if you won't accept international studies and won't accept any comparison to any extant health care sytem, then there is nothing I can do to help you other than this simple principle: If no owner, shareholder or partner has to make a profit from providing a service (like is the case with any truly public service) then that service always has the potential to be done cheaper and more efficient. Mind you I said "potential", it is not always like that.
Finkeren 2 years ago
Larger units have the potential to work more efficiently by concentrating resources. Therefore any public service can more be done more efficiently by a large unit such as a state. Mind you I'm still talking potential. Exessive bureaucracy may slow things down, but I maintain that bureaucracy is not inherent in any public or private organization.
Finkeren 2 years ago
And to the person who is painstakingly downthumbing every single pos of mine: I hope that you find your task worthwhile. I'm sure you'll change everyones oppinion of me with every single click.
Finkeren 2 years ago
So basically you're denying my claim that the Danish health care system is more effecient. I suggest you take that up with WHO and OECD. No country in the world spends more on health care per capita or as percentage of GDP than the US (30% more than no. 2 based on %GDP and around 60% based on per capita expense) I actually checked the numbers this time, just go to OECD's webpage. You simply can't blame all of this on an overall more unhealthy population.
Finkeren 2 years ago
Ok, I accept that, the default position isn't necessarily the null hypothesis.
My main argument would be efficiency. The Danish health care system, which is mostly publicly funded, has a much higher approval rating (90%) than the American and costs far less (I think it's about 1/3 - but don't quote me on that number) Even if we constantly complain about high costs and low efficiency, we are A LOT better off than the US. We also have a (slightly) higher life expectancy.
Finkeren 2 years ago
In recent years the Danish public service (especially transport and healthcre) has lagged behind our neighboring countries, which is most directly seen in our much lower life expectancy. This is due to liberalizations in the public sector, where services are licenced to private companies. This has raised costs and lowered quality.
My second argument would be a common sense of fairness, not all may agree to this, but certainly a large majority in Denmark do (I canhear you cry: BRAINWASHED)
Finkeren 2 years ago
You seriously want evidence that any civilization needs at a minimum public infrastructure to function?
And private police and courts are better because,,,?
You know actually I think the burden of proof rests on YOU this time, because you're describing a state that quite frankly doesn't exist exept for small tax evasion states that live off the money their residents make in the rest of the world.
Finkeren 2 years ago
Your idea of a difference in where rights come from in a democracy and in a republic is based on the erroneous assumption that there is a way to recognize rights that is not dependent on other people. There is not. Rights can only exist between people and be agreed upon by people. And when people stop doing that they disappear.
NuEM78 2 years ago
No, they don't. They only disappear when force is used. In order for something to stop being a right, the use of force has to be justified against it.
shanedk 2 years ago
If we have an agreement that gives you the right to do something, and eventually we end the agreement, you stop having that given right. Scale doesn't matter.
NuEM78 2 years ago
Well the burden of proof is hard to lift, when I have little concrete evidence from unbiased scources. However, I can apply the logic that if people as per default carry effective means of killing one another, then people will occationally resort to these means to the detriment of society. Carrying firearms on a daily basis serves no useful purpose other than threatening and harming other people, and therefore it's downsides can only count against them.
Finkeren 2 years ago
BTW a dont accept the dichotomy of good and evil, in math the absolute value of something is always a real number positive and negative are relativistic constructs depending on which side of the scale you preseve your self to be on
hereticjoeyjoey 2 years ago
I noticed that he didn't provite any citations, so the stats were pretty hard to confirm. Coincidence does not imply causality, and blaming gun control for the genocides of the 20th century was just downright silly, by the same logic I could "prove" that the proliferation of guns througout the Old West was resposible for the genocide of the native Americans. They tried to defend themselves and it didn't help them one bit.
Finkeren 2 years ago
The usual diatribe from 2nd amendment buffs, nothing new. I disagree on so many fundamental levels that it'll take 10 post to lay it out.
Finkeren 2 years ago
psht, my dog purrs. You dono anything lol jk
mathmexican4234 2 years ago
Have seen it. Not at all convinced.
Finkeren 2 years ago
Care to say why not? Or is it just easier to assert it?
shanedk 2 years ago
"Care to say why not? Or is it just easier to assert it?"
- Seriously, I'm not going to debunk a whole other video that I watched some time ago. Basically I have never seen that "natural state" that the free market is supposed to be work in real life.
Finkeren 2 years ago
Argument from anecdote and argument from personal incredulity. Also, continued refusal to back up your statement with evidence.
shanedk 2 years ago
Come on Shane, this is politics, not natural science. The burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence that the free market is a "natural state".
Finkeren 2 years ago
Shifting burden of proof. If YOU are the one wanting to actively use force against others, the burden is on YOU to justify it.
shanedk 2 years ago
It doesn't work like that in a political debate. There the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim for the most extensive change of the system to show how those changes would actually work. You know that's how it works, you only have to begin defending status quo after someone has challenged it.
Finkeren 2 years ago
There is NO SUCH PRINCIPLE OF LOGIC WHATSOEVER. EVER. The status quo NEVER gets a free ride just because it's the status quo. You are anti-logic, anti-science, and anti-reason.
The status quo ALWAYS needs defending. ESPECIALLY when it hasn't met its burden of proof.
shanedk 2 years ago
You're so cute when you get angry Shane :-) I was just teasing you a bit. Of course you're right. The status quo must always be defended, even if that's how it usually goes in a political debate (and trust me I'm NOT defending the staus quo)
I haven't watched the video in question for a while, and I'm not really in a position to debunk it right now, so I guess you can claim this one. All I can say is that it didn't convince me when I first watched it, and it's propably not going to now.
Finkeren 2 years ago
If I can give you one last piece of advice Shane, it is that you learn to control your temper. You're a smart guy (REALLY smart) and I love the fits you throw in your old "Bogosity"-vids, but in a live debate you're just putting off a lot of people by getting so mad. Both people who disagree (like me on economics and politics) and people who agree (like me on science and conspiracies)
Once you start writing most words in capitals I find myself not paying attention - even if you're making sense.
Finkeren 2 years ago
i cant tell from ur idolized comments that you have never had to deal with violent crime before pray you never do with your navie attudid youd be truly helpless and thus quikly disposed of having delt with sages before the only thing they understand is force thats what you dont get try and reason with the guy holding a gun to your head and then tell me about how my mentality works till then your just a spoild kid who has never dealt with it and your opinions are as pointless as they are stupid
hereticjoeyjoey 2 years ago
Oh believe me, I've dealt with violent crime before. Both as a victim of it as well as working with violent youth criminals, so don't come and tell me that I know nothing about it! I've never have to deal with someone pointing a gun at me however, and you know why? Because guns just aren't widespread here! I don't constantly have to worry about wether or not the guy I'm arguing with has a friggin' gun. How is that bad?
Finkeren 2 years ago
If I had employed the idea that the only thing violent people understand is more violence when working with violent youngsters, you know what would've happened? I'd have turned them from disturbed young kids into full fledged psychos!
I've said it before: A mentality like yours is downright dangerous in a modern society. It might have been good for surviving on the savanna 100.000 years ago, but we've moved past that now, and it's time you move with us.
Finkeren 2 years ago
I've got no more patience for you. If you want to practice your ideas of "kill or be killed", I'm glad you're doing it over there in your "free" society, where everyone apparently is so afraid of their fellow man that they have to carry guns around. Or maybe you can get yourself a job as a private contracter in Iraq? I hear they are looking for men with guns and the right "incredible hulk" mindset.
I'm done with you.
Finkeren 2 years ago
Have you ever taken an economics course?
Virgil0211 2 years ago
"Have you ever taken an economics course?" - a few, but my masters degrees are in history and communication. I'm not an economist by a long shot.
Finkeren 2 years ago
:-P so now I'm reduced to a spam-bot. Well I HAVE been posting a lot on this comment board, but it's some damn interesting discussions.
Thanks for the warning.
Finkeren 2 years ago
No, not a bot; it happens when you copy a certain amount from another post. Why the YouTube programmers thought that might be spam, I can't begin to guess.
shanedk 2 years ago
Asa "leftist" I naturally disagree. I think your belief in the free market is entirely utopian and not grounded in reality. But at least by now we seem to have cleared up the misunderstandings.
Finkeren 2 years ago
Finkeren, you do NOT get to make posts like that on my channel--NO MORE using someone MURDERED to try and put words into his mouth. First warning.
shanedk 2 years ago
Ok, how about a direct cuote then:
"By our readiness to allow arms to be purchased at will and fired at whim... we have created an atmosphere in which violence and hatred have become popular pastimes."
Martin Luther King was definately not a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment. And bear in mind that it was you, not me, who brought King up in the first place in a discussion about gun rights.
Finkeren 2 years ago
I brought him up as a rebuttal to YOUR insane logic, NOT about gun rights. But if you want to play duelling authorities:
"The only thing I've ever said is that in areas where the government has proven itself either unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of Negroes, it's time for Negroes to defend themselves. Article number two of the Constitutional amendments provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun." --Malcolm X
shanedk 2 years ago
What is this about duelling authorities? Never used King as an authority. I was merely pointing out that I wasn't putting words in anyones mouth.
And BTW when you first brought up king, it wasn't in a reply to me but someone else, I came in afterwards and pointed out that your logic was as flawed as his.
Finkeren 2 years ago
Yes, you did! You JUST used him as someone against the second amendment to try and defuse my critique of your logic. That's CLASSIC argument from authority.
shanedk 2 years ago
Oops, I'm sorry, that was zelos88's argument, not yours. But the point still stands.
shanedk 2 years ago
I do not remember the exact way my original post went, and since you deleted it, I cannot go check it out. I believe you're right about me using his views of gun ownership as an argument, BUT what I was adressing was exactly the flawed logic of using the Civil Rights Movement and King as an analogy to the fight for 2nd amendment rights, and that point still stands.
Finkeren 2 years ago
I DIDN'T. I used it to point out his faulty logic. "We can deny X because Y country does just fine without X" IS faulty logic, regardless of what X is.
shanedk 2 years ago
By the way, why don't you quote what he said in that ellipsis where you edited the quote? Then tell me if you think we should ban THOSE things, too.
shanedk 2 years ago
The missing part of the quote goes:
"...by allowing our movie and television screens to teach our children that the hero is one who masters the art of shooting and the technique of killing; by allowing all of these developments..."
And no I do not agree with King about this. But then again, I wasn't using him as an authority. You were the one who brought him up, you were the one accusing me of putting words in his mouth, and I simply used the quote to prove you wrong.
Finkeren 2 years ago
Yes, now do you think that King wanted to ban or censor movies and television? If so, he was a fascist. If not, then there's no reason to claim that this quote means he was against the Second Amendment as a right, merely questioning the cultural view of guns (a COMPLETELY different thing).
shanedk 2 years ago
That's arguable, but there is no question that he's adressing and condemning the easy acces to guns in the American society which is very much a 2nd amendment issue. I don't want to start a war on quotes though, as you can propably dig them up faster than I can and it's kind of pointless. If you can give me a quote that definitively shows King as a supporter, then I'll gladly back down, but untill then I'll stand by my claim that King was not fond of the 2nd amendment.
Finkeren 2 years ago
Other than that I think it is propably time to end this discussion. It has become far removed from the topic of your video, and here we are discussing semantics of a Martin Luther King quote.
Finkeren 2 years ago
Oh and more to the point of the video: Are all people who want to censor movies and television automatically fascist? I'm not a fan of cultural censorship, but I don't immediatly jump to the conclusion: suppression of free speech = fascism.
Finkeren 2 years ago
I'd say so, yes. Think about it: without free speech, what other rights do you really have?
shanedk 2 years ago
I completely disagree. If you define suppression of speech as broadly as to include media censorship, then there isn't a single country in the world that isn't fascist. The very act of you deleting my comment becomes fascist (and don't get me wrong: I think you had every right to delete my comment if you found it grossly inappropriate) To me fascism denotes a specific political ideology. And suppression of free speech is surely not restricted to fascist societies.
Finkeren 2 years ago
@Finkeren Isn't that something of an appeal to consequences, though? 'If you define fascist as suppression of speech, then every country would be fascist' doesn't really have anything to do with the original statement. It could very well be true that every country is at least a little bit fascist, at least in this way.
(Or was that reductio ad absurdium?)
Virgil0211 2 years ago
Fascism is a political ideology of which suppression of free speech is an integral part, but to say that that makes all who want to suppress speech in some way inherently fascist (as Shane didwith MLK) is quite frankly a bit silly. Supression of speech happens in all societies and was around long before fascism or even its presumed Roman origins.
Finkeren 2 years ago
@Finkeren 'Supression of speech happens in all societies'
Which is a damned shame, wouldn't you agree?
Virgil0211 2 years ago
No, I wouldn't. I'm glad that we have laws against committing libel, and I don't think people should be allowed to directly incite violence or hate against other people (though I do think there should be a wide margin there) I don't think companies should be allowed to lye in commecials, and a don't think that government officials should be allowed to lye to the public. Any extremism is bad, and that includes having completely free speech.
Finkeren 2 years ago
"I'm glad that we have laws against committing libel"
LIBEL...IS...CIVIL...NOT...CRIMINAL!!!
shanedk 2 years ago
Sorry I should be specific: "Criminal Defamatory Libel"
Finkeren 2 years ago
That's when you publish material critical of those in power. And it IS fascism in those countries that have it. The US doesn't, not since the Sedition Act was overturned.
Of course, Europe is a LOT worse than we are. Even with our fascistic DMCA, those Pirate Bay decisions just could not happen here.
shanedk 2 years ago
Well what can I say? I'm obviously not a Libertarian. I'm also against the crackdown against Pirate Bay, but I don't see it as any kind af fascism. If anything it is simply the usual story of governments and courts curtailing to corporate interests.
Finkeren 2 years ago
"it is simply the usual story of governments and courts curtailing to corporate interests."
That IS fascism.
shanedk 2 years ago
In my country we have lots of restrictions on free speech. Advertizing tobacco products is illegal, child porn is illegal, overtly rascist utterings (as well as other kinds of hae speech) is unlawful, as well as libel and other more common things. But I can assure you, that I do not live in a fascist society.
Finkeren 2 years ago
You REALLY don't get the difference, do you? The censorship is suppression of speech by GOVERNMENT FORCE, and that IS fascism. But a network deciding for themselves what they want to air, or a person deciding he doesn't want a comment on his own YouTube channel, is NOT in ANY WAY censorship.
shanedk 2 years ago
Of course it is. Look up "corporate censorship". Any kind of suppression of any kind of human expression IS censorship. Again don't get me wrong: I think that you have every right to delete whatever comments you find inappropriate. I believe even you called Venomfangx's supression of debate on his comment-boards "censorship" (I might be wrong about that)
I agree that we should keep government censorship in check but to say that it's only censorship if the government does it is just plain wrong.
Finkeren 2 years ago
Damn :-P I unintentionally deleted my last comment, hope you got around to read it. But it still brings us back to the same problem: Is the governments suppression of free speech in Denmark, where I live, inherently fascist? And does that mean that I live in a fascist state? No! Fascism is a specific political ideology. Supressing free speech doesn't make a state fascist any more than having a neck makes you a giraffe.
Finkeren 2 years ago
It's censorship when it's done by force. It's fascism when it's allowed by the system.
shanedk 2 years ago
"sigh" ok I'm gonna stop here. If you want to pretend that forceful government censorship = fascism then go ahead. I'm just gonna mosy over to my fellow students at the institute and tell them that according to Shane (whose videos we all like BTW) Denmark was a fascist state during the period of absolutism.
Finkeren 2 years ago
If they were interfering in the marketplace (including the marketplace of ideas), then they WERE fascist by definition, despite what people want to believe.
shanedk 2 years ago
By what definition? According to Webster's "fascism" (non-specific) is defined as: "A political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)." Doesn't say anything about censorship, even though it might be inferred that censorship is a part of being authoritarian.
Definition of "censorship" is: "Deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances." Doesn't say a thing about fascism.
Finkeren 2 years ago
Both of these definitions are obviously quite insufficient, but the point is that when you say "by definition", you should be sure to at least use a definition, that most people, or at least the one you're arguing with, can agree upon.
Finkeren 2 years ago
"A political regime, having totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based on a relationship between business and the centralized government, business-and-government control of the market place, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights."
That coalition between government and business is what fascism is all about.
shanedk 2 years ago
See, that definition I can subscribe to. That seems about right. But I don't see that the fact that the government enforces censorship automatically relates to the entirety of that definition.
Finkeren 2 years ago
Again we come back to my "giraffe" example: The fact that you have a neck doesn't make you a giraffe. The giraffe has a lot of neck, and fascism enforces a lot of censorship, but that doesn't mean that any animal with a neck is a giraffe or that any state who enforces censorship is fascist.
Finkeren 2 years ago
So, you accept that definition and not the other because the former agrees with your conclusion while the latter doesn't.
That's dogmatic thinking, not rationality.
shanedk 2 years ago
No, and as a matter of fact didn't you bring up the definition because you think it supports your conlusion?
I simply say that you can't take one part of a definition and make that diagnostic of the entire concept. So government censorship = fascism just isn't true by the definition you posted yourself.
Finkeren 2 years ago
Perhaps you would find the term 'fascistic' more palatable?
Virgil0211 2 years ago
"Perhaps you would find the term 'fascistic' more palatable?"
- No more than I would find calling all people with long necks "giraffic" applicable.
Finkeren 2 years ago
so, are the ban on gay marriages unconstitutional?
interstate317 2 years ago
Federally, not recognizing gay marriage is unconstitutional, and states not recognizing gays from states where gay marriage is legal as married is unconstitutional.
shanedk 2 years ago
Shane,
By what objective process are the inherent rights of people observed/inferred?
If two people have a disagreement as to if a particular right exists, by what objective means is the discrepancy resolved?
darktango78 2 years ago
It doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is on the one saying that force should be used against others. In this case, ALL rights are presumed (just as the Null Hypothesis is presumed in science).
shanedk 2 years ago
Shane,
I would think that the analog of the null hypothesis is to assume that something does *not* exist until it can be proven that it *does*.
But supposed for the sake of argument that I grant you that. If all rights should be presumed to exist unless they can be shown not to, why list rights in the positive? Why not just list the refutations of proposed rights?
In that line, can you show an example of a refutation of a right? That is, an inference showing it to not exist?
darktango78 2 years ago
You were the one who tried tying rights to inanimate objects.
shanedk 2 years ago
Well the issue of ignorance I agree might be up for debate, though I still stand by my statement that the US population genrally IS too ignorant to be able to push for a change in the system. However there is no denying that the political system IS rigged in favor of the powers that be and is largely controlled by economic interests. Which would still make the US an oligarchy as far as I'm concerned.
Finkeren 2 years ago
I didnt say give and if i did then it was the wrong word to use
What im saying is saying anything is a right is meaningless unless there is a society or system in a society enforcing and protecting it.
excandersham 2 years ago
What a stupid argument! By that "logic," the rights that Martin Luther King fought for are unnecessary since most nations do fine without black people!
shanedk 2 years ago
Oh come on Shane, that makes even less sense than zelos' argument. Black people fighting for recognition as equal citizens are NOT comparable to inanimate objects like firearms.
I think you're a quite reasonable guy Shane, but in a heated argument you tend to lose your temper.
Finkeren 2 years ago
It's NOT inanimate objects fighting for their rights. It's the people who want to own them. YOU are the one being laughably ridiculous here.
shanedk 2 years ago
In a society where the public is largely ignorant of the political proces, the constitution and the laws of the land, where money and connections are absolutely necessary to get elected to any office of political power, and where government and the legislative body is ruled by lobbyists, I say it's more reasonable to say that USA is an oligarchy, dressed up as a democracy, dressed up as a republic.
Finkeren 2 years ago
"I say it's more reasonable to say that USA is an oligarchy, dressed up as a democracy, dressed up as a republic."
I would agree with that.
shanedk 2 years ago
Then I don't understand how you can support the recent Supreme Court decission about allowing unlimited campaign finances. Complete freedom for corporations are not compatible with freedom for the people in my book. And yes, I did watch your video on the subject.
Finkeren 2 years ago
Because that decision REDUCES the amount of corporatism in America, NOT increases it, as I explained.
shanedk 2 years ago
And as I implied, I completely disagree with you. Well I guess we'll find out eventually.
Finkeren 2 years ago
When do you think it went wrong?
excandersham 2 years ago
I don't think it ever went wrong. The US was always an oligarchy, just like much of the rest of the world.
Finkeren 2 years ago
Didn't Judge Andrew Napolitano recently go over this whole constitution thing already? Guess it never hurts to repeatedly beat it into peoples heads. It's sad to see that so many people don't know this stuff.
IWAxl 2 years ago
Shane, you have MASSIVE balls for speaking out against democracy. And thanks to this, I actually know what a republic is. But through this video I had one idea. A constitutional democracy. Basically a democracy that functions as a republic. You have a constitution protecting rights and all that good stuff, laws preventing the persecution of the few by the many (As already exist in most democracies) and generally with a more libertarian stance.
I'm curious if that would actually work...
asedtf 2 years ago
Tell this shit to gay people who just got voted to the back of the bus (so to speak).
I don't say this to be disrespectful, only to point out that most Americans think we have a democracy and seem to want it that way. I, on the other hand, don't support the idea at all. I fully agree with you that we are supposed to be a republic and that being a republic is preferential to being a democracy.
christo930 2 years ago
Well, thank you for proving that you hate free speech.
Don't let the door hit ya where the dog shoulda bit ya.
shanedk 2 years ago
Typo in the closed caption at around 6:50. You say two when you mean too.
Frostslayer3 2 years ago
Argh...
Go ahead, link me to the Pirillo video.
shanedk 2 years ago
How can you have a right not to be killed without a society giving you that right?
excandersham 2 years ago
Your right to bear arms.
shanedk 2 years ago
Oh here again with that 2nd amendment shite. In a world where automatic firearms (and WMDs) exist, I very much prefer limiting peoples 2nd amendment rights. And don't give me that BS about how "you don't need WMDs for personal protection". If you are Kim Jong Il or Osama bin Laden, you might very well need them. There is nothing "natural" about the right to carry around means of killing other people.
Finkeren 2 years ago
good thing osama bin laden and kim jong-il don't live in america then
Fernoe 2 years ago
Well supposedly "natural rights" don't just apply to the US do they? My point is that restrictions of peoples' rights is justified in cases where those rights may potetially cause great harm to other people. There are limits to that of course. I do not support warrantless wiretapping or anything like that, but to call the right to possess the power to kill scores of people isn't all "natural" to me.
Finkeren 2 years ago
@shanedk "Your right to bear arms. "
Actually many restaraunts require shirts, so bear arms are not a right. :)
Sorry it was too much to resist.
mwildish 2 years ago
That would be "bare" arms.
christo930 2 years ago
I know, the joke is better when spoken :(
mwildish 2 years ago
Because your natural state is to be living until you die. The cause of your death does not mean that it gave you your life. The violation of your right does not mean the violator gave you that right.
0bodobod0 2 years ago
I dont understand that statement do you mean to live till you die of old age?
As living until you die doesnt really go against killing
excandersham 2 years ago
I didn't say killing, i said cause of your death so it could be anything. So if a tree falls and kills you at the age of 31 it's still obvious the tree wasn't not responsible for your coming to life 31 years ago. Supplant tree with society.
0bodobod0 2 years ago
*double negative "wasn't" remove the "not"
0bodobod0 2 years ago