@CobraJones Well, I am against the income tax, but I hold the traditional Southern Democratic view on tariffs. Tariffs are particularly harmful in the United States. A tariff might help one part of the country while harming another part of the country depending on the economy of a particular state. Oh, and if you consider racism to be the viewpoint that ethnicity tends to inherently affect behavior and character traits, then yes, by your definition, my paleo-con family would all be racist.
@CobraJones Why would you like globalization? Globalization would result in loss of self-determination. Globalization requires a strong central government. We already have that unfortunately, but at least it's based in our country (D.C.). In a globalist society, we would be ruled by a centralized government out of Belgium or somewhere else in Europe. That would result in tyranny.
@Sistarovat Apparently, we have different ideas on what "globalization" is. When I refer to globalization, I'm primarily referring to the ability to move goods (and people) easily from one country to another. In other words, as an American, it's just as easy for me to go to the Kwik-E-Mart and pick up a product from China, India, Britain, or wherever as it is to pick up a product from America.
@CobraJones Why? You don’t see why they would do that? Maybe to encourage the Saudi government to stop violating humans right?? Because when the Saudi government is part of it they have more incentive to act against violation of humans rights in Saudi Arabia.
@jorisewout The Human Rights Council *sets* what Human Rights are (or should be). Putting a country that rather grossly violates any standard of human rights as a member of the body that gets to decide what human right violations are is stupid.
Violating Godwin's law here...that'd be like putting Hitler in charge of the "What Should We Do With The Jews?" committee.
@CobraJones You’re Hitler analogy is seriously flawed here because Saudi Arabia is not in charge of the council but part of it. This makes all the difference because they have to submit their wishes to the wishes of the whole group. This kind of tactic also works with plain people. Put some juvenile delinquent in a other more social environment, were there actions are looked upon and chances are his behavior changes for the better.
@jorisewout I wouldn't put a gangster in a city's ethics committee (if such a thing existed), I wouldn't put a mobster on a federal law committee, I wouldn't put a Wall Street pirate on a federal banking committee, and I wouldn't put a country notorious for a bad civil rights record on an international committee for civil rights. And all for the same reason. You don't fix corruption by giving the corrupt more power.
@CobraJones I wouldn't recommend most of the those things either. But the representative of the government is probably not someone who violates human rights himself neither do most of the government for that matter. I have to admit I don’t have some magic argument (besides I already mentioned) to prove to you it would be better for the human rights in Saudi Arabia if they are in fact a member of the committee but I believe it is the better alternative.
Interesting. I'm beginning to identify more with paleoconservatism and less with libertarianism as time goes by. I've always appreciated the more decentralist nature of paleocons rather than the moral absolutist positions of libertarians anyways. Thanks for this video. Do Distributism next.
@CobraJones I'm wondering what anti-federalist ideas you think would have legitimacy in a modern context. I'm sure there is some legal grounding for this given the 10th amendment. But, as with your example of Ron Paul, it seems like today the right considers any issue they are winning on a federal issue, but if they are losing it is a states right issue.
I don't think 'puerto rican culture is best for PR' etc is racist as such, it's more of a polite xenophobia. The reason I say that is no doubt it would also include 'french culture is best for french' etc, so it is more of a nation based attitude than race based.
@jimbobubbadj I originally liked the idea of a smaller government and ending the federal reserve but its a few other things as well. Ron Paul just isn't who I thought he was. I'm a progressive-libertarian :/ If I had to give it a label.
This is very interesting. Txs for for the explanation.
Hummm. Sounds like some of my family members are paleoconservatives. We do have some lively and enjoyable discussions on some matters, but on certain other matters we simply agree to disagree and not discuss it at all, because even playful food fights are not encouraged at the supper table during our family gatherings. ; )
@johnnyd101 I'm not necessarily opposed to international organization. Even with my whole ideas national sovereignty, international organizations, coalitions, etc., can be a good thing.
But an international organization that is capable of putting Saudi Arabia on its human rights council? Yeeaaaah....no.
@AEVautomatic I do believe in an objective reality, but not objective morality. And that's because there's no such thing as an objective value. Something gains value not from what it is, but how it is useful to something else. If not for the subject, the valuer, there would be no value in the valued thing. In other words, value is something that is given to a thing by a subject, and not something inherent to the thing in and of itself.
@CobraJones The only thing that can derive value that we know about is sentient life. Suffering is objectively bad. It’s that simple. However, outside of the evaluation I agree that there is nothing there. Objectivism is not too concerned with the fact that there is no cosmic eternal absolute morality.
@AEVautomatic Objective means that it is there, or it is true, regardless of the existence of the subject. Suffering is objective in the sense that your brain does certain things when bad stuff happens, therefore suffering exists. However, it requires a different party than the suffering itself to assign a value to that suffering. Even if I accept that all sentients see suffering as bad, that would make it universal, not objective.
@AEVautomatic If someone broke into my house at 9:00, threatened my life and stole my TV, it would be morally acceptable to kill him. If he left, and while on the way to the police station, I saw him again at 11:00 a.m., it would not be morally acceptable to pull over and kill him.
@AEVautomatic Wouldn't the idea that context can change an ethical evaluation show that morality isn't as objective as you think? If a moral is objective, it would be correct no matter what the context. Even if you take the value of life as a high moral value, there are times when it would be more moral to end life than let it continue.
@CobraJones That is insaine. Gravity is the same everywhere but the amount of mass effects it. What time it is on the clock does not change gravity. Therefore gravity is objective.
@AEVautomatic Well, that's kinda true, I suppose...although one really cool thing is that what the gravity is *can* change what time it is on the clock.
Gravity is objective because it would exist whether we (sentient life capable of recognizing it) are there or not. However...values would *not* exist whether we are there or not. The only thing that gives something value is the fact that there is someone that assigns it value.
@AEVautomatic Well, let me put it this way...we get our morals from our values. In order for something to be "objective," it must have that property in and of itself. A rock is hard because hardness is something that exists in and of the rock itself. It weighs a pound because it weighs a pound in and of itself. The measure of value is how much use it is to *something/someone else*. That rock would only have value if it could be made useful, not an inherent characteristic of the rock itself.
@CobraJones any system of matter wired the exact same way will be the same. if we made someone else exactly the sme as you it will be the same. Thus suffering is objectivly bad. iT IS AN INATE CHARACTERISTIC.
@AEVautomatic Suffering describes a feeling caused by something else, same as pleasure. Suffering is bad, by definition. Pleasure is good, by definition. But we don't place value on pleasure and suffering, we place value on the things that bring us pleasure and suffering.
@CobraJones Yes we do the entire economic system is made to increase happiness and reduce pain. Why would we make that if we didnt place value on utility?
@AEVautomatic Utility is a value judgment. Something does not have utility unless there is someone there to utilize it. And while I would say it's just sentient life that places value (otherwise dogs and cats would just stop eating...), some kind of intelligence is required to assign a value, a utility to something.
Subjective is based on prejudice and objective is independent of personal opinion or bias. You should have logical and not illogical views. There is no rationale behind subjectivism. There is logic and evidence and we are not ignorant anymore. Based on the value definition that suffering is bad we can define efficiency.
@AEVautomatic Objectivity, in the sense that it's used to describe morality, isn't just independent of personal opinion or bias...it's independent of person. And there is a rationale behind subjective morality. Or rather, there can be.
If morality is, indeed, objective, then why do not all people have the same moral system? The very fact that people *can* reject different morality points to the fact that it is subjective. Were morality objective, it would be impossible to go against its laws.
@CobraJones So there is that band that does the intro and another with the awesome flute playing in the vid. Would you mind telling me their names? ^^
You are cherry picking definitions just like when you turned what has value on its head. The value is derived from phenomenological first person knowledge. Therefore phenomenological first person knowledge is the only thing that has value through which all value is derived.
@AEVautomatic How did I turn the definition of value on its head? In order for something to have value, there must be someone/thing present to decide that it *has* value. Iron is only valuable because we can use it. Life is only valuable because we are here to to stuff with our life. If you take out the "we" in those sentences, then you end up with "iron is valuable because..." blank out. Or "life is valuable because..." blank out.
@CobraJones "In order for something to be "objective," it must have that property in and of itself"
Suffering is a physical process that occurs in the brain. Any process that is the same will be the same hence objective. Just like cars objectivly go if the process is right.
Neo-Liberalism would be interesting to do next, since you already did Neo-Conservatism, also Progressivism, as in the one that was accepted by Theodore Roosevelt and those like him.
I wonder what Palaeolithic Conservatism would be like? Anti copper laws? Bans against combinging ores to make bronze? Anti Agriculture Acts? The Defence of mating act (1 Hunter, 1 Gatherer?)
Where I see the line draws between libertarians and paleo-cons is immigration. Paleos seem to turn a blind eye when it comes to applying natural law theory and Lockean principles to, well, people traveling freely. As soon the topic of immigration comes up, it's no longer about there being a natural law and a natural rights where it doesn't matter what laws say, they should not be infringed upon. It becomes a matter of wither this person is "legal" or "illegal." Where it's wrong simply because...
@Gettinghitonattheban That's one difference, policy-wise, between paleocons and libertarians. Paleocons are also more likely to be against abortion, same sex marriage, gay rights, and such.
dinosaur conservatives!!! That's what my initial guess is ;)
I have to keep rewatching parts of this video because I don't really know what the difference between the republicans and PALEO conservatives....and....stuff. Politics is hard :(
@CobraJones Well, I am against the income tax, but I hold the traditional Southern Democratic view on tariffs. Tariffs are particularly harmful in the United States. A tariff might help one part of the country while harming another part of the country depending on the economy of a particular state. Oh, and if you consider racism to be the viewpoint that ethnicity tends to inherently affect behavior and character traits, then yes, by your definition, my paleo-con family would all be racist.
Sistarovat 1 month ago
@Sistarovat Based on that, then yes, you're pretty much by definition a racist.
CobraJones 1 month ago
@CobraJones Well, as far as I know, most Paleoconservatives are against tariffs. I know I am. I guess that's what you were talking about.
Sistarovat 1 month ago
@Sistarovat As far as I know, you're more of an exception. Most Paleoconservatives I know are against the income tax in favor of tariffs.
CobraJones 1 month ago
@CobraJones Why would you like globalization? Globalization would result in loss of self-determination. Globalization requires a strong central government. We already have that unfortunately, but at least it's based in our country (D.C.). In a globalist society, we would be ruled by a centralized government out of Belgium or somewhere else in Europe. That would result in tyranny.
Sistarovat 1 month ago
@Sistarovat Apparently, we have different ideas on what "globalization" is. When I refer to globalization, I'm primarily referring to the ability to move goods (and people) easily from one country to another. In other words, as an American, it's just as easy for me to go to the Kwik-E-Mart and pick up a product from China, India, Britain, or wherever as it is to pick up a product from America.
CobraJones 1 month ago
"Even today, there is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation, if our traditions do not survive with it." -JFK
Support Ron Paul 2012. He's the only candidate that isn't bought and owned by the globalists.
VotePaineJefferson 6 months ago
@VotePaineJefferson But I like globalization!
CobraJones 6 months ago
what is the awesome irish sounding music in the background?
jujigun 9 months ago
@jujigun I *think* it was either Eluveitie or Korpiklaani...but I don't remember off the top of my head.
CobraJones 9 months ago
Nihilism!
Woo!
GravDuck 9 months ago
Why do you think the USA should leave the UN?
devotedpupa 9 months ago
@devotedpupa I question the legitimacy of any organization that would put a country like Saudi Arabia on its Human Rights Council.
CobraJones 9 months ago
@CobraJones Why? You don’t see why they would do that? Maybe to encourage the Saudi government to stop violating humans right?? Because when the Saudi government is part of it they have more incentive to act against violation of humans rights in Saudi Arabia.
jorisewout 9 months ago
@jorisewout The Human Rights Council *sets* what Human Rights are (or should be). Putting a country that rather grossly violates any standard of human rights as a member of the body that gets to decide what human right violations are is stupid.
Violating Godwin's law here...that'd be like putting Hitler in charge of the "What Should We Do With The Jews?" committee.
CobraJones 9 months ago
@CobraJones I imagine they were placed on the HRC in order to placate them and stuff.
CobraJones 9 months ago
@CobraJones You’re Hitler analogy is seriously flawed here because Saudi Arabia is not in charge of the council but part of it. This makes all the difference because they have to submit their wishes to the wishes of the whole group. This kind of tactic also works with plain people. Put some juvenile delinquent in a other more social environment, were there actions are looked upon and chances are his behavior changes for the better.
jorisewout 9 months ago
@jorisewout I wouldn't put a gangster in a city's ethics committee (if such a thing existed), I wouldn't put a mobster on a federal law committee, I wouldn't put a Wall Street pirate on a federal banking committee, and I wouldn't put a country notorious for a bad civil rights record on an international committee for civil rights. And all for the same reason. You don't fix corruption by giving the corrupt more power.
CobraJones 9 months ago
@CobraJones I wouldn't recommend most of the those things either. But the representative of the government is probably not someone who violates human rights himself neither do most of the government for that matter. I have to admit I don’t have some magic argument (besides I already mentioned) to prove to you it would be better for the human rights in Saudi Arabia if they are in fact a member of the committee but I believe it is the better alternative.
jorisewout 9 months ago
Interesting. I'm beginning to identify more with paleoconservatism and less with libertarianism as time goes by. I've always appreciated the more decentralist nature of paleocons rather than the moral absolutist positions of libertarians anyways. Thanks for this video. Do Distributism next.
Dabba23 10 months ago
The problem with moderate libertarianism is that it looks like paleoconservatism. One reason I like anti-statism
greenghost2008 10 months ago
@CobraJones I'm wondering what anti-federalist ideas you think would have legitimacy in a modern context. I'm sure there is some legal grounding for this given the 10th amendment. But, as with your example of Ron Paul, it seems like today the right considers any issue they are winning on a federal issue, but if they are losing it is a states right issue.
Eluveitie FTW!
synchronium24 11 months ago
Neocons make democracy feel like herpes.
GoatOfTheMountains 11 months ago
I don't think 'puerto rican culture is best for PR' etc is racist as such, it's more of a polite xenophobia. The reason I say that is no doubt it would also include 'french culture is best for french' etc, so it is more of a nation based attitude than race based.
Scarletpooky 11 months ago
I used to believe in Ron Paul :( I was libertarian for a while.
restlesspride666 11 months ago
@restlesspride666 Why have you changed your view? Peace out.
jimbobubbadj 11 months ago
@jimbobubbadj I originally liked the idea of a smaller government and ending the federal reserve but its a few other things as well. Ron Paul just isn't who I thought he was. I'm a progressive-libertarian :/ If I had to give it a label.
restlesspride666 11 months ago
This is very interesting. Txs for for the explanation.
Hummm. Sounds like some of my family members are paleoconservatives. We do have some lively and enjoyable discussions on some matters, but on certain other matters we simply agree to disagree and not discuss it at all, because even playful food fights are not encouraged at the supper table during our family gatherings. ; )
phenixwryter 11 months ago
just want to know your reasons for wanting to leave the un?? would you set up another international orginisation?
johnnyd101 11 months ago
@johnnyd101 I'm not necessarily opposed to international organization. Even with my whole ideas national sovereignty, international organizations, coalitions, etc., can be a good thing.
But an international organization that is capable of putting Saudi Arabia on its human rights council? Yeeaaaah....no.
CobraJones 11 months ago 2
@CobraJones why dont you believe in objectivism? I can clear up any misunderstanding. Subjectivism is stupid.
AEVautomatic 11 months ago
@AEVautomatic I do believe in an objective reality, but not objective morality. And that's because there's no such thing as an objective value. Something gains value not from what it is, but how it is useful to something else. If not for the subject, the valuer, there would be no value in the valued thing. In other words, value is something that is given to a thing by a subject, and not something inherent to the thing in and of itself.
CobraJones 11 months ago
@CobraJones The only thing that can derive value that we know about is sentient life. Suffering is objectively bad. It’s that simple. However, outside of the evaluation I agree that there is nothing there. Objectivism is not too concerned with the fact that there is no cosmic eternal absolute morality.
AEVautomatic 11 months ago
@AEVautomatic Objective means that it is there, or it is true, regardless of the existence of the subject. Suffering is objective in the sense that your brain does certain things when bad stuff happens, therefore suffering exists. However, it requires a different party than the suffering itself to assign a value to that suffering. Even if I accept that all sentients see suffering as bad, that would make it universal, not objective.
CobraJones 11 months ago
@CobraJones If something is to be rational it can't contradict itself. Subjectivly killing can be good at 9am and wrong at 11am. Its absurd.
AEVautomatic 11 months ago
@AEVautomatic If someone broke into my house at 9:00, threatened my life and stole my TV, it would be morally acceptable to kill him. If he left, and while on the way to the police station, I saw him again at 11:00 a.m., it would not be morally acceptable to pull over and kill him.
CobraJones 11 months ago
@CobraJones but that ethical evaluation is based on contextualization and not the numbers on a clock.
AEVautomatic 11 months ago
@AEVautomatic Wouldn't the idea that context can change an ethical evaluation show that morality isn't as objective as you think? If a moral is objective, it would be correct no matter what the context. Even if you take the value of life as a high moral value, there are times when it would be more moral to end life than let it continue.
CobraJones 11 months ago
@CobraJones That is insaine. Gravity is the same everywhere but the amount of mass effects it. What time it is on the clock does not change gravity. Therefore gravity is objective.
AEVautomatic 11 months ago
@AEVautomatic Well, that's kinda true, I suppose...although one really cool thing is that what the gravity is *can* change what time it is on the clock.
Gravity is objective because it would exist whether we (sentient life capable of recognizing it) are there or not. However...values would *not* exist whether we are there or not. The only thing that gives something value is the fact that there is someone that assigns it value.
CobraJones 11 months ago
@CobraJones its a paraphrase to explain a complex idea.
AEVautomatic 11 months ago
@AEVautomatic Well, let me put it this way...we get our morals from our values. In order for something to be "objective," it must have that property in and of itself. A rock is hard because hardness is something that exists in and of the rock itself. It weighs a pound because it weighs a pound in and of itself. The measure of value is how much use it is to *something/someone else*. That rock would only have value if it could be made useful, not an inherent characteristic of the rock itself.
CobraJones 11 months ago
@CobraJones any system of matter wired the exact same way will be the same. if we made someone else exactly the sme as you it will be the same. Thus suffering is objectivly bad. iT IS AN INATE CHARACTERISTIC.
AEVautomatic 11 months ago
@AEVautomatic Suffering describes a feeling caused by something else, same as pleasure. Suffering is bad, by definition. Pleasure is good, by definition. But we don't place value on pleasure and suffering, we place value on the things that bring us pleasure and suffering.
CobraJones 11 months ago
@CobraJones Yes we do the entire economic system is made to increase happiness and reduce pain. Why would we make that if we didnt place value on utility?
AEVautomatic 11 months ago
@CobraJones The value only comes from sentient life.
AEVautomatic 11 months ago
@AEVautomatic Utility is a value judgment. Something does not have utility unless there is someone there to utilize it. And while I would say it's just sentient life that places value (otherwise dogs and cats would just stop eating...), some kind of intelligence is required to assign a value, a utility to something.
CobraJones 11 months ago
Subjective is based on prejudice and objective is independent of personal opinion or bias. You should have logical and not illogical views. There is no rationale behind subjectivism. There is logic and evidence and we are not ignorant anymore. Based on the value definition that suffering is bad we can define efficiency.
AEVautomatic 11 months ago
@AEVautomatic Objectivity, in the sense that it's used to describe morality, isn't just independent of personal opinion or bias...it's independent of person. And there is a rationale behind subjective morality. Or rather, there can be.
If morality is, indeed, objective, then why do not all people have the same moral system? The very fact that people *can* reject different morality points to the fact that it is subjective. Were morality objective, it would be impossible to go against its laws.
CobraJones 11 months ago
@CobraJones So there is that band that does the intro and another with the awesome flute playing in the vid. Would you mind telling me their names? ^^
MonotonePeanut 9 months ago
You are cherry picking definitions just like when you turned what has value on its head. The value is derived from phenomenological first person knowledge. Therefore phenomenological first person knowledge is the only thing that has value through which all value is derived.
AEVautomatic 11 months ago
@AEVautomatic How did I turn the definition of value on its head? In order for something to have value, there must be someone/thing present to decide that it *has* value. Iron is only valuable because we can use it. Life is only valuable because we are here to to stuff with our life. If you take out the "we" in those sentences, then you end up with "iron is valuable because..." blank out. Or "life is valuable because..." blank out.
CobraJones 11 months ago
@CobraJones It is contingent thats it.
AEVautomatic 11 months ago
@CobraJones "In order for something to be "objective," it must have that property in and of itself"
Suffering is a physical process that occurs in the brain. Any process that is the same will be the same hence objective. Just like cars objectivly go if the process is right.
AEVautomatic 11 months ago
@CobraJones Yours is the slippery slope that leads to ad absurdum.
AEVautomatic 11 months ago
@CobraJones Yes sometime it is ethical to kill others. If you don't like the truth it doesnt prove it false.
AEVautomatic 11 months ago
@CobraJones It would also mean that animal suffering has meaning.
AEVautomatic 11 months ago
Neo-Liberalism would be interesting to do next, since you already did Neo-Conservatism, also Progressivism, as in the one that was accepted by Theodore Roosevelt and those like him.
greatpower20 11 months ago
I wonder what Palaeolithic Conservatism would be like? Anti copper laws? Bans against combinging ores to make bronze? Anti Agriculture Acts? The Defence of mating act (1 Hunter, 1 Gatherer?)
TheBoyFromNorfolk 11 months ago
Are you going to do a video about producerism too?
Queekitch 11 months ago
Where I see the line draws between libertarians and paleo-cons is immigration. Paleos seem to turn a blind eye when it comes to applying natural law theory and Lockean principles to, well, people traveling freely. As soon the topic of immigration comes up, it's no longer about there being a natural law and a natural rights where it doesn't matter what laws say, they should not be infringed upon. It becomes a matter of wither this person is "legal" or "illegal." Where it's wrong simply because...
Gettinghitonattheban 11 months ago
(Continued...)
"It's against the law."
Gettinghitonattheban 11 months ago
@Gettinghitonattheban That's one difference, policy-wise, between paleocons and libertarians. Paleocons are also more likely to be against abortion, same sex marriage, gay rights, and such.
CobraJones 11 months ago
dinosaur conservatives!!! That's what my initial guess is ;)
I have to keep rewatching parts of this video because I don't really know what the difference between the republicans and PALEO conservatives....and....stuff. Politics is hard :(
abbynormal0ne 11 months ago
Well I knew about it =P
Gettinghitonattheban 11 months ago