80.1% of the people in San Francisco are idiots. No wonder eveyone jumps off the Golden Gate! I would too if everyone thought electing Pelosi is a good idea.
"I didn't realize there were any Republicans that were allowed to be outside of the exact party lines." Oh dear god. Can you just suck my balls sac you partisan hack douchebag? Like every Demcorat is from the same mold? Please. What's refreshing is to come across a Democrat who believes the 2nd extends rights to the individual and who don't believe in thought policing the populace via "PC" speak. Die in fire fuckwad.
Duh who owns most Corporations??? Isn't it Stockholders? Who are the Stockholders? Do you have a Mutual Fund, Gift Trust, 401K, TSP then you own a part of these Corporations! A lot of Retirement Funds have stock in these Corporations! When you tax Corporations you do two things raisde the cost of the product to the consumer and give the Stockholder less of a dividend! Wake up people!!! Maybe we should have a test for people to vote as well as a valid ID!!!!
Peter Schiff was a candidate in Connecticut that was interviewed on this channel by Cenk, and at that time Cenk didn't have any useful questions at all, he simply attacked Schiff the way he does with any libertarian, I see that while Schiff is definitely the strongest economist that ever ran (he and Ron Paul), John Dennis is smoother and is able to lead a conversation better than
@romanmir01 lead a conversation better than Schiff. Schiff is used to debating rather than conversing so he is more rough on the edges but he is the best economist that ever approached the US gov't even as a candidate.
oh and yeah I also disagree with his point on private vs. public money multipliers, but again, it's a RESPECTFUL disagreement. Republicans could really learn from this guy.
Great stuff. Finally, a Republican I don't have utter contempt for and could even see myself voting for. I would definitely disagree on his stance on "government intervention" being a problem like most Republicans would say, but my overwhelming agreement with him in many other areas like civil liberties, war policy, social issues, anti-corporate welfare, etc. would definitely leave me in a bind in deciding who to vote for between him and Pelosi. He seems sincere as well.
"a dollar in private hands has multiplier" Depends on the wealth of private hands. Give a dollar to a homeless guy he will spend it, multiplied. Give a dollar to a wealthy man they will not, hoarded.
Give a dollar to a corporation as much of it as possible will go to wealthy men.
@GorgonLuvs8008135 Your kidding right??? Capital comes from savings. I believe in fiscal stimulus but I am sick of you demand side extremists demonising savings. Savings leads to capital formation which then leads to investment. If you look at people's wealth, at most 10% is in cash. The rest is in stock and bonds and commodities and therefore invested into productive means. And a homeless person buying chinese goods is no good, is it? Leakage is a problem with demand side extremism.
"The rest is in stock and bonds and commodities and therefore invested into productive means." - stock is not necessarily productive, especially locally. Invest in wall mart, and A lot will go into buying products and labour from china.
"And a homeless person buying chinese goods is no good, is it?" Its not good, but cant blame the homeless guy, he has no choice. It's the investment in wall mart that leaked.
The Young Turk is very wrong on one point. Angelo Mozilo's company Countrywide, had Fannie Mae as its biggest customer for its garbage mortgages. Fannie Mae was directly responsible for giving public dollars to this corrupt company.
He's a libertarian-Republican like Ron Paul. The Tea Party was started by Ron's people and was taken over by the neoconservatives like Palin. Please don't judge every person who may support libertarian-Republicans as if they like George Bush. We hated Bush and started the Tea Party in '07 to protest his administration's abuse of war, debt, and civil liberties.
@koren1124 "I really wish this guy was running for a spot against one of the non-progressives. Pelosi does fairly good compared to most. "
What exactly is progressive about banker bailouts, the financial reform bill, the Patriot Act, or the wars? John Dennis and Cenk agreed on every single issue in this video, and Nancy voted or approved all the aforementioned topics.
I can't believe all the adoring comments here. He sounds almost like a democrat doesn't he? Ummm.....of course he does!! He is running in the most liberal district in the whole freakin country! I guess I might consider voting for him if practically all the republicans didn't vote in lock step with each other all the time. I guess if you don't have a problem with the republicans obstructing every freakin bill in congress then go ahead and vote for the schmuck.
@DirtFlyer He won't vote for debt, corporate welfare, wars, or to renew the Patriot Act--like Nancy Pelosi did.
I have faith in him sticking to his guns.
I don't know how anyone can support Pelosi anymore after the last couple years while she has helped destroy the dollar, supported our illegal occupations in the east, bailed out Wall St. and ran the Patriot Act through again!
I hope this guy wins. I've been wondering where the next Ron Paul will come from, since Paul's really old and I can't expect him to last much longer. We need people like that, who push the sound and less retarded ideals of Libertarianism like reducing our military presence. Our foreign policy costs us much in terms of money, freedom, and security, and needs to be reevaluated but both the dems and the repubs don't consider it other than "let's go to war!" or "let's rebuild their nation!"
I don't know.... While he is DEFINITELY smaert i think he's using his intelligence to sound consistant to whomever he speaks with... I'M NOT SURE this is the only interview I've seen with him but just fro SOME reason i feel like he i only half genuine!
Hey Cenk, you still don't get it, do you?? The heard of the problem was the Federal Reserve's low interest rate, infinite credit expansion policies! That is what got us into this mess to begin with. You progressives seem to not understand this, and I doubt you ever will.
@chrispriveco He believes in less government intervention and tax dollars being in the private rather than public sector. What, do you want him to flap his arms like a mad chicken and shriek about "TEH GAYZ"? Would that make him a Real Republican?
He dodged the tax question. I want to hear his position on progressive taxes. Since he dodged it, I have a pretty idea what it is.
Other than that, he sounds better than Pelosi. Give me half an excuse and I'll vote against that traitor. Well, I'm voting against her no matter what, the question is what party will I choose other than Democrat.
All the candidates are in parties, that's why I say party. And if the Democrats run someone else against Pelosi, I'd be ecstatic. Though, I remembered after posting this Pelosi is out of my district, so I won't get to vote against her.
This guy is a real republican. Why can't there be more of him? I would vote Republican in a heartbeat. But given the crazy lunatic republican majority....
At any rate, this dude is by far more progressive than Nancy. I hope he wins.
One key question missing: IF ELECTED, WILL YOU CAUCUS WITH THE DEMOCRATS?
I want to vote for him but I'm worried that Nancy Pelosi will see his success and veer FURTHER to the right because she almost lost to a Republican, completely ignoring the fact that HE'S MORE LIBERAL THAN SHE IS. Clearly he can see how backwards the Republican Party is, so WHY doesn't he run as an independent and/or caucus with the Democrats? I want him to win but don't want Dems to lose the House.
@chubstheclown Do you even know what that means? Caucusing determines which party is the majority and minority. The majority party gets to decide what bills reach the house floor, in essence the majority party's committees get to decide what the house votes on, so they have veto power over the entire legislative process. That's why Lieberman promised to caucus with the Democrats even though he ran as an independent and voted as a douche. I like Dennis but I don't want the Dems to lose the house.
@prokrastinatorSF You don't want the dems to lose the house? About the most dangerous thing I can think of is for one party to control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency all at once. I'd ike to see that end as soon as possible.
@chubstheclown Are you fucking serious? The Democrats have been able to accomplish almost squat over the last two years. The biggest voter mandate in decades, and we get a watered-down, loophole-ridden credit card regulation bill, a watered-down, loophole-ridden financial regulation bill, and a watered-down, loophole-ridden healthcare bill 20 years too late and without a public option or anything even remotely resembling it, without any negotiation with the drug companies over prices.
Progressives and libertarians have more in common than most think. Progressives just need to realize the fractional reserve banking system is flawed and needs to be eradicated, keeping the system and just adding more regulations just empowers the big banks more becus all regulations are selectively enforced upon the little guys who didn't pay off the politicians.
@ShatterNWO You don't understand true progressivism. True progressism is statism and has nothing to do with libertarianism. Progressives are mostly confused. It's true some of them might be more libertarian if they weren't so confused or even some times guilty of downright douchebaggery.
@ShatterNWO Progressives understand that the system is flawed but they don't have delusions about any other system being perfect. So they prefer to (progressively) fix things rather than eradicate them and fantasize how everything will work itself out.
THAT's the right I'd like to see.. how can you handle crazy, religious, hypocrites as opposition that caves in to commercial interests? You can't they suck, you can't compromise or have an honest discussion.
However this guy is not insane, has some interesting ideas and can make a point without talking about God and patriotism so the base listens to him. I wouldn't vote for him because of his policy ideas, but because he's less corrupted (yet).
Californian Republicans are very different than the national republican, most national republicans concider CA(along with mass, and vermont) republicans as pretty much dems.
@WesSideCali John Dennis is not an example of some sort of special "California" Republican. He is a Ron Paul-type Republican (you know... the guy from Texas). Establishment Republicans and Democrats both favor having a large central government... whether it exists to fight wars or provide welfare. Candidates like John Dennis favor a limited central government... an inverted pyramid, if you will, where the individual holds the most power and the "leaders" hold the least.
Until a Republican explicitly says "I'm Pro Choice, for Gay marriage, care more about the middle class then the Rich" I will NEVER EVER vote Republican. Fuck them, I'm not budging.
@Roeshamboe05 Well... John Dennis -is- pro choice and he supports gay marriage. The real problem here is that people like yourself won't take the time to find this stuff out for yourselves. Voting by letter is the opposite of change.
@chubstheclown Fuck that and fuck you. I'll research him if he ran for Senate in my state. Of course I'm not going to research every politician running for office across the nation. That's Cenk's job. And I'm not buying this whole "hey here's a Republican we can vote for." If he wins this November and I hear good things about him a year from now, I may consider researching him.
@Roeshamboe05 I'll ignore the "F U" part of your message... and say this: Aren't you researching him now by viewing and commenting on this video? You then jump to preconceived notions about topics that weren't even discussed in this interview. If you want to talk about those topics... take the 30 seconds it takes to look into the guy's positions. Don't assume. It looks pretty silly when you complain about candidates being anti-choice/anti-gay marriage in a comments section about a guy who is not
As far as deregulation goes, like Cenk said in this video, is not a interest of people but interets of the coporates. And he's(Ron Paul) not get getting any money from them?
By the way, I only found out recently, RP voted against removal of certain regulation, which is against what he's been saying.
Actually what he means now is, "Some regulations are needed." which is no different than his opponents have been saying.
@allgoo19 To be clear... I won't change my libertarian views, but I might change my perspective of Ron Paul if you can show that he has strayed. This is not about a person... it is about ideas.
That said... thank you for the specific reference. I looked closely at it, and it is clearly an example of Ron Paul sticking to principle. RP will not vote for a bill that goes beyond the limits of the Constitution... even if it has elements he agrees with. The bill allows mergers, but also regulates.
@allgoo19 The trouble with the banks example is that the whole system reeks of corporatism. The Federal Reserve is a government-sponsored cartel, and fractional reserve banking is legalized fraud. Government has become a tool of the banks, so when government "regulates" them... that -is- an example of self-regulation. What we need is -no- regulation (self or otherwise)... and to distribute power to local governments so that banks (or anyone else) cannot abuse government force to their own ends.
What's your idea of putting corporates under control if not by regulations?
Your quote, "become a tool of the banks, so when government "regulates" them..."
How about the regulation based on people's(consumers) interest to control the corporates going uncontrolable? Is it still unneccessary in your opinion?
Do you allow bankers to fine print scam people, corporates to scam investors by inside trading, etc?
@allgoo19 inside trading can help stop depression and out fraudulent firms. insider trading is only unfair to fat cat investors. if someone on the inside knows that the firms asset prices are over-valued or are being fraudulent then they will sell their shares and there be a large scale sell off thus destroying the firm before a bubble forms.
"if someone on the inside knows that the firms asset prices are .."
Just think for a moment and pretend you are the insider, where you see an opportunity to make big money over independent investors by giving false info.
Which one you will care most, your pocket or investors pocket?
Capitalism is not about caring others, in fact none of that. It's all about profit seeking.
Firm can be built else where, specially if you made big profit with the former.
@allgoo19 No it isn't, which is why he will sell his shares which is an indication for others to do the same as the information will spread like wildfire as usually happens when there are no confidentiality agreements.
Insider trading will lead to lower valuations for asset prices which means less bubbles. Pop the bubble before it gets to big.
Laws against insider trading only protect rich fat cat investors.
@allgoo19 "What's your idea of putting corporates under control if not by regulations"
The control that is needed is to defang government so that corporations can't use force to get their way.
"How about the regulation based on people's(consumers) interest"
It is a fallacy to believe that the people will ever maintain control of a powerful central government. The solution is to distribute power more locally.
@allgoo19 I'll put it a different way... Corporations are powerless over us without having the use of force at their disposal. Government is the use of force. Without it, customers are free to turn away from any corporation they don't like. Other businesses are free to compete as they wish and draw customers away. Without government working as a tool of force in the name of corporations, we can't be forced to bail them out when we turn away from them as customers. An "evil" corporation will fail
Corporates use gov., for their advantage, so lets get rid of the gov. and everything will be solved.
Is that what you saying?
I got a news for you. Gov. existed as long as human civilzation, way before the birth of corporates which is only some 200 yrs or so. Gov. wsn't created just for corporates sakes. There are many other reasons for the gov. to exists.
@allgoo19 No... that is not what I am saying. My problem is with having an overly-powerful -central- government. A central government's sole purpose should be to protect the rights of individuals (rights that are inherent and not "granted" by government). Any powers beyond that should be held by smaller, more localalized governents, so that any legislation is truly representative of the people it applies to... and so that mamoth corporations cannot abuse an overly-powerful central government.
@chubstheclown "rights that are inherent and not "granted" by government"
There are no such things as inherent rights (well, unless you want to appeal to God, which is even dumber). There are only rights that come from mutual agreement of the people and in today's societies those are usually ratified (and enforced) by the government.
@Pylo01 Wow. This may be the saddest thing I have ever read. This has nothing to do with "God". It has to do with nature and common sense. Do you not own your body? If a group consists of three people, and two of those people decide that the 3rd should be killed... is that right? If the same two decide that the third may not speak his mind, is that okay? What if you were the only person in the world? Would you cease to exist because you don't have a group to tell you what to do with youself?
Actually i don't think he was stating an opinion more than he was stating a fact.... Every right we have IS granted by our government whether you like it or not.... if the government decided it was not in your rights to speak you'd get arrested.... We might like to BELIEVE we have inherent rights but then that just makes you a tea partier for believing in an illusion....
@upplsuckimcool16 I'm talking about right and wrong... not about whether or not you'll be arrested (by a potentially criminal government). Under Hitler's government, did a Jewish person have a right to live? Of course. Hitler's government violated that right. Whether or not you are "arrested" for something does not define whether or not it is a right. It only defines whether or not it is a privilege. Governments can violate rights just as easily as individuals can.
@upplsuckimcool16 Here is an easier way to address this... Go to answers.com and look up "What is the difference between a right and a privilege?". It's laid out pretty well there.
@chubstheclown There is no concept of ownership in nature. An animal "owns" as much as it can claim and defend from other animals (and yes, we are animals, look it up). So I call bullshit on your "nature and common sense" argument.
@Pylo01 We'll have to simply disagree on this one. You believe rights belong to groups solely because they outnumber other groups. I believe rights belong to individuals. Good luck in the world you are asking for.
@chubstheclown It doesn't matter what I believe or whether you agree or not, it's a fact. Just because I can claim certain rights doesn't mean I actually have them. That is the whole point of fighting FOR rights, I don't remember when has appeal to "common sense" ever given a certain group more rights. It usually takes a lot of protest, activism and at least some display of power.
@Pylo01 You can't have it both ways. You initially stated that "There are only rights that come from mutual agreement of the people". So rights do exist so long as a group "agrees" they do. And now, "Just because I can claim certain rights doesn't mean I actually have them". So, if a group or government claims rights for people... they don't necessarily have them, right? In your world, rights cannot exist at all, because you will never, ever get everyone to agree.
@chubstheclown "I" as an individual is what I meant. Wasn't it obvious? Do you think it is enough to simply claim rights in order to have them?
Anyway, to address you other point: "if a group or government claims rights for people... they don't necessarily have them, right"
This is true, they only have those rights as long as they have the power to enforce them. In a democracy, that power comes from the people (who recognize the government).
@Pylo01 I really think we are getting into semantics and differences in the meanings of words. Your definition of "rights" seems to be "abilities". If I am not able to do something (due to force from others), I have no right to do it. If you used the term "abilities", I would agree with you. I believe, however, that the definition of the word "rights" is altogether different from that of the word "abilities". That is the only place I see us disagreeing.
@chubstheclown Yes, I own my body because I live in a free society. I wouldn't own it if I were a slave and was unable to fight for my freedom (which I would). If two people decide to kill a third it doesn't make it right, but it does make it a fact that he's dead unless he is stronger or has a more powerful group to back him up. If I were the only person in the world, I wouldn't cease to exist, but I sure as hell wouldn't have any rights either. Where would I claim them? From animals?
@Pylo01 "I wouldn't own it if I were a slave and was unable to fight for my freedom" Yes, you would own it. Those who were enslaving you would be violating your property. A rapist does not own his victim. He violates her property.
"If two people decide to kill a third it doesn't make it right, but it does make it a fact that he's dead" Fine... but we aren't talking about whether or not he is dead. We are talking about whether or not it is a crime to kill him, even with government blessing.
@chubstheclown A rapist violates her dignity, whether or not he violates her property depends on the law.
It is not a crime to kill if it's not against the law (that's the definition of crime FFS). It's still wrong but that's a separate issue because your sense of right and wrong doesn't have to be exactly the same as mine since morality is subjective.
@Pylo01 Our only difference here, then, is terminology. We agree that based on our moral codes, government can be in the wrong. In my opinion, it often is. I believe that the more power you accumulate centrally, the more it attracts people who will use it in ways that most would consider to be wrong.
@Pylo01 Another point: If I declare myself (just me, the individual) to be a government which has jurisdiction over you, does that mean that any time you defy me you are committing a crime? What, exactly, does it take for a government to be considered legitimate?
@Pylo01 Sure... but I'm not talking about a democracy. I'm talking about people who have no government system deciding on one. It didn't start out as a democracy, so where did the 51% get the authority to impose democracy on the 49% if not through force?
@chubstheclown Where do you get the authority to do anything if not through power (not necessarily physical)? We may believe we have superior moral judgment but that is just our opinion.
@Pylo01 Sure... I don't disagree that that is "the way it is". I also believe that "the way it is" can be influenced by encouraging people to look at rights as inherent... that by repsecting your own rights, you must also respect the rights of others. I'm talking about actually having a philosophy... not just recognizing the sad state of the world. If more people had such a philosophy, there would be a much smaller place in the world for government force.
@chubstheclown That's not a philosophy, that's religion. I do have a moral philosophy of my own, I just don't assume I'm the moral authority, nor would I accept anyone else as such. But I also recognize we have to make compromises in order to get along within a society (different people may want different rights). Individuals is not all we are.
Besides, it is this boiling pot of different ideas and philosophies that pushes societies forward.
@Pylo01 "Individuals is not all we are." That is your opinion. You can decide to be a part of a group, but don't your own morals tell you that it is wrong to force someone into your group?
Actually it's an observable fact, studied by social sciences. It is in our nature to be a part of a group. This ability to organize is also one of our greatest strengths as a species.
"don't your own morals tell you that it is wrong to force someone into your group"
@Pylo01 Well... that makes your position crystal clear, then. You are exactly what I am fighting against. Leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone. Agree to transact with me, and we can have a transaction. Use force, and I will fight back. I am grateful that you have engaged in a civil conversation with me (honestly)... but also grateful that you have made it clear what you represent.
@chubstheclown I think I've made my position clear from the start. There is no "inherent" rights, you only have the rights you fight for (or somebody does for you).
If you think you have the right to hurt others (even indirectly) I will fight you and try to deny you that right. So no, I don't think it's immoral to force people to conform to some social norms (if can affect others). In fact, I'm sure it's sometimes necessary.
"I also believe that "the way it is" can be influenced by encouraging people to look at rights as inherent"
YES! The way it is can always be influenced, that is the whole point of progressivism. If you think you can shift the balance of power that way, by all means, do it. I wont support you because I don't agree with you.
"that by respecting your own rights, you must also respect the rights of others."
On this, I wholeheartedly agree. Without mutual respect, rights are just abstract concepts.
@Pylo01 "Yes, I own my body because I live in a free society" By the way... you don't live in a free society for as long as a group is making rules for you without your express permission. You are only free for so long as you agree to be subject to the group and its rules. When you are subject to the rules without giving your permission, you are a slave. A group calling itself a government does not necessarily make it any better than a mob.
@chubstheclown Well that depends on your definition of freedom. Of course I'll never have absolute freedom to do whatever I want because I don't have the power to do so. I will always be limited by some rules, and at least by other people's freedoms (providing I respect it).
"A group calling itself a government does not necessarily make it any better than a mob."
Absolutely, I never said it does. Ideally, government IS the people, and that is "the world I'm asking for".
@Pylo01 I don't believe government can ever be "the people"... because people will never ever agree on a system that every one of them is okay with. If 51% of the people want pure democracy, and 49% don't... through the use of force, you'll probably end up with pure democracy, assuming the 51% are stronger. But, the 49% minority will never agree that the government system that was forced on them "is the people". This, IMHO, is reality. That is why I'll always stand for individual rights first.
@chubstheclown Much, much smaller minorities have fought and won the rights they wanted, so your case is unlikely (I know you were just trying to make a point, but so am I). I'm all for individual rights but unfortunately they are useless unless respected by others.
In order for you to have a right of property, others have to recognize it is your property and agree not to steal from you (which limits their freedom).
@Pylo01 The best way to get people to really respect individual rights is to impress upon them the moral position that rights are not granted by governments. I believe governments have a tendency to become fundamentally immoral (by your or my standards)... so when people -believe- that their right to speak out against government cannot be legislated away, they will be more likely to do so even if they are "breaking the law". I'd much rather see this than a bunch of mindless law abiders.
@chubstheclown I see your point and I respect what you're saying.
I believe that the people need to realize "the government" is not something above them, but instead it is there to serve them. The senators, legislators, etc. they are our employees. I don't want "mindless law abiders" either, if you can fight for something you really want, than you should. Of course, you will only win if you get enough support, but that brings us to square one.
@Pylo01 My observations of history tell me that governments rarely end up playing the servant. Far more often they end up serving a select few at the expense of everyone else. The kinds of people that you and I might call "good" people are rarely interested in power. I believe that a truly good person wants nothing to do with power over others. The only way I see toward progress is for individuals to influence other individuals to be good. Not to empower governments to use force to that end.
@allgoo19 Giant multi-national corporations are the product of powerful centralized governments. Corporations use the force of government to ensure the downfall of potential competition. As an example... Mattel recently got in trouble for having lead in toys. In response, legislation was proposed that would require toy manufacturers to perform very expensive tests checking for lead. Realizing that smaller companies could not afford the tests, Mattel was the biggest proponent of the legislation.
I'm impressed. You didn't make it up like so many others!
But it's still just one example, not enough to say the gov. is useless. There'a high probablity that it'll get more publicity and it'll eventually get turned over.
In that case, we still need the gov. to turn it over.
Without the gov., Mattel doesn't even need to lobby to get advantage. By using the money, they can buy out all the competition, then play monopoly.
"so that mamoth corporations cannot abuse an overly-powerful central government."
Isn't it better if the gov. keeps the mammoth corporations small like they did only while back? The gov. began turned agaisnt people when the corporations started payng money to influence the gov.
Is it true or false?
Who's going to protect the people if the gov, gets too small too weak against other interest like big corporations?
@allgoo19 "Who's going to protect the people if the gov, gets too small too weak against other interest like big corporations?"
The people are. People can abandon doing business with any corporation. They cannot abandon doing business with the force of government. The biggest corporations realize this and use the force of government to get their way. GM and many big banks would have failed by now if the federal government was actually limited. That would have been the people's will.
@allgoo19 The examples were in my previous post. The people abandoned GM. The federal government used your money to force GM's survival. Smaller, more innovative companies were denied their opportunity to replace GM.
@allgoo19 I used GM to make the broader point. Every huge corporation that needed a bailout, whether it be an automobile manufacturer... a bank... an insurance company... was obviously rejected by the market. The market is us: the people. We decided to reject these giant corporations, but the federal government wouldn't let us. The trouble is... you want a powerful central government to protect you from the corporations, but instead, it protects the corporations from you.
@allgoo19 Yes. And it is of no consequence. We, the market, rejected them. One could argue that any badly run company might succeed at some point if given another chance. You can't have it both ways, though. You can't say that on the one hand you want to be protected from big evil corporations... and on the other, you want them to be saved every time they screw up. GM's failure would have made room for innovating companies like Tesla to flourish. Instead, we promote stagnation.
You have no concern over the people who would have lost their jobs not only at GM but all related industry and the town they are in? And the economic impact to rest of the nation? Start up companies are not going to be enought o pick them up.
Have you looked at how bad the economy is lately?
By the way, if the gov. can do a better job, why it has to be privately owned company to run? Please explain.
@allgoo19 Government does not run GM. That being said... I don't understand your position. You want government to protect you from evil corporations, but you don't ever want any of them to fail because someone might lose a job?
Yes, they do. They replaced a few CEO already because they didn't fit their view. What you call it then?
"You want government to protect .."
Just look around what's going on in politics. Corporates CEO hire lobbyists to get their way by buying politicians.
It has to be opposite. Gov. should take a charge by regulate them in the way neccessary. Keep each investment bankers small, keep them from using their commercial bank deposits. etc.
@allgoo19 None of the GM executives are paid by the government, nor are they answerable to government.
"Corporates CEO hire lobbyists to get their way by buying politicians."
Exactly. The more powerful your central government is, the more this happens... because influencing government is the only way to get ahead when government is so powerful. Saying "it has to be opposite" does not change that fact. Your utopian view of government can't and won't happen. Power -always- draws evil to it.
@allgoo19 Again... Exactly. Corporations own the media. People vote for who the media tells them to. You are spot on. So... what makes you think this is going to change? Corporations have a vested interest in influencing the vote for as long as government has the power to determine winners and losers in business.
Today's corporations don't want small government. They got where they are by doing exactly what you describe. Obama received more campaign money from BP than any other candidate.
"Today's corporations don't want small government.."
What kind of stupid comment is this?
They want to deregulation everything, cut the tax everything, gov. to disappear.
Just look in the past. When riches paid over 90% tax, regulations are in the right places, tax are paid for the public project, the economy was booming. Corporates and the bankers hated it, they even planned a coup de ta.
@allgoo19 If you are going to cheapen what has been a civil conversation by suggesting such a thing, I think we are done here. If I were being paid for my opinions, I wouldn't be wasting my time in a Youtube comments section.
Regardless you want to admit it or not, there are many paid misinformants in youtube. It's pretty disgusting betraying their family and friends for who knows how much of money being paid.
Here's what it means by "Big gov." when people talk about it.
"Big tax to riches, big public services and projects, big restriction to the corporates"
According to you, corporates desperately want this and paying for it.
As for the corporations wanting restrictions. There are mountains of evidence pointing to this. The big corporations can afford to pay the costs of the regulations which keeps smaller competitors out of the market place entirely or makes it EXTREMELY hard for them to compete. The regulatory system is just one way in which corporations that are in bed with the govt rip off the public. Using lobbying dollars they are able to maintain monopolies to varying degrees.
80.1% of the people in San Francisco are idiots. No wonder eveyone jumps off the Golden Gate! I would too if everyone thought electing Pelosi is a good idea.
freakylocz14 10 months ago
Dammit, Dennis should have won
lukegreen37 11 months ago
We all knew that Dennis had no chance of winning (which is very sad that San Francisco is so bitterly partisan and senile).
Libertarianism is a conservative viewpoint, actually.
freakylocz14 1 year ago
"I didn't realize there were any Republicans that were allowed to be outside of the exact party lines." Oh dear god. Can you just suck my balls sac you partisan hack douchebag? Like every Demcorat is from the same mold? Please. What's refreshing is to come across a Democrat who believes the 2nd extends rights to the individual and who don't believe in thought policing the populace via "PC" speak. Die in fire fuckwad.
captwasabi 1 year ago
Duh who owns most Corporations??? Isn't it Stockholders? Who are the Stockholders? Do you have a Mutual Fund, Gift Trust, 401K, TSP then you own a part of these Corporations! A lot of Retirement Funds have stock in these Corporations! When you tax Corporations you do two things raisde the cost of the product to the consumer and give the Stockholder less of a dividend! Wake up people!!! Maybe we should have a test for people to vote as well as a valid ID!!!!
peatea98 1 year ago
Peter Schiff was a candidate in Connecticut that was interviewed on this channel by Cenk, and at that time Cenk didn't have any useful questions at all, he simply attacked Schiff the way he does with any libertarian, I see that while Schiff is definitely the strongest economist that ever ran (he and Ron Paul), John Dennis is smoother and is able to lead a conversation better than
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 lead a conversation better than Schiff. Schiff is used to debating rather than conversing so he is more rough on the edges but he is the best economist that ever approached the US gov't even as a candidate.
romanmir01 1 year ago
I live in California's 8th Congressional District and I plan on voting for John Dennis!!!
sparx832 1 year ago
even far left wing Obamites like Cenk hate Pelosi...
HerrSpieldose 1 year ago
@HerrSpieldose i dont think anybody likes that dumb bitch
joejoerg 1 year ago
@joejoerg i dont !
housetaboo 1 year ago
oh and yeah I also disagree with his point on private vs. public money multipliers, but again, it's a RESPECTFUL disagreement. Republicans could really learn from this guy.
blankportraits 1 year ago
Great stuff. Finally, a Republican I don't have utter contempt for and could even see myself voting for. I would definitely disagree on his stance on "government intervention" being a problem like most Republicans would say, but my overwhelming agreement with him in many other areas like civil liberties, war policy, social issues, anti-corporate welfare, etc. would definitely leave me in a bind in deciding who to vote for between him and Pelosi. He seems sincere as well.
blankportraits 1 year ago
"a dollar in private hands has multiplier" Depends on the wealth of private hands. Give a dollar to a homeless guy he will spend it, multiplied. Give a dollar to a wealthy man they will not, hoarded.
Give a dollar to a corporation as much of it as possible will go to wealthy men.
GorgonLuvs8008135 1 year ago
@GorgonLuvs8008135 Your kidding right??? Capital comes from savings. I believe in fiscal stimulus but I am sick of you demand side extremists demonising savings. Savings leads to capital formation which then leads to investment. If you look at people's wealth, at most 10% is in cash. The rest is in stock and bonds and commodities and therefore invested into productive means. And a homeless person buying chinese goods is no good, is it? Leakage is a problem with demand side extremism.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
Nothing against savings all in favour of it.
"The rest is in stock and bonds and commodities and therefore invested into productive means." - stock is not necessarily productive, especially locally. Invest in wall mart, and A lot will go into buying products and labour from china.
"And a homeless person buying chinese goods is no good, is it?" Its not good, but cant blame the homeless guy, he has no choice. It's the investment in wall mart that leaked.
GorgonLuvs8008135 1 year ago
Would he have impeached bush and cheney, that's pelosi's biggest failure along with continuing the war.
GorgonLuvs8008135 1 year ago
Sooo this is the only real republican left?
upplsuckimcool16 1 year ago
Comment removed
ppsychol 1 year ago
The Young Turk is very wrong on one point. Angelo Mozilo's company Countrywide, had Fannie Mae as its biggest customer for its garbage mortgages. Fannie Mae was directly responsible for giving public dollars to this corrupt company.
AminCad 1 year ago
(R) John Dennis FTW
I never thought id ever say that for a republican.
gogitasan 1 year ago
A good republican now that was refreshing.
harr77 1 year ago
A vote for Pelosi is a vote FOR:
Wars.
Debt.
Corporate Welfare.
The Patriot Act.
SIMPLE AS THAT.
Don't let the (D) next to her name fool you. She is not a Liberal, She IS a Neocon.
John Dennis 2010!!!
poopstreek 1 year ago
damn, he's a republican thats not batshit insane. There's hope afterall
kirby7979 1 year ago
@kirby7979
He's a libertarian-Republican like Ron Paul. The Tea Party was started by Ron's people and was taken over by the neoconservatives like Palin. Please don't judge every person who may support libertarian-Republicans as if they like George Bush. We hated Bush and started the Tea Party in '07 to protest his administration's abuse of war, debt, and civil liberties.
KMyhero 1 year ago
Cenk is an idiot.
pretorious700 1 year ago
too bad i'm not in his district.
soccerdude601 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@koren1124 "I really wish this guy was running for a spot against one of the non-progressives. Pelosi does fairly good compared to most. "
What exactly is progressive about banker bailouts, the financial reform bill, the Patriot Act, or the wars? John Dennis and Cenk agreed on every single issue in this video, and Nancy voted or approved all the aforementioned topics.
KMyhero 1 year ago
I can't believe all the adoring comments here. He sounds almost like a democrat doesn't he? Ummm.....of course he does!! He is running in the most liberal district in the whole freakin country! I guess I might consider voting for him if practically all the republicans didn't vote in lock step with each other all the time. I guess if you don't have a problem with the republicans obstructing every freakin bill in congress then go ahead and vote for the schmuck.
DirtFlyer 1 year ago
@DirtFlyer What would make you think he'll vote with them? You're blinded by name and not by his statements. Grow up.
soccerdude601 1 year ago
@DirtFlyer He won't vote for debt, corporate welfare, wars, or to renew the Patriot Act--like Nancy Pelosi did.
I have faith in him sticking to his guns.
I don't know how anyone can support Pelosi anymore after the last couple years while she has helped destroy the dollar, supported our illegal occupations in the east, bailed out Wall St. and ran the Patriot Act through again!
Dennis > Pelosi. (period)
poopstreek 1 year ago
attention republicans. learn from this man.
Tekavolver712 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
INTERNET WARNING:
If you get an email titled "Nude Photo of Nancy Pelosi,"
Don't Open It . . .
It contains a nude photo of Nancy Pelosi.
HectorJW2007 1 year ago
I hope this guy wins. I've been wondering where the next Ron Paul will come from, since Paul's really old and I can't expect him to last much longer. We need people like that, who push the sound and less retarded ideals of Libertarianism like reducing our military presence. Our foreign policy costs us much in terms of money, freedom, and security, and needs to be reevaluated but both the dems and the repubs don't consider it other than "let's go to war!" or "let's rebuild their nation!"
DeJach 1 year ago
JOHN DENNIS 2010!!!!
joymoons 1 year ago 6
I don't know.... While he is DEFINITELY smaert i think he's using his intelligence to sound consistant to whomever he speaks with... I'M NOT SURE this is the only interview I've seen with him but just fro SOME reason i feel like he i only half genuine!
upplsuckimcool16 1 year ago
I've never voted republican, but I'd vote for this guy over pelosi ANY. DAY.
Democrats really need to find a better speaker than Pelosi.
tchiddy 1 year ago 2
Pelosi = traitor and warmonger
juice797 1 year ago
If John Dennis won, I would probably have an accident in my pants.
LaughingMage 1 year ago
I really wish this guy was running for a spot against one of the non-progressives. Pelosi does fairly good compared to most.
koren1124 1 year ago
@koren1124 Most of the world disagrees with you.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
This is the kind of republican that would change the way GOP works...
Melpheos1er 1 year ago
Hey Cenk, you still don't get it, do you?? The heard of the problem was the Federal Reserve's low interest rate, infinite credit expansion policies! That is what got us into this mess to begin with. You progressives seem to not understand this, and I doubt you ever will.
LibertyMike1 1 year ago
I'm still tryna to figure out what makes him a republican...
chrispriveco 1 year ago
Comment removed
spyletu 1 year ago
@chrispriveco Limited government
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chrispriveco He believes in less government intervention and tax dollars being in the private rather than public sector. What, do you want him to flap his arms like a mad chicken and shriek about "TEH GAYZ"? Would that make him a Real Republican?
blankportraits 1 year ago
OMFG! a thoughtful republican? get the fuck outta here. now i've seen everything. *shoots self*
hollaboutit 1 year ago
He dodged the tax question. I want to hear his position on progressive taxes. Since he dodged it, I have a pretty idea what it is.
Other than that, he sounds better than Pelosi. Give me half an excuse and I'll vote against that traitor. Well, I'm voting against her no matter what, the question is what party will I choose other than Democrat.
TheGiantRobot 1 year ago
Comment removed
spyletu 1 year ago
@TheGiantRobot Don't choose a "party". Choose a candidate and his or her principles.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown
All the candidates are in parties, that's why I say party. And if the Democrats run someone else against Pelosi, I'd be ecstatic. Though, I remembered after posting this Pelosi is out of my district, so I won't get to vote against her.
TheGiantRobot 1 year ago
Great interview. If I could, I would vote for John Dennis.
betteryouthanme 1 year ago
I couldn't like this guy more, even if he had a (D) by his name. He KNOWS the rest of his party is full of idiots. Bless him.
aaronsande 1 year ago 2
Tax cuts multiplier is only .3
Stimulus multiplier is 1.7
spinnersmetal 1 year ago
@spinnersmetal According to Barro it is less than 1, 0.6 in fact
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@spinnersmetal Based on what?
chubstheclown 1 year ago
Comment removed
spinnersmetal 1 year ago
Pleasantly surprised
RobGuy2005 1 year ago
This guy is a real republican. Why can't there be more of him? I would vote Republican in a heartbeat. But given the crazy lunatic republican majority....
At any rate, this dude is by far more progressive than Nancy. I hope he wins.
DrQuijano 1 year ago 2
This is the only candidate am really rooting for. Go John Dennis
uche007us 1 year ago
So this guy is more liberal than Pelosi on the civil side, why don't you vote for him?
bonfirejovi 1 year ago 9
13:13 TYT PPHONE CALL COMING TYT PHONE CALL!!!!
upplsuckimcool16 1 year ago
One key question missing: IF ELECTED, WILL YOU CAUCUS WITH THE DEMOCRATS?
I want to vote for him but I'm worried that Nancy Pelosi will see his success and veer FURTHER to the right because she almost lost to a Republican, completely ignoring the fact that HE'S MORE LIBERAL THAN SHE IS. Clearly he can see how backwards the Republican Party is, so WHY doesn't he run as an independent and/or caucus with the Democrats? I want him to win but don't want Dems to lose the House.
prokrastinatorSF 1 year ago
@prokrastinatorSF "Caucusing" and group-think are the problem, not the solution. I would want him to vote his principles, not to vote with a herd.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown Do you even know what that means? Caucusing determines which party is the majority and minority. The majority party gets to decide what bills reach the house floor, in essence the majority party's committees get to decide what the house votes on, so they have veto power over the entire legislative process. That's why Lieberman promised to caucus with the Democrats even though he ran as an independent and voted as a douche. I like Dennis but I don't want the Dems to lose the house.
prokrastinatorSF 1 year ago
@prokrastinatorSF You don't want the dems to lose the house? About the most dangerous thing I can think of is for one party to control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency all at once. I'd ike to see that end as soon as possible.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown Are you fucking serious? The Democrats have been able to accomplish almost squat over the last two years. The biggest voter mandate in decades, and we get a watered-down, loophole-ridden credit card regulation bill, a watered-down, loophole-ridden financial regulation bill, and a watered-down, loophole-ridden healthcare bill 20 years too late and without a public option or anything even remotely resembling it, without any negotiation with the drug companies over prices.
prokrastinatorSF 1 year ago
Progressives and libertarians have more in common than most think. Progressives just need to realize the fractional reserve banking system is flawed and needs to be eradicated, keeping the system and just adding more regulations just empowers the big banks more becus all regulations are selectively enforced upon the little guys who didn't pay off the politicians.
ShatterNWO 1 year ago
@ShatterNWO You don't understand true progressivism. True progressism is statism and has nothing to do with libertarianism. Progressives are mostly confused. It's true some of them might be more libertarian if they weren't so confused or even some times guilty of downright douchebaggery.
Sivels 1 year ago
@Sivels I agree
ShatterNWO 1 year ago
@ShatterNWO Progressives understand that the system is flawed but they don't have delusions about any other system being perfect. So they prefer to (progressively) fix things rather than eradicate them and fantasize how everything will work itself out.
Pylo01 1 year ago
THAT's the right I'd like to see.. how can you handle crazy, religious, hypocrites as opposition that caves in to commercial interests? You can't they suck, you can't compromise or have an honest discussion.
However this guy is not insane, has some interesting ideas and can make a point without talking about God and patriotism so the base listens to him. I wouldn't vote for him because of his policy ideas, but because he's less corrupted (yet).
P1ranh4 1 year ago
Californian Republicans are very different than the national republican, most national republicans concider CA(along with mass, and vermont) republicans as pretty much dems.
WesSideCali 1 year ago
@WesSideCali John Dennis is not an example of some sort of special "California" Republican. He is a Ron Paul-type Republican (you know... the guy from Texas). Establishment Republicans and Democrats both favor having a large central government... whether it exists to fight wars or provide welfare. Candidates like John Dennis favor a limited central government... an inverted pyramid, if you will, where the individual holds the most power and the "leaders" hold the least.
chubstheclown 1 year ago 5
what a great personality
bochan207 1 year ago
Until a Republican explicitly says "I'm Pro Choice, for Gay marriage, care more about the middle class then the Rich" I will NEVER EVER vote Republican. Fuck them, I'm not budging.
Roeshamboe05 1 year ago
@Roeshamboe05 Ron Paul?
ShatterNWO 1 year ago
@Roeshamboe05 Well... John Dennis -is- pro choice and he supports gay marriage. The real problem here is that people like yourself won't take the time to find this stuff out for yourselves. Voting by letter is the opposite of change.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown Fuck that and fuck you. I'll research him if he ran for Senate in my state. Of course I'm not going to research every politician running for office across the nation. That's Cenk's job. And I'm not buying this whole "hey here's a Republican we can vote for." If he wins this November and I hear good things about him a year from now, I may consider researching him.
Roeshamboe05 1 year ago
@Roeshamboe05 I'll ignore the "F U" part of your message... and say this: Aren't you researching him now by viewing and commenting on this video? You then jump to preconceived notions about topics that weren't even discussed in this interview. If you want to talk about those topics... take the 30 seconds it takes to look into the guy's positions. Don't assume. It looks pretty silly when you complain about candidates being anti-choice/anti-gay marriage in a comments section about a guy who is not
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown Nope not buying it. R=ban until I hear him say it from his manure encrusted lips.
Roeshamboe05 1 year ago
This guy hasn't seen a lobbyist yet.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 Ron Paul has seen thousands of them, and has never accommodated them. John Dennis is cut from the same mold (as rare as that is)
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown
"John Dennis is cut from the same mold.."
As far as deregulation goes, like Cenk said in this video, is not a interest of people but interets of the coporates. And he's(Ron Paul) not get getting any money from them?
By the way, I only found out recently, RP voted against removal of certain regulation, which is against what he's been saying.
Actually what he means now is, "Some regulations are needed." which is no different than his opponents have been saying.
Flip-flap?
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 You said: "RP voted against removal of certain regulation".
Please post your source.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown
"Please post your source.."
Sure, I can.
Google, "votesmart Ron Paul", then click "voting records"
The title of legislation is "Financial modernization bill" in 1999.
You'll change your opinion as a libertarian if you see this is true?
I don't think you will.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 To be clear... I won't change my libertarian views, but I might change my perspective of Ron Paul if you can show that he has strayed. This is not about a person... it is about ideas.
That said... thank you for the specific reference. I looked closely at it, and it is clearly an example of Ron Paul sticking to principle. RP will not vote for a bill that goes beyond the limits of the Constitution... even if it has elements he agrees with. The bill allows mergers, but also regulates.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown
"RP will not vote for a bill that goes beyond the limits of the Constitution.."
What are you talking about here? What's the limit of the consitution?
More specific.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 From the Financial Modernization bill highlights section:
"Bars a wholesale financial institution, an uninsured bank, from receiving deposits of less than $100,000"
"Requires banks to disclose any fees for use of their automated teller machines (ATMs)"
"Prohibits insurance companies from discriminating against domestic violence victims"
Being for or against these ideas is not the issue. The Constitution does not grant the federal government power over these things.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@allgoo19 The 10th Amendment leaves power over these issues to the people and the states.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown
"Please post your source.."
Further more.
Google, "Milton Friedman wiki", then scroll down to "Criticism".
(in the article)Chicago school quote, "We never said we wanted blind deregulation..." (after they saw financial meltdown of 2008)
Noam Chomskey quote, "Self regulatory system is a pure fantasy.."
Some people learn faster than others.
allgoo19 1 year ago 2
@allgoo19 The trouble with the banks example is that the whole system reeks of corporatism. The Federal Reserve is a government-sponsored cartel, and fractional reserve banking is legalized fraud. Government has become a tool of the banks, so when government "regulates" them... that -is- an example of self-regulation. What we need is -no- regulation (self or otherwise)... and to distribute power to local governments so that banks (or anyone else) cannot abuse government force to their own ends.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown
"whole system reeks of corporatism.."
What's your idea of putting corporates under control if not by regulations?
Your quote, "become a tool of the banks, so when government "regulates" them..."
How about the regulation based on people's(consumers) interest to control the corporates going uncontrolable? Is it still unneccessary in your opinion?
Do you allow bankers to fine print scam people, corporates to scam investors by inside trading, etc?
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 inside trading can help stop depression and out fraudulent firms. insider trading is only unfair to fat cat investors. if someone on the inside knows that the firms asset prices are over-valued or are being fraudulent then they will sell their shares and there be a large scale sell off thus destroying the firm before a bubble forms.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi
"if someone on the inside knows that the firms asset prices are .."
Just think for a moment and pretend you are the insider, where you see an opportunity to make big money over independent investors by giving false info.
Which one you will care most, your pocket or investors pocket?
Capitalism is not about caring others, in fact none of that. It's all about profit seeking.
Firm can be built else where, specially if you made big profit with the former.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 No it isn't, which is why he will sell his shares which is an indication for others to do the same as the information will spread like wildfire as usually happens when there are no confidentiality agreements.
Insider trading will lead to lower valuations for asset prices which means less bubbles. Pop the bubble before it gets to big.
Laws against insider trading only protect rich fat cat investors.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi
"No it isn't, which is why he will sell his .."
I don't think you really have good understanding of how this scam works.
Do you remember Martha Stewart inside trading scam? She didn't plan the scam but she was one of the benefitially.
It was planned, so the timing was carefully calculated. By the time other outsider share holders found out, it was all over.
Scam artist are smarter than other straight investor.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 "What's your idea of putting corporates under control if not by regulations"
The control that is needed is to defang government so that corporations can't use force to get their way.
"How about the regulation based on people's(consumers) interest"
It is a fallacy to believe that the people will ever maintain control of a powerful central government. The solution is to distribute power more locally.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown
"needed is to defang government .."
Who's going to control the corporates if not gov.?
Am I missing something?
"people will ever maintain control of a powerful central government.."
Isn't that what voting for? If not, explain what's voing for.
Currently it's dilluted because of corporates lobbying. That's where regualtion is needed ti minimize influence.
Am I wrong?
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 I'll put it a different way... Corporations are powerless over us without having the use of force at their disposal. Government is the use of force. Without it, customers are free to turn away from any corporation they don't like. Other businesses are free to compete as they wish and draw customers away. Without government working as a tool of force in the name of corporations, we can't be forced to bail them out when we turn away from them as customers. An "evil" corporation will fail
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown
"I'll put it a different way... Corporations .."
Corporates use gov., for their advantage, so lets get rid of the gov. and everything will be solved.
Is that what you saying?
I got a news for you. Gov. existed as long as human civilzation, way before the birth of corporates which is only some 200 yrs or so. Gov. wsn't created just for corporates sakes. There are many other reasons for the gov. to exists.
Can you name one country without gov.?
allgoo19 1 year ago 10
@allgoo19 No... that is not what I am saying. My problem is with having an overly-powerful -central- government. A central government's sole purpose should be to protect the rights of individuals (rights that are inherent and not "granted" by government). Any powers beyond that should be held by smaller, more localalized governents, so that any legislation is truly representative of the people it applies to... and so that mamoth corporations cannot abuse an overly-powerful central government.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown "rights that are inherent and not "granted" by government"
There are no such things as inherent rights (well, unless you want to appeal to God, which is even dumber). There are only rights that come from mutual agreement of the people and in today's societies those are usually ratified (and enforced) by the government.
Pylo01 1 year ago
@Pylo01 Wow. This may be the saddest thing I have ever read. This has nothing to do with "God". It has to do with nature and common sense. Do you not own your body? If a group consists of three people, and two of those people decide that the 3rd should be killed... is that right? If the same two decide that the third may not speak his mind, is that okay? What if you were the only person in the world? Would you cease to exist because you don't have a group to tell you what to do with youself?
chubstheclown 1 year ago
Actually i don't think he was stating an opinion more than he was stating a fact.... Every right we have IS granted by our government whether you like it or not.... if the government decided it was not in your rights to speak you'd get arrested.... We might like to BELIEVE we have inherent rights but then that just makes you a tea partier for believing in an illusion....
upplsuckimcool16 1 year ago
@upplsuckimcool16 I'm talking about right and wrong... not about whether or not you'll be arrested (by a potentially criminal government). Under Hitler's government, did a Jewish person have a right to live? Of course. Hitler's government violated that right. Whether or not you are "arrested" for something does not define whether or not it is a right. It only defines whether or not it is a privilege. Governments can violate rights just as easily as individuals can.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@upplsuckimcool16 Here is an easier way to address this... Go to answers.com and look up "What is the difference between a right and a privilege?". It's laid out pretty well there.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown There is no concept of ownership in nature. An animal "owns" as much as it can claim and defend from other animals (and yes, we are animals, look it up). So I call bullshit on your "nature and common sense" argument.
The rest of your comment is just a straw-men.
Pylo01 1 year ago
@Pylo01 We'll have to simply disagree on this one. You believe rights belong to groups solely because they outnumber other groups. I believe rights belong to individuals. Good luck in the world you are asking for.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown It doesn't matter what I believe or whether you agree or not, it's a fact. Just because I can claim certain rights doesn't mean I actually have them. That is the whole point of fighting FOR rights, I don't remember when has appeal to "common sense" ever given a certain group more rights. It usually takes a lot of protest, activism and at least some display of power.
Pylo01 1 year ago
@Pylo01 You can't have it both ways. You initially stated that "There are only rights that come from mutual agreement of the people". So rights do exist so long as a group "agrees" they do. And now, "Just because I can claim certain rights doesn't mean I actually have them". So, if a group or government claims rights for people... they don't necessarily have them, right? In your world, rights cannot exist at all, because you will never, ever get everyone to agree.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown "I" as an individual is what I meant. Wasn't it obvious? Do you think it is enough to simply claim rights in order to have them?
Anyway, to address you other point: "if a group or government claims rights for people... they don't necessarily have them, right"
This is true, they only have those rights as long as they have the power to enforce them. In a democracy, that power comes from the people (who recognize the government).
Pylo01 1 year ago
@Pylo01 I really think we are getting into semantics and differences in the meanings of words. Your definition of "rights" seems to be "abilities". If I am not able to do something (due to force from others), I have no right to do it. If you used the term "abilities", I would agree with you. I believe, however, that the definition of the word "rights" is altogether different from that of the word "abilities". That is the only place I see us disagreeing.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown Yes, I own my body because I live in a free society. I wouldn't own it if I were a slave and was unable to fight for my freedom (which I would). If two people decide to kill a third it doesn't make it right, but it does make it a fact that he's dead unless he is stronger or has a more powerful group to back him up. If I were the only person in the world, I wouldn't cease to exist, but I sure as hell wouldn't have any rights either. Where would I claim them? From animals?
Pylo01 1 year ago
@Pylo01 "I wouldn't own it if I were a slave and was unable to fight for my freedom" Yes, you would own it. Those who were enslaving you would be violating your property. A rapist does not own his victim. He violates her property.
"If two people decide to kill a third it doesn't make it right, but it does make it a fact that he's dead" Fine... but we aren't talking about whether or not he is dead. We are talking about whether or not it is a crime to kill him, even with government blessing.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown A rapist violates her dignity, whether or not he violates her property depends on the law.
It is not a crime to kill if it's not against the law (that's the definition of crime FFS). It's still wrong but that's a separate issue because your sense of right and wrong doesn't have to be exactly the same as mine since morality is subjective.
Pylo01 1 year ago
@Pylo01 Our only difference here, then, is terminology. We agree that based on our moral codes, government can be in the wrong. In my opinion, it often is. I believe that the more power you accumulate centrally, the more it attracts people who will use it in ways that most would consider to be wrong.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@Pylo01 Another point: If I declare myself (just me, the individual) to be a government which has jurisdiction over you, does that mean that any time you defy me you are committing a crime? What, exactly, does it take for a government to be considered legitimate?
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown In a democracy, legitimate means it is reckognized by the people (majority).
Pylo01 1 year ago
@Pylo01 Sure... but I'm not talking about a democracy. I'm talking about people who have no government system deciding on one. It didn't start out as a democracy, so where did the 51% get the authority to impose democracy on the 49% if not through force?
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown Where do you get the authority to do anything if not through power (not necessarily physical)? We may believe we have superior moral judgment but that is just our opinion.
I don't like it either but that's the way it is.
Pylo01 1 year ago
@Pylo01 Sure... I don't disagree that that is "the way it is". I also believe that "the way it is" can be influenced by encouraging people to look at rights as inherent... that by repsecting your own rights, you must also respect the rights of others. I'm talking about actually having a philosophy... not just recognizing the sad state of the world. If more people had such a philosophy, there would be a much smaller place in the world for government force.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown That's not a philosophy, that's religion. I do have a moral philosophy of my own, I just don't assume I'm the moral authority, nor would I accept anyone else as such. But I also recognize we have to make compromises in order to get along within a society (different people may want different rights). Individuals is not all we are.
Besides, it is this boiling pot of different ideas and philosophies that pushes societies forward.
Pylo01 1 year ago
@Pylo01 "Individuals is not all we are." That is your opinion. You can decide to be a part of a group, but don't your own morals tell you that it is wrong to force someone into your group?
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown "That is your opinion"
Actually it's an observable fact, studied by social sciences. It is in our nature to be a part of a group. This ability to organize is also one of our greatest strengths as a species.
"don't your own morals tell you that it is wrong to force someone into your group"
Not necessarily.
Pylo01 1 year ago
@Pylo01 Well... that makes your position crystal clear, then. You are exactly what I am fighting against. Leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone. Agree to transact with me, and we can have a transaction. Use force, and I will fight back. I am grateful that you have engaged in a civil conversation with me (honestly)... but also grateful that you have made it clear what you represent.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown I think I've made my position clear from the start. There is no "inherent" rights, you only have the rights you fight for (or somebody does for you).
If you think you have the right to hurt others (even indirectly) I will fight you and try to deny you that right. So no, I don't think it's immoral to force people to conform to some social norms (if can affect others). In fact, I'm sure it's sometimes necessary.
Pylo01 1 year ago
@chubstheclown Oh and, it was nice chatting with you too.
Pylo01 1 year ago
"I also believe that "the way it is" can be influenced by encouraging people to look at rights as inherent"
YES! The way it is can always be influenced, that is the whole point of progressivism. If you think you can shift the balance of power that way, by all means, do it. I wont support you because I don't agree with you.
"that by respecting your own rights, you must also respect the rights of others."
On this, I wholeheartedly agree. Without mutual respect, rights are just abstract concepts.
Pylo01 1 year ago
@Pylo01 "Yes, I own my body because I live in a free society" By the way... you don't live in a free society for as long as a group is making rules for you without your express permission. You are only free for so long as you agree to be subject to the group and its rules. When you are subject to the rules without giving your permission, you are a slave. A group calling itself a government does not necessarily make it any better than a mob.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown Well that depends on your definition of freedom. Of course I'll never have absolute freedom to do whatever I want because I don't have the power to do so. I will always be limited by some rules, and at least by other people's freedoms (providing I respect it).
"A group calling itself a government does not necessarily make it any better than a mob."
Absolutely, I never said it does. Ideally, government IS the people, and that is "the world I'm asking for".
Pylo01 1 year ago
@Pylo01 I don't believe government can ever be "the people"... because people will never ever agree on a system that every one of them is okay with. If 51% of the people want pure democracy, and 49% don't... through the use of force, you'll probably end up with pure democracy, assuming the 51% are stronger. But, the 49% minority will never agree that the government system that was forced on them "is the people". This, IMHO, is reality. That is why I'll always stand for individual rights first.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown Much, much smaller minorities have fought and won the rights they wanted, so your case is unlikely (I know you were just trying to make a point, but so am I). I'm all for individual rights but unfortunately they are useless unless respected by others.
In order for you to have a right of property, others have to recognize it is your property and agree not to steal from you (which limits their freedom).
Pylo01 1 year ago
@Pylo01 The best way to get people to really respect individual rights is to impress upon them the moral position that rights are not granted by governments. I believe governments have a tendency to become fundamentally immoral (by your or my standards)... so when people -believe- that their right to speak out against government cannot be legislated away, they will be more likely to do so even if they are "breaking the law". I'd much rather see this than a bunch of mindless law abiders.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown I see your point and I respect what you're saying.
I believe that the people need to realize "the government" is not something above them, but instead it is there to serve them. The senators, legislators, etc. they are our employees. I don't want "mindless law abiders" either, if you can fight for something you really want, than you should. Of course, you will only win if you get enough support, but that brings us to square one.
Pylo01 1 year ago
@Pylo01 My observations of history tell me that governments rarely end up playing the servant. Far more often they end up serving a select few at the expense of everyone else. The kinds of people that you and I might call "good" people are rarely interested in power. I believe that a truly good person wants nothing to do with power over others. The only way I see toward progress is for individuals to influence other individuals to be good. Not to empower governments to use force to that end.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown
"Any powers beyond that should be held by smaller, more localalized governents.."
Local gov. can control the multi-national corporations?
How that works?
Show me some good examples.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 Giant multi-national corporations are the product of powerful centralized governments. Corporations use the force of government to ensure the downfall of potential competition. As an example... Mattel recently got in trouble for having lead in toys. In response, legislation was proposed that would require toy manufacturers to perform very expensive tests checking for lead. Realizing that smaller companies could not afford the tests, Mattel was the biggest proponent of the legislation.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown
"As an example... Mattel recently got in trouble for having.."
Show me the article you saw.
Post a page title, so I can google it.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 Go to reason.com and search for "Mattel" using the search at the upper right. It's the first result.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown
"Go to reason.com and search .."
I'm impressed. You didn't make it up like so many others!
But it's still just one example, not enough to say the gov. is useless. There'a high probablity that it'll get more publicity and it'll eventually get turned over.
In that case, we still need the gov. to turn it over.
Without the gov., Mattel doesn't even need to lobby to get advantage. By using the money, they can buy out all the competition, then play monopoly.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@chubstheclown
"so that mamoth corporations cannot abuse an overly-powerful central government."
Isn't it better if the gov. keeps the mammoth corporations small like they did only while back? The gov. began turned agaisnt people when the corporations started payng money to influence the gov.
Is it true or false?
Who's going to protect the people if the gov, gets too small too weak against other interest like big corporations?
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 "Who's going to protect the people if the gov, gets too small too weak against other interest like big corporations?"
The people are. People can abandon doing business with any corporation. They cannot abandon doing business with the force of government. The biggest corporations realize this and use the force of government to get their way. GM and many big banks would have failed by now if the federal government was actually limited. That would have been the people's will.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown
"People can abandon doing business with any corporation.."
What does this mean? Are you talking about boycotting?
Show me some examples?
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 The examples were in my previous post. The people abandoned GM. The federal government used your money to force GM's survival. Smaller, more innovative companies were denied their opportunity to replace GM.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown
"The people abandoned GM.."
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. You know that GM is now making profit after the gov. took over?
And if you make it sounds like it works always, you have to show more than one, several of them. Where are they?
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 I used GM to make the broader point. Every huge corporation that needed a bailout, whether it be an automobile manufacturer... a bank... an insurance company... was obviously rejected by the market. The market is us: the people. We decided to reject these giant corporations, but the federal government wouldn't let us. The trouble is... you want a powerful central government to protect you from the corporations, but instead, it protects the corporations from you.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown
"I used GM to make.."
Did you know GM making profit now since gov. took over?
That was my question.
Easy answer, yes or no?
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 Yes. And it is of no consequence. We, the market, rejected them. One could argue that any badly run company might succeed at some point if given another chance. You can't have it both ways, though. You can't say that on the one hand you want to be protected from big evil corporations... and on the other, you want them to be saved every time they screw up. GM's failure would have made room for innovating companies like Tesla to flourish. Instead, we promote stagnation.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown
"Yes. And it is of no consequence.."
You have no concern over the people who would have lost their jobs not only at GM but all related industry and the town they are in? And the economic impact to rest of the nation? Start up companies are not going to be enought o pick them up.
Have you looked at how bad the economy is lately?
By the way, if the gov. can do a better job, why it has to be privately owned company to run? Please explain.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 Government does not run GM. That being said... I don't understand your position. You want government to protect you from evil corporations, but you don't ever want any of them to fail because someone might lose a job?
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown
"Government does not run GM.."
Yes, they do. They replaced a few CEO already because they didn't fit their view. What you call it then?
"You want government to protect .."
Just look around what's going on in politics. Corporates CEO hire lobbyists to get their way by buying politicians.
It has to be opposite. Gov. should take a charge by regulate them in the way neccessary. Keep each investment bankers small, keep them from using their commercial bank deposits. etc.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 None of the GM executives are paid by the government, nor are they answerable to government.
"Corporates CEO hire lobbyists to get their way by buying politicians."
Exactly. The more powerful your central government is, the more this happens... because influencing government is the only way to get ahead when government is so powerful. Saying "it has to be opposite" does not change that fact. Your utopian view of government can't and won't happen. Power -always- draws evil to it.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown
"None of the GM executives .."
Gov. is the biggest share holder now. What did you think when they say "they own it", then?
"Exactly.."
You don't realy get this do you?
Gov. stands by its people when voters elect them. Right now, people vote for what they see on TV, because corporates spends money on the ads.
That's what democrcy was invented for. But not working now because people are not that smart.
Just think who's paying for "small gov." It's the corporates.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 Again... Exactly. Corporations own the media. People vote for who the media tells them to. You are spot on. So... what makes you think this is going to change? Corporations have a vested interest in influencing the vote for as long as government has the power to determine winners and losers in business.
Today's corporations don't want small government. They got where they are by doing exactly what you describe. Obama received more campaign money from BP than any other candidate.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
@chubstheclown
"Today's corporations don't want small government.."
What kind of stupid comment is this?
They want to deregulation everything, cut the tax everything, gov. to disappear.
Just look in the past. When riches paid over 90% tax, regulations are in the right places, tax are paid for the public project, the economy was booming. Corporates and the bankers hated it, they even planned a coup de ta.
Show me your proof in the history.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@chubstheclown
Are you getting paid for doing this, misinforming people?
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 If you are going to cheapen what has been a civil conversation by suggesting such a thing, I think we are done here. If I were being paid for my opinions, I wouldn't be wasting my time in a Youtube comments section.
chubstheclown 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chubstheclown
"If you are going to cheapen .."
That's a nice excuse for you to walk away from the argument without admitting you lost. I'll remember that. It'll maybe useful for me too some day.
Do you know any other person saying "Corporations don't want to small gov."? You can show them to me if you know them.
I sure don't.
That comment abolutely makes no sense.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@chubstheclown
What? No reply?
Regardless you want to admit it or not, there are many paid misinformants in youtube. It's pretty disgusting betraying their family and friends for who knows how much of money being paid.
Here's what it means by "Big gov." when people talk about it.
"Big tax to riches, big public services and projects, big restriction to the corporates"
According to you, corporates desperately want this and paying for it.
What joke.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19
As for the corporations wanting restrictions. There are mountains of evidence pointing to this. The big corporations can afford to pay the costs of the regulations which keeps smaller competitors out of the market place entirely or makes it EXTREMELY hard for them to compete. The regulatory system is just one way in which corporations that are in bed with the govt rip off the public. Using lobbying dollars they are able to maintain monopolies to varying degrees.
JojahBoy 1 year ago