Who would you rather deal with on a personal level?
a) Those people who would always respect your property rights who would never forceably extract money from you, or
b) Those who, if the majority thought it was OK, would forceably extract money from you?
This hypothetical is a gross oversimplification. Is there any more information for the second option? For instance, do we get to take money from others too? Are any services provided for the money taken from us?
He can't answer the question because it comes down to him believing that it's okay to have your property seized by force as long as a majority deems it okay. Jan, ask them if they think it would be okay if their children were raped by govt representatives if a majority rule said it was.
"I'm not saying that the government is illegitimate"... maybe it's time you did Jan, because what you've collected here is a body of proof that demonstrates just how illegitimate these people are. No man has a right to tax me or to restrain me from taking any action which does not harm others, and a state without these powers is no longer a state, so we're left with a choice between statism or natural human rights. Statism is unnecessary and immoral.
Heoffel the reason you refuse to answer Jan's very direct question and even walked out and called him an asshole is because to answer the question directly and honestly would show the contradiction of his entire philosophy. No matter how you ask the question he is incapable of answering honestly. He cannot even be honest with himself. The proverb comes to mind. "Pound the fool on a mortar with a pestle and still his foolishness will not depart from him".. They will NEVER see.
He refused to answer the question, because as stated, got to the heart of the matter. If Jan has phrased it with candy-coated euphemisms "Do you believe in taxation by majority vote", the congressman would have had no problem answering yes.
My conception of tax has changed drastically in the past few years after being subjected to so many. Now whenever I hear the word tax, the word "steal" pops into my head.
The interviewer needs to do some research because he can't understand what these politicians are telling him and therefor keeps asking questions that they have answered.
Fantastic video. People need to see how twisted the minds of our politicians are. He calls you an a@@hole because you dared to ask him legitimate questions when he deigned give you his time. The way he sees it, if he is generous enough to give you his time, then you ought to be generous enough to make him look good with softball questions. He is truly a man of pull (or a man of pull wannabe). Who is John Galt?
great interview. I only wish the Main stream media, if we can call them media would put the tough questions to these fools. That is a primary reason that these guys are still in office. No one holds them accountable. Thank you Jan!
This guy is a simple idiot like all policitcians. Majority rules means democracy; rule by mob. 51% can vote to take away the rights of the 49% to breathe if they want, period. That's called Socialism in it's purist form a/k/a COMMUNISM.
FYI, constitutents represent the will of the politcian; not the other way around. whenever you see the copation"THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF... vs. YOU" that is the legislature prosecuting you for breaking the rules they made up under admiralty/maritime law.
This guy is a simple idiot like all policitcians. Majority rules means democracy; rule by mob. 51% can vote to take away the rights of the 49% to breathe if they want, period. That's called Socialism in it's purist form a/k/a COMMUNISM.
FYI, constitutents represent the will of the politcian; not the other way around. whenever you see the copation"THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF... vs. YOU" that is the legislature prosecuting you for breaking the rules they made up under admiralty/maritime law.
Who sets up the law determining, to whom property belongs?
Property rights are not god sent, but result of a democratic processes too. The majority of the people have decided that capitalism is right for them.
Btw. the direct and repr. democracy in Switzerland for instance is much more evolved that the reprensentative dem. in the US, with its 2 party system, that both depend on the money of the capital.
Wow, and this guy is a Congressman, and behaves like a tyrant. This is a telling example of the character of people we have "leading" us. Incredible. This man deserves to be recalled. People like that have no business being in any public office anywhere.
Read about positive rights. I recommend Henry Shue's Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence, and U.S. Foreign Policy. That is if you actually care about issues.
If you simply care about winning cheap shots over politicians, then i guess i cant help you.
Isn't all government rule by force? Would you want a government that didn't force people to pay for police, or for firemen? Would you want a government that allowed people to sell themselves into slavery? Should everything in society be entirely voluntary?
I understand the point of view of anarchists too, being mostly a libertarian, but I also understand that every ideal is simply idealistic, and unattainable, and I'm not an idealist.
Exactly people are so willing to put these guys that exert power over them on a pedestal. This power hungry representative doesn't want to be put on the spot and even look internally at the paradox of how government using mob rule to steal is ok.
I'd have liked to hear Jan reply to being called an asshole. "I'm not the one who believes that if 51% of the public wants to build gas chambers for minorities, then that's OK. I'm less of an asshole than that!"
In 1950, it's entirely possible that 51% of the American people would vote for gas chambers for minorities.
In fact, in 2002, I think 51% of the population might have voted to send Arabs to gas chambers, and maybe even anybody that opposed the stupid Iraq War or was against the dumb Patriot Act or thought Bush was full of crap when he claimed Hussein might make the final proof a mushroom cloud.
Mob rules is a BAD idea when 95% of the country are brain dead morons - and they are.
In 1950 the American people DIDN'T vote to send minorities to the gas chambers.
In 2002 the American people DIDN'T vote to send Arabs to the gas chambers.
The societies which HAVE carried out such actions did so, didn't do so on the basis of a popular vote, but rather depended on the sort of 'set in stone' ideology that you appear to think is a good idea.
Mob rule isn't what controls this country, yet. That's, although it's hard to believe, a good thing. People in this country are too stupid and uneducated to govern themselves directly, even though our currently government is admittedly, awful.
It's awful, because our population is uneducated and stupid, and votes accordingly. It's the minority that whine about the constitution and bitch and moan that keeps our government narrowly in check.
I'd like to see a better line of questioning from Jan when their denials start to get repetitive. Simply take what they've given you at that point, and subject that to scrutiny.
The majority of people in Germany were OK with killing the jews and plundering their property. Would this asshole be OK with that, or is there any power that is off limits to the government?
Un-Elect Joe Hoeffel, along with every other cheap thug in congress. If there is no libertarian on the ballot, then demand a new election, by any means necessary.
I WANT EVERY 2010 CANDIDATE TO BE INTERVIEWED BY JAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU ROCK, JAN!!!!!!!!! KEEP UP THE AWESOME WORK!!!!!!!!! You hold their trotters to the fire like noone else!
Ha, after watching the interview, you wouldn't expect him to say that. But in regards to the question that was asked: Generally, I would want those kinds of friends; but if my friend saw a small fire starting in my house, I would prefer that he violate my property rights, break into my house, and put it out.
Yeah, I was just trying to come up with some exceptions. I finished reading "Machinery of Freedom" the other day, and the last section, specifically Chapter 41 (free online), discusses some of these complexities. I heard you read Friedman's "Free to Choose" (if you're Jan), but if you haven't read his son's work, I recommend it.
Without redistributing of wealth the working class will unite and kill the capitalists or at least nationalize everything. The only way to prevent fascism or riots is social capitalism.
How can you be so naive, to support capitalism without social responsibility? The essence of property rights is justified by majority law btw.
@AustrianAtheist I think it's a little insulting to assume that working class people are all psychopathic thieving murderers. "Social capitalism" is just one euphamism for fascist rule; our choices are total individual liberty, meaning capitalism, or some measure of enslavement to the wills of others.
In majority rules the majority has the opportunity to give the state powers they not possess themselves.
Now assume that our society only has 5 members. One of them has produced goods and sold it to the others. This made him rich (in relation to the others). Is it OK for a mob of 4 to chase down their rich neighbor and extort money from him?
Fact is that most of us (in the so called civilized world) live in a society where the majority rules and they can take our wealth by force. Does fact that they are the majority legitimates their theft and plundering of the productive individual?
Would the man being stolen from be right to say: "Stop this madness, you simple thieves, you are robbing me!"?
No
Would it legitimate the theft if the response from the thieves were:
"We are the majority, hence we rule you. This is for the greater good"?
No
So next time you argue this point, and they say "we have to agree to disagree", you should never let them go with that, because they are the majority, they are still in control, and you should never let them off by saying that.
Let them know that they are evil to use violence and force to have you conform to their beliefs.
very poor argument. If there were only 5 people... His money wouldnt be valuable, the goods purchased would be. So whoever had the goods would be the 'richest.' not the person with the money that cant do anything with it.
Yeah, forcing congresscritters to ethically justify their tyranny is really not sportsmanlike. What a true gentleman would do is play his assigned part in the Kabuki politics, lobbing pre-approved softballs for the actor playing the "public servant" to smash out of the park.
"Your hair looks nice today, Mr. Hoeffel, can you tell me about your stance on puppies?". You know, that kind of thing. Forcing a consistent set of ethical values is as gauche as using the wrong fork for your salad.
It's not a trick question. I ask you, KarateKidX, do you think there is an ethical difference between the pirate and the tax collector and why?
Suppose you get caught by ten pirates and they let you vote along with them about how much of your stuff to take?
Your answer exposes your ethical views on what a government is and what ethical bounds you put on it. That Hoeffel doesn't have a good answer should be deeply disturbing, considering he's the one demanding the taxes.
It's terribly sad that too many in our gov't and citizenry wrongly believe this is a democracy rather than a republic. Majority rule SUCKS! Even a small 51% can force 49%. It's ridiculous. A supermajority like 60 or 70% or even 80% is much more preferable and unanimous.
After being called an asshole, Jan should have responded with: "Ok congressman, then who would you rather deal with, assholes like me, or thieving politician whores like you?"
And my response to the congressman's remark is that yes, many of us are still watching Jan's show, because we are gluttons for YOUR punishment.
If the majority of people oppose majority rule and they repeal majority rule with a majority vote, do they give power to the minorities who favor majority rule even though it's not them?
Consider in 2001 over 70% of the US population wanted to go to war with Iraq. I was trying to point out that there was NO WAY Hussein would be working with Al Qaeda, having seen what happened to Iran when it fell to the clergy there, to point out that the UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter said Bush was lying.
Truth is nothing in the face of our media today. The media can get the imbeciles of this country to do anything they want. ANYTHING.
George W Bush was President because he was elected, albeit controversially, to be President;
Hillary Clinton was a senator because she was elected to that office by the people of New York. Bobby Kennedy was elected a Senator. Ted Kennedy won several elections over many decades.
What Republican in the last primary received the most money from people to run for the presidency, and how well did he do?
I can appreciate your faith that we live in a democratic system, but we don't. You need to have an educated electorate for that, and we don't.
At the federal level, our media determines who is elected. What was the real difference between Obama and McCain? I checked their voting record in the senate. There was no significant difference. We have an oligarchy.
Certainly, I doubt that any elected government is going to be much better than the people who elect it.
But that's the fault of humanity in general. There's no point in railing against human nature:it is what it is. It's like lamenting the fact that tigers are carnivores.
I have no illusions about the power and influence of wealthy media organizations, but I still have a mind of my own: they can't actually tell me which candidate to vote for. I don't see why other people are any different.
elbuggo, I love your comments brother, but it's not ash ole, it's "asshole". You know, it's the hole in your ass, that you shit out of, or it's the congressman. Same thing.
Who would you rather deal with on a personal level?
a) Those people who would always respect your property rights who would never forceably extract money from you, or
b) Those who, if the majority thought it was OK, would forceably extract money from you?
This hypothetical is a gross oversimplification. Is there any more information for the second option? For instance, do we get to take money from others too? Are any services provided for the money taken from us?
mahlstadt 1 week ago
That's the kind of congress we have. Cursing and saying bad words when someone questions them.
scootergreen3 1 month ago
I believe the potential exists for majority rule to reposes all the benefits congress has given themselves. forcefully if necessary.
southonet 4 months ago
He believes in majority rule because he disregards the rights of the individual.
johnknoefler 5 months ago
This guy is another loser,,Rebublican or not,,show me the LAW ass hole
jimbo4261 10 months ago
He can't answer the question because it comes down to him believing that it's okay to have your property seized by force as long as a majority deems it okay. Jan, ask them if they think it would be okay if their children were raped by govt representatives if a majority rule said it was.
razerfish 10 months ago
"I'm not saying that the government is illegitimate"... maybe it's time you did Jan, because what you've collected here is a body of proof that demonstrates just how illegitimate these people are. No man has a right to tax me or to restrain me from taking any action which does not harm others, and a state without these powers is no longer a state, so we're left with a choice between statism or natural human rights. Statism is unnecessary and immoral.
Hostile 11 months ago
Jan is genius.
Hoeffel is a typical political air head.
healthhavencom 1 year ago
Heoffel the reason you refuse to answer Jan's very direct question and even walked out and called him an asshole is because to answer the question directly and honestly would show the contradiction of his entire philosophy. No matter how you ask the question he is incapable of answering honestly. He cannot even be honest with himself. The proverb comes to mind. "Pound the fool on a mortar with a pestle and still his foolishness will not depart from him".. They will NEVER see.
CaptainShays 1 year ago
Comment removed
CaptainShays 1 year ago
Gang rape is also majority vote so I guess Hoeffel would be for that too.
willyswear 1 year ago
Hoeffel believes that whatever the majority wants is legal. He has no principles, just mob rule mentality. Tyrannical piece of shit.
hughtub 1 year ago
He refused to answer the question, because as stated, got to the heart of the matter. If Jan has phrased it with candy-coated euphemisms "Do you believe in taxation by majority vote", the congressman would have had no problem answering yes.
My conception of tax has changed drastically in the past few years after being subjected to so many. Now whenever I hear the word tax, the word "steal" pops into my head.
yuppyguitar 1 year ago
@yuppyguitar I know what you mean mate. I'm a little ashamed that I didn't recognise the fact that taxation is theft sooner.
Hostile 11 months ago
Two faced bastard. Why didn't he have the balls to say that DURING the seated interview?
This is typical of pathological people. You catch them in a lie and they get pissed that their bullshit explanations don't work on you.
Thanks for the good work, Jan.
WurledPeas 1 year ago
2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner :-)
tonebari 1 year ago
Down with the state.
rumco 1 year ago
The interviewer needs to do some research because he can't understand what these politicians are telling him and therefor keeps asking questions that they have answered.
spitchill 1 year ago
Jan Helfeld is the BEST Socratic interviewer EVER!!!
MeThinksThus 1 year ago
Fantastic video. People need to see how twisted the minds of our politicians are. He calls you an a@@hole because you dared to ask him legitimate questions when he deigned give you his time. The way he sees it, if he is generous enough to give you his time, then you ought to be generous enough to make him look good with softball questions. He is truly a man of pull (or a man of pull wannabe). Who is John Galt?
famemolto 1 year ago
"Little tricky questions".
taradfong 1 year ago
great interview. I only wish the Main stream media, if we can call them media would put the tough questions to these fools. That is a primary reason that these guys are still in office. No one holds them accountable. Thank you Jan!
koshdman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This guy is a simple idiot like all policitcians. Majority rules means democracy; rule by mob. 51% can vote to take away the rights of the 49% to breathe if they want, period. That's called Socialism in it's purist form a/k/a COMMUNISM.
FYI, constitutents represent the will of the politcian; not the other way around. whenever you see the copation"THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF... vs. YOU" that is the legislature prosecuting you for breaking the rules they made up under admiralty/maritime law.
bxlxix69 1 year ago
This guy is a simple idiot like all policitcians. Majority rules means democracy; rule by mob. 51% can vote to take away the rights of the 49% to breathe if they want, period. That's called Socialism in it's purist form a/k/a COMMUNISM.
FYI, constitutents represent the will of the politcian; not the other way around. whenever you see the copation"THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF... vs. YOU" that is the legislature prosecuting you for breaking the rules they made up under admiralty/maritime law.
bxlxix69 1 year ago
Who sets up the law determining, to whom property belongs?
Property rights are not god sent, but result of a democratic processes too. The majority of the people have decided that capitalism is right for them.
Btw. the direct and repr. democracy in Switzerland for instance is much more evolved that the reprensentative dem. in the US, with its 2 party system, that both depend on the money of the capital.
AustrianAtheist 1 year ago
Wow, this just makes me want to vote for Hoeffel. Call and a'hole an a'hole.
erinkpgh 1 year ago
This douchebag knows what his real answer is, but he knows he loses his filthy cash if he is honest.
chris3443 1 year ago
THANK GOD (Allah, Buddha, Mazda, Foot and everything else) this parasite named Hoeffel is OUT OF OFFICE!
People of PA, when this man runs for governor, SEND HIM PACKING!
DrMotorDude 2 years ago
Wow, and this guy is a Congressman, and behaves like a tyrant. This is a telling example of the character of people we have "leading" us. Incredible. This man deserves to be recalled. People like that have no business being in any public office anywhere.
SDS4BO 2 years ago
@SDS4BO With perhaps the exception of Ron Paul, I don't see how any of the others are any different?
chris3443 1 year ago
TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE.
billp4 2 years ago
Better to be an asshole than a thief in a suit.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
This politician is so state indoctrinated he is beyond comprehending anything regarding freedom. He is an embarrassment to the human race.
He called Jan an asshole. At least an asshole has great value. This politician has little value. He is like the gas that comes from an asshole.
tesla921 2 years ago
The end was great
capitalist4life 2 years ago
Isn't all government rule by force?
YES Would you want a government that didn't force people to pay for police, or for firemen?
NO Would you want a government that allowed people to sell themselves into slavery?
IF THEY WANT. Should everything in society be entirely voluntary?
NO. NOT INITIATING FORCE AGAINST OTHERS. GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THIS TASK.
janhelfeld 2 years ago
[Would you want a government that allowed people to sell themselves into slavery?
IF THEY WANT. ]
I don't think there's anything wrong with outlawing slavery-I think that's the mark of a civilized society.
rickelmonoggin 2 years ago
Read about positive rights. I recommend Henry Shue's Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence, and U.S. Foreign Policy. That is if you actually care about issues.
If you simply care about winning cheap shots over politicians, then i guess i cant help you.
rock90123 2 years ago
I have a question for Jan, if he ever reads this.
Isn't all government rule by force? Would you want a government that didn't force people to pay for police, or for firemen? Would you want a government that allowed people to sell themselves into slavery? Should everything in society be entirely voluntary?
I understand the point of view of anarchists too, being mostly a libertarian, but I also understand that every ideal is simply idealistic, and unattainable, and I'm not an idealist.
fuzzywzhe 2 years ago
How exactly do you manage to get these people to keep talking to you?
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago
Exactly people are so willing to put these guys that exert power over them on a pedestal. This power hungry representative doesn't want to be put on the spot and even look internally at the paradox of how government using mob rule to steal is ok.
hooverdog1957 2 years ago
What party and what state does Hoeffel represent?
Beethovens7th 2 years ago
I'd have liked to hear Jan reply to being called an asshole. "I'm not the one who believes that if 51% of the public wants to build gas chambers for minorities, then that's OK. I'm less of an asshole than that!"
libertarianjury 2 years ago
I doubt the American people would vote for gas chambers for minorities. Maybe you do.
rickelmonoggin 2 years ago
In 1950, it's entirely possible that 51% of the American people would vote for gas chambers for minorities.
In fact, in 2002, I think 51% of the population might have voted to send Arabs to gas chambers, and maybe even anybody that opposed the stupid Iraq War or was against the dumb Patriot Act or thought Bush was full of crap when he claimed Hussein might make the final proof a mushroom cloud.
Mob rules is a BAD idea when 95% of the country are brain dead morons - and they are.
fuzzywzhe 2 years ago
In 1950 the American people DIDN'T vote to send minorities to the gas chambers.
In 2002 the American people DIDN'T vote to send Arabs to the gas chambers.
The societies which HAVE carried out such actions did so, didn't do so on the basis of a popular vote, but rather depended on the sort of 'set in stone' ideology that you appear to think is a good idea.
rickelmonoggin 2 years ago
You know why?
They weren't allowed to.
Mob rule isn't what controls this country, yet. That's, although it's hard to believe, a good thing. People in this country are too stupid and uneducated to govern themselves directly, even though our currently government is admittedly, awful.
It's awful, because our population is uneducated and stupid, and votes accordingly. It's the minority that whine about the constitution and bitch and moan that keeps our government narrowly in check.
fuzzywzhe 2 years ago
"They weren't allowed to."
And you have proof of that I suppose?
In fact there is freedom of speech in the USA, which means that ,had they wanted to , people could easily have campaigned for that.
In fact there are extremists and racists in the USA, but they are at tiny irrelevant minority.
rickelmonoggin 2 years ago
Yeah, there was never a vote - there's your proof.
fuzzywzhe 2 years ago
No, you said they weren't allowed a vote. You don't have any proof of that, because it didn't happen.
rickelmonoggin 2 years ago
I'd like to see a better line of questioning from Jan when their denials start to get repetitive. Simply take what they've given you at that point, and subject that to scrutiny.
The majority of people in Germany were OK with killing the jews and plundering their property. Would this asshole be OK with that, or is there any power that is off limits to the government?
libertarianjury 2 years ago
Un-Elect Joe Hoeffel, along with every other cheap thug in congress. If there is no libertarian on the ballot, then demand a new election, by any means necessary.
I WANT EVERY 2010 CANDIDATE TO BE INTERVIEWED BY JAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU ROCK, JAN!!!!!!!!! KEEP UP THE AWESOME WORK!!!!!!!!! You hold their trotters to the fire like noone else!
libertarianjury 2 years ago
Ha, after watching the interview, you wouldn't expect him to say that. But in regards to the question that was asked: Generally, I would want those kinds of friends; but if my friend saw a small fire starting in my house, I would prefer that he violate my property rights, break into my house, and put it out.
guyjohn59 2 years ago
The question was about redistribution of wealth; about whether you want your friend to take your property for himself, not save it from destruction.
janhelfeld 2 years ago 4
Yeah, I was just trying to come up with some exceptions. I finished reading "Machinery of Freedom" the other day, and the last section, specifically Chapter 41 (free online), discusses some of these complexities. I heard you read Friedman's "Free to Choose" (if you're Jan), but if you haven't read his son's work, I recommend it.
guyjohn59 2 years ago
Without redistributing of wealth the working class will unite and kill the capitalists or at least nationalize everything. The only way to prevent fascism or riots is social capitalism.
How can you be so naive, to support capitalism without social responsibility? The essence of property rights is justified by majority law btw.
AustrianAtheist 1 year ago
@AustrianAtheist I think it's a little insulting to assume that working class people are all psychopathic thieving murderers. "Social capitalism" is just one euphamism for fascist rule; our choices are total individual liberty, meaning capitalism, or some measure of enslavement to the wills of others.
Hostile 11 months ago
I vote to take this guys house, car and investments away and enslave his family. Who's with me? If we get enough votes it's apparently OK.
paulmarotta 2 years ago 26
@paulmarotta
Clever, but we shouldn't stoop down to their level.
objectivefreedom 10 months ago
A little bit of logic:
In majority rules the majority has the opportunity to give the state powers they not possess themselves.
Now assume that our society only has 5 members. One of them has produced goods and sold it to the others. This made him rich (in relation to the others). Is it OK for a mob of 4 to chase down their rich neighbor and extort money from him?
Of course not.
MatteNoob 2 years ago 10
Fact is that most of us (in the so called civilized world) live in a society where the majority rules and they can take our wealth by force. Does fact that they are the majority legitimates their theft and plundering of the productive individual?
Would the man being stolen from be right to say: "Stop this madness, you simple thieves, you are robbing me!"?
No
Would it legitimate the theft if the response from the thieves were:
MatteNoob 2 years ago
"We are the majority, hence we rule you. This is for the greater good"?
No
So next time you argue this point, and they say "we have to agree to disagree", you should never let them go with that, because they are the majority, they are still in control, and you should never let them off by saying that.
Let them know that they are evil to use violence and force to have you conform to their beliefs.
MatteNoob 2 years ago
very poor argument. If there were only 5 people... His money wouldnt be valuable, the goods purchased would be. So whoever had the goods would be the 'richest.' not the person with the money that cant do anything with it.
JuSdAt 2 years ago
your one of my favorite humans jan!@
OneWithTheTruth 2 years ago
You are my new most favourite interviewer.
Meanie83 2 years ago
You backed him in a corner and he knew it. Nice! Sanctioned initiation of the use of force requires lots of propaganda.
furyofbongos 2 years ago 2
+1 for the good guys.
boethius27 2 years ago
This is not majority rules. We live by a Republic not a democracy.
StorminNormin1977 2 years ago
Majority Rules? I didn't realize that's how the republic was founded.
silencemagazine 2 years ago
well, jan, you have to admit he's right. you are an asshole.
KarateKidX 2 years ago
Yeah, forcing congresscritters to ethically justify their tyranny is really not sportsmanlike. What a true gentleman would do is play his assigned part in the Kabuki politics, lobbing pre-approved softballs for the actor playing the "public servant" to smash out of the park.
"Your hair looks nice today, Mr. Hoeffel, can you tell me about your stance on puppies?". You know, that kind of thing. Forcing a consistent set of ethical values is as gauche as using the wrong fork for your salad.
sdkee 2 years ago 4
There are hardball questions, and then there are asshole questions.
Hardball questions are things like "hey mr. Obama, how the hell are you going to pay for this stimulus package"
asshole questions are
"yo mr. fascist jackass, why are you so fascist? fascist!"
now Jan's a bit more sneaky than that, as the interviewee said, he's asking a bunch of trick questions, but it's basically the same thing.
KarateKidX 2 years ago
It's not a trick question. I ask you, KarateKidX, do you think there is an ethical difference between the pirate and the tax collector and why?
Suppose you get caught by ten pirates and they let you vote along with them about how much of your stuff to take?
Your answer exposes your ethical views on what a government is and what ethical bounds you put on it. That Hoeffel doesn't have a good answer should be deeply disturbing, considering he's the one demanding the taxes.
sdkee 2 years ago 2
Brahaha, nice one!
scdecade 2 years ago
So if the majority believes slavery is OK this jerk congressman would support it. Brilliant!
harrybean2006 2 years ago 3
hoeffer: i don't want to answer these insightful questions because then my hypocrisy would be fully evident to everyone
dwayne0t 2 years ago 2
It's terribly sad that too many in our gov't and citizenry wrongly believe this is a democracy rather than a republic. Majority rule SUCKS! Even a small 51% can force 49%. It's ridiculous. A supermajority like 60 or 70% or even 80% is much more preferable and unanimous.
whoo689 2 years ago 3
Yeah. It's alright to rob and enslave 20%. But 49%? No way!
TehBANN3D 2 years ago 3
Rockefeller & Dewey gave Americans an education that created, "passive cogs in the wheel of society"
Thus, it is the poorest education system among industrialized nations: Not education but social conditioning
Poor education keeps Americans limited in their ability to deliberate or debate
The best Americans can do is scream uncivilized superlatives or drop bombs!
98% of Congress consists of incumbents - Making the USA a plutocracy at best
sugarpuddin88 2 years ago 2
After being called an asshole, Jan should have responded with: "Ok congressman, then who would you rather deal with, assholes like me, or thieving politician whores like you?"
And my response to the congressman's remark is that yes, many of us are still watching Jan's show, because we are gluttons for YOUR punishment.
BRYAN351 2 years ago 16
amen
feeknocks 2 years ago
So glad you kept recording.
watcher8o 2 years ago 5
LOL A_ _ _ word? Asss! Great video! Hoeffel is the real asshole!
HarryNRubin 2 years ago
If the majority of people oppose majority rule and they repeal majority rule with a majority vote, do they give power to the minorities who favor majority rule even though it's not them?
Diatonic135 2 years ago
LOLOLOLOLOOLOLOL
toshzpelta 2 years ago
The majority of people have certainly abdicated majority rule.
Need proof?
Go to your local grocery store and ask random people any of these questions:
* Can you name one bill that has recently passed?
* Name one of your congressmen (women)
* Name any bill that Barak Obama or John McCain voted on when in congress.
* What is the national debt currently, within a trillion dollars?
If you get ONE person to answer 1 question right, out of 10 people, I'll be amazed.
fuzzywzhe 2 years ago
I believe it was Billy Wilder who said something along the lines of , 'every human being is an imbecile, but humanity is a collective genius'.
I will take my chances with 'mob rule' rather than a dictatorship of ideology, however 'moral', that ideology claims to be.
rickelmonoggin 2 years ago
TV runs this society too easily.
Consider in 2001 over 70% of the US population wanted to go to war with Iraq. I was trying to point out that there was NO WAY Hussein would be working with Al Qaeda, having seen what happened to Iran when it fell to the clergy there, to point out that the UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter said Bush was lying.
Truth is nothing in the face of our media today. The media can get the imbeciles of this country to do anything they want. ANYTHING.
fuzzywzhe 2 years ago
If people are that stupid, then no system of government is going to change that. There is nothing you can do about people making the wrong decisions.
Clearly you see yourself as being among the minority of smart people who know best for everyone else. Maybe you're not as smart as you think, however.
rickelmonoggin 2 years ago
Sure there is, it's called an oligarchy. The system we have now.
We had George H. Bush rule us somewhat competently, and his moron son rule us extremely incompetently. Coincidence??
That cunt Hillary Clinton is now in congress and was running for president, just because her husband was a semi competent president.
Why do you think Ted and Bobby Kennedy were in politics?
I know enough not to care anymore because people are too stupid and lazy to overturn the system at this point. Oh well.
fuzzywzhe 2 years ago
George W Bush was President because he was elected, albeit controversially, to be President;
Hillary Clinton was a senator because she was elected to that office by the people of New York. Bobby Kennedy was elected a Senator. Ted Kennedy won several elections over many decades.
I hope that answers your question.
rickelmonoggin 2 years ago
yes, it does answer my question.
You see, somehow, people ABSORB the ability to have competent leadership through family members either though marriage or through directly bloodlines.
Yes, it all makes sense, we're not in an oligarchy at all.
fuzzywzhe 2 years ago
It's not an oligarchy because these people were elected democratically; not for any of the other reasons you gave.
rickelmonoggin 2 years ago
What Republican in the last primary received the most money from people to run for the presidency, and how well did he do?
I can appreciate your faith that we live in a democratic system, but we don't. You need to have an educated electorate for that, and we don't.
At the federal level, our media determines who is elected. What was the real difference between Obama and McCain? I checked their voting record in the senate. There was no significant difference. We have an oligarchy.
fuzzywzhe 2 years ago
Certainly, I doubt that any elected government is going to be much better than the people who elect it.
But that's the fault of humanity in general. There's no point in railing against human nature:it is what it is. It's like lamenting the fact that tigers are carnivores.
I have no illusions about the power and influence of wealthy media organizations, but I still have a mind of my own: they can't actually tell me which candidate to vote for. I don't see why other people are any different.
rickelmonoggin 2 years ago
LOL
This day and age and these idiots still don't understand the "hot mike".
Hoeffel would never have the guts to say that if he thought the mike was on.
So he's stupid, dishonest, and a cowardly jerk.
Thanks for posting this Jan!
harryogre 2 years ago 3
Hoeffels business plan is build on force and plunder. That is what he do for a living, and what he is good at.
Force and more plunder? Yes please. Those who question the morality of this is an ash ole.
elbuggo 2 years ago 2
elbuggo, I love your comments brother, but it's not ash ole, it's "asshole". You know, it's the hole in your ass, that you shit out of, or it's the congressman. Same thing.
BRYAN351 2 years ago
hoeffel is an asshole.
chewbaca1989 2 years ago 4