Jan leads Rep. Eliot Engel to a principle (on crime)

[gold95]

How about the god damn principal of freedom of choice???

[pizzakid770]

Your description is wrong. He is says weed is cool because weed heads don't kill people as much as heroin.

Get it? You are smart than engel so you should have caught that.

[WorBlux]

Engels here is just another pragmatist. Helfeld here is pretty good at sniffing them out and shinning the light on them.

[lobo9er]

those are two good comb overs.

[lobo9er]

another fun fact google or research how meny members of the obama adminstration have had trouble forgeting to pay their taxes.

[WorBlux]

Vices are not crimes as a matter of fact.

[lobo9er]

535 members of the United States Congress.

* 29 have been accused of spousal abuse* 7 have been arrested for fraud

* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks* 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses

* 3 have done time for assault* 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting* 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits* 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year

[ngazhs]

source of these statistics?

[abig1403]

You could make a case that any action should be criminalised - this is not law based on principles but on whims. The fact is that if it does not cause harm or loss, an action is NOT a crime.

[zardozcs]

"What is the principle that integrates the first examples and differentiates the second"

Very nice application of Rand's theory of concepts.

[aspiehler]

"Drugs should be illegal because it's a crime to use drugs!"

[Jamieclimbs]

"You cannot be tied to a principle when legislating."

Sigh. That would have been a good point to end the interview.

[ikemkrueger]

1:26 It would be nice if it is so, but it isn't.

[gadsden47]

Engel thinks if he says enough words, everyone will just give up and he'll be free to go.

[blue46gt]

Jan this is an excellent interview. Thank you for posting it.

[tumbleweedjoe]

"I'm not going to be tied to any kind of blanket or rigid principles."

Yeah, cause you're a politician.

The problem with saying that drugs ought to be made illegal because they lead to violence is that prohibition also manifestly leads to violence. How can you know ceteris paribus which leads to more violence? You can't of course. These utilitarian arguments are only of secondary importance. The issue is one of principle: Drug use does not violate other people's rights, so legalize it.

[Kawlinz]

Jan is all for non violence, until someone states that they are against non violence *in all forms*. Jan perceives that as a threat, and is willing to use violence against that person. Listen to his debate with Larken Rose, Jan is not as principled as he would have you believe, and even admits to such in the debate with Rose.

[janhelfeld]

Would you violate another persons property rights under extreme duress, such as stealing to get food when starving to death? Rose first said yes, then no. I would.

[GoldeneBremm]

The interviewer Jan Helfeld would now as: "So you - janhelfeld - would violate another persons property rights?"

[Kawlinz]

So someone who states that they would never point a gun at you - or anyone else - is the cause of your extreme duress? That's basically saying "Since you're unwilling to point a gun to my head, you've pointed a gun to my head".

It's unfortunate because I *really* like what you're doing with these videos, I think it's a great service. But claiming self defence or duress against someone who is completely against the initiation of violence in all forms is mistaken at best and misleading at worst.

[WarVideo]

In an emergency situation you have to do whatever you can do to get out of that situation to "get back to normal". You can't just ask a question like that, you have to supply the context. Like Beethovens7th says.

[Beethovens7th]

I think that depends on the reason why you're starving to death. If you're starving because you live in North Korea, then I say do whatever you need to do to survive and get out of there. If you live in a free country it would have to be something really crazy for me to be okay with it, not you just being a bum. For example if your plane crashed in the woods and you had been walking for miles and finally came to a house in the woods with food in it and there was no one there. Then I say take it.

[janhelfeld]

For example if your plane crashed in the woods and you had been walking for miles and finally came to a house in the woods with food in it and there was no one there. Then I say take it. This is what I AM TALKING ABOUT.OR THEY SAY NO.

[Beethovens7th]

But if there was someone there to ask permission from, I'd say do that. I can't imagine anybody saying no.

[msegreto2]

lets vote this fuck out he is part of the problem

[deadman12078]

Good interview.

[ALittleBitPregnant]

I love these, they make me sick.

[MengersDisciple]

I would really want to hear rep Engel's thoughts about that tattered and now mostly shredded piece of paper called the US constitution. And if he knows the meaning of the word "republic".

[foolcow1976]

You should interview Ron Paul, just to show the contrast.

[Nielsio]

Definitely

[billyjoeallen]

Why would anyone elect a representative who refuses to be "tied down" by principles?

[vipero00]

Because that has become the paradigm de jure. Principles are obsolete. They are so old testament. If i violate a principle I should feel guilt but I don't want guilt so I'll ignore all principles on the basis that they are black or white.

[capitalist4life]

In a way, these interviews are great because they expose these people and get their true beliefs out of them. But at the same time, people watch these videos and then people refuse to be interviewed by him in the future. Instead of the people demanding a change in the people in Congress, Congress just refuses to share what they truly believe.

[modelmark]

interesting navigation between :I personally, the society, we.

Just like the CIA guy: don't tie me down with principles, I like to have full freedom of whom to coerce.

He just swallowed:"nothing is determined by principles", before Jan could say:"what you just said, is that a principle?"

[stratvic]

If they rule with their gut (and we all know that a gut is full of shit) we would be better off without their input/ impeding human voluntary cooperation and community.

[Nexus974]

It is just a joy to watch Jan tear hypocrites apart.

[Nielsio]

You can't judge without a principle. He wants it both ways.

[odin422]

SO TRUE

[WarVideo]

Listen to the jumble of undigested premises, and slogans, notions, ideas, and bromides that he spews out.

[Beethovens7th]

Aren't these interviews extremely interesting epistemologically?

[WarVideo]

Yeah, its incredible really. If you had talked to me before discovering Objectivism I would have probably sounded like this guy too, and I bet most people are like him also. Its incredible what a consistent ideology can do for you.

[jryan1971]

He has trouble talking about principles because he has no principles.

[DantesObjective]

More of this cult of moral greyness, its sickening.

[vipero00]

I agree, Engel's grey spectacles and lack of principles is nothing but situational ethics. He has no moral foundation yet he believes that he is qualified to tell you what you may and may not do. It makes me sick too.

[bowtie728]

there it is!