There will just be another form of hate, not fuelled by religues belifes, but by polotical belifes. I think it all comes down to Israel's exsistence- some of them just can't accept that fact. The sad thing is even the simple Palastinans (not politicians), want to live in peace with Israel, but some Iranians that are far away from there-don't think alike.
I was a soldier in the Israeli army and I have asked simple down to earth Plastinians about it.
Your great. To be honest i forgot you existed until shay had you on one of his vlogs. It's good to know your still making interesting meaningful videos. Obviously anger masks my cowardice is the most meaningful of all your videos. Keep it up! Good luck in LA!
I'm Iranian and I've never thought about this way. I'm gonna use your argument when I have my daily debate (more like fight) with my dad who is a communist. He's got his own vision on democracy and individual liberty and it gets my blood boiling.
I mean this in the best of way.... You need to use your power of speech for something more important than youtube. Believe it or not this is meant as a compliment and I do enjoy watching the videos, but seriously there has to be a better use for your talent. Until you figure that out I'll keep watching =D
I and appreciate the sentiment, but YouTube is an excellent way to reach people. I've been viewed well over a million times and I certainly feel like I'm doing more good than I was before I joined YouTube.
I'm a bit astonished by his intelligence. This is why I'm subscribed, he makes what doesn't make much sense, into something... understandable. I like it. 5\5 Joe.
The military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 [1]countries around the world, with more than 369,000 of its 1,379,551[2] active-duty troops serving outside the United States and its territories
You must watch Faux News... DEATH PANELS.... BIRTH CERTIFICATE.... OBAMA HATES WHITES.... DON'T TREAD ON ME.... I WANT MY AMERICA BACK..... and so on and so forth. Joe is DAMN awesome!!!!!
You left out the part about the CIA involvement, but thats alright. It confuses the sheep. But you were dead on about inalienable rights. I don't share a lot of your views, but this time I am damn proud of you.
There is an aspect of this that I think that you are missing. Our "cause" in terms of the sometimes conflicting desires for civil liberties and democracy is really not lived out in Iran. Yes, these are key values in our system, but we have no credibility in trying to advance these interests in Iran. Given that we have previously intervened in Iran to undermine both civil liberties and democracy, we should sympathise with the Iranian cause, but it is their cause and not ours.
A benign dictatorship aye. Sounds better than politicians but its a bit of a Catch-22 isn't it, considering the very freedoms such a dictator would follow would certainly allow him to be corrupted over time (that sounds kinda ambiguous; what I mean is he/she is in a position of power while trying to promote the rights of 'everyone equal' etc. and over time he/she will probably choose remaining in power over choosing to recognise the rights he/she is supposed to be upholding)... make sense? :S
Or because... I'm a Software Engineer and I care more about variable names then correct grammar and spelling. Sorry my Internet Chicken Scratch offended you. lol
Thank you, Joe! Glad to see you up and blogging again ("vlogging" sounds so crass). Please, for all of us, start doing this on a regular basis again. You helped me and others form a more cogent argument for where our country is headed and—perhaps most importantly—why it's the path we should continue on.
What if a country (Chile, for example), elected a socialist/communist who was interested in depriving individual business owners of their property. Would you support a coup d'etat sponsored by the US in order to install a guy who championed individual property rights? Remember that the phrase "The Pusuit of Happiness" is a euphemism for "property" and has always been understood as such. Where do inalienable rights begin?
1. Happiness is not a euphemism for property; it's a replacement. They started with an idea from John Locke and cut property out for reasons that are still disputed. That doesn't stop you though, because your scenario presumes a violation of the right to equal treatment.
2. If a corporation is abusive and depriving citizens of their rights, which is common enough in your scenario, there could theoretically be a net benefit to liberty in seizure, and a criminal law justification.
3. Taking some of a rich man's wealth is a crime and I generally wouldn't want it done. But if we use our army as the world liberty police, we have several dozen higher priority coups d'etat to organize before that one.
4. None of this means it's a good idea for that country. It often threatens to do more harm to their international trade standing than they're likely to gain even if they can avoid the corruption that often accompanies these acts.
I'm just saying that while I know you abhor the slippery slope argument, let's just say that one could use your logic to justify some pretty nasty stuff unless the definition of human rights is given a very concrete definition.
I agree on a concrete definition, the bare minimum including equal treatment, habeas corpus, the American first and fourth amendments, and fair trial.
The UN has a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but frankly it strikes me as overreaching. Like they imagined a just and efficient society and then labeled all of its characteristics as human rights.
Can you elaborate on what malfeasance my ideas could justify? I don't want to miss any loopholes when I'm in charge.
:) I don't know, I guess it just occurred to me that your line of thinking is used to unseat dictators and put in guys who turn out to be just as bad, all with the justification that human rights were our motivation in the first place when they weren't. You know, like Allende and Pinochet, or Saddam Hussein and whoever's going to fuck up Iraq next.
#1: Clean your fish tank. Looks like they're scraping away the algae so they can see the people outside. #2: If the people of Iran had confidence that their votes were counted honestly, I believe they would be fine with the result ... unfortunately, in that Theocracy, an election is like a Charles Manson parole hearing -- the result is predetermined -- and the people know it. Loved your command of the issue, though - and I'm a Conservative.
Thanks, and you're pretty much right on both counts. But the fishes aren't mine, and while if Ahmadinejad had won fair and square, they probably would have accepted it, I wouldn't go so far as to say they'd be fine. Just that there wouldn't be sufficient critical mass of popular will for an uprising.
An average of 4 kids? Geez!? You're basically saying that the average female would bear 8 kids. (Remember, it takes TWO adults to make children.) I don't think any country has females anywhere NEAR that level of fertility in this day and age. And the countries that do probably have a fairly high infant mortality rate.
p.s. Let me pose a challenge: perhaps vlogging is like exercise--even if you are feeling a bit depressed, the act of doing it is beneficial and generates all kinds of good feelings, thus makes you more likely to exercise? Vlog your funk away!
I do have to disagree with you, Joe, on one point, Conservatives are not putting their dog in this fight for the interests of the Iranians or democracy, they are trying to force Obama to use "strong language" pushing the impression that American Imperial will a.) is legitimate, b.) is beneficial for all. Their call is for American empire, not democracy. Of course, Obama has been cautious in order to prevent giving the Iranian establishment a further unifying force in anti-American sentiment.
There is some ambiguity with the word "conservatives". I often use it to mean politicians and pundits, but in this case I was thinking of the rank-and-file.
Do you find it at all ironic that you speak of the liberty of Iranian individuals, and yet for some reason feel the need to disambiguate the term "conservative"? The conservative base is largely military, business and a large portion of the middle class. Well traveled, educated, and productive individuals on the whole. Where liberal ideas seek to remove the impetus for greater production, deflate our military, and dictate educational boundaries (for political reasons).
Stretching a random comment of mine to absurdity is no cover for name calling and it eats up characters that could be used to list more pejoratives.
When you're ready to take your own words seriously you'll have to face the fact that my side has been in roughly equal number to yours, comprising more kinds of people, many of whom you already respect.
You can't run a society half of devils. If we were as pernicious as you and Ayn Rand fantasize, this whole place would have been rubble long ago.
Halle-fu#%ing-lu-jah regarding the Constitutional basis of inalienable rights protecting us from too much democracy! Its sad that the California Constitution does all for the ballot initiative process to essentially vote away the rights of minorities (gays in this case). Without a Constitutional basis for protections of the individual or groups, democracy can become mob rule, which is not freedom.
EVIL seeks only to ENSLAVE HUMANITY and DESTROY HUMAN LIFE. Think on that... LISTEN UP PLEASE! Barack Hussein Obama is the Beast upon which rides in the World's Greatest Evil! THE ANTICHRIST! God Rules the World! check out my 2 fav vids - esp the 2nd one DIVINE SIGN of THE MARKS OF THE BEAST! Book of Revelation! The End Times! SECOND COMING of Jesus the Christ! Believe!
also, the theory that Mousavi, not in power, could stuff the ballot boxes, weak. Democracy is an ideal worth promoting. WE would not be tweeting for them, because it would not happen. They are upset because they were told they had democracy and do not. I know that Mousavi has a shady past, but apparently the women of Iran feel that there is a substantial possibility for social change under him v. ademinajad.
You're clearly smarter than most of my detractors so I wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse. I'm not proposing that Mousavi could pragmatically steal the election, I'm imagining a hypothetical situation to demonstrate that our loyalty is unconsciously, and correctly, to liberty first, against tyranny of the majority, with or without statutory corroboration.
You have also decided that there is only one possible reason Iranians are upset, which is your second failure of imagination.
I hope I wasn't misleading by the name. I do not have a youtube account and was originally looking for video of Neda when I came acros your video and responded. It is my daughters account.
Completely wrong. Jim Crow laws were overturned because they violated the constitution. Specifically the 14th amendment. Our elected officials (predominantly democratic) enacted laws relating to society as a whole. Just because several states chose to enact laws that precluded equal protection (the supreme law of the land) does not mean that their democratic rights were abused. Their democratic rights do extend to the power to create a law that violates a more supreme law.
You just described how it was possible, which is narrower than the question of why it was right. Democracy is not what made it right. Let me cite a less muddled example. The Declaration of Independence had no statutory justification; it was justified by inalienable rights.
Inalienable rights is our principal founding value, and any democratic constitution that attempts to override them is wrong. That's what inalienable means. Statutes attempt to emulate values, they don't replace them.
Do you not realize that the inalienable right that was trumpeted in the Declaration was representation. Sounds kind of democratic to me. You know, no taxation without representation.
"...certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Liberty is the end; representation is the means.
It goes on to imagine that if the end is not achieved by these means, the government may be dissolved and replaced with whatever system seems "most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness".
Exactly, absent a Philosopher king (See e.g. Plato) who is in love with wisdom, these unalienable rights, by and large, can not be obtained absent some other form of self determination. In the end... one loses the moral authority to complain when there is truly a just government (consented to by the governed) and there exists a mechanism for the redress of grievences.
In Iran, there is are no rights, no mechanism for the redress of grievences and therefore no legitimacy or liberty.
It is easy to be contemplating the philosophy of revolutionwhen there is plenty of food in the fridge nor threat to life of friends and family for questioning the government. And I wonder if I would be willing to lay down my life for liberty the liberty hard won my my great grandparents. I wonder what it would take to send me to the streets. I keep the people of Iran in my prayers as they stand their ground for their own liberty.
Governments regulate what people do. That seems like common sense but let me explain. Jim crow laws were not passed because black and whites were segregating they were pass because they were integrating voluntarily. The elite supreme court, like all elitist take credit for thing others are already doing. Government disrupts progress the same way religion does for it's based on conservatism.
Religion is a subjective idea used to describe objective occurrence. They were integrating and that is why Jim crow laws were passed. Not everyone adheres to the man made bigotries of the state.
Oh but it is about democracy. It's Americas position to push democracy around the world. The problem here is that democracy is a majority ruled state and all you have to do is sway just 51% of the public to get what you want.. We should be pushing for deomcratic republics and individual liberties.
Another reminder for those viewers who want the U.S. to support an overthrow of the dictatorship in Iran: it is not the U.S.'s role to start conflicts for "democracy." If that were the case, we should have started a CIA-based war to establish democracy in Saudi Arabia, and nobody is calling for that.
Question? Did you graduate from college? If so what was your degree. I'm thinking of studying Political science and if in fact this is your degree maybe you could tell me what you think of it?
I completely get what you say. Still, on the note of democracy . . . while I like many other westerners despise Ahmadinejad, if he did say win the election fairly, by popular vote, then we have no right to dispute it as we are not Iranian citizens. For democracy to work, it has to be followed, even if it is a lemming vote.
well he is basically saying that liberty is more important than democracy .Imagine the people supporting mousavi rigged the election so that ahmadinejad would lost.
then no one would no matter inside or outside iran would tweet for ahmadinead because they are oppressing the people
so in that case no one would support the democratic system
besides he doesn't believe mousavi is a man who could do anything
i wish more people would ask for deeper explainations when they dont understand something, rather than just quoting other people's opinions and not know what they are talking about. good for you =)
Jose, i love that you made this video but i am a little disappointed that you left out an explainatin of the iranian government structure. for democracy to take hold, the iranians would have to also, in some manner, vote out the supreme leader ayatollah and the gaurdian council. this show of support doesnt address the fact that this vote is not really a move towards democracy if the ruling religious beings remain in control of the person voted into the office of president?
there are no human rights in my minds being served until the ayatollah and gaurdian council are removed from power. it is only then the free will of people can best be served, much like the uprising in teinanmen square way way back in time
Thanks for commenting, Thor. I don't think we know enough yet to judge the magnitude of this phenomenon. If the clerics can be divided there is a possibility for major reform.
My hope is this uprising will bring about a Magna Carta moment where the current power structure accepts a major change but is still around in some form to pacify its base. A few years later you push them again. Democracy used as a wedge rather than a bomb avoids the kind of power vacuum that felled the French Revolution.
my hope is the same as yours, that in some way this movement pushs iran toward the freedoms we as american have known for centuries. as we know, all human are granted unalienable rights, maybe this will now be understood by common iranians and a move to a trually democratic iran will be realized. however, this remains a media event in my mind.iranians will never be free until the are allowed to govern them selves with out religious overseers
That's the thing about this theocracy - they have supremacy overall, and even if they fall (God hopes) it's what they will do afterward. Of course, I don't believe that the people will be down with another dictatorship, but then again, I don't know Iran as well as I do Iraq, you never know in the chaos that ensues after a system of government fails and is deposed what will rise from the ashes.
Human rights must come first for sure, though, I believe you're right.
You don't need to believe in God to believe in inalienable rights; you just need to believe in fair play. Believe in the systemic benefit of agreeing on a few permanent rules before we fight over our temporary policies. These ground rules are what keep slavery and genocide out of bounds.
A democracy without minority rights is an invitation to end democracy, the same way football wouldn't be football if whichever team has possession also gets to be the referee.
Well I wouldn't use Iranian state media at all. But we know there was a rigged election where an incumbent extremist falsely defeated a moderate challenger, followed by an uprising of persistent aggressive protest, the state reacted by jailing dissidents, purging journalists, and abusing demonstrators, and is now showing signs of wavering in its resolve. That's a decent picture.
Also, western media can be ultra fake, but it's not all ultra fake. American cable news channels are best to avoid.
Thanks, Joe. I think you are spot on. I'm curious about your opinion on the right to bear arms in the case of the current Iranian "revolution." That is a crucial difference between 1979 and now. Please keep the political videos coming!
I don't know the specifics of 1979, but I think the protestors are much better off unarmed. Their leaders plead with them to demonstrate peacefully and most of them abide. Passive resistance is by far the best strategy unless it can't succeed.
Dozens, possibly over a hundred, are dead from this movement so far, but can you imagine the casualties from an urban shooting war?
in 1979 the savak and military could not stop the revolution because millions of people were on the streets
that time people were fed up with the shah (the majority)
but today there is still a great number who are still supporting this regime , because either religion or economy (many people make big profits because of this regime), or what
so today its way harder to overthrow the government
but it really concerns me why u are always talkking about a revolution
As an outsider, maybe I am seeing through a biased lens, but the media we have directly from the demonstrators on YouTube and Twitter suggests to me a much deeper and older struggle than what happened on election day. To be clear, I am not hoping for another revolution, but major reform, and in those videos it certainly looks like people are willing to die for change.
I agree that this seems deeper than an election issue. Even if it were somehow clear that no fraud occurred, I think the Iranians would still have something to say. I think the shady info coming out of this election gives some teeth or merit to their protest. I agree that a more armed conflict would unfortunately lead to more casualties, but The Boston Tea Party alone didn't help us gain our freedom...
Now that Ive made my annoying comment on semantics, may I say:
It is very important that we are careful in the way that this event is handled. On one hand, given the cause (expansion of civil liberties of course), it is tempting to throw the weight of the country behind the riotous masses.
By doing so, however, we may cast them as puppets of the United States and cheapen their cause, simply by supporting them. Although, a part of me wants to tell these people that they are not alone, that there are people on the outside that think what they are doing is awesome.
Show your support; no one will confuse you with a puppeteer. It's the government's job to play it cool, which they're doing. This is a movement fueled by the fact that the world is watching, and an opportunity for Americans to bond with a people that they almost dropped bombs on.
You make a VERY good point sir, I would agree with you entirely.
I will diverge at one point, though. At 2:50 you mentioned that any oppressed peoples, majority or minority, have the right and responsibility to revolt, ect.
While I would say that an oppressed peoples definitely have the social responsibility to themselves and to their children to expand their civil liberties, the fate of their rights is hanging in the balance until the battle is won or lost.
Moot point: they dont have a right to fight for their rights.
I think they do have a right to fight. In fact it is obliquely recognized in the American 1st and 2nd amendments by the right to petition, and the right of state militias to bear arms. Let alone the Declaration of Independence, Patrick Henry, the revolution itself. History is unambiguous. I think you speak to soon to declare the idea moot.
This is going to devolve into semantics very quickly.
I agree with your explanation and conclusion, our disagreement lies in our definition of the term "right" I think.
We may recognize a people's "right to fight" as outlined in our bill of rights, etc. However, these people have yet to attain this particular right. This is obvious by the governmental response to public outcry. This "right" is what they are fighting for, not exercising.
Moot, as in it was pointless for me to point it out.
I see above that you are averse to recognize natural rights, so there is the point of conflict. But in this you differ with, not only me, but mainstream western thought, and the Declaration of Independence.
Something being a slippery slope is not a reason to reject it wholesale, it just means it's harder to work it out. Maybe there's no natural right to food. But there is certainly one for free speech, equality, and for that matter resistance of tyranny.
Rights go no deeper than social contract theory. The idea that there are "endowed" rights (i.e. rights that cannot be infringed upon by an earthly sovereign) is obviously on the ropes right now. As there are people who do not have the right to speak freely.
We have no rights except those that we demand. Calling something a "natural right" does not necessarily make it so.
well u are wrong about mousavi, in fact people honor his policiy during the war
he changelled the worst situation iran ever had concerning the economy
But it's funny to see americans and other western people showing solidarity with the iranians, but where were u during the war? when saddam killed by mailny american weapons 1 million iranians...
Now where were we during the Iran-Iraq war? I was 1 year old when it started so I don't know firsthand, but I can guess that the US was afraid of Iran in the wake of the hostage crisis and thought a war would weaken the regime.
Americans on the left generally regard our involvement in that war as wrong.
the us was not really afraid of iran because the new regime,
they just didn't want an independant state
i mean look at our history, it was just about oil
first the england and then us ,
so basically most of the people in 1979 wanted this revolution because of an independent state, freedom of speech, freedom of press , freedom of religion and so on
people in the west are looking at the government and and think that their values were carried by the revolution but that
I think you are a bit wrong on Mousavi. He was a hard liner before, but it seems like he has changed a lot since then. You can see that by him standing against Ayatollah Khameneie. He would have NEVER done that if he was a hard liner.
Thought provoking! I couldn't have said it better, mainly because I'm not as articulate as you but also because I think in the rush to read the coverage I wasn't giving the actual issue of Liberty serious consideration
I love how i can learn something so cleverly hidden yet right in front of our eyes. Your point made me realize how sometimes we will blindly support a cause just because of a key words like democracy rather than analyze the situation more thoroughly. Thank you for your insight Joe.
yup keeps me humble to experience myself getting excited about the word democracy. I too appreciate the reminder to remain cautious of falling prey to word play.
Do they really want Musavi or is this also a chance for those that don't want the Mullahs, or a even a Theocracy, to stand up against their oppression?
That's a question of proportion, reform versus revolution. I don't think anybody knows yet. We have a lot of footage of young people fighting with riot police but they don't necessarily speak for the millions of voters, the older of whom, it is said, would consider avoidance of the bloodshed they saw 30 years ago their top priority. Thousands died.
For stability I would rather see the Ayatollah forced to make large concessions, a Magna Carta moment, than see a full purge and power vacuum.
you put it in great perpective there joe i totally love that man, and you're right a nation to have democracy to work you have to work with people and give then there rights equaly, Thats how the system works here the United states, and with out rights all will trun into mud.
I recently got to have this conversation with a psychologist. the psychologist disagreed with my point, about a democracy needing wealth to sustain it. if ahmadinejad had the resources to stop inflation, stop the GDP from falling and reverse unemployment figures, he could steal the election with little or no revolt to his rule (ala Bush jr).
I still don't see how that's separate from democracy. After all, the second essential ideal of democracy is that the political rights of minorites must be protected. Democracy means that the passengers get to decide where the bus goes and who drives, but not who gets to ride.
That sounds like a nice tricked out democracy with a constitutionalist mod. Iran's got a bootleg version. In theirs, everybody can ride but there's only one road.
By the way, we're not perfect. My argument is just as valid against the many US states that have voted in anti-gay amendments to their state constitutions in the last few years. But in the US, the courts are the final guardians of liberty and I'm confident that in time they will strike down those filthy instruments of bigotry.
Well, of course, this is why they have to keep the focus on SAME-SEX marriage. The moment they allow it to become about homosexual marriage, this necessitates a legal definition of "homosexual" which will entitle this particular demographic to legal protection of its political rights.
Great analysis, Joe. Once again, I agree with everything you say. Revolution, in it's core, always means one thing; people are tired of this shit! Honestly, I think it has very little to do with the election. The people are sick of their government, of being oppressed by religious extremists and the obvious indiscretion of the election rig has merely been their open window. No doubt a Mousavi victory wouldn't have benefited them much. But the people would have no grounds to revolt on.
Thank you so much for putting to voice the requirement that individual rights are a necessity to sustain any democracy. For example, freedom of speech and press, which are being tested now in Iran, are absolute necessities if voters are to have the information upon which to make an educated choice. There is not a one-size-fits-all democracy, but there are indisputable necessities upon which all democracies must stand.
You said " The Western constitutional governing system gets it right when it puts individual liberties first ahead of democracy, a powerful few should/must force an unwilling majority to comply with their rule if civil rights are at stake."
Your commentary is absolutely enriching. It took me a while to come up with that word, but that's what it is. With respect to this election brouhaha in Iran I've kept up to date with everything, but had never quite thought of the situation in the light you just framed it in. Excellent, excellent, excellent commentary (as always). The next time the Iranian election comes up in conversation I'll be sure to throw these ideas into the mix!
You make a perfect sense, and your unbiased in-depth yet easy to follow intellectual analysis has helped me to connect the dots and to understand the situation much better. There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all democracy, and it would be hypocritical for us in the west to shove our version of democracy which took hundreds of years to establish on other nations who lack democratic institutions vital to sustain a democracy. Case in Point: African nations, and of course Iran.
I love the fishies, however I completely disagree with the concept that we should only support democratic movements so long as they're in favour of things we believe in. If the situation was flipped and Ahmedinejad was the one who got cheated out of an election i'd be as strong a supporter of him as i am of Moussavi, the important thing is what the iranian people want - not what we want for them (Does that make sense?)
Let me clarify. We SHOULD support democracy, except when democracy is used to sustain oppression (or for that matter, instigates war, which is an international form of oppression).
If Denmark voted to repeal the civil rights of women, would you support doing so, or are they entitled to their rights no matter what?
Supporting Ahmadinejad in our scenario would imply that human rights are up to the state, and descend from the state. But our rights are intrinsic. Even democracy can't take them.
If the majority of the danish population voted to repeal the rights of women? I wouldn't support it actively, because i personally believe in womens right, but i'd respect the decision of the majority and let them repeal it. I also disagree that supporting Ahmadinejad in our scenario would imply that human rights are up to the state, in our scenario human rights would be up to the people. If the people want to be dictated, where's our justification for telling them not to?
The justification is that it's always wrong to oppress people, even if everybody else wants to.
This value is shared by all free societies. Your rights are guaranteed no matter how unpopular you are. In the US we call them "inalienable". I don't know what that is in Danish, but your constitution actually guarantees more rights than mine, including the right to an education. If the Danes tried to keep Jewish kids out of their schools, your Supreme Court would force them to let the kids in.
The supreme court however is enforcing a constitution that was agreed upon by the majority of the population, right? So that's still enforcement of the majority's will, constitutions can be changed if the majority wills it, and then the supreme court would abide by the new anti-semetic constitution. I can't possibly disagree that it's wrong to oppress people, but i do think that supporting a democratic movement only so long as it agrees with our beliefs concerning oppression, is wrong of us.
A country can change it's constitution, but the theoretical ability to strip rights from an unpopular group is a bug, not a feature. Civil rights are considered permanent.
Your phrasing of "our beliefs concerning oppression" frames it as an opinion. Treating one group of your citizens as inferior to another is not a question of opinion, it's a question of fact. Injustice is a quantifiable fact and a universal crime. If the criminals outnumber the victims, right and wrong don't switch sides.
I suppose you're right, the DNP didn't experience massive public opposition and there's no way I'd ever be able to stand idly by and let THEM exist on the argument of democratic justice. You convinced me. thanks for the discussion :) also, I think I forgot to mention in my first comment that your videos are great, I love your presentation. You're definitely one of my favourite subscriptions
Here's a man who sticks to his guns, reality be damned. TruthTaste, you and the Ayatollah are the two people who think the Iranian uprising is a bad thing.
Actually once again you are wrong, I think it is awful that these human beings are being denied their fundamental right to protest. Ahmud should be tried for war crimes against our troops which he has continued even into Obama's presidency. Bush should be ashamed of not pursueing Iran in light of their war crimes against our bravest men and women. Perhaps Obama will honor our the troops that were killed/maimed by Ahmud's hand.
Great video with a great end! fishies lol
tdogbigt 3 months ago
I'm french and In france there is so much propaganda against Iran because they support the palestinians.
HolyGK 4 months ago
u should become a profesor...i would listen to u and actually learn.
sicshoanker 11 months ago
youre boring
have a scary beard
and your not funny..........ever
gitboogy 2 years ago
@gitboogy
Ah, the guy who insults what he doesnt understand...
johnhughes1977 2 years ago
actually i do understand it so har de har har
gitboogy 2 years ago
you are wrong sir.
There will just be another form of hate, not fuelled by religues belifes, but by polotical belifes. I think it all comes down to Israel's exsistence- some of them just can't accept that fact. The sad thing is even the simple Palastinans (not politicians), want to live in peace with Israel, but some Iranians that are far away from there-don't think alike.
I was a soldier in the Israeli army and I have asked simple down to earth Plastinians about it.
Zloner 2 years ago
Your great. To be honest i forgot you existed until shay had you on one of his vlogs. It's good to know your still making interesting meaningful videos. Obviously anger masks my cowardice is the most meaningful of all your videos. Keep it up! Good luck in LA!
PiddleMettuar 2 years ago
Thanks a lot. I'm getting good stimulation. Another silly one tomorrow.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
Convinced...ahhh! Can I borrow this argument. Clarity is rare.
I owe you a coffee!
mkbrewster 2 years ago
All yours! :)
JoeFelice 2 years ago
I'm Iranian and I've never thought about this way. I'm gonna use your argument when I have my daily debate (more like fight) with my dad who is a communist. He's got his own vision on democracy and individual liberty and it gets my blood boiling.
nimrooo 2 years ago 3
Haha, good luck!
JoeFelice 2 years ago
I mean this in the best of way.... You need to use your power of speech for something more important than youtube. Believe it or not this is meant as a compliment and I do enjoy watching the videos, but seriously there has to be a better use for your talent. Until you figure that out I'll keep watching =D
savepoint11 2 years ago
I and appreciate the sentiment, but YouTube is an excellent way to reach people. I've been viewed well over a million times and I certainly feel like I'm doing more good than I was before I joined YouTube.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
I'm a bit astonished by his intelligence. This is why I'm subscribed, he makes what doesn't make much sense, into something... understandable. I like it. 5\5 Joe.
imnotaverage 2 years ago
The military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 [1]countries around the world, with more than 369,000 of its 1,379,551[2] active-duty troops serving outside the United States and its territories
RationalBuddha 2 years ago
Very interesting perspective. I buy it at least
rmac40 2 years ago
THANK YOU
kianoushagha 2 years ago
This guy is so full of SHIT....must get his information from the Huffington Post.
djm9063 2 years ago
You must watch Faux News... DEATH PANELS.... BIRTH CERTIFICATE.... OBAMA HATES WHITES.... DON'T TREAD ON ME.... I WANT MY AMERICA BACK..... and so on and so forth. Joe is DAMN awesome!!!!!
greattimed 2 years ago 2
not bad
You left out the part about the CIA involvement, but thats alright. It confuses the sheep. But you were dead on about inalienable rights. I don't share a lot of your views, but this time I am damn proud of you.
northpal2 2 years ago
Thank you
JoeFelice 2 years ago
you're so commercial and gullible. you believe anything cnn or fox or whatever tells you about what's going on.
bruisedcunt 2 years ago
There is an aspect of this that I think that you are missing. Our "cause" in terms of the sometimes conflicting desires for civil liberties and democracy is really not lived out in Iran. Yes, these are key values in our system, but we have no credibility in trying to advance these interests in Iran. Given that we have previously intervened in Iran to undermine both civil liberties and democracy, we should sympathise with the Iranian cause, but it is their cause and not ours.
JDB7484 2 years ago
A benign dictatorship aye. Sounds better than politicians but its a bit of a Catch-22 isn't it, considering the very freedoms such a dictator would follow would certainly allow him to be corrupted over time (that sounds kinda ambiguous; what I mean is he/she is in a position of power while trying to promote the rights of 'everyone equal' etc. and over time he/she will probably choose remaining in power over choosing to recognise the rights he/she is supposed to be upholding)... make sense? :S
chickenisafoolofatoo 2 years ago
This is completely off topic..
I was watching a plethra of videos on iranians dieing, bleeding, being beaten etc... and guess what pops into my head after this video?
"I kinda feel like playing playstation." lol.
Wierd, but true.
liquifiedart 2 years ago
Yeap playstation is nice :DD
strongid 2 years ago
thats probably why you can't spell for shit!
creedstat 2 years ago
Or because... I'm a Software Engineer and I care more about variable names then correct grammar and spelling. Sorry my Internet Chicken Scratch offended you. lol
liquifiedart 2 years ago
You have a Jew fro. lol
tothboy01 2 years ago
Oh I'm beyond the Jew fro at this point. I'm more in the hippie's nest category. My hair dreads naturally thanks to my southern Italian gene pool.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
Thank you, Joe! Glad to see you up and blogging again ("vlogging" sounds so crass). Please, for all of us, start doing this on a regular basis again. You helped me and others form a more cogent argument for where our country is headed and—perhaps most importantly—why it's the path we should continue on.
For all of us, please post more. Thank you!
ryanmcclung 2 years ago
Oh, and btw, I want to say I'm a huge fan and have been watching your videos for several months now. Keep up the good work.
ivmeer1976 2 years ago
What if a country (Chile, for example), elected a socialist/communist who was interested in depriving individual business owners of their property. Would you support a coup d'etat sponsored by the US in order to install a guy who championed individual property rights? Remember that the phrase "The Pusuit of Happiness" is a euphemism for "property" and has always been understood as such. Where do inalienable rights begin?
ivmeer1976 2 years ago
Interesting,
1. Happiness is not a euphemism for property; it's a replacement. They started with an idea from John Locke and cut property out for reasons that are still disputed. That doesn't stop you though, because your scenario presumes a violation of the right to equal treatment.
2. If a corporation is abusive and depriving citizens of their rights, which is common enough in your scenario, there could theoretically be a net benefit to liberty in seizure, and a criminal law justification.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
3. Taking some of a rich man's wealth is a crime and I generally wouldn't want it done. But if we use our army as the world liberty police, we have several dozen higher priority coups d'etat to organize before that one.
4. None of this means it's a good idea for that country. It often threatens to do more harm to their international trade standing than they're likely to gain even if they can avoid the corruption that often accompanies these acts.
But there are less bloody ways we can object.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
I'm just saying that while I know you abhor the slippery slope argument, let's just say that one could use your logic to justify some pretty nasty stuff unless the definition of human rights is given a very concrete definition.
ivmeer1976 2 years ago
I agree on a concrete definition, the bare minimum including equal treatment, habeas corpus, the American first and fourth amendments, and fair trial.
The UN has a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but frankly it strikes me as overreaching. Like they imagined a just and efficient society and then labeled all of its characteristics as human rights.
Can you elaborate on what malfeasance my ideas could justify? I don't want to miss any loopholes when I'm in charge.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
:) I don't know, I guess it just occurred to me that your line of thinking is used to unseat dictators and put in guys who turn out to be just as bad, all with the justification that human rights were our motivation in the first place when they weren't. You know, like Allende and Pinochet, or Saddam Hussein and whoever's going to fuck up Iraq next.
ivmeer1976 2 years ago
#1: Clean your fish tank. Looks like they're scraping away the algae so they can see the people outside. #2: If the people of Iran had confidence that their votes were counted honestly, I believe they would be fine with the result ... unfortunately, in that Theocracy, an election is like a Charles Manson parole hearing -- the result is predetermined -- and the people know it. Loved your command of the issue, though - and I'm a Conservative.
ericandlindashelman 2 years ago
Thanks, and you're pretty much right on both counts. But the fishes aren't mine, and while if Ahmadinejad had won fair and square, they probably would have accepted it, I wouldn't go so far as to say they'd be fine. Just that there wouldn't be sufficient critical mass of popular will for an uprising.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
Each person the USAggression has killed would have produced an average of 4 babies. Those kids, who were MEANT TO BE, were also killed.
The generations of the children yet unborn
Each 100,000 parents x4 kids = 400,000 (1st gen)
400,000 x 4 kids = 1,600,000 (2nd gen)
1,600,000 x 4 kids = 6,400,000 (3rd gen)
6,400,000 x 4 kids = 27,000,000 (4th gen)
a lot of math, a lot of kids
Thats just from each 100,000 victims killed
now start with a million
now thats democracy
4aaaaa4 2 years ago
An average of 4 kids? Geez!? You're basically saying that the average female would bear 8 kids. (Remember, it takes TWO adults to make children.) I don't think any country has females anywhere NEAR that level of fertility in this day and age. And the countries that do probably have a fairly high infant mortality rate.
Beaumagnus 2 years ago
Oh, and glad to see that you're back--love ya!
p.s. Let me pose a challenge: perhaps vlogging is like exercise--even if you are feeling a bit depressed, the act of doing it is beneficial and generates all kinds of good feelings, thus makes you more likely to exercise? Vlog your funk away!
peace
hncarp00 2 years ago
I do have to disagree with you, Joe, on one point, Conservatives are not putting their dog in this fight for the interests of the Iranians or democracy, they are trying to force Obama to use "strong language" pushing the impression that American Imperial will a.) is legitimate, b.) is beneficial for all. Their call is for American empire, not democracy. Of course, Obama has been cautious in order to prevent giving the Iranian establishment a further unifying force in anti-American sentiment.
hncarp00 2 years ago
There is some ambiguity with the word "conservatives". I often use it to mean politicians and pundits, but in this case I was thinking of the rank-and-file.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
Do you find it at all ironic that you speak of the liberty of Iranian individuals, and yet for some reason feel the need to disambiguate the term "conservative"? The conservative base is largely military, business and a large portion of the middle class. Well traveled, educated, and productive individuals on the whole. Where liberal ideas seek to remove the impetus for greater production, deflate our military, and dictate educational boundaries (for political reasons).
breakland 2 years ago
Stretching a random comment of mine to absurdity is no cover for name calling and it eats up characters that could be used to list more pejoratives.
When you're ready to take your own words seriously you'll have to face the fact that my side has been in roughly equal number to yours, comprising more kinds of people, many of whom you already respect.
You can't run a society half of devils. If we were as pernicious as you and Ayn Rand fantasize, this whole place would have been rubble long ago.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
Halle-fu#%ing-lu-jah regarding the Constitutional basis of inalienable rights protecting us from too much democracy! Its sad that the California Constitution does all for the ballot initiative process to essentially vote away the rights of minorities (gays in this case). Without a Constitutional basis for protections of the individual or groups, democracy can become mob rule, which is not freedom.
hncarp00 2 years ago
spadaj zydzie ,jak zwykle wiecej mowisz niz masz do sprzedania!
KickTheKoala 2 years ago
you look like a BUM JOE FAGICE
lokenovez 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LeadAngelWarrior 2 years ago
joe, i hate u so much why cant u shave and stop being a hippie
recognizetrill 2 years ago
strong words for someone with no avatar
JoeFelice 2 years ago
strong come back from someone that has a huge beard
magicsforce 2 years ago
oohhhhhhh he got served!!!!!!!
randomcheesecake555 2 years ago
Now YOU have an avatar I respect
JoeFelice 2 years ago
also, the theory that Mousavi, not in power, could stuff the ballot boxes, weak. Democracy is an ideal worth promoting. WE would not be tweeting for them, because it would not happen. They are upset because they were told they had democracy and do not. I know that Mousavi has a shady past, but apparently the women of Iran feel that there is a substantial possibility for social change under him v. ademinajad.
animerocks198 2 years ago
You're clearly smarter than most of my detractors so I wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse. I'm not proposing that Mousavi could pragmatically steal the election, I'm imagining a hypothetical situation to demonstrate that our loyalty is unconsciously, and correctly, to liberty first, against tyranny of the majority, with or without statutory corroboration.
You have also decided that there is only one possible reason Iranians are upset, which is your second failure of imagination.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
I hope I wasn't misleading by the name. I do not have a youtube account and was originally looking for video of Neda when I came acros your video and responded. It is my daughters account.
animerocks198 2 years ago
Not a problem. YouTube has really taught me not to judge people by their age.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
With a BA in Political Science and a law degree, I hope I would be smarter than your "detractors."
animerocks198 2 years ago
Completely wrong. Jim Crow laws were overturned because they violated the constitution. Specifically the 14th amendment. Our elected officials (predominantly democratic) enacted laws relating to society as a whole. Just because several states chose to enact laws that precluded equal protection (the supreme law of the land) does not mean that their democratic rights were abused. Their democratic rights do extend to the power to create a law that violates a more supreme law.
animerocks198 2 years ago
You just described how it was possible, which is narrower than the question of why it was right. Democracy is not what made it right. Let me cite a less muddled example. The Declaration of Independence had no statutory justification; it was justified by inalienable rights.
Inalienable rights is our principal founding value, and any democratic constitution that attempts to override them is wrong. That's what inalienable means. Statutes attempt to emulate values, they don't replace them.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
Do you not realize that the inalienable right that was trumpeted in the Declaration was representation. Sounds kind of democratic to me. You know, no taxation without representation.
animerocks198 2 years ago
"...certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Liberty is the end; representation is the means.
It goes on to imagine that if the end is not achieved by these means, the government may be dissolved and replaced with whatever system seems "most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness".
JoeFelice 2 years ago
Exactly, absent a Philosopher king (See e.g. Plato) who is in love with wisdom, these unalienable rights, by and large, can not be obtained absent some other form of self determination. In the end... one loses the moral authority to complain when there is truly a just government (consented to by the governed) and there exists a mechanism for the redress of grievences.
In Iran, there is are no rights, no mechanism for the redress of grievences and therefore no legitimacy or liberty.
animerocks198 2 years ago
well said as usual
gobbism 2 years ago
It is easy to be contemplating the philosophy of revolutionwhen there is plenty of food in the fridge nor threat to life of friends and family for questioning the government. And I wonder if I would be willing to lay down my life for liberty the liberty hard won my my great grandparents. I wonder what it would take to send me to the streets. I keep the people of Iran in my prayers as they stand their ground for their own liberty.
frane9r9r 2 years ago
Governments regulate what people do. That seems like common sense but let me explain. Jim crow laws were not passed because black and whites were segregating they were pass because they were integrating voluntarily. The elite supreme court, like all elitist take credit for thing others are already doing. Government disrupts progress the same way religion does for it's based on conservatism.
ocelot814 2 years ago
That's a lovely little religion. All you have to do is ignore any evidence to the contrary and you're all set.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
"That's a lovely little religion."
Religion is a subjective idea used to describe objective occurrence. They were integrating and that is why Jim crow laws were passed. Not everyone adheres to the man made bigotries of the state.
ocelot814 2 years ago
Oh but it is about democracy. It's Americas position to push democracy around the world. The problem here is that democracy is a majority ruled state and all you have to do is sway just 51% of the public to get what you want.. We should be pushing for deomcratic republics and individual liberties.
mickeysears 2 years ago
You need to clean that fish tank Joe. Seriously. :P
OneGirlArmy 2 years ago
Great Video Joe!
OneGirlArmy 2 years ago
Thanks A!
JoeFelice 2 years ago
Another reminder for those viewers who want the U.S. to support an overthrow of the dictatorship in Iran: it is not the U.S.'s role to start conflicts for "democracy." If that were the case, we should have started a CIA-based war to establish democracy in Saudi Arabia, and nobody is calling for that.
LPGfan 2 years ago
Hear Hear, good Sir
*standing applause*
Psymon0666 2 years ago
Question? Did you graduate from college? If so what was your degree. I'm thinking of studying Political science and if in fact this is your degree maybe you could tell me what you think of it?
IronPriest82 2 years ago
I got a BFA in Drama, minor in Linguistics. Politics was a hobby, but then I worked in politics.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
I completely get what you say. Still, on the note of democracy . . . while I like many other westerners despise Ahmadinejad, if he did say win the election fairly, by popular vote, then we have no right to dispute it as we are not Iranian citizens. For democracy to work, it has to be followed, even if it is a lemming vote.
Maphisto86 2 years ago
It's good to see you on again. I was hoping you'd have something to say about all of this. Well spoken.
Also, you are looking quite grizzly. Impressive.
chvrxi 2 years ago
Are you reading this off of your computer screen or have you practiced this for some time? You're great Joe! Keep up the good work.
ericbob04 2 years ago
Totally reading :)
But I cover it up well, right?
JoeFelice 2 years ago
I need to watch this a few more times to understand this
zombiejock 2 years ago
good vlog, Joe. We have missed you!!!!! vlog more often. that hair and beard definitely need to get longer.
aisforaaron83 2 years ago
Very nice.
DoubleODude 2 years ago
you bore me.
amiressy 2 years ago
You bore me.
CrayolaNinjas 2 years ago
good one.
amiressy 2 years ago
can someone dumb that down for me please?
His vocabulary was far beyond my comprehension, thought I'm still interested in understanding what he's saying...
HowToBeTV 2 years ago
well he is basically saying that liberty is more important than democracy .Imagine the people supporting mousavi rigged the election so that ahmadinejad would lost.
then no one would no matter inside or outside iran would tweet for ahmadinead because they are oppressing the people
so in that case no one would support the democratic system
besides he doesn't believe mousavi is a man who could do anything
gunit8590 2 years ago
Ohhhhh! That makes sense, thanks!
HowToBeTV 2 years ago
Well let me give it a shot too. In one sentence:
Even if the election wasn't stolen, the revolt is still justified because the people are oppressed.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
i wish more people would ask for deeper explainations when they dont understand something, rather than just quoting other people's opinions and not know what they are talking about. good for you =)
cassandra2140 2 years ago
lol that's just who I am, thank you.
HowToBeTV 2 years ago
Jose, i love that you made this video but i am a little disappointed that you left out an explainatin of the iranian government structure. for democracy to take hold, the iranians would have to also, in some manner, vote out the supreme leader ayatollah and the gaurdian council. this show of support doesnt address the fact that this vote is not really a move towards democracy if the ruling religious beings remain in control of the person voted into the office of president?
themightythor1212 2 years ago
so many people are mislead by the media thinking this is like a china uprising when in fact it is much less than that?
themightythor1212 2 years ago
there are no human rights in my minds being served until the ayatollah and gaurdian council are removed from power. it is only then the free will of people can best be served, much like the uprising in teinanmen square way way back in time
themightythor1212 2 years ago
Thanks for commenting, Thor. I don't think we know enough yet to judge the magnitude of this phenomenon. If the clerics can be divided there is a possibility for major reform.
My hope is this uprising will bring about a Magna Carta moment where the current power structure accepts a major change but is still around in some form to pacify its base. A few years later you push them again. Democracy used as a wedge rather than a bomb avoids the kind of power vacuum that felled the French Revolution.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
my hope is the same as yours, that in some way this movement pushs iran toward the freedoms we as american have known for centuries. as we know, all human are granted unalienable rights, maybe this will now be understood by common iranians and a move to a trually democratic iran will be realized. however, this remains a media event in my mind.iranians will never be free until the are allowed to govern them selves with out religious overseers
themightythor1212 2 years ago
That's the thing about this theocracy - they have supremacy overall, and even if they fall (God hopes) it's what they will do afterward. Of course, I don't believe that the people will be down with another dictatorship, but then again, I don't know Iran as well as I do Iraq, you never know in the chaos that ensues after a system of government fails and is deposed what will rise from the ashes.
Human rights must come first for sure, though, I believe you're right.
JPSalamancaMusic 2 years ago
Brilliant, Joe - Couldn't have said it better myself.
Kumbaya & Kudos.
adaveen 2 years ago
@ all comments
tl;dr
AshhhFTW 2 years ago
damm this is new to me i thought they were rioting because of blockbuster late fees ..thanks for the heads up on this joe ..now i know
cksteele 2 years ago
I have the exact opposite opinion. Democracy over human rights.
The reason is that human rights simply do not exists. There are no god given moral, only rules set up by humans on how we shall treat each other.
It may well be a good basis for a society to use "All people are created equal" but it is only a rule created by us.
We can only decide which rights are human rights by democracy, or how did you plan to decide what is a human right?
pirejknf 2 years ago
You don't need to believe in God to believe in inalienable rights; you just need to believe in fair play. Believe in the systemic benefit of agreeing on a few permanent rules before we fight over our temporary policies. These ground rules are what keep slavery and genocide out of bounds.
A democracy without minority rights is an invitation to end democracy, the same way football wouldn't be football if whichever team has possession also gets to be the referee.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
Well I wouldn't use Iranian state media at all. But we know there was a rigged election where an incumbent extremist falsely defeated a moderate challenger, followed by an uprising of persistent aggressive protest, the state reacted by jailing dissidents, purging journalists, and abusing demonstrators, and is now showing signs of wavering in its resolve. That's a decent picture.
Also, western media can be ultra fake, but it's not all ultra fake. American cable news channels are best to avoid.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
Thanks, Joe. I think you are spot on. I'm curious about your opinion on the right to bear arms in the case of the current Iranian "revolution." That is a crucial difference between 1979 and now. Please keep the political videos coming!
slapshot1519 2 years ago
I don't know the specifics of 1979, but I think the protestors are much better off unarmed. Their leaders plead with them to demonstrate peacefully and most of them abide. Passive resistance is by far the best strategy unless it can't succeed.
Dozens, possibly over a hundred, are dead from this movement so far, but can you imagine the casualties from an urban shooting war?
JoeFelice 2 years ago
in 1979 the savak and military could not stop the revolution because millions of people were on the streets
that time people were fed up with the shah (the majority)
but today there is still a great number who are still supporting this regime , because either religion or economy (many people make big profits because of this regime), or what
so today its way harder to overthrow the government
but it really concerns me why u are always talkking about a revolution
people on the streets are
gunit8590 2 years ago
necessarily against this regime
they are ust demanding for a recount, and persnally the want more freedom
but it doesn't really need a complete new regime
in some respect it's enough if the government respect the constitution , for example article 27: the right to demonstrate peacefully
gunit8590 2 years ago
As an outsider, maybe I am seeing through a biased lens, but the media we have directly from the demonstrators on YouTube and Twitter suggests to me a much deeper and older struggle than what happened on election day. To be clear, I am not hoping for another revolution, but major reform, and in those videos it certainly looks like people are willing to die for change.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
I agree that this seems deeper than an election issue. Even if it were somehow clear that no fraud occurred, I think the Iranians would still have something to say. I think the shady info coming out of this election gives some teeth or merit to their protest. I agree that a more armed conflict would unfortunately lead to more casualties, but The Boston Tea Party alone didn't help us gain our freedom...
slapshot1519 2 years ago
Now that Ive made my annoying comment on semantics, may I say:
It is very important that we are careful in the way that this event is handled. On one hand, given the cause (expansion of civil liberties of course), it is tempting to throw the weight of the country behind the riotous masses.
ianhoppe 2 years ago
By doing so, however, we may cast them as puppets of the United States and cheapen their cause, simply by supporting them. Although, a part of me wants to tell these people that they are not alone, that there are people on the outside that think what they are doing is awesome.
ianhoppe 2 years ago
Show your support; no one will confuse you with a puppeteer. It's the government's job to play it cool, which they're doing. This is a movement fueled by the fact that the world is watching, and an opportunity for Americans to bond with a people that they almost dropped bombs on.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
great point.
I wish you made more videos. your witty, well informed, and your will engage with your audience respectfully even when they disagree with your views.
thanks man. keep it coming.
ianhoppe 2 years ago
Nice Video Joe :) But Dude! I Peophile Beard Is Back! We Need Another Shaving Video XD
whitbygirl094 2 years ago
You make a VERY good point sir, I would agree with you entirely.
I will diverge at one point, though. At 2:50 you mentioned that any oppressed peoples, majority or minority, have the right and responsibility to revolt, ect.
The idea of Natural rights is a slippery slope.
ianhoppe 2 years ago
While I would say that an oppressed peoples definitely have the social responsibility to themselves and to their children to expand their civil liberties, the fate of their rights is hanging in the balance until the battle is won or lost.
Moot point: they dont have a right to fight for their rights.
ianhoppe 2 years ago
I think they do have a right to fight. In fact it is obliquely recognized in the American 1st and 2nd amendments by the right to petition, and the right of state militias to bear arms. Let alone the Declaration of Independence, Patrick Henry, the revolution itself. History is unambiguous. I think you speak to soon to declare the idea moot.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
This is going to devolve into semantics very quickly.
I agree with your explanation and conclusion, our disagreement lies in our definition of the term "right" I think.
We may recognize a people's "right to fight" as outlined in our bill of rights, etc. However, these people have yet to attain this particular right. This is obvious by the governmental response to public outcry. This "right" is what they are fighting for, not exercising.
Moot, as in it was pointless for me to point it out.
ianhoppe 2 years ago
I see above that you are averse to recognize natural rights, so there is the point of conflict. But in this you differ with, not only me, but mainstream western thought, and the Declaration of Independence.
Something being a slippery slope is not a reason to reject it wholesale, it just means it's harder to work it out. Maybe there's no natural right to food. But there is certainly one for free speech, equality, and for that matter resistance of tyranny.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
Jeremy Bentham is enough company for me.
Rights go no deeper than social contract theory. The idea that there are "endowed" rights (i.e. rights that cannot be infringed upon by an earthly sovereign) is obviously on the ropes right now. As there are people who do not have the right to speak freely.
We have no rights except those that we demand. Calling something a "natural right" does not necessarily make it so.
ianhoppe 2 years ago
Welcome back, Joe!
baronmorris 2 years ago
Liberty First! Democracy Second! ;-)
baronmorris 2 years ago
Great to see you back on youtube, and into politics no doubt. What's the deal Joe? Where have you been?
Are we going to have to wait until another general election to see you back regularly?
abishopobispo 2 years ago
hope not
JoeFelice 2 years ago
zakaria!
Donyvi 2 years ago
"Liberty First, Democracy Second." Profound, yet simple. Great speech man!
MrDeppness 2 years ago
I absolutely love your videos. Keep them coming!
willg46 2 years ago
well u are wrong about mousavi, in fact people honor his policiy during the war
he changelled the worst situation iran ever had concerning the economy
But it's funny to see americans and other western people showing solidarity with the iranians, but where were u during the war? when saddam killed by mailny american weapons 1 million iranians...
gunit8590 2 years ago
I hope you and bruce85 are right.
Now where were we during the Iran-Iraq war? I was 1 year old when it started so I don't know firsthand, but I can guess that the US was afraid of Iran in the wake of the hostage crisis and thought a war would weaken the regime.
Americans on the left generally regard our involvement in that war as wrong.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
i know the reasons
the us was not really afraid of iran because the new regime,
they just didn't want an independant state
i mean look at our history, it was just about oil
first the england and then us ,
so basically most of the people in 1979 wanted this revolution because of an independent state, freedom of speech, freedom of press , freedom of religion and so on
people in the west are looking at the government and and think that their values were carried by the revolution but that
gunit8590 2 years ago
I think you are a bit wrong on Mousavi. He was a hard liner before, but it seems like he has changed a lot since then. You can see that by him standing against Ayatollah Khameneie. He would have NEVER done that if he was a hard liner.
bruce85 2 years ago
Nice to see you back, Joe! And you're spot-on here. Hope to see more from you soon.
knibbles1882 2 years ago
good vid joe. its been awhile, you should post more often.
smittyfromthecity 2 years ago
Thought provoking! I couldn't have said it better, mainly because I'm not as articulate as you but also because I think in the rush to read the coverage I wasn't giving the actual issue of Liberty serious consideration
Liberty first, you are 101% correct!
leefryder 2 years ago
I love how i can learn something so cleverly hidden yet right in front of our eyes. Your point made me realize how sometimes we will blindly support a cause just because of a key words like democracy rather than analyze the situation more thoroughly. Thank you for your insight Joe.
mosle123 2 years ago 2
mosle123,
yup keeps me humble to experience myself getting excited about the word democracy. I too appreciate the reminder to remain cautious of falling prey to word play.
frane9r9r 2 years ago
Do they really want Musavi or is this also a chance for those that don't want the Mullahs, or a even a Theocracy, to stand up against their oppression?
AJAX556 2 years ago
That's a question of proportion, reform versus revolution. I don't think anybody knows yet. We have a lot of footage of young people fighting with riot police but they don't necessarily speak for the millions of voters, the older of whom, it is said, would consider avoidance of the bloodshed they saw 30 years ago their top priority. Thousands died.
For stability I would rather see the Ayatollah forced to make large concessions, a Magna Carta moment, than see a full purge and power vacuum.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
You're back! Nice! Great video to return with!
EmotionToilet 2 years ago
well said as always
Vewdew420 2 years ago 2
you put it in great perpective there joe i totally love that man, and you're right a nation to have democracy to work you have to work with people and give then there rights equaly, Thats how the system works here the United states, and with out rights all will trun into mud.
CrazyboyLA 2 years ago
Joe great to see you again on here man. Great brain food here, great vid. :)
Alphacat 2 years ago
Thanks a lot man, glad you caught it.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
half of supposed "uprise-leadership" in jail by now, and military-law is about to be an conciderable further fear...
Realizalize 2 years ago
I recently got to have this conversation with a psychologist. the psychologist disagreed with my point, about a democracy needing wealth to sustain it. if ahmadinejad had the resources to stop inflation, stop the GDP from falling and reverse unemployment figures, he could steal the election with little or no revolt to his rule (ala Bush jr).
hume12345 2 years ago
I still don't see how that's separate from democracy. After all, the second essential ideal of democracy is that the political rights of minorites must be protected. Democracy means that the passengers get to decide where the bus goes and who drives, but not who gets to ride.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
That sounds like a nice tricked out democracy with a constitutionalist mod. Iran's got a bootleg version. In theirs, everybody can ride but there's only one road.
By the way, we're not perfect. My argument is just as valid against the many US states that have voted in anti-gay amendments to their state constitutions in the last few years. But in the US, the courts are the final guardians of liberty and I'm confident that in time they will strike down those filthy instruments of bigotry.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
Well, of course, this is why they have to keep the focus on SAME-SEX marriage. The moment they allow it to become about homosexual marriage, this necessitates a legal definition of "homosexual" which will entitle this particular demographic to legal protection of its political rights.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
Great analysis, Joe. Once again, I agree with everything you say. Revolution, in it's core, always means one thing; people are tired of this shit! Honestly, I think it has very little to do with the election. The people are sick of their government, of being oppressed by religious extremists and the obvious indiscretion of the election rig has merely been their open window. No doubt a Mousavi victory wouldn't have benefited them much. But the people would have no grounds to revolt on.
Kaiem 2 years ago
You know what is great about Mousavi? Easy to spell. No double letters.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
Wow! I like you Joe.
And your little fishies too (insert Witch accent)
Thank you so much for putting to voice the requirement that individual rights are a necessity to sustain any democracy. For example, freedom of speech and press, which are being tested now in Iran, are absolute necessities if voters are to have the information upon which to make an educated choice. There is not a one-size-fits-all democracy, but there are indisputable necessities upon which all democracies must stand.
aknightg48 2 years ago
AH i've missed your videos!
you're probably my favorite youtuber that talks politics :]
you're awesome :)
shoutoutthewords 2 years ago
Words of wisdom:
You said " The Western constitutional governing system gets it right when it puts individual liberties first ahead of democracy, a powerful few should/must force an unwilling majority to comply with their rule if civil rights are at stake."
"Liberty first; democracy second"
"Inalienable rights"
Bravo !
I love your videos. I'm a fan. Thanks
Kachavite 2 years ago
Your commentary is absolutely enriching. It took me a while to come up with that word, but that's what it is. With respect to this election brouhaha in Iran I've kept up to date with everything, but had never quite thought of the situation in the light you just framed it in. Excellent, excellent, excellent commentary (as always). The next time the Iranian election comes up in conversation I'll be sure to throw these ideas into the mix!
pogobat 2 years ago
Thanks bro. We gotta talk about meeting up in NYC.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
You make a perfect sense, and your unbiased in-depth yet easy to follow intellectual analysis has helped me to connect the dots and to understand the situation much better. There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all democracy, and it would be hypocritical for us in the west to shove our version of democracy which took hundreds of years to establish on other nations who lack democratic institutions vital to sustain a democracy. Case in Point: African nations, and of course Iran.
Thanks
Kachavite 2 years ago
I love the fishies, however I completely disagree with the concept that we should only support democratic movements so long as they're in favour of things we believe in. If the situation was flipped and Ahmedinejad was the one who got cheated out of an election i'd be as strong a supporter of him as i am of Moussavi, the important thing is what the iranian people want - not what we want for them (Does that make sense?)
questionsleep9 2 years ago
Let me clarify. We SHOULD support democracy, except when democracy is used to sustain oppression (or for that matter, instigates war, which is an international form of oppression).
If Denmark voted to repeal the civil rights of women, would you support doing so, or are they entitled to their rights no matter what?
Supporting Ahmadinejad in our scenario would imply that human rights are up to the state, and descend from the state. But our rights are intrinsic. Even democracy can't take them.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
If the majority of the danish population voted to repeal the rights of women? I wouldn't support it actively, because i personally believe in womens right, but i'd respect the decision of the majority and let them repeal it. I also disagree that supporting Ahmadinejad in our scenario would imply that human rights are up to the state, in our scenario human rights would be up to the people. If the people want to be dictated, where's our justification for telling them not to?
questionsleep9 2 years ago
The justification is that it's always wrong to oppress people, even if everybody else wants to.
This value is shared by all free societies. Your rights are guaranteed no matter how unpopular you are. In the US we call them "inalienable". I don't know what that is in Danish, but your constitution actually guarantees more rights than mine, including the right to an education. If the Danes tried to keep Jewish kids out of their schools, your Supreme Court would force them to let the kids in.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
The supreme court however is enforcing a constitution that was agreed upon by the majority of the population, right? So that's still enforcement of the majority's will, constitutions can be changed if the majority wills it, and then the supreme court would abide by the new anti-semetic constitution. I can't possibly disagree that it's wrong to oppress people, but i do think that supporting a democratic movement only so long as it agrees with our beliefs concerning oppression, is wrong of us.
questionsleep9 2 years ago
A country can change it's constitution, but the theoretical ability to strip rights from an unpopular group is a bug, not a feature. Civil rights are considered permanent.
Your phrasing of "our beliefs concerning oppression" frames it as an opinion. Treating one group of your citizens as inferior to another is not a question of opinion, it's a question of fact. Injustice is a quantifiable fact and a universal crime. If the criminals outnumber the victims, right and wrong don't switch sides.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
I suppose you're right, the DNP didn't experience massive public opposition and there's no way I'd ever be able to stand idly by and let THEM exist on the argument of democratic justice. You convinced me. thanks for the discussion :) also, I think I forgot to mention in my first comment that your videos are great, I love your presentation. You're definitely one of my favourite subscriptions
questionsleep9 2 years ago
Yay! :)
Thanks man.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
Glad to watch a new video from you. Especially about this "hot topic" that even most of the news agencies can't fully understand or explain.
You made a good point: liberties over democracy, that's the way things should work.
zpooky 2 years ago
Is this the change Obama promised? The world spiraling into chaos, from America to the Middle East, everything descending into anarchy...
TruthTaste 2 years ago
Here's a man who sticks to his guns, reality be damned. TruthTaste, you and the Ayatollah are the two people who think the Iranian uprising is a bad thing.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
Actually once again you are wrong, I think it is awful that these human beings are being denied their fundamental right to protest. Ahmud should be tried for war crimes against our troops which he has continued even into Obama's presidency. Bush should be ashamed of not pursueing Iran in light of their war crimes against our bravest men and women. Perhaps Obama will honor our the troops that were killed/maimed by Ahmud's hand.
TruthTaste 2 years ago
Holy crap JoeFelice, you get it!
Wish there were more of you. :)
Amy31415 2 years ago