I love watching Libertarians trap statists with logic and reasoning. I wish he would have asked the statist if a majority voted it was okay to rape his wife and children and set fire to his house, would that be okay? That's usually when statists see the the value in natural rights, or at least get embarrassed by their illogical thinking.
people are being silly. inouye has been given the medal of honor for his loyalty to his country. he obviously is a pawn and doesn't understand how he protected oliver north by following the law. true believers of the law believe it to be pure, yet those that break the law and use the law to protect their actions will be invisible to people like inouye. the nwo understands this. he will be blamed and protected at the same time, and the whole time the real monsters are hiding in the darkness.
Jan, according to all of these state indoctrinated idiots you interview, It is okay for the state or gov't to take your property and kill you if it so desires. The state is your master.
What's wrong with you Jan? Don't you like living in this "free" country?
An animal takes the life or property from another to survive. We are animals. As a member of society we relinquish certain rights to obtain the benefits of communal living. We become 'civilized' and develop ethics and social norms as guidelines for interaction.
As a member of society, we relinquish the right to take from others; but in doing so, we do not automatically endow government with that right. We, as members of this society, have allowed our government this power. We can take it back.
To bad Molyneux refused to finish the debate and reneged on his commitment.You need more than half a round to get to the truth; sometimes 2 or 3 rounds. I am game.
Larken Rose has integrity but his view would lead him to give up his life rather than "violate someones rights"-this doesn't give you pause.
@davyjames davyjames is so personally attached to his philosophical and political opinions - not merely as useful tools to make his life better, but as defining characteristics of his very being, his reputation, and a gauge of his intellect - that he goes out of his way to criticize people who take great risks to expose the souls of very powerful people, and thus accomplish something in the real world. People like Jan Helfeld.
@davyjames No, it is only okay to force the people that want police and an army for free, they want it, they just don't want to pay for it. Anarchist should be given the chance to live separately with no gov. Which are you?
@janhelfeld I am anarchist. I love your videos and how you expose these people for having contradictory core principles. I'm just disappointed that you yourself fall down to the same style of questioning. If I don't have the right to take money from some people to give to other people, then neither should the government. But the same applies to military/police/courts etc.
In your debates with Molyneux and Larken Rose I found your rebuttals unsatisfactory. Love your work in general though x
@davyjames In your debates with Molyneux and Larken Rose:
To bad Molyneux refused to finish the debate and reneged on his commitment. You need more than half a round to get to the truth; sometimes 2 or 3 rounds. I am game.
Larken Rose has integrity but his view would lead him to give up his life rather than "violate someones rights"-this doesn't give you pause.
@janhelfeld I thought Molyneux's treatment of you when you phoned into his sunday show was rude. I'd like to see a 2nd round.
I disagree with Larken's self-sacrifice morality; that said, I see no reason why law and courts and defence couldn't be provided on a free market if that's what people demanded. Your stuff about tanks taking over and such just sounded like nonsense scare tactics to me, and I didn't feel you really understood the the anarchist position very well from the offse
janhelfeld, with "it is only okay to force the people that want police and an army for free", you denounce yourself worse than you've done to any quack in your videos. pathetic.
this'll be fun, jan, watching you run your often ludicrous essential-step-jumping 'socratic' routine on a voluntarist. i'll play:
i want a free 747. it is not okay to force me to pay for a 747 simply because i want it. similarly -- answering your question with precision -- it is not okay to force the people that want cheese and shirts for free to pay for them. if you compose your question more carefully, maybe you'll hit closer to what you're aiming for. for the ultimate miss.
maddirty, when insisting someone's missed the point, be sure the person isn't you. you should learn to read and understand precise english.
i know how these exchanges with fervent assuming noobs normally go. you won't review anything; you are sure (wrongly) that you've understood what i was talking about and that i'm horrendously, obviously wrong. you're wrong. review before running your fool yapper. if nothing else, review the history of your argument opponent. unlike you, i'm not anonymous.
@2ndAsstJizzMopper I apologize if I've missed your point and offended you in doing so. From the comments in this thread, however, it is difficult to see what exactly you're getting at. Would you care to elaborate on your position at all?
maddirty, the disconnect is in ascribing to "want" the action of "demand" and its normal villainous allies. i want (desire) all sorts of things; doesn't necessarily mean i'm initiating force against others. jan further loused up this equivocation by linking it, however vaguely/sloppily, to the delusional construct, common to so many "libertarians", that one may be forced rightfully to pay for a unilateral "service", so long as that "service" is "police" or military. "minarchism" hooey. bleh.
@2ndAsstJizzMopper Thanks for your cordial reply, I was obviously way off base and have a much better idea of where you're coming from now. I've been looking into some of your other YT comments and I have to say I find your positions really interesting and great food for thought. Any good reading you'd recommend?
cannot go wrong reading murray rothbard's "the ethics of liberty", free online at mises.org.
for old school economics coolness, doesn't get much better than frédéric bastiat's "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen", free online at bastiat.org. also check, "The Law" at the same site. same author.
tons more, but those are the first that come to mind. oh, and ayn rand is nearly peerless, despite massive imperfection. "Atlas Shrugged" is a gas.
The government authorizes its own actions against its own citizens through a process of synthesized consent. Many media outlets are complicit in this process. What Inouye is essentially doing is indicating that there is no such thing as objective morality, and its a view that he shares in common with most genocidal tyrants of the 20th century.
@1schwererziehbar1 he may be "consistent", but there's still the problem that the "opinion" is not logically sound (or valid). How can you "give" a right you do not have to begin with? People *must*, in fact, have such a right; they've simply "waived" their personal use of it and delegated that "right" to the government. If the power of our government derives from the consent of the governed (the people), then any "rights" of the government must have been held, at least initially, by the people.
one person does not have the right, so he can not give it to the state.
however a majority group of people DOES have the right to do anything to the minority, so they can delegate this right to their elected "leaders".
in my opinion this is logically sound.
optionally one could add the constitution and say that this majority only has the right to do things that are not constitutional, and a congressman may choose this version. but that's just an option.
@1schwererziehbar1 There's still a flaw in that logic. A "majority group of people" is made up of , well, people (i.e.individuals). If an individual person doesn't have a right, then where the heck does a "majority group" derive it from? The whole is no more or less than the sum of its parts. The only way this could make sense is if some people *do* have this right and a "majority group" will necessarily consist of one or more of these people ... but this seems a questionable solution at best.
does every cell of your body have the right to be unharmed. can a cell sue you if you kill it? see, you as a person are made up of, well, cells. if an individual cell doesn't have a right, then where the heck does a person derive it from? the whole is no more or less than the sum of its parts. the only way this could make sense is if some cells *do* have this right and a person will necessarily consist of one or more of these cells ... but this seems a questionable solution at best.
@1schwererziehbar1 nice parroting ... your "argument" doesn't hold though in part because a "person" isn't simply a collection of cells. Many would argue that a person is a collection of cells to which a "soul" (or "life force" if you prefer) is tied. Therefore it would be the "soul's" right not to be parted by another from this collection of cells ("killed") not an individual cell's right not to be "killed".
A collection of cells without a "life force" == corpse. Does a corpse have rights?
@1schwererziehbar1 also, your "opinion" can't make something logically sound. Only objectively evaluation of argument structure and the facts can determine whether an argument is logically sound. Remember an argument may be valid (does not break logical principles) and still not be sound (does not accurately reflect reality).
All mice are mammals.
Stuart Little is a mouse.
Therefore, Stuart little is a mammal. (valid + sound)
@asperin YT was effective at making things like this go viral... before GURGLE bought it out and began 'improving' it. There central 'improvement' was removing YOU and me from TUBE. :-( Next, Internet 2?
@asperin I believe the Owebama administration is reviewing and preparing for a 'kill switch'. Obviously with 'free speech zones' on college campuses the hope for truth finding its way seems very challenged.
I found truth in Christ- that was a huge leap and one, the only one, i can highly recommend for anyone tired and worn out of these tyrants.
It sounds like x Senator Daniel Inouye is a bit of an idiot who maintains a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitution he's sworn to uphold.
Shame that... but I doubt it's unusual - sadly.
MegatronAngel 3 months ago in playlist More videos from janhelfeld
well id have to say out of all the people he has questioned this guy kept his cool the best and id say gave the most reasonable answers
Jetsumo70 3 months ago
I love watching Libertarians trap statists with logic and reasoning. I wish he would have asked the statist if a majority voted it was okay to rape his wife and children and set fire to his house, would that be okay? That's usually when statists see the the value in natural rights, or at least get embarrassed by their illogical thinking.
razerfish 10 months ago
people are being silly. inouye has been given the medal of honor for his loyalty to his country. he obviously is a pawn and doesn't understand how he protected oliver north by following the law. true believers of the law believe it to be pure, yet those that break the law and use the law to protect their actions will be invisible to people like inouye. the nwo understands this. he will be blamed and protected at the same time, and the whole time the real monsters are hiding in the darkness.
onebadmoto 11 months ago
Another EXCELLENT question! "Can you delegate an authority you do not possess." So fundamental, so simple a concept, yet brilliant.
PistolPackingPatriot 1 year ago
Jan, according to all of these state indoctrinated idiots you interview, It is okay for the state or gov't to take your property and kill you if it so desires. The state is your master.
What's wrong with you Jan? Don't you like living in this "free" country?
tesla921 1 year ago
Wrong! This guy doesn't understand constitutional government. Power is derived from the constitution--not from the people.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
Thanks, that last statement was a gem. Hopefully I can remember it when arguing with statists.
limitedgovt999 1 year ago
An animal takes the life or property from another to survive. We are animals. As a member of society we relinquish certain rights to obtain the benefits of communal living. We become 'civilized' and develop ethics and social norms as guidelines for interaction.
As a member of society, we relinquish the right to take from others; but in doing so, we do not automatically endow government with that right. We, as members of this society, have allowed our government this power. We can take it back.
efox2001 1 year ago
"Can you properly delegate a right that you do not have?" That's a hell of a question, Jan! I'd love to know what his response was.
edmyster81 1 year ago
The answer to the last question is "yes'". Jan, you do some good interviews this was not one of them. You were owned by Senator Inouye.
CityDC 1 year ago
OMG - he would make a good Nazi, no such thing as an immoral law.
Martintfre 1 year ago
IMO this vid highlights the urgent requirement for a private and robust internet, soon. get the fuck off the goon grid.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 1 year ago
Jan helfeld thinks it's okay to initiate force and take people's property if it's to pay for things he likes: law courts, police and the army.
davyjames 1 year ago
davyjames, do you have a link handy i could check for that?
2ndAsstJizzMopper 1 year ago
@2ndAsstJizzMopper In your debates with Molyneux and Larken Rose
To bad Molyneux refused to finish the debate and reneged on his commitment.You need more than half a round to get to the truth; sometimes 2 or 3 rounds. I am game.
Larken Rose has integrity but his view would lead him to give up his life rather than "violate someones rights"-this doesn't give you pause.
janhelfeld 1 year ago
@davyjames davyjames is so personally attached to his philosophical and political opinions - not merely as useful tools to make his life better, but as defining characteristics of his very being, his reputation, and a gauge of his intellect - that he goes out of his way to criticize people who take great risks to expose the souls of very powerful people, and thus accomplish something in the real world. People like Jan Helfeld.
grantsinmypants2 1 year ago
@grantsinmypants2 THANKS.
janhelfeld 1 year ago
@davyjames No, it is only okay to force the people that want police and an army for free, they want it, they just don't want to pay for it. Anarchist should be given the chance to live separately with no gov. Which are you?
janhelfeld 1 year ago
@janhelfeld I am anarchist. I love your videos and how you expose these people for having contradictory core principles. I'm just disappointed that you yourself fall down to the same style of questioning. If I don't have the right to take money from some people to give to other people, then neither should the government. But the same applies to military/police/courts etc.
In your debates with Molyneux and Larken Rose I found your rebuttals unsatisfactory. Love your work in general though x
davyjames 1 year ago
@davyjames In your debates with Molyneux and Larken Rose:
To bad Molyneux refused to finish the debate and reneged on his commitment. You need more than half a round to get to the truth; sometimes 2 or 3 rounds. I am game.
Larken Rose has integrity but his view would lead him to give up his life rather than "violate someones rights"-this doesn't give you pause.
janhelfeld 1 year ago
Comment removed
davyjames 1 year ago
@janhelfeld I thought Molyneux's treatment of you when you phoned into his sunday show was rude. I'd like to see a 2nd round.
I disagree with Larken's self-sacrifice morality; that said, I see no reason why law and courts and defence couldn't be provided on a free market if that's what people demanded. Your stuff about tanks taking over and such just sounded like nonsense scare tactics to me, and I didn't feel you really understood the the anarchist position very well from the offse
davyjames 1 year ago
janhelfeld, with "it is only okay to force the people that want police and an army for free", you denounce yourself worse than you've done to any quack in your videos. pathetic.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 1 year ago
@2ndAsstJizzMopper Is it okay to force the people that want cheese and shirts for free to pay for them?
janhelfeld 1 year ago
this'll be fun, jan, watching you run your often ludicrous essential-step-jumping 'socratic' routine on a voluntarist. i'll play:
i want a free 747. it is not okay to force me to pay for a 747 simply because i want it. similarly -- answering your question with precision -- it is not okay to force the people that want cheese and shirts for free to pay for them. if you compose your question more carefully, maybe you'll hit closer to what you're aiming for. for the ultimate miss.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 1 year ago
Comment removed
maddirty 8 months ago
maddirty, when insisting someone's missed the point, be sure the person isn't you. you should learn to read and understand precise english.
i know how these exchanges with fervent assuming noobs normally go. you won't review anything; you are sure (wrongly) that you've understood what i was talking about and that i'm horrendously, obviously wrong. you're wrong. review before running your fool yapper. if nothing else, review the history of your argument opponent. unlike you, i'm not anonymous.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 8 months ago
@2ndAsstJizzMopper I apologize if I've missed your point and offended you in doing so. From the comments in this thread, however, it is difficult to see what exactly you're getting at. Would you care to elaborate on your position at all?
maddirty 8 months ago
maddirty, the disconnect is in ascribing to "want" the action of "demand" and its normal villainous allies. i want (desire) all sorts of things; doesn't necessarily mean i'm initiating force against others. jan further loused up this equivocation by linking it, however vaguely/sloppily, to the delusional construct, common to so many "libertarians", that one may be forced rightfully to pay for a unilateral "service", so long as that "service" is "police" or military. "minarchism" hooey. bleh.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 8 months ago
@2ndAsstJizzMopper Thanks for your cordial reply, I was obviously way off base and have a much better idea of where you're coming from now. I've been looking into some of your other YT comments and I have to say I find your positions really interesting and great food for thought. Any good reading you'd recommend?
maddirty 8 months ago
maddirty, glad this was straightened quickly.
cannot go wrong reading murray rothbard's "the ethics of liberty", free online at mises.org.
for old school economics coolness, doesn't get much better than frédéric bastiat's "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen", free online at bastiat.org. also check, "The Law" at the same site. same author.
tons more, but those are the first that come to mind. oh, and ayn rand is nearly peerless, despite massive imperfection. "Atlas Shrugged" is a gas.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 8 months ago
Those videos are way too short..... what did he say next?
CorrosionX3 1 year ago
The logical problem is, how can "the people" delegate a power that "the people" do not have?
CurtHowland 1 year ago 2
The government authorizes its own actions against its own citizens through a process of synthesized consent. Many media outlets are complicit in this process. What Inouye is essentially doing is indicating that there is no such thing as objective morality, and its a view that he shares in common with most genocidal tyrants of the 20th century.
hellsunicorn 1 year ago
Inouye doesn't answer the concept of a republic.
ALittleBitPregnant 1 year ago
the senator is consistent and he represents the opinion of the majority of people in the united states of america.
1schwererziehbar1 1 year ago
@1schwererziehbar1 he may be "consistent", but there's still the problem that the "opinion" is not logically sound (or valid). How can you "give" a right you do not have to begin with? People *must*, in fact, have such a right; they've simply "waived" their personal use of it and delegated that "right" to the government. If the power of our government derives from the consent of the governed (the people), then any "rights" of the government must have been held, at least initially, by the people.
MerlinYoda 1 year ago
@MerlinYoda
it is like this:
one person does not have the right, so he can not give it to the state.
however a majority group of people DOES have the right to do anything to the minority, so they can delegate this right to their elected "leaders".
in my opinion this is logically sound.
optionally one could add the constitution and say that this majority only has the right to do things that are not constitutional, and a congressman may choose this version. but that's just an option.
1schwererziehbar1 1 year ago
@1schwererziehbar1 There's still a flaw in that logic. A "majority group of people" is made up of , well, people (i.e.individuals). If an individual person doesn't have a right, then where the heck does a "majority group" derive it from? The whole is no more or less than the sum of its parts. The only way this could make sense is if some people *do* have this right and a "majority group" will necessarily consist of one or more of these people ... but this seems a questionable solution at best.
MerlinYoda 1 year ago
@MerlinYoda
does every cell of your body have the right to be unharmed. can a cell sue you if you kill it? see, you as a person are made up of, well, cells. if an individual cell doesn't have a right, then where the heck does a person derive it from? the whole is no more or less than the sum of its parts. the only way this could make sense is if some cells *do* have this right and a person will necessarily consist of one or more of these cells ... but this seems a questionable solution at best.
1schwererziehbar1 1 year ago
@1schwererziehbar1 nice parroting ... your "argument" doesn't hold though in part because a "person" isn't simply a collection of cells. Many would argue that a person is a collection of cells to which a "soul" (or "life force" if you prefer) is tied. Therefore it would be the "soul's" right not to be parted by another from this collection of cells ("killed") not an individual cell's right not to be "killed".
A collection of cells without a "life force" == corpse. Does a corpse have rights?
MerlinYoda 1 year ago
@1schwererziehbar1 also, your "opinion" can't make something logically sound. Only objectively evaluation of argument structure and the facts can determine whether an argument is logically sound. Remember an argument may be valid (does not break logical principles) and still not be sound (does not accurately reflect reality).
All mice are mammals.
Stuart Little is a mouse.
Therefore, Stuart little is a mammal. (valid + sound)
I am Stuart Little.
Therefore, I am a mammal. (valid, not sound)
MerlinYoda 1 year ago
Oh god....
masonkiller666 1 year ago
This is a good clip. Nice work. -r.
rockvpaper 1 year ago 2
Absolutely BRILLIANT!
anyusmoon1 1 year ago 6
Nancy Regan , Just Say NO !
scanlonized 1 year ago
"The authorization comes from the people". The "people" or better yet, the majority of voters.
Statism is losing ground. The Internet is making a lot of people reason about this monopoly on violence.
Back then, these programs were just played in local tv channels and never seen again, ignored by the MSM of course.
asperin 1 year ago 6
@asperin YT was effective at making things like this go viral... before GURGLE bought it out and began 'improving' it. There central 'improvement' was removing YOU and me from TUBE. :-( Next, Internet 2?
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@anyusmoon1
I know that, but truth finds its way. They only slowed it down a little, the process does not stop.
Internet 2? I don't know. State-controlled Internet is extremely disliked.
asperin 1 year ago
@asperin I believe the Owebama administration is reviewing and preparing for a 'kill switch'. Obviously with 'free speech zones' on college campuses the hope for truth finding its way seems very challenged.
I found truth in Christ- that was a huge leap and one, the only one, i can highly recommend for anyone tired and worn out of these tyrants.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@anyusmoon1
No Christ for me, thanks, I believe in myself, I don't want to depend on any extraterrestrial entities.
Humans need to stop expecting salvation and save themselves.
asperin 1 year ago