If it's not hurting my self interest ( like getting behind the wheel when you're fucked up and endangering my life or second hand smoke)then I don't really care too much what others do. Exceptions would be say to not sell drugs to people who can be held accountale for their actions such as children. Otherwise, alls fair game. Your rights end where another's begins. Not that anybody has any rights because they are made up. In this world might makes right. I do or do not b/c I can or can not.
Drug use itself isn't the problem. It's the black market business activities that require weapons and violence in order to operate. Make the drug market legal, and no one needs to be secretive or protective about it.
People have the right to put whatever they want in their bodies. The consequences are up to them to face. The laws affecting drugs need not be any different than laws affecting alcohol.
(from below)...because there's nothing to snitch about, and the street dealers no longer have any business. Funds would no longer need to be spent on crack crackdowns and other drug related ops. You'll probably see a rise of "high in public" incidents, but I'd gladly take that in exchange for lower murder rates. Minimum wage would need to be eliminated simultaneously so unskilled, inexperienced, would-be thugs have a better chance of getting a start at a low paying job instead of street habits.
LEGALIZING ALL DRUGS will reduce crime drastically, reducing govt. spending as well.
That way, they can be produced and distributed by legit farmers and chemists. Street thugs, terrorists, etc. will have to go find another job. The people who are addicted will have more money left over (due to higher drug supply lowering costs) to feed themselves and not be quite as ruined. Stray bullets aimed at snitches, rival dealers, etc. wouldn't be finding a home in a little girl's skull...(more above)
That congressman was an idiot. What is his standard of "helping" the crime problem if not to reduce it.
As far as unobjective law goes, I think the government implicitly knows what Ferris said explicitly to Rearden: that they need a lot of laws so they can pick and choose who to condemn. "Oops, created a recession.
What is the difference between a criminal and honest citizen? Money
If you get 'caught' you are fined. If you can't pay the tax or for a lawyer you are a criminal and go to jail.
I think the very definition of a crime is endangering others or infringing on their rights. Beyond that the courts and law enforcment should stay out of our lives.
It's illegal for me to have more then 1 unlicenced/ insured (taxed) vehicle on my property. Fines are just taxes.
If you don't pay the tax you pay the fine. If you can't pay either then your a criminal.
You are guilty until proven innocent.
I havn't met a judge yet that wouln't work with a person on making a payment plan. Don't don't f*ck with them. They have the best collection agency out there.
hkweasel, I disagree, because reducing crime is not a complex topic, as long as you think rationally and not emotionally about the problem. The causes, and solutions, are really pretty simple, as Jan laid out.
As always, politicians try to make simple things sound complex, to try and convince us that we need them to save us from ourselves.
Legalizing all drugs would be THE single biggest step we could take towards reducing violent crime in this country.
I happen to think that "crimes" shouldn't exist in the first place, so "reducing crime" is nonsense to me.
If Jan's interviewee was not completely addle-brained, though, he would point out that catching more criminals does not necessarily reduce crime. Criminals, once caught and punished, do not disappear into a void.
hkweasel, you believe there is no such thing as a crime?? To believe that, you must also think there is no such thing as a RIGHT, because a true crime is an act that violates the right(s) of another.
The penalty of certain death does deter murder, because it ELIMINATES the possibility of any further murders committed by that one individual. Dead men can't kill anyone. Whether his execution deters the crimes of others (I believe it does) is irrelevant. Justice = punishment, not deterrence.
No. "Crime" is a legal term. There are not crimes without laws.
Death does not deter murder; look at the statistics. Empirical evidence always trumps theories of principle. Your theory is not supported by evidence.
You answer then. He's right, everybody is different, everybody has different wants, beliefs, moral systems and that will never change etc. Unhappiness leads to crime, there are many reasons why one is unhappy, the solution is happiness. But there is no 1 answer, in other words, there will always be crime and as population grows, crime rates will always rise, not on a year to year basis per say but more like on a decade scale. All of jan's ideas are right but you have to implement all
Both jan and the congressman post good ideas, which all of them would need to be implemented. The only way around crime would be if your every move was monitored, and would you want to live in that kind of world anyway???
@masonkiller666 seriously? look up "CIA drug trafficking". Most americans are on some kind of drug or another, whether pharmaceuticals or illegal substances.
If it's not hurting my self interest ( like getting behind the wheel when you're fucked up and endangering my life or second hand smoke)then I don't really care too much what others do. Exceptions would be say to not sell drugs to people who can be held accountale for their actions such as children. Otherwise, alls fair game. Your rights end where another's begins. Not that anybody has any rights because they are made up. In this world might makes right. I do or do not b/c I can or can not.
1misanthropist 9 months ago
Jan, you are wrong on this one.
Your assumption that everyone is logical and rational is a false assumption.
agent008t 1 year ago 2
@agent008t Are you rational and logical sometimes?
Aryaba 1 year ago
Good questions!
hugesinker 1 year ago
have you read a lot of mises and rothbard???
oiuoiu988 1 year ago
It looks like this guy is extremely uncomfortable with this line of questioning lol...
NottsBenAllan 1 year ago
Drug use itself isn't the problem. It's the black market business activities that require weapons and violence in order to operate. Make the drug market legal, and no one needs to be secretive or protective about it.
People have the right to put whatever they want in their bodies. The consequences are up to them to face. The laws affecting drugs need not be any different than laws affecting alcohol.
dbmasta 1 year ago 5
government is our parent though. And we all must come to accept the belief system of our glorious leaders.
n66178 1 year ago
(from below)...because there's nothing to snitch about, and the street dealers no longer have any business. Funds would no longer need to be spent on crack crackdowns and other drug related ops. You'll probably see a rise of "high in public" incidents, but I'd gladly take that in exchange for lower murder rates. Minimum wage would need to be eliminated simultaneously so unskilled, inexperienced, would-be thugs have a better chance of getting a start at a low paying job instead of street habits.
dbmasta 1 year ago 3
LEGALIZING ALL DRUGS will reduce crime drastically, reducing govt. spending as well.
That way, they can be produced and distributed by legit farmers and chemists. Street thugs, terrorists, etc. will have to go find another job. The people who are addicted will have more money left over (due to higher drug supply lowering costs) to feed themselves and not be quite as ruined. Stray bullets aimed at snitches, rival dealers, etc. wouldn't be finding a home in a little girl's skull...(more above)
dbmasta 1 year ago 4
Crime pays. Especially if you get elected.
Politicians steal more money and property from the citizens of this country than anybody else.
Explaining that to state indoctrinated automatons is not easy. Keep trying Jan. I'm lov'in it.
tesla921 2 years ago
That congressman was an idiot. What is his standard of "helping" the crime problem if not to reduce it.
As far as unobjective law goes, I think the government implicitly knows what Ferris said explicitly to Rearden: that they need a lot of laws so they can pick and choose who to condemn. "Oops, created a recession.
horvay 2 years ago
"oops, created a recession, better go find a law and regulation that the businessmen haven't been following!"
horvay 2 years ago
less laws = less crime.
blue46gt 2 years ago 2
Less unobjective laws means less crimes.
WarVideo 2 years ago
What is the difference between a criminal and honest citizen? Money
If you get 'caught' you are fined. If you can't pay the tax or for a lawyer you are a criminal and go to jail.
I think the very definition of a crime is endangering others or infringing on their rights. Beyond that the courts and law enforcment should stay out of our lives.
It's illegal for me to have more then 1 unlicenced/ insured (taxed) vehicle on my property. Fines are just taxes.
deadman12078 2 years ago
If you don't pay the tax you pay the fine. If you can't pay either then your a criminal.
You are guilty until proven innocent.
I havn't met a judge yet that wouln't work with a person on making a payment plan. Don't don't f*ck with them. They have the best collection agency out there.
deadman12078 2 years ago
Great work!!!!
jwsphilippinesgold 2 years ago
The Government need crime, without crime there's no need for them......
kevbrav 2 years ago
call masturbation a crime and strangely enough crime will prove to be in an upswing, despite the gvt's best efforts.
In de EU potato peel knives now fall under the weapons restrictions laws, now that is a certain way to keep crime in an upswing.
modelmark 2 years ago
On one hand these interviews are great, but they just cause people to not be interviewed by him.
capitalist4life 2 years ago
and we the voting public let them get away with it.
vipero00 2 years ago
This guy is still an idiot since the first time i saw this same video a month ago - what is the point of showing this again?
olecodjur 2 years ago
This video has not been shown before. Did you see it?
janhelfeld 2 years ago
What are you smoking and can I have some?
jryan1971 2 years ago
Decriminalize human nature
sonnybrakes 2 years ago 2
Excellent Question:
If a higher percentage of criminals are caught and punished, would that reduce crime?
rflosi 2 years ago
my least favorite jan helfeld interview. his arguments on how to reduce crime are intellectually bankrupt.
hkweasel 2 years ago 2
hkweasel, I disagree, because reducing crime is not a complex topic, as long as you think rationally and not emotionally about the problem. The causes, and solutions, are really pretty simple, as Jan laid out.
As always, politicians try to make simple things sound complex, to try and convince us that we need them to save us from ourselves.
Legalizing all drugs would be THE single biggest step we could take towards reducing violent crime in this country.
BRYAN351 2 years ago
Your right. Dealers can't go to the cops when they get robbed so what do they do? They take matters into their own hands.
If a guy runs a small store that sold drugs and it was getting held up they'd call the cops and the owner would put a gun behind the counter.
A dealer can't open a store or ask for assistance from the police. He'll get a gun though and make sure he never gets held up again without a fight.
deadman12078 2 years ago
I happen to think that "crimes" shouldn't exist in the first place, so "reducing crime" is nonsense to me.
If Jan's interviewee was not completely addle-brained, though, he would point out that catching more criminals does not necessarily reduce crime. Criminals, once caught and punished, do not disappear into a void.
...
hkweasel 2 years ago
hkweasel, you believe there is no such thing as a crime?? To believe that, you must also think there is no such thing as a RIGHT, because a true crime is an act that violates the right(s) of another.
The penalty of certain death does deter murder, because it ELIMINATES the possibility of any further murders committed by that one individual. Dead men can't kill anyone. Whether his execution deters the crimes of others (I believe it does) is irrelevant. Justice = punishment, not deterrence.
BRYAN351 2 years ago
No. "Crime" is a legal term. There are not crimes without laws.
Death does not deter murder; look at the statistics. Empirical evidence always trumps theories of principle. Your theory is not supported by evidence.
hkweasel 2 years ago
...
In fact, threatening criminals with CERTAIN DEATH after being caught doesn't even successfully deter them.
This is not to imply that politicians have the right idea, but Jan doesn't, either.
hkweasel 2 years ago
nice videos, keep them coming!
warzmx 2 years ago 5
This guy can't answer a single question directly. Such stereotypical "politician replies"
masonkiller666 2 years ago
You answer then. He's right, everybody is different, everybody has different wants, beliefs, moral systems and that will never change etc. Unhappiness leads to crime, there are many reasons why one is unhappy, the solution is happiness. But there is no 1 answer, in other words, there will always be crime and as population grows, crime rates will always rise, not on a year to year basis per say but more like on a decade scale. All of jan's ideas are right but you have to implement all
chrism20 2 years ago
Both jan and the congressman post good ideas, which all of them would need to be implemented. The only way around crime would be if your every move was monitored, and would you want to live in that kind of world anyway???
chrism20 2 years ago 2
But the government is the one who brings the drugs into this country.
MrBankRuns 2 years ago
WHAAAAT? The government? What are you talking about?
masonkiller666 2 years ago
@masonkiller666 seriously? look up "CIA drug trafficking". Most americans are on some kind of drug or another, whether pharmaceuticals or illegal substances.
anandarew 2 years ago
The government commits more crime then its citizens as well.
D0g63rt 2 years ago