A quick way out of these questions is simply to say that individuals had the right to initiate physical force against other citizens in the pre-political state (state of nature). When forming the political association, they delegated their right to the government.
@janhelfeld I don't personally believe that it is morally right to initiate force in the pre-political state. However who am I to say that my moral beliefs should be shared by everybody. Who says that the non-aggression principle holds in the state of nature? God? Our collective reason, as Locke would say? Indeed, I think the difference between you and me is that you believe in Lockean natural rights based on I don't know what while I believe in post-political individual rights. (continued)
@johnmetivier In my opinion, there are no universals. If you say that there is a standard of morality in the state of nature, then you imply that there is at least one universal, namely the Lockean law of nature. In the state of nature, I can do whatever I want, I am not restrained by anything. Upon entering the political association, I forfeit my complete freedom from coercion and adhere to some principle. Minarchists and libertarians say the non-aggression principle but it could be sth else.
@johnmetivier "I don't personally believe that it is morally right to initiate force in the pre-political state." Then you could not use this answer to deflect my questions. The answer to your good questions is too long. Sorry.
@janhelfeld Can you answer if I limit my questions to these: Do you think that the non-aggression principle holds in the pre-political state? If so, from what do you derive it? Or is it baseless? Thank you.
I'm loving the I'll grant an interview to someone I don't know anything about but then afterwards want his information so I can harass and intimidate him for asking questions I don't want to answer. At 4:17 Bernie basically validated the Holocaust by saying delegation of force is cool in a democracy. Mob rule and violence via the voting both. I wonder how he feels about Operation Fast and Furious.
Can't they see the moat DC's replaced the beltway with? Or that the only beneficiaries of redistribution of wealthonly serves the official's reelection? Republican and Democrat? When was the last time anyone other than a 5 figure donator got a reply from their "rep" that wasn't a retarded form letter? Alas, why isn't philosophy taught early on? DOE? Govt compliance training. Where are the exceptional freedom loving Greeks and Italians going to flee to? We're in worse shape than they are.......
Unbelievable, Jan. An interview posted 3 yrs ago and the comments just keep rolling in....only other place i see this happen is when someone posts a really good Beatles video.
I wish these commenters from 3 yrs ago would come back today-tell us what good they think govt's [group, collective, community, whatever] 'rights' have done to the country and individual rights since then. Are we better off? Those 'negative govt rights' have conspicuously become 'positive govt rights'. [continued]
if you dont pay a parking ticket, eventually the police will come for you, if you sufficiently resist, they claim the right to kill you. Government IS force. Sanders just claimed that Government is freedom!! Orwellian doesnt even begin to describe that statement!
Mr. Helfeld , Another home run ! "Would you like to do the show on minimum wage ?" will go down as the most brazen question ever asked of a politician.
But I have to say that all of it is a bit pointless. The "good" people of vermont still insist on sending this joker to the Sneate again and again !!
Bernie, Bernie, Bernie, all LAWS *DO* end up in physical force if they are not followed. It could be as simple as a jay-walking ticket that goes unpaid. Eventually, in the end, their is force by government.
Governments do not - and never have - existed because individuals delegated rights to them. Presenting governments in that way was a retrospective justification by enlightenment thinkers who got it wrong. In fact, governments existed, and still exist, for more practical reasons - for instance, because within an interstate system, a populated area without a state will quickly be absorbed and/or dominated by an already existing state. Taking that into account undermines your line of questions.
Did individual citizens have the right to initiate physical force against other citizens who had not initiated or threatened to initiate physical force? No.
"If they never had that right, could they have delegated it to the government?" Yes.
Why? Aren't these answers mutually exclusive? The people delegate to government not only individual rights, but also communal/collective rights. The right to initiate physical force against a person is a collective right of collective protection.
@LiberalAven What our collective rights? Who has them? Is society an entity? Does it have objectives and take actions apart from the individuals that compose it? Have you ever seen a society ride a bicycle? See youtube interviews with David Broder.
@janhelfeld - "What our collective rights?" (Taken as "what are collective rights?" as I'm fairly sure that's what you meant): Collective rights are those of a group/society, large or small, and exist in-virtue of individuals being unwilling (or flat-out unable) to exercise their power on their own. These rights are separate from individual rights, as they cannot exist without the prior formation of the group(s) that they pertain to. The waging of war is a collective right.
@janhelfeld - Content limits on YouTube comments will keep me from answering all of those questions in one post. Collective rights are those of a body of people, and specifically rights that cannot exist until a body of people organizes themselves into a collective group. The collective, as a whole, holds the collective rights. Societies are formulations of people with mutual long-term interests that only a collective group can make possible, and are entities in that sense.
Did the individual citizens ever have the right to initiate physical force against other citizens that had not initiated or threatened to initiate physical force? Hmmm... That is a good question.
Bernie Sanders was smart enough to know where the logic lead, that is why he acted befuddled and upset with the questioning. Governments need a reason to use force that is rooted in some principle; people shouldn't allow them to use force and power capriciously. If you were to say governments have rights that individuals don't then we need a clearly defined list of powers and rights such as a constitution but even then you still could argue if illegality is the same as immorality and vice versa.
Look, I know the government derives it's powers from the people, and perhaps the word "rights" is the issue since in English the meaning is broader than in the constitution. But, the government must necessarily be able to extend those powers beyond what mere individuals can do. I would agree that nuclear weapons extend from our right to defend ourselves. But, I wouldn't say because an individual can't legally do something that the government 'necessarily' can't do it.
@technowey "But, I wouldn't say because an individual can't legally do something that the government 'necessarily' can't do it.- I agree: because the individuals can agree that in order for their individual rights to be best protected, the government, not individuals should perform a particular function, like managing nukes.
@janhelfeld - Glad to hear you agree that the government should be able to do some things that individuals do not have the right to do. I'm not a fan of Bernie Sander's politics, but I can certainly see why he would object to explaining that fundamental concept. I do apologize for my name-calling before, it was beneath me to do it. I was angry at you. Bernie Sanders was angry at you. Nancy Pelosi was made angry at you in another video. I'm generally not on their side, but I was angry too!
@technowey The government should have the legal right to do something that individuals should not do. The government has no moral right to do something that individuals don't have the right to do because all of the gov rights come from the people.
@janhelfeld - Then, according to you, the government has no moral right to have nuclear weapons because an individual has no such right. But, if the government did not have such weapons, we'd probably (eventually) be invaded by some country that had nuclear weapons. So, the government has the moral right to have nuclear weapons. Similarly, your implied argument in that video is flawed, the government can morally extend rights in ways individuals can't. - which is my point.
@technowey The individual does have the moral right to nukes (any weapons for self defense). He has delegated this right to the government and now has no legal right to nukes. He has properly determined that he is safer that way. When you use the word right do you mean moral or legal?ARE THEY THE SAME TO YOU? if not, define them.
@janhelfeld - You wrote: "The individual does have the moral right to nukes (any weapons for self defense)."
What?! No, the individual has no such right, and never has. The right to bear arms would not extend to nuclear weapons. Nor did most citizens delegate the right to nuclear weapons to the government, at least not initially, these weapons were made in secret by scientists hired by the government and not revealed until just before they were first used. There was no delegating.
@technowey I did my best to explain my position. I asked you a question, you refused to answer. One last tip, don't rely on dictionaries for philosophic wisdom. Maybe someday I can interview you. Until you answer my question we are just talking past each other. Let me know if you'd in DC. It will be a pleasure to interview.
@janhelfeld - I did answer your TWO questions. You wrote:
"When you use the word right do you mean moral or legal?ARE THEY THE SAME TO YOU? if not, define them."
I DID answered your TWO questions, I meant moral in some cases and legal in others in my earlier posts that predate my post about that. word. I made MANY posts. I also told you the words did not mean the same.
Reading is fundamental.
I ignored your directive telling me to do something. I use the meanings in the dictionary.
@janhelfeld - When I write I DID answer your questions, I'm referring to the quote below where I responded: "When I write "right" in some places, I mean moral, and in others legal. Read my post about this, which is presently above."
And another post where I wrote: "No, "moral" and "legal" are not necessarily the same thing."
Those are the only two questions you've asked. By the way, you also ignore both responses that are made and questions you're asked in the video.
@janhelfeld - No, "moral" and "legal" are not necessarily the same thing.
Look them up in the dictionary yourself. I already know what they mean and realize they're different..
The government has both the moral and legal right to do SOME THINGS" citizens cannot do to satisfy the rights the gov. derive from the people. Possessing nuclear weapons is just one example.
@janhelfeld - When I write "right" in some places, I mean moral, and in others legal. Read my post about this, which is presently above. If you don't understand it, I can't explain it.
The example I gave of nuclear weapons is quite clear. The government has both the moral and legal right to have those. They're a necessity because other have them and the government has to have them to defend us (M.A.D.) You and I don't have that right. That's a counterexample to your implication...
@janhelfeld - In addition Jan, your questions all involve implications. The meaning of my posts is obvious to any intelligent person who is paying attention. I've posted a counterexample to your repeated implication that the government 'necessarily' has no right (either legal or moral) to do what an individual has no right to do. That's false. The 'goals' of government derive from the people, but not the implementation of those goals. Do you understand that? Yes, or no?
@technowey - You have a certain charisma - you could be a great journalist. If you cut off all your high-level sources, you'll be relegated to just re-issuing old news.
I'm not suggesting that you don't ask hard questions, but they should be asked once, perhaps twice, and then move on. We viewers aren't (generally) stupid and we can judge. I'll try to be your fan as an apology for my overreaction before. Of course, it's your show, you can do what you want, that's just my feedback.
In this case of nukes, the government derives its right to have nukes from the people. When the government has nuclear weapons they are doing so based on a delegated right, the right of self-defense that comes from the people. The government has properly decided that in order to defend the individual rights of the citizens it is better for them not to have the legal right to have nukes and only the government has the legal right to have nukes.
@janhelfeld - Individuals don't have the right to have nuclear weapons- the government does have that right. So that right cannot be delegated by individuals to the government.
The idea you imply that I reject is the idea that groups and individuals should necessarily have the same set of rights. That idea is absurd.
@Tummler - LOL - Of course I understand that, which is why I wrote exactly that example! Finally you get my point.
The government does have the "right" to own nuclear weapons, so it is a "right." It's not a "right" in the sense of the constitution uses the word. See my earlier post about that distinction. Nonetheless, you should be able to come up with a cogent argument why it's that way, I could! In short, if individuals could have nuclear weapons, the world would be a dangerous place!
@technowey The government doesn't have the right to just own anything it wants. The government has to derive its powers from some principle, i.e. with nukes it obtains its right from a right to defend itself. As Jan was saying if there is no right or principle for individual citizens to steal from each other then the government has no right to steal from citizens and give proceeds to other citizens. Read Frederic Bastiat's The Law as I am obviously doing a bad job of explaing this.
@Tummler - Tummers - I'm addressing "the video!" where the query: "Do the individual citizens ever have the right to initiate force against other citizens that have not initiated a threat of physical force?" was asked repeatedly. The government may use force in ways citizens cannot. What that derives from is relevant, but only in justifying the goal of defense, not to promote the idea that the government is as restricted as a citizen. I have not mentioned stealing or ownership. You did that.
I do agree that in certain cases a group has certain basic rights that individuals have, such as the right to defend oneself, and the group does obtain that right because the individuals have it, but it doesn't work in reverse. Groups have rights individuals cannot and should not possess. For example, the U.S. Government has the right to possess nuclear weapons. You and I do not have that right, nor should we. But, collectively we do own them as a country. Do you see?
@janhelfeld - Yes, and yet the people do not have the right to own nukes. That's my point. You're essentially agreeing with what I wrote, which was:
"I do agree that the rights of individuals do often pass to a larger group, but these rights often take a much larger form in a group. For example, the group has the right to possess nuclear weapons. An individual doesn't have that right."
And, there are rights groups have the individuals do not have at all. An individual cannot declare war.
@technowey The issue is whether the government can properly have rights that were not delegated to it by the people. If the individuals do not have the moral right to initiate force then the government cannot have that right either. Notice that we are talking about moral rights not legal rights.
So for example the southern states in the 19th century gave white citizens the legal right to have slaves but they could never give them the moral right because it was always wrong.
I see that you are getting away from a collective right to steal but I will take the bait on your nuke theory. Of course no one individual should have the power that comes with owning a nuke which is why we delegate that kind of responsibility to a collective of the people, who in turn equally share that responsibility of how to use it. (Cont.)
Self-defense is relative: I own a gun which I can use to defend myself against others to a certain degree while countries own nukes to defend against others to a much greater degree. And on your other point, individuals can declare war, although they probably won't be successful!
Duh, of course people collectively have rights that individuals do not have.
Nonetheless, Bernie Sanders is wrong for wanting to know who runs the show and who pays for it. It's a veiled political threat, and it troubles me that politicians think this way. It shouldn't matter. All he had to do was answer, yes, an organized group of people has rights that individuals do not have.
@Tummler - I never wrote that. I wrote that groups have rights individuals do not have.
I did 'not' write that all groups have all rights that individuals do not have.
Collectively, a group has the right to declare war on a country. Collectively we can elect our leaders. Individually, we cannot, and should not be able to do these things. The interviewer is an idiot.
@technowey But isn't a group of people, no matter how big and whatever you want to call it, a collection of individuals? And if individuals don't have certain rights, how can a group of individuals obtain rights they didn't have as individuals? And then to delegate those rights they never had to other individuals further obfuscates the matter. If individuals have a right to protect themselves they can delegate that right to others, but they can't delegate a right of stealing to others. See?
@Tummler - The error in that logic is the assumption that a group of individuals 'obtain' their rights from each individual. A group has inherent rights individuals do not have at all. Your example is a 'straw man' example because stealing is wrong. I do agree that the rights of individuals do often pass to a larger group, but these rights often take a much larger form in a group. For example, the group has the right to possess nuclear weapons. An individual doesn't have that right.
Actually, I would say that laws are an initiation of force. There is no doubt about it. If I don't have the right to make a law, how can I delegate that right to someone else, even if she or he works for the government?
I like the interviewer and technique, but I 'm sad that Bernie didn't answer. Of course, individuals and communities did undertake violent action against others without any specific "right" to do so... it is in exactly such an environment that community arises and why it defends its members.
About this "initiation of force" Would it have been so difficult for Jan to provide an example of he meant by that? Because, as stated, this question is a three-card Monte sitting on bullshit. Theorizing in a vacuum doesn't advance a discussion one bit.
Provide CONTEXT and thou shall be taken seriously.
Cognitive dissonance is a bitch. The flaw in thinking occurs when an artificial dichotomy is accepted as truth. e.g. The initiation of force is wrong for you, but not me, because I am government. This is an ambiguous application of moral principles and a philosophical contradiction.
It's time to ask Bernie Sanders why he sold out on S604 (Audit The Fed). Sanders was very vocal about FED transparency. Rep. Paul's bill got gutted in the house by Mel Watt, but was amended with the original language and went to the senate.
After the trash the senator threw at Bernakie about transparency you would think Sanders would have at least put up a fight. He rolled over and there is less transparency and the FED has more power. Thank you Sanders for showing your true colors.
I am one who has the opinion that our governments motives are without consideration of rights of the american citizens. The goal elected officials is to mindfuck the people into submission... and then to make you feel good about voting. I have never beens so disgusted in my country as I am now, and it all started with the election of george w bush. george bush is a war criminal, and he used his religion and the trust of the american public while he violated the oath of office. excecute him.
What Mr. Helfeld reveals so brilliantly is the total lack of principled, logical reasoning on the part of those such as Sanders who put themselves forth as "servants of the people". Sanders & his ilk have no idea what a right is vs. a privilege, but presume to have the wisdom to propose & enact laws that in many cases do reflect the use of force. Minimum wage laws are a classic example of this. It frightens me that so many of the comments here reflect such disdain for logic & liberty.
Mr. Helfeld, Libertarianism is all well & good if one lives isolated in a forest or desert and doesn't require one single thing from government or others. No roads, schools, no worries about pollutants from China floating over to our country, no wars, etc.
Your view of politics and of nations is overly simplistic.
While the Senator was obviously being illogical, the paradox arises from the fact that YES, before a government was set up the people did have the right to impose physical force against another person that has not initiated physical force.
It is a natural right, so to speak. And the people then did delegate this right to their government.
@agent008t And again I say what does any of this have to do with the fact Senator Sanders did not try to answer such an absurd question. Before we had Government or modern Democracy the law of the land was who ever held the biggest gun. We now (Thank God) live in a peaceful civil society governed by the officials we elect. If we are not happy with those in power we can simply vote them out of power. No riots in the streets needed, violence is no longer needed.
The question was. Has a citizen ever had the right to impose physical force against another citizen that has not initiated physical force? What kind of question is that? And what could Senator Sander possible add to such an absurd question. I guess Slavery could have perhaps been the answer. Or perhaps before minimum wage, when people were forced to work long hours and had to accept whatever their powerful employer wanted to pay with no personal rights of their own.
bernie sanders=socialist=bad for america...politicians are bad for america period..lets see now...car salesmen, lawyers, politicians...never the most upstanding citizens but i think i know which is worst..politicians by far and then lawyers since most politicians are lawyers...oh is america in deep shit...and now a socialist president...and an uninformed voting public that drinks kool aide without question..i would say america is in lots of trouble here
You obviously have no idea as to what Socialism is. I suspect that you get your definition of terms from Fox News. Obama is a Socialist? That's some pretty silly stuff right there.
he is right about people electing their officials the only problem with politicians Is once they are elected they become so greedy and power hungry they give themselves raises and pass laws to ensure their own wealth and stability passing it off as doing what the ppl want.
Being a politician is no longer a patriots calling, it is simply the job for the ultimate narcissist
I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. If all government power is delegated by the people and people do not have the right to initiate force against others then initiation of force by the government is illegitimate because people cannot delegate a right they do not have.
You guys crack me up. You are looking for a chicken v. egg type of logical reasoning reductionist reasoning. Does the U.S. Gov. have the right to give birth? Does it have the right to discuss and pass laws concerning births & citizenship?
How can there be entire set of people who think it's ok to hire government to use force against others (taxation, life style laws, regulation of business, etc.), when they'll admit that individuals do not have any right to use force against others? Read America's moral philosopher, Ayn Rand.
Oh I dunno... The Constitution, I'm guessing. That pesky thing in there Art. 1. Sec. 8. Clause 1. that our founding fathers wrote explicitly to institute a government that would allow congress to tax, in the VERY FIRST FREAKING article. That little document that got the US it's nation and that some Americas fight/fought and died for. Yeah, an "entire set of people" consisting of what's probably easy to guess at around 90% of the population of the Earth. Industrialized, at least. "Civilization"
And, yet the moral principle is that each person has a right to live his life as he chooses, without others using physical force against him, so long as he does not do that to others. And, looking closely at Article I, Section 9, paragraph 4, it is also clear that the same Constitution forbids government from imposing a tax on persons. So, let your sarcastic acid drip on your own head. . .or, maybe it already has and that's the problem with your not doing enough homework to avoid your comment.
She was an American by conscious choice. What did you do other than be born here? As for caring (wanting good for others), that doesn''t seem to be one of your virtues.
Way to flush these fuckers out. Talk about no intellectual honesty or integrity! All these politicians/lawyers and experts on doublespeak can't get out of the trap of logic and answer simple questions without revealing the dishonesty. I commend Bernie Sanders for at least running as a socialist instead of cloaking himself in a centrist mask like the Trojan Horse socialist Obama!
we have to assume that the average person, which politicians are, will never have the logical ability jan has. we need a political system that can withstand this weakness. to me that means a system similar to a free market system where failure can be isolated and contained. that means no federal government, only state governments, with a nato like structure for national defense. if one state fails, it wont take down the whole country as a federal one would.
If you can't argue the points that Mr Helfeld was trying to make your comment is nothing more than an ad hominem.
It's frankly sickening that Mr Sanders can't answer that question and contradicts himself. He doesn't seem to have the ability to reason and logically come to a conclusion. He is not being truthful.
how do you get these interviews? You don't seem to work for any legitimate media outlet, nor do you seem to be interested in increasing the public discourse. You seem to be interested only in theatre to try and show how everyone's wrong in their thinking, and you're right, which doesn't seem very often to be the case. you sir, are a hack.
Over 2000 views and not one V-response either? I can't think of enough people who WOULDN'T take issue with the "logic" of the questioning. If no one has rights (because no one can give or take rights) then what gives one the right to say anything? Anyway, even in libertarianism it makes this argument about taxation, and then comes BACK to constitutionalism, and supporting the idea of a republic. I know anarchists who would think this guy is an idiot. "Hack" is an understatement.
After watching these interviews, all I can say is we are in BIG trouble. Its scary to know how much politicians DON'T understand the foundation of this country and the Constitution. I wonder if Sanders ever read the Declaration of Independence.
@y2knoproblem - Of course Senator Sanders has read the Declaration of Independence. He's one of the best educated in the US Senate regarding the foundation of our republic. During his time in the US House of Representatives (before he ran for the Senate), Sanders got along quite well with Rep. Ron Paul (TX) BECAUSE of his deep understandings of the Founding Fathers, the early republic, liberty, democracy, and economics.
This politician was the most graceful one I have seen so far. He still didn't really feel comfortable with where the questions were going but at least he wasn't a complete asshole.
Sanders is a moron, yet he thinks he is very intelligent. What was that stuff about "where are you coming from politically?" See, that's how these people think: inside boxes. What relevance has it to know what the political views are of the interviewer? Can't you answer the fucking question, yes or no? I guess not.
I watched this Sanders guy on Maher's Real Time once and it's clear the guy is a populist hack, very pompous and empty of thought.
If it wasn't a bullshit question, the questioner should have rephrased, instead of suggesting that Sanders is evading. He was a smarmy punk, nothing more or less.
And if it was a matter of playing "Get the Socialist", how about asking something about socialism, not just churning up the doubletalk? How about an honest question about the socialist agenda, not a GOTCHA question?
Sanders was far more patient than I am, and I think I'm pretty patient.
I think I understand the guy's question and the point he is trying to make. He is saying that a citizen can't give the govt a right that he/she doesn't have to begin with which says that govt, even democratically elected, can't do whatever it wants to the populace.
That was a horribly-asked question. Bernie is a great guy, but I would have kicked him to the curb, not only for asking such a bullshit question, but for his smugness. There is such a thing in journalism as professionalism, and I didn't see it in this clip. Give me a thumbs down, I don't care.
You can tell at the end Sanders realizes what his own logic has told him that obviously people cannot delegate a right/power that they do not have. The problem is if he admits this he is admitting he should not be doing what he is doing. He doesn't want to lose his job so he cannot admit the logical answer he has arrived at.
You've got amazing interviewing skills Jan. Keep it up. Thanks.
Maybe there should be no government. Because some people don't even agree with collecting taxes for national defense. For example, a lot of people would be appalled that we spend a million dollars a missile to blow up a house in Iraq, which is more than 20 years' salary for many people. I guess that is more national offense than national defense, but people can't even agree on that. One way or the other, to pay for all this shit the government has to steal money from unwilling citizens.
I don't mind paying $1,000,000 for a smart missle, as long as it strikes a target that is a threat to our national security.
The things that I'm opposed to that 2/3 of our taxes go towards are all the socialist entitlement programs, and the interest on the national debt, which keeps increasing largely because of all the socialist entitlement programs.
See, you think it is a good idea and I disagree with you. This is exactly the point. Nobody can agree. Yet you oppose entitlement programs like social security, medicare, yet others feel it is more important to care for elderly, poor, infirm, etc. rather than looking for trouble overseas. Most industrialized countries spend a lot on healthcare programs but spend very little on defense because America is paying for it. South Korea for example is highly developed but its defense is U.S.-subsidized
White, I think what is a good idea, having a strong, technically superior (albeit expensive) military? Yes, I do, because the dividends we reap from it are saved American lives, security at home, and the fear and respect of all other nations.
I'm with you on getting other countries we are currently protecting to cough up and pay their own way for their defense.
Bryan, if you want to give up 20 years' salary on a single missile, then go for it. You make a good argument why it's necessary. But the government should not be able to steal money from citizens who don't agree with that budget and think spending is excessive. The U.S. spends as much as the rest of the world combined, but 100% security will remain unachievable. I agree entitlement spending is bloated but really, spending is bloated across the board. There's going to have to be compromises.
White, if my salary will be the sole funding source for a missile, then I want my name on it, and I wanted it painted metallic blue. :-)
Yes, U.S. military spending roughly equals the rest of the world combined, because of all our little nation-building adventures, not so much because of our armaments.
If you need to take out an important target, you can use 1 smart missile, or do it the old school way and use hundreds of bombs and lose dozens of lives. I bet the missile option is cheaper.
haha i bet you would be pissed if your personalized missile blew up in mid-air or accidentally hit the chinese embassy again...unless of course you don't like the chinese either :-)
but seriously, armaments are a problem also; if you think a cruise missile is expensive, check out our nuclear weapons:
Youtube: watch?v=3bJsGJhpZd8
and our pentagon budget relative to all those discretionary programs:
Youtube: watch?v=_sOIe5Ql0v8
When taking away meds promised to the elderly, this has to go too.
Simple. Make a DVD series that teaches logical thinking, and market it toward homeschoolers. Integrate these clips for illustrations. Market it through lewrockwell and similar sites.
You have the right to defend yourself and you can delegate that right to the gov.,but you don't have the right to forcefully take other peoples money and you can't properly delegate it to the goverment. You can't delegate a right you do not have. see the Richardson interview for the consequences of that theory
I personally do not have the right to launch warheads. I do however vote to elect people who have that right. So yes, you CAN delegate power that you don't actually have yourself.
Bernie Sanders is one of the (few) good guysin the senate. This interviewer could have taken the time to ask some REAL questions.
Politicians are mostly just ignorant. They have never considered the fundamentals of their political theory or the implications of their public policy positions.
Hey all, I've already commented once, but I have a question for Jan, (if he sees it) Having sat down and interviewed this man (and the others) do you think they understand your point and simply attempt to conceal this understanding, or are they just ignorant? I would love to know your thoughts. Keep it up.
The U.S. government's own founding document the Declaration of Independence claims that it was established to secure individual rights that precede and predate it, rights endowed by our creator. It was King George's failure to secure those rights that resulted in his ouster. Now that the new government has shown that it too has failed to secure those rights, we have the right to abolish it. The united States government has failed accomplish it's own stated reason for existence.
People label a certain ideology as "anarchism", expecting to shut down a conversation. Unfortunately, these same people know very little about anarchy as a theory, or its history, or much of anything else in the libertarian world.
I'm proud to call myself an anarchist. And yes, I supported RP, in spite of the fact that he's a tiny bit of a statist, from my perspective.
jaqp, if all governments vanished, then people would have to defend their lives and property themselves 24/7, gangs of bad guys would roam around doing bad things, and the gang with the biggest fist would become the new government.
I don't think they quite the same as the bloods & crips. Those gangs want to wipe each other out and steal each other's turf. Republicrats oppose each other on many things, but at the end of the day they're on the same corrupt team with the same corrupt goals, which is to expand their power and shrink our freedoms.
I don't know how Vermonters can vote for this Socialist idiot.
ajsaccount1991 1 month ago
A quick way out of these questions is simply to say that individuals had the right to initiate physical force against other citizens in the pre-political state (state of nature). When forming the political association, they delegated their right to the government.
johnmetivier 1 month ago
@johnmetivier Do you really believe that it is morally right to initiate force in the pre-political state? Absent the state you become a thug?
janhelfeld 1 month ago
@janhelfeld I don't personally believe that it is morally right to initiate force in the pre-political state. However who am I to say that my moral beliefs should be shared by everybody. Who says that the non-aggression principle holds in the state of nature? God? Our collective reason, as Locke would say? Indeed, I think the difference between you and me is that you believe in Lockean natural rights based on I don't know what while I believe in post-political individual rights. (continued)
johnmetivier 1 month ago
@johnmetivier In my opinion, there are no universals. If you say that there is a standard of morality in the state of nature, then you imply that there is at least one universal, namely the Lockean law of nature. In the state of nature, I can do whatever I want, I am not restrained by anything. Upon entering the political association, I forfeit my complete freedom from coercion and adhere to some principle. Minarchists and libertarians say the non-aggression principle but it could be sth else.
johnmetivier 1 month ago
@johnmetivier "I don't personally believe that it is morally right to initiate force in the pre-political state." Then you could not use this answer to deflect my questions. The answer to your good questions is too long. Sorry.
janhelfeld 1 month ago
@janhelfeld Can you answer if I limit my questions to these: Do you think that the non-aggression principle holds in the pre-political state? If so, from what do you derive it? Or is it baseless? Thank you.
johnmetivier 1 month ago
I loved it when Jan asked him calmly at the end, "Would you like to do a show on minimum wage."
necrom666 1 month ago
I'm loving the I'll grant an interview to someone I don't know anything about but then afterwards want his information so I can harass and intimidate him for asking questions I don't want to answer. At 4:17 Bernie basically validated the Holocaust by saying delegation of force is cool in a democracy. Mob rule and violence via the voting both. I wonder how he feels about Operation Fast and Furious.
WurledPeas 1 month ago
@WurledPeas I revealed his contradictions and his true character. Thanks for the comment.
janhelfeld 1 month ago
"Would you like to do a show on minimum wage" LMAO
FatLibertarianInOkc 1 month ago
@FatLibertarianInOkc Yes, I liked that question as well. He had agreed to do a show on minimum wage but changed his mind. I wonder why?
janhelfeld 1 month ago
Sanders is so insecure.
Jan is the Socratic master.
bigtex1453 1 month ago
Can't they see the moat DC's replaced the beltway with? Or that the only beneficiaries of redistribution of wealthonly serves the official's reelection? Republican and Democrat? When was the last time anyone other than a 5 figure donator got a reply from their "rep" that wasn't a retarded form letter? Alas, why isn't philosophy taught early on? DOE? Govt compliance training. Where are the exceptional freedom loving Greeks and Italians going to flee to? We're in worse shape than they are.......
saturnined 1 month ago
Unbelievable, Jan. An interview posted 3 yrs ago and the comments just keep rolling in....only other place i see this happen is when someone posts a really good Beatles video.
I wish these commenters from 3 yrs ago would come back today-tell us what good they think govt's [group, collective, community, whatever] 'rights' have done to the country and individual rights since then. Are we better off? Those 'negative govt rights' have conspicuously become 'positive govt rights'. [continued]
saturnined 1 month ago
if you dont pay a parking ticket, eventually the police will come for you, if you sufficiently resist, they claim the right to kill you. Government IS force. Sanders just claimed that Government is freedom!! Orwellian doesnt even begin to describe that statement!
BigDaddyDJD 5 months ago 2
@BigDaddyDJD I think he almost realized it too. If only he didn't get angry and cut the interview short to "vote".
Killedkennyagain 1 month ago
@Killedkennyagain lmao probably
BigDaddyDJD 1 month ago
Mr. Helfeld , Another home run ! "Would you like to do the show on minimum wage ?" will go down as the most brazen question ever asked of a politician.
But I have to say that all of it is a bit pointless. The "good" people of vermont still insist on sending this joker to the Sneate again and again !!
rinkichamkar 5 months ago 3
Bernie, Bernie, Bernie, all LAWS *DO* end up in physical force if they are not followed. It could be as simple as a jay-walking ticket that goes unpaid. Eventually, in the end, their is force by government.
larrybud 6 months ago
Pardon me, I've conflated 'state' and 'government' - though for all intents and purposes that makes no difference to my point.
JohnAdamCulligan 6 months ago
Governments do not - and never have - existed because individuals delegated rights to them. Presenting governments in that way was a retrospective justification by enlightenment thinkers who got it wrong. In fact, governments existed, and still exist, for more practical reasons - for instance, because within an interstate system, a populated area without a state will quickly be absorbed and/or dominated by an already existing state. Taking that into account undermines your line of questions.
JohnAdamCulligan 6 months ago
Did individual citizens have the right to initiate physical force against other citizens who had not initiated or threatened to initiate physical force? No.
"If they never had that right, could they have delegated it to the government?" Yes.
Why? Aren't these answers mutually exclusive? The people delegate to government not only individual rights, but also communal/collective rights. The right to initiate physical force against a person is a collective right of collective protection.
LiberalAven 7 months ago
@LiberalAven What our collective rights? Who has them? Is society an entity? Does it have objectives and take actions apart from the individuals that compose it? Have you ever seen a society ride a bicycle? See youtube interviews with David Broder.
janhelfeld 7 months ago 7
@janhelfeld - "What our collective rights?" (Taken as "what are collective rights?" as I'm fairly sure that's what you meant): Collective rights are those of a group/society, large or small, and exist in-virtue of individuals being unwilling (or flat-out unable) to exercise their power on their own. These rights are separate from individual rights, as they cannot exist without the prior formation of the group(s) that they pertain to. The waging of war is a collective right.
LiberalAven 7 months ago
@janhelfeld - Content limits on YouTube comments will keep me from answering all of those questions in one post. Collective rights are those of a body of people, and specifically rights that cannot exist until a body of people organizes themselves into a collective group. The collective, as a whole, holds the collective rights. Societies are formulations of people with mutual long-term interests that only a collective group can make possible, and are entities in that sense.
LiberalAven 7 months ago
Did the individual citizens ever have the right to initiate physical force against other citizens that had not initiated or threatened to initiate physical force? Hmmm... That is a good question.
tulkasplane 7 months ago
Bernie Sanders was smart enough to know where the logic lead, that is why he acted befuddled and upset with the questioning. Governments need a reason to use force that is rooted in some principle; people shouldn't allow them to use force and power capriciously. If you were to say governments have rights that individuals don't then we need a clearly defined list of powers and rights such as a constitution but even then you still could argue if illegality is the same as immorality and vice versa.
Tummler 8 months ago
Look, I know the government derives it's powers from the people, and perhaps the word "rights" is the issue since in English the meaning is broader than in the constitution. But, the government must necessarily be able to extend those powers beyond what mere individuals can do. I would agree that nuclear weapons extend from our right to defend ourselves. But, I wouldn't say because an individual can't legally do something that the government 'necessarily' can't do it.
technowey 8 months ago 2
@technowey "But, I wouldn't say because an individual can't legally do something that the government 'necessarily' can't do it.- I agree: because the individuals can agree that in order for their individual rights to be best protected, the government, not individuals should perform a particular function, like managing nukes.
janhelfeld 8 months ago
@janhelfeld - Glad to hear you agree that the government should be able to do some things that individuals do not have the right to do. I'm not a fan of Bernie Sander's politics, but I can certainly see why he would object to explaining that fundamental concept. I do apologize for my name-calling before, it was beneath me to do it. I was angry at you. Bernie Sanders was angry at you. Nancy Pelosi was made angry at you in another video. I'm generally not on their side, but I was angry too!
technowey 8 months ago
@technowey The government should have the legal right to do something that individuals should not do. The government has no moral right to do something that individuals don't have the right to do because all of the gov rights come from the people.
janhelfeld 8 months ago
@janhelfeld - Then, according to you, the government has no moral right to have nuclear weapons because an individual has no such right. But, if the government did not have such weapons, we'd probably (eventually) be invaded by some country that had nuclear weapons. So, the government has the moral right to have nuclear weapons. Similarly, your implied argument in that video is flawed, the government can morally extend rights in ways individuals can't. - which is my point.
technowey 8 months ago
@technowey I tried! I guess we'll just have to say that we disagree.
Tummler 8 months ago
@technowey The individual does have the moral right to nukes (any weapons for self defense). He has delegated this right to the government and now has no legal right to nukes. He has properly determined that he is safer that way. When you use the word right do you mean moral or legal?ARE THEY THE SAME TO YOU? if not, define them.
janhelfeld 8 months ago
@janhelfeld - You wrote: "The individual does have the moral right to nukes (any weapons for self defense)."
What?! No, the individual has no such right, and never has. The right to bear arms would not extend to nuclear weapons. Nor did most citizens delegate the right to nuclear weapons to the government, at least not initially, these weapons were made in secret by scientists hired by the government and not revealed until just before they were first used. There was no delegating.
technowey 8 months ago
@technowey I did my best to explain my position. I asked you a question, you refused to answer. One last tip, don't rely on dictionaries for philosophic wisdom. Maybe someday I can interview you. Until you answer my question we are just talking past each other. Let me know if you'd in DC. It will be a pleasure to interview.
Jan Helfeld
janhelfeld 8 months ago
@janhelfeld - I did answer your TWO questions. You wrote:
"When you use the word right do you mean moral or legal?ARE THEY THE SAME TO YOU? if not, define them."
I DID answered your TWO questions, I meant moral in some cases and legal in others in my earlier posts that predate my post about that. word. I made MANY posts. I also told you the words did not mean the same.
Reading is fundamental.
I ignored your directive telling me to do something. I use the meanings in the dictionary.
technowey 8 months ago
@janhelfeld - When I write I DID answer your questions, I'm referring to the quote below where I responded: "When I write "right" in some places, I mean moral, and in others legal. Read my post about this, which is presently above."
And another post where I wrote: "No, "moral" and "legal" are not necessarily the same thing."
Those are the only two questions you've asked. By the way, you also ignore both responses that are made and questions you're asked in the video.
technowey 8 months ago
@technowey When you use the word right do you mean moral or legal?ARE THEY THE SAME TO YOU? if not, define them.
janhelfeld 8 months ago
@janhelfeld - No, "moral" and "legal" are not necessarily the same thing.
Look them up in the dictionary yourself. I already know what they mean and realize they're different..
The government has both the moral and legal right to do SOME THINGS" citizens cannot do to satisfy the rights the gov. derive from the people. Possessing nuclear weapons is just one example.
technowey 8 months ago
@janhelfeld - When I write "right" in some places, I mean moral, and in others legal. Read my post about this, which is presently above. If you don't understand it, I can't explain it.
The example I gave of nuclear weapons is quite clear. The government has both the moral and legal right to have those. They're a necessity because other have them and the government has to have them to defend us (M.A.D.) You and I don't have that right. That's a counterexample to your implication...
technowey 8 months ago
@janhelfeld - In addition Jan, your questions all involve implications. The meaning of my posts is obvious to any intelligent person who is paying attention. I've posted a counterexample to your repeated implication that the government 'necessarily' has no right (either legal or moral) to do what an individual has no right to do. That's false. The 'goals' of government derive from the people, but not the implementation of those goals. Do you understand that? Yes, or no?
technowey 8 months ago
@technowey - You have a certain charisma - you could be a great journalist. If you cut off all your high-level sources, you'll be relegated to just re-issuing old news.
I'm not suggesting that you don't ask hard questions, but they should be asked once, perhaps twice, and then move on. We viewers aren't (generally) stupid and we can judge. I'll try to be your fan as an apology for my overreaction before. Of course, it's your show, you can do what you want, that's just my feedback.
technowey 8 months ago
In this case of nukes, the government derives its right to have nukes from the people. When the government has nuclear weapons they are doing so based on a delegated right, the right of self-defense that comes from the people. The government has properly decided that in order to defend the individual rights of the citizens it is better for them not to have the legal right to have nukes and only the government has the legal right to have nukes.
janhelfeld 8 months ago
@janhelfeld - Individuals don't have the right to have nuclear weapons- the government does have that right. So that right cannot be delegated by individuals to the government.
The idea you imply that I reject is the idea that groups and individuals should necessarily have the same set of rights. That idea is absurd.
technowey 8 months ago
@technowey It isn't a right to own nukes, it is a right to defend oneself. If you can't see that difference then I can't help you.
Tummler 8 months ago
@Tummler - LOL - Of course I understand that, which is why I wrote exactly that example! Finally you get my point.
The government does have the "right" to own nuclear weapons, so it is a "right." It's not a "right" in the sense of the constitution uses the word. See my earlier post about that distinction. Nonetheless, you should be able to come up with a cogent argument why it's that way, I could! In short, if individuals could have nuclear weapons, the world would be a dangerous place!
technowey 8 months ago
@technowey The government doesn't have the right to just own anything it wants. The government has to derive its powers from some principle, i.e. with nukes it obtains its right from a right to defend itself. As Jan was saying if there is no right or principle for individual citizens to steal from each other then the government has no right to steal from citizens and give proceeds to other citizens. Read Frederic Bastiat's The Law as I am obviously doing a bad job of explaing this.
Tummler 8 months ago
@Tummler - Tummers - I'm addressing "the video!" where the query: "Do the individual citizens ever have the right to initiate force against other citizens that have not initiated a threat of physical force?" was asked repeatedly. The government may use force in ways citizens cannot. What that derives from is relevant, but only in justifying the goal of defense, not to promote the idea that the government is as restricted as a citizen. I have not mentioned stealing or ownership. You did that.
technowey 8 months ago
I do agree that in certain cases a group has certain basic rights that individuals have, such as the right to defend oneself, and the group does obtain that right because the individuals have it, but it doesn't work in reverse. Groups have rights individuals cannot and should not possess. For example, the U.S. Government has the right to possess nuclear weapons. You and I do not have that right, nor should we. But, collectively we do own them as a country. Do you see?
technowey 8 months ago
@technowey The government gets its right to own nukes from the people's right of self defense.
janhelfeld 8 months ago
@janhelfeld - Yes, and yet the people do not have the right to own nukes. That's my point. You're essentially agreeing with what I wrote, which was:
"I do agree that the rights of individuals do often pass to a larger group, but these rights often take a much larger form in a group. For example, the group has the right to possess nuclear weapons. An individual doesn't have that right."
And, there are rights groups have the individuals do not have at all. An individual cannot declare war.
technowey 8 months ago
@technowey
janhelfeld 8 months ago
@technowey The issue is whether the government can properly have rights that were not delegated to it by the people. If the individuals do not have the moral right to initiate force then the government cannot have that right either. Notice that we are talking about moral rights not legal rights.
So for example the southern states in the 19th century gave white citizens the legal right to have slaves but they could never give them the moral right because it was always wrong.
janhelfeld 8 months ago
I see that you are getting away from a collective right to steal but I will take the bait on your nuke theory. Of course no one individual should have the power that comes with owning a nuke which is why we delegate that kind of responsibility to a collective of the people, who in turn equally share that responsibility of how to use it. (Cont.)
Tummler 8 months ago
Self-defense is relative: I own a gun which I can use to defend myself against others to a certain degree while countries own nukes to defend against others to a much greater degree. And on your other point, individuals can declare war, although they probably won't be successful!
Tummler 8 months ago
Duh, of course people collectively have rights that individuals do not have.
Nonetheless, Bernie Sanders is wrong for wanting to know who runs the show and who pays for it. It's a veiled political threat, and it troubles me that politicians think this way. It shouldn't matter. All he had to do was answer, yes, an organized group of people has rights that individuals do not have.
technowey 8 months ago
@technowey So one armed robber breaking into your house is wrong but 20 armed robbers pilllaging your property is OK? Explain please...
Tummler 8 months ago
Comment removed
technowey 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tummler - I never wrote that. I wrote that groups have rights individuals do not have.
I did 'not' write that all groups have all rights that individuals do not have.
Collectively, a group has the right to declare war on a country. Collectively we can elect our leaders. Individually, we cannot, and should not be able to do these things. The interviewer is an idiot.
technowey 8 months ago
@technowey But isn't a group of people, no matter how big and whatever you want to call it, a collection of individuals? And if individuals don't have certain rights, how can a group of individuals obtain rights they didn't have as individuals? And then to delegate those rights they never had to other individuals further obfuscates the matter. If individuals have a right to protect themselves they can delegate that right to others, but they can't delegate a right of stealing to others. See?
Tummler 8 months ago
@Tummler - The error in that logic is the assumption that a group of individuals 'obtain' their rights from each individual. A group has inherent rights individuals do not have at all. Your example is a 'straw man' example because stealing is wrong. I do agree that the rights of individuals do often pass to a larger group, but these rights often take a much larger form in a group. For example, the group has the right to possess nuclear weapons. An individual doesn't have that right.
technowey 8 months ago
Comment removed
technowey 8 months ago
Actually, I would say that laws are an initiation of force. There is no doubt about it. If I don't have the right to make a law, how can I delegate that right to someone else, even if she or he works for the government?
Jan, i love your method. Keep going!
dooglio 9 months ago
I like the interviewer and technique, but I 'm sad that Bernie didn't answer. Of course, individuals and communities did undertake violent action against others without any specific "right" to do so... it is in exactly such an environment that community arises and why it defends its members.
dennywolfe 9 months ago
COMMUNIST PIECE OF SHIT.
JOHNBRANSKI100 11 months ago
About this "initiation of force" Would it have been so difficult for Jan to provide an example of he meant by that? Because, as stated, this question is a three-card Monte sitting on bullshit. Theorizing in a vacuum doesn't advance a discussion one bit.
Provide CONTEXT and thou shall be taken seriously.
Mtl4us2 1 year ago
Cognitive dissonance is a bitch. The flaw in thinking occurs when an artificial dichotomy is accepted as truth. e.g. The initiation of force is wrong for you, but not me, because I am government. This is an ambiguous application of moral principles and a philosophical contradiction.
AntiFed1791 1 year ago
It's time to ask Bernie Sanders why he sold out on S604 (Audit The Fed). Sanders was very vocal about FED transparency. Rep. Paul's bill got gutted in the house by Mel Watt, but was amended with the original language and went to the senate.
After the trash the senator threw at Bernakie about transparency you would think Sanders would have at least put up a fight. He rolled over and there is less transparency and the FED has more power. Thank you Sanders for showing your true colors.
FreeMarketForces 1 year ago 3
I am one who has the opinion that our governments motives are without consideration of rights of the american citizens. The goal elected officials is to mindfuck the people into submission... and then to make you feel good about voting. I have never beens so disgusted in my country as I am now, and it all started with the election of george w bush. george bush is a war criminal, and he used his religion and the trust of the american public while he violated the oath of office. excecute him.
mikeandlaurie1979 1 year ago
I'm not sure which one of them is a bigger retard. This is like watching two chimps throw their own shit at each other.
moggleful 1 year ago
He is off to vote.... and create more violence :)
RP4409 1 year ago 4
The interviewer isn't asking what makes someone liable for the income tax.
Would an individual with no SSN be liable for taxes?
If your voting in the Democracy your are giving the authority for the Politicians to sped on your behalf.
spitchill 1 year ago
Won't ONE of the people you ask this question to answer it in an honest and straightforward manner? SHEESH!
mre2u2 1 year ago
@mre2u2 Ron Paul would, but it would defeat the purpose of these videos (I know, seven months late on my part).
Philhelm 10 months ago
What Mr. Helfeld reveals so brilliantly is the total lack of principled, logical reasoning on the part of those such as Sanders who put themselves forth as "servants of the people". Sanders & his ilk have no idea what a right is vs. a privilege, but presume to have the wisdom to propose & enact laws that in many cases do reflect the use of force. Minimum wage laws are a classic example of this. It frightens me that so many of the comments here reflect such disdain for logic & liberty.
restoresoundmoney 1 year ago
More idealistic Libertarianism silliness.
Mr. Helfeld, Libertarianism is all well & good if one lives isolated in a forest or desert and doesn't require one single thing from government or others. No roads, schools, no worries about pollutants from China floating over to our country, no wars, etc.
Your view of politics and of nations is overly simplistic.
genxtargetmarket 1 year ago
While the Senator was obviously being illogical, the paradox arises from the fact that YES, before a government was set up the people did have the right to impose physical force against another person that has not initiated physical force.
It is a natural right, so to speak. And the people then did delegate this right to their government.
agent008t 1 year ago
@agent008t And again I say what does any of this have to do with the fact Senator Sanders did not try to answer such an absurd question. Before we had Government or modern Democracy the law of the land was who ever held the biggest gun. We now (Thank God) live in a peaceful civil society governed by the officials we elect. If we are not happy with those in power we can simply vote them out of power. No riots in the streets needed, violence is no longer needed.
PCAutomation50 1 year ago
@PCAutomation50 It is not absurd. It is a simple "yes or no" question.
If the question was absurd, Senator should've pointed out the contradiction in the question.
The question was perfectly valid.
agent008t 1 year ago
The question was. Has a citizen ever had the right to impose physical force against another citizen that has not initiated physical force? What kind of question is that? And what could Senator Sander possible add to such an absurd question. I guess Slavery could have perhaps been the answer. Or perhaps before minimum wage, when people were forced to work long hours and had to accept whatever their powerful employer wanted to pay with no personal rights of their own.
PCAutomation50 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I love Senator Sanders answers. He put Mr. Helfeld in his place. The question was ridiculous and not relevant to today in a civil society.
PCAutomation50 1 year ago
@PCAutomation50 Which question, the one he said he had answered, and then admitted he did not even know what the question was, much less answered it.
janhelfeld 1 year ago 7
@PCAutomation50 he didnt answer a thing ,,he didnt answer because he knew where it could lead
simpleearthling 1 year ago
bernie sanders=socialist=bad for america...politicians are bad for america period..lets see now...car salesmen, lawyers, politicians...never the most upstanding citizens but i think i know which is worst..politicians by far and then lawyers since most politicians are lawyers...oh is america in deep shit...and now a socialist president...and an uninformed voting public that drinks kool aide without question..i would say america is in lots of trouble here
rubearo 1 year ago
@rubearo
You obviously have no idea as to what Socialism is. I suspect that you get your definition of terms from Fox News. Obama is a Socialist? That's some pretty silly stuff right there.
genxtargetmarket 1 year ago
he is right about people electing their officials the only problem with politicians Is once they are elected they become so greedy and power hungry they give themselves raises and pass laws to ensure their own wealth and stability passing it off as doing what the ppl want.
Being a politician is no longer a patriots calling, it is simply the job for the ultimate narcissist
thetrain1919 1 year ago
I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. If all government power is delegated by the people and people do not have the right to initiate force against others then initiation of force by the government is illegitimate because people cannot delegate a right they do not have.
inibo 1 year ago
@inibo
You guys crack me up. You are looking for a chicken v. egg type of logical reasoning reductionist reasoning. Does the U.S. Gov. have the right to give birth? Does it have the right to discuss and pass laws concerning births & citizenship?
genxtargetmarket 1 year ago
"Uh, Mr. Sanders, sir, why can't you just answer the question? Can you or can you NOT prove the existence of this supposed Teapot, sir?"
Sanders: "Wtf. I have a job. I'mma go."
(Summary^)
igytsiycm 2 years ago 3
How can there be entire set of people who think it's ok to hire government to use force against others (taxation, life style laws, regulation of business, etc.), when they'll admit that individuals do not have any right to use force against others? Read America's moral philosopher, Ayn Rand.
pbeaird 2 years ago
Oh I dunno... The Constitution, I'm guessing. That pesky thing in there Art. 1. Sec. 8. Clause 1. that our founding fathers wrote explicitly to institute a government that would allow congress to tax, in the VERY FIRST FREAKING article. That little document that got the US it's nation and that some Americas fight/fought and died for. Yeah, an "entire set of people" consisting of what's probably easy to guess at around 90% of the population of the Earth. Industrialized, at least. "Civilization"
igytsiycm 2 years ago
And, yet the moral principle is that each person has a right to live his life as he chooses, without others using physical force against him, so long as he does not do that to others. And, looking closely at Article I, Section 9, paragraph 4, it is also clear that the same Constitution forbids government from imposing a tax on persons. So, let your sarcastic acid drip on your own head. . .or, maybe it already has and that's the problem with your not doing enough homework to avoid your comment.
pbeaird 2 years ago
GOOD POINT!
janhelfeld 2 years ago
Btw she was born in Russia. Who cares if she called herself American or not?
igytsiycm 2 years ago
She was an American by conscious choice. What did you do other than be born here? As for caring (wanting good for others), that doesn''t seem to be one of your virtues.
pbeaird 2 years ago
Who are these people!!??? What planet are they from???
heyheymonkees 2 years ago
brooklyn and he lives in Vermont with lovely Vermont left wing freaks
JeremaiaJohnson 2 years ago
Sanders is evading the question because he believes in forcing people to get what he wants.
Martintfre 2 years ago
another politician who's never read john locke, the philosophy behind the constitution he swore to uphold.
"The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves." -- John Locke
amagilly 2 years ago
Was an unfair question. If you meant regarding using physical force against burglars before they strike you, depends what state you are in.
Redcarpet01 2 years ago
The end is always the best part of these interviews. Most of em just leave.
capitalist4life 2 years ago
"I want to know who you are and detailed information"
Geez, let it go you fascist pig.
Better watch yourself Jan.
Jyoyo1 2 years ago
Way to flush these fuckers out. Talk about no intellectual honesty or integrity! All these politicians/lawyers and experts on doublespeak can't get out of the trap of logic and answer simple questions without revealing the dishonesty. I commend Bernie Sanders for at least running as a socialist instead of cloaking himself in a centrist mask like the Trojan Horse socialist Obama!
bigdogphoto 2 years ago
we have to assume that the average person, which politicians are, will never have the logical ability jan has. we need a political system that can withstand this weakness. to me that means a system similar to a free market system where failure can be isolated and contained. that means no federal government, only state governments, with a nato like structure for national defense. if one state fails, it wont take down the whole country as a federal one would.
michaelpshipley1 2 years ago
wow you have to speak in really slow and simple sentences to him obviously.
shakaama 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
kick that motherfuckers ass bernie !
matchbox555 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
jan is a retard
matchbox555 2 years ago
If you can't argue the points that Mr Helfeld was trying to make your comment is nothing more than an ad hominem.
It's frankly sickening that Mr Sanders can't answer that question and contradicts himself. He doesn't seem to have the ability to reason and logically come to a conclusion. He is not being truthful.
vermontroller1984 2 years ago
"Would you like to do the show on minimum wage???"
Classic!!!
davidb72 2 years ago 7
YOU ARE ON TO ME. THANKS
janhelfeld 2 years ago
how do you get these interviews? You don't seem to work for any legitimate media outlet, nor do you seem to be interested in increasing the public discourse. You seem to be interested only in theatre to try and show how everyone's wrong in their thinking, and you're right, which doesn't seem very often to be the case. you sir, are a hack.
rock90123 2 years ago
Over 2000 views and not one V-response either? I can't think of enough people who WOULDN'T take issue with the "logic" of the questioning. If no one has rights (because no one can give or take rights) then what gives one the right to say anything? Anyway, even in libertarianism it makes this argument about taxation, and then comes BACK to constitutionalism, and supporting the idea of a republic. I know anarchists who would think this guy is an idiot. "Hack" is an understatement.
igytsiycm 2 years ago
these socialist idiots are incredible.
thafix82 2 years ago 2
Priceless!
QIQrrr 2 years ago 2
lolcats
Badergader 2 years ago
You are the best Jan!! :)
sheeplols 2 years ago 3
Jan, you are the best interviewer I have ever seen.
dtmbcorp 2 years ago 16
After watching these interviews, all I can say is we are in BIG trouble. Its scary to know how much politicians DON'T understand the foundation of this country and the Constitution. I wonder if Sanders ever read the Declaration of Independence.
y2knoproblem 2 years ago 11
@y2knoproblem - Of course Senator Sanders has read the Declaration of Independence. He's one of the best educated in the US Senate regarding the foundation of our republic. During his time in the US House of Representatives (before he ran for the Senate), Sanders got along quite well with Rep. Ron Paul (TX) BECAUSE of his deep understandings of the Founding Fathers, the early republic, liberty, democracy, and economics.
LiberalAven 7 months ago
This politician was the most graceful one I have seen so far. He still didn't really feel comfortable with where the questions were going but at least he wasn't a complete asshole.
rescuemay 2 years ago
I would like to see Jan cross exam some of the TV evangelists. I would pay cash money to see that.
medliberty 2 years ago
Sounds like Jan comes from the Ayn Rand school of thought. Correct me if I am wrong.
mayurasana 2 years ago
What relevance has it to know what the political views are of the interviewer? Can't you answer the fucking question, yes or no? I guess not.
My thoughts exactly.
janhelfeld 2 years ago
Narf! This interview is excellent.
Sanders is a moron, yet he thinks he is very intelligent. What was that stuff about "where are you coming from politically?" See, that's how these people think: inside boxes. What relevance has it to know what the political views are of the interviewer? Can't you answer the fucking question, yes or no? I guess not.
I watched this Sanders guy on Maher's Real Time once and it's clear the guy is a populist hack, very pompous and empty of thought.
WOLF333999 2 years ago
He's like Ali G meets Tom Green.
This guy should have his own show.
CRAPCANNONS 2 years ago 4
Feel free to make this suggestion to any media outlet you want.
Thank you.
janhelfeld 2 years ago
Dunno. Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, and Colbert are probably too afraid to burn bridges.
Maybe get invited onto some guys show like Glen Beck, who seems fed up with both parties?
CRAPCANNONS 2 years ago
ME TOO.
janhelfeld 2 years ago
i love how he asks if he wants to do the show for minimum wage
xkeltoix 2 years ago 2
Boi-nie, Boi-nie! Don't get so flust-ahed!
terrafirma91 2 years ago
LOL! Now he sees that anarchism is the only moral solution if one believes in the non aggression principle.
overmind25 3 years ago
If it wasn't a bullshit question, the questioner should have rephrased, instead of suggesting that Sanders is evading. He was a smarmy punk, nothing more or less.
And if it was a matter of playing "Get the Socialist", how about asking something about socialism, not just churning up the doubletalk? How about an honest question about the socialist agenda, not a GOTCHA question?
Sanders was far more patient than I am, and I think I'm pretty patient.
TheArjayWay 3 years ago
It wasn't a hostile question. Sanders was evading a very simple question.
Socialist persecution complex? lol
RimmersFamily 2 years ago 4
I think I understand the guy's question and the point he is trying to make. He is saying that a citizen can't give the govt a right that he/she doesn't have to begin with which says that govt, even democratically elected, can't do whatever it wants to the populace.
Keep up the fight against the socialist!
timbosforporn 3 years ago
That was a horribly-asked question. Bernie is a great guy, but I would have kicked him to the curb, not only for asking such a bullshit question, but for his smugness. There is such a thing in journalism as professionalism, and I didn't see it in this clip. Give me a thumbs down, I don't care.
TheArjayWay 3 years ago
I agree the question is setup question but sometimes you have to ask these questions to get to how people really think.
BTW, he answered Bernie's question straight out and I don't see why Bernie couldn't have done the same.
timbosforporn 3 years ago
You can tell at the end Sanders realizes what his own logic has told him that obviously people cannot delegate a right/power that they do not have. The problem is if he admits this he is admitting he should not be doing what he is doing. He doesn't want to lose his job so he cannot admit the logical answer he has arrived at.
You've got amazing interviewing skills Jan. Keep it up. Thanks.
kevindanielbrown 3 years ago
this is a good way to piss people off. :-)
DeraJa 3 years ago
Maybe there should be no government. Because some people don't even agree with collecting taxes for national defense. For example, a lot of people would be appalled that we spend a million dollars a missile to blow up a house in Iraq, which is more than 20 years' salary for many people. I guess that is more national offense than national defense, but people can't even agree on that. One way or the other, to pay for all this shit the government has to steal money from unwilling citizens.
WhiteShark392 3 years ago
I don't mind paying $1,000,000 for a smart missle, as long as it strikes a target that is a threat to our national security.
The things that I'm opposed to that 2/3 of our taxes go towards are all the socialist entitlement programs, and the interest on the national debt, which keeps increasing largely because of all the socialist entitlement programs.
BRYAN351 3 years ago
See, you think it is a good idea and I disagree with you. This is exactly the point. Nobody can agree. Yet you oppose entitlement programs like social security, medicare, yet others feel it is more important to care for elderly, poor, infirm, etc. rather than looking for trouble overseas. Most industrialized countries spend a lot on healthcare programs but spend very little on defense because America is paying for it. South Korea for example is highly developed but its defense is U.S.-subsidized
WhiteShark392 3 years ago
White, I think what is a good idea, having a strong, technically superior (albeit expensive) military? Yes, I do, because the dividends we reap from it are saved American lives, security at home, and the fear and respect of all other nations.
I'm with you on getting other countries we are currently protecting to cough up and pay their own way for their defense.
BRYAN351 3 years ago
Bryan, if you want to give up 20 years' salary on a single missile, then go for it. You make a good argument why it's necessary. But the government should not be able to steal money from citizens who don't agree with that budget and think spending is excessive. The U.S. spends as much as the rest of the world combined, but 100% security will remain unachievable. I agree entitlement spending is bloated but really, spending is bloated across the board. There's going to have to be compromises.
WhiteShark392 3 years ago
White, if my salary will be the sole funding source for a missile, then I want my name on it, and I wanted it painted metallic blue. :-)
Yes, U.S. military spending roughly equals the rest of the world combined, because of all our little nation-building adventures, not so much because of our armaments.
If you need to take out an important target, you can use 1 smart missile, or do it the old school way and use hundreds of bombs and lose dozens of lives. I bet the missile option is cheaper.
BRYAN351 3 years ago
haha i bet you would be pissed if your personalized missile blew up in mid-air or accidentally hit the chinese embassy again...unless of course you don't like the chinese either :-)
but seriously, armaments are a problem also; if you think a cruise missile is expensive, check out our nuclear weapons:
Youtube: watch?v=3bJsGJhpZd8
and our pentagon budget relative to all those discretionary programs:
Youtube: watch?v=_sOIe5Ql0v8
When taking away meds promised to the elderly, this has to go too.
WhiteShark392 3 years ago
link
WhiteShark392 3 years ago
THANKS.I am looking for a venue.
janhelfeld 3 years ago
Simple. Make a DVD series that teaches logical thinking, and market it toward homeschoolers. Integrate these clips for illustrations. Market it through lewrockwell and similar sites.
You'd make an absolute fortune.
jaqphule 3 years ago
Hi Jan,
I love your videos! I wish you were still making more.
Daisy034jc 3 years ago 2
You have the right to defend yourself and you can delegate that right to the gov.,but you don't have the right to forcefully take other peoples money and you can't properly delegate it to the goverment. You can't delegate a right you do not have. see the Richardson interview for the consequences of that theory
janhelfeld 3 years ago
I personally do not have the right to launch warheads. I do however vote to elect people who have that right. So yes, you CAN delegate power that you don't actually have yourself.
Bernie Sanders is one of the (few) good guysin the senate. This interviewer could have taken the time to ask some REAL questions.
TheGoatman1 3 years ago
Bernie Sanders wouldn't know freedom if it slapped him in the face. He's a Marxist.
JakeandElwoodBlues 3 years ago 5
Yes. And I loved the implied threat at the end of the video. Booga! Booga! He wants to know who financed the video!
WhiteShark392 3 years ago 5
Politicians are mostly just ignorant. They have never considered the fundamentals of their political theory or the implications of their public policy positions.
janhelfeld 3 years ago
Thanks
lengthyounarther 3 years ago 2
His first question had nothing to do with government.
Rothgar12 3 years ago
Hey all, I've already commented once, but I have a question for Jan, (if he sees it) Having sat down and interviewed this man (and the others) do you think they understand your point and simply attempt to conceal this understanding, or are they just ignorant? I would love to know your thoughts. Keep it up.
lengthyounarther 3 years ago
im bernie sanders, and im a douche
997GT378 3 years ago 5
LOL!
JakeandElwoodBlues 3 years ago 2
wow, this is not a fun place to be. you guys go beyond libertarianism into the realm of anarchy.
if you wish to reply to this comment, please answer me a question with your reply
1. were or are you a ron paul supporter.
KarateKidX 3 years ago
The U.S. government's own founding document the Declaration of Independence claims that it was established to secure individual rights that precede and predate it, rights endowed by our creator. It was King George's failure to secure those rights that resulted in his ouster. Now that the new government has shown that it too has failed to secure those rights, we have the right to abolish it. The united States government has failed accomplish it's own stated reason for existence.
billyjoeallen 3 years ago 3
what does that have to do with anything?
feeknocks 3 years ago
what does what have to do with anything?
KarateKidX 3 years ago
Hey! What's wrong with anarchism, anyway?
People label a certain ideology as "anarchism", expecting to shut down a conversation. Unfortunately, these same people know very little about anarchy as a theory, or its history, or much of anything else in the libertarian world.
I'm proud to call myself an anarchist. And yes, I supported RP, in spite of the fact that he's a tiny bit of a statist, from my perspective.
jaqphule 3 years ago
Trust me, if you actually tried anarchism, you wouldn't like it.
KarateKidX 3 years ago
Well, right back at you, my young friend.
"Trust me, if you actually tried anarchism, you'd love it!"
Doesn't make for a convincing argument now, does it?
More than that, you know absolutely nothing about what I've sampled in my life. Why make an argument from ignorance?
jaqphule 3 years ago
jaqp, if all governments vanished, then people would have to defend their lives and property themselves 24/7, gangs of bad guys would roam around doing bad things, and the gang with the biggest fist would become the new government.
So, anarchy is a temporary condition.
BRYAN351 3 years ago
Interesting. So do you consider the republicans and democrats two gangs vying for power like the bloods and the crips?
WhiteShark392 3 years ago
I don't think they quite the same as the bloods & crips. Those gangs want to wipe each other out and steal each other's turf. Republicrats oppose each other on many things, but at the end of the day they're on the same corrupt team with the same corrupt goals, which is to expand their power and shrink our freedoms.
BRYAN351 3 years ago