Jan & Biden on Justice

Jan Helfeld leads Joe Biden to objective conclusions about justice. Jan gets Biden to agree with the fundamental elements of justice. Jan demonstrates how to use the socratic interviewing technique to lead a politician to true conclusions.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• joe
• biden
• janhelfeld.com
• jan
• helfeld
• justice
• austin
• petersen
• ron
• paul
• economics
• austrian
• freedom
• liberty
• libertarianism

[janhelfeld]

That may be, but I brought him along to reach objective conclusions.

[janhelfeld]

CRAPCANNONS ASKS: Why doesn't JH have his own show? Why isn't he everywhere? I did. Maybe all of you can help me get a show again by contacting media TV or radio and sending them jan's videos. FOX NEWS, FOX BUSINESS news, Limbaugh, John Stossel or others.

[rflosi]

We should get you on the Daily Show, the Colbert Report and Freedom Watch. Jan you need a mailing list.

[janhelfeld]

I agree.

[bwelkk]

He did pretty well compared to the other politicians I've seen. Much like he did in the earlier video.

He's a thinking man. Not all of his thinking is right, but he's not just throwing around rhetoric like that fucktard Pete Stark

[egervari]

I have to give Biden credit for actually being fairly intelligent and having a decent understanding of the level of depth that this discussion required. I would agree that he did much better than every other person that was being interviewed.

I don't like Biden personally, because his actions in politics - especially lately - are deplorable and immoral, but from this video, we can assume that he knows his actions are wrong and that he's doing them anyway irrationally, unlike Bush who didn't.

[WideWorldOfWisdom]

Is it just me, or did Joe Biden used to be a lot less of a bumbling idiot? (And a lot cooler in a Harrison Ford kind of way)

[mrplow8]

Isn't it true that the same anti-polygamy arguments that Biden mentioned can be, and often are, used against interracial and same sex relationships?

[BalladoftheWindfish]

@SSgtParmer I wrote my comment 1 month ago. Looking back, I gave a pretty thorough refutation of your response. You used faulty logic and mere assertions. I think I pointed that out.

[simpleearthling]

Jan i love your vids and if it wasn't for the fact I'm broke due to being fucked over i would without buy some of you vids ,,i am waiting for them to be placed on pirate bay so i can watch them in full ,,hows about as a xmas gift to the world you release one in its entirety ,,merry chrimbo

[BalladoftheWindfish]

@SSgtParmer You are simply contradicting me. This is not, lol, "rational."

[BalladoftheWindfish]

@SSgtParmer There are many problems with your statement:

First, it is not at all obvious that there is no "objectively verifiable evidence" that God exists. Second, it is not at all obvious that such evidence is a necessary criterion to determine IF God exists. Third, if there really is no such evidence, it does not follow that God does not exist. It also would not follow, then, that our rights are not inalienable.

Thankfully, our founding documents as a country do recognize the Creator.

[BalladoftheWindfish]

This is confusing. He agreed that there is objective and real good and evil, rejecting relativism, but then, in the next breath, he "acknowledges" that others may not hold to the same moral principles as him. He cut off the branch from which he sat. So which is it, Biden? Moral realism? Or moral relativism. Only moral realism (and, by extension, the existence of God) guarantees that rights really are inalienable.

[mikeandlaurie1979]

Finally, I have finally view a jan video that I completely agree with. Also, i find joe to be engaged, fair and honest.

[smiledammit24]

7:06 Biden sounds like a regular Randian here.