How the World Works and moral consistency
Uploader Comments (ANIideas)
Top Comments
-
Good argument.. I disturbs me HTWW arguments are mere FOX news tactics full of misinformation. He was against China death penalty for milk contamination purposely tainted to pass protein analysis in his "Closing Gitmo" video. Why so selective on who deserves rights? Typical Faux Noise siding with corporations to fiscally rape society.
Also, he goes to claim Capitalism never killed a person EVER! Haha.. I'll be posting a video rebuttal soon
-
HTWW is a pinhead neonazi. I don't understand why you waste time on this scum.
Video Responses
All Comments (11)
-
@HowTheWorldWorks You create a problem for your argument that taxation is theft. As you say the 5th Amendment says the government may not take away life, liberty or property without due process of law. You use that to say that execution is at times acceptable because there is due process of law.
That would also make taxation, even redistributive taxation, legitimate as well, as the laws that create taxes occur within the framework of a due process.
-
I agree completely. Just because a 200+ year old document says it's ok. Doesn't mean it's Moral.
Same thing could be said about the atrocities in the bible.
-
I'm sure that he won't but sometimes you just need to say something - you can at least say that you've done what you could. As I get better with the movie software I may come back to this and do a more comprehensive job.
-
you're wasting your time, htww won't get it, or refuse to listen
The 5th Amendment of the Constitution says that the government may not take away life, liberty or property without due process of law.
With Due Process...the government may execute murderers. I provided a means to ensure better and more protective Due Process.
Good rebuttal BTW.
HowTheWorldWorks 2 years ago
Citing the constitution does not justify acceptance of it in the face of the moral position you hold. If you personally endorse the 5th Amendment's allowing execution, whatever it's provisos, you need to demonstrate how that is consistent with a Natural Right to life. Without that, we are only left to conclude that the Declaration of Rights is inconsistent with this amendment. The problem still stands.
ANIideas 2 years ago
@ANIideas
Obviously government needs to have the power to violate the rights of human beings in certain circumstances. 'With due process of law' is one of those. If it were not so, we could never imprison anyone because liberty is an inalienable human right.
LanceVader 1 year ago
@LanceVader When you say 'government needs to have the power to violate the rights of human beings' - do you mean 'have the right'?
If so, then if a government has the right to deny someone their liberty, then in what do you still consider liberty to be an 'inalienable' right rather than just a legal one?
ANIideas 1 year ago
@ANIideas
I do not mean the 'right'. Government has no rights, only the powers we afford it as a people. This is a power we are willing to grant so that lawbreakers can be taken away (and put into prisons, executed, etc) and the rule of law can be established. This is not a pleasant thing, but necessary for this society.
LanceVader 1 year ago
@LanceVader But does this not put the Government in conflict with morality? If humans have a natural and inalienable right to liberty, then government's use of prison is in conflict with that.
You mention that it is "not a pleasant thing, but necessary for this society", which suggests consequentialism. Can you clarify your position? The point of this film was that HowTheWorldWorks was not being consistent in his moral position, employing both theories as suited him without reconciling them.
ANIideas 1 year ago