back in locke's day you could also go out, find unoccupied land, build on it, farm it, and defend yourself using deadly force if someone came harm you or to try to take your land. You cant do that anywhere now. If you went out onto unoccupied land claimed by the beaureau of land management, built a home out there and started to farm youd be arrested and brought up on federal charges. youre also required to hook up to the electrical grid even if you have the means to be independent of it. American farms also take massive subsidies from taxpayer money, so theyre not working for free, theyre using your money for it.
Back in lockes day you had a king who claimed ownership over all the land and would tax you for farming on it and his system is actually compatible with that type of government as long as the king has the tacit consent of the governed From Locke the opening to second treatise thou hast here … a discourse which, I hope… [is] sufficient to establish the Throne of our Great Restorer, Our present King William; to make good his title, in the consent of the people, which being the only one of all lawful government, he has more fully and clearly than any prince in Christendom: and to justify to the world, the people of England, whose love of their just and natural rights, with their resolution to preserve them, saved the nation when it was on the brink of ruin.
Due to how much easy it is to learn something online i completely bet that they will be very smart people in the future... or the next generations will fail becouse many other reasons..... I hope it is the first one.
Here's fundamental definiition of a "Right" A right is a permissable freedom, that doesn't that exists to be practiced among all constituents and doesn't implicate or impose an obligatory cost ON any body except role of non-interference.
Prepubescent children excepted in that they can impose their right to life on and over the rights of the two people who gave them their DNA. This they can do until they are no longer classified as young children. Basically, until puberty, at which point they should have developed the skills and knowledge to exercise their own rights without aid. Parents still have a lifelong obligation to their children, but the children's rights no longer supersede the parents' rights once the children have the capacity to exercise those rights on their own. If the parents are unable to enforce their child's rights for them, they owe it to the child to find them someone who is willing to enforce those rights. To neglect a person who is physically incapable of exercising their own right to life is to actively take away their right to life. Anyone who has taken on the care of such a person, whether by birthing them or by becoming their guardian, obligates themselves to put aside their own rights in order to uphold the right to life of the other person. This is why it's considered obligatory for parents to be the ones most willing to lay down their lives to save their children.
Lock wrote the phrase life, liberty, property but property shouldn't be understood as the material possessions you own though thats an aspect of it rather as ones well-being or flourishing property to locke included immaterial things such your health and freedom and as of note to locke one did not have the freedom to destroy one's self
I live in Canada and no one here likes the healthcare system. No one can find a family doc and ER wait times are horrific. Here in the west, public education is synonymous with violence and poor quality treatments and instruction. We pay massively to upkeep all this by the way. Saying it's not causing a problem is like these polls that come out of Cuba that say people like their healthcare- yeah, compared to what? When all you have in a public provider, what are you comparing the quality to? You say it hasn't caused problems, but what about the problem of missing out on lower prices and better service?
@@donald347 I was mostly reffering to Europe and countries like Sweden, only because something doesn't work everywhere doesn't mean it's bad. In many European countries there's a choice beetween public and private healthcare.
The idea that we shouldn't provide for those in need is short sighted, because if someone is for example: homeless they can't work and provide to the society, and covering someones ussually basic needs costs less than the value they could provide after getting those needs covered.
If that's the case then all they should need is a loan. In any case this isn't about helping which is charity- it's about FORCED redistribution which is stealing people's labour. Most people aren't productive because of complex issues in their lives and government beauocracy throwing money at them is liable to just result in dependency- sometimes for generations. Actually helping those people doesn't come down to just advocating for most state spending- it would require actual effort but people don't want to do that. They just wan to attack to productive, pat themselves on the back, and call it a day.
@@donald347 Yeah, but banks aren't eager to lend money to people that aren't guaranteed to be able to pay those loans back and loans are on a set deadline, so state sponsored aid is a better system and comes back in the form of taxes.
@@donald347 Tax money also goes to corporate bail outs and I would rather give my money to those who have nothing instead of those who have everything.
@granienasniadantie8322 if people weren't taxed 60+% of their wealth every year, there would be much more charity, more savings, cheaper insurance etc
sooooo if a parent does not want to take care of the child does that mean that he can let it starve to death? is the child entitled to other people's labour?
As a child is considered incapable of producing for themselves, the child does deserve the labor of a guardian, preferably biological parents. The parents, however, do not get to simply take the products of another’s labor to meet their child’s need.
But what if… the state pays the people that make that food, and they decide how much the bread cost, so that way food would be a right and people have money
@@granienasniadanie8322 I really have no idea what you said there. And no, food has always been edible. Regulations aren't blanketly a bad thing, but it's a fact we are more overregulated than ever before and the ONLY people benefiting from overregulation are government and "coruptiorations"
I see this argument brought up by the right when discussing universal healthcare. Although by definition of a "natural right" under libertarian principle healthcare is not a "right", it still benefits society to provide universal healthcare (i.e it should be a necessary government service). Regardless of what you call it, universal healthcare saves lives and prevents people from becoming bankrupt through emergency illness not of their fault. imagine you are diagnosed with cancer and cant afford a life-saving surgery. I think the right thing to do for society is to pay for that persons surgery from universal healthcare. When you think about it, healthcare actually pays back society because that injured/sick patient can now return to work faster then if he/she died or went bankrupt from medical bills. Almost every european country has single payer or government provided health insurance, it saves lives and increases their status on the human development index. What John Locke said nearly 300 years ago should not completely dictate the policies we create today.
Its actually no different from how we fund the military, police, fire department and roads. These services protect our "natural rights" of freedom of speech and right to life. Although you cant just go up to a random person and force him to be a cop, that is not how public services work. We, as a society, has collectively decided that it is fair that our taxes pay for these services to protect everyones "natural rights". Wouldnt it make sense for society to pay for someone's expensive life-saving surgery if they cant afford it (its not extortion, when you get sick everyone else will pay for you, hence why its a public service).
@@PhucMi1 I live in Canada, my dude. Our universal basic healthcare is not benefiting us. It costs the tax payers so much to maintain the system that our taxes alone account for more taken out of our earnings than rent, bills and food *combined.* And despite this, we still had to implemented government sanctioned euthanasia to keep costs down. Life saving surgery may not bankrupt us, but thanks to the health care industry being so heavily regulated, *you will have zero access to that surgery owing to shortages on labor and materials.* Most Canadians go to America for their surgery and pay of it out of pocket via insurance just like you Americans do right now. We just have to pay taxes *on top* of that expense. So no, it doesn't pay society back. It costs society and prevents the industry from growing. Now setting aside the rampant calls for military and police to be de-funded by government funded health care enthusiasts such as yourself, the difference in terms of labor, material and specialization across civil protection and health care really do not make them comparable. The complications required for open heart surgery (not to mention the frequency with which it is needed) do not correlate to the duties of law enforcement. And if you are of sound health, you're not going to need a doctor nearly as often as you might a regulated police force (which you only have because you Americans refuse to accept that 2A was intended to *prevent* a government's necessary monopoly on violence). And once upon a time, you effectively *did* force the citizenry into a law enforcement role through the act of the local sheriff *deputizing* members of the militia to help him render law. A practice that, while rare, still happens to this very day. Beyond even that, private firefighting companies exist all over America and Canada and are hired by the government as contractors just like they are by the general public. But here's a question for you- If work hard to maintain a healthy body weight, avoid unhealthy habits like smoking, drinking and use of recreational, toxic and addictive drugs, wash my hands and brush my teeth, *what logic dictates that my taxes paying for the unhealthy habits of a 300lbs is consider "fair?"* Why should I have to pay for the consequences of someone else's drinking habits? See, an out of control fire could easily end my life. So it makes sense to fund a firefighting force to protect the community in which I reside. But the health of a stranger? On the other side of the country? Who may very well hate my guts cause I vote PPC and they vote NDP? Why should I be footing their medical bills?
@@MMDelta9unfortunately privatized healthcare doesn't do much better when the costs can quickly make you homeless just to survive. I think government provided healthcare is the only acceptable le route we have as a society for every to have equal access. We need to identify tiny where your system went wrong and bottlenecks. Find out why there's a labor shortage, give benefits to healthcare workers equal to that of military workers. Figure out why material is hard to come by. It's all about knowing where the money is going and how it's being spent.
@@qs6706 my dude, you are talking to a Canadian. Our government funded health care has to prescribe euthanasia to keep the lights in the hospitals on. And your notion that your hospital bills are driving people to homelessness is also wrong. Cause the majority of US debt is in mortgages, not medicine.
@pennythomas3180 teaching is kinda a stretch john locke would not have held this position he was christian as hell he accepted the idea of the state limiting individual rights for the common good and beleved the right to property could be nullified if there wasn't enough for everyone Locke Some Thoughts Concerning Education Covetousness and the desire to having in our possession and our dominion more than we have need of, being the root of all evil, should be early and carefully weeded out and the contrary quality of being ready to impart to others inculcated. (G&T 1996: 81) From Second Treatise of government As much as anyone can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much by his labor he may fix a property in; whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others. (Treatises II.5.31
It should also be note that in lockes time property did not mean only material things that one owns it meant an individuals' wellbeing and self ownership also of note Prerogative is the right of the executive to act without explicit authorization for a law, or even contrary to the law, in order to better fulfill the laws that seek the preservation of human life. A king might, for example, order that a house be torn down in order to stop a fire from spreading throughout a city (Two Treatises 2.159). Locke defines it more broadly as “the power of doing public good without a rule”
@@Thanatos562 my dude, you're talking about a shared morality at that point. It is a stretch greater than Street Fighter 2 Dhalsim's strong punch to equate a shared morality to limiting people's inalienable rights. What the actual Hell?
Strongest counter argument I can imagine is where he argues that property beyond what a man needs for his immediate use is only legitimate because money doesn't spoil because money is a social construct we all tacitly agree to and that without money there would be no businesses or farms but some how I don't think that's the argument libertarians wanna make you can of course disagree with John locke most libertarians just take his natural rights theory and alter it but anyway it's two different quote from different books look up the lockean proviso 3 quotes if you count the second comment also look up first treatise of government 1.42 I keep getting censored when I post it
Your production values and everything about the audio and visual for your show is suspiciously awesome. Like you have real money behind it. Sucks that you're not as edgy and well informed as you thought.
Access to food water and shelter are rights, being provided those things is not a right. So.. boooo and if youre either doing it on purpose or are conveniently blind? Either way im sure i can pull your show apart like good southern ribs.
The right to bear arms means you should not have your weapons taken from you or have people prevent you from buying them. It is essentially an extension to the right to own property you can own things like land a home or personal items like pens and stuff but it does not mean others have to pay for it or build it for you if they don't want to.
You have the right to be safe and secure in your person. And being armed is a great equalizer in securing your right to being safe and secure in your person. Do you think other people are as concerned for your safety as you are? Why do you think delegating your safety to someone else is a good idea? It didn't work for Jews in Nazi Germany why do you think it would work for you?
I'm glad you reposted this. I forgot about this obvious basic principle.
back in locke's day you could also go out, find unoccupied land, build on it, farm it, and defend yourself using deadly force if someone came harm you or to try to take your land. You cant do that anywhere now. If you went out onto unoccupied land claimed by the beaureau of land management, built a home out there and started to farm youd be arrested and brought up on federal charges. youre also required to hook up to the electrical grid even if you have the means to be independent of it. American farms also take massive subsidies from taxpayer money, so theyre not working for free, theyre using your money for it.
Back in lockes day you had a king who claimed ownership over all the land and would tax you for farming on it and his system is actually compatible with that type of government as long as the king has the tacit consent of the governed
From Locke the opening to second treatise
thou hast here … a discourse which, I hope… [is] sufficient to establish the Throne of our Great Restorer, Our present King William; to make good his title, in the consent of the people, which being the only one of all lawful government, he has more fully and clearly than any prince in Christendom: and to justify to the world, the people of England, whose love of their just and natural rights, with their resolution to preserve them, saved the nation when it was on the brink of ruin.
In other words, government tyrannizes people and takes your rights away.
@@Thanatos562 what they said
Maybe the new generation will actually be interested in this kind of stuff and help improve the nation as a whole
Due to how much easy it is to learn something online i completely bet that they will be very smart people in the future... or the next generations will fail becouse many other reasons..... I hope it is the first one.
Yeah, they are
They're going democratic lol
Don't hold your breath.
Here's fundamental definiition of a "Right"
A right is a permissable freedom, that doesn't that exists to be practiced among all constituents and doesn't implicate or impose an obligatory cost ON any body except role of non-interference.
Prepubescent children excepted in that they can impose their right to life on and over the rights of the two people who gave them their DNA. This they can do until they are no longer classified as young children. Basically, until puberty, at which point they should have developed the skills and knowledge to exercise their own rights without aid. Parents still have a lifelong obligation to their children, but the children's rights no longer supersede the parents' rights once the children have the capacity to exercise those rights on their own. If the parents are unable to enforce their child's rights for them, they owe it to the child to find them someone who is willing to enforce those rights. To neglect a person who is physically incapable of exercising their own right to life is to actively take away their right to life. Anyone who has taken on the care of such a person, whether by birthing them or by becoming their guardian, obligates themselves to put aside their own rights in order to uphold the right to life of the other person. This is why it's considered obligatory for parents to be the ones most willing to lay down their lives to save their children.
The * *RIGHT TO PURSUE* * our needs and wants, like the right to pursue happiness, is an inalienable right.
#VOLUNTARYISM
Lock wrote the phrase life, liberty, property but property shouldn't be understood as the material possessions you own though thats an aspect of it rather as ones well-being or flourishing property to locke included immaterial things such your health and freedom and as of note to locke one did not have the freedom to destroy one's self
Education and healthcare are free in many countries and they don't seem to cause problems.
I live in Canada and no one here likes the healthcare system. No one can find a family doc and ER wait times are horrific. Here in the west, public education is synonymous with violence and poor quality treatments and instruction. We pay massively to upkeep all this by the way.
Saying it's not causing a problem is like these polls that come out of Cuba that say people like their healthcare- yeah, compared to what? When all you have in a public provider, what are you comparing the quality to? You say it hasn't caused problems, but what about the problem of missing out on lower prices and better service?
@@donald347 I was mostly reffering to Europe and countries like Sweden, only because something doesn't work everywhere doesn't mean it's bad. In many European countries there's a choice beetween public and private healthcare.
It's bad because it's founded on a system of force and coercion. So the debate then becomes how relatively bad are the different systems.
I dare you to come to Canada and say that.
We have government mandated euthanasia cause our public health care is so cost effective.
@@granienasniadanie8322 It works (ed) in Sweden mostly because of a small population, unified mono-culture and a sh!t ton of oil money.
The idea that we shouldn't provide for those in need is short sighted, because if someone is for example: homeless they can't work and provide to the society, and covering someones ussually basic needs costs less than the value they could provide after getting those needs covered.
If that's the case then all they should need is a loan.
In any case this isn't about helping which is charity- it's about FORCED redistribution which is stealing people's labour. Most people aren't productive because of complex issues in their lives and government beauocracy throwing money at them is liable to just result in dependency- sometimes for generations. Actually helping those people doesn't come down to just advocating for most state spending- it would require actual effort but people don't want to do that. They just wan to attack to productive, pat themselves on the back, and call it a day.
@@donald347 Yeah, but banks aren't eager to lend money to people that aren't guaranteed to be able to pay those loans back and loans are on a set deadline, so state sponsored aid is a better system and comes back in the form of taxes.
@@donald347 Tax money also goes to corporate bail outs and I would rather give my money to those who have nothing instead of those who have everything.
@granienasniadantie8322 if people weren't taxed 60+% of their wealth every year, there would be much more charity, more savings, cheaper insurance etc
@@davecurtis86 I agree. Main porblem is that the rich aren't getting taxed. We should take many from the rich and give it to the poor.
sooooo if a parent does not want to take care of the child does that mean that he can let it starve to death?
is the child entitled to other people's labour?
Give it up for adoption
As a child is considered incapable of producing for themselves, the child does deserve the labor of a guardian, preferably biological parents. The parents, however, do not get to simply take the products of another’s labor to meet their child’s need.
@@PrepperPrincessif a parent refuses, absolutely!
Hopefully parents will step up like the billions of parents have!
@@mikegillettify So as people or adults are incapable of producing for themselves?
@@mikegillettify sooooo if I lose my money then does that mean that I am entitled to steal food from the stores?
John locke my goat
But what if… the state pays the people that make that food, and they decide how much the bread cost, so that way food would be a right and people have money
Where's the state getting that money?
@@thekingofthings2002 but you coruptiorations? The only reason food in the US is edible is government regulation.
@@granienasniadanie8322 I really have no idea what you said there. And no, food has always been edible. Regulations aren't blanketly a bad thing, but it's a fact we are more overregulated than ever before and the ONLY people benefiting from overregulation are government and "coruptiorations"
@@thekingofthings2002 I have ezaggerated, but I am taking about the cration of FDA.
I see this argument brought up by the right when discussing universal healthcare. Although by definition of a "natural right" under libertarian principle healthcare is not a "right", it still benefits society to provide universal healthcare (i.e it should be a necessary government service). Regardless of what you call it, universal healthcare saves lives and prevents people from becoming bankrupt through emergency illness not of their fault. imagine you are diagnosed with cancer and cant afford a life-saving surgery. I think the right thing to do for society is to pay for that persons surgery from universal healthcare. When you think about it, healthcare actually pays back society because that injured/sick patient can now return to work faster then if he/she died or went bankrupt from medical bills. Almost every european country has single payer or government provided health insurance, it saves lives and increases their status on the human development index. What John Locke said nearly 300 years ago should not completely dictate the policies we create today.
Its actually no different from how we fund the military, police, fire department and roads. These services protect our "natural rights" of freedom of speech and right to life. Although you cant just go up to a random person and force him to be a cop, that is not how public services work. We, as a society, has collectively decided that it is fair that our taxes pay for these services to protect everyones "natural rights". Wouldnt it make sense for society to pay for someone's expensive life-saving surgery if they cant afford it (its not extortion, when you get sick everyone else will pay for you, hence why its a public service).
@@PhucMi1 I live in Canada, my dude. Our universal basic healthcare is not benefiting us.
It costs the tax payers so much to maintain the system that our taxes alone account for more taken out of our earnings than rent, bills and food *combined.*
And despite this, we still had to implemented government sanctioned euthanasia to keep costs down.
Life saving surgery may not bankrupt us, but thanks to the health care industry being so heavily regulated, *you will have zero access to that surgery owing to shortages on labor and materials.*
Most Canadians go to America for their surgery and pay of it out of pocket via insurance just like you Americans do right now.
We just have to pay taxes *on top* of that expense.
So no, it doesn't pay society back. It costs society and prevents the industry from growing.
Now setting aside the rampant calls for military and police to be de-funded by government funded health care enthusiasts such as yourself, the difference in terms of labor, material and specialization across civil protection and health care really do not make them comparable. The complications required for open heart surgery (not to mention the frequency with which it is needed) do not correlate to the duties of law enforcement.
And if you are of sound health, you're not going to need a doctor nearly as often as you might a regulated police force (which you only have because you Americans refuse to accept that 2A was intended to *prevent* a government's necessary monopoly on violence).
And once upon a time, you effectively *did* force the citizenry into a law enforcement role through the act of the local sheriff *deputizing* members of the militia to help him render law. A practice that, while rare, still happens to this very day.
Beyond even that, private firefighting companies exist all over America and Canada and are hired by the government as contractors just like they are by the general public.
But here's a question for you-
If work hard to maintain a healthy body weight, avoid unhealthy habits like smoking, drinking and use of recreational, toxic and addictive drugs, wash my hands and brush my teeth, *what logic dictates that my taxes paying for the unhealthy habits of a 300lbs is consider "fair?"*
Why should I have to pay for the consequences of someone else's drinking habits?
See, an out of control fire could easily end my life. So it makes sense to fund a firefighting force to protect the community in which I reside.
But the health of a stranger? On the other side of the country? Who may very well hate my guts cause I vote PPC and they vote NDP?
Why should I be footing their medical bills?
@@MMDelta9unfortunately privatized healthcare doesn't do much better when the costs can quickly make you homeless just to survive. I think government provided healthcare is the only acceptable le route we have as a society for every to have equal access. We need to identify tiny where your system went wrong and bottlenecks. Find out why there's a labor shortage, give benefits to healthcare workers equal to that of military workers. Figure out why material is hard to come by. It's all about knowing where the money is going and how it's being spent.
@@qs6706 my dude, you are talking to a Canadian.
Our government funded health care has to prescribe euthanasia to keep the lights in the hospitals on.
And your notion that your hospital bills are driving people to homelessness is also wrong.
Cause the majority of US debt is in mortgages, not medicine.
@MMDelta9 it's because we avoid the cost. We deliberately don't go to thedoctorn's because it could cause us homelessness. Which is literal hell.
Are u guys teaching religious things or historical things or a bit of both
@pennythomas3180 teaching is kinda a stretch john locke would not have held this position he was christian as hell he accepted the idea of the state limiting individual rights for the common good and beleved the right to property could be nullified if there wasn't enough for everyone
Locke Some Thoughts Concerning Education
Covetousness and the desire to having in our possession and our dominion more than we have need of, being the root of all evil, should be early and carefully weeded out and the contrary quality of being ready to impart to others inculcated. (G&T 1996: 81)
From Second Treatise of government
As much as anyone can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much by his labor he may fix a property in; whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others. (Treatises II.5.31
It should also be note that in lockes time property did not mean only material things that one owns it meant an individuals' wellbeing and self ownership also of note
Prerogative is the right of the executive to act without explicit authorization for a law, or even contrary to the law, in order to better fulfill the laws that seek the preservation of human life. A king might, for example, order that a house be torn down in order to stop a fire from spreading throughout a city (Two Treatises 2.159). Locke defines it more broadly as “the power of doing public good without a rule”
@@Thanatos562 my dude, you're talking about a shared morality at that point. It is a stretch greater than Street Fighter 2 Dhalsim's strong punch to equate a shared morality to limiting people's inalienable rights. What the actual Hell?
@MMDelta9 I posted some quotes from the man himself. You're kinda assuming locke the guy who came up with the social contract already agrees with you
Strongest counter argument I can imagine is where he argues that property beyond what a man needs for his immediate use is only legitimate because money doesn't spoil because money is a social construct we all tacitly agree to and that without money there would be no businesses or farms but some how I don't think that's the argument libertarians wanna make you can of course disagree with John locke most libertarians just take his natural rights theory and alter it but anyway it's two different quote from different books look up the lockean proviso 3 quotes if you count the second comment also look up first treatise of government 1.42 I keep getting censored when I post it
Your production values and everything about the audio and visual for your show is suspiciously awesome. Like you have real money behind it. Sucks that you're not as edgy and well informed as you thought.
Access to food water and shelter are rights, being provided those things is not a right. So.. boooo and if youre either doing it on purpose or are conveniently blind? Either way im sure i can pull your show apart like good southern ribs.
If you had a right to bear arms, that would force weapon manufacturers to make guns for you.
The right to bear arms means you should not have your weapons taken from you or have people prevent you from buying them. It is essentially an extension to the right to own property you can own things like land a home or personal items like pens and stuff but it does not mean others have to pay for it or build it for you if they don't want to.
You have the right to *keep* the weapon.
Not have it made for you.
You have the right to be safe and secure in your person. And being armed is a great equalizer in securing your right to being safe and secure in your person.
Do you think other people are as concerned for your safety as you are? Why do you think delegating your safety to someone else is a good idea? It didn't work for Jews in Nazi Germany why do you think it would work for you?