Should Majorities Decide Everything?
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 06. 2024
- Under a democratic system of government, how is an individual protected from the tyranny of the majority? According to Professor Munger, democratic constitutions consist of two parts: one defining the limits within which decisions can be made democratically, and the other establishing the process by which decisions will be made. In the United States Constitution, the individual is protected from majority decisions. Professor Munger warns, however, that these protections are slowly being stripped away as American courts of law fail to recognize the limits of what can be decided by majority rule. Professor Munger uses the case of Kelo v. New London to illustrate the dangers of confusing majority rule with a democratic system.
Find LearnLiberty on...
Twitter: bit.ly/RBl3Wv
Facebook: on. WziHpR
Our Website: bit.ly/RBl3FH
"When majorities always win each of us loses" well said.
Bullying is majority rule too.
Not exactly, bullying is a stronger person/group picking on or assaulting a weaker one.
It could be one strong guy going after a bunch of weaker ones, or a gang of people going after one or two people.
" In fact, you DON'T have the right to your own property."
That sort of logic would reduce us all to slaves or serfs. It would also reduce the concept of privately owned property to the point of meaninglessness. The right to have our own property is important because without it we could not survive as individuals. If the food we have isn't our own... could we even justify eating it? If the crops a farmer farms aren't his, how can he justify selling them?
The land and product could be leased to the farmer and profits would be split up based off percentage to the farmer and owner.
@@DaveyLers5150 Congratulations.
You just invented landlords.
now someone should invent serfs
@@DaveyLers5150 share cropping is an old thing
No, I should decide everything! I promise I will do nice things!
Decide for your life, i'll decide for mine. sic semper tyrannis
@@JohnWalterGates im pretty sure I can decide everything. It's not like that ever went wrong!
Majorities shouldn't decide ANYTHING.
+MK Warlock and should minorities??? im asking ._.
+Rom Rom No, it would be best for each individual to be able to choose for themselves (anarcho-capitalism). If one argues that is not possible (libertarianism), then again not the majority, but people that are most competent in that area.
Let's take something different as another example. Even fascism is better than democracy, at least for society as a whole. I agree that some people won't be happy with it, but the same is true for democracy, so this can't be considered an argument in favor of democracy as opposed to fascism either.
In summary, in the long run, democracy is not sustainable and the worst possible way to organise a society. This argument stems from as far back as Ancient Greece.
But does it depend what type of poll for you to vote individually? and doesn't the majority also have enough responsibility and matureness to vote and be part of the majority?.
By the way thank for the reply really appreciate. The thing is that i got a school project in which i have to debate about democracy and if democracy is a fair system because it benefits the majorities, Im debating in favor.
@Christine VonSteeg Byrd
You got the most broken logic I've ever come across.
I beg you to wake up.
@@mkwarlock So 5 yrs later, do you still believe what you said about fascism and democracy?
Imagine the referendum: "Should everyone immediately receive $100,000? Yes/no."
The majority of people vote "Yes". Next day, the government defaults, and the economy collapses.
WHA??? I'M AGAINST DAT LAW WE NEED A $100,000 MINIMUM WAGE!!!
Not the greatest example.
Switzerland had a similar vote about UBI and they voted NO.
P.S But I get your point.
@lɐɯɹou ɐ Spider What about savings? If one dollar worth less, your savings will worth less then before. Inflation is an "effective tax" on savings. Let's say every price doubled. Your expenses are doubled. Your salary is doubled. But your savings are still same. Savings lost half of their value.
For anyone passively watching/reading this, this is a bad premise that has been shown to be wrong time and time again in case study after case study. Turns out the average citizen in a democracy isn't going to vote for something that is clearly detrimental to their own interests. For example, worker owned cooperatives--organizations where the workers have equal vote and thus say in what decisions the business makes--do not vote to constantly raise their own wages, because it would be a detriment to their business. Similarly, citizens in a democracy don't petition new statutes every election to raise the local minimum wage. The reason for this is the same reason you people all seem to call out this strawman as stupid--the average person is not stupid, and is no dumber than you seem to think you aren't.
That was one of the best LearnLiberty videos so far!
Fabulous presentation and I sincerely appreciated everything...right up to Prof Munger's pronouncement of "essential part of the US Constitution and our democracy" at 4:17 in the video. Democracy is exactly what we don't want AND don't have. We want a democratic process within constitutional republic (that rule of law thing, not majority rule). Beside that...agree with everything and the presentation was very digestible!
Direct democracy is when the people vote for everything (ancient Athens) There are too many people now to do this under the conditions we have at the moment.
Representative democracy is when people elect others to vote for them (Roman Republic, USA).
Majority rule is when people can decide everything, even if it is illegal. An innocent man can be hung without trial if a majority of the people decides on it, even if it is illegal. A woman can lose her house because a majority of the people making decisions decides on it, even if it is illegal.
Since we are a republic, or a constitutional democracy, we cannot vote for things that violate the Constitution. For example, we can't vote to ban guns or freedom of speech even if a majority thinks it is a good idea at the time.
No, in this modern age everyone CAN speak for themself without representation. Every registered voter could vote for laws through electronic means. But, this hands power to the majority which this video is against.
"We just substitute the tyranny of a king, for the tyranny of a larger group." 4:18
Uh, so your point is the best tyranny is that of a small group?
i saw one video as a commercial on another video and now.... I'm addicted to this channel.
Wow... SUCH a good video. Clear, concise, and explained adequately.
Apparently democratic rule, as defined here being limited by a constitution which outlines particular protections for individuals, is justified by the existence of the constitution which limits its powers in given ways. But I'm seeing a much deeper problem than this... isn't the constitution itself decided on by a simple majority rule? What protections are there for individuals who don't agree to it? How will their property and livelihoods (and that of their children, who aren't even around to be consulted) be respected and protected when they refuse to consent to the ratification or rule of this constitution? What or who is protecting individual interests against the majority when the majority decides they *want* the constitution in the first place? The entire constitution and thus the entire democratic nation can be rendered invalid and unjust from the start if the means to start it were an unjust majority ruling.
the protection for extremists is called the first and second amendments. If it were up to majority rule, political dissenters would be beaten up, raped, and killed, not in that particular order.
the left/government does not care about constitution just saying
@@_epic730 you are absolutely correct but they know they can’t totally violate it until they repeal the 2nd amendment. Even then you think people will just give up a right protected since the inception and is really the only thing that has stopped the American government from going full on Cuban government.
Well if the people object to the freedoms the constitution brings up then wouldn't they consent to persecution? It's a paradox.
The right only cares about rules when they benefit from them and they get to look down on other people being punished. As soon as a law gets in their way it's just some freedom crushing tyranny and out come the guns and Confederate flags.
The US is not a democracy. It is a republic. A republic is rule by law. It is the law or constitution which protects rights. A democratic system or rule by the people does not protect you from tyranny of the majority a republic, rule by law, does.
+Larry Keen I wouldn't define a republic as "rule by law," because that could apply to other governments too, including true democracies. A republic is a government where power is invested in people who elect representatives, and where there is no King. A democracy is direct rule from the people. Like, in the States, how laws are sometimes put directly on the ballot for everyone to vote for or against. As such the U.S. is a bit of a mix of the two. Although much more of a republic than a democracy.
Larry Keen but these "laws" are made by majority
a democracy is a government that is ultimately controlled by the citizens…………….……………………………………….that's America…………….……………………………………………….that's why we are a democracy
Your comment makes no sense. Isn't the president of USA formally elect by the people? Isnt that democracy??
@@norton4692 The president is not elected by the people. The president is elected by the electoral college. Several past elections are examples of this when the loser won the popular vote, but lost the presidency.
This video isn't saying that 1% of the population should rule over the other 99%. It's saying that the majority should not be allowed to take away rights from the minority.
Thanks that is a good way of explaining it.
Reading suggestion: "Democracy: The God That Failed", by Hoppe.
I love how he used a example of a single old lady in a small house, fighting against a greedy developer. To explain why private ownership and private property is sacred.
I, too, love how he used a fringe example of commodification of land, and the conflation of a city council vote with a raw, popular vote as a reason we shouldn't have majority votes.
Great video.
Excelente!
Democracy: Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.
He is getting Democracy confused with Republics.
its basily the same thing but Republics are worse you pick the people who you think will make laws you like
Actually, you're both wrong.
What he's talking about IS a Democracy. However, what We have here in America is a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. Now it's not quite what Super Eric describes. It's close, but not quite. See you vote for someone to represent you and your community. That Representitive is supposed to vote based upon the people that he represents. (Yes, they can vote differently than what the people he represents wants, but out of thosands of elections, that's only really happened a few times. Once by complete accident as the representive actually got the name mixed up.)
Now are you always going to get what you want? Of course not. No form of Democracy (or anything else in life for that matter) can do that. However, it is the best system that we have. The Electoral College is extremely important to prevent big cities making decissions for small towns. Trust me, you don't want Californian Housing Laws where you live. (Unless you live in Seatle, of which case almost any Housing Laws would be better. czcams.com/video/36a_ndkmXbE/video.html )
Point is that Republics are actualy MUCH beter than pure Democracies as pure Democracies are much easier to manipulate than Republics are. ( czcams.com/video/sBJmogy9d6U/video.html )
republic is Democracy but just with some extra steps you vote people to make rules for you and now its the rich rule over every one with a republic not much better how about we try a better system
@@_epic730 got to get rid of the lobbyists in Washington DC they bribe the politicians and then the politicians don't look out for our best interest
@@_epic730 got to get rid of the lobbyists in Washington DC the bribe the politicians and they overrule us and take care of the lobbyist so that's not looking out for our best interest
Huh, I didn't know that. Thanks for the fact.
Excelent Video. Congratulations
Another problem is that the average voter can't be trusted to vote on certain issues that are above his head. Voters should only be allowed to vote on issues with which they are adequately acquainted. For example, we can't have religious fundamentalists voting on whether to teach Creationism or Evolution in public schools, because they don't know any better.
Rustedblade 'Tis better to live under noble tyrants than savage commoners.
A Noble Tyrant is an Oxymoron.. I think you mean Noble Dictator right?
Rustedblade I just used that word since you mentioned tyranny. I obviously don't believe that such enlightened panels of 'wisemen' would be tyrants. Dictators, arguably, but emphasis on the plural.
Rustedblade Looks like someone got a 'Jump to Conclusions Mat' for Christmas. My comment about tyrants was made in jest, but that's beside the point. How to keep a panel from acting corrupt, you ponder? Take away all financial incentive. People tend to be corrupted by money more than anything.
In the same way the materialistic atheists shouldn't be allowed to vote whether to teach Creationism or Evolution in public schools, because they don't know any better.
"that protection has been eroded"
That's what happens when you think pieces of paper are going to limit government.
Christ, why is libertarianism so smart yet so dumb.
Really good 👍
this was really good video..
wouldn't want prom king to be president now would you?
"Democracy and Majority rule are not synonyms"
As a Greek, let me correct you: Democracy, or Δημοκρατία, as we say, comes from two words. Δήμος (Demos) (the many) and Κράτος (Kratos) (to rule). The fist time the world Demorcracy is documented is as follows: We are not an Oligarchy (ruled by the "Ολίγοι" or the few) but a Democracy, for we dont allow the few to speak for the many, and the many to act on the wishes of the few.
Majority rule, is the ESSENSE OF DEMOCRACY. No constitution, no written law, guarantees the rights of man. It is the people who must realize their importance and once they do, only then, and only under a rulling majority, the rights are respected, and the laws enforced.
Anything else, is NOT a democracy, its an Oligarchy. When it is possible to elect a president with 27% of the votes, and this president can basically act as he wishes without the trust of gongress, and when your leaders are sold out because they have to seek funding from companies, and not the state, I am afraid you dont have the right to use the word democracy anymore...
You're an Oligarchy.
Άλλο να κυβερνούν άλλο να καταπιέζουν. Το σύνταγμα ορίζει πάνω σε ποια θέματα μπορεί μία πλειοψηφία να αποφασίσει προστατεύοντας έτσι τα ατομικά δικαιώματα όσο και τα δικαιώματα των μειονοτήτων.
Και ποιος αποφασίζει το σύνταγμα τότε? Μια αυξημένη πλειοψηφία! Άρα για να ενταχθεί, και πάνω από όλα για να εκτελείται ένα συνταγματικό άρθρο, πρέπει μια πλειοψηφία να το υποστηρίζει.
Σε μια πραγματική δημοκρατία, κανενας νομος, και καμια πραξη του κρατους δεν μπορει να υποστηριζεται η να προστατευει μια μειοψηφια, γιατι οι θεσμοι αυτοι καθε αυτοι ειναι πλειοψηφικοι. Ας πουμε για παραδειγμα οτι το 70% των Ελληνων υποστηριζουν τις εκτρωσεις. Αυτο σημαινει οτι και το 70% των αντιπροσωπων τις υποστηριζουν, επομενως ενα συνταγματικο αρθρο που της απαγορευει, δεν μπορει να σταθει, αφου η πλειοψηφια μπορει να το αλλαξει.
Ομοιως θα μπορουσε να γινει και για ολα τα συνταγματικα δικαιωματα, ακομα και τα βασικα, μεσα απο δημοψηφισματα.
Δικαιωματα εχουμε επειδη εχουε αποφασισει να εχουμε, γιατι καθε ανθωπος ξεχωριστα επιθυμει να εχει βασικες ελευθεριες, και η πλειοψηφια των ανθρωπων τις υποστηριζει.
TheThOdOr1s μα η απαγόρευση των εκτρώσεων δεν προστατεύει κανέναν. Κι αν πλειοψηφία επιθυμεί οι μαύροι να μην έχουν πολιτικά δικαιώματα, ή οι Εβραίοι πρέπει να φοράν το άστρο του Δαβίδ? Θα έπρεπε να μπορεί να επιβάλλει μια τέτοια άποψη. Όχι, τα συντάγματα δεν δημιουργούνται από τις πλειοψηφίες. Συντάσσονται από έμπειρους νομικούς και ανθρώπους που χαίρουν ευρείας αναγνώρισης όχι τόσο σε ιδεολογική αλλά επιστημονική βάση. Αν τα δικαιώματα μπορεί να στα πάρει μια πλειοψηφία τη στιγμή της μεγαλύτερης ανάγκης σου τότε δεν είναι δικαιώματα είναι προνόμια...προσωρινά προνόμια
BlindGus Ακομα και αν συνταζονται, δεν γινονται πραξη παρα μονο εαν υπαρχει ενας πολιτισμενος και μορφομενος λαος που να τα υποστηριζει...
Exactly my point.
Back in the 50's the State of Wisconsin with the local Airport decided they wanted my Grandfather's 142 acres of farm. They gave him $0.13 on the dollar for what it was worth and told him to move out, thanks to Eminent Domain. You can still visit that farm property today in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and it's nothing but weeds. The Airport has been sold several times, and no one can buy that land, as the State own's it now. I was born and raised a Libertarian as a result.
If this means something to you, I totally agree with you on this one.
VERY important!!! great.
I agree with your statement in as far as the 51% measure and lack of moral principals. However I would contend that there are substantial differences between a republic and a democracy but perhaps even more important than those differences is that people understand how and when the transition from sovereign republic to queens democracy took place and what constitutional protections they lost in the process.
well said very well said
The biggest problem with all of these is a lack of information. Government pass laws with out explanation, old out dated laws are kept on the books with no review. Corruption is a problem. How do we fix this I do not know.
Wow this is super, please keep pushing these videos form a libertarian perspective!
Yes yes yes, you are the master of the universe, I got it now. Carry on Mr.Self-righteous.
And then that developer abandoned the project and the land was pretty much turned into a dump. I hope the majority is happy.
Such a great youtube channel
This is a good video.
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself." John Adams
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Benjamin Franklin
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson
Federalist Papers no. 10, Madison dedicates completely to express the differences between Republic and Democracy.
I love this video!!!!!!!!!
What originally used term are you referring to that was supposedly co-opted and redefined?
I'm a law student, having just taken property last semester and we had the Kelo case as a discussion for an entire class. This video is a oversimplification of the facts. The town was in a downward spiral on it's way to becoming a blight. The plan was devised to revitalize the town not to benefit the private owner. Does it suck that she lost her home? Yes. Was letting the town rot for the sake of 7 people the better solution? No.
I'm a Libertarian and I agree with the outcome of Kelo
The government imposes their set of restrictions upon you. Your parents impose their set of restrictions upon you. Both existed before you did. You didn't agree before they had authority over you. Yet somehow, it's logical to question the authority of one, and not the other.
This is why the house analogy fits so well. You don't get the right to have your sofa inside our house if you aren't willing to follow the rules which were set up before you started living there.
... Eminent domain only applies when the government wants a property for a purpose of the public (ie roads, sewer lines, etc). NOT a private party, as in the example. The problem was not the building of a road but of a private investment property (condominium). The city council ruled to enforce eminent domain unjustly to gain more taxes from the condos owned by a private investor. Majority rule is also called "Mob Rule" and is highly dangerous as Erik pointed out.
Leonard - not all "property" originates from the same process. In the US, almost all land "titles" were created and defined solely by the government, using land stolen from others - the only "right" one has to that land is that the government said it was OK to appropriate it from others and then pass it to others. That particular type of "property right" derives entirely from government edict, period. In which case the government has some ability to specify what rights it creates from nothing
...you can ask for help to articulate if you have difficulty in responding with the mechanics of exchange, by the way.
So relevant since we had a by-election in my city yesterday! We just barely managed to keep the reigning government as a minority government instead of a majority government.
idk the particulars of the deal that was worked out but in my experience, eminent domain pay the "fair market value" which is based on recently sold properties in the area. You don't get a choice in the matter. You can sue to keep the property but if you lose the case, you just get a check for whatever the state decides is fair. They look at similar properties and average the sale prices to find the "market value" of the property then cut you a check.
I think you will find that many people left and right oppose using eminent domain to transfer properties from one private entity to another. This is more about the influence of big economic entities on the interpretation of the constitution, and their ability to change the game without needing super-majorities as spelled out in the Constitution. The Supreme Court sometimes upsets liberals, sometimes upsets conservatives, but rarely upsets big business. Left vs Right keeps big money in charge.
Thank you for that, I'll surely look into. I tend not to favor any form of govt system, as long as it is protecting individual rights, that's the goal. I like the decentralized system the founders of America envisioned. I recommend you, that favors monarchy, to look at D. Pedro II Emperor of Brazil, he was known as the "liberal king", because he really believed in liberty and governed in that way, but as I told, he lost the crown for that, and the country entered into despotism for a century.
Exactly! Ben Franklin was asked by a common woman, "What kind of Government have you given us?" He replied, "A republic my dear if you can keep it."
A republic is a form of democracy, it is the most common form of democracy. When people just say "democracy", 99% of the time they mean a republic. The first democracies in Greece, which is where we get the term democracy, were republics. When people mean "direct democracy", they will say direct democracy. But when they mean a republic, they just say democracy, since that's the most common form of democracy.
I told you what my position on that is. The rational consequences of not having government at all, justifies taxation for me. Now whether or not you consider me evil because I want a centralized government taking care of certain duties for the population as a whole, I don't really care. Everyone is equal before the law, but if there is no government, there is no lawgiver, and no one enforces the law, which means anything goes, and I can't agree to that.
The short answer is "the obvious and simple system of natural liberty" (--Smith), but for a better explanation, check out the video called "State or Private Law Society | Hans-Hermann Hoppe."
Any use of government requires violence upon the non-violent people - whether by theft of taxes, monopolization of money, forced surrender of rights, etc.
Small-gov advocates argue for a little bit of evil - pretending a piece of paper will prevent its growth. There is no such thing as a "little" evil - evil has no adjectives that minimize it.
Whether you agree with "weed" or not is not your place to judge upon anyone else. Your choice does not make the compliance for others.
This video should be mandatory for Congress, The Senate, Presidential Candidates and the Supreme court before they occupy an office.
I would sincerely like to know HOW in detail you intend to protect your self, family, property w/o law enforcement. And how you create fair & just law enforcement w/o courts and hen taxation for pay for it all.
...and though "ought" MAY imply "can", it does NOT imply "must".
"from an objective point, everybody won" Just to throw out some numbers here: imagine she was offered the "fair" market value of the home $150K. She values the home at $500K the rock bottom price she will sell at, due to sentimental reasons. After going to court, she gets $300K. She was overcompensated, right? WRONG! ;) She actually got ripped off by $200K. Besides, the motivation for stealing her home was to be able to steal even more money through taxation. How exactly did everyone win?
There is a cost greater than zero, it is not necessary to quantify it more than that.
You are right - except such a store has lost all your future purchases - and if such a business is ignorant of that cost, they will suffer the ultimate lesson of that ignorance - bankruptcy.
Never required "good will" nor anything else you posit. I said "mutual and voluntary" - if either is not there.... oh well... live with it, or "do something else"
They are not mutually exclusive:
Republicanism (re-public, "thing"-"public")
-- sovereignty rests with the public (many people) rather than with a monarch/emperor (a few elites)
Democracy (demo-cracy, "common people"-"strength")
-- rule by the majority rather than by a minority
The US is a republic in that the head of state comes from the public, not a monarch. It is democratic in that the head of state is chosen by the majority, not a minority.
(cont) to put in place more barriers for those who seek power. You could have a balanced budged amendment to limit Congress' power to spend your money, or amendments with term limits for Justices and Congress. If you do not believe the constitution, as written, should serve as a model for government, what is your proposed alternative? Benjamin Franklin said the flaw of the Constitution was that it would only work as long as Americans believed in it. But that is the fault of those who abandon it.
Even if they offered her twice the average market value, if she didn't accept the sale voluntarily then she did not consider the price to be "just compensation." It's not like there is an objective value hidden in the atomic structure of the house that only the state can ascertain. "Just compensation" in other words a "fair" deal can only be determined by the seller and the buyer working together...
I understand that. I just want to know what happened. Did the city council compensate her? and if yes, did she also appeal the compensation in the court? and perhaps the court changed it, increased or decreased it.
Re: Laws
Who said "take away all laws?"
Law is violence. The only justified use of violence is to prevent, mitigate, repair and defend from an initiation of violence.
So laws against murder, assault, theft, ...laws against these acts of violence are "just" - that is justified uses of violence (defense) against initiation of violence (attack).
"Laws" that initiate violence - attacking non-violent people so to enforce some edict are acts of evil regardless of legality.
I bought a set of eye glasses from a company in China, cheap - about 1/3 the cost local.
They arrived and were great - except, one of the arms got slightly damaged in shipping.
I contacted the firm in China, and they -without any fuss or question- requested a photo of the damage, and promised a new frame.
I sent the photo and *magic to you it seems* I got new frames - no cost.
I have no enforcement over that company in China - so why did they do that, do you think?
You're right. You have argued by fallacy of example for pages, and no matter how often I've asked, implied or queried - you have worked hard to avoid the presentation of your principles.
Methinks you fear it - for such a principle, should it be used against you as you use it in your favor would not be pleasant.
It is not a matter of monetization - money is merely a conduit of transaction.
I earn so to able me to trade for things I value.
I value food.
I value shelter.
I value protecting my family.
So I earn to trade my production for food, shelter and guards (etc.)
Economics is about human action - we need to do "something" to provide the necessary goods and services for our own well-being and survival. Security is absolutely embedded and a serious error to assume it is not such an economic good.
for the fault of the politicians who ignore it. The Constitution can serve as a check on government power as long as the American people still believe in it. It's a creed. If no one believes that the constitution should limit government anymore, we are lost, but if people still believe in it, we can work to elect officials who pledge to uphold it, and justices who interpret it according to the original intent of its framers, not their personal biases. Furthermore, we can ammend our constitution
It matters not that you may change your value later in time.
At the time of transaction -which is all we are considering for "free rider"- you only complete if you gain more value.
The value exists SPECIFICALLY at that time, or you would not trade. Whatever the expectation later may be is irrelevant.
Property rights are secured by the government by law in the first place. If a system of coercive power geared towards the protection of property rights is what you wish to live under, you can't complain when that same coercive system of power elects to rob you of those same rights. In fact, you DON'T have the right to your own property. Forced removal or relocation clauses are included in legislature. The solution a system NOT based on the unnatural protection of private property by force.
My company bought some development boards from a relatively large and mostly respected Chinese company where the software license (GPL) requires the vendor to supply source code. They refused to do honor the license & refused to take the product back. "why did they do that, do YOU think?"
I would generally agree.
The issue I see, however, is systemic.
No matter the organization, the premise under operation is that the institution charged with making law and enforcing law is expected to make law against itself and enforce those laws upon itself.
Early in such an institution's life, it may indeed do such things for its own purpose - garner legitimacy - however, the older it gets, the less it needs legitimacy (age provides this) and thus, the less it enforces self-inflicted law.
Assess and impute are synonyms. Yes we agree value is subjective.
We will see if the complexity changes things once you stop meandering and present an argument as to how your system can create a non-excludable product.
really? I shall have to look this up!
I was wondering, did Kilo receive "just compensation?" and if yes, then what was it?
How can a piece of paper - whose specific terms destroys freedom - be so "designed" to "protect" freedom?
The provisions have not been ignored. They have been exercised, and the loss of your freedom is the consequence.
To believe that an institution made to make law and enforce those laws will make and enforce laws against itself is naive.
You are asking the devil to bind himself with his own rope, and believe that the knots he ties on himself will hold him.
No. I said a document designed to limit their power, meaning the Constitution. If we did not have a constitution, we'd have to trust that government officials would just keep their promises and never abuse their power, which is unrealistic. That's why the framers argued about how structurally to limit the powers of the federal government. The 9th and 10th amendment is largely ignored today by big government, and they need to be held accountable for ignoring their constitutional limits.
My point is that there is no such thing as objective value. One can average subjective value based on sales records, but there is no value embodied in an item. One cannot find a price tag embedded in an items atomic structure. As far as her getting ripped off: If she thought the deal was a good one then why did she fight against it so hard? Opportunity cost requires choice. She wasn't given a choice to forgo selling. The only choice she had was stay and be arrested or take the check and leave.
ditto
''oversimplification''. It still irks me that one uses a middle man to get what he wants and all that's needed is a 'good cause'.
Good video, but there is a question about the incorporation doctrine. In short, does the Bill of Rights apply to the states? There has been some controversy about the 14th Amendment.
i wish more people watched this video and understood what it meant
Theft is "the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it." and theft is not dissipated by merely changing the identity of the thief.
When a violent man seizes goods and services and then demands you to dance for them to be returned - it is not your dancing that is evil - is the act of the violent man.
You are easily fooled by largess of stolen loot and the gang's glorious lifestyle - shortsighted indeed.
What is the comparable situation that justifies taxation ?
How does one measure suffering? Is there a standard unit? Maybe a suffering meter you can carry around?
Thumbs up for Monarchy
Democracy is all about "my group endlessly tries to vote the property ownership of your group to us, and my group interprets the constitution as agreeing with us"
College of William and Mary:
Privately founded in 1693 - it is the second-oldest institution of higher education in the United States after Harvard.
Harvard was founded in 1636 - it was named after John Harvard who bequeathed the College his library of four hundred books and £779 pounds sterling, which was half of his estate.
So much for your "public school" can't be funded without government.
"lost all future purchases" doesn't matter if you bought a lemon car, or house.
As to "mutual and voluntary" you can have one or the other, but rarely both. You ignore what really happens in conflict. Apparently you never spent any time in civil courts.
I have already provided ample details.
I do not buy from people I do not trust. But you do.
So right there we diverge.
Because I do not buy from people I do not trust, I rarely have been faced with conflicts in that purchase - and if they do arise, they are handled easily, fairly and well.
You do buy from untrusted people, so you face lots of conflicts, and they are rarely handled well, or fairly - so you need to use violence as the great decider of right and wrong.
Faerlon
- as he is the one who posited the "lying=wrong"/"Lying to murderers therefore is wrong"/"Therefore, stealing to pay for goods is right" theory.
Yes, many people claim no one would pay for police, yet, walk right past "security force" in every mall in America without a thought about it.
(Apology if it appeared I entangled you on the wrong side of the argument)
Evidence is not the plural of anecdote.
I suggest you read the vast civil court dockets for cases that were not so easily & pleasantly resolved. I NEVER said all cases result in unresolvable conflict, but many do.
Let's say in this example it is measurably economically valuable to most citizens of the community.
The current interpretation of free speech came about through democratic struggle in the 20th century, and wasn't constituted by the founding fathers.
In the earliest interpretation of the constitution, government was allowed to penalize for speech. It merely wasn't allowed to forcefully prevent speech from happening.
Anyone but a libertarian would have mentioned the organizations which have enabled these rights, and work to protect them to this day.
In the example with Mrs Kelo, we ALL know that one private individual will most definitely have his way over another, provided he has greater money, power, influence and resources..We are not all equal under the constitution....
The developer did not ask city to condem the land. The city decided to try to attract a large project developer by acquiring a large area for potential urban redevelopment. Pfizer came along AFTER the renewal plan was adopted that called for the acquisition of land (including Ms. Kelo's house). The city acted first, the developer came along later. This WAS NOT the case of the city exerciing it eminent domain powers for the benefit of a private developer.