*findthumb?

A different thumbnail image for this video could not be found for findthumb request by blankfist.

Part 1: The origin of rights is neither individuals or some inhuman state, but in the covenant that individuals make with one another in a social contract which establishes a state, like the Constitution.

Part 2: I'll let Thomas Jefferson take this one.

Part 3: I agree, responsibilities are just like rights. Most everything here about "what liberals collectivists think" is horseshit.

Part 4: Obviously they're taking aim at affirmative action. If one presupposes that we're allowed to pass on our wealth to our children, not only in terms of actual property and money, but also in terms of things like safe environments, healthy food, good education, nurturing, and developmental aid, then yes, you're probably going to need to give a repressed people a leg up for generations long after the initial "unfairness". It doesn't hurt if there seems to be a bit of an issue with racial discrimination too.

Part 5: Remember how at the beginning they talk about how left and right are usually used to associate good or bad feelings to people with the labels? Guess what happens here.

Really the issue goes all the way back to the first section, and their misunderstanding the real position of so-called "collectivists" on the "origin" of rights. It also comes from an utter rejection of the arguments Thomas Jefferson made in favor of majority rule (i.e. "the consent of the governed"), without ever actually taking on the idea that dismantling the government as it is might require consent from someone too.

Oxygen vs. Water

I think this is important enough for a *promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, August 30th, 2009 8:37pm PDT - promote requested by rottenseed.

*documentaries, I'll look it completely through later.. Long damn playlist.

Adding video to channels (Documentaries) - requested by gwiz665.

Ah, probably not documentaries, since there is no real film. Meh, definitely *talks though.

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by gwiz665.

Moving this video to blankfist's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

i had to quit watching because of the terrible sound mixing. The music is distracting and too loud.

Showed his hand right up front with the "democrat party" limbaugh speak.

I could make a much more coherent argument saying that all politics can be broken down into those who believe in freedom, and those who believe in property. I could then use all sorts of demeaning phrasing to show how the proprietarians are foolish, and that their methods destroy freedom. But that would be just as pointless and stupid as the arguments made here, though it would be far closer to the truth.

Started off as a great idea, then quickly turned down a false path of generalizations and platitudes. Not to mention the bad sound started giving me a headache.

Maybe somebody else will pick up this examination and do it in a non-biased, professional fashion.

Why isn't there a *horseshit invocation?

I think that the premise of the argument is flawed.

Collectivism and individualism are not necessarily at odds.

Making it appear so is an obfuscation of reality, which is the heart of the question, and that question is this: what is the nature of ownership?

The proponents of individualism are only using that concept to justify their tendency to hoard profits and exploit people and resources as they see fit.

They have no problem with “collectivism” as long as that group effort is subservient to their will.

What is a corporation if not a collectivist effort where only a handful of the people profit greatly and the majority of the people profit hardly at all? Where a majority of people are paid only enough to go slowly into debt?

“Individualism” is a code word that corporatists use to keep the working class from organizing for their own benefit.

It's ironic because the most dreadfully conformist people to be found are always in the upper echelons of corporate management.

damn right rougy.


The idea that 'collectivists' believe rights come from the government is completely false. Maybe some do, but none that I know.

Collectivism and Government are synonymous.

Collectivism and Corporatism are synonymous.

The problems always boils down to:

* who is the decision maker
* who deserves a lot of money
* who deserves a little money

Maybe humans are fucked. Maybe we're too corrupt to save ourselves.

Are we the thieving, lying monkeys who got away with it for too long?