It does sound that they are targeting the person for destruction, not punish him for his possible crimes. The question is who did he piss off and does he have to worry about someone sui:ciding him.
@Marty234
Күн бұрын
Just a test post I'm using the legal language and YT is blocking me, this is ridiculous.
@johnsmithers8913
17 сағат бұрын
99% of mine are censored. At this point I think removal of comments is more to do with the financial cost of maintaining the servers to keep all these comments than politics.
@barrylafleur8526
13 сағат бұрын
@@johnsmithers8913 It is political.
@flinch622
3 сағат бұрын
Real, germane arguments are a problem on a number of issues. Welcome to the club..
@macsnafu
Сағат бұрын
@@barrylafleur8526 How can you be sure it's political? My comments are removed without providing any explanation. I'm guessing that they somehow violate their TOS, but that's just a guess unless they tell me so I know for sure. It also means that I'm just guessing on how to avoid them being removed.
@Marty234
Күн бұрын
Charge him for hitting the ppl he hit, the rest of this is such BS
@freshcofreshco9811
Сағат бұрын
The case is nonsense, a toxic relationship turned into sex trafficking and a Rico
@tonypalmentera7752
22 сағат бұрын
I missed it all...I thought he said i had a WEEK OFF. I always miss the good parties.
@scotttaylor8462
6 сағат бұрын
In terms of how the federal government handled the war of 1812: No conscriptions/draft No suspension of habeas corpus Perhaps the most libertarian way to conduct war.
@LethalBubbles
20 сағат бұрын
wait I wanna hear how Jingle All The Way corrupts souls
@gloriathomas3245
Күн бұрын
P Diddy was charged under the same circumstances as R Kelly.
@bitcoingabriel
Күн бұрын
FREE ROSS
@TugHillGuy
6 сағат бұрын
The Reason team was really vague and confusing in their answer to the Weekly listener question (29:49). I suggest they all think about it some more.
@macsnafu
Сағат бұрын
Some good stuff in this one. It's important for a legal system to provide *justice,* which means appropriate levels of punishment for crimes committed. A person doesn't really lose his rights because he's committed a crime. The legal system ha to prove that he committed the crime, and then they have to punish him only for the crime with an appropriate punishment. Our current legal system seems to be about charging someone with all the crimes they think they can get through court, and seize all the assets they can, and very little do with providing justice. As for the reader question, again, good answers. I've used both principled and pragmatic at different times, because it really depends on addressing a person's most important concerns. But yes, I think a principled libertarian approach would lead to a better society. People often talk about whether or not the ends justify the means, but that's the wrong way to think about it. You have to choose an *appropriate* means to achieve your desired end. If you choose an inappropriate means, it becomes not just difficult, but impossible to achieve the desired end. I think libertarianism is an appropriate means for achieving a better society.
@tonypalmentera7752
21 сағат бұрын
I'm not interested in human flourishing that is attained by coercing the innocent. It seems unethical and inefficient in maximizing societal utility, given such flourishing is countered by the utility reduction for those coerced, even if not proportional.
@JonathanRossRogers
23 сағат бұрын
49:04 Maybe Kamala needs to try a Cynar Colada.
@shaun7142
8 сағат бұрын
I think the “point” of the Listener Question is less about, “what if libertarianism is a total failure as a practical policy”, and more about whether libertarianism has to be “the best” or even “among the best” in every or most fields for you to support the principle. Every political system has its pluses and minuses, especially in comparison to other systems. Communism, for example, is probably going to be infinitely better at channeling the collective power of the nation towards a particular goal on a reasonable time scale than an anarchistic community. The question though is whether that capacity is worth more than the principles of that anarchistic community. For a more general policy question, guns. By allowing people to have guns, you increase the probability of people using guns to kill each other. And since guns are effective, that means (generally) you will increase the murder rate. Is that more important than either the utility of the guns themselves or the “freedom” that ensures you can own them? These kinds of questions are important to ask, especially for libertarians who often argue against government intervention as a matter of principle, even though that intervention could be helpful.
@flinch622
3 сағат бұрын
The problem with communism is it rapidly descends into something of a pyramid scheme. Remote country chateau's for party members and alot of "off budget" activities are one fingerprint.
@aptkeyboard3173
13 сағат бұрын
Is Nick ok? Lol
@JonathanRossRogers
Күн бұрын
0:18 Peter Suderman does not appear to happy about talking about stuff with coworkers.
Пікірлер: 33