I've always loved this video since its release and how concise it's put together. I'm saddened though by the very few views this video has had in a decade. I think people are just too comfortable being told what to do and not having a thought for themselves
Impressive presentation. I'd like to emphasize that we currently coexist within a republic and an oligarchy, as the ruling "establishment" wields significant influence over our government. When referring to the ruling establishment, I'm alluding to a closely related consortium that has pursued a century-long endeavor to gain control over numerous influential mechanisms. This group, often denoted as the unnameable, the Cabal, or simply the "establishment," currently owns 94% of all forms of media, the Banks, Big Pharma, Hollywood, search engines, and exerts substantial sway over the judicial system. They utilize these institutions to pull the puppet strings of our elected officials often resulting in constitutional violations and laws being bent or broken in their favor, with little to no repercussions.
It’s the best! I lost it and just found it. It really bugs me when people put hitler and fascism on the far right. I always say it goes on the left with mao and Stalin... but it’s a deep seated belief b
This video always gives me the chills. It is so telling as to what is happening in the west right now. I don't think we can stop the cycles. We are headed towards the next phase in the cycle whether we like it or not. All hail King Schwab.
Switzerland. They do most things by peoples referendum - ie a demoratic fashion. People themselves have seldom or never taken away each others rights in a modern society - but the Oligarchy have always done it and do - constantly - and they do it through with theyr TV propaganda have always told us that we cant have democracy and that democracy wouldnt work - but democracy has rules - 2/3rds must vote twice within 4-8 years (two general elections) to change the constitution in Norway
A bigger question is-why were people waiting outside because they no clue what form of government Franklin and crew had created if it was a republic "of the people."
Anarchy means no rulers but not no rules. You might say that in anarchy you are ruled by nature. Lack of government force can not save you from gravity or the consequences of bad choices.....
This could be simpified down to two; 1-Oligarchy: The few ruling over the many (with a mix of coercion, corruption and deception), which can take various form such as what we "call" democracy and republic, which are oligarchic behind the stage. 2-Democracy: The majority of the people governing themselves, as was the case in Athenian Democracy and during the Spanish Anarchy in the 1930s. Anarchy(not the right wing capitalist version) and (real) Democracy, doest mean there's no law or constitution or rules, Anarchy means there is no "rulers", in a real Democracy in the Athenian sense people vote on laws directly, not for Aristocratic representatives or rulers, so in a sense there is also no rulers. Athenian Democracy lasted for over a hundred years and Anarchy in Spain lasted for years and it did not stop from internal dysfunction but because of external military aggression. One could view Anarchy and Democracy as having similarities/connections, people organizing themselves for themselves without a ruler and with rules people agree on), while Hierarchy and Oligarchy could be seen as also having similarities/connections of their own, where a few use and leverage hierarchy, money and secrecy to rule over the many.
"without law there can be no freedom" ? How has that been working out? Clearly man's law was not the answer. Man's Law < Laws of Nature. #voluntaryism for the win
We are the only republic with a written constitution protecting natural rights. A few other countries give natural rights lip service but are comfortable with denying natural rights whenever they want. If you do not want to believe me take a good look at Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom.
Impressive presentation. I'd like to emphasize that we currently coexist within a republic and an oligarchy, as the ruling "establishment" wields significant influence over our government. When referring to the ruling establishment, I'm alluding to a closely related consortium that has pursued a century-long endeavor to gain control over numerous influential mechanisms. This group, often denoted as the unnameable, the Cabal, or simply the "establishment," currently owns 94% of all forms of media, the Banks, Big Pharma, Hollywood, search engines, and exerts substantial sway over the judicial system. They utilize these institutions to pull the puppet strings of our elected officials often resulting in constitutional violations and laws being bent or broken in their favor, with little to no repercussions.
you have no idea what you're talking about anarchy doesn't turns into a dictaorship for the soviet union, anarchists helped the soviets as the soviets were misleading them into believing they would found a new society by the people. a year after the anarchists freed them from the royalists prisons and helped them fights the white army and other european moanrhist army lenine decided to kill all the anarchist, as they were the first to realise that lenine wanted the power to himself (in contradiction with comunism or anarchism) and started to warn people. So Lenine sent the red army against the very ones why saved his live. In greece, when anarchist fought the nazis and regained 3/4 of their countryon their own while having a new form of society, they decided to ask for help to the allies and sent a diplomat to Churchill. Unfortunatly, Chruchill and the americans, not only disliked any form of democracy, but also had interest in the greek region, so they killed the diplomat , started to fund any group that would fight the people of greece (from monarchist to those who helped the nazis) and when that didb't workd he just sent troups to kill the new senat that had no president as it was an intermediate form of society between anarchism or federal anarchism and real (or direct) democracy. anyway he killed them, put the king back which lead to a civil war and a dictatorship. Same happened in spain when the english and americans funded Franco to fight off the arnarchists. And the same happened during La commune, when Napoleon who was at war with germany, both stopped fighting to fight off the flame of freedom, and democracy... SO yeah.. say again ?
Monarchy is ruled by one person, no one else, so if group is involved, then in feudalism, Btw if you dont like monarchy, do as we did, Prague defenestration, throw nobles from the window from a great height :)
Those categories are biased you can have monarchies with quasi anarchist level of freedom, a form of tax against armed protection, eventually you endup with a noble class who doesnt even fight and just get the taxes but that's another story (ours).
The term “democracy” is generally used in the context of free elections, which America supposedly has. Nobody uses the term in the purest ideal sense. That’s why everyone talks about “American democracy.”
Impressive presentation. I'd like to emphasize that we currently coexist within a republic and an oligarchy, as the ruling "establishment" wields significant influence over our government. When referring to the ruling establishment, I'm alluding to a closely related consortium that has pursued a century-long endeavor to gain control over numerous influential mechanisms. This group, often denoted as the unnameable, the Cabal, or simply the "establishment," currently owns 94% of all forms of media, the Banks, Big Pharma, Hollywood, search engines, and exerts substantial sway over the judicial system. They utilize these institutions to pull the puppet strings of our elected officials often resulting in constitutional violations and laws being bent or broken in their favor, with little to no repercussions.
I was going to say, this reminds me of the kind of factual incorrect propaganda I used to have forced on me in government schools. But I'm glad I'm so glad I live in a republic, where the government is limited and the government leaves me alone, so that I'm not forced to pay to put peoples' kids through school.
"is outside of the box for most people - they can't seem to wrap their mind around how it could work"Right and, unless people could wrap their minds around something, they cannot live within a system of that something. When the vast of humanity wraps their mind around it, then we can have it. Until then it will be a failure.And that is true for all forms of government mentioned. With total honesty and no corruption, any system of government would work perfectly, Until then the choice is limited.
Anarchy is basically a state of piracy. You are only secure (at least in terms of...you know...living?) in so much as you are the biggest/smartest hound in the pack or you are a slave to the biggest/smartest hound in the pack. Those are pretty much you're only two options: You're either a bully or a bully's slave.
Sorry, this is not the most common definition of left/right. Going by the pre-French revolution where the right were in favor of keeping monarch authority structure, that makes this completely backwards. Then add in dimension of anti-capitalist/capitalist and it I don't think this idea of spectrum can represent much. I can see why people might be trapped into assuming capitalist economic system. That would be misleading.
Withy the power of the people to seek litigation against corrupt companies and a limited government who simply enforce the small amount of rules needed, a society would be fine. In developing countries the people's right are very limited and thus, corporations run roughshod over them. What developing countries have a weak government and strong individual rights? China has a very strong government and much pollution and limited people's rights.
Right-winger, as in germany right winger is simply a term applied to the context of germanys government at the time. Right wing and left wing are not set in stone and that is what this points to as the source of confusion. More government and less government are set in stone and that is why it is a much better gauge of political systems. It has nothing to do with being right wing.
@@Ducatisatva At the right end of the government spectrum is Anarchy (no government). At the left end of that spectrum is Totalitarianism (total tyrannical government control). Don't be confused by the false definitions of "Right Wing" and "Left Wing" the leftists have dictated to people. In other words, don't attempt to compel someone to give a false definition. Our Republic falls slightly to the left of anarchy. The original draft of the Federalist Papers was too close to the anarchy point of the scale. It was determined that a more rigid guidance to outline the responsibilities, the powers, and the limitations of the federal government while still being able to be an arbitrator for the state governments was needed. That is why the US Constitution was drawn up and ratified by all the existing states. It became the law of the land and all laws had to be supported by the US Constitution. As time passed, those in leadership positions in the federal government wanted more and more power ... encroaching upon the powers of the individual states. They started claiming more and more "rights" over the people of the USA ... "rights" that did not exist since, as elected representatives, they could not claim "rights" that either the people did not have or rights that were reserved for the individual states. If someone called a cow a horse the cow would still be a cow. If someone tries to obfuscate the actual government spectrum by citing "in Germany" or "in France" right wing and left wing are defined as whatever they chose them to be does not alter the fact that the right end of the government spectrum is anarchy and the left is totalitarianism.
William, so we’re Nazis and Fascist more towards anarchy and less government as they are always described as right wing? You see the term Right wing is meaningless.
@@Ducatisatva No ... the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NAZIs) and the Italian Fascist Party (BTW the term fascist was coined by ex socialist Benito Mussolini because his fellow socialists refused to give him the respect he felt he deserved ... so he created the Fascist party) are BOTH totalitarian governments. Only the leftists (Socialists and Marxists) falsely called them "Right wing". Yes ... I concur ... the term "right wing" invented by the leftists (totalitarians) is a lie. It seems as though we are on the same page. 😁
Those who advocate for Anarchy as a political system do not advocate that there should be no rule of law. That is a common misconception. Anarchy seeks to remove leaders, not rules. Underlying its very premise is the non-aggression principle. The vision is outside of the box for most people - they can't seem to wrap their mind around how it could work. Anyway, please take the time to learn a bit more. Anarchy is not about "everyone for himself;" it is about voluntary exchange and cooperation.
The point is that everyone is equal under the set law in a Republic. In other forms of government, a few elite, or an oligarchy, determine rules and apply them unequally according to their whims, abusing the strong arm of government.
I wager that every modern nation, no matter how "republican", is governed by an oligarchy, regardless of whether the oligarchs are elected officials or shadowed men pulling strings behind the curtains. I think the whole comparison is flawed. All the other forms of government mentioned apart from Republics are defined by their power structures. The video itself clearly shows that the only difference between a Republic and a Democracy is a difference in the philosophy. Both forms place power in the hands of the people; supposedly (sure! I'll believe that when I no longer have to pay taxes). Only the Democracy chooses the philosophy Rule of the Majority whereas the Republic chooses the Rule of Law philosophy. Of course, even this is debatable, since a majority of the citizens of any republic can choose to overthrow their current government in favor of a true democracy. A republic is only a republic as long as its people are willing to abide by the philosophy of a republic. Ultimately, a republic is just a glorified democracy skillfully governed/manipulated by an oligarchy. And I would have to disagree with your assessment of a monarchy as just a offspring of oligarchy. That is probably the case these days, but in the past, it is possible to analogize the oligarchy as a wolf-pack with the king as the alpha male. Every member of the oligarchy has power from the people he/she controls, but one member may hold more power than the rest, enough that none of the others have the balls to challenge him. A monarchy in its truest, possible form.
A Republic offers freedom from the mobs ruling over the individual who has broken no laws. Democracy is the mob. When people realize that once they abuse the Democratic mob to override someone else's freedom, that means their own freedom will never be safe from mobs, they usually see the wisdom of protecting and defending a Republic form of government.
Left = BIG, HUGE Nanny State/Big Brother government managing the minutia of everyone else's lives. Right = smallest government necessary and MOST freedom for people to manage and live the consequences of their own lives within basic rules for living in societies. A Constitutional Republic limits Government, not the people. Apparently, this is not taught in schools anymore.
I am a thorough supporter of the Afro-oriented view of monarchism ; where the underlying concept of truly sincere, open, and receptive rule was enforced by all people, the excutives, and most importantly a reserved almost radical yet certaintly, unbiased Impartial enforcement. What mattered wasn't who runs the state; as most dumb fucks emphasize (because they're the ones who really want to rule), and to pussy to strive for, or imagine it, but how descicions were made. If they're were ever a government established, emphasized, and dedicated only to the "self evident rights of the people", seperate from the often entwined factors of "auxillary human advancements", (corporations and contrary interests) I'd have fuckin fit! - that would be true revolutionary moment, reflecting a leap in human consciouness. That would be worth more than any and all democracies and republics ever created, combined.
The presentation of anarchy is very single-sided. Today's Somalia can be seen as a quasi-stable form of anarchy, with local elderly serving as bottom-up judges (not appointed by anyone). In my opinion, the concusion of this video is that actually a republic is also an interim system which - again - transforms towards oligarhy over time (as was a case with Roman Empire and as is a case with the US). So, maybe this is a cycle, with anarachy suceeding oligarhy (people rioting when the powerful elite gets too oppressive)?
***** Seriously, you've read all that about my "liberal, far left, extremist, anti-gun" views from my short comment? You must be adding a whole lot of political context to my comment, which it didn't have - I'm not even an American, in my country a discussion about the availability of arms is non-existent. I just said that I believed this was a cycle, and saying that choice of republic as a "stable" stage (either republic of oligarchy) was arbitrary and unjustified by historical data - the authors of the film admitted that US slipped from the republic towards democracy and you admitted that the Roman empire did transform because of "liberal, immoral, sexual, economic abuse". So republic is not a stable state either, it is as prone to external transforming forces as any other state. The video makes some good points, I just think it's wrong in two matters: * extolling republic over other systems - there have been examples of great monarchies or democracies, there have been also unhealthy republics * saying that the choice is between republic and oligarchy - it might be in this moment for the US, but overall this is all a cycle, you cannot really fight it
***** Your second comment is much more agreeable. I don't think medieval European monarchies (France, Sweden, Britain) or multi-thousand year Chinese empire or ancient Egypt grew because they were 'stealing the "already" established republic and converting to its globalist uses through a slow, communist/socialists/marxist environment' though. And they were pretty successful, I could argue that more than the US (which has only existed for a couple hundred years now and is yet to outlive the Chinese or Egyptian empires).
"The proper amount of government makes everyone freer"....absolutely unbiased....., plus the speaker has no clue as to what Anarchy is, also, judging by the power lobbyists have in the USA I'd say it's much more akin to an Oligarchy than a Republic.
Because this person is obviously a right leaning person, and they are notoriously critical of those programs. Without those programs more poor would be homeless and crowding our streets begging for money or committing crimes for basic survival.
The video has some good points, but the "democracy" as presented here, is actually bolshevism. The Athenian democracy was anything BUT a rule of the majority. There is a lot of info on the subject and I won't go into further detail, but I just wanted to make that important point. Democracy in its original form was NOT a rule of the majority. Bolshevism is, even it's name means exactly that!
My goodness, the moment I saw the political spectrum I knew this was from the perspective of a biased right-winger. To call Fascism left-wing is to go against every credible historian that has studied previous fascist governments. The political spectrum is far more complex than government vs no government being what defines the left and right-wing. Dozens of political positions, from increasing the military budget to favoring traditionalist policies (often based on religious belief) are associated with the right-wing. These ideas undoubtedly lead to an increase in government power as they grow their military and regulate how people live their lives. A more nuanced way of understanding Left and Right-wing schools of thought is by understanding what their extremes want. The further right-wing one goes, the more focused policies are on maintaining hierarchy, whether it's in the social context of blocking civil rights movements, or the business context of protecting the interest of corporations. The right tends to see hierarchy as something to be embraced, not fought. The further to the left one moves, the more they begin to hear of ideas that is anti-hierarchy. A greater focus is put on egalitarianism and being anti-authority, whether that authority comes from the public or private sector. Anarchism has historically been a left-wing idea, for this reason, they tend to stand against not only government authority, but corporate authority. It's not about simply eliminating government, but eliminating hierarchy altogether. The authoritarian side of the left believes in using the state in order to eliminate an unjust hierarchy, and there are of course Anarcho-capitalist that argues, for the elimination of government sure, but the preservation of capitalism (leaving it completely unregulated) which leaves the hierarchy of big business in place. There are big and small government factions on both sides of the spectrum.
Anarchy is ruled by God. Everyone should be armed at all times. Everyone should be working TOGETHER to protect their interests. Anarchy works, when the people decide it wants to work. The problem is people are sheep. Anarchy resolves the problem of the majority, meaning smaller groups can do as they please so long as they dont infringe on the desires of other groups.
Ever watch The Walking Dead? That is anarchy. That is what anarchy would be. Gangs lead by people like Neegan, or the Govenor, or Rick. That sounds good to you? Build a raft with your buddies and live on an island if you wish. I like my laws. The universe is built on laws. Laws like gravity....
Only if the people accept God as their King. That hasn’t been the case very often throughout history. Ask Noah. Read the books of Kings in the Bible about His chosen people and how infrequently they followed His lead. People are inherently bad. They must choose to be good and that is usually the harder path, the road not taken.
I've always loved this video since its release and how concise it's put together. I'm saddened though by the very few views this video has had in a decade. I think people are just too comfortable being told what to do and not having a thought for themselves
Is this even the original video? The image quality is terrible.
Impressive presentation. I'd like to emphasize that we currently coexist within a republic and an oligarchy, as the ruling "establishment" wields significant influence over our government.
When referring to the ruling establishment, I'm alluding to a closely related consortium that has pursued a century-long endeavor to gain control over numerous influential mechanisms. This group, often denoted as the unnameable, the Cabal, or simply the "establishment," currently owns 94% of all forms of media, the Banks, Big Pharma, Hollywood, search engines, and exerts substantial sway over the judicial system. They utilize these institutions to pull the puppet strings of our elected officials often resulting in constitutional violations and laws being bent or broken in their favor, with little to no repercussions.
TH-cam has removed this video several times and tried to hide it on occasion.
*watching 9 years later*
"great quality screen"
Nice job. Best explanation of the subject I've come across on TH-cam.
This video should be shown in all our schools today.
I first watched this when i was a 4th grader and i got bored as a kid 😂, im so glad i found this video again
Same man! I was desperately looking for it 6 years later.
It’s the best! I lost it and just found it. It really bugs me when people put hitler and fascism on the far right. I always say it goes on the left with mao and Stalin... but it’s a deep seated belief b
This is a really brilliant video. I agree very much I think with all of it.
Love how he doesn’t mention Switzerland when talking about Democracy.
Because that which is true isn't dependent on the whims of the mob.
Very educational more Americans should watch this.
I send this out again and again to educate.
This video always gives me the chills. It is so telling as to what is happening in the west right now. I don't think we can stop the cycles. We are headed towards the next phase in the cycle whether we like it or not. All hail King Schwab.
Everyone should see this. There is so much ignorance it's becoming dangerous, actually.
The Samuel Adams quote was actually John Adams...
very goo indeed....will share and share and share,,,this is a must see
wonderful video
thanks bro
Freakin Epic
I made of few of these but this is Epic bro=-)
Restore the Old Order! For God, King, and Country!
yep a bunch of right ol bastards the Lot
Well said.
Wow liked it
Switzerland. They do most things by peoples referendum - ie a demoratic fashion. People themselves have seldom or never taken away each others rights in a modern society - but the Oligarchy have always done it and do - constantly - and they do it through with theyr TV propaganda have always told us that we cant have democracy and that democracy wouldnt work - but democracy has rules - 2/3rds must vote twice within 4-8 years (two general elections) to change the constitution in Norway
Well looks like we’ve got an oligarchy now…
I love this video. Why did Franklin hafta say:"If you can keep it"? Dammit. Lol
A bigger question is-why were people waiting outside because they no clue what form of government Franklin and crew had created if it was a republic "of the people."
Anarchy means no rulers but not no rules. You might say that in anarchy you are ruled by nature.
Lack of government force can not save you from gravity or the consequences of bad choices.....
This could be simpified down to two;
1-Oligarchy: The few ruling over the many (with a mix of coercion, corruption and deception), which can take various form such as what we "call" democracy and republic, which are oligarchic behind the stage.
2-Democracy: The majority of the people governing themselves, as was the case in Athenian Democracy and during the Spanish Anarchy in the 1930s.
Anarchy(not the right wing capitalist version) and (real) Democracy, doest mean there's no law or constitution or rules, Anarchy means there is no "rulers", in a real Democracy in the Athenian sense people vote on laws directly, not for Aristocratic representatives or rulers, so in a sense there is also no rulers.
Athenian Democracy lasted for over a hundred years and Anarchy in Spain lasted for years and it did not stop from internal dysfunction but because of external military aggression.
One could view Anarchy and Democracy as having similarities/connections, people organizing themselves for themselves without a ruler and with rules people agree on), while Hierarchy and Oligarchy could be seen as also having similarities/connections of their own, where a few use and leverage hierarchy, money and secrecy to rule over the many.
B.s.
good video
I rewatch this video every so often. I wish more people knew the truth.
"without law there can be no freedom" ? How has that been working out? Clearly man's law was not the answer.
Man's Law < Laws of Nature. #voluntaryism for the win
We are the only republic with a written constitution protecting natural rights. A few other countries give natural rights lip service but are comfortable with denying natural rights whenever they want. If you do not want to believe me take a good look at Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom.
Impressive presentation. I'd like to emphasize that we currently coexist within a republic and an oligarchy, as the ruling "establishment" wields significant influence over our government.
When referring to the ruling establishment, I'm alluding to a closely related consortium that has pursued a century-long endeavor to gain control over numerous influential mechanisms. This group, often denoted as the unnameable, the Cabal, or simply the "establishment," currently owns 94% of all forms of media, the Banks, Big Pharma, Hollywood, search engines, and exerts substantial sway over the judicial system. They utilize these institutions to pull the puppet strings of our elected officials often resulting in constitutional violations and laws being bent or broken in their favor, with little to no repercussions.
Nice
you have no idea what you're talking about
anarchy doesn't turns into a dictaorship
for the soviet union, anarchists helped the soviets as the soviets were misleading them into believing they would found a new society by the people.
a year after the anarchists freed them from the royalists prisons and helped them fights the white army and other european moanrhist army
lenine decided to kill all the anarchist, as they were the first to realise that lenine wanted the power to himself (in contradiction with comunism or anarchism)
and started to warn people. So Lenine sent the red army against the very ones why saved his live.
In greece, when anarchist fought the nazis and regained 3/4 of their countryon their own while having a new form of society, they decided to ask for help to the allies and sent a diplomat to Churchill. Unfortunatly, Chruchill and the americans, not only disliked any form of democracy, but also had interest in the greek region, so they killed the diplomat , started to fund any group that would fight the people of greece (from monarchist to those who helped the nazis) and when that didb't workd he just sent troups to kill the new senat that had no president as it was an intermediate form of society between anarchism or federal anarchism and real (or direct) democracy. anyway he killed them, put the king back which lead to a civil war and a dictatorship.
Same happened in spain when the english and americans funded Franco to fight off the arnarchists.
And the same happened during La commune, when Napoleon who was at war with germany, both stopped fighting to fight off the flame of freedom, and democracy...
SO yeah.. say again ?
Monarchy is ruled by one person, no one else, so if group is involved, then in feudalism,
Btw if you dont like monarchy, do as we did, Prague defenestration, throw nobles from the window from a great height :)
Video original?
2:11pm
Dec 30 23 Saturday
Anarchy is preferable, and if we can't have that then monarchy.
You have no idea what a Monarchy is. Dictatorship is always an oligarchy, a Monarchy is not necessarily one.
Those categories are biased you can have monarchies with quasi anarchist level of freedom, a form of tax against armed protection, eventually you endup with a noble class who doesnt even fight and just get the taxes but that's another story (ours).
The term “democracy” is generally used in the context of free elections, which America supposedly has. Nobody uses the term in the purest ideal sense. That’s why everyone talks about “American democracy.”
Impressive presentation. I'd like to emphasize that we currently coexist within a republic and an oligarchy, as the ruling "establishment" wields significant influence over our government.
When referring to the ruling establishment, I'm alluding to a closely related consortium that has pursued a century-long endeavor to gain control over numerous influential mechanisms. This group, often denoted as the unnameable, the Cabal, or simply the "establishment," currently owns 94% of all forms of media, the Banks, Big Pharma, Hollywood, search engines, and exerts substantial sway over the judicial system. They utilize these institutions to pull the puppet strings of our elected officials often resulting in constitutional violations and laws being bent or broken in their favor, with little to no repercussions.
this is one of the silliest videos I've seen in a long time
Stupid or silly?
really. this vid seems super accurate
@@crossgearedviking1559 Why not both?
what you say is correct, but mind is instilled with thinking oligarchs desired...changing mindset takes very long time...
I used this exact video to help explain this topic to 6th graders in social studies classes.
I was going to say, this reminds me of the kind of factual incorrect propaganda I used to have forced on me in government schools. But I'm glad I'm so glad I live in a republic, where the government is limited and the government leaves me alone, so that I'm not forced to pay to put peoples' kids through school.
"is outside of the box for most people - they can't seem to wrap their mind around how it could work"Right and, unless people could wrap their minds around something, they cannot live within a system of that something. When the vast of humanity wraps their mind around it, then we can have it. Until then it will be a failure.And that is true for all forms of government mentioned. With total honesty and no corruption, any system of government would work perfectly, Until then the choice is limited.
3:25 Is it impossible to hire security in anarchy?
Anarchy is basically a state of piracy. You are only secure (at least in terms of...you know...living?) in so much as you are the biggest/smartest hound in the pack or you are a slave to the biggest/smartest hound in the pack. Those are pretty much you're only two options: You're either a bully or a bully's slave.
Well top comments don't typically remain permanently anymore so I don't see the irony.
Sorry, this is not the most common definition of left/right. Going by the pre-French revolution where the right were in favor of keeping monarch authority structure, that makes this completely backwards. Then add in dimension of anti-capitalist/capitalist and it I don't think this idea of spectrum can represent much. I can see why people might be trapped into assuming capitalist economic system. That would be misleading.
Withy the power of the people to seek litigation against corrupt companies and a limited government who simply enforce the small amount of rules needed, a society would be fine. In developing countries the people's right are very limited and thus, corporations run roughshod over them. What developing countries have a weak government and strong individual rights? China has a very strong government and much pollution and limited people's rights.
Things they don't teach in school for 500 Alex...
What is common sense?
Right-winger, as in germany right winger is simply a term applied to the context of germanys government at the time. Right wing and left wing are not set in stone and that is what this points to as the source of confusion. More government and less government are set in stone and that is why it is a much better gauge of political systems. It has nothing to do with being right wing.
Wrong ... why are you trying to obfuscate the truth? Are you a leftist (a minion supporting totalitarianism)?
@@williamelanningjr5440 Please give a proper definition of Right wing that covers any politic ideology that has actually been called "right wing".
@@Ducatisatva At the right end of the government spectrum is Anarchy (no government). At the left end of that spectrum is Totalitarianism (total tyrannical government control).
Don't be confused by the false definitions of "Right Wing" and "Left Wing" the leftists have dictated to people.
In other words, don't attempt to compel someone to give a false definition.
Our Republic falls slightly to the left of anarchy. The original draft of the Federalist Papers was too close to the anarchy point of the scale. It was determined that a more rigid guidance to outline the responsibilities, the powers, and the limitations of the federal government while still being able to be an arbitrator for the state governments was needed. That is why the US Constitution was drawn up and ratified by all the existing states. It became the law of the land and all laws had to be supported by the US Constitution.
As time passed, those in leadership positions in the federal government wanted more and more power ... encroaching upon the powers of the individual states. They started claiming more and more "rights" over the people of the USA ... "rights" that did not exist since, as elected representatives, they could not claim "rights" that either the people did not have or rights that were reserved for the individual states.
If someone called a cow a horse the cow would still be a cow. If someone tries to obfuscate the actual government spectrum by citing "in Germany" or "in France" right wing and left wing are defined as whatever they chose them to be does not alter the fact that the right end of the government spectrum is anarchy and the left is totalitarianism.
William, so we’re Nazis and Fascist more towards anarchy and less government as they are always described as right wing?
You see the term Right wing is meaningless.
@@Ducatisatva No ... the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NAZIs) and the Italian Fascist Party (BTW the term fascist was coined by ex socialist Benito Mussolini because his fellow socialists refused to give him the respect he felt he deserved ... so he created the Fascist party) are BOTH totalitarian governments. Only the leftists (Socialists and Marxists) falsely called them "Right wing".
Yes ... I concur ... the term "right wing" invented by the leftists (totalitarians) is a lie.
It seems as though we are on the same page. 😁
anarchy with understanding of common law
🤣
Those who advocate for Anarchy as a political system do not advocate that there should be no rule of law. That is a common misconception. Anarchy seeks to remove leaders, not rules. Underlying its very premise is the non-aggression principle. The vision is outside of the box for most people - they can't seem to wrap their mind around how it could work. Anyway, please take the time to learn a bit more. Anarchy is not about "everyone for himself;" it is about voluntary exchange and cooperation.
yes media has try to redefine Anarchy into something bad like antifa, which is probably govt themselves. th-cam.com/video/qd0Q4EnFN04/w-d-xo.html
That's not true anarchy. True anarchy has no Gov't. It's a brief form of government as the people always move towards basic order.
I therefore conclude that a Republican Government is always the best choice
It's not one of those "fascism is communism" video again...
Im commenting to help you get more views
COMMENT
Did anyone else spit their coffee when he said "Republics are governed by laws"
Like none of these other governments had laws. LOL
The point is that everyone is equal under the set law in a Republic. In other forms of government, a few elite, or an oligarchy, determine rules and apply them unequally according to their whims, abusing the strong arm of government.
@@RoseThistleArtworks And who exactly puts laws into place? Certainly not the common folk or the unprivileged.
in short, the democracy and the republic is the best system.
I wager that every modern nation, no matter how "republican", is governed by an oligarchy, regardless of whether the oligarchs are elected officials or shadowed men pulling strings behind the curtains.
I think the whole comparison is flawed. All the other forms of government mentioned apart from Republics are defined by their power structures. The video itself clearly shows that the only difference between a Republic and a Democracy is a difference in the philosophy. Both forms place power in the hands of the people; supposedly (sure! I'll believe that when I no longer have to pay taxes). Only the Democracy chooses the philosophy Rule of the Majority whereas the Republic chooses the Rule of Law philosophy. Of course, even this is debatable, since a majority of the citizens of any republic can choose to overthrow their current government in favor of a true democracy. A republic is only a republic as long as its people are willing to abide by the philosophy of a republic. Ultimately, a republic is just a glorified democracy skillfully governed/manipulated by an oligarchy.
And I would have to disagree with your assessment of a monarchy as just a offspring of oligarchy. That is probably the case these days, but in the past, it is possible to analogize the oligarchy as a wolf-pack with the king as the alpha male. Every member of the oligarchy has power from the people he/she controls, but one member may hold more power than the rest, enough that none of the others have the balls to challenge him. A monarchy in its truest, possible form.
A Republic offers freedom from the mobs ruling over the individual who has broken no laws. Democracy is the mob. When people realize that once they abuse the Democratic mob to override someone else's freedom, that means their own freedom will never be safe from mobs, they usually see the wisdom of protecting and defending a Republic form of government.
this i y i hate to hear were a democracy they keep saying it so it will come to pass ;(
Left = BIG, HUGE Nanny State/Big Brother government managing the minutia of everyone else's lives. Right = smallest government necessary and MOST freedom for people to manage and live the consequences of their own lives within basic rules for living in societies. A Constitutional Republic limits Government, not the people. Apparently, this is not taught in schools anymore.
I am a thorough supporter of the Afro-oriented view of monarchism ; where the underlying concept of truly sincere, open, and receptive rule was enforced by all people, the excutives, and most importantly a reserved almost radical yet certaintly, unbiased Impartial enforcement. What mattered wasn't who runs the state; as most dumb fucks emphasize (because they're the ones who really want to rule), and to pussy to strive for, or imagine it, but how descicions were made. If they're were ever a government established, emphasized, and dedicated only to the "self evident rights of the people", seperate from the often entwined factors of "auxillary human advancements", (corporations and contrary interests) I'd have fuckin fit! - that would be true revolutionary moment, reflecting a leap in human consciouness. That would be worth more than any and all democracies and republics ever created, combined.
0:55-Anarcho-communists: 😡
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
ONLY MONARCHY AND REPUBLIC LAW
The presentation of anarchy is very single-sided. Today's Somalia can be seen as a quasi-stable form of anarchy, with local elderly serving as bottom-up judges (not appointed by anyone).
In my opinion, the concusion of this video is that actually a republic is also an interim system which - again - transforms towards oligarhy over time (as was a case with Roman Empire and as is a case with the US). So, maybe this is a cycle, with anarachy suceeding oligarhy (people rioting when the powerful elite gets too oppressive)?
***** Seriously, you've read all that about my "liberal, far left, extremist, anti-gun" views from my short comment? You must be adding a whole lot of political context to my comment, which it didn't have - I'm not even an American, in my country a discussion about the availability of arms is non-existent.
I just said that I believed this was a cycle, and saying that choice of republic as a "stable" stage (either republic of oligarchy) was arbitrary and unjustified by historical data - the authors of the film admitted that US slipped from the republic towards democracy and you admitted that the Roman empire did transform because of "liberal, immoral, sexual, economic abuse". So republic is not a stable state either, it is as prone to external transforming forces as any other state.
The video makes some good points, I just think it's wrong in two matters:
* extolling republic over other systems - there have been examples of great monarchies or democracies, there have been also unhealthy republics
* saying that the choice is between republic and oligarchy - it might be in this moment for the US, but overall this is all a cycle, you cannot really fight it
***** Your second comment is much more agreeable.
I don't think medieval European monarchies (France, Sweden, Britain) or multi-thousand year Chinese empire or ancient Egypt grew because they were 'stealing the "already" established republic and converting to its globalist uses through a slow, communist/socialists/marxist environment' though. And they were pretty successful, I could argue that more than the US (which has only existed for a couple hundred years now and is yet to outlive the Chinese or Egyptian empires).
Damn! That's one biased portrail!
Democracy allows many to vote, even when stupid rain.
@@kenkastlekausmo701 reign, stupid.
Wrong
"The proper amount of government makes everyone freer"....absolutely unbiased....., plus the speaker has no clue as to what Anarchy is, also, judging by the power lobbyists have in the USA I'd say it's much more akin to an Oligarchy than a Republic.
Anarchy... Glad I hopped off that boat. Hope you have too in the last 5 years.
Why does this video make housing and welfare programs sound like a bad thing?
+rthmjohn Becaus this is bad. Giving money degenerates man.
Because this person is obviously a right leaning person, and they are notoriously critical of those programs. Without those programs more poor would be homeless and crowding our streets begging for money or committing crimes for basic survival.
cuz they are just keepin folks on da plantation
+William Robb They're notoriously critical of those programs because people abuse the shit out of it which leans to more spending.
@@williamrobb5945 Apparently your theory is debunked, eg Los Angeles.
Well perhaps we are no longer a Republic like we should be.. :( Maybe they are right.. we ARE a Democracy.
“Where there is authority there is no freedom.” -Peter Kropotkin
Haha. And yet you ironically made this comment after your "top comment" ceased to be.
The video has some good points, but the "democracy" as presented here, is actually bolshevism. The Athenian democracy was anything BUT a rule of the majority. There is a lot of info on the subject and I won't go into further detail, but I just wanted to make that important point. Democracy in its original form was NOT a rule of the majority. Bolshevism is, even it's name means exactly that!
Really? I always thought Bolshevism meant "Bullsh*t-ism". ;)
That's because usually the majority of people are full of bullsh*t ;)
nonsense
Monarchy > Oligarchy > Republic
A monarchy is far from being a dictatorship just saying
One is merely inherited. A king's word is law, so is a dictators.
My goodness, the moment I saw the political spectrum I knew this was from the perspective of a biased right-winger. To call Fascism left-wing is to go against every credible historian that has studied previous fascist governments. The political spectrum is far more complex than government vs no government being what defines the left and right-wing. Dozens of political positions, from increasing the military budget to favoring traditionalist policies (often based on religious belief) are associated with the right-wing. These ideas undoubtedly lead to an increase in government power as they grow their military and regulate how people live their lives. A more nuanced way of understanding Left and Right-wing schools of thought is by understanding what their extremes want. The further right-wing one goes, the more focused policies are on maintaining hierarchy, whether it's in the social context of blocking civil rights movements, or the business context of protecting the interest of corporations. The right tends to see hierarchy as something to be embraced, not fought. The further to the left one moves, the more they begin to hear of ideas that is anti-hierarchy. A greater focus is put on egalitarianism and being anti-authority, whether that authority comes from the public or private sector. Anarchism has historically been a left-wing idea, for this reason, they tend to stand against not only government authority, but corporate authority. It's not about simply eliminating government, but eliminating hierarchy altogether. The authoritarian side of the left believes in using the state in order to eliminate an unjust hierarchy, and there are of course Anarcho-capitalist that argues, for the elimination of government sure, but the preservation of capitalism (leaving it completely unregulated) which leaves the hierarchy of big business in place. There are big and small government factions on both sides of the spectrum.
I know right.
"First, let me redefine what you already know"
One of the very few comments here that makes any sort of sense, and it makes a lot of sense.
Anarchy is ruled by God. Everyone should be armed at all times. Everyone should be working TOGETHER to protect their interests. Anarchy works, when the people decide it wants to work. The problem is people are sheep. Anarchy resolves the problem of the majority, meaning smaller groups can do as they please so long as they dont infringe on the desires of other groups.
Ever watch The Walking Dead? That is anarchy. That is what anarchy would be. Gangs lead by people like Neegan, or the Govenor, or Rick. That sounds good to you? Build a raft with your buddies and live on an island if you wish. I like my laws. The universe is built on laws. Laws like gravity....
Only if the people accept God as their King. That hasn’t been the case very often throughout history. Ask Noah. Read the books of Kings in the Bible about His chosen people and how infrequently they followed His lead. People are inherently bad. They must choose to be good and that is usually the harder path, the road not taken.
Why is this a top comment when there are no thumbs ups?
Anarchy is the future. #voluntaryist
No, monarchy is the past and is the future. Long live monarchy!
dumb. read your history
Manley Nelson I’m not American, you imbecile.
"Fascism is when government". Very dumb video. "America isn't a democracy its a republic". Alexa list types of democracy
Capitalist state propaganda
Absolute ignorance about the philosophy of Anarchism in this video. Be advised to be informed before you preach what you know nothing about!
thanks bro
I therefore conclude that a Republican Government is always the best choice