"And the villain is... the general welfare clause... and his accomplice, the interstate commerce clause." "We would've gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you pesky, meddling libertarians." 🤗
@@tomayto70 So why, pray tell, is it that every time I mention something vis-a-vis democracy in the presence of a conservative, do they feel the need to immediately press their nose against mine and scream "THIS ISNT A DEMOCRACY ITS A REPUBLIC!!!!!!!" with such force that my face is covered with mucus and blood from their shredded vocal cords? No one, not one soul in history, has ever thought nor claimed that this country is or should be a Direct Democracy, so don't give me that idiotic cop out of an answer.
With one 4'3" Goliath and one 4' 11" Titan, I feel this is simultaneously the shortest, yet most accurate, introduction to the constitution and mythos surrounding it. Good work guys.
This was really good! And you changed my mind about the Electoral College. Also, I agree that the abuse of "general welfare" is common to all tyrants over time: Nothing they want to do under that clause has been or will ever be best for everyone!
@@capitalresearchcenter It probably isn't the mic. It is probably room acoustics. Wherever Michael is recording could use some sound deadening. One inexpensive way to improve things is to hang packing blankets on the wall, place them on the ground and otherwise use them to soften reflective surfaces. There are man online resources that can get more specific on what to do.
@@warrencdent Yes. Smaller room and better deadening. Voice over artists I've worked with would use a closet filled with clothes and/or blankets when the had to do a quick pickup while on the road. If Michael has a smaller room, that would probably help if he can deaden the surfaces.
@@connerrolofson1585 but super flip has a point is anyone left leaning really going to click on a show labeled politically incorrect it’s gonna grab people who already identify with the term. It’s good marketing.
@@juliomirelez1608 Politically Incorrect is an American late-night, half-hour political talk show hosted by Bill Maher that aired from July 25, 1993 to July 5, 2002.
"In a profound sense, the idea of binding down power with the chains of a written constitution has proved to be a noble experiment that failed. The idea of a strictly limited government has proved to be utopian; some other, more radical means must be found to prevent the growth of the aggressive State." -- Murray Rothbard, _For A New Liberty_
I love these guys. They are among the most underrated modern thinkers in America today. You can learn more about true American ideals in one podcast from either of these two than 12 years of public schooling.
But is it fully? We don't go to war as individual states. We don't enforce tariffs or negotiate with foreign nations on the state level. It's really tough to make the argument that each state is a completely independent entity
I’d argue class is a more important identifier than geography. Medicaid and Social Security will benefit you if you live in the country or in the city. And people forget that the electoral college also silences conservatives in liberal states. The idea that all Californians think and vote the same is false. The same is true for other states with high populations like Texas, Florida, and New York. A lot of diversity of opinion is ignored by the electoral college because of the fact that states are winner takes all.
Just wanted to say... that the comments here are off the edge of the bell curve wonderful. It's truly heartening to know that there are at least a few other fellow travelers. Thanks, everyone.
This is excellent guys. Great jazz too. Very cool. My daughter has just been asked to find a political cartoon for civics class. This won’t be “approved viewing” but she’s going with it anyway 😄
@@Zanroff It's an idea worth considering. Or maybe the largest cities should be their own administrative districts of some kind? I mean hell, New York state outside of NYC is basically like Pennsylvania or Ohio, but they have absolutely no voice in how they are governed because of the sheer population of NYC. It's the same situation in Illinois and California.
You DON'T want strong states. European here, strong states are like the thing you LEAST want to have, ever, next to ebola or cancer or a traffic accident. Really, this is a baaaad baaaad idea. It may seem good, but if you try, you will see and then it will be too late. Trust us here, we HAVE to, repeat HAVE TO live with it. No good.
Bravo! Very well done...easily understood. As a teenager I asked a teacher "What's the difference between a conservative and a liberal ?" His response ; "A liberal is LIBERAL with our Constitution". "A conservative is CONSERVATIVE with the Constitution"... Treat her very carefully.
Another way to think of is is to compare the United States to the European Union. When the U.S. was founded, the states were independent countries that came together to form a political union, and the sovereignty of the states was supposed to be preserved. That’s why they’re called states, and not provinces or cantons. It’s the states that vote for the president (specifically the electors that represent the states). From what I understand, it’s the states in the European Union who vote for some of the leadership positions of the E.U., not the general population of Europe. People seem to have an easier time thinking that Germany voted one way and Italy voted another way than they do thinking about California voting one way and Florida voting another way. Part of the reason is that over time the U.S. has become more centralized, but there was a time when people thought of themselves as Pennsylvanian citizens first, and U.S. citizens second, just as a Germans probably think of themselves and German citizens first, and E.U. citizens second.
@@jakejjacobsen Great analogy, and many of us still do think of ourselves as citizens of a state first, and the US second - see the recent motion by Texas to vote for secession from the Union, which runs on seeing themselves as Texans first. This is probably more of a "Red State" "fly-over" country thing than it is the sort of thing you might see in more populous areas on the coasts (in fact, the sort of people who might support abolishing the Electoral College likely think of themselves and their populous cities as America, with a lot of insignificant nothing populated by insignificant nobodies and cannibal hillbillies in between....)
@@pietrayday9915 Thank you and yes, I grew up in the Seattle area and the attitude there was very much how you describe the populous areas on the coasts. For some people there, they detest and even hate the people in the middle of the country if they have to think about them at all. For all they like to talk of democracy, they would be happy to make sure those people didn't have a meaningful say in elections.
It's not just the General Welfare clause. The half-sentence known as the "Commerce Clause", originally intended to ensure free-trade amongst the states, was reinterpreted to override the rest of the constitution and grant nearly unlimited power to the Federal Government. This was cemented in 1947, Wickard v Filburn. Filburn was a framer, growing corn on his own land to feed his own livestock. Wickard was the secretary of agriculture, and said he couldn't do that because then he wouldn't have to buy corn, which would lessen demand for corn in interstate commerce, which meant it was under control of the Federal government. An absolute travesty and perversion of the constitution. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
It was an absolute travesty and perversion, yes, but it was also ABSOLUTELY *#%$ RIDICULOUS!!!!!! What COMPLETE IDIOTS thought that made logical or moral sense and swallowed it????? (Millions of Americans, unfortunately.)
Gonzales v. Raich takes Wickard v Filburn to the next level. In Wickard v Filburn, SCOTUS ruled that a commodity that can legally be exchanged in interstate commerce is covered by the Commerce Clause regardless of whether it actually entered into interstate commerce. In Gonzales v Raich, SCOTUS ruled that a commodity that CANNOT be exchanged in interstate commerce is covered by the Commerce Clause. It's an absolute travesty and perversion of the Constitution on steroids. As Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent, "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything-and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."
@@jimbob2810 did not know about that one. And to think the vast majority of Americans appeal to the Supreme Court as an arbiter of truth and justice and morality, as if they haven’t historically been utterly horrific at every turn.
@@f308gtb1977 That's why a last-resort backup plan is written into the bill of rights. It seems much of the country enjoys being oppressed though so we'll probably never use it.
The electoral college doesn't establish a winner take all system, so it's a false comparison. Some states don't even do winner take all, they use a proportional system. The main reason most states choose to do a winner take all system is probably so candidates pay more attention to them because "flipping" the state is now a possibility.
Yeah except for the part where he forgot to mention that just like in poker the rules can change based on who you're playing with and what kind of game you want to play. LMAO
Recent events in the ... uh ... medical arena, have shown worldwide that constitutions don't protect against government overreach. Politicians have simply written laws or issued decrees to do what they want.
Awesome video. I watched the debate about Hamilton the other day and enjoyed it a lot too. Loved the baseball analogy that Woods used. Very easy for anyone to understand.
Great new video, Tom Woods and Michael Malice! Kudos. I like the comic style very much, it helps keep the topics simple. I liked the comparison of the Electoral College to the World Series (and also scrambling up the food in a blender).
"General Welfare" is a nonsensical idea anyway--It's an anti-concept as Ayn Rand would say. The general public has no needs. Only individuals have needs. Sure, in some ways government policies might help one group of individuals whose interests align, but there is absolutely no way for a single program to be in everyone's interest simultaneously (unless that program is to leave everyone alone equally).
This will probably be a waste of time. But the .General Welfare is very well defined via the categorically imperative. Or universal instantiation if you prefer naked logic. It does not depend on defining the General public as an ontological concept.
The idea of getting rid of the electoral college is not creating one big blob. If anything the electoral college creates 50 blobs whereas the popular vote gives each individual an equal opportunity to sway an election. In the baseball analogy, the point of baseball is to win each game and you need four games to win the series. An election is more like a Super Bowl where the team with the most points wins. The person with the most votes should also win the election just as a team with the most points should win the game. If a team won 28 to 21 the other team wouldn’t say that they should win because they scored more times (7 field goals instead of 4 touchdowns). However that is how the electoral college runs and it discredits and diminishes the votes of others. Due to the improper scaling of the college, a vote in places like Wyoming counts for more than a vote in California does. Getting rid of the electoral college is not giving the people in urban areas a higher privilege, it’s giving them their right and properly scaling the votes so everyone is equal. The idea that if the electoral college is removed only the cities will count is very flawed considering New York and California’s population account for around 17.7% of the United States. An election will never be decided by just the main states there will always be battleground areas with swing voters and every state will finally get their equal voice.
Couldn't have said it better myself, also on top of this each state still has their own local government that allows for each state to have a decent amount of autonomy from the federal government.
I wish we could unAmemd the 17th Amendment so that US Senators actually represented their states instead of big money from outside the state selecting the US Senators from any given state.
I loved the point that a "living, breathing" Constitution that can be changed easily at any time is actually dead, since it is no longer a limit on government power.
I agree with what you are saying. However, the constitution must flex to the times. Judges are obligated to follow stare decisis but we cannot simultaneously, blindly adhere to a document written in the 18th century. The road to hell was paved with the best of intentions. Our constitution was written to limit government and protect the interests of the "peasant" population. The narcissistic "leaders" in our country circumvent the constitution in every specious way possible (seriously, research what "specious" language is...). This is a great video. Seriously, research specious language, logical fallacies and narcissism and you will reach the same conclusion this video does. Well done, everyone!!!
@@lexh.7034 Precedent on Constitutional rulings is often ludicrous, and there is a mechanism for changing the Constitution if that was needed. The State forces us to live under its laws, so it should at least respect the law of the Constitution - as it was intended and sold to our ancestors at the ratifying conventions - that is supposed to bind it.
@@Galgus2000 Completely agree with the point you made. It shall not be amended in a way that makes it enforceable on one person but not another such as the government enforcing rules but not abiding by them. Well done.
I would disagree with the very first premise on one end. It's very much present in conversations. We constantly reference the bill of rights in almost every political discussion right now. The problem realistically is the vast majority of the American population (left and right alike) haven't read ANY of it, or simply don't understand. Good video though guys. Appreciate thoughtful content quite a bit.
I agree that the Constitution is referenced quite a bit. But I think the problem is that most people just bust it out when it justifies what they want to do. I've met very few people who are consistently for or against the Constitution. The majority of people reference it as an inviolable charter when discussing one issue, and as soon as the conversation changes to a different issue, they dismiss it as an old piece of paper written by old farts in wigs who couldn't comprehend the world we live in today.
Civics, geography, and history are some of the biggest weaknesses in the monstrously weak US public education. A lot of people like to talk about the Constitution, but for them it's mostly a vague shield they can hold up to protect or sometimes bludgeon to death their typically vague understanding of three or four of their favorite amendments from time to time.
The way you guys explained the general welfare clause and the electoral college was fantastic. The analogies along with the visuals are fantastic and I really hope this series catches on.
This was really good. Sound quality could be better, but it is good enough. Best line: You’re a modern day Atlas, Tom. A 4”11” modern day atlas.” Kudos! Can’t wait for more.
I absolutely love this series, I love Mike even more in caricature form, as if I needed more reason to love him. Hyper Malice. RedEye thanks for introducing to this hilarious and thought provoking man, and many others.
Nice! You really did demolish the idea of a "Living Constitution". And the baseball example was brilliant for the electoral college. Looking forward to seeing more and sharing, thank you! :-)
Micheal: Tom, I assume you watched the scooby doo cartoons as a kid. Tom: Yes, who didnt? Micheal: Good. Then I'm sure you closely identified with Velma. Tom: Maybe I didnt watch it. Love the writing!
Virgin America: Oh the Constitution is too hard to amend. We need justices to judge how ever we want and need. Chad Brazil: The Constitution is hard to amend but have 100 plus and amendments in a constitution 30yr old and we have supreme court judges that see it as a living document.
I’d love to hear on what authority the government is able to disregard the limits stated in the constitution. I realize they are using the general welfare clause, but I would think that they need a lot more then that to be able to lawfully transform rights to benefits/privileges. Rights being self evident and benefits/privileges being something the government can give and take as they please. Great video though, very entertaining and yet super informative! Can’t wait for the next one
Peace from Puerto Rico As a Puerto Rican it's a bit worrying how far they've strayed from freedom. It's sad how even though your government sucks at least some people still held to the values of freedom and keeping your government in check but now there's less of those people.
One minor correction. There are so many deer in Central Park that NYPD have had annual culls of them since sometime in the late 1990s - early 2000s. This is to stop them from attacking joggers. Neither of these things are publicized because NYC politicians don't want to anger the ecomentalists, and they also don't want to admit their failures in both ecomental policy & firearms policy.
So cute AND informative. Just wondering if anyone else's dog went nuts on the opening sound effect with the bomb. Will remember next time to turn down the volume first. THANKS WOODS -A longtime fan/listener/Tom Woods Show proselytizing device
@Jasmine Rice because the garbage materials provided by public schools are free from indoctrination and bias, right? I can guarantee my 7th graders know more about the Constitution than you do.
The "general welfare clause" is a restriction on taxes. It says that taxes may only be collected for (and so spent on) a few things, one of them being "general welfare". As opposed to "private welfare". So you could spent taxes on roads, because the "general" public can use roads. But you are not allowed to collect taxes to fund solyndra, as that has purely private limited benefit.
Tom may be a very failed Podcaster but he's world class at constructing analogies. The electoral college bit was as succinct and clear as I have ever heard.
"And the villain is... the general welfare clause... and his accomplice, the interstate commerce clause."
"We would've gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you pesky, meddling libertarians."
🤗
“& your stupid NAP too!!”
Title IV-D
Hail Lobster!
When Tom Woods said "Do we hate democracy?" and Michael says, "Well..." I was sure he would follow up with "YES!"
Me too! I just knew he would unleash the inner Rand within him at that moment.
That's a bit too politically incorrect to say
A republic is a democratic form of government, you bootlicking dopes.
@@tonycampbell1424 we know
@@tomayto70
So why, pray tell, is it that every time I mention something vis-a-vis democracy in the presence of a conservative, do they feel the need to immediately press their nose against mine and scream "THIS ISNT A DEMOCRACY ITS A REPUBLIC!!!!!!!" with such force that my face is covered with mucus and blood from their shredded vocal cords?
No one, not one soul in history, has ever thought nor claimed that this country is or should be a Direct Democracy, so don't give me that idiotic cop out of an answer.
With one 4'3" Goliath and one 4' 11" Titan, I feel this is simultaneously the shortest, yet most accurate, introduction to the constitution and mythos surrounding it. Good work guys.
I have been following Tom Woods since Ron Paul ran in 2012 and Michael Malice is always good. I am looking forward to more episodes. Very good!!
This was really good! And you changed my mind about the Electoral College. Also, I agree that the abuse of "general welfare" is common to all tyrants over time: Nothing they want to do under that clause has been or will ever be best for everyone!
It’s not everyday that I see minds changed online. That’s really cool.
I’m sure it has a lot to do with how well they presented the information.
Malice recorded a cartoon voiceover with his laptop mic.
Constructive criticism here: they should’ve bought the same mic for the recording.
Audio is improved in future episodes. We bought Michael a better mic!
@@capitalresearchcenter It probably isn't the mic. It is probably room acoustics. Wherever Michael is recording could use some sound deadening. One inexpensive way to improve things is to hang packing blankets on the wall, place them on the ground and otherwise use them to soften reflective surfaces. There are man online resources that can get more specific on what to do.
@@wturber Yes it is the difference in space, largely. Easy to hear.
@@warrencdent Yes. Smaller room and better deadening. Voice over artists I've worked with would use a closet filled with clothes and/or blankets when the had to do a quick pickup while on the road. If Michael has a smaller room, that would probably help if he can deaden the surfaces.
@@wturber It's Michael Malice. He's using a knotted up iPhone earbud mic.
Politically incorrect means it’s based in reality.
That’s definitely true.
@super flip Shut up. You don’t get the meaning of what is political incorrectness
@@connerrolofson1585 but super flip has a point is anyone left leaning really going to click on a show labeled politically incorrect it’s gonna grab people who already identify with the term. It’s good marketing.
@@juliomirelez1608 Politically Incorrect is an American late-night, half-hour political talk show hosted by Bill Maher that aired from July 25, 1993 to July 5, 2002.
"In a profound sense, the idea of binding down power with the chains of a written constitution has proved to be a noble experiment that failed. The idea of a strictly limited government has proved to be utopian; some other, more radical means must be found to prevent the growth of the aggressive State." -- Murray Rothbard, _For A New Liberty_
"The Long March" of Gramsci and Mao seems to be prevailing
You guys sure quote a dude who advocated the sale of children as slaves an awful lot.
I love these guys. They are among the most underrated modern thinkers in America today. You can learn more about true American ideals in one podcast from either of these two than 12 years of public schooling.
" General welfare does not mean welfare generally." - Col. Oliver North
Oliver North? You man that guy knee deep in bringing in drugs for weapons.
But it can
“America is a collection of societies, it’s not a big blob”
This is something I’ve always thought but couldn’t articulate. This is great man
But is it fully? We don't go to war as individual states. We don't enforce tariffs or negotiate with foreign nations on the state level. It's really tough to make the argument that each state is a completely independent entity
I’d argue class is a more important identifier than geography. Medicaid and Social Security will benefit you if you live in the country or in the city. And people forget that the electoral college also silences conservatives in liberal states. The idea that all Californians think and vote the same is false. The same is true for other states with high populations like Texas, Florida, and New York. A lot of diversity of opinion is ignored by the electoral college because of the fact that states are winner takes all.
Just wanted to say... that the comments here are off the edge of the bell curve wonderful. It's truly heartening to know that there are at least a few other fellow travelers. Thanks, everyone.
The world needs more malice and woods
This is excellent guys. Great jazz too. Very cool. My daughter has just been asked to find a political cartoon for civics class. This won’t be “approved viewing” but she’s going with it anyway 😄
The states aren't much better than the federal govt.. We need much less state govt too.
Agreed - smaller units of decision making are always preferable. It culminates in the best decision-making unit of all, which is the individual.
@@akirak1871 I think we should subdivide the states. How or what they looks like, I'm not sure. Just a thought I had.
@@Zanroff It's an idea worth considering. Or maybe the largest cities should be their own administrative districts of some kind? I mean hell, New York state outside of NYC is basically like Pennsylvania or Ohio, but they have absolutely no voice in how they are governed because of the sheer population of NYC. It's the same situation in Illinois and California.
Without the federal government subsidies, i think states would naturally shrink in power.
You DON'T want strong states. European here, strong states are like the thing you LEAST want to have, ever, next to ebola or cancer or a traffic accident. Really, this is a baaaad baaaad idea. It may seem good, but if you try, you will see and then it will be too late. Trust us here, we HAVE to, repeat HAVE TO live with it. No good.
Michael needs a new microphone
EDIT: Just read about the audio being improved in future episodes
Bravo! Very well done...easily understood. As a teenager I asked a teacher "What's the difference between a conservative and a liberal ?" His response ; "A liberal is LIBERAL with our Constitution". "A conservative is CONSERVATIVE with the Constitution"... Treat her very carefully.
💜♥️🧡 Thank you for keeping the discussion going 💛💚💙
I hear that baseball analogy and now I suddenly understand. I'm not in the US and your system has always perplexed me. But now I get it, thank you.
tennis match analogy works too :)
Yes same here. Very clarifying analogy indeed. Well made clip! Are there or will there be any like these around the Covid "vaccine"? Would be great...
Another way to think of is is to compare the United States to the European Union. When the U.S. was founded, the states were independent countries that came together to form a political union, and the sovereignty of the states was supposed to be preserved. That’s why they’re called states, and not provinces or cantons.
It’s the states that vote for the president (specifically the electors that represent the states). From what I understand, it’s the states in the European Union who vote for some of the leadership positions of the E.U., not the general population of Europe. People seem to have an easier time thinking that Germany voted one way and Italy voted another way than they do thinking about California voting one way and Florida voting another way. Part of the reason is that over time the U.S. has become more centralized, but there was a time when people thought of themselves as Pennsylvanian citizens first, and U.S. citizens second, just as a Germans probably think of themselves and German citizens first, and E.U. citizens second.
@@jakejjacobsen
Great analogy, and many of us still do think of ourselves as citizens of a state first, and the US second - see the recent motion by Texas to vote for secession from the Union, which runs on seeing themselves as Texans first. This is probably more of a "Red State" "fly-over" country thing than it is the sort of thing you might see in more populous areas on the coasts (in fact, the sort of people who might support abolishing the Electoral College likely think of themselves and their populous cities as America, with a lot of insignificant nothing populated by insignificant nobodies and cannibal hillbillies in between....)
@@pietrayday9915 Thank you and yes, I grew up in the Seattle area and the attitude there was very much how you describe the populous areas on the coasts. For some people there, they detest and even hate the people in the middle of the country if they have to think about them at all. For all they like to talk of democracy, they would be happy to make sure those people didn't have a meaningful say in elections.
It's not just the General Welfare clause. The half-sentence known as the "Commerce Clause", originally intended to ensure free-trade amongst the states, was reinterpreted to override the rest of the constitution and grant nearly unlimited power to the Federal Government. This was cemented in 1947, Wickard v Filburn. Filburn was a framer, growing corn on his own land to feed his own livestock. Wickard was the secretary of agriculture, and said he couldn't do that because then he wouldn't have to buy corn, which would lessen demand for corn in interstate commerce, which meant it was under control of the Federal government. An absolute travesty and perversion of the constitution. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
It was an absolute travesty and perversion, yes, but it was also ABSOLUTELY *#%$ RIDICULOUS!!!!!! What COMPLETE IDIOTS thought that made logical or moral sense and swallowed it????? (Millions of Americans, unfortunately.)
Gonzales v. Raich takes Wickard v Filburn to the next level. In Wickard v Filburn, SCOTUS ruled that a commodity that can legally be exchanged in interstate commerce is covered by the Commerce Clause regardless of whether it actually entered into interstate commerce. In Gonzales v Raich, SCOTUS ruled that a commodity that CANNOT be exchanged in interstate commerce is covered by the Commerce Clause. It's an absolute travesty and perversion of the Constitution on steroids. As Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent, "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything-and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."
@@jimbob2810 did not know about that one. And to think the vast majority of Americans appeal to the Supreme Court as an arbiter of truth and justice and morality, as if they haven’t historically been utterly horrific at every turn.
How about the "necessary and proper" clause?
@@f308gtb1977 That's why a last-resort backup plan is written into the bill of rights. It seems much of the country enjoys being oppressed though so we'll probably never use it.
When I saw the PIG series, I assumed it was about Kamala Harris. #Fweedom
🔥
boom
Hey leave Hairy Kameltoe out of this....
@@unbalancedlibra9788 on her knees she fell for the pursuit of power 🐽
I think we all did.
The World Series/electoral college comparison was brilliant!
The electoral college doesn't establish a winner take all system, so it's a false comparison. Some states don't even do winner take all, they use a proportional system. The main reason most states choose to do a winner take all system is probably so candidates pay more attention to them because "flipping" the state is now a possibility.
Yeah except for the part where he forgot to mention that just like in poker the rules can change based on who you're playing with and what kind of game you want to play. LMAO
Yeah I’m gonna take that to explain to my friends why there’s an electoral college
I’m getting some Ricky Gervais Show vibes from this and I’m for it.
Super, Tom and Michael- best 13 minutes on TH-cam today. More, please.
New episodes coming out throughout the year. 10 total!
Tom Sowell documentary came out today. The only day of the year that this wouldn’t be #1.
@@jcarrett7 HOORAY for Dr. Sowell!
@@capitalresearchcenter Thank you SO MUCH! How about the "necessary and proper" clause?
Recent events in the ... uh ... medical arena, have shown worldwide that constitutions don't protect against government overreach.
Politicians have simply written laws or issued decrees to do what they want.
Honestly, I saw an ad to this channel and it was the only ad I think I watched to completion this year
Awesome video. I watched the debate about Hamilton the other day and enjoyed it a lot too.
Loved the baseball analogy that Woods used. Very easy for anyone to understand.
Great new video, Tom Woods and Michael Malice! Kudos. I like the comic style very much, it helps keep the topics simple. I liked the comparison of the Electoral College to the World Series (and also scrambling up the food in a blender).
Velma Tom Woods made my day.
Two of the absolute greats! Love this new content medium!
I am so glad this is a thing.
Great! Bring is more, please. Thanks!
9 more episodes to come this year!
thoroughly entertaining and informative. Unfortunately the people that need to see it, and actually understand it, never will.
I LOVE THIS AS A CARTOON! It really does make it more captivating therefore I’m learning more. I wish I could binge the episodes now
Great work, I really love this series and keep doing them.
Best channel I’ve seen in ages, stellar work gentlemen
"General Welfare" is a nonsensical idea anyway--It's an anti-concept as Ayn Rand would say. The general public has no needs. Only individuals have needs. Sure, in some ways government policies might help one group of individuals whose interests align, but there is absolutely no way for a single program to be in everyone's interest simultaneously (unless that program is to leave everyone alone equally).
Well said.
@Chris Knorr Agreed! And YES, please leave me alone, guv'mint!
Which is why a non-aggression or live and let live policy is best.
How about the "necessary and proper" clause? PS- Ayn Rand was the absolute BEST!
This will probably be a waste of time. But the .General Welfare is very well defined via the categorically imperative. Or universal instantiation if you prefer naked logic.
It does not depend on defining the General public as an ontological concept.
No ad for boxers with the separate pouch?
Cartoon Michael is wearing them throughout the video!
"for a man, thus subjected to a government he does not want, is a slave."
Whenever I read a quote of his I picture Superintenderent Chalmers dressed as Uncle Sam screaming "SpoooonNERRRRRR!!!"
Nice quote
Will be showing this to my 6th and 4th graders!! This was so great!
Tom Woods & Michael Malice animated? Oooh this is gonna be good
The idea of getting rid of the electoral college is not creating one big blob. If anything the electoral college creates 50 blobs whereas the popular vote gives each individual an equal opportunity to sway an election. In the baseball analogy, the point of baseball is to win each game and you need four games to win the series. An election is more like a Super Bowl where the team with the most points wins. The person with the most votes should also win the election just as a team with the most points should win the game. If a team won 28 to 21 the other team wouldn’t say that they should win because they scored more times (7 field goals instead of 4 touchdowns). However that is how the electoral college runs and it discredits and diminishes the votes of others. Due to the improper scaling of the college, a vote in places like Wyoming counts for more than a vote in California does. Getting rid of the electoral college is not giving the people in urban areas a higher privilege, it’s giving them their right and properly scaling the votes so everyone is equal. The idea that if the electoral college is removed only the cities will count is very flawed considering New York and California’s population account for around 17.7% of the United States. An election will never be decided by just the main states there will always be battleground areas with swing voters and every state will finally get their equal voice.
Couldn't have said it better myself, also on top of this each state still has their own local government that allows for each state to have a decent amount of autonomy from the federal government.
Fantastic. Your persistence will have have positive and large effects. Trust that!
Oh man, this was awesome! Thank you so much Tom and Michael for doing this :)!
This is AMAZING! We need more of these with Tom and Michael!
This is wonderful! I used the 1960 World Series to explain the electoral college. It's a great analogy.
Your fight for Liberty is amazing........................
I wish we could unAmemd the 17th Amendment so that US Senators actually represented their states instead of big money from outside the state selecting the US Senators from any given state.
I absolutely love the PIC series. Cant wait for the next one to come out.
Two of my favorite thinkers
The Scooby-Do segment was hilarious! 😂 Great premiere guys!
Great first episode, can't wait for more!
Get malice that room acoustics treatment. That reverb on his voice but not on Toms is throwing me off. But I still enjoyed it greatly! Keep it up!
100% certain that Shaggy character is supposed to look like Scott Horton!
hahaha I thought that too!!
Based on the face size, I thought Tom was Charlie Kirk before he spoke.
I loved the point that a "living, breathing" Constitution that can be changed easily at any time is actually dead, since it is no longer a limit on government power.
I agree with what you are saying. However, the constitution must flex to the times. Judges are obligated to follow stare decisis but we cannot simultaneously, blindly adhere to a document written in the 18th century.
The road to hell was paved with the best of intentions.
Our constitution was written to limit government and protect the interests of the "peasant" population. The narcissistic "leaders" in our country circumvent the constitution in every specious way possible (seriously, research what "specious" language is...).
This is a great video. Seriously, research specious language, logical fallacies and narcissism and you will reach the same conclusion this video does. Well done, everyone!!!
@@lexh.7034 Precedent on Constitutional rulings is often ludicrous, and there is a mechanism for changing the Constitution if that was needed.
The State forces us to live under its laws, so it should at least respect the law of the Constitution - as it was intended and sold to our ancestors at the ratifying conventions - that is supposed to bind it.
@@Galgus2000 Completely agree with the point you made. It shall not be amended in a way that makes it enforceable on one person but not another such as the government enforcing rules but not abiding by them. Well done.
I would disagree with the very first premise on one end.
It's very much present in conversations. We constantly reference the bill of rights in almost every political discussion right now.
The problem realistically is the vast majority of the American population (left and right alike) haven't read ANY of it, or simply don't understand.
Good video though guys. Appreciate thoughtful content quite a bit.
I agree that the Constitution is referenced quite a bit. But I think the problem is that most people just bust it out when it justifies what they want to do. I've met very few people who are consistently for or against the Constitution. The majority of people reference it as an inviolable charter when discussing one issue, and as soon as the conversation changes to a different issue, they dismiss it as an old piece of paper written by old farts in wigs who couldn't comprehend the world we live in today.
Civics, geography, and history are some of the biggest weaknesses in the monstrously weak US public education. A lot of people like to talk about the Constitution, but for them it's mostly a vague shield they can hold up to protect or sometimes bludgeon to death their typically vague understanding of three or four of their favorite amendments from time to time.
Thanks for this. Looking forward to more.
What an inviting and friendly looking animation. I'm sure it's harmless and won't misinform gullible people on the internet about politics!
This should be shown in every school, but since it won’t share and show your kids to prevent the indoctrination
8:57 Animated Malice enthusiastically nodding about the Mets vs. the Red Sox being in the World Series was the comedic highlight of the episode.
The way you guys explained the general welfare clause and the electoral college was fantastic. The analogies along with the visuals are fantastic and I really hope this series catches on.
Tom Woods God bless you............................
This was really good. Sound quality could be better, but it is good enough. Best line: You’re a modern day Atlas, Tom. A 4”11” modern day atlas.” Kudos! Can’t wait for more.
This was great! Two of my very favorites!
I absolutely love this series, I love Mike even more in caricature form, as if I needed more reason to love him. Hyper Malice. RedEye thanks for introducing to this hilarious and thought provoking man, and many others.
Great
Cool start to this series.
Please, whatever you do, keep these coming.
9 more episodes coming this year!
Love this! Can't wait to see more.
Nice! You really did demolish the idea of a "Living Constitution". And the baseball example was brilliant for the electoral college. Looking forward to seeing more and sharing, thank you! :-)
Thank you very much!
Micheal: Tom, I assume you watched the scooby doo cartoons as a kid.
Tom: Yes, who didnt?
Micheal: Good. Then I'm sure you closely identified with Velma.
Tom: Maybe I didnt watch it.
Love the writing!
I've explained the importance of the electoral college many times to individuals who think it needs to be abolished.
Great work! Thanks
Virgin America: Oh the Constitution is too hard to amend. We need justices to judge how ever we want and need.
Chad Brazil: The Constitution is hard to amend but have 100 plus and amendments in a constitution 30yr old and we have supreme court judges that see it as a living document.
I’d love to hear on what authority the government is able to disregard the limits stated in the constitution. I realize they are using the general welfare clause, but I would think that they need a lot more then that to be able to lawfully transform rights to benefits/privileges. Rights being self evident and benefits/privileges being something the government can give and take as they please.
Great video though, very entertaining and yet super informative! Can’t wait for the next one
I love this so much. Thanks for putting it together.
Peace from Puerto Rico
As a Puerto Rican it's a bit worrying how far they've strayed from freedom. It's sad how even though your government sucks at least some people still held to the values of freedom and keeping your government in check but now there's less of those people.
Excellent and well done!
I don’t agree with this video on many points but I appreciate you arguing your point of view! Liked the video!
One minor correction. There are so many deer in Central Park that NYPD have had annual culls of them since sometime in the late 1990s - early 2000s. This is to stop them from attacking joggers. Neither of these things are publicized because NYC politicians don't want to anger the ecomentalists, and they also don't want to admit their failures in both ecomental policy & firearms policy.
🤣🤣🤣🤣 I love it!! So hilarious!! Please keep doing these!! 🤘🤘
9 more episodes to come this year!
@@capitalresearchcenter Fantastic! 🤘
So cute AND informative. Just wondering if anyone else's dog went nuts on the opening sound effect with the bomb. Will remember next time to turn down the volume first. THANKS WOODS
-A longtime fan/listener/Tom Woods Show proselytizing device
Honestly I feel like lots of the stuff on this channel is bias but I like learning about history in general. And on both sides. So I kinda dig this.
Tom “the very failed” woods and the great malice! 🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤 great video
8:30
Tom: What, do we hate democracy?
Malice: Yes!
Love it guys. Keep up the great work.
I absolutely love this!
This is great. Perfect for sharing to anyone!
Tom and Michael are always fun together
I am using this in my 7th grade social studies class as part of our Constitution Unit. #libertarianteacher
@Jasmine Rice because the garbage materials provided by public schools are free from indoctrination and bias, right? I can guarantee my 7th graders know more about the Constitution than you do.
Excellent - best explanation of the electoral college to date.
Hello, this is a great format.
Wow! That was awesome! A very concise and accurate summary of the constitution!!
Fabulous
The "general welfare clause" is a restriction on taxes. It says that taxes may only be collected for (and so spent on) a few things, one of them being "general welfare". As opposed to "private welfare". So you could spent taxes on roads, because the "general" public can use roads. But you are not allowed to collect taxes to fund solyndra, as that has purely private limited benefit.
It's here it's here it's here!
They promised- and they delivered. :)
Tom may be a very failed Podcaster but he's world class at constructing analogies. The electoral college bit was as succinct and clear as I have ever heard.
Awesome! Really helped my kids understand the General Welfare BS.