Let us remember , we are primarily Christians our believes and views are founded on scripture. If secondary groups such as left or right, top, down come about , they should subscribe to us and not us to them. We have failed and this is why there is politics in Church. We are subscribing to the world and then scripture afterwards.. Let us give God what belongs to Him and the world to whom it belongs..
I one time heard a psychologist say, "The number one mistake most people make is assuming other people think just like they do." Kind hearted people assume all people are compassionate, because they are compassionate. And so the kind person gets burned by the narcissist who exploited their kindness. If the compassionate person realized that the other person was fundamentally selfish, they would not have positioned themself to get burned by that person. Similarly, narcissistic people assume all people are selfish, because that's how their brains work. So when a kind person treats the narcissist well, he doesn't understand the kindness. He thinks the kind person is challenging him to a game of manipulation. And so the narcissist can never form trusting relationships of genuine love. The kind person must realize that there are evil people in the world, and they need to have boundaries to protect themself from manipulation. This requires wisdom, but it will save you from much damage. The narcissist must realize that there are genuine people out there, and that it is not all power plays against each other. This requires humility, but it will reveal a beautiful world.
but now its you as the good people and the ones that think diverently as narcesists and bad people it could be that they had to deal with alot of bad stuff so they have more of a scinical outlook on live
This is why I got into Christian Apologetics in 2012. I began my truth journey on September 25, 2001 and it started in PURE politics and I would find in 11 years that politics is hollow without an objective moral standard.
My son was liberal after years getting his MD, but after only 6 months in the emergency room he got conservative rather quickly. Said dealing with entitled attitudes changed his mind.
Life experiences change your outlook? How bizarre. For this comment be something other than snark: good on your son for working in healthcare. I never could.
I'm an xray tech. I've seen lots of democrat nurse flip in the last 2 years. They still hate Trump, but they lose their minds when they hear about some of the stuff going on in schools in regards to "trans kids". One nearby school put kitty litter in the bathroom so that a "cat trans child" can go to the bathroom in the kitty litter like they do at home. We hear about this stuff from school nurses who work with hospital nurses..
Entitled attitudes mean what in this case? I have an entitled attitude, I'm entitled to medical treatment as and when I need it in 🇬🇧 and I'm entitled prescription pharmaceuticals as and when I need them in 🏴 at no charge. There are no prescription charges in Scotland. Look up National Health Service (NHS) and National Insurance.
@joshua_wherley oh gosh, it's been like 4 months...but yeah I still remember how bad this video is lol. It's a real stinker. Basically this is what happens when someone decides to develop an interdisciplinary theory that touches on concepts from political theory, psychology, and sociology, all while ignoring the actual research and insights provided by those fields in favor or a pseudo-intellectual articulation of the same arguments that tend to occupy the air waves of overtly right-wing talking heads. Like, am i correct in remembering a total absence of discussion on power dynamics and social roles/hierarchies? Just stuff like that - basic, core concepts across all of those fields - seemed noticeably absent if I remember correctly. And there's some stuff that was just straight up wrong, slickly presented as fact. Can't remember what, not sure if I want to ruin my evening by watching this again lol. But I will if you actually want to talk about it. It bugs the crap out of me when someone with good editing skills polishes up and serves these mindless little turd nuggets that have every appearance of being accurate and honest.
Hold on just one second. Now I do t say anyone wants to cause trouble, though I have heard many people say they do. I think they want what’s good like anyone else, and out of a blind adherence to fashion they claim to be Palpatines and Jokers. I can’t believe anyone wants to destroy all that’s good. But as to stupidity, stupidity is infinite. I wholeheartedly believe nearly everyone on the other side is a paint-sniffing moron. But I probably am also. Stupidity cannot possibly be limited in any way, much less by political affiliations
@@joshua_wherleyOne of the problems with this video is that it falls for the simplistic and outdated assumption that a healthy fear of concentration of power means being conservative. (Small government) The reality, I would argue, is that a good way to deconcentrate power in our current society would be to implement Bernie Sanders type policies. It is large corporations and to a lesser extent ultra wealthy individuals who control too many levers and, through campaign funding and lobbying, control government policy.
I'm actually surprised you quoted Sowell. One of my favorite authors to date. Unlike any other right-leaning academic, Sowell does indeed have a unique insight into human nature, even the differences in culture and geography that lead to differences in outcome.
In the Netherlands healthcare is hybrid: It's mandatory to have an insurance. What should be as a minimum in the coverage is fixed. The insurance companies have to compete with each other. The hospitals, dentists, etc are companies. For the utter poor there are separate rules to cover the costs of the insurance. There is attention for prevention but that's always a struggle. Abuse of the system exists, but, well, that's always something you can respond and improve on. God bless you and make you a blessing.
@@screwstatists7324 It's not ALL your money. If you live in a society it requires financial contributions for its support. The arguments stem from the degree of support and targets of financial allocations. Perhaps you're a partial closet anarchist, libertarians effectively are. That's the correct meaning of anarchy, a political ideology, not the projected bastardisation of the word. If you have car insurance etc you are paying for other peoples accidents whether you ever have a claim yourself. Same with socialised medicine.
Honestly, ever since I was a child, I never understood why politics was so controversial that it became social taboo. This video seems like an intro to politics for me. 👍
"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics." -Thomas Sowell
You hit the nail on the head. In your conclusion, everyone runs on a different set of assumptions and it's our job to understand those before we pass judgement.
I’ve said in the past that the biggest disagreements in conversations is human nature. Some believe you can’t change, others think you do. All of which to better understand why we need grace.
I'm definitely in the constrained humanity camp. The unconstrained camp drives me into visions of creatures rising up against their own Creator, demanding an apology from Him that He made them the way they are, and blaming their environment for all their personal sins. The constrained camp speaks of the maturity for the acceptance of others the way they are, and trying to do one's best in a fallen world in a fallen flesh and soul, interacting with other fallen beings, many of whom don't even realise they are fallen and need salvation.
The first lesson of economics is that "there is no such thing as a free lunch." If you don't understand that your political world view is a failure right out the gate.
Although I am more conservative, I find automatic distrust of the government to be a weird concept. We put the government in charge of many necessary things such as enforcement of the law and food quality standards, fire and rescue services, and creating and maintaining infrastructure. I also feel that at least a few of the things considered to be human nature are more the result of fear, like the difficulty of dealing with a dog that had an abusive owner in the past.
There’s more than one way for power to be too concentrated. In the US currently, where large corporations and to a lesser extent ultra wealthy individuals control government via campaign donations, media ownership, and lobbying, Bernie Sanders type policies are the best path to fighting an over concentration of power.
There was a political compass meme I saw a while ago with the four quadrants empty and the red spot in the middle of a separate fifth square up in the corner titled “One day Christ shall sweep away all this.” That’s the only source to the decision we have, created as it is by a temporal, broken, fallen world. Have faith in temporary things, and your hope will be temporary too. But have faith in the eternal, and your hope shall be everlasting too.
Anyone who has actually worked in the government for more than 5 years will tell you that handing the keys to them to run things will turn into hurry up and wait for everyone.
*anyone who's competent with a half-way decent education and an equal amount of time in the private sector would laugh at that statement. Then cry because a lot of people believe stupid things, and that's why we can't have nice things.
@@screwstatists7324 yep. Anarchism and libertarianism: two sides to the same stupid, non-functional fantasy for spoiled, selfish children with no real life experience
Thanks for the video. It is a very refreshing, top-down approach to help understanding the bi-polar tendencies in most political systems. Also, GREAT animations, I think this is your best video regarding visual quality!
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES: SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him inordinate wealth. Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”. The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon. DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available. Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters - he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest). The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler - they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule. To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”. It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”. The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries. Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”. Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful. One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear. Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation. Cont...
It's literally a bunch of assumptions pulled from a wild variety of quotes from people who were almost entirely at least 100 years away from the modern era lol. This is what happens when a theology student decides to come up with a political theory without the benefit of actually studying political theory. Or sociology. Or psychology. Or history. Or the law. It's literally a mess of lies and assumptions. If you walked away feeling more informed....man, f*ck this channel for being just another source of political division through misinformation.
@@elijahcumpton9926, do you realize that when you use the words “LAW” or "LEGAL", instead of the proper word, “rule”, you are giving authority and legitimacy to the arbitrary rules imposed on citizens by dirty, demonic, democratic governments? "F.I.S.H", Ch. 12: There is but ONE law - the inextricable laws of God. These laws include the natural laws (such as the law of gravity and the various cycles of the biosphere) as well as the moral laws (which are extremely complex and must be revealed via God’s spokesmen, i.e. prophets). When either kind of law is transgressed, there is a detrimental effect on the entire universe. Every thought and deed has an equal and opposite reaction. The various “laws” instigated by governments are (in almost every instance) merely subjective rules and regulations imposed by self-obsessed men and women. Judging the actions of others is a normal, natural and necessary function of every thinking person. However, one can only directly PASS judgement on those whom one has direct or indirect authority over. One should avoid passing judgement on those one has no authority over but remain silent. To read the remaining twenty-nine chapters of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, which your god has graciously given to his people on Earth, email the address listed on the "About" page of my TH-cam channel, with the acronym “FISH” in the subject field. 🐟
@@ReverendDr.Thomas dude I have a doctorate in American law, and that's what I'm talking about. Not interested in a weird theological debate on semantics, sorry.
@@elijahcumpton9926, do you have any ACTUAL arguments to counter my perfect and pure pronouncements/teachings, or do you intend to simply make nonsensical assertions, or even more inane, make “ad hominem” attacks, Silly Sinful Slave? 🙄 Incidentally, it’s called “Spell-Check”. ✅ Look into it, SILLY Sinner. 👨🏻🎓
Full transparency: I'm a conservative. To me, it seems self-evident that we can't reach utopia because of what was mentioned in the video. People tend to act toward their own self-interest. So it's better to set up an ideal scenario where everyone has equal rights to compete with one another to make an optimal society. But that's not the main reason I'm a conservative. My main reason is I believe the family is the fundamental unit of society, not the individual, and we should set up society to incentivize people toward family values, which includes: religion, free markets, the ability to defend oneself and their family, and freedom from government tyranny (whether it be limiting speech or our actions from competing towards those family values). Hope this helps any liberal watching/reading to understand where we are coming from.
leftism: Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless, unborn children. Cf. “dharma”. In the past decade or two, the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human civilization. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit. As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia). In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population. According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far far smaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children - something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia). Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil, and immoral in the first place). It seems the consensus amongst leftist "intellectuals" is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one's environmental conditioning, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one's genetic sequence and one’s conditioning - a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically-supported. This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies, such as monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, and all other virtuous principles. Fear not, for GOD is with you! P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes. 🤡
But I don't think leftists believe that we can achieve a utopia, either. They just want to strive for it as much as possible even while knowing that it's impossible to achieve. I don't think this contradictory because, for example, a world without any rape happening is obviously utopian and will never be the case, no matter what we do. But striving for a rape-free world is still something worth doing because by striving for that ideal we minimize rape as much as possible. And this is all while knowing that a rape-free world is an unachievable utopia. And regarding UBI, I agree that people will act in their own self-interest and be selfish, but only when you're already financially stable. The poor on the other hand, they put the money they get immediately back into the economy because they need it to buy basic services or go to the doctor or buy their children supplies for school or whatever. The poor will benefit most from these programs because they can't afford to be selfish because they have to survive from paycheck to paycheck, generally speaking. And even if rich(er) people will just splurge with the money for their own selfish gains, for some that's worth if it means alleviating the misery and stress of the poor. That being said, UBI is stupid because it's not feasible and too expensive. UBS is a way better thing in my opinion. But my main point is that wanting to strive for a utopia doesn't mean that people actually believe that utopia is possible.
@@romanski5811: 🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES: SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him inordinate wealth. Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”. The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon. DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available. Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters - he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest). The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler - they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule. To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”. It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”. The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries. Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”. Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful. One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear. Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation. Cont...
Dude thank you for making this! We need more videos like this that are unbiased and about facts everyone can understand. It’s SO important not to treat politics like an idol or religion and to worship God above all things, letting Him guide our actions over our views. An idol is ANYTHING we put above God. Even doing what we think is right can be an idol if we put it above what God says to do. God should be our true government. If not, we will always be divided. He is our mediator and our compass for truth, love, peace, justice and all that is valuable enough to model ourselves by.
"Do you really think the other side is ignorant" That's a general assumption I make about the majority of humanity, and it has served me well up to this point.
We all have to take accountability for the role we play in making it so bad. Blaming the so called elites helps No one and is just a way to avoid responsibility
I'm pretty sure he went to school for graphic design or something like that (and also for philosophy obviously), so yes, I think he does make all of his graphics and videography.
Great video as always. One thing I want to address is the issue of ignorance. I believe most people operate out of ignorance, whether they have views and presuppositions similar to my own or not. Most are missing something, including myself. It's important to consume as much information as possible to help refine your own positions for this reason.
Can't believe you mentioned my fav author. Great video and I'm really happy you're bringing attention to such a good book. I've recently started reading Dominion after watching your interview with the author and I'm LOVING it! Thank you for sharing your wisdom. God bless 🙏
Yep. Excellent way of dressing up lies and assumptions to make them seem true and dupe the uneducated. What a great way to fix politics. Who knew we just needed more misinformation and propaganda...?
Mate this is great animation, and a great theme (understanding ‘the other’). Sorely missing in storytelling and philosophy of the current age. Peterson mentioned a practice of having his students write a passionate essay of their firmly-held beliefs in the first week of class, followed by a counter-essay the following week, which helped them tremendously in forming more balanced and understanding viewpoints. Seems like that’s what you’re going for here; as a (now) fairly politically conservative person, I love your final point about healthcare - definitely some great truths and concepts to wrestle with. Thanks kindly.
@@Globeguy1337, Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies. 🤡 To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
Ugh you've only gained ignorant assumptions and lies. This video is absolutely terrible, and the number of people who walk away feeling informed is downright alarming. I don't know who to be mad at, IP or whoever decided to totally ignore these topics in our education system...
this is a super important video, people don't seem to understand that when discussing politics many times they are coming from entirely different worldviews and starting points And without also discussing that root factor, it is different to move the conversation forwards, And honestly, even if the conversation doesn't move forward, just seeing where the person comes from does a lot to understanding each other and mitigating the hate and polarization that is so common in current political discourse also, the animations and editing on the video were absolutely stunning :D
The real way to fix politics is to see past the false dichotomy and realize we are all being played like fools by an oligarchy that rules modern society for their own benefit. Both sides have been enslaved by that oligarchy and the only way to break free from it is to reject them both and take the third path
The lamest cop-out. Everyone that's so sure about being a third-party rebel is the biggest NPC possible. And the oligarchy-oppressor arch-narrative is just another expression of leftism
@@maxalaintwo3578 third party? Third parties are still part of the controlled opposition, they are meant to make anyone who rejects the false dichotomy look stupid. I can't say what I mean by third way, but the first way is liberal capitalism and the second way is Marxism. I'm sure you can figure out what remains
@@jackwalters5506 my guess is fascism, feudalism, authentic conservatism or some other form of traditionalism divorced from the philosophies of the Englitenment or the Industrial Revolution. I don't necessarily disagree but the rhetoric of "we're just controlled by a shadow oligarcy maaaaaan" is cringe
It's literally not an explanation of anything. It's a bunch of theories, lies, and assumptions. Man It's bumming me out that so many people think this video is good. Not only is IP generating misinformation, but apparently our education system just completely ignores this stuff and no one can recognize bullsh*t when it's right in front of their face...
Great video. As a former liberal who tuned conservative sometime after becoming a Christian and being exposed to the doctrine of human depravity, I can relate to this. I’m open to liberal ideas if their is solid data showing that the costs are paid for by the benefits. I am happy that we have liberal cities and states to pilot these new ideas. Unfortunately, most ideas that are talked about in the media have failed every time they have been tried and a future generations will pay the cost from the debt incurred to try them at a national level.
American conservatists are liberal, more specifically neoliberal. Really weird how they always act like conservatism and liberalism are diametrically opposed.
If by liberal ideas you meant leftist ideas, I can vouch for one, which is very easy to proof to work, namely universal health care. The US has the highest healthcare spending per capita than any other countries on the face of the planet, with practically one of the worst (if not THE worst) outcome and life expectancy among the fellow first world countries. Obviously you already know that the US is also the only developed country with no universal healthcare.
This is exactly why I say that addressing religion (or worldview, whatever you want to call it) is necessary when addressing politics. We need to know what view of reality that one's politics are flowing from.
Thank you, Mr. Jones. Let's see each other through the eyes of love & understanding rather than hurt, anger or frustration. Let's strive to really listen to the cries of their hearts first. We have a person in front of us, not an enemy even when their believes & worldviews are radically different from our own. Do we possess that amount of patience, self-control & love?
Not sure that I 100% agree with that. I tend to think that it's new-age tinted social justice mores such as "looking through the eyes of love and understanding" that have allowed the transgender and other "woke" social justice movements and ideologies to grow and empower those political and corporate entities that desire to destroy everything that we once cherished so much in the past. The "things" that were once taken for granted as being good for society (many loosely based on Christian/Judeo morals) have been inverted or eradicated completely, all in the name of loving, understanding and respecting minority groups. Groups who clearly have mental health issues and the morals of an alley cat, who therefore make it easy for our worldly overlords to emotionally negatively charge them and use them as "useful idiots" who are compelled by their emotions and feelings rather than by rational thought or any commandments from a higher moral authority such as God. These "useful idiots" are easily manipulated into playing their part in the inversion of good into evil and evil into good. With the approval and support of their worldly overlords, they have been tearing down our old and time-tested cultural mores and social expectations simply because we have let them do so through our well intended but misguided efforts to "love our neighbours". This type of misplaced love and compassion has led us to a very dark place indeed, as we now find ourselves teetering on the brink of nuclear destruction ... or at the very least, trapped within the confines of a totalitarian one world global government that does not have humanity's best interests in mind and detests God and his people. Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not saying that we should treat people badly, nor hate them, just that trying to understand their irrational arguments and ideologies is a waste of time, effort and resources. Christ doesn't anywhere (that I am aware of) tell us to try to understand such people or "listen to the cries of their hearts". My understanding of the commandment to "love thy enemy/neighbour" is more in line with the aims of the Geneva Convention. Our enemies remain our enemies until such a time as they cease to attack us and sue for peace. We should always forgive them and treat them as humanely as possible, just as we would like to be treated ourselves. If in need, we should feed them, give them medical assistance, shelter and generally treat them humanely and kindly ... just as we would like to be treated ourselves. However this is not the same type of love that we give to our spouses, friends and relatives. That simply isn't possible because it's a different kind of love that is referred to in the commandment to love thine enemies and neighbours. It's a commandment to treat people (our enemies included) humanely and kindly, just as we would like to be treated if we were in their position and in need. Christ never promised us that we would have no enemies ... in fact he told us the exact opposite would apply and that we should expect our persecution by such people to increase not wane, as the world's hatred for us increased. If we ignored their evil intent to harm us and to destroy and attack our faith/spiritual beliefs and morals and corrupt our children, we would not be following Christ's command to be as cunning as serpents and as harmless as doves. We shouldn't hate such people, but neither should we befriend and overly associate with them. We certainly should not hate our enemies, but that doesn't mean that we can ignore their destructive ideologies or attempt to justify such ideological and unholy madness. Listening to the cries of their evil hearts is simply something that we should avoid at all costs. To cosy up and compromise with those who are against us and God is to partner with demons. "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership can righteousness have with wickedness? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16What agreement can exist between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will dwell with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be My people.”…2 Corinthians 6:14-16 Berean Standard Bible God bless!
The way I have been trying to approach politics for the past little while is through the lens of Psalm 37. If I ever notice myself fretting or getting angry at what the other side is doing or saying, I try to go read that passage. I think it really helps set my mind back on what is truly important. Love, kindness, goodness, and humility. It reminds me, I shouldn't to go to "war", so to speak, to create peace. It reminds me to let God handle the defense of good, and to just focus on being good.
There is a very old saying which has been misatributed to many famous people: “If a man is not a republican at twenty, it is because he has no heart, and if he is one at forty, it is because he has no brains.” This resonates with me because the older I get the less optimistic I become about human nature.
Very good video, however, I would like to point out that the political divide today is even more complicated today than it used to be... While in the past, most of the division came simply from people thinking in different ways or prioritizing different things, I would argue that today, the division has shifted more towards social issues such as Abortion, Gay Rights, Trans Rights, etc. In those cases, it's not very easy to reconcile the two views, given how the right views those things as being more or less inherently evil, while the left seeing the right as being the evil "bigot" oppressor for trying to restrict the freedom of those things. With such fundeamtally different worldviews at play, finding common ground and working together seems like it's far easier in theory than in practice.
Great video! I could have used this as guidance in my Social Political Philosophy class last year. As a teenager, I watched my mom bend over to pick up something off the floor, and she wasn't able to get back up. I begged her to go to the doctor, but she wouldn't because she didn't have health insurance. That shaped my belief in wanting universal healthcare.
And I watched my single mother with a low paying job be told she didn't qualify for obamacare so she would have to be penalized during taxes because she was uninsured. She said she'll just have to pay the fine because it was cheaper than getting basic healthcare. Not to mention it wouldn't cover any medical expenses anyways.
@@TheOtherCaleb The government even caps how many people can become doctors in a year. Also the universal healthcare perspective typically requires stealing from those who are opposed to such a system to help enact it, meaning it’s inherently coercive.
I appreciate the philosophical approach to this. Something very few address and I'm glad you mentioned the spectrum because people usually fall into constrained about some things but not all.
The basic premise, that for most people the issue is a difference in underlying assumptions, is a good one. Everyone's the hero of their own story, and for most that means they think of themselves as good, or at least as less bad than most. There are, or at least seem to be, those who either have no sense of right and wrong or who believe those don't exist, and those generally cannot be reasoned with in the traditional manner (which is not to say dialogue is impossible, just that it is different). Though as a Christian I cannot think anyone is beyond redemption and thus cannot think anyone is truly absolute in one of those views. Then there are those who hold no one can ever be good, which is a different sort of discussion. But I digress. I do have some issues on the details. Polarization isn't new, people just have short memories. Read some of Mark Twain/Samuel Clemens's writings on the politics of his day. I'd say the periods of low polarization are the anomoly, but really it seems like more of a cycle. Sadly that does make this next reference less clever: The methods of communication may change, but politics? Politics never changes. Also, what gets called 'liberal' versus 'conservative' keeps changing. Makes some sense: they are relative terms. One can look at constrained vs unconstrained the other way around: The latter would hold that humans, if free to act, will generally act for the good. Ergo, limited government is better. Contrariwise, the former may hold that if free to act, human lives will be 'nastry, brutish and short'. Ergo, rules must exist and must be enforced. Of course the constrained view still would hold no one should go unchecked, but that leads to a 'rules based' order where the rules, once established, are nearly impossible to change. A strong government that is, in some sense, not accountable to anyone, not even those running it. UBI/UHC analysis misses a key argument: economics. Where does the wealth come from? Regardless of whether it is better to have it or not, universal anything requires that thing to be post-scarcity, or at least nearly so. I doubt true post-scarcity has ever been achieved for an item that was not so in a pre-industrial state (I'm thinking of unpolluted air here, but there are probably other examples), though if someone can provide an example I will stand corrected. Indeed for healthcare that is the general issue: there exist a finite number of doctors, and most medicine cannot yet be automated. (If it ever can be: I'm generally skeptical of such things until they happen.) I have seen little or no argument on frivolous use from a moral standpoint, but rather from an economic one: if everyone can go to the doctor for a runny nose, will there be enough doctor-hours to diagnose cancer? If you tell people they cannot go for a runny nose to save the doctor-hours: what if it's a precursor of a serious infection?
I’m divided on the healthcare debate. I think both liberals and conservatives can agree that the American healthcare system is cruel and unaffordable. I tend to consult with countries that have a successfully run healthcare system. It seems like the exact model of healthcare isn’t the deterministic factor. Some of them have a market based healthcare-and they don’t have nearly as many issues as we do, like Singapore and Switzerland. Others use a hybrid system, where people are allowed to purchase private insurance for better quality care, like Germany. And of course, countries like Japan, South Korea, Norway, France have a universal, single-payer healthcare. But all of these countries have a relatively small or homogeneous population. Their government has way less issues to worry about. Their people tend to be educated and disciplined, which means few people would abuse the healthcare system with issues like a runny nose. They have other factors that improve the overall health of citizens, like better food regulations and walkable spaces, which reduces illnesses. With our current political and societal model, universal healthcare is unfeasible in the US. It seems like we should address much bigger underlying issues than to change the specific healthcare model.
@@hello855 I am not versed enough to really contribute on most of that, but I did want to comment on food regulations. I am generally in favor of few strictive regulations (saying what can and cannot be done with the foodstuffs per se), and more for informative regulations, which was the original intent of the FDA. But the trick there is that not placing strictive regulations requires also not allowing promotive ones, as people are very likely to get it wrong. Remember the food pyramid heavily promoting carbs? Turns out, excessive carbohydrate intake contributes to the development of type 2 diabetes nearly as much as excessive simple sugar intake. Similarly, at various points in time the US has subsidized corn syrup production to the point where it was more cost-effective for farmers to sell their corn and buy corn syrup supplements for their animals than to feed the animals the corn to start with. While not definitive, there is reason to believe high fructose corn syrup may contribute to diabetes more than sucrose. At the very least, the propped-up price made fructose cheaper and led to greater simple sugar intake among those not wealthy enough to afford alternatives. I do not know what other countries do on that, nor how successful it has been. I only know the US parts due to a series of rabbit holes. If you have a good resource on them, though, I may take a look when and if I have time.
Ever notice how the Unconstrained tend to hold a materialist metaphysics - seeing our material environment as a causative factor in the individual's moral outlook? The Constrained tend to be more open to transcendent metaphysics albeit often inherited by handed down religious dogmatic institutions. I think a a naming and resolving of this dialectic would go a long way to improving political discussion.
@@jimmock1155 I'm a Buddhist so in my understanding the phenomenal world will never permanently resolve into a utopian ideal with no conflicting dialectic. Only the individual can stop rebelling against god. Part of that process is compassion and benefitting society, though never with the intention to fundamentally redeem it.
I think the constrained view in the video is much closer to the ideals and principles of classical liberalism than contemporary conservative politics. Many ideas on the populist right are quite contrary to that worldview.
Classical liberalism and classical conservatism are both constrained in that they repudiate the existence or possibility of some kind of utopia that modern liberals and progressives embrace. However, classical liberalism is unconstrained in light of the very nature that they believe human reason is enough to create an ideal free self-governing society of atomistic individuals. Classical conservatives argue otherwise that some kind of order and culture is required for a society to function and grow, and that individual humans cannot be separated from their cultural and social environment by virtue of reason alone.
@@baleriontheblackdread4491 If you're a fascist or a socialist, even if they fall under the unintentionally evil category, yea, i think they're missing a crucial understanding of the world we live in. Why disagree?
@cool beans obviously i disagree. Making any assertions that includes everyone on the other side is just dumb on so many levels. Are you certain in your political opinions to the point that you would assert that everyone on the otherside is ignorant ? Do you believe that you posses much more knowledge compared to every one on the otherside ?
@@baleriontheblackdread4491 Not necessarily my specific preferred solutions, no. There are many solutions to a single problem. I have my preferences and opinions on what would be better but solutions aren't just limited to that. Politics isn't as black and white as we'd like to think but that doesn't mean that solutions that are objectively less bad than others dont exist. "Do you really believe that you know more on the other side?" It depends on what you mean by "other side ". What i mean by that is socialist and fascist or any other heavily centralized system but i would answer, in general, "yes". Thats a very low bar to hit though so im not sure why you'd disagree.
@@coolbeans6148 Fascists are ignorant but the democratic and capitalist models are good? While you're talking about the dangers of socialism, look who funded the socialist and communist parties. Hint, it wasn't the fascists.
IP great Job on summarizing this topic! The one thing that was somewhat overlooked is incentives vs outcomes. Incentives is key to the constrained vision where as the unconstrained visions prizes outcomes. Regardless of which camp you are in it has to be recognized that the outcome focus requires far greater conformity from citizens and increasing levels of government coercion when resistance is met. That is why the worst human atrocities have stemmed from the unconstrained vision.
I'm hoping that this experiment will go well by me saying this but I'm a Christian Progressive and I stress that particular definition because there is a difference in the theological connotations between a progressive Christian or a Christian Progressive. The point of this comment is to see if people respond with respect and don't come in here with attacks or presuppositions. I like IP as I watch his videos and I find them generally well researched but like anyone else he does make the occasional error such as his original Exodus video where I am much happier with his new position as that makes the most sense when you look at the data and evidence. Anyway I hope this experimental comment ends up going well!
Yeah, you had more allies a hundred years ago or so. Used to be all the rage. Does it concern you that as progressivism has "progressed," fewer and fewer progressives are actually Christians?
For my money, the keyword in all of this is, "assumption." If I assume someone has my story, my background, my values and my preferences, then the only reason that person would disagree with me is because they're, "wrong." If I can approach a person free from my own assumptions, then I have the opportunity to understand where they're coming from in a real, meaningful way - "to walk a mile in their shoes." I believe many make the mistake thinking that understanding someone means agreeing with them, and when one's built an identity around being a Republican/Conservative or a Democrat/Liberal, the tribe might alienate you if you try to show some understanding. Understanding someone doesn't mean agreeing with them; in fact if disagreement persists, both parties are in a position to have a better conversation about why they disagree. My prayer for our country is 1 Cor. 8-10 & Rom. 14. Thanks for making this brother.
The importance of understanding that this video is clearly 99% lies and assumptions is critical. Man I'm really starting to hate this channel for creating so much mindless, divisive propaganda...
@@oadefisayo my every day life proves the entire initial premise wrong lol. There are absolutely groups of people out there making up lies about trans people to destroy our lives for no reason. That's one lie. But literally everything else in this video are half-baked assumptions completely devoid of any historical, legal, or psychological context. It's downright moronic.
A great video, thanks. I had to really think through those questions during the political turmoil in Brazil of the last 8 years. In the end I had to stop adhering (by default) to a single party or political spectrum and realize that no party represents the policies I think are more likely to have good results without as much bad consequences (as they are inevitable). But at the same time, I sadly have to say that the polarization and bitterness won't go away. Those philosophical differences always existed but society was not as divided as today. Different economic policies are also very old but didn't fracture society as only revolutions and wars would change an economic system, and by force. No, the issue that fractures society is ethics and what a human being really is. For the first time in history progressives now have a radicaly distinct answer (and methods) for those questions. I feel economic matters can be negotiable up to a point for many. But human nature is a core point that instantly engages people, and politics love that so they preach to the choir and walk further and further into securing the extremes. Also, Overton window...
Excellent video, Mike! You should, however, consider mentioning Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions" in your description. That book, as you know, unpacks the constrained and unconstrained vision quite scrupulously. Many of your viewers would tremendously benefit from reading it!
We have two ears, and one mouth - there's a reason for that beyond audio coverage. One way to serve your fellow man, at times, is simply to listen. Some people are hurting and need an ear. If Christ came to die for our sins, and in doing so showed the humility of God in the method of how He extended grace towards us: should we not seek to display some of that same humility, rather than seek a quick 'gotcha' on someone we've barely heard out? ---- Thanks for this!
The extreme division in politics is only something that has happened in recent years . Before the early 2000s discussion and compromise were quite common.
I feel like it has come in waves amongst citizens. I grew up in the 80’s and 90’s and I knew people who voted on both sides and they were way kinder to each other then compared to now. Before and during the Civil War things were not good aka The Brothers’ War. But I feel like politicians have been pretty nasty towards each other forever. Just look at how Jefferson and Adams talked about each other before the Presidential election of 1800 AND THEY WERE FRIENDS!
@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718 You're right it's not entirely new, but it has waxed and waned over time, and we are currently in a period where it is much higher than usual.
What I find fascinating is regardless of the political differences, both sides presuppose a perfect ideal. One side says it's unattainable, the other side it is attainable. So here's the main question. Why do both sides default to a state of perfection when we seem to live in an imperfect world? And what does that perfection actually look like.
“If they just work together and understand each other” Well, yes, but that doesn’t fix politics. Politics is meant to have different interests represented by the powers that be, those interests can and do conflict with each other at times and sometimes there needs to be compromises as there are no other ways to satisfy any of them. I’m an independent all my life, I never fit in any political camp or ideology. But what I see is that everyone desires progress, they just envision it differently. So to move forward we must really see things for what it is and what purpose it serves. When it comes to people, however we should look at their potential and their free will choice. And in politics; Every politician should have an above average education- and service background and the higher they aspire to be in politics the more experienced they should be. It’s true, politicians can only be as good as the people that voted them in; they represent the voters, or at least that should be the case.
I suppose I would lean towards the constrained vision, but I don't even think that's the best place to start. I think the best place to start is the simple recognition that politics should be about needs, not wants. People need food, shelter, clothing, healing from sickness, protection from exploiters and abusers, a basic sense of community, etc. Even things that aren't directly necessary are often tangentially related to things that are necessary, so it still makes sense to pay attention to them. (For example, improving infrastructure, while not on the same level of necessity as food, makes it easier for people to get to their jobs so that they can earn enough money to put bread on the table.) Of course, there's still the massive question of what kind of society is best able to provide for people's needs, and differing views of human nature are definitely going to enter those debates. But politics is still, at its core, a really complicated version of the question, "How do we best ensure that people get their daily bread?" I think that one of the biggest causes of the division we're currently facing is that a lot of people are getting distracted away from this. Way too many people prioritize wants over needs, think they need things they don't, think needs are being met when they're not, and treat politics as some kind of sick game for their own amusement. Politics is not simply a set of abstract ideas about how to create an optimal society (though that can be part of it). It's about making sure that people's needs are met, and the question of how best to do that is not at all trivial.
I think beyond this another huge reason it is polarized is the nature of the 2 party system, and the people running for office. Everyone in office runs a campaign to where they try to get people to hate their opponent. Since there are 2 parties, candidates from both can work together to get voters to hate all candidates in the other party making it easier next election to sway voters who are solidly for one party. The more polarized it is, it becomes easier to elected with little work, you just need to be in an area that is already polarized to your side, then you just have to beat out a few primary challengers.
While we can create dialogue, I would keep in mind we cannot always work together. Sometimes the goals and means of parties or groups are inherently exclusionist. So what is a people to do when they find they have irreconcilable difference in key areas of life and thought? All this to say, psychology or not, there isn't a "fix" for politics as such. There are helpful and unhelpful approaches, as you so well suggest, but even the best approach cannot solve every difference.
Thank you for making this video! This is extremely important. Our current state of politics breaks my heart, and the behavior I see on display among fellow Christians is uncharitable and unchristlike. It actually sometime scares me. Thank you for the reminder that we're all just humans.
I believe the reason that no one seens to understand anyone nowadays in politics, is that political views are conclusions, the very end of a line of reasoning, when what actually matters are the premisses If you beggin by arguing by the conclusions, you wont go anywhere
The healthcare argument is brought up constantly in the US yet we DO have Medicare and Medicaid also Veteran's care as examples of government healthcare systems, all of which are often seen as inept, wasteful and incapable.
I see politics as a broken household. "Husband and Wife" creating conflicts with each other and not understanding one another, then proceed to create a rift of polarization that makes them deaf to each others words. the "children" in that household follow suit then become polarized and the cycle continues.
Regarding "free healthcare." It is only available if people see a value in learning and studying to become a healthcare provider. In almost all cases, this training is difficult, expensive, very time consuming and competitive. In otherwards, it is a HUGE amount of work. There has to be incentive for smart people to spend the enormous time and effort. If society makes it possible to "glide through" with no effort, why expend the effort to learn some difficult professions? I mean. Why bother? Sanjosemike (no longer in CA) Retired surgeon
Well researched and well presented as always, Michael. Unfortunately, it's also about 10 years out of date. Nobody but a few relics on the right cares about UBI or socialized medicine. Doesn't mean we'd be happy about it, but we have much bigger fish to fry right now. (Heck, many on the right even want to draft Tulsi as VP in '24. She holds lots of non-constraint positions) The issue is that we have a political party which had been consumed by its more radical elements such that it advocates for demonic evils like abortion to the point of birth or state mandated trans affirmation. There's no compromise with these things. There's no amount of good intentions that can change the fact that these ideas are cancers that need to be excised from our political discourse. These are enemies to be defeated lest we become complicit in them. Then we can go back to good faith dialog about economic policy.
If you doubt me, consider the 2020 Dem primaries. Andrew Yang championed UBI and went nowhere. Bernie and Warren championed socialized medicine and the welfare state and went nowhere. Biden was polling poorly before South Carolina. He changed his message during the SC race to one of racial grievances and carried the state on his way to winning the primary. Nobody cares about economic policy right now. We're in a spiritual battle for the soul of the nation. And it's not even Dem vs Rep. It's the technocrat establishment and their modern forms of the Opium of the Masses vs the People - be they left or right.
The problem is people. Whoever believes the concept that "people are generally good" hasn't spent much time actually getting to know the people they deal with. I'm a Christian, I believe in God. But I have to be honest when I say that the worst people I've ever dealt with my life are always Christians. The best person I have ever known was an Agnostic, and my former best friend was a Muslim. It doesn't say anything about Christianity, but it does say that what you choose to believe has little to do with what you will be like. Politics is always going to be a problem, there's no fixing it. People are getting more extreme, and this isn't done organically, it's all part of a plan.
The only difference between "good" and "evil" people are their chosen sides in conflict. The discrepancy between good and evil has very little to do with compassion and cruelty. This is the most common misconception of moral codes. You wish for something morals were not intended to do.
Conflict of Visions is a great way to understand our differences, but Jonathan Haidt's Moral Foundations is another great one. Everyone should check that one out and maybe a sequel about it?? 🤔🤔😉
Okay, why am I not getting notifications for these vids. I'm subscribed and turned on notifications but have to come to the channel to look for new videos.
IP, I love you man. You can have the last beer. (Do you feel the "but" coming?) Instead of using uni health care or uni min wage, apply it to the Hebrews waiting while Moses was on Mt. Sinai. Who were the contrained, those that wanted to keep waiting for the prophet or those who wanted to keep with idols? Who were the unconstrained, those that wanted to break with the prophet or those that wanted to break with idols? Keep in mind that both sides experienced the miracle of the parting of the sea. Sowell does an incredible job of seeing what he is looking at. He defines the problem mangificently. There is the old adage that a problem clearly defined is already half solved. However, it is just half solved. More love to you.
To paraphrase Paul: Should sin abound so that grace may abound even more? May it never be so. So the Gospel as a free gift is also a call to constrain oneself from his own sin, which is only possible through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.
It's important to remember that Christianity began in this world long before the modern left-right dichotomy existed.
The left-right wing dichotomy existed long before that was its name, to be fair
@@maxalaintwo3578, I agree but I think the main comment meant as indicated 'modern left-right' halves.
@@maxalaintwo3578 in the time of Caesar he was a liberal/progresist. While pompei and the Senate were conservators.
To be fair one party wants to kill babies in the womb and sexualize children.
Let us remember , we are primarily Christians our believes and views are founded on scripture. If secondary groups such as left or right, top, down come about , they should subscribe to us and not us to them. We have failed and this is why there is politics in Church. We are subscribing to the world and then scripture afterwards.. Let us give God what belongs to Him and the world to whom it belongs..
I one time heard a psychologist say, "The number one mistake most people make is assuming other people think just like they do."
Kind hearted people assume all people are compassionate, because they are compassionate. And so the kind person gets burned by the narcissist who exploited their kindness. If the compassionate person realized that the other person was fundamentally selfish, they would not have positioned themself to get burned by that person.
Similarly, narcissistic people assume all people are selfish, because that's how their brains work. So when a kind person treats the narcissist well, he doesn't understand the kindness. He thinks the kind person is challenging him to a game of manipulation. And so the narcissist can never form trusting relationships of genuine love.
The kind person must realize that there are evil people in the world, and they need to have boundaries to protect themself from manipulation. This requires wisdom, but it will save you from much damage. The narcissist must realize that there are genuine people out there, and that it is not all power plays against each other. This requires humility, but it will reveal a beautiful world.
Very good
Thx
👏
but now its you as the good people and the ones that think diverently as narcesists and bad people it could be that they had to deal with alot of bad stuff so they have more of a scinical outlook on live
You got that Shaolin monk in you for that wisdom
This is why I got into Christian Apologetics in 2012. I began my truth journey on September 25, 2001 and it started in PURE politics and I would find in 11 years that politics is hollow without an objective moral standard.
My son was liberal after years getting his MD, but after only 6 months in the emergency room he got conservative rather quickly. Said dealing with entitled attitudes changed his mind.
Life experiences change your outlook? How bizarre.
For this comment be something other than snark: good on your son for working in healthcare. I never could.
I'm an xray tech. I've seen lots of democrat nurse flip in the last 2 years. They still hate Trump, but they lose their minds when they hear about some of the stuff going on in schools in regards to "trans kids". One nearby school put kitty litter in the bathroom so that a "cat trans child" can go to the bathroom in the kitty litter like they do at home. We hear about this stuff from school nurses who work with hospital nurses..
Hope that happens to a friend of mine... 😬😬😬
@@oz_jones Seeing his paycheck cut in half by taxes also had something to do with it. It was Tennessee too, a no income tax state.
Entitled attitudes mean what in this case?
I have an entitled attitude, I'm entitled to medical treatment as and when I need it in 🇬🇧 and I'm entitled prescription pharmaceuticals as and when I need them in 🏴 at no charge. There are no prescription charges in Scotland.
Look up National Health Service (NHS) and National Insurance.
Very clean and polished video! The visuals help a lot to explain the topic and do a great job at making it entertaining. Keep up the great work IP!
Ugh too bad it's all assumptions and bullsh*t then, huh?
@@elijahcumpton9926 what do you mean?
@joshua_wherley oh gosh, it's been like 4 months...but yeah I still remember how bad this video is lol. It's a real stinker.
Basically this is what happens when someone decides to develop an interdisciplinary theory that touches on concepts from political theory, psychology, and sociology, all while ignoring the actual research and insights provided by those fields in favor or a pseudo-intellectual articulation of the same arguments that tend to occupy the air waves of overtly right-wing talking heads.
Like, am i correct in remembering a total absence of discussion on power dynamics and social roles/hierarchies? Just stuff like that - basic, core concepts across all of those fields - seemed noticeably absent if I remember correctly. And there's some stuff that was just straight up wrong, slickly presented as fact. Can't remember what, not sure if I want to ruin my evening by watching this again lol. But I will if you actually want to talk about it. It bugs the crap out of me when someone with good editing skills polishes up and serves these mindless little turd nuggets that have every appearance of being accurate and honest.
Hold on just one second. Now I do t say anyone wants to cause trouble, though I have heard many people say they do. I think they want what’s good like anyone else, and out of a blind adherence to fashion they claim to be Palpatines
and Jokers. I can’t believe anyone wants to destroy all that’s good. But as to stupidity, stupidity is infinite. I wholeheartedly believe nearly everyone on the other side is a paint-sniffing moron. But I probably am also. Stupidity cannot possibly be limited in any way, much less by political affiliations
@@joshua_wherleyOne of the problems with this video is that it falls for the simplistic and outdated assumption that a healthy fear of concentration of power means being conservative. (Small government)
The reality, I would argue, is that a good way to deconcentrate power in our current society would be to implement Bernie Sanders type policies. It is large corporations and to a lesser extent ultra wealthy individuals who control too many levers and, through campaign funding and lobbying, control government policy.
I'm actually surprised you quoted Sowell. One of my favorite authors to date. Unlike any other right-leaning academic, Sowell does indeed have a unique insight into human nature, even the differences in culture and geography that lead to differences in outcome.
In the Netherlands healthcare is hybrid:
It's mandatory to have an insurance. What should be as a minimum in the coverage is fixed.
The insurance companies have to compete with each other.
The hospitals, dentists, etc are companies.
For the utter poor there are separate rules to cover the costs of the insurance.
There is attention for prevention but that's always a struggle.
Abuse of the system exists, but, well, that's always something you can respond and improve on.
God bless you and make you a blessing.
Thank you for this. It is always good to remember that not everything is as clear cut as we would want it to be.
I don't consent to have my money seized 'for the public good' simple as. Either it is my property or I am a slave.
@@screwstatists7324
There is an option for "conscientious objectors" but then you have to be consistent.
That sounds based honestly.
@@screwstatists7324
It's not ALL your money. If you live in a society it requires financial contributions for its support. The arguments stem from the degree of support and targets of financial allocations. Perhaps you're a partial closet anarchist, libertarians effectively are. That's the correct meaning of anarchy, a political ideology, not the projected bastardisation of the word.
If you have car insurance etc you are paying for other peoples accidents whether you ever have a claim yourself. Same with socialised medicine.
Honestly, ever since I was a child, I never understood why politics was so controversial that it became social taboo. This video seems like an intro to politics for me. 👍
It's so polarizing because history has shown that, when extreme politics succeed, millions die.
"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."
-Thomas Sowell
It’s a shame Sowell is a neoclassical economist rather than an Austrian.
@@danielboone8256 agreed
@@danielboone8256 what's more, he's also a war hawk 😔
@@austinmorris3422 He is? I never would’ve thought that. Is he a war hawk with Russia or the WMD hoax or what?
@@austinmorris3422 You're nvts. No he isn't. He has been very critical of all the unnecessary wars.
You hit the nail on the head. In your conclusion, everyone runs on a different set of assumptions and it's our job to understand those before we pass judgement.
I’ve said in the past that the biggest disagreements in conversations is human nature. Some believe you can’t change, others think you do. All of which to better understand why we need grace.
Grace? 🙄
I'm definitely in the constrained humanity camp.
The unconstrained camp drives me into visions of creatures rising up against their own Creator, demanding an apology from Him that He made them the way they are, and blaming their environment for all their personal sins.
The constrained camp speaks of the maturity for the acceptance of others the way they are, and trying to do one's best in a fallen world in a fallen flesh and soul, interacting with other fallen beings, many of whom don't even realise they are fallen and need salvation.
Constrained is on God's side in Paradise Lost. Unconstrained is Satan. They literally quote him all the time!!
@@MeanBeanComedy
Thank you!
This needs to be played in every political studies class
The first lesson of economics is that "there is no such thing as a free lunch." If you don't understand that your political world view is a failure right out the gate.
Sowell said it best: There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.
I mean if you're 3 years old with aspirations of pumping gas lol sure I guess this is a worldview that makes sense....
@@elijahcumpton9926 What are your aspirations now that you are so much older and wiser than a 3 year old?
@@elijahcumpton9926 What, that things aren't free?
@@MeanBeanComedy lol is this some sort of attempt at a boomer joke cause no one actually said anything about free stuff
Although I am more conservative, I find automatic distrust of the government to be a weird concept. We put the government in charge of many necessary things such as enforcement of the law and food quality standards, fire and rescue services, and creating and maintaining infrastructure. I also feel that at least a few of the things considered to be human nature are more the result of fear, like the difficulty of dealing with a dog that had an abusive owner in the past.
There’s more than one way for power to be too concentrated.
In the US currently, where large corporations and to a lesser extent ultra wealthy individuals control government via campaign donations, media ownership, and lobbying, Bernie Sanders type policies are the best path to fighting an over concentration of power.
Our version of capitalism likely closer to the dangers of communism than is democratic socialism
I’m less confident that I believe my second comment there.
Probably depends on which of the dangers of communism I’m referring to.
There was a political compass meme I saw a while ago with the four quadrants empty and the red spot in the middle of a separate fifth square up in the corner titled “One day Christ shall sweep away all this.”
That’s the only source to the decision we have, created as it is by a temporal, broken, fallen world.
Have faith in temporary things, and your hope will be temporary too. But have faith in the eternal, and your hope shall be everlasting too.
Anyone who has actually worked in the government for more than 5 years will tell you that handing the keys to them to run things will turn into hurry up and wait for everyone.
Market anarchism
*anyone who's competent with a half-way decent education and an equal amount of time in the private sector would laugh at that statement. Then cry because a lot of people believe stupid things, and that's why we can't have nice things.
@@screwstatists7324 yep. Anarchism and libertarianism: two sides to the same stupid, non-functional fantasy for spoiled, selfish children with no real life experience
@@screwstatists7324 Agorism?
@@elijahcumpton9926 I've spent time in both. The private sector is *SO* much more efficient and has more quality.
Thanks for the video. It is a very refreshing, top-down approach to help understanding the bi-polar tendencies in most political systems. Also, GREAT animations, I think this is your best video regarding visual quality!
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him inordinate wealth.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters - he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler - they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule.
To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful.
One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear.
Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation.
Cont...
It's literally a bunch of assumptions pulled from a wild variety of quotes from people who were almost entirely at least 100 years away from the modern era lol.
This is what happens when a theology student decides to come up with a political theory without the benefit of actually studying political theory. Or sociology. Or psychology. Or history. Or the law.
It's literally a mess of lies and assumptions. If you walked away feeling more informed....man, f*ck this channel for being just another source of political division through misinformation.
@@elijahcumpton9926, do you realize that when you use the words “LAW” or "LEGAL", instead of the proper word, “rule”, you are giving authority and legitimacy to the arbitrary rules imposed on citizens by dirty, demonic, democratic governments?
"F.I.S.H", Ch. 12:
There is but ONE law - the inextricable laws of God. These laws include the natural laws (such as the law of gravity and the various cycles of the biosphere) as well as the moral laws (which are extremely complex and must be revealed via God’s spokesmen, i.e. prophets).
When either kind of law is transgressed, there is a detrimental effect on the entire universe. Every thought and deed has an equal and opposite reaction. The various “laws” instigated by governments are (in almost every instance) merely subjective rules and regulations imposed by self-obsessed men and women.
Judging the actions of others is a normal, natural and necessary function of every thinking person. However, one can only directly PASS judgement on those whom one has direct or indirect authority over. One should avoid passing judgement on those one has no authority over but remain silent.
To read the remaining twenty-nine chapters of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, which your god has graciously given to his people on Earth, email the address listed on the "About" page of my TH-cam channel, with the acronym “FISH” in the subject field.
🐟
@@ReverendDr.Thomas dude I have a doctorate in American law, and that's what I'm talking about.
Not interested in a weird theological debate on semantics, sorry.
@@elijahcumpton9926, do you have any ACTUAL arguments to counter my perfect and pure pronouncements/teachings, or do you intend to simply make nonsensical assertions, or even more inane, make “ad hominem” attacks, Silly Sinful Slave? 🙄
Incidentally, it’s called “Spell-Check”. ✅
Look into it, SILLY Sinner. 👨🏻🎓
Full transparency: I'm a conservative.
To me, it seems self-evident that we can't reach utopia because of what was mentioned in the video. People tend to act toward their own self-interest. So it's better to set up an ideal scenario where everyone has equal rights to compete with one another to make an optimal society.
But that's not the main reason I'm a conservative. My main reason is I believe the family is the fundamental unit of society, not the individual, and we should set up society to incentivize people toward family values, which includes: religion, free markets, the ability to defend oneself and their family, and freedom from government tyranny (whether it be limiting speech or our actions from competing towards those family values).
Hope this helps any liberal watching/reading to understand where we are coming from.
leftism:
Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless, unborn children. Cf. “dharma”.
In the past decade or two, the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human civilization. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit.
As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia). In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population.
According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far far smaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children - something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia).
Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil, and immoral in the first place). It seems the consensus amongst leftist "intellectuals" is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one's environmental conditioning, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one's genetic sequence and one’s conditioning - a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically-supported.
This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies, such as monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, and all other virtuous principles.
Fear not, for GOD is with you!
P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes. 🤡
@@ReverendDr.Thomas citations needed
But I don't think leftists believe that we can achieve a utopia, either. They just want to strive for it as much as possible even while knowing that it's impossible to achieve. I don't think this contradictory because, for example, a world without any rape happening is obviously utopian and will never be the case, no matter what we do. But striving for a rape-free world is still something worth doing because by striving for that ideal we minimize rape as much as possible. And this is all while knowing that a rape-free world is an unachievable utopia.
And regarding UBI, I agree that people will act in their own self-interest and be selfish, but only when you're already financially stable. The poor on the other hand, they put the money they get immediately back into the economy because they need it to buy basic services or go to the doctor or buy their children supplies for school or whatever. The poor will benefit most from these programs because they can't afford to be selfish because they have to survive from paycheck to paycheck, generally speaking. And even if rich(er) people will just splurge with the money for their own selfish gains, for some that's worth if it means alleviating the misery and stress of the poor.
That being said, UBI is stupid because it's not feasible and too expensive. UBS is a way better thing in my opinion.
But my main point is that wanting to strive for a utopia doesn't mean that people actually believe that utopia is possible.
@@OuweMickey, for which of my MANY statements?
@@romanski5811:
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him inordinate wealth.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters - he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler - they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule.
To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful.
One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear.
Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation.
Cont...
Dude thank you for making this! We need more videos like this that are unbiased and about facts everyone can understand. It’s SO important not to treat politics like an idol or religion and to worship God above all things, letting Him guide our actions over our views. An idol is ANYTHING we put above God. Even doing what we think is right can be an idol if we put it above what God says to do. God should be our true government. If not, we will always be divided. He is our mediator and our compass for truth, love, peace, justice and all that is valuable enough to model ourselves by.
"Do you really think the other side is ignorant" That's a general assumption I make about the majority of humanity, and it has served me well up to this point.
We all have to take accountability for the role we play in making it so bad. Blaming the so called elites helps No one and is just a way to avoid responsibility
Woah! Michael, did you create this animation? If so, it looks pretty cool! God bless!
I'm pretty sure he went to school for graphic design or something like that (and also for philosophy obviously), so yes, I think he does make all of his graphics and videography.
@@natebozeman4510 he's so talented wow
@@natebozeman4510 Duuude, that's dope! 😎👍🏻
Great video as always. One thing I want to address is the issue of ignorance. I believe most people operate out of ignorance, whether they have views and presuppositions similar to my own or not. Most are missing something, including myself. It's important to consume as much information as possible to help refine your own positions for this reason.
Can't believe you mentioned my fav author. Great video and I'm really happy you're bringing attention to such a good book. I've recently started reading Dominion after watching your interview with the author and I'm LOVING it! Thank you for sharing your wisdom. God bless 🙏
Excellent video and great animation!
thank you
This is one of the most important videos of this year
An exceptional explanation.
This was one of your best videos. The topic and the visuals were excellent.
Yep. Excellent way of dressing up lies and assumptions to make them seem true and dupe the uneducated.
What a great way to fix politics. Who knew we just needed more misinformation and propaganda...?
I love the animations. They add to the production quality of your video
Love seeing you start off with Thomas Sowell. That man is brilliant.
Wait, he died?
EDIT: No, he is still alive.
@@oz_jones nice catch. Edited. I should really pay more attention to my voice texting. 😆
Mate this is great animation, and a great theme (understanding ‘the other’). Sorely missing in storytelling and philosophy of the current age.
Peterson mentioned a practice of having his students write a passionate essay of their firmly-held beliefs in the first week of class, followed by a counter-essay the following week, which helped them tremendously in forming more balanced and understanding viewpoints.
Seems like that’s what you’re going for here; as a (now) fairly politically conservative person, I love your final point about healthcare - definitely some great truths and concepts to wrestle with. Thanks kindly.
Definitely a great video, I’ve held both views and switched sides as I gained more knowledge of how things are, instead of how things aught to be.
Great and lowly are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
@@ReverendDr.Thomas
FYI, I think this comment was misplaced
@@Globeguy1337, Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
Ugh you've only gained ignorant assumptions and lies. This video is absolutely terrible, and the number of people who walk away feeling informed is downright alarming.
I don't know who to be mad at, IP or whoever decided to totally ignore these topics in our education system...
@@elijahcumpton9926 you’re entitled to your opinion
this is a super important video, people don't seem to understand that when discussing politics many times they are coming from entirely different worldviews and starting points
And without also discussing that root factor, it is different to move the conversation forwards,
And honestly, even if the conversation doesn't move forward, just seeing where the person comes from does a lot to understanding each other and mitigating the hate and polarization that is so common in current political discourse
also, the animations and editing on the video were absolutely stunning :D
The real way to fix politics is to see past the false dichotomy and realize we are all being played like fools by an oligarchy that rules modern society for their own benefit. Both sides have been enslaved by that oligarchy and the only way to break free from it is to reject them both and take the third path
This is it!
The lamest cop-out. Everyone that's so sure about being a third-party rebel is the biggest NPC possible. And the oligarchy-oppressor arch-narrative is just another expression of leftism
@@maxalaintwo3578 third party? Third parties are still part of the controlled opposition, they are meant to make anyone who rejects the false dichotomy look stupid.
I can't say what I mean by third way, but the first way is liberal capitalism and the second way is Marxism. I'm sure you can figure out what remains
@@jackwalters5506 my guess is fascism, feudalism, authentic conservatism or some other form of traditionalism divorced from the philosophies of the Englitenment or the Industrial Revolution. I don't necessarily disagree but the rhetoric of "we're just controlled by a shadow oligarcy maaaaaan" is cringe
The US is by faaaaaaar the most conservative developed nation in the world with no social safety net and drowning in guns
I wish everyone could watch this video. A complex issue explained in a simple and easy way. Thanks, Michael!
It's literally not an explanation of anything. It's a bunch of theories, lies, and assumptions.
Man It's bumming me out that so many people think this video is good. Not only is IP generating misinformation, but apparently our education system just completely ignores this stuff and no one can recognize bullsh*t when it's right in front of their face...
@@elijahcumpton9926 Wow! Such an intelligent analysis. I'm so convinced 😂
@@prateeksvoice um okay then lol. If you're so easily swayed by short bursts of text, maybe that's your problem...?
@@elijahcumpton9926 Ya. Wish we were all as smart as you.
@@prateeksvoice it's a low bar tbh, but you're not gonna get there sitting around watching garbage like this, friend lol
Thomas Sowell is the top G
What does top G mean
@@ilikelamps1126 top guy. Kind of like alpha male.
@@davidogundipe808 I wish Thomas Sowell could've ran for president, become the real top G
Great video. As a former liberal who tuned conservative sometime after becoming a Christian and being exposed to the doctrine of human depravity, I can relate to this.
I’m open to liberal ideas if their is solid data showing that the costs are paid for by the benefits. I am happy that we have liberal cities and states to pilot these new ideas.
Unfortunately, most ideas that are talked about in the media have failed every time they have been tried and a future generations will pay the cost from the debt incurred to try them at a national level.
American conservatists are liberal, more specifically neoliberal. Really weird how they always act like conservatism and liberalism are diametrically opposed.
If by liberal ideas you meant leftist ideas, I can vouch for one, which is very easy to proof to work, namely universal health care. The US has the highest healthcare spending per capita than any other countries on the face of the planet, with practically one of the worst (if not THE worst) outcome and life expectancy among the fellow first world countries. Obviously you already know that the US is also the only developed country with no universal healthcare.
This is exactly why I say that addressing religion (or worldview, whatever you want to call it) is necessary when addressing politics. We need to know what view of reality that one's politics are flowing from.
I’m so impressed with these graphics and everything about this video. Amazing. Keep up the great work!
thank you for making this I plan to share it with my children one day
Thank you, Mr. Jones. Let's see each other through the eyes of love & understanding rather than hurt, anger or frustration. Let's strive to really listen to the cries of their hearts first.
We have a person in front of us, not an enemy even when their believes & worldviews are radically different from our own.
Do we possess that amount of patience, self-control & love?
Not sure that I 100% agree with that. I tend to think that it's new-age tinted social justice mores such as "looking through the eyes of love and understanding" that have allowed the transgender and other "woke" social justice movements and ideologies to grow and empower those political and corporate entities that desire to destroy everything that we once cherished so much in the past.
The "things" that were once taken for granted as being good for society (many loosely based on Christian/Judeo morals) have been inverted or eradicated completely, all in the name of loving, understanding and respecting minority groups. Groups who clearly have mental health issues and the morals of an alley cat, who therefore make it easy for our worldly overlords to emotionally negatively charge them and use them as "useful idiots" who are compelled by their emotions and feelings rather than by rational thought or any commandments from a higher moral authority such as God.
These "useful idiots" are easily manipulated into playing their part in the inversion of good into evil and evil into good. With the approval and support of their worldly overlords, they have been tearing down our old and time-tested cultural mores and social expectations simply because we have let them do so through our well intended but misguided efforts to "love our neighbours".
This type of misplaced love and compassion has led us to a very dark place indeed, as we now find ourselves teetering on the brink of nuclear destruction ... or at the very least, trapped within the confines of a totalitarian one world global government that does not have humanity's best interests in mind and detests God and his people.
Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not saying that we should treat people badly, nor hate them, just that trying to understand their irrational arguments and ideologies is a waste of time, effort and resources. Christ doesn't anywhere (that I am aware of) tell us to try to understand such people or "listen to the cries of their hearts". My understanding of the commandment to "love thy enemy/neighbour" is more in line with the aims of the Geneva Convention.
Our enemies remain our enemies until such a time as they cease to attack us and sue for peace. We should always forgive them and treat them as humanely as possible, just as we would like to be treated ourselves. If in need, we should feed them, give them medical assistance, shelter and generally treat them humanely and kindly ... just as we would like to be treated ourselves. However this is not the same type of love that we give to our spouses, friends and relatives. That simply isn't possible because it's a different kind of love that is referred to in the commandment to love thine enemies and neighbours.
It's a commandment to treat people (our enemies included) humanely and kindly, just as we would like to be treated if we were in their position and in need.
Christ never promised us that we would have no enemies ... in fact he told us the exact opposite would apply and that we should expect our persecution by such people to increase not wane, as the world's hatred for us increased. If we ignored their evil intent to harm us and to destroy and attack our faith/spiritual beliefs and morals and corrupt our children, we would not be following Christ's command to be as cunning as serpents and as harmless as doves.
We shouldn't hate such people, but neither should we befriend and overly associate with them. We certainly should not hate our enemies, but that doesn't mean that we can ignore their destructive ideologies or attempt to justify such ideological and unholy madness. Listening to the cries of their evil hearts is simply something that we should avoid at all costs. To cosy up and compromise with those who are against us and God is to partner with demons.
"Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership can righteousness have with wickedness? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16What agreement can exist between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will dwell with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be My people.”…2 Corinthians 6:14-16
Berean Standard Bible
God bless!
The way I have been trying to approach politics for the past little while is through the lens of Psalm 37. If I ever notice myself fretting or getting angry at what the other side is doing or saying, I try to go read that passage. I think it really helps set my mind back on what is truly important. Love, kindness, goodness, and humility. It reminds me, I shouldn't to go to "war", so to speak, to create peace. It reminds me to let God handle the defense of good, and to just focus on being good.
There is a very old saying which has been misatributed to many famous people:
“If a man is not a republican at twenty, it is because he has no heart, and if he is one at forty, it is because he has no brains.”
This resonates with me because the older I get the less optimistic I become about human nature.
I'm a heartless bastard since I'm 21 and more libertarian than Ayn Rand XD
Very good video, however, I would like to point out that the political divide today is even more complicated today than it used to be... While in the past, most of the division came simply from people thinking in different ways or prioritizing different things, I would argue that today, the division has shifted more towards social issues such as Abortion, Gay Rights, Trans Rights, etc. In those cases, it's not very easy to reconcile the two views, given how the right views those things as being more or less inherently evil, while the left seeing the right as being the evil "bigot" oppressor for trying to restrict the freedom of those things. With such fundeamtally different worldviews at play, finding common ground and working together seems like it's far easier in theory than in practice.
Great video! I could have used this as guidance in my Social Political Philosophy class last year.
As a teenager, I watched my mom bend over to pick up something off the floor, and she wasn't able to get back up. I begged her to go to the doctor, but she wouldn't because she didn't have health insurance. That shaped my belief in wanting universal healthcare.
I knew you would watch this one 😀
And I watched my single mother with a low paying job be told she didn't qualify for obamacare so she would have to be penalized during taxes because she was uninsured. She said she'll just have to pay the fine because it was cheaper than getting basic healthcare. Not to mention it wouldn't cover any medical expenses anyways.
That’s not a great argument for universal healthcare though.
The very reason why healthcare prices are so high is due to the government mandating that insurance reigns over all.
@@TheOtherCaleb The government even caps how many people can become doctors in a year. Also the universal healthcare perspective typically requires stealing from those who are opposed to such a system to help enact it, meaning it’s inherently coercive.
Great presentation! The graphics complement the subject matter elegantly. Hope to see more!
The editing is fantastic!
What a video, carefully analysing the core of human beliefs? While not taking side and calling for acceptance of each other.
I appreciate the philosophical approach to this. Something very few address and I'm glad you mentioned the spectrum because people usually fall into constrained about some things but not all.
The basic premise, that for most people the issue is a difference in underlying assumptions, is a good one. Everyone's the hero of their own story, and for most that means they think of themselves as good, or at least as less bad than most. There are, or at least seem to be, those who either have no sense of right and wrong or who believe those don't exist, and those generally cannot be reasoned with in the traditional manner (which is not to say dialogue is impossible, just that it is different). Though as a Christian I cannot think anyone is beyond redemption and thus cannot think anyone is truly absolute in one of those views. Then there are those who hold no one can ever be good, which is a different sort of discussion. But I digress. I do have some issues on the details.
Polarization isn't new, people just have short memories. Read some of Mark Twain/Samuel Clemens's writings on the politics of his day. I'd say the periods of low polarization are the anomoly, but really it seems like more of a cycle. Sadly that does make this next reference less clever: The methods of communication may change, but politics? Politics never changes.
Also, what gets called 'liberal' versus 'conservative' keeps changing. Makes some sense: they are relative terms.
One can look at constrained vs unconstrained the other way around: The latter would hold that humans, if free to act, will generally act for the good. Ergo, limited government is better. Contrariwise, the former may hold that if free to act, human lives will be 'nastry, brutish and short'. Ergo, rules must exist and must be enforced. Of course the constrained view still would hold no one should go unchecked, but that leads to a 'rules based' order where the rules, once established, are nearly impossible to change. A strong government that is, in some sense, not accountable to anyone, not even those running it.
UBI/UHC analysis misses a key argument: economics. Where does the wealth come from? Regardless of whether it is better to have it or not, universal anything requires that thing to be post-scarcity, or at least nearly so. I doubt true post-scarcity has ever been achieved for an item that was not so in a pre-industrial state (I'm thinking of unpolluted air here, but there are probably other examples), though if someone can provide an example I will stand corrected. Indeed for healthcare that is the general issue: there exist a finite number of doctors, and most medicine cannot yet be automated. (If it ever can be: I'm generally skeptical of such things until they happen.) I have seen little or no argument on frivolous use from a moral standpoint, but rather from an economic one: if everyone can go to the doctor for a runny nose, will there be enough doctor-hours to diagnose cancer? If you tell people they cannot go for a runny nose to save the doctor-hours: what if it's a precursor of a serious infection?
I’m divided on the healthcare debate. I think both liberals and conservatives can agree that the American healthcare system is cruel and unaffordable. I tend to consult with countries that have a successfully run healthcare system. It seems like the exact model of healthcare isn’t the deterministic factor. Some of them have a market based healthcare-and they don’t have nearly as many issues as we do, like Singapore and Switzerland. Others use a hybrid system, where people are allowed to purchase private insurance for better quality care, like Germany. And of course, countries like Japan, South Korea, Norway, France have a universal, single-payer healthcare. But all of these countries have a relatively small or homogeneous population. Their government has way less issues to worry about. Their people tend to be educated and disciplined, which means few people would abuse the healthcare system with issues like a runny nose. They have other factors that improve the overall health of citizens, like better food regulations and walkable spaces, which reduces illnesses. With our current political and societal model, universal healthcare is unfeasible in the US. It seems like we should address much bigger underlying issues than to change the specific healthcare model.
@@hello855 I am not versed enough to really contribute on most of that, but I did want to comment on food regulations. I am generally in favor of few strictive regulations (saying what can and cannot be done with the foodstuffs per se), and more for informative regulations, which was the original intent of the FDA. But the trick there is that not placing strictive regulations requires also not allowing promotive ones, as people are very likely to get it wrong. Remember the food pyramid heavily promoting carbs? Turns out, excessive carbohydrate intake contributes to the development of type 2 diabetes nearly as much as excessive simple sugar intake.
Similarly, at various points in time the US has subsidized corn syrup production to the point where it was more cost-effective for farmers to sell their corn and buy corn syrup supplements for their animals than to feed the animals the corn to start with. While not definitive, there is reason to believe high fructose corn syrup may contribute to diabetes more than sucrose. At the very least, the propped-up price made fructose cheaper and led to greater simple sugar intake among those not wealthy enough to afford alternatives.
I do not know what other countries do on that, nor how successful it has been. I only know the US parts due to a series of rabbit holes. If you have a good resource on them, though, I may take a look when and if I have time.
Ever notice how the Unconstrained tend to hold a materialist metaphysics - seeing our material environment as a causative factor in the individual's moral outlook? The Constrained tend to be more open to transcendent metaphysics albeit often inherited by handed down religious dogmatic institutions. I think a a naming and resolving of this dialectic would go a long way to improving political discussion.
You can name the dialectic rather easily. How do you ever propose to resolve it if indeed man is rebellious towards God?
@@jimmock1155 I'm a Buddhist so in my understanding the phenomenal world will never permanently resolve into a utopian ideal with no conflicting dialectic. Only the individual can stop rebelling against god. Part of that process is compassion and benefitting society, though never with the intention to fundamentally redeem it.
@@jimmock1155 This might help.
1. Virtue Ethics
th-cam.com/video/eil9FEiq7nI/w-d-xo.html
Man, whoever your editor is, that person needs a raise!! Great picture and editing seriously
Old Testament: Constrained to death.
New Testament: Unconstrained to death.
I think the constrained view in the video is much closer to the ideals and principles of classical liberalism than contemporary conservative politics. Many ideas on the populist right are quite contrary to that worldview.
Classical liberalism and classical conservatism are both constrained in that they repudiate the existence or possibility of some kind of utopia that modern liberals and progressives embrace.
However, classical liberalism is unconstrained in light of the very nature that they believe human reason is enough to create an ideal free self-governing society of atomistic individuals. Classical conservatives argue otherwise that some kind of order and culture is required for a society to function and grow, and that individual humans cannot be separated from their cultural and social environment by virtue of reason alone.
"Do you really think the opposite side are all ignorant, evil, or stupid?
Stupid? No
Evil? No
Ignorant? Yes.
"All"
Really ?
@@baleriontheblackdread4491
If you're a fascist or a socialist, even if they fall under the unintentionally evil category, yea, i think they're missing a crucial understanding of the world we live in.
Why disagree?
@cool beans obviously i disagree. Making any assertions that includes everyone on the other side is just dumb on so many levels.
Are you certain in your political opinions to the point that you would assert that everyone on the otherside is ignorant ?
Do you believe that you posses much more knowledge compared to every one on the otherside ?
@@baleriontheblackdread4491 Not necessarily my specific preferred solutions, no.
There are many solutions to a single problem. I have my preferences and opinions on what would be better but solutions aren't just limited to that. Politics isn't as black and white as we'd like to think but that doesn't mean that solutions that are objectively less bad than others dont exist.
"Do you really believe that you know more on the other side?"
It depends on what you mean by "other side ". What i mean by that is socialist and fascist or any other heavily centralized system but i would answer, in general, "yes". Thats a very low bar to hit though so im not sure why you'd disagree.
@@coolbeans6148 Fascists are ignorant but the democratic and capitalist models are good? While you're talking about the dangers of socialism, look who funded the socialist and communist parties. Hint, it wasn't the fascists.
Great insighr bro. But may I inquire where'd you get your assets for this video tho?
why are you talking so sophisticatedly lmao
IP great Job on summarizing this topic! The one thing that was somewhat overlooked is incentives vs outcomes. Incentives is key to the constrained vision where as the unconstrained visions prizes outcomes. Regardless of which camp you are in it has to be recognized that the outcome focus requires far greater conformity from citizens and increasing levels of government coercion when resistance is met. That is why the worst human atrocities have stemmed from the unconstrained vision.
I'm hoping that this experiment will go well by me saying this but I'm a Christian Progressive and I stress that particular definition because there is a difference in the theological connotations between a progressive Christian or a Christian Progressive.
The point of this comment is to see if people respond with respect and don't come in here with attacks or presuppositions. I like IP as I watch his videos and I find them generally well researched but like anyone else he does make the occasional error such as his original Exodus video where I am much happier with his new position as that makes the most sense when you look at the data and evidence.
Anyway I hope this experimental comment ends up going well!
What data and evidence? There's literally none in this video.
Also weird for a progressive Christian to get so hung up on semantics bs, but ok lol.
@@elijahcumpton9926 It is not a mere semantics difference friend. But a theological one.
@mysotiras0187 Exactly, and I am happy to find someone else like me. It's quite a lonely world for us.
@@deiansalazar140 nope. But you have fun spinning your wheels on that one lol.
Yeah, you had more allies a hundred years ago or so. Used to be all the rage.
Does it concern you that as progressivism has "progressed," fewer and fewer progressives are actually Christians?
For my money, the keyword in all of this is, "assumption." If I assume someone has my story, my background, my values and my preferences, then the only reason that person would disagree with me is because they're, "wrong." If I can approach a person free from my own assumptions, then I have the opportunity to understand where they're coming from in a real, meaningful way - "to walk a mile in their shoes." I believe many make the mistake thinking that understanding someone means agreeing with them, and when one's built an identity around being a Republican/Conservative or a Democrat/Liberal, the tribe might alienate you if you try to show some understanding. Understanding someone doesn't mean agreeing with them; in fact if disagreement persists, both parties are in a position to have a better conversation about why they disagree. My prayer for our country is 1 Cor. 8-10 & Rom. 14. Thanks for making this brother.
The importance of this video cannot be overstated!
The importance of understanding that this video is clearly 99% lies and assumptions is critical.
Man I'm really starting to hate this channel for creating so much mindless, divisive propaganda...
@@elijahcumpton9926 Please point out the lies.
@@oadefisayo my every day life proves the entire initial premise wrong lol. There are absolutely groups of people out there making up lies about trans people to destroy our lives for no reason.
That's one lie. But literally everything else in this video are half-baked assumptions completely devoid of any historical, legal, or psychological context. It's downright moronic.
@@elijahcumpton9926 "My every day life", seems persuasive and objective.
@@Anythingthatsinteresting yeah honey keep reading through that next sentence lol
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
A great video, thanks.
I had to really think through those questions during the political turmoil in Brazil of the last 8 years.
In the end I had to stop adhering (by default) to a single party or political spectrum and realize that no party represents the policies I think are more likely to have good results without as much bad consequences (as they are inevitable).
But at the same time, I sadly have to say that the polarization and bitterness won't go away. Those philosophical differences always existed but society was not as divided as today. Different economic policies are also very old but didn't fracture society as only revolutions and wars would change an economic system, and by force. No, the issue that fractures society is ethics and what a human being really is. For the first time in history progressives now have a radicaly distinct answer (and methods) for those questions. I feel economic matters can be negotiable up to a point for many. But human nature is a core point that instantly engages people, and politics love that so they preach to the choir and walk further and further into securing the extremes.
Also, Overton window...
Good luck. Hope Balsonaro comes back.
I think you are correct.
Excellent video, Mike! You should, however, consider mentioning Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions" in your description. That book, as you know, unpacks the constrained and unconstrained vision quite scrupulously. Many of your viewers would tremendously benefit from reading it!
I LOVE the aesthetics of this video.
I guess I am on the unrestrained camp but with a seatbelt, if that makes sense.
I mean that makes sense to you but how do you know the seat belt works when it is based on the wisdom of another generation?
One of your best videos to date.
0:39 yes, most of this people, but learning and not beeing ignorant and arrogant helps to overcome this.
Very insightful!
We have two ears, and one mouth - there's a reason for that beyond audio coverage.
One way to serve your fellow man, at times, is simply to listen. Some people are hurting and need an ear.
If Christ came to die for our sins, and in doing so showed the humility of God in the method of how He extended grace towards us: should we not seek to display some of that same humility, rather than seek a quick 'gotcha' on someone we've barely heard out?
----
Thanks for this!
The extreme division in politics is only something that has happened in recent years . Before the early 2000s discussion and compromise were quite common.
No, it's definitely not recent. We fought a civil war for goodness sakes.
I feel like it has come in waves amongst citizens. I grew up in the 80’s and 90’s and I knew people who voted on both sides and they were way kinder to each other then compared to now. Before and during the Civil War things were not good aka The Brothers’ War. But I feel like politicians have been pretty nasty towards each other forever. Just look at how Jefferson and Adams talked about each other before the Presidential election of 1800 AND THEY WERE FRIENDS!
@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718 You're right it's not entirely new, but it has waxed and waned over time, and we are currently in a period where it is much higher than usual.
Ever since they kickstarted the Cultural Revolution of the 60s.
What I find fascinating is regardless of the political differences, both sides presuppose a perfect ideal. One side says it's unattainable, the other side it is attainable. So here's the main question. Why do both sides default to a state of perfection when we seem to live in an imperfect world? And what does that perfection actually look like.
“If they just work together and understand each other”
Well, yes, but that doesn’t fix politics. Politics is meant to have different interests represented by the powers that be, those interests can and do conflict with each other at times and sometimes there needs to be compromises as there are no other ways to satisfy any of them.
I’m an independent all my life, I never fit in any political camp or ideology. But what I see is that everyone desires progress, they just envision it differently.
So to move forward we must really see things for what it is and what purpose it serves. When it comes to people, however we should look at their potential and their free will choice.
And in politics;
Every politician should have an above average education- and service background and the higher they aspire to be in politics the more experienced they should be.
It’s true, politicians can only be as good as the people that voted them in; they represent the voters, or at least that should be the case.
I suppose I would lean towards the constrained vision, but I don't even think that's the best place to start. I think the best place to start is the simple recognition that politics should be about needs, not wants. People need food, shelter, clothing, healing from sickness, protection from exploiters and abusers, a basic sense of community, etc. Even things that aren't directly necessary are often tangentially related to things that are necessary, so it still makes sense to pay attention to them. (For example, improving infrastructure, while not on the same level of necessity as food, makes it easier for people to get to their jobs so that they can earn enough money to put bread on the table.)
Of course, there's still the massive question of what kind of society is best able to provide for people's needs, and differing views of human nature are definitely going to enter those debates. But politics is still, at its core, a really complicated version of the question, "How do we best ensure that people get their daily bread?"
I think that one of the biggest causes of the division we're currently facing is that a lot of people are getting distracted away from this. Way too many people prioritize wants over needs, think they need things they don't, think needs are being met when they're not, and treat politics as some kind of sick game for their own amusement.
Politics is not simply a set of abstract ideas about how to create an optimal society (though that can be part of it). It's about making sure that people's needs are met, and the question of how best to do that is not at all trivial.
I think beyond this another huge reason it is polarized is the nature of the 2 party system, and the people running for office. Everyone in office runs a campaign to where they try to get people to hate their opponent. Since there are 2 parties, candidates from both can work together to get voters to hate all candidates in the other party making it easier next election to sway voters who are solidly for one party. The more polarized it is, it becomes easier to elected with little work, you just need to be in an area that is already polarized to your side, then you just have to beat out a few primary challengers.
Which politician said, "no mention of a certain tribe that evolved to keep the host nation divided so as to increase their own group's survival odds."
Probably one of the best explanations of politics I've ever heard..
Love this new animation and format
I appreciate this so much! You're so right and this is such a valuable resource for future conversations and relations in politics.
I approve this message.
All politics fans need this video
While we can create dialogue, I would keep in mind we cannot always work together. Sometimes the goals and means of parties or groups are inherently exclusionist.
So what is a people to do when they find they have irreconcilable difference in key areas of life and thought?
All this to say, psychology or not, there isn't a "fix" for politics as such. There are helpful and unhelpful approaches, as you so well suggest, but even the best approach cannot solve every difference.
Really great video!
Thank you for making this video! This is extremely important. Our current state of politics breaks my heart, and the behavior I see on display among fellow Christians is uncharitable and unchristlike. It actually sometime scares me. Thank you for the reminder that we're all just humans.
Very interesting and insightful perspective here on political views. Never heard it explained this way before. Very helpful! Thanks for posting.
You should read more Thomas Sowell, Jonathan. You'll love him!
I believe the reason that no one seens to understand anyone nowadays in politics, is that political views are conclusions, the very end of a line of reasoning, when what actually matters are the premisses
If you beggin by arguing by the conclusions, you wont go anywhere
The healthcare argument is brought up constantly in the US yet we DO have Medicare and Medicaid also Veteran's care as examples of government healthcare systems, all of which are often seen as inept, wasteful and incapable.
I see politics as a broken household. "Husband and Wife" creating conflicts with each other and not understanding one another, then proceed to create a rift of polarization that makes them deaf to each others words. the "children" in that household follow suit then become polarized and the cycle continues.
Regarding "free healthcare." It is only available if people see a value in learning and studying to become a healthcare provider. In almost all cases, this training is difficult, expensive, very time consuming and competitive. In otherwards, it is a HUGE amount of work. There has to be incentive for smart people to spend the enormous time and effort. If society makes it possible to "glide through" with no effort, why expend the effort to learn some difficult professions? I mean. Why bother?
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
Retired surgeon
Good explanation for different economic viewpoints, but I think we're more polarized on social issues.
Well researched and well presented as always, Michael.
Unfortunately, it's also about 10 years out of date. Nobody but a few relics on the right cares about UBI or socialized medicine. Doesn't mean we'd be happy about it, but we have much bigger fish to fry right now. (Heck, many on the right even want to draft Tulsi as VP in '24. She holds lots of non-constraint positions)
The issue is that we have a political party which had been consumed by its more radical elements such that it advocates for demonic evils like abortion to the point of birth or state mandated trans affirmation. There's no compromise with these things. There's no amount of good intentions that can change the fact that these ideas are cancers that need to be excised from our political discourse. These are enemies to be defeated lest we become complicit in them.
Then we can go back to good faith dialog about economic policy.
If you doubt me, consider the 2020 Dem primaries. Andrew Yang championed UBI and went nowhere. Bernie and Warren championed socialized medicine and the welfare state and went nowhere.
Biden was polling poorly before South Carolina. He changed his message during the SC race to one of racial grievances and carried the state on his way to winning the primary.
Nobody cares about economic policy right now. We're in a spiritual battle for the soul of the nation. And it's not even Dem vs Rep. It's the technocrat establishment and their modern forms of the Opium of the Masses vs the People - be they left or right.
That's true. 😕😞😓
I'm not left or right wing, I want nothing to do with that bird! I'm just pro-liberty.
The problem is people. Whoever believes the concept that "people are generally good" hasn't spent much time actually getting to know the people they deal with. I'm a Christian, I believe in God. But I have to be honest when I say that the worst people I've ever dealt with my life are always Christians. The best person I have ever known was an Agnostic, and my former best friend was a Muslim. It doesn't say anything about Christianity, but it does say that what you choose to believe has little to do with what you will be like. Politics is always going to be a problem, there's no fixing it. People are getting more extreme, and this isn't done organically, it's all part of a plan.
So sorry to hear that! We believers of Christ Jesus should know better! So sad
The only difference between "good" and "evil" people are their chosen sides in conflict. The discrepancy between good and evil has very little to do with compassion and cruelty. This is the most common misconception of moral codes. You wish for something morals were not intended to do.
In a nutshell, one side is naïve, the other is cynical.
I know I've seen enough to become a cynic!
Wonderful, I really enjoyed it ,and learnt something new . Thank you
Conflict of Visions is a great way to understand our differences, but Jonathan Haidt's Moral Foundations is another great one. Everyone should check that one out and maybe a sequel about it?? 🤔🤔😉
Awesome video, IP!
Okay, why am I not getting notifications for these vids. I'm subscribed and turned on notifications but have to come to the channel to look for new videos.
IP, I love you man. You can have the last beer. (Do you feel the "but" coming?) Instead of using uni health care or uni min wage, apply it to the Hebrews waiting while Moses was on Mt. Sinai. Who were the contrained, those that wanted to keep waiting for the prophet or those who wanted to keep with idols? Who were the unconstrained, those that wanted to break with the prophet or those that wanted to break with idols? Keep in mind that both sides experienced the miracle of the parting of the sea. Sowell does an incredible job of seeing what he is looking at. He defines the problem mangificently. There is the old adage that a problem clearly defined is already half solved. However, it is just half solved. More love to you.
To paraphrase Paul: Should sin abound so that grace may abound even more? May it never be so.
So the Gospel as a free gift is also a call to constrain oneself from his own sin, which is only possible through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.