4:45 "the people are ruling, that's what is happening in a 'democracy' ". I don't know about that. In France where i live in (and i'm sure even in the USA you can relate), the last times the people were opposed to some action from the government, or asking for specific measures, "we the people" only faced riot police for weeks, even months, until the protests lost steam. a few examples: - 2016: against a labor law reformation. Very unpopular law (72-75% of the population opposed), and the governement ended up forcing the adoption of the law, skipping debates and votes in assembly and senate using a special article of the french current constitution ... not that people have much trust or respect for deputies, senators, and any politician anyway, but still - 2018-2019: yellow vests, against some taxation first, then against the president and the overall ruling class, then for a constituant assembly and the institution of the possibility to initiate a referendum on all matter from the citizen (go look for "RIC", "referendum d'initiative citoyenne") Overall "we the people" have zero power on what law to make, to apply, to modify, to remove, etc. let alone to decide on the rules on the exercise of power. And don't talk to me about how election is "power", it's precisely the opposite: the delegation, the abandonment of power for others to exercise ... and with very limited choice on top of that
Here's a thought: you cannot give away something that you do not have. You do not have the right to seize another person's property, therefore, you cannot grant that power to government.
But i do have the freedom to tax, imprison or harm you if i am stronger. Who would stop me? The way to deal with this is to make sure the strongest is a monarch or majority rule. Then i wouldn't dare touch you, cause i'll go to prison or worse.
You do not have the right to what you have not produced. The modern era is wrecked between the reversal from the political to the economic perversion of the concept of right, specially property rights. All collectivism stems from the idea that your life is not your property, rather the property of the collective, thus the products of your effort. Without property rights no other rights are possible.
I cannot explain how fascinated I am by all ideas of government. or why lol I hated this stuff as a kid in school but ever since 2016 I have been obsessed and now I'm going back to community college so I can make my way to law school and be a lawyer.
If modern humans have been around for about 70000 years then the predominant form of governance has been the tribe, not monarchy. Most tribes were probably more democratic (directly democratic) than most 'modern' (electoral) democracies. Nevertheless, there might have been great variation. There are still functioning tribes around us.
Yet while there were functioning tribes, these ideas still rely heavily on speculation. We have evidence of naturally occurring dictatorships and olligarchies due to a particular member of the society being stronger and taking control. These people may not be the best representation of culture at the time, but it still proves that democracy isn't naturally occurring. You also must take into account the population curve. A lot of tribes were dealing with fairly small amounts of people, making voting and making choices much easier, meaning their democracy was purer period. Our modern democracy is less a more modern and better interpretation of the idea, but more a manner of imparting an old idea into modern culture.
All rights have been "alienated" by the government in certain circumstances. Especially during wars and national emergency. All rights are not absolute. For instance the right of criminals to vote is alienated. 🤔😉😏
This is one of the few videos on natural rights and politics that makes a distinction between a DEMOCRACY and a REPUBLIC. For an open discussion in the matter to whoever wants to build upon this analysis: A Republic is a system were the individual - and individual rights: Life, Freedom and Property - are paramount to the edification of a rational society; that is, POLITICAL EQUALITY. A Republic is a restriction between three systems, not two: A monarchy (Tyranny by the One), an Oligarchy (Tyranny by a Few) and a Democracy (Tyranny by the Majority) which in modern terms, and by the insight of John Adams, who studied both Solon and Aristotle, were translated into a mechanism in which these three kinds of governments are restricted by the sovereignty of the individual: The Executive, The Senate and Congress; each of which can veto each other and each of which is elected by popular vote. A REPUBLIC and a DEMOCRACY are incompatible. What has been rescued from the latter is Representativity and Universal Suffrage, but necessarily had to be restrained and torn off from its collectivist traits; that is, that any pressure group, mob or identitarian tribe can claim the individual as a means for the ends of the 51%, 75% or 99%. (The reverse, an Oligarchy, would claim the individual as a means to the ends of a 1%). This is the cornerstone for the success of the USA as a REPUBLIC and its impact in WORLD HISTORY. A cornerstone which is eroding rapidly and almost irreparably by reversing POLITICAL EQUALITY (equality before the "eyes" of the law) to ECONOMIC EQUALITY (Equality of outcome regardless of effort or productivity). The only way for this reversal to happen is, precisely, the outpace the restrictions of a limited government towards an OLIGARCHY or a DEMOCRACY.
The idea of the social contract is misleading, it portrays reality as if one has a choice in whether to be governed or not. If the social contract is real, tell that to people who consider themselves anarchists, whilst they quietly pay their taxes (whether gladly or under duress).
Also implied consent cannot override explicit consent, so if I pay taxes to avoid going to jail and use roads because I have to to eat, but I explicitly state that I do not consent, it can’t be said that I’ve implied consent. Especially when the actions that are said to imply consent are either made unavoidable or entirely coerced.
America is a constitutional republic not a form of democracy they’re very different and you can argue as time has gone on its shifting towards democracy it is however a republic. If you are talking about the nation that the founding fathers made you would see almost no notions of a democracy.
khan academy is going to be the best teaching school in the world
why not?
4:45 "the people are ruling, that's what is happening in a 'democracy' ".
I don't know about that.
In France where i live in (and i'm sure even in the USA you can relate), the last times the people were opposed to some action from the government, or asking for specific measures, "we the people" only faced riot police for weeks, even months, until the protests lost steam.
a few examples:
- 2016: against a labor law reformation. Very unpopular law (72-75% of the population opposed), and the governement ended up forcing the adoption of the law, skipping debates and votes in assembly and senate using a special article of the french current constitution ... not that people have much trust or respect for deputies, senators, and any politician anyway, but still
- 2018-2019: yellow vests, against some taxation first, then against the president and the overall ruling class, then for a constituant assembly and the institution of the possibility to initiate a referendum on all matter from the citizen (go look for "RIC", "referendum d'initiative citoyenne")
Overall "we the people" have zero power on what law to make, to apply, to modify, to remove, etc. let alone to decide on the rules on the exercise of power.
And don't talk to me about how election is "power", it's precisely the opposite: the delegation, the abandonment of power for others to exercise ... and with very limited choice on top of that
Here's a thought: you cannot give away something that you do not have. You do not have the right to seize another person's property, therefore, you cannot grant that power to government.
But i do have the freedom to tax, imprison or harm you if i am stronger. Who would stop me? The way to deal with this is to make sure the strongest is a monarch or majority rule. Then i wouldn't dare touch you, cause i'll go to prison or worse.
You do not have the right to what you have not produced. The modern era is wrecked between the reversal from the political to the economic perversion of the concept of right, specially property rights. All collectivism stems from the idea that your life is not your property, rather the property of the collective, thus the products of your effort. Without property rights no other rights are possible.
@@danielholta5721 Might does not make right.
@@brolixPD Couldn't agree more. This nebulous idea of the 'collective' is nothing more than a group of individuals
I cannot explain how fascinated I am by all ideas of government. or why lol I hated this stuff as a kid in school but ever since 2016 I have been obsessed and now I'm going back to community college so I can make my way to law school and be a lawyer.
Khan academy is amazing....
If modern humans have been around for about 70000 years then the predominant form of governance has been the tribe, not monarchy. Most tribes were probably more democratic (directly democratic) than most 'modern' (electoral) democracies. Nevertheless, there might have been great variation. There are still functioning tribes around us.
Yet while there were functioning tribes, these ideas still rely heavily on speculation. We have evidence of naturally occurring dictatorships and olligarchies due to a particular member of the society being stronger and taking control. These people may not be the best representation of culture at the time, but it still proves that democracy isn't naturally occurring. You also must take into account the population curve. A lot of tribes were dealing with fairly small amounts of people, making voting and making choices much easier, meaning their democracy was purer period. Our modern democracy is less a more modern and better interpretation of the idea, but more a manner of imparting an old idea into modern culture.
Hello. Khan academy I am a big fan!! Plz do more biolygy videos.
Love your handwriting
Thank God we live in the United States where the governments main function is to secure our unalienable rights!!
All rights have been "alienated" by the government in certain circumstances. Especially during wars and national emergency. All rights are not absolute. For instance the right of criminals to vote is alienated. 🤔😉😏
Sal is *the dude.*
You really help!!
I got this as homework
This is one of the few videos on natural rights and politics that makes a distinction between a DEMOCRACY and a REPUBLIC. For an open discussion in the matter to whoever wants to build upon this analysis:
A Republic is a system were the individual - and individual rights: Life, Freedom and Property - are paramount to the edification of a rational society; that is, POLITICAL EQUALITY.
A Republic is a restriction between three systems, not two: A monarchy (Tyranny by the One), an Oligarchy (Tyranny by a Few) and a Democracy (Tyranny by the Majority) which in modern terms, and by the insight of John Adams, who studied both Solon and Aristotle, were translated into a mechanism in which these three kinds of governments are restricted by the sovereignty of the individual: The Executive, The Senate and Congress; each of which can veto each other and each of which is elected by popular vote.
A REPUBLIC and a DEMOCRACY are incompatible. What has been rescued from the latter is Representativity and Universal Suffrage, but necessarily had to be restrained and torn off from its collectivist traits; that is, that any pressure group, mob or identitarian tribe can claim the individual as a means for the ends of the 51%, 75% or 99%. (The reverse, an Oligarchy, would claim the individual as a means to the ends of a 1%). This is the cornerstone for the success of the USA as a REPUBLIC and its impact in WORLD HISTORY.
A cornerstone which is eroding rapidly and almost irreparably by reversing POLITICAL EQUALITY (equality before the "eyes" of the law) to ECONOMIC EQUALITY (Equality of outcome regardless of effort or productivity). The only way for this reversal to happen is, precisely, the outpace the restrictions of a limited government towards an OLIGARCHY or a DEMOCRACY.
The idea of the social contract is misleading, it portrays reality as if one has a choice in whether to be governed or not. If the social contract is real, tell that to people who consider themselves anarchists, whilst they quietly pay their taxes (whether gladly or under duress).
Also implied consent cannot override explicit consent, so if I pay taxes to avoid going to jail and use roads because I have to to eat, but I explicitly state that I do not consent, it can’t be said that I’ve implied consent. Especially when the actions that are said to imply consent are either made unavoidable or entirely coerced.
u drain my happiness
Ya haci Türkçe videosu ya da dublajını çekin lütfenn 😘😍😍🥀🥀
1st here
Sudarshan Iyengar, I was first veiw. Sorry man.
Ali Ishaq i meant first in the comments section.
America is a constitutional republic not a form of democracy they’re very different and you can argue as time has gone on its shifting towards democracy it is however a republic. If you are talking about the nation that the founding fathers made you would see almost no notions of a democracy.
You lost me at Democracy. The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.
Khan academy you've otterly failed when it comes to political science and philosophy
Pls explain
I'm assuming that "otterly" is utterly but misspelled?