Iron Man vs. Captain America: Who's Right?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 вер 2018
- Support Out of Frame on Patreon: / outofframeshow
Watch our newest video, "There's a Right Way to Get Political": • There's a Right Way to...
Check out our podcast, Out of Frame: Behind the Scenes: / @outofframebts
In Captain America: Civil War, the main conflict is not just a fist fight between Tony Stark and Steve Rogers.
It's a battle of ideas.
Should the members of the Avengers superhero team remain free to decide when and how to use their powers in defense of others, or should they be registered and controlled by government?
To find out who's right, we first have to think about how government decision-making actually takes place. And the best way to think about that question is to apply economic analysis to politics using a framework called "Public Choice."
__________________
Written & Produced by Sean W. Malone
Edited by Arash Ayrom
__________________
Links:
www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/P...
fee.org/articles/public-choic...
www.economist.com/internation...
www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/fi...
Imagine Donald Trump telling the Avengers to protect the southern border from illegal immigrants
This is a great example of the point. If the team is politically controlled, stuff like that is clearly on thr table.
@@FEEonline , imagine Cap deciding that refugees need his personal protection and start busting up border patrol facilities left and right. What is he going to do with the hundreds of parentless children who are now "freed"?
@@mashac4402 he'd have to deal with that, but that's not really the point. The point is that as an individual, he would be held accountable for that action. He'd have been sued for damages, probably arrested, and he'd have to bear personal costs for the consequences of his decisions -- which given his character, he has always been aware of and willing to bear (see also: his speech in Winter Soldier about the price of freedom).
On the other hand, just to give an example from this last week in the real world, US congressmen who sexually harassed people didn't even personally bear the cost of their own court cases until just now.
abcnews.go.com/Politics/congress-reaches-deal-ending-taxpayer-funded-sexual-harassment/story?id=59783415
And that's to say nothing about anyone bearing the costs of decisions that get people killed, or decisions that wreak havoc on the environment, or ones that result in displacement of thousands or millions of refugees... The worst thing that typically ever happens to a politician is that they don't get re-elected in a few years. Some end up with lucrative speaking tours and book deals to go talk about their experiences.
That's not how it works for private individual citizens.
@@FEEonline , you are absolutely misinformed about "how it works for private individual citizens". There are already laws on the books absolving private individuals of responsibility for any damage done in cases of rescue. If I break your arm while pulling you out of a burning car, you cannot sue me for damages. This is done because forcing individuals to bear personal responsibility for damage done during rescue attempts would end all such actions. WIth Avengers, this is taken to a whole new level. They only continue to functions because they are never forced to face the consequences of their actions. Cap seems to think that this is normal. For example, they absolutely wreck an airport when they are asked to surrender. By your logic, they should be sued for destruction of property and pay for it. But they never accept that responsibility. They simply leave. They don't face the risk of losing their power and privileges as elected officials do. There are literally zero repercussions for Cap's actions, despite the damage they cause. Since there is no authority to limit what they do and take responsibility for the damage they cause, they can operate entirely unrestricted and with no accountability whatsoever. That's just vigilantism. We send people to jail for that.
@@mashac4402 good samaritan laws exist, yes. But they are actually quite limited (definitely not "absolving any responsibility for any damage") and they usually require a court or a judge to make determinations about whether or not they apply to individual cases.
I absolutely *can* sue you if you break my arm during a rescue attempt, so that's simply untrue. It's happened many times, in fact.
Here's one example: abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6498405&page=1
I love Iron Man, but I'm on Cap on this one. I would never trust the government to make a decision for the greater good.
Counterpoint Maybe we shouldn't have a group of murderous vigilantes running around unchecked. Who hold captain America responsible when he does something wrong.
@@saintlugia One Hero does something wrong doesn't mean everyone else with the same like profession should suffer for it. It an indiviudal's responsibility.
@@DaiMie it's not just cap it superheroes in general who holds them responsible when they do something bad. Superheroes are completely unregulated there needs to be some sort of checks and balances.
@@saintlugia He face the judicial system like everyone else. Duh. It like, who hold Avergae Joe responsible if he kill someone. Joe is responsible for his own action. No one else.
@@DaiMie two things 1 Captain America isn't really being held accountable to anyone. you said that the judicial system will hold him accountable but clearly haven't I mean he's already broken several International laws without any punishments. 2 just because an individual's actions are their own actions doesn't mean that lawmakers won't create laws and system to better protect people from the actions of those individuals.
Both Tony and Steve have good points, the problem is the Accords themselves.
Finally someone who isn’t blindly saying #teamironman or #teamcap. I like the both of them and they both make strong points and even though I personally like cap more just like you said the Accords are the issue here. Not who is right.
Sicruett tbh tony was out of control and had no reason to attack other heroes just for revenge for something Bucky couldn’t control
Galactic_ClashX I see your point but the reason he fought the other heroes was the accords. At the end is where he was out of control
Idk how people are fully on team captain America buck killed his parents,Steve though he did earn his “powers” he progressed nothing to actually make it while tony stark made his own suit that can fly and shoot fricking lasers and that’s just his early suits and he didn’t get any help on all 84 of his suits including the Two war machine suits and Spider-Man suits and after that captain America beat him up with his friends and tony was down I mean beat a dead horse this and many other reason are why tony is mostly right
I like how I right better on UA-cam comments than my English tests
With Captain America on this. Like he said, agendas change, “Winter Soldier” showed us what happens when the wrong people start giving the orders.
Your social credit score is decreased by 50 points.
@@echidnanatsuki882 wdym?
@@echidnanatsuki882 wdym?
@@palululu0034 [this comment has been removed by the glorious CCP Government]
Read mechazoic's comment properly and see what my reference is.
I do agree that the government is corrupt, but there also corrupt villains and private organizations as well. Hell, Tony should honestly be in prison after what he did in AOU. No one is right.
I find it funny that they guy telling them that they need government control is the same guy who tried using the hulk as a weapon.
And failed miserably lmao
Hulk is a weapon
Well it makes sense then that he would try to have all of the Avengers under his control, to use them as weapons in the same way.
@@titantubeultimate9570 Hulk is a person.
@@CABRALFAN27 im saying that is how he feels.... Nothing but a weapon... Thats why he wasn't in infinity war for like 99% of it
Are we forgetting that a Nuke was fired in New York in Avengers
Ikr why does everyone ignore this? xD
HarshOyster8227 Content that scene is literally in this video
HarshOyster8227 Content yeah and that was the governments choice to do that
@@portsidedyldo2661 Thanks
@AnonymousGuy Technically yes, one of the world council members is a high ranking Hydra leader. Gideon Malick
8 most dangerous words: “We’re from the government, we’re here to help”
Actually they re ten, just because you use the shorter spelling way doesnt mean 'we are' becomes one word
@@jellyfishlamp3611 That's literally what it means.
The government's help isnt always bad or threatening
look at what happened after hurricane katrina.
Novatryx Ward trust the military, they’re not the government they’re normal guys wanting to help humanity they work for gov’t they aren’t them
The United Nations also let TWO genocides/war atrocities occur in recent history, both in Rwanda and Bosnia.
yeah the avengers should be fighting them not be Governed by them. also look at china right now and many other countries and the un doesn't do shit.
@@robinthestate6548 That's not because the UN doesn't want to, it literally can't. The only way the UN can exist puts the US, China, Russia, France and the UK at the very top. That means any of those can shoot down any decisions. China and Russia always shoot down intervention measures.
Whenever I remember that those 5 have that extra power it just makes me want to cry no country should have more power in the U.N. than another
Your also forgetting Syrian domestic chemical warfare, Chinese and North Korean humanitarian abuses, Somalian starvation, and more
@@fishmaster665 in every movie the UN useless even irl
Tony wouldn't give his iron man suit to the government.... Same deal.
It's also funny because if you read the accords as published on the MCU wiki, they don't even apply to Tony's Iron Man (edit: his suit, for clarification, as I realize my language here is not clear) at all because advanced prosthetics (and hence, the suit(s)) don't count as being enhanced.
Edit: Since the point is contentious, TONY would have to sign as a member of the Avengers anyway, regardless of the nature of his suit.
What kind of corruption is going on here
have u heard about Iron Patriot?
@@dr0g_Oakblood Where does it say that ? Source ?
Zaid I’m glad someone cares about sources. The MCU wiki. Go to the section on Regulations. After all the various human rights violations they have a paragraph stating that while advanced technology counts as enhancement, specifically Asgardian or Chitari weapons, advanced prosthetics do not. Although I will concede that the next paragraph does indicate that Stark would be effected, because it states that all members of the Avengers are subject to the accords even if they aren’t enhanced, so I suppose my original comment was in error. I still object to the accords on the basis of their human rights violations regardless.
0:57
Star Lord: "Don't call us plucky. We don't know what that means."
Steve Rogers: "I understood that reference."
That's what I was thinking about HAHAHAH
is this a reference into a reference into a reference?
woah
Didn’t Tony tell the government to stfu and gtfo in IronMan 2 “you want my property you can’t have it”. I think it’s quite clear that The Accords were a bbad idea and Tony was only in favour because of his guilt, like for Charles Spencer guy
Called character development, iron man 2 was years ago
I think he was in favour for it because it meant the avengers would stay together. if they didn't sign, they had to retire. if they all signed, they would stay together and thanos would've been beat
He was in favor because he was scared of Thanos.
I swear, if Tony Stark were real, he would be a Trump Supporter.
@@CaptainBones222 hehe, yeah.
The best part of this is both are right.
Tony is right; they need checks and balances.
Steve is right in that the government isn't the best provider of it.
How do you keep something that is more powerful than you in check?
@@whadayadoin3300 Good question.
well why didn't they become the ones checking.
would make one correction to that
Tony is right; they need checks and balances.
Steve is right in that the government isn't always the best provider of it just like people are not always the best provider of it .
but just because something could turn out bad doesn't mean we should not try aim for a perfect world
one should always aim for a perfect world and when you fall short see why you went wrong and look to see how you could improve that is how things advance
Yeah the government tried to drop an A-bomb on NYC
Too much government control is bad. Too much individual control is bad. Would you rather have an overbearing parent or an unruly toddler? Depends on who you ask.
Honestly it’s hard to decide
@@Fredd8 Yea but without a parent, what do you think the toddlers will do? Treat each other nicely and cooperate?
@Alex Meggoe absolutely and the children will definitely grow. do the Cap ppl think the Avengers will stay only 6 people after 100 years have passed? how about 1000 years? no, the avengers will gain more and more power and with that power comes a great potential for destruction
There is no such thing as too much individual control, it is the only thing you can't have too much of.
Westward Wanderer we need to make it *perfectly balanced*
Cap has seen what governments can do, from his time in the military all the way to the fall of SHIELD. I think he has the right idea.
To be fair government held accountable by the people putting them in charge we didn't ask for Captain America to go around the world killing people as he sees fit. Who holds Captain America responsible when he makes mistakes
Pretty much took Stark to remove Cap’s rose tinted googles and prevent him from being Fury’s lapdog
Back in those days, people went outside and agknowledged reality unlike today's MFs
@@saintlugia What mistake did he make that any government WOULDN'T have made in his place?
Hail hydra
"Governments of the world can no longer tolerate"
It feels like theyre simply using moral justification to get control of the avengers, for their own gains.
@Mackenzie Bauroth You have a tiny mind
@Mackenzie Bauroth yet if they weren’t around they would all be dead.
@Mackenzie Bauroth Two words for you : *Operation Northwoods.* You read that and you understand why a pro-governmental argument is moot and invalid.
@Mackenzie Bauroth First of all : _"and whose architects were fired for it."_ That's a positive claim, please provide evidences and linked sources to back it up.
Second of all, that's not the point. The point was that the highest officers in the government and the military DID came up with this plan. The fact that this one was refused doesn't account for those *that weren't* and the only reason we were made aware of "Operation Northwoods" existence was because "someone" disobeyed the order of getting rid of all traces of the documents proving it's existence.
That's when comes one critical question that should pop up in everyone's mind : what of the other Operations that were ever drafted in the same way that DID get passed without anyone knowing about it ? Remember Project MK Ultra ? Or the HEart Attack Gun ? Or A.N.T.S. ? Or Operation Echelon ? And please tell me, what has happened to Edward Snowden or Julian Assange ? And what of the dozens, maybe even hundreds of other journalists and other whistleblowers whose names never made it into the annals of history _precisely_ because, uncontrary to Snowden, the government got to them ?
@Mackenzie Bauroth Wonderful, an Ad Hominem. Let me guess, you're the kind of people thinking "Let's discredit everyone whose line of thinking i'm raised to think is nuts the moment i'm confronted with facts making me uncomfortable about my positions."
Grow up. Julien Assange DO exist, so does Snowden, so does every single "projects" and "operations" whose names i mentionned. Why is it that when RECORDED AND DOCUMENTED FACTS are presented to people, they immediatly go full denial instead of arguing logically ? Because so far, the only thing i'm getting from you is _"Look, i can't argue with the facts. So i'll simply call you a conspiracy nut and call it a day."_
I just really can't wrap my mind about people like you. You KNOW that the government has an undeniable track record of doing absudly evil stuff and, when exposed by people whose job consist of doing just that (cue Julien Assange as an investigative journalist), doesn't hesitate to treat them worse than criminal - violating human rights, ignoring due process, commit to torture (physical AND psychological) and put him to trial for crimes he didn't commit. Why ? For committing the cardinal sin of exposing REAL governments for being the very criminals you make the FICTIONNAL Avengers to be.
How low can you sunk into denial to reach that level of conceit ?
I like how in the movie that completely brushed off the fact that Tony’s Stark creation destroyed an entire country
Another example of politics in the real world. Many people are willing to let those in power get away with a slap on the wrist if they are or look like they’re remorseful about their actions. And there as just as many people who wouldn’t let such actions slide. It’s really interesting how the MCU adapts real world problems and situations to go along with superheroes and such.
@@neeloak1267 Except for Tony himself. In fact, Ultron was probably a big reason why he signed the Accords, he felt guilty, and decided he needed to be out in check incase he did something like that again. He doesn't think of himself as responsible enough anymore.
Wanda in WandaVision took 3k people hostage. This is example of superheroes having no regulations
Not a country a city
@@kyleaerthe356 exactly
4:50 James Buchanan
James Buchanan Barnes
Bucky.
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM???!!
Captain Kerchoo this comment deserves far more likes
That was my thought
Captain Kerchoo James Buchanan is also name of a us president
@@InfernoBlade64 yes that's the point that's the james buchanan they're referring to
i call him
bucky buchanard barnes
“The job is not about saving everyone. It’s about saving as many people as you can.”
That is what the government tried to do in avengers
True
Fr
@@Anonymous-yx3gw Yeah, but they tried to do it too early even when there's chances to save much more people
@@m18bodepudimayank40 are you talking about the New York battle, if you are the nuclear missile was warranted
I think I am on Team Hank Pym. "I learned that power can not be destroyed. You can only make sure it stays in the right hands."
Sounds like something John Adams would have said
Neither Captain America or Iron Man were in a good mental state, which is another factor as to why they fought.
Steve lost Peggy and Tony found out that Steve is protecting the man who killed his parents.
Yep, exactly. Bucky was Caps last connection to his past, so it makes sense as to why he would fight so hard for his best friend.
This isn’t said enough. They were both wrong. Ironically, both were forming their opinions by course correcting for their past mistakes.
I don’t agree, cap isn’t in the wrong. You say the reason why they fight is because they didn’t talk... well that is wrong, cap tried pacifying him and reassuring him that Bucky is innocent, Iron man was the one who wasn’t mentally strong here, not cap... and for good reason... he just seen footage of hydra killing his parents. Cap is protecting someone innocent, hydra took advantage of someone’s body. How about instead of killing hydras slave and doing absolutely nothing about hydras operations... just go and takeout hydra so this scenario doesn’t repeat itself.
@@theshore2667 in the first place, tony tried to talk to cap and when cap didnt listen, tony started to not listen to cap......
@@ryuzhirkov4098 you have it flipped bro, other way around. Cap got the right opinion here
Captein America, but he should have told Tony the truth.
the truth is Freedom is not free at all
@@argowal which is a price Steve is willing to pay with his life.
Tbh Captain America was in the right, but Iron Man will always be my favorite.
There are tasks that are better fulfilled by private individuals or companies (espacelly in the economy) and tasks that are better fulfilled by governments.
Whose tasks do the Avengers fulfill? Police and military. Who fulfills these tasks in our world? Right, governments. Does anyone here seriously want to be defended by vigilantes and private armies? Not me.
Captain America protects a murderer and is a soldier who refuses to follow orders from his superiors. In my opinion he is wrong.
The police and military aren't phased out of existence because superheroes are around.
Anybody going to ignore that Nat was on Tonys side then switched to Caps?
Tony had less people on his team, because they now know he was wrong, he has a robot on his team, his best friend on his team, and a teenager who didn't even care about what they're arguing about, and black panther doesn't wanna be on anyone's team, ge just wants to kill bucky so he went on iron man's team, and of course black widow switched, because she realized it's wrong
Yet after 4 yrs Ironman fans can't accept it 🤖 #teamcap
Probably because she spent enough time serving under governments in covert ops, she should know the dark underbelly of serving the shadowy imperialist reach governments tend to abuse. Giving a government governance over a small army of super humans is not a good idea unless the government in question was 100% transparent and 100% uncorruptable, so it's never a good idea because we know that'll never happen.
@@evanster5373 Lol yeah. TeamIronman sucks. Cap was always the leader of the avengers and never made a bad decision.
PGaming - Brawl Stars these hoes ain’t loyal.
“It’s run by people with agendas, and agendas change” Cap said it best
@John Jaxson Still doesn't negate Caps counter argument. To put full control in a goverments hands when their agendas change is absurd.
@John Jaxson Both sides are right. Nothing will stop the UN from using the Avengers as their super-powered version of the special forces currently in play if they wanted to. And nothing will stop the Avengers from killing each other if they are in bad terms
@Loki Jaxson how does his agenda change?
@@ChefSGA The Avengers itself also have an agenda that could be changed. The captain himself has an agenda. I mean he literally put everyone in danger for Bucky. If that’s not an agenda, I don’t know what it is.
@@artsenal714 No, he didn't. If anything, he did everything he could to keep the Avengers and any other armed forces away from the danger. He specifically went to confront Bucky (an innocent man, mind you) because he was less likely to get hurt in the process of trying to reason with him while everyone else was busy throwing due process out the window. Meanwhile, on Tony's side, not only did he throw the other Avengers under the bus while projecting his own recklessness and destructive behavior onto them, but he also refused to acknowledge the information Steve had on the other super soldiers that posed a real threat to national security. He was willing to believe his parent's recorded murder being displayed by the same lying and manipulative tactician that used advanced technology to create this conflict in the first place, yet he won't listen to the morally just person he's been working with for four years? Ross was being even less reasonable. A mysterious psychiatrist infiltrated the facility they were housing Bucky in, and he chooses not to investigate it any further because of his hate boner for superheroes. Out of the three of them, Steve seems to be the only one casting personal agendas aside for the objectively greater good: defending the innocent, standing up for the misunderstood Avengers, and stopping the rouge super soldiers from taking over the world.
FEE: So be more like Captian America
Captian: *rips a log in half with his bare hands
I find it amusing that Chris Evans, a staunch lefty, can convincingly play the epitome of libertarianism.
of course. That's because libertarians fall on the left side of the political spectrum
@@Astro2024 no, is not.
@@rafaelrijo8175 it is. The opposite is authoritarianism
@@Astro2024 libertarianism is the opposite of authoritarian, that is true. But, libertarianism is a whole other thing on the political spectrum. Furthermore, how you wrote that sentence make it seem that the right is authoritarian. If you honestly think that way, then I must inform you that is very wrong. There's both people on the Left and Right who are libertarians or authoritarians. Please remember that important tidbit of political information. And sorry for making this post this long and thank you for reading everything.
@@Astro2024 most lefties are more authoritarian and for gouverment control from my experiences
I'm curious...
Like if you are Team Cap
Comment for Team Iron Man
I'm more on Cap's side but I get why Tony wasn't
I get why Cap did it but I feel like he became the thing he sworn he would go agaisnt, cause at the end it was his own agenda which like he said change. Also we did see that Tony was on cap side but due to Cap not sharing sensitive truth, it started a war
@@ampocalypsew3883 yeah sorry I haven't watched the movie in a while
Meh Ya I’m on #Team Captain America because of the fact that it’s show all throughout human history that Tony is wrong on the accords/superhero registration act.
I like iron man more as a character, but in this situation captain America was right. He did a good as a representative of libertarianism.
"What if your worst enemies gained control of the power structure."
Scary relevant today.
This channel has taught me more than all of my teachers combined
Glad you're here! Thanks for watching.
In the MCU, Captain America has a far better point when it comes to the events of Civil War. In the comics, the solution that Tony eventually comes up with is a far better solution: Create an internal registry of the real identities of superheroes known only to the superhero community, and have these people trained to use their powers so that if/when they decide to use them for any reason, they are far less likely to injure any bystanders.
This creates a system of accountability for super-powered individuals, who can act how they see fit, but will have to justify their actions if things do go sour while their interveneing.
Allowing heroes to self-govern is the best solution of both worlds, as it puts a system of accountability in place, but it also isn't run by any government that could use the heroes for political advantage.
Jimmy Fort Tony was no better, if not worse in the comics than he was in the movie. He, Reed, and Strange both exiled the Hulk into space by force, and sent a primed nuke after him, which slaughtered nearly the entire population of the planet, including the Hulk's newfound wife and future son. And that's not even mentioning grave robbing and cloning Thor, _their friend._ Tony reached absolutely unheard of levels of "being an arrogant asshole to the nth degree" in the _Civil War_ comic. He should never have been considered the "winner" in the end.
Tony did have the right idea but was very poorly executed, suffered from corruption from the start (SHIELD blackmailing heroes like Wonder Man or punishing the Thing for leaving the country) and made costly mistakes (Clor killing Ben Foster or using super villains who caused more death and destruction even when tagged) and the solution of using an multidimensional prison where the captured heroes were treated less than humanely.
Though Cap also made terrible mistakes such as trusting the Punisher, making a deal with Fisk and loosing his way after the death of Ben, again he also had teh right idea but did not know how to end it in a way that no life or freedom was lost. But in the end Dark Reign proved that Steve's fears were well founded were they not?
Until that "self-governing group of superheroes" goes corrupt and overtakes countries, begins looting or goes all-out rampage. Just like "the self-governing lamd of the free", now led by corrupt and immoral politicians. Yep, great idea.
And that caused spider man to die
He also created a super prison in a pocket dimension, which was a borderline nazi concentration camp. He would put there anyone not willing to comply with the ideology, not neseserely villians, and villians got enlisted as special forces instead. So he basically politically imprisoned people
Stark had an overwhelming sense of guilt for what happened to that student affecting his decision(s). Yes the Avengers needed an oversight because the general public was scared and angry at them. Tony said that "they could correct the course and make many changes after the people learned to trust the Avengers again, but the Accords were the best compromise at that time". Both sides (Cap/Stark) had very valid points and in all honestly there was no single one size fits all answer. Stark and the others thought the Accords might actually be loosened up later on or even done away with, but it was the best option to show that the Avengers were NOT unlawful terrorists as the media was portraying them. The accords were simpley damage control for the Avengers from a hostile press, public opinion.
@DirtRoadTraveler The VR device had given Stark a migraine/tension head ache. She verbally berated Stark simply because it was a convenient opportunity.
Plus that nightmare of all of the Avengers dead didn't help. I was surprised though I was thinking that Stark would LOATHE the oversight committee and Capt would be in favor since it'd be military like.
The Avengers should have just attached cameras to themselves like what happened in The Incredibles 2. The Avengers just need everyone to hear their story. Civilians see destruction and blame the heroes but they don't realize how much help the Avengers are
You do know that, when the Avengers evacuated the people in Sokovia, they tried to save all the people, right?
And quite frankly, the whole thing happened because of Stark's fault.
Captain, he is the man who lived through 2 wars, and he knew exactly what Tyrants are.
Stark? I don't think so, he's too selfish!
Civil War only happens because everyone is a moron in both the MCU and the comics. And dear god is it worse in the comics. Sometime's I wish I could the MCU Avengers Linkara's top 15 things wrong with Civil War video. Speciffically the ending speech about how all the accors/regestration act are completely freaking pointless and serve to do nothing but turn heros into villians.
Mugh Hungus
Exactly. I’m with Tony.
I can understand why Tony made that decision, he felt like he was (and frankly was) responsible for so much accidental death and destruction, he lost all faith in his own decision making, assumed that he needed to be controlled by a "higher and wiser power" to avoid that from happening again. The problem is that he proyected this insecurity into the entire group, when he's the one who's been consistently messing up with increasingly worse consequences for everyone.
Very well said
Agreed. But still the wrong decision.
Yeah, and protecting a super human Nazi over the United Nations , stealing cars, and use government property like Caps did sounds completely logical.
Cap was acting on his guts and feelings to even more so than Tony, Tony knew the accords where BS but if they didn't sign they were criminals and you cannot change the accords and the terms unless you sign.
Cap was being a child the entire film, he seemed to care more about Bucky than the entire world's safety.
@@TheOUTSIDER1995Tony ambushed the others along with Ross to force them to sign the accords or retire or go to prison for an indefinite period of time with no due process. Steve tried to save his innocent friend from a kill order which would have him shot on sight even though he's completely innocent. Tony tried to TRICK Steve into signing the accords even with their massive problems by saying he'd fix it later which is not how anything works. TONY created Ultron and nobody brings up how that is all HIS fault and the movie tries to say it's the whole teams fault when it's just Tony and Bruce. The accords are also counterproductive AND pointless since it does none of the stuff that it's supposed to. Tony is 100% wrong.
@@calvintyler9281Except for the Ultron part, you're wrong about everything else. Tony was doing his job, and that entails responsibility and accountability. In being unanswerable to 198 countries Avengers could easily become a supernatural terrorist squad if the wrong buttons were to be pushed by the wrong people (like Zemo). Which is why accountability to the people you're trying to protect is essential.
"There is no Utopia. There is no such thing as perfection. All we can do is the best we know how. And if we get it wrong, we learn from our mistakes and do better the next time."
Freedom has a cost
But it seems that most people these days don't really want freedom
It seems more like that politically correct want to use laws to take away other people's freedoms in the belief it will make things safer for themselves which ignores the fact that those same laws can just as easily be aimed at them.
Because they see the price of Liberty as too steep?
True Freedom is Anarchy: lacking any social, political, ethical rules and regulations. True Freedom allows people to do whatever they want, however they want, whenever they want, and NO one is safe, because there are no rules in place to ensure safety. The weak die, the strong survive, until they become weak, then the new strong take over, and the cycle repeats ad infinitum.
In short? You want SOME measure of control in place, always, or it'll go to the dogs every single time.
@@sergeantassassin3425 Anarchy sounds great in principal but to certain people it is nothing more than a power vacuum in which they will seek to fill with their lust for power and if they can convince enough people, they will force their way to turning the former anarchy into a new hierarchical system.
+J Race Well, those people who think Anarchy is a great thing will continue to think that until they realize that they could end up being on the wrong end of the stick. When there are no rules in place to prevent any form of wrongdoing, be it rape, murder, theft and the like, you're going to see society go downhill VERY fast, and then you get Mad Max. No one wants to live in Mad Max. It's a shithole.
I think Iron Man wasn't properly represented in this video. His point was not that politicians were better or less morally corrupt than the avengers, but rather that there would be greater accountability and less resistance. Even in real life, there is a great difference in perception of soldiers and mafias.
The problem is that these are super human beings, in real life at least in the US the idea was that even if the government went rouge youd have weapons to defend yourself and the freedom to assemble. If the skovia accords had happened imagine this, infinity war thanos' soldiers are destroying cities and the UN commands the heroes to save people instead of going after the stone and stragre. Then ripperonis
Thing is, the video speaks about 'thinking about what if the government did have the control' but it never covers the opposite end of the spectrum. That is to say, Cap's angle. Saying that the safest hands are still our own is not only highly arrogant (assuming no one can do a better job) and highly patronizing (I'm better than everyone else, therefore I should be the one to decide)... but it's also HIGHLY dangerous and easily abused and misused. Cap's reasoning is a vigilante's reasoning. 'I'm right.' + 'The government can't/won't do right.' = "Anything I do is excusable."
It's a very self-righteous stand-point that mirrors tyranny and has, as history shows us, caused ALOT of grief. AT that point, literally anything becomes morally gray and excusable because 'the safest hands are still our own." And that's putting aside the blatant idea that those hands may actually NOT be the safest.... see the creation of Ultron. That may have been Tony's fuck up, but it's equally unreasonable to think that 'Cap will never fuck up' as it is to think 'the government will never fuck up.'
Just like Spiderman says "You're wrong. Think You're right. That's dangerous."
@@Krescentwolf Well the thing is we actually do see it happen throughout the movies following civil war what happens. Say everybody does end up registering for the program. Thanos sends his goons in infinity war and the Gov has no idea of the stone so it gets stolen and they are ordered to stay on earth instead of following the stone. Thats it movie ends right there. The problem with government agencies is how slow they act and its different when talking about earthly crimes but when you are dealing with aliens its a whole different ball game.
Yes the superheroes whether the people like it or not will have the better judgement of their powers and abilities and how to use or not use them. What if another The US declares another war against another country, the heroes would be forced to fight for a cause they may or may not agree with which is inflicting their personal rights. If you want to sign up go for it but you shoulndt be forced. Stark didnttrust himself because at heart he's was weak individual looking for acceptance.
@@Krescentwolf Exactly! I was just going to point out that the presenter assumes the same about Cap and individual Avengers as Tony assumes about government. If individuals in an organization (i.e. government) can go bad and use the Avengers improperly, then can't individual Avengers ALSO go bad and use Avengers powers improperly? This is just the individualism vs. collectivism argument dressed up in a spangly outfit.
Stark was wrong in any case, a simple example in Civil War shows that - it would be unfair to Bucky to follow the government. Cap would be outcast anyway, because everyone blamed Bucky and no one was after the real villain. They willingly closed their eyes on justice the moment they singed.
The guy who didn't want the government to use his suit in Iron Man 2 wants the government to run him and his entire team in Civil War. How things change.
guilt
Guilt
That’s what happens when in between those movies, you on your own destroy several cities and even a country.
Well, doesn’t mean the property is not his.
I’ve always agreed with Cap; super heroes shouldn’t be limited by the government, because one corrupt official can turn it from an innocent intention to a disaster that will cost the lives of the innocent and possibly even the freedoms of the people who try to fix it. Yes, there should be a way to punish the ones who go evil, but at the same time that can be accomplished by the heroes that are still heroes and by facilities like The Raft. They already have a process for super villains, so why not use it for heroes who turn evil (with maybe a few tweaks)
Its not about those who go evil. You are referring to villains. Super Villains shouldnt be allowed to have powers to begin with. The dilemma is deciding whether or not to make actual heroes have restrictions to prevent accidents when Heroes are fighting Villains. Think of it this way, say there's bullies at your childs school. one kid decides to come to school with a bb gun, and the school somehow allows it because he stops bullies with this gun, he's "BB Man" 😂 so BB Man shoots bullies with a BB gun and stops their bullying. But in the process, every single time he shoots a bully in the leg, he stops the bully but he also put another kids eye out. You dont think there should be atleast some restrictions on
BB Man? I mean, before your child gets home without one of his eyes
@@truthspeaks4139 right but you think the government should have that power to turn these superhero’s into their own personal soldiers?
@@thealterego3187 No but the problem is that this isn't the Wild West anymore. Rules are there for a reason and your always going to have people who believes that rules are for thee not me.
@@K1ng1995you really don't know who U.S actually his...
While I agree that the Avengers need to be more careful, I do not trust the government in any way. As much as I love you Tony, I have to side with Cap.
Whats funny is im team ultron, ultron said this would happen and they would lose and neither listened lmfao
@@AteoQT that's why Ultron is really a very underrated villan but in a good way
@Versatile Wolf NWO lol what
@Versatile Wolf NWO did you really just comment on my 2 year old comment to inform me that I'm in love with an actor
@@MorganLeodeMenezes ultron was my favorite villain i wish they kept him around in some form
I don’t think Tony is totally wrong. He just doesn’t trust that THE PEOPLE or themselves will make the best choice with best outcome. After all, they are all humans and no human is perfect. This also apply to Steve Rogers.
Governments aren't perfect either, which is why it would be most likely disastrous if U.N. controlled the Avengers since the U.N is comprised of powerful people who can get away with a lot more if they convince the public and are also not perfect like you mentioned about people in general.
“We may not be perfect, but the safest hands are still our own” - Steve Rogers
@@RJ1500 Yeah right, safest for them.
@Alex Meggoe yeah, lets just forget about the child trafficking. They sure were held accountable for that. That's why everybody knows about, and people went to prison for it. /sarcasm/
If they can not be trusted not to sell children, they can not be trusted.
@@RJ1500
That's a pompous statement that offers no guarantees whatsoever.
C-can I just love them both and cry over how both of them are gone? 😭😭
Isnt cap still alive
@@Phoenix-yc4ry ENDGAME SPOILER: at the end of endgame though he’s rlly old so he’ll just die soon and won’t be able to fight with the avengers anymore. He chose to live out his life with Peggy and gave up fighting
@@Phoenix-yc4ry not for long lol
@@joekerr5418 No bro cap is still alive and young its steve the first captain america who is old
@@Phoenix-yc4ry SPOILER
LAST CHANCE
Watch Falcon and the Winter Soldier. Sam confirms Steve's death
It’s interesting how either decision would’ve drastically split and change The Avengers for the future. But then Thanos comes out of nowhere and the decision is thrown out the window
We tried to nuke the whole island of Manhatten... That's why we should have the right to dictate what the band superhumans are allowed to do or not do.
That wasn't the UN but I get your point
Suraj Shaw No "we" didn't
Which, ironically, is what caused Tony's PTSD in the first place.
SHIELD was run by multi-national representatives.
@@darkbringer1440 Yup.
It's some kind of ironic that you mentioned USA PATRIOT Act. Because Civil War comic book is an allegory of 9/11 and this law.
Full Cycle.
The idiom is "full circle," but fine.
I thought it was a allegory for Gun Control.
@@tanimation7289 I recall reading a comic where an analogy was drawn between Superhuman Registration and gun control. I think it was pre-Civil War, though
In Civil War, Tony Stark's motivation was to relieve himself of responsibility, and thereby forgive his guilt. I did not see his support for the Accords as an analysis of their worth, it was just a way to say, "Not my fault."
Stark from the beginning has had a character arc about takeing responsibility, in civil war he saw that they had screwd up and it cost lives . He wants to do better and to cut off worse laws from being past. It has nothing to do with relief of responsibility
I think you need to rewatch the movie
Sorry
He took responsibility
Unlike captain bitchrica who was running away from his crimes
@@cringekiller348 Cap was running away because someone was blinded through hatred and tried killing Bucky even though Bucky was brainwashed and had no control.
"I thought I was your friend too"
I truly love Stark's moral posturing as he hunts down his friends to imprison them.
He was trying to prevent them from being killed, that's the reason why he asked Ross to let him bring them in instead of sending people that wouldn't hesitate to use lethal force. And he didn't know about the raft.
Cap: "He's my friend."
Stark: "So was I."
Oh really, Stark? Tell me, if Bucky was trying to hunt you down and kill you, don't you think Steve would be fighting Bucky in order to protect you?
Stark is an asshole, in the comics, movies, cartoons, whatever he's in. He's always an asshole.
@@rapolasra934 wow not only is that delusional you posted that delusion about 3 times. Great job
@@enchantedcat1192 i dont think its necessarily delusional. You cant say that Tony isnt unfair or spoiled sometimes, for example when he found out Bucky under mind control killed his parents. Sure, it is not something to take lightly and get over quickly, but saying 'I dont care, he killed my mom' and try to kill bucky as if it was totally his fault, makes him really unfair at times. Not that he is unjustified to be mad about it, but he knew he was controlled.
@Megan Todd and it was visions fault a creation of Tony's aka Tony's felt which everything in the whole god damn series is tony fucks up everything then tells everyone else they need to be held accountable
Humans have innate rights given by either God or nature. The governments role should be to protect these rights and act as referee when these rights conflict. Those who feel that government provides rather than protects rights is in danger of abusing this power just as easily as those who offer protection as a reason to take rights away. If you take the choice away from the individual then you also take away the ability to bring individual bad actors to justice or discipline those who make honest mistakes. Attempting to punish any group for the evils of one of their members is evil itself and their are some who will purposefully use this to hide. Treating people as individuals first and members of a group second is the only way uphold justice and allow mistakes to be atoned and learned from. Treating people as a group first and individuals second is a way to ensure group consistency and promotion but also to hide from responsibility.
How can nature "give" humans "innate" rights?
@@Ponera-Sama that was a reference to leftards who don't believe in God.
@@lewb.8619 I... Know. I'm just saying that nature does not "give innate rights" to anyone and that statement doesn't make sense.
Yes it does, you just are being contrarian. Humans having rights by interacting with each other, exist naturally, without the need for government. Its only when we violate another persons right that we need a third party advocate. Rights promote equality. That's why you don't want the government empowered with removing rights.
@@lewb.8619 kinda sound like you're calling people who don't believe in god "retards"
Superpowers aren't real, but what about super-smart or super-talented. If someone has the ability to solve a major problem for a country, build a trillion dollar business, or create a civilization changing power source, does that mean we should have governments of far less intelligent and talented people dictate how that gifted person gets to apply or not apply their talents in their life? This goes against everything that a free society guarantees. Does someone who wins popularity contests get to use state guns to take control and wield that ability or creation belonging to someone else according to their personal reasoning or for their own advancement?
In a free society, we can only take people's freedoms and choices away when they break laws established for the common good. It's therefore important that we don't allow politics to redefine what is the common good, and it's therefore critical laws crafted afford people the opportunity to choose compliance. If you craft laws that do not make the allowance for choice, in that the very nature of the law makes people guilty by default by simply being who they are and never having room to make a choice, then this is persecution. Persecution with the intention of removing an obstacle is elimination. And persecution with the intention of then exploiting that person's ability at some point in the future is enslavement. It is the use of the political vehicle as a path to domination and tyranny as opposed to the use of conquest. The threat of force as opposed to the execution of force on a large scale to accomplish the same outcome. The valuable difference to the tyrannical mind is that the political way leaves most people alive to be used as a resource in the future, the conquest vehicle does not. The political way allows the tyrant to have their cake and eat it too.
I stopped reading after you said "Superpowers aren't real". Seriously dude, get a life.
@@zakariafadli4996 In that case, you should probably read the rest of the comment, as that original sentence grounds the questions he layers asks more in reality.
The Doctor
That was just sarcasm, of course i've read the whole comment and he has some serious points.
That is with your belief that some people are smarter than others, which sadly doesn't hold up to much scrutiny.
Ike Okereke Reverse engineer the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2nd Generation processor from intel and send me the diagrams of the logic processing circuitry and I will accept your world view that people do not vary in intelligence.
"even when the politicians in charge claim they have all the right intentions"
every democratic president ever
Iron Man is my fav as a superhero but I totally side with Captain America for his ideals. Excellent analysis and well made video. Thanks for delaying my homework a bit longer lol.
@Mackenzie Bauroth as much sense as you wanting government oversight. The same government that fired a nuke a NY to stop the Citari invasion which wouldn’t have worked and would have killed millions. Which the Avengers stopped without killing millions. Also rampage all over the globe you don’t think the government does that as well with endless wars, raids, and bombings. I understand where you’re coming from because true Ultron was their creation and Hulk was their teammate that was rampaging. But Ultron was meant to be made to defend the world, I know good intentions pave the way to hell. But the same could be said of the government interventions such as the Iran nuclear deal which was meant to foster peace and stall Iran’s development of nukes instead they are still developing them and the money is used for terrorism. Also the lockdowns meant to keep us safe only worsen the effects of the pandemic, trampled our freedoms and rights, and destroyed us economically. Though the Avengers would be held accountable by the worlds’ governments. Who holds our government or anyone’s government accountable for their actions? Especially for the horrible and anti scientific lockdown since the pandemic. I agree the avengers should have some checks and balances, but not through government. The avengers have handled Loki, Ultron, and Thanos saving the world and universe on multiple occasions why would I trust the people who can’t handled the country’s pocket book which individuals with that amount of power.
@Mackenzie Bauroth iron man fanboy lol
@Mackenzie Bauroth It was hydra who infiltrated the secretary of defense. In other words, HYDRA a terrorist organization infiltrated the government and had access to the country’s nuclear weapons. I’m pretty sure that’s a knock against the government for allowing that to happen which was stopped by Captain America.
Also this “following the will of the People” is not evident anywhere in these films. Let’s go back to the first avengers film. The nuke option wasn’t decided by the people but the will of a secret shadow counsel. In Civil War, the Sokovia Accords was not by the will of the people but rather a knee jerk reaction for the UN and was undone when the threat of Thanos arrived.
Throughout the MCU the government has knee jerk move after knee jerk move that typically never solves anything and yields no results or terrible results. The same happens in our world where the government makes policy at the detriment of the people. For instance, the “For the People Act” is a bill that they claim will help American but it only helps the government control elections, allow illegals to vote, make DC a state, and eliminate many of the barriers needed to vote. This doesn’t help the people but ensures permeant government control over elections especially for the democrats.
Often no, the government is not held accountable for their actions the only times they are publicly a huge disaster. For instance the Lebanese governments wasn’t forced out they resigned of their gigantic blunder. The Middle East although is textbook mismanagement there are many of their governments still in power that support terrorist groups no matter how much the UN sanctions them. Look at Iran, we got into the Iran Nuclear Deal again even though we know that money funds terrorist. And with the WMDs during the Bush era, was still a colossal boondoggle that perpetrated endless wars, increased the deficit, ended with the bloodshed of thousands. Not a single official was held responsible and it subjugated Americans to a loss of privacy.
Unfortunately yes the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The road to heaven, is paid by blood of Christ. I hope you have accepted Him into you life. But I understand, I do believe that governments are necessary in some capacity but they are not smarter or better than anyone in fact they often times make things worse. Where as the Avengers private citizens have done tremendous good saving the country, world, and universe without government overreach
Sadassadasdsadassads
Captrain bitchrica fan boi🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@cringekiller348 late
I really dont think Tony is pro-government like everyone thinks he is. I believe he is pro _safety_ .
Think about this from an honest stand point. Ross makes a really good point; The Avengers go around to other countries, do whatever they want, and then just leave. You can see why the governments of those countries would be mad, and then that blame gets reflected onto our own country. The super heroes can only do so much. If one hundred and seventeen countries want to go against The Avengers, they will come after them hard. The only reason why Tony went to "arrest" Cap, was so Ross didnt try and kill him.
Another major thing that should be considered is Tony telling Cap that, "Once we put out the PR fire, these documents can be amended." Tony knows just how stupid these rules are, and that they go too far. But Tony is a business man who has gone against the government before, Im pretty sure he is in his element here. Tony is just trying to play along and play the long game so that this can go over as smooth as possible. "If we dont do this now, *it will be done to us later* ."
Right now The Avengers are playing Judge, Jury and Executioner, and as "enhanced individuals" that's _ridiculously_ terrifying to regular civilians.
*"If we can't accept limitations, if we're boundary-less, than we're no better than the bad guys."* #TeamIronMan
The best comment I've read here, totally agree. #TeamIronMan
"Every time someone tries to win a war before it starts, innocent people, die."
Every time there is a war innocent people die...
"Everytime"
So let's just not plan and wait for the war to come to us we will Definitely save more lives
That's exactly the point.
Innocent people die in war. But trying to win/stop a war before it happens results in more deaths.
A stray bullet from a fire fight is far from the same thing as one fired from a firing square friend.
something you didn't mention was the fact that in the film, the avengers are given no choice but to sign. they're told to sign or retire, if they retire then the world is at a greater risk from threats like thanos. so, although I think the accords are morally wrong I believe the best option was to sign them, especially as tony does say they can be amended, they aren't set in stone. it was flexible. however I understand why cap didn't want to sign. bucky is a living example as to why cap wouldn't sign. bucky was taken, controlled and forced to carry out multiple acts of terror and take the blame for it. the risk with the accords was that it left the door open for this exact thing to happen to the avengers, the world would be at threat either way
Considering how SHIELD was infiltrated by HYDRA, that only enforced Caps stance to resist the governments demands. Not because they may be HYDRA, but because it takes one person entering in an office with a selfish agenda that will spread like a parasite over time. Maybe there would not have been harm at the moment, but Cap saw it eventually coming. As he said about agendas, they change.
I honestly think the best action was to take down the accord.
Except that the ending of the film literally spells out Tony's point of view in this situation is far more realistic.
Captain America decided that his friend should be protected and not face any consequences for his actions. He, therefore, set off a chain of events that injured a teammate (nearly irreversibly), destroyed millions of dollars in property, destroyed the public faith in the independent acts of the Avengers and fucked over Tony.
By the way, he did this because he didn't believe in the government and therefore stopped them from actually reacting to the real threat.
The avengers aren't a couple of good Samaritans that help people out. At least 2 of them are soldiers, there's 2 spies, a giant green being who at one point was hunted by the government for destruction of property, a robot with a magical destructive stone and a woman who voluntarily was genetically altered to bring down the US/go against the avengers, and a godlike alien.
They have the power to destabilise most governments. Hell, 2 of them brought down a plan to overthrow the US government, and they weren't even the most physically powerful.
The assumption that if you got super strength, it would be ok to run round beating up people you disagree with because you thought it was right is not an argument, even if you allude to a couple of libertarian scholars. That's what the accords are. Either you join a peacekeeping group controlled by governments, or you're a private citizen and you can't do any of that shit.
Steve is definitely right, but Tony has a valid point to be considered. There needs to be some kind of oversight in the Avengers that prevents them from acting recklessly that doesn't take the form of complete government control.
The only way to stop the bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Gun control laws don't work and so does Superheroes control laws.
@@VeryProPlayerYesSir1122 But gun control laws do work. I'm Team Cap anyway.
That is why the video says that the Avengers should be treated as individuals. Their actions will be valued as any other civilians when necessary.
@@mrjollyguy25 gun control laws don't work.
That is the court, the normal, judge and jury court.
Thank you!
It's even better than I expected.
Great work
You're welcome!
Panperl Great idea thinking to ask about this.
"Everytime someone tries to win a war before it starts innocent people die"
After war 60 million dead
Well
Muhammad Aayan Ali Tony’s like a lot of politician types. They like to hold others to account for their own mistakes.
But, no, Tony’s mentality was exactly that government should control the Avengers. Otherwise, why support a scheme that would do just that? If he wanted a scheme of accountability for bad behavior, then he should have sat down with Steve and come up with one that retained individual judgement, but added accountability with due process. He didn’t do that. Instead, he ran to the politicians to cede them control.
Now, how he’d control extra-planar beings like Thor, or hyper-powered crotchety beings like the Hulk, well, that’s a different question.
After watching this video i can not but feel like you missed a valuable variable in this whole debate: What actually happens if they say no to the accords. Yes, i agree and i believe that everyone with common sense would agree that it would be best for the government, as it is now, to not have such a force in their grasp BUT flipping the middle finger on them ain't exactly a smart decision considering the military might they have. Avengers are funded by Tony, The Stark industries, and they can not keep being funded if they flip of the countries they visit or are located in. Worst case scenario - The countries turn on the Avengers. And it would be justified, considering what Tony did in Avengers 2. HE almost got life of the planet removed and no matter how you look at it - Tony IS the Avengers. With out Tony, the avengers would become criminals, criminals that may do more good than bad, but they would still need to steal to survive and have the gear to do any good. Can't exactly have a stable job while the government is after your ass.
In short - I agree with most of what you said but it is more like you took the initial argument at face value with out considering all of the problems and variables.
P.S. Tony said that once the accords were signed, appeals for some change would be possible and probably mandatory. He knows working for them will lead to problems but it is still the best solution ESPECIALLY for him (you know, cause of money and all).
One thing I noticed is that at the beginning of the MCU, Cap and Tony would be on opposite sides.
Tony used to be a self indulgent guy who would make weapons just to become wealthier and wealthier. He even states in Ironman 2 that he doesn't want the government to take his weapons and suits away, so he would against the accords.
Cap on the other hand started as a representation of the American people and nation who were fighting in the war and worked with the American government so he would be with the accords.
But the thing with the MCU is that they always make their characters adapt and evolve as time passes.
Tony is supposed this selfish businessman who would disagree with the accords but once he realizes how dangerous he and his weapons are, he has a change of heart and decide to be a hero. When he realizes that his heroic actions are also reckless and dangerous, he experience the same feeling he had when he first saw his weapons being used in the incorrect way. From there his character becomes more complex but stays understandable and relatable and makes sense why he would sign the accords.
Steve on the other hand, first works with S.H.I.E.L.D. But when he learns it is corrupted by H.Y.D.R.A. he realizes that governmental organization can also be corrupted, therefore understandably refuses to sign the accords. Plus his best friend, bucky barnes, was brainwashed by H.Y.D.R.A and is hunted down by the government. But Steve rogers turns his back on the government to help his friend and clean his name, which eventually puts against the accords.
And when you think about it, both Tony and Steve have fought organizations that supports their ideas. Tony fought the ten rings, a group of terrorists who isn't control which ends up wrecking and killing people. Steve fought H.Y.D.R.A, a group of nazi who corrupted the government into causing chaos around the world.
Plus, it creates this Logical vs Emotional balance for all the other avengers who each chooses a specific side not just based on their characters and personality but also their personal life experiences and traumatic memories, events, complex relationships with every other avenger, with Tony's side being the logical side and Steve's side being the emotional side.
For real, Cap had a more character development once he noticed that Red Skull was also right that the future the wars wouldn't be about the flags.
One of the best Civil War analysis i've seen. The only thing that is missing is what vision said about "power brings challenge" and all that
I wanted to punch him in his bionic teeth. Moron. By that reasoning, a rape victim who learns how to defend herself is escalating and at fault for any and all damage done when someone tries to brutalize or rape her again.
@@jkknight9209 What Vision is talking about is not a victim versus predator situation, but a warrior versus warrior situation. Big difference.
@@axelstenvall8631 No vision resembles one point of veiw one that some people would also have
But its wrong cuz no enemy of avengers came to earth to challenge avengers power
Please, Vision only brought this up so he could have his beloved Wanda confined in the safe house with him, there’s always an ulterior motive, and it’s no secret that both Ultron and Vision, whom were created by the mind stone, fell in love with Wanda because of their connection through the mind stone.
Even during the airport battle when he lasered Rhodey as revenge for harming Wanda, when he was confronted by Tony about it he claimed “I was distracted” and only began to reveal remorse AFTER he saw the consequences of his actions.
From the point of view of the audience watching the movie being able to see everything that unfolds, it's easy to say "Captain America is right". But if you're just a regular person inside the movie, how can you be sure that the Avengers aren't corrupt?
You see these godly beings that are able to pretty much do anything, how can you be so sure they will not misuse that power?
Tony isn't one of those characters, though. I think Tony's decision was a bit rushed and he would've needed a lot more shit dumped on him before he decided, "right, we need to be stopped." If anything, he's only trying to pass the buck off to the next guy. "Oh the city was destroyed and I could've prevented it? Well you know politicians, they wouldn't let me go save the day." "Oh? What's that? I destroyed the city? Well collateral damage my superiors must've accounted for, otherwise they wouldn't have ordered me to do this. I did mention I was ordered to do this, right?" Cap is at least being honest with himself in this regard. I would've liked to know what effects Nats into dumping had on public opinion of the gov't and the avengers had. The public knows these organizations to be corrupt, but they know that many of the avenger s have dark pasts.
Nabriales I'm not convinced that t power level of any Avenger argues well that it would be better off in t hands of someone in government.
Nabriales You know if they are trustworthy through their actions. Saving New York from an alien invasion that threatened to wipe out humanity is good enough for me. Saving slatkovia (i dont remember its name) from ultron that threatened to wipe out humanity is just icing on the cake as well as all their other deeds.
If they want to misuse their power they can still do it within the framework of they United Nations. It’s easy to find a corrupted politician.
Exactly. Just like Cap says himself: "It's run by people with agendas and agendas change". Isn't Cap a person with agendas? I'm also pretty sure his agendas have changed throughout the movies. Cap isn't infallible just like we see in Civil war. He goes rogue on a mission he thinks is correct and while him forcing said mission, he accidentally goes into the trap that was laid by Zimo. "We might not be perfect but the safest hands are still our own." Well, apparently not!
Only if you're deluded enough to think that your view is objectively good, on a scale with an almighty god, does this make any sense.
Tony realizes that he doesn't have all the answers and need the input from several sources to make the right decision.
Tony and Black Widow also show that even though they are under the Sokovia Accords they have no qualms about breaking those rules if and when the fight requires them to.
It is also mentioned in the comics that Tony's intelligence is on a scale that he can almost calculate the future. Something that was briefly mentioned by Hawkeye in the prison scene.
"The futurist gentlemen. He sees all. He knows what's best for you whether you like it or not."
This is a throw-away line but it has a deeper meaning. In the MCU, I find it interesting that Tony and Vision, the two super-intelligent beings, agree on where they stand in this conflict.
Another line Cap agrees with is said from Peggy Carter's niece in the funeral scene. "Even if everyone tells you that something wrong is something right. Even if the whole world is telling you to move. It is your duty to plant yourself like a tree, look them in the eye and say: 'No. You move.' "
This is the absolutism shown by mentally unstable people. If *EVERYONE* tells you that you're wrong, instead of being a danger to society and humanity as a whole, question yourself and ask if you're actually correct or just deluded. If you're the *only* black sheep amongst eight billion people, don't you think that you have the slightest possibility of actually being wrong?
We're not talking about politics anymore. We're talking about psychology and philosophy. The only people that adhere to this absolutism are murderers like Breivik that thought he did the right thing while the rest of us agree that he was crazy.
I understand all of your points, because in a realistic world, corrupt UN officials and scummy politicians are gonna exist. However, the Avengers can't just stand their ground and say, "Nah, we're not going to listen to an organization made up of hundreds of huge countries." I agree with most of Cap's views, but it's dangerously arrogant to say that they can just refuse to listen to any world governments and plan everything themselves. That's not how it works. One issue I have with what Cap says about "being sent where we don't feel we should go" is that surely a the committee can't completely dictate that kind of thing. The way Cap and, well, the entire movie, present the accords is ridiculously straight forward. A thick document can't be that simple. So surely there will be some sort of safe guards, some sort of cooperation between the Avengers deciding on where to go. I don't think it's as black and white as the movie made it seem with the information they gave us, because it has to be simplified for the sake of the movie. But if this were to happen in our world, I don't think it would be as simple as "some committee tells you guys where to go and dictates everything you do without the actual group's say." I'd also think that the accords could be changed and modified within reason. A document that long probably has lots of room for improvement.
Sabrina Crowe what you just described only exists in the HISHE version of Civil War because both in real life and the Marvel movies/comics Captain America is right because of the reasons shown in this video.
The problem was that no one tried to compromise, and too many things got in the way before they could have a proper discussion about it. They had like a five minute conversation, but a genuine discussion of something of this level would take time. But I would argue the Avengers CAN do that, because there is no nation that can take them down. Tony proved he could basically do anything he wanted by Iron Man 2, getting away with hacking the TV Justin Hammer was using, standing his ground with the government, and a bunch of other shit. He is the most obvious threat to any nation that dares to oppose them. Thor and Hulk just physically could do it. Captain America, Black Widow, and Hawkeye are a bit more difficult, but they are certainly threats, given Captain America alone is... fucking terrifying. Black Widow is the best spy, and Hawkeye... Well, Im sure he could do something.
Its actually really well displayed how the governments are ineffective against anything beyond normal human level. The Winter Soldier... Well, yeah. But the point is, no one can control the Avengers through force, and governments tend to fear and hate uncontrollable elements, benevolent or not. So they tried controlling them through politics.
Police officers are responsible for protecting our laws. That doesn't mean that they have to get registered or that they must wait for green light to act when they see a crime in progress. They are allowed to act independent within the set rules.
That's all Cap want. He doesn't want the Avengers to be above the law, but he wants the right to be able to go in and do something without having to fear to get put in prison without so much as a trial for it.
And if the question is who should make the decision, Cap, who is actually there, or some committee in the background, the answer is clearly Cup. The last body I would trust a decision like this is the UN, which, as a reminder, is not a grouping of nice and democratic countries, but has a lot of dictatorships in it.
@@swanpride no that is wayyyy different. Are you serious, a cop messed up once and actendtely kills one person and the media and riots have him by the head. Police officers are treated like shit. Police officers have a ton of regulations they have to maintain. Captain America is nothing like that. To be honest the accords would make him more like a police officer. He would have to do what others tell him even if he doesnt want to, and must think about the safety of others before catching the bad guy
To be honest I would rather have a police officer with a good heart protecting me rather than captain America who seems to care less and less about others and more about himself..
The accords wanted people to "register" and when they were implemented they resulted in the government being comfortable with killing Bucky and putting the Avengers into prison without ANY due process. The Accords should not just be about controlling the Avengers, they also should be about securing their rights, and they weren't. If they had been just a rule-book, Cap would have agreed to them, but they weren't that, they were about turning the Avengers into weapons for the government to wield.
Cap is right. tony didn't try to understand why cap and team searched the quinjet and go, they tried to stop zemo.and when he understood he went there and fought them because Bucky killed his parents. But he didn't try to realize that Hydra was in control of bucks mind. It's all because he didn't hear to caps words. Overall cap was right in the movie
Captain bitchrica was morally wrong
He lied
Broke rules
Killed thousands
Captain bitchrica lied
He was morally wrong
@@human3213 wrong
@@cringekiller348 wrong
@@human3213 how many accounts you got, troll? Lol
The government feared the avengers might find out about their corruption but in real life no one can stop them
Too much freedom can lead to instability, anarchy, and confusion, a state in which everyone does as she or he chooses without regard the consequences, but too much order also lead into trouble into a state in which the people are not free to make decisions.
So neither of them are right.
Captain America is saying that since the avengers is the one with the experience and the actual powers, it should be only them who must take full responsibility and accountability for their actions. What Cap is defending is NOT absolute freedom (freedom without restraint or respinsibility). He is arguing for true freedom (freedom with restraint and responsibility)
So Captain America is at least more right than Tony Stark.
@@jeffmates1619 It is not the Avengers' fault that villains keep causing trouble, so they are not the ones who need to behold accountable for all the destructions.
Tony should behold accountable for Ultron, and not the Avengers.
🇺🇸Captain America🇺🇸
Freedom is won, not given
Governments shouldn’t control everything
............Literally nobody is saying government should control everything.....................
But fine, I'll play along.
So who should.?
But that’s the overall mindset: Let the government (or some government) take care of it and everything will be fine.
But that’s not true.
As to your question: I personally believe no one should control everything. Especially no individuals.
@@Hawaiian_Pizza_Enjoyer The government isn't an individual.... The Avengers are the avatar for 'the individual' in this scenario, and you don't seem to be holding to that as well as you claim to be
So humans aren't good enough to control things, so just let everything stay out of control.? If humans aren't good enough to responsibly control things why are you taking the side that they should be unfettered XDD
Any modern government is precisely NOT just an individual, it's many people coming together to make the most reasonable decisions they can make, in theory led to those decisions by the people they govern. Soooo do you wanna try to make a logically consistent rebuttal orrrr.... Just kinda be another 'merican who can't seem to decide if they love our country and its governance or not..?
"But that’s the overall mindset: Let the government (or some government) take care of it and everything will be fine. "
Dude.... No, it's not. You're overstating it so much you've just completely rephrased it.
Allow me to make this more direct for you, so you can stop talking to me about things nobody is saying. We both seem to agree that humans in general aren't perfect. My conclusion is thus that we should bring together large groups of people to try and figure some ish out. You.... Seem to be claiming that individuals are even more imperfect than groups and yet simultaneously that groups of people are.... More...? likely to make bad decisions.?
With that in mind, feel free to take another stab at it
It's oversight not control, government is just overseeing or supervising them in damage control. Shoot it isn't even the U.S. Government that's going to supervise them, it's the U.N. why else would they have like 177 countries sign the accords?
slipknot95maggot
I don’t really see a need for that condescending tone, but maybe you’ve had a crappy day. Though, I hope not.
So, back on topic. I think I phrased my argument poorly, since it seems like there’s been an misunderstanding. I don’t see the government as an individual. I meant that the government shouldn’t control everything *especially* not individuals. With the avengers being the individuals.
The way I see it, modern governments aren’t as democratic as they claim to be. The people with power and money are the real decision makers. The avengers, if under governmental control, would be nothing but a special police force. Following orders and maybe ,at some point , even sitting on somebody’s payroll. I agree, everybody makes mistakes because every human is flawed by nature. But I don’t believe that governmental control would change anything about that, because people on the top don’t really care about people. People should help and care for each other more directly, without someone ordering to do so because it’s their job. And an independent group of heroes is a great symbol for that. That’s my point of view at least
I always saw "civil war" as an allegory for gun control. Cap was right.
Fax
If it is, then it isnt doing a good job of it
Except in the MCU, super powers aren't widely available to the public and cause mass murder every other month...
@@bgikuya But they do save more people than it murders. Just like guns.
If it is then it works out cause I'm anti guj
Im pretty sure the main reason why tony chose what he chose was because he didn't want to be held accountable for his actions.
Nah, he wanted to have someone to keep him from creating any more catasrophes like he did with Ultron. It was never about responsibility.
@John Jaxson He literally talks about individual accountability - Steve expects to be held accountable for his mistakes, but not to be controlled in his choices.
Nope
Because heheld himself responsible captain bitchrica was the one trying to hide his crimes
Nah it's the opposite, Tony was very much racked with guilt of the fact that because of him many innocent people died in sokovia. And after hearing about Charlie, he feels even more guilty and because of that he accepts to the accords as a form of atonement for his sins.
@@cringekiller348 iron man fanboy🤡
My opinion of this situation Is the same as FEE and in the immortal word of Benjamin Parker: With great power comes great responsibility" I could never trust a political system with Authority over Avengers. But I do agree that there should be some kind of oversite of the Avengers, not sure what that would be though.
Great Video 👍
The overseers of the Avengers are the other superheroes and superhero groups who'll kick their asses if they go rogue.
Lastly they can all still be sued, and tried by courts. They don't have immunity. They do a crime they get time, like half of the heroes in the civil war movie did.
I want to back up xertris; just use existing laws to deal with these problems. Stepping up to deal with things via *existing* government agencies is also another solution.
No, I don't mean SHIELD. This is another chance to ground the fantastic with a bit of realism, to aid suspension of disbelief. There's nothing the military, let alone the police, can do about Thanos... but even without adding "supers" of their own, even without resorting to ultra-tech or magic or whatever, a properly trained and implemented military or police group should be able to *affect* most supers.
I don't just mean with brute force, either. They should be able to _think_ their way around some problems, like luring the Hulk away from densely populated areas. If protecting oneself with firearms wasn't such a controversial topic, that'd be another great solution. "Oh, you're a supervillain who wanted to start robbing people out here in flyover country? You may be tough, but are you 'buckshot to my eyes don't matter' tough?" Yeah, some supervillains *are* this tough, but the idea is that the superheroes really aren't needed *until* that point. ;)
*The overseers of the Avengers are the other superheroes and superhero groups who'll kick their asses if they go rogue.*
The other superheroes are bad overseers because they good friends with each other so it difficult to judge each other from an unbiased perspective. The only other superhero group are the Defenders and the Runaways in the MCU. Neither of them can touch the Avengers.
Well the justice league then
I do not agree with all your points but I am so glad we agree on the bigger points. Superheroes should be regulated as individuals NOT weapons. This prevents corruption from being a problem, puts them in check, and allows them to act with the maximum benefit they are able to provide and best of all puts an important barrier between civilians and the politically powerful.
What's to say that a government can't avoid seeing their assets as weapons instead of individuals? Corruption will rear its ugly head eventually.
So basically a General Ross / Bruce Banner relationship, right? lol No thanks.
Your point is why I was team Cap in the comics (Superhuman Registration Act, 50 State Initiative, arrest by "Cape Killers" and former villain hit squads, detention without trial in the negative zone), but team Tony in the movie.
In the comics, it grew from a Mutant registration law. While Tony's reasoning was technically sound, things were just too broad and the laws literally treated people as living weapons.
The MCU has a much smaller superhero community and fewer actual teams. And the only oppressed community, the Inhumans, wasn't really focused on in the law. It mainly focused on the act of being a superhero more so than simply being a person with an ability. In context, I don't disagree that a paramilitary super unit founded by SHIELD shouldn't be running violent ops in foreign civilian sectors and then throwing a damn hissy fit when the government demands oversight. Steve was actively enlisted when he went into the ice, and promptly joined SHIELD when he woke up (in Winter Soldier we see he is clearly an agent in addition to being Avengers lead). Tony kept them funded and active after the Hydra coup, but they were basically operating in a grey area.
Look at it this way- in the beginning kf Civil War, a team lead by Captain America manages to get a bunch of civilians killed on foreign soil at the hands of a war criminal who once worked with HYDRA and had once unleashed the Hulk on a civilian populace. This reflects poorly on both their team and the US, whom everyone assumes they represent. They really shouldnt be surprised that the US would push through something requiring the Secretary of State to look over their actions. Yes the last Secretary in charge of these things was a corrupt asshole, but that doesnt stop the world from turning. You fix the security leaks, you dont just say "do what you want, try not to make us not bad" to your special forces teams lol
Putting it another (shorter) way- "we can't trust the government and must be allowed to make costly mistakes without oversight because the safest hands are still our own" states United States Army Captain, former Agent of SHIELD, and field leader of SHIELD'S still active superhero combat unit. The balls on that guy lol
I think a major factor that has to be taken into account though is when Tony said "If we don't do this now, it's going to be done to us later. That's the fact. That won't be pretty." Tony doesn't just believe oversight is necessary, he believes it's inevitable, and if they don't cooperate now, the full military, political and influential power of the UN will be used to force the Avengers to bend the knee or go to prison. And there's no way the Avengers come out of that situation in one piece. The only way they could avoid capture or assassination would be not to hold back, ensuring the Avengers would be killing innocents who were just following orders. But if they were captured, they would lose all their rights and not only be prevented from aiding the world during crisis, but would be used. The powers would be researched and attempts would be made to replicate them. Not only would this result in likely torturous experiments for those involved, if it was to some degree successful, variations of the Avengers could be set loose. Imagine unstable super soldiers in Iron Man suits in service to the UN. Imagine people through experimentation accidentally creating unstable variations of the Hulk. Secretary Ross has literally already attempted this before he had all the power he does now. Imagine the world getting its hands on Vision's Mindstone. The prison used to hold the Avengers in CW is called the Raft. In the Netflix series, it is explained that the Raft holds people indefinitely and there is no visitation, or any public knowledge of what happens inside. New York showed the world the need for the Avengers. SHIELD tried to create an arsenal with the Tesseract. An empowered UN Special Forces would likely be attempted. And all of this is just the tip of the iceberg. Coming peacefully and maintaining a degree of control over the direction of the Avengers and also holding on to high public opinion could prevent the world from descending into chaos.
Also, I think some people assume that Tony is overwhelmed by guilt and letting it rule his decisions, and also assume that Tony is really the only one capable of causing drastic impact on the world around him spontaneously, whereas the rest of the team react to external threats. It's worth keeping in mind that Steve Rogers, ripped apart the most powerful military institution on the planet and physically he's just a super soldier. The Avengers are incredibly volatile and can be the source for worldwide revolutionary change, potentially violent change. I'm actually team Cap, but I feel Tony's position can get oversimplified.
Thank you! People don't really consider the alternative from Tony's side: either they sign, or they retire (implying death, imprisonment, possible torture and Avengers-level threats running amok). Tony attempted to act as a mediator between the Avengers and the UN (yes, partially driven by guilt) due to being the one that, ironically, could see the bigger picture despite his own emotional problems.
My opinion? Both had valid points, and both could've compromised had it not been for the UN.
There was a video I saw going through all the legal errors in the Sokovia Accords, it was actually kind of hilarious just how impossible it really is.
"Thor, Hulk, Cptn. Marvel, you now work for the government."
Hmmm, wonder how it would turn out.
Carol Danvers would probably threaten to rip his arm off. 😂
Thor would probably just laugh and peace out. Hulk would be in his Banner form, and probably peace out too because he knows if he can't control the Hulk, the government certainly wouldn't be able to. As for Danvers, she's an air force brat, she'd sign up with a smile on her face and would probably be the first one to incite violence against Cap's side for being technically criminals.
They're both right, having no limitations, control and no consequences lead to recklessness, avoidable mistakes and casualties. But giving power to those who will have biases will cause misuse of power as orders would be absolute, the "right thing" will be based on perspectives which can be from corrupt political power not what is necessary.
Exactly. Superheroes creating more damage than needed will be a problem, but the only people who KNOW superheroes are well, superheroes.
At the same time, both sides caused extreme casualties, so to an extent they are both wrong.
I think some regulation would be fine for superheroes, but honestly I don't think legal powers can stop an indestructible man flying through the skies anyways.
@@emmytweetie2177 If he has a family, yes they can XD
Every man has four choices.
1. Be a good man, make your own decisions, love your neighbor, and strive to do what is right and good, even if you fuck it up some times. Being accountable to YOUR higher standard and/or to god.
2. Be a selfish man, make your own decisions, love only yourself, using your potential and power for personal gain, rather than for the sake of others. Being accountable only to the letter of the law.
3. Be an empty man, become a slave to your desires, love nothing and no one, use your power to satisfy your cravings, with no regard for anyone else. Being accountable to no one.
4. Be a puppet, let others make decisions for you, love is irrelevant just do what you are told, become a tool in the hands of others, give them your power and watch helplessly as they wield it however they wish. being accountable to men who are at best honest and fallible, while at worst being totally corrupt and evil.
I choose option one, so did Cap. I have a higher standard I hold myself to, and I believe that some day I will have to give an account to God. Those factors give me strength of character and that strength keeps me from being corrupted by my own power. Because power by its very nature corrupts, and we must have the strength to resist that corruption to truly wield power. Which is why if power COMES to a man, he grows, if he is not strong enough already he matures in order to master it (almost as though power is a natural stimulant for character growth). But those who actively SEEK power have a high chance of becoming corrupt, because more often than not, they are not yet strong enough to master the power they gain (like drugs used to increase character growth but at the same time they damage a man's character on a fundamental level). Power must be wielded, again by its very nature, but to wield it without mastery of it is to open yourself up to corruption.
I with you on this one! Steve Rogers is my favorite character from Marvel (along with Sam and Bucky), and I would rather be a GOOD PERSON than PERFECT SLAVE. It's also because I'm a Christian.
Alan Grant has the best way to describe where Team Iron Man is coming from; "Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions."
Basically; "The Road to Hell is paved in good intentions . . ."
That’s funny, since I was going to use that exact quote to explain why government control is bad...
"I don't care. He killed my mom"
I find it hilarious that Tony is so willing to ignore any context and goes right for bloody vengeance, where if it was him, being brain washed and controlled to do awful acts against his will, 3 movies wouldn't be able to cover his self pitying and righteous indignation.
"I don't care. He killed my mom" and Ultron, who he created of his own free will, killed how many people?
Sophia V I mean he didn’t create Ultron and also I feel like that’s a perfectly normal reaction. You spend most your life thinking that your fathers drunk driving killed your mother, only to find out they were killed and that the killer is in the room. I’m pretty sure all my reason and rhyme would go out the window in that situation also he didn’t even try to kill them
@@byakugan2173he literally blamed himself for Slovakia, that is literally why he chose the accords, not to mention under the circumstances, most people would throw their reasoning out of the window
Tbh, I thought tony saying that made sense. Because as human beings, we tend to get angry and frustrated when things are unfair. Say one of your best friend died because some guy sprayed his brain. You have a chance to kill him, would you? Its honestly a normal human reaction, because in the world people want balance. Everything has to do with balance. And I can see some flaws to doing a revenge thing, like how it won't change anything. But it does make you feel better. In some CASE.
That's another problem. Tony doesn't care if anyone dies. He just wants revenge
Thanks for the knowledge of what happend to Përú with the UN supporting it
now i know to not trust them
Even worse now
but thanks regardless Cheers
I used to be firmly on Team Cap. I think Tony’s view is more, we need accountability. Which I understand. Question is, how can the Govt. be trusted to keep The Avengers accountable. I think Natasha was right, as in she saw the need for accountability on one hand, but let Cap and Bucky leave the airport when she had the chance, standing by her friends.
I agree. No goverments, no UN, because it's safe to assume politicians are corrupt. But.. then who? Who controls the heroes? I can't figure this out. The checks and balances need to be 1. powerful 2. Morally right. Any other entities, and they're too weak to enforce and punish, if the heroes cross the line. It's easy to point out the problem but always harder to find the solution.
The problem in general is that the government doesn't create checks and balances, but rather would use superheroes as tools to their own ends.
Government *could* be a check, by upholding the rule of law even in the context of super-powered individuals - ie. making them liable for reckless behavior, damage to property, excess use of force, etc. - and trying them through the courts as necessary.
Another check on their power is and should be *other* superheroes.
Ultimately though, I think in reality it would be hard to imagine a world of people with dramatically larger physical powers where many of those people didn't use their power to dominate. Often they may even have benevolent intentions, but the result would be the same.
In the enew episode I'm working on now, I'm talking about the principles that we need to have as individuals in order to do better than that.
Out of context I completely agree: governments are generally too corrupt to be trusted. But Tony doesn't make his decision out of context. Ultron, Sokovia.. too many mistakes were made. There have to be consequences for those mistakes. A good deed doesn't negate the consequences of bad deeds, even when those deeds were committed with the best of intentions.
Spiral Feather
Then HE should suffer consequences because Ultron and Sokovia were directly Tony’s (and Bruce’s) fault. Individuals who go rogue should be held accountable, not everyone around them just because others continuously make mistakes. Tony, from his first movie, has shied away from responsibility and accountability. Not completely, but enough. It took him being kidnapped, being held hostage for months, tortured, almost killed and watching a new friend die for him to finally realize his weapons were a problem... and as pointed out HE made the decision to shut it down. If it was up to the government, the UN, they would’ve wanted him to continue his weapons manufacturing.
Tony agreed to the Accords because he didn’t want to deal with the guilt and responsibilities that came from all the lives lost in Sokovia, due to him and his need to “protect”. He fobbed it off to people with greater political prowess... which is EXACTLY what he always did with his company - fobbed it off to Pepper while he went off to play and tinker. This is not a new habit, it’s just larger in scale. And as shown in the previous movies he gets frustrated when Steve doesn’t fall in line with his way of thinking and picks a fight. Again, Civil War is just larger in scale.
Tony is incredibly brilliant, there’s no doubt. But to take a quote from Jurassic Park, “your scientists were too busy thinking about whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should”. I think this quote applies to Tony quite a bit. He’s too focused on the hypotheticals, his intellect and his capabilities to recognise that he goes too far sometimes. And as the proverbial “scientist” it’s not his job to clean up after himself, but the people higher up that he works for: Jurassic Park scientists worked for Hammond, and Tony would prefer to work under the UN because it allows him a safety net.
Stark would throw the better party but I concur with Cap's politics.
wow that was one of the best vide
os i ever seen in my life , can you pleade do a video about who is right in Injustice 2 (videogame) from DC , Superman or Batman ?
I’m always on Tony’s side. Because of the damage and the fights half of the universe was wiped out. We gotta remember Tony knows what a fraction of Thanos army looks like (he saw in avengers 1) and was traumatized therefore created a contingency plan, ultron (we all know how that went) even if it was a mistake Cap never suggested an alternative (everyone just stayed in the sidelines) as a result they faced Thanos in a inconsistent front leading to defeat and the only reason they won was because of Starks invention of time and ultimate sacrifice. A so called anti-hero, narcissistic playboy ended up saving the entire universe even though he had a daughter and had achieved full happiness.
He was right at the beginning but when tony tried to kill bucky for being mind controlled into things he couldnt control and when he was willing to hurt his friend to do so. THATS when iron man was wrong. Overall it was a captain america movie so captain america was in the end portrayed as right.
How are the government intervening going to cause less casualties when a giant alien army is trying to take over a city.
The correct answer is that neither of them were right because both of them took their ideal too far.
In the case of Iron Man, he naively assumed that the power he was willing to surrender over the Avengers could be renegotiated at a later date. This is totally asinine as he utterly fails to realize that once a government gets power, it NEVER surrenders it willingly. Tony fails to realize pretty much everything the video talks about: that government is corrupt, the United Nations is completely worthless and private initiative is essential for the success of society.
However, Captain America also makes two large mistakes which I feel the video overlooks. The first is that he flatly rejects all oversight in any form. He completely ignores two fundamental truths about both Freedom and Justice: Man must be governed; and Power corrupts. To the first, Cap forgets that He has no authority to do what he is doing--essentially he is acting as a rogue governing body; doing what he believes is best in any given situation and the "governed" are expected to be grateful. This is ironic because Captain America is supposed to represent America whose founding principle is that government derives its powers from the CONSENT of the governed. By application, if any particular nation doesn't want the Avengers around, the team is obligated to respect that.
As for the second point, Steve forgets that freedom only works if power is restricted. His admission of fallibility means that someone--perhaps someone with a more objective viewpoint--should be double-checking his work. This is another example of "unicorn government." Captain America's best intentions cannot account for the deaths caused by his unilateral decisions: deaths which might have been avoided had more people be involved.
The second mistake Captain America makes is when he actually showcases Tony to be right, in a way, at the end of the movie. The Winter Soldier ABSOLUTELY deserves to be incarcerated for what he's done. There is no question about the law here and the law exists for the protection of the people. Yet, Captain America defies all law, openly abuses his freedom and endangers who-knows-how-many people by fighting to defend Bucky and maintain his freedom. It is just that cavalier attitude--the arrogance of "might makes right"--that makes the Sokovia Accords look inviting.
The truth is that there should have been a balance. As the video states, the Avengers need to be subject to the law--but as individuals; not as an entity of the United Nations. The Avengers in that case would be kind of a mercenary group, of sorts: a professional and highly powerful team that can be called upon for select missions but who also act on their own within certain parameters. They are not under the control of a governing body; they are their own corporation and can seek self-interest so long as they respect the laws and customs of the nations they operate within.
Instead, both Captain America and Iron Man allowed their blindness, emotion, arrogance and self-righteousness set them on a path to conflict. This, more than anything, is the real lesson of Captain America: Civil War.
Civil wars always start when both sides see only where they are right and remain blind to where they are wrong.
I disagree that Captain America made any mistakes. First off, he knew that oversight, in any form, would leave the Avengers completely ineffective at doing their jobs and he was proven right by Infinity War. Because of the accords, neither he nor any of the rogue Avengers were around to prevent the children of Thanos from taking Iron Man, Dr. Strange, and Spider-Man off of the earth. He also knew that restricting their power left them totally unprepared for Thanos himself which is why they failed to stop him from getting the final infinity stone and killing half of the universe. Second, Cap knew that Bucky didn't set off the bomb at the UN embassy even before Tony found evidence that supports Cap's theory. Even when Tony tried to present this evidence, Secretary Ross ignored it and threatened to have Tony locked up which just shows that not even the government can be trusted. Even if Cap agreed to let Bucky be incarcerated for the other crimes he did do, the courts will declare him not guilty by mental disease or defect.
Cap wasn't blind, emotional, arrogant, or self-righteous in any way but I will say that his attachment to Bucky did escalate the conflict between him and Iron Man.
"Oversight in any form."
Government is oversight and Men--even good Men--must be governed. The entire premise of the United States is based upon the BALANCE of power. A team of super-powered beings have no balance which means that, as Tony said in the movie: "If we can't accepted limitations, we're no better than the bad guys."
"Because of the accords, neither he nor any of the rogue Avengers were around"
I haven't seen Infinity War yet but you are arguing from a point of practical effect rather than moral principle. The problem with such an argument is twofold. First, it's basically just conjecture because every decision is subject to the Butterfly Effect. If the Avengers had stayed together under Cap's vision for the team, then Thanos would have approached the situation differently. OR it is conceivable that they would have been torn apart by other factors or would have become the very thing Tony predicted--the bad guys. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The second problem with this argument is that the same can be said of Captain America. You assert that the Sokovia Accords caused the Avengers to fracture and they were not able to defend the planet as they could have otherwise. But the argument to that is that if Cap and his team had submitted to the Sokovia Accords, then the team wouldn't have been fractured and we are back to square one: both Iron Man and Captain America were wrong because they placed their own convictions above the good of the team.
"Second, Cap knew that Bucky didn't set off the bomb at the UN embassy..."
First, this is simply not true. Cap didn't KNOW that Bucky was innocent. He suspected that Bucky was innocent but even in the movie he was prepared to bring Bucky in if he had been responsible. In real life, there is no way one could "know" such a thing. Cap was right to stand up for the rights of his friend--a speedy and public trial--and the government and Black Panther were wrong to seek Bucky's death without trial first. But that is actually why the government and Black Panther (both well-meaning in this situation) need to have accountability. The same thing that Captain America rejected for himself.
And that brings me to the next problem with this statement: pretty much ALL superheroes are tyrants. They do what they do because they can and no one can stop them. That they are benevolent tyrants is irrelevant. Government--that body whose purpose is to defend the innocent and destroy the wicked-- "derives its just powers from the consent of the governed." Well...who "consented" to having Captain America show up and bash people into unconsciousness with a magical shield? Who consented to Black Panther violating a nation's borders to assassinate a political dissident from his home country? Who consented to Iron Man flying around the world blowing up equipment and endangering civilians in active war zones?
These people--on both sides--have ZERO authority to do what they do. Yes, we all like superhero movies but like any fictional experience, we suspend disbelief in order to enjoy it. The reality is that if super-powered beings actually existed, we would ABSOLUTELY need to have a means of restricting their power. And Captain America's abject lawlessness actually demonstrates why. How much damage did his behavior cause? How many people were hurt just in the chase scene in Germany? How many people COULD have been hurt?
As I said before: Men must be governed. Good men require less government than others--hence why Tony just giving over complete control of the Avengers to the UN was really stupid--but even good men can be corrupted. Accepting accountability is the mark of a mature individual who understands that even his greatest intentions can meet with disastrous ends. And Cap should know this because of his experience in Captain America: The Winter Soldier. SHIELD had no oversight and, as a result, HYDRA was able to infiltrate them and turn their good intentions into a catastrophe. There's an old proverb which states "In a multitude of counselors there is safety." Even the most well-meaning, best-intentioned people can make mistakes. Oversight and accountability simply means more people are looking at the problem and can see it from a different perspective than a select few.
"...which just shows that not even the government can be trusted..."
I would never disagree with such a sentiment. That was why Tony was wrong. One of the most cringe-worthy statement he makes in the movie is when he tells Cap that the accords "can be amended" and that they just need to sign it "as is" right now to get trust back. Like...what da freaking heck is that naivete? When has government EVER willingly given up power? The idea that the Avengers would just sign away ALL of their rights to an international body of bureaucrats is completely asinine.
"Even if Cap agreed to let Bucky be incarcerated for the other crimes he did do, the courts will declare him not guilty by mental disease or defect."
This actually completely countermands your argument. If the courts would have let Bucky go anyway, then everything Cap did was pointless. Because Bucky would have been safer in the hands of government agents.
"Cap wasn't blind, emotional, arrogant, or self-righteous in any way..."
The only difference between superheroes and super villains is who they work for. In the case of superheroes, they work to serve the people; to keep people safe and to uphold the ideals of Truth, Justice and Liberty. In the case of super villains, they work to serve themselves, their own goals or some tyrannical notion of order and control.
In Captain America: Civil War, BOTH Iron Man and Captain America are super villains. That's the brilliance of the movie. Iron Man was not motivated by the people but by his own personal guilt. Captain America was not motivated by some sense of justice but by his friendship to Bucky. Had that woman not confronted Tony or had the government been after a different target than Steve's personal friend, neither one of them would have done what they did. Approaching the situation logically and reasonably, both Tony and Steve should have sat down and discussed how the Avengers could do better. This would have led both of them to conclude the following:
1) The Avengers need some oversight. Not complete control handed over to someone else but they do need some peer reviews.
2) The United Nations is NOT going to be the one to do that. Instead, the Avengers will partner with individual nations to garner their support and set the boundaries for the Avengers' power and authority.
3) The Avengers themselves need a governing document: a Constitution which outlines their responsibilities, their powers and their relationships to one another.
We both already agree on everything Iron Man did wrong so I won't waste time reviewing that but with Captain America, he was blinded by his own loyalty to Bucky (which you admit) and his arrogant self-righteousness. Captain America rejected the same oversight that he proposed himself to be because he believed he didn't need that oversight. That is the very definition of arrogance and self-righteousness. Captain America placed himself in a position in which he sought his own goals and was willing to defy the principles of Truth (he lied to Tony about Bucky) Justice (he defied law-enforcement and the just powers of the rule of law) and Liberty (he placed unknown numbers of people in danger by his behavior) in order to accomplish those goals.
John Babylon I think at the end of it they were both right and both wrong. The avengers need someone to be accountable to for whatever wrong the commit. But they need to be able to choose and honestly it should be via their own democratic system where each avenger votes whether or not to pursue an angle
Exactly. Both had good points; both I think wanted to do what was right but--blinded by their own arrogance--pursued what eventually destroyed the team. Power is, after all, a matter of balance. They shouldn't be completely free to do whatever they want nor should they be treated like unthinking resources to be called upon only when some bureaucrat thinks it necessary.
this video was one side for the most part.
Team cap all the way innocence until proven guilty and keep the people free
so who takes the responsability about their actions?
@@misterragger2389 the people who r actually responsible.......in this case the Hydra guys or who actually controlled Bucky ....
@@drasticgamerstv1025 what about their acts at the start of the film? what about the fight between each other? what about everything that thor caused in his films? what about the destruction that was caused by Stark's inventions?
There are so much destruction linked to those guys, and having them controlled by the UN is just necessary. You cannot just make a balance between what they did right and what they didn't.
@@misterragger2389 if they hadn't taken a stand against attacks entire country would've been to ashes but now at least 80% is saved ...jus like cap says, we can't save everyone ....but if un controls them I'm sure as hell they'll not let avengers save the planet but use them to start unnecessary wars or use them for stupid things instead of actual things...n Thor wouldn't accept the accords he would jus be like...fuck u guys I'm going to Asgard
@@drasticgamerstv1025 I'm going with you.
Personally, I choose the side where I just watch on the sidelines and talk about how idiotic everyone is
The problem is that your debunking for Iron Man's side could be used for Cap's side. People are always fallible, so won't putting decisions in as many views as possible would be better, right?
For all the demand for transparency, honesty and personal accountability, Rogers still failed to inform Stark that Barnes murdered his parents.
Yes, Hydra controlled him, but hiding this truth was not right of Cap, as Tony ultjmately acknowledged that the UN was wrong.
I think he would have told him eventually, but they were in the middle of a crisis, it wasn't the time. Especially when Stark was pretty much the man guy causing the crisis.
If Cappy told him that Bucky killed his parents, that would have been a lie. If he had told him that Hydra killed his parents, that would have been the truth.
Ramsey Kagak that wordplay wasn’t clever, and it wasn’t correct either
REDPILL IMPERATIVE you do realise that Steve never knew. The only thing that he was told that hinted that the starks didn’t die in an accident was from a computer HYDRA/Nazi scientist who was canonically stalling. Steve had no reason to believe him.
Umm... According to me hiding a truth that could save someone's life is good.
Bucky was mind controlled so he is not guilty for the murder of iron-man's parents.
Captain was waiting for the right time to tell the truth.
Most of the times captain makes right decision so captain was right in civil war.
I'm not saying the accords are a particularly good solution, but I think there is something important that people are missing. You point out that consolidating power is often dangerous, but the Avengers are already very consolidated. They're one of the most powerful forces on the planet, and when they are beholden to only themselves, that means their power is consolidated to about 6-10 people depending on which Avengers are currently active. The Avengers represent massive power controlled by a mere handful of people.
Here is why we are OK with the Avengers: we know them. We've seen their movies, so we know that even though they make mistakes, they have our best interests at heart. We know they are good people. However, imagine if we didn't know them. We've got a playboy billionaire former weapon developer, two former members of the corrupt agency SHIELD, an actual green monster who is barely under control, a robot created by a Ultron, and a scary red witch lady who first appeared as a villain. From this perspective, the only trustworthy characters are Cap and Thor, and Thor isn't even around most of the time.
The UN doesn't have a good track record, but neither does the Avengers, honestly. They saved New York, which was good, but doesn't actually say much about their character as even a villain would likely try to prevent the planet being conquered. They chased down some Hydra dudes, but it's not clear if the public even knows about that. Finally, one of their members made an evil robot and the ensuing chaos resulted in a massive and destructive battle between Hulk and Ironman in Hong Kong, as well as incredible destruction an fatalities in Sokovia, where an entire city was destroyed. While it wasn't intentional, that entire Ultron debacle was the Avengers' fault, and probably wouldn't have happened if they had oversight.
I'm just saying, we know far more about the Avengers than the average citizen of the MCU. They have reason to be afraid.
Um, no, people do know who most of the Avengers are. Who in MCU doesn't know Tony Stark, Spiderman and Captain America and what their intentions are? They are generally seen as hero's. Do bad things happen? Sure, and all of that was addressed in the video.
If the government that exists in MCU got wind of Ultron, they would have funded it and asked for an exclusive contract for it. "Wouldn't have happened" Government that played with a stone to harness its power and created Abomination, and wanted to nuke Manhattan. Are you serious? Stop riding that unicorn.
@@uni4rm I was almost going to continue this discussion with you, but then you lost me at the end with your uncalled-for disrespect. You're not worth the time a lengthy response requires. Ciao.
Thor is one of the Avengers i as an ignorant bystander would trust the least. He's from a different planet...
@@TheWildmanden That's a good point. I'm just saying we don't have a particular reason to distrust him, unlike most of the Avengers.
Well his brother tried to conquer Earth, so i wouldn't be comfortable with having that particular sort of aliens around
The choices of Cap and Iron man can be discussed and yeah Cap have a very good point for not trusting governments, but I actually want to discuss what Cap did in the movie events where he was constantly making it worse to ONLY save his friend.
The situation was already at it’s worst. He couldn’t trust anyone on the governments side because they’d already shown they weren’t willing to abide by the rules they set. The kill squad that Ross sent on Bucky effectively removed his right to due process. After they were arrested after the highway scene Cap asks for a lawyer for Bucky but is denied, which makes it more clear that the government were not trying to play ball. Almost everything Cap does in this movie is in reaction to someone whose already made the situation as worse as it can get
@@icegodsavior8885 And that's why I don't get people overrating Iron-man's side.
Who the hell would trust the government for something like that.
Steve didn't start it. Tony did when he ambushed the others with the accords and tried to trick them into signing by ignoring all their criticisms.
Yo, you touched on topics that’s way beyond superhero talk and I appreciate you for that lol fr ❤️
My sweet dose of libertarism (which is hard to find in France, as you can guess). Thanks !
Liberty is everywhere! But sadly the political tyrants attack it for personal gain.
Philippines represent!
Hey, you can always roll out the old guillotines again!
_viva la revolution!_
as an american, I do wish we had your health care
we got 45000 who die cause they cant afford treatment
and 300000 that go bankrupt.
The thing is that government subsidies tend to artificially inflate prices. One thing to keep in mind is that a universal health care system is VERY taxing and allow either direct government of medicine (even more-so than it is with the FDA) and/or ridiculously high expenses. Don't believe me on that last part? Just look at the rate at which college is getting more expensive and how that figure eclipses inflation, causing the government to raise the amount of federal student aid just so they can keep the college population growing (something that isn't necessarily a good thing either). Put simply, the only forms of government support that I endorse are UBIs (only after trial, however) and universal tax credits.
The problem is we all have a personal connection to the characters in this film which blinds us to the real issues at stake. I imagine the majority of people will agree with Captain America in the film but that's mostly because the film makers wanted that as it was his film after all.
However imagine if you lived in this world. The Avengers regularly made use of the Hulk who has caused tons of damage, especially in Age of Ultron where he got mind controlled. That's the equivalent of North Korea capturing a US nuke. Suddenly this powerful weapon which was protecting us is now being used as a threat against us.
Spiderman in homecoming took a piece of alien tech he knew nothing about, gave it to his friend to the washington monument which then blew up almost killing them all. He also got in the way of an FBI sting operation and almost sank a vessel, only being saved by Iron Man. Iron Man had told him to stay out of it yet Spiderman was arrogant enough to try and stop it all himself.
This is what the avengers are, a group of people under nobodies control. They are expecting the governments to trust them to make the right calls and protect the world when in films like Age of Ultron and Civil War they have shown that they don't make the right decisions.
Steve Rodgers may also be a morally just man, but what happens when he dies, who takes over the avengers? Will they still have the same morals as Steve Rodgers? Probably not which means the avengers agenda would change after Steve Rodgers is gone.
The Sokovia Accords didn't simply put the UN directly in charge of the Avengers, it was the beginning of a discussion which Cap could have affected to reach a fair compromise but he outright refused. In the comics Tony gained control over shield after Cap surrendered and he began training and registering super heroes so that there was a standard to being a superhero. It also meant the heroes governed themselves but Tony was also able to keep the peace with the government. A similar compromise could have been made in the MCU with Cap running missions and Tony being the ambassador for the Avengers making sure the political implications of their actions were cleared while still remaining somewhat independent.
There id no points in the accords even if they turned bad what would they do ? Sending policemen at their home ? Trying to stop them would be a waste of time money and lifes
You make EXCELLENT points, but you neglect to remember the context. Cap WAS willing to accept restraints and even sign the accords... But he didn't trust them, and rightfully so. Tony was blinded by guilt, and was willing to accept ANY deal. He said so himself. The accords would have signed their individual rights away, future negotiation was a joke. Once they signed, the Avengers HAD NOTHING TO BARGAIN WITH. What they SHOULD have done, was stand together as a group and say NO to the accords, but open up negotiations with the UN to protect the interests of the Avengers. Make a new accord, on THEIR TERMS.
The problem with Tony isn't his argument. It's that he's blinded by guilt over Sokovia, and rightfully so. If not for him, 177 people would still be alive... Every death caused by Ultron was 100% on him. Honestly, he should have been tried for manslaughter. Given Ultron was its own being that made its own choices, Tony might have gotten off, but that's splitting hairs... The Tony Stark from Ironman 1 & 2 would have stood by Cap. The Tony Stark in Civil War was a broken man...
I think it didn't matter whether or not was Hulk under the government supervision. He would still be causing those damage under Wanda's mind control, right?
Edit: And about Spiderman, I get what you mean and I agree. But I don't think we can include him in the Avengers yet. Even Tony himself already told Peter many times not to meddle
@@chalidaulia9933
It was the government who created the Hulk in the first place. By all accounts, they should be held accountable for the damages he caused along with firing a nuclear missile at a populated city and allowing a Nazi organization to infiltrate their own institutions.
The governments caused more damage than the Avengers ever did.
Toa Tahu ok first of all yes they should have reached a compromise but Tony didn’t agree to the accords because of the guilt he agreed because him and the others believed they needed to be kept in check. As for ultron WANDA was the one to use her period blood magic to clout his judgment to create ultron, so she’s the one that honestly deserves to be tried for man slaughter and is the reason Bruce disappeared. If it wasn’t for her stupid ass age of ultron would have never happened because tony wouldn’t have done something right to create the AI in the first place. Your point about Cap May be right but you literally can’t blame tony for ultron when it’s all Wanda’s fault, hence why she was an antagonist to begin with(this isn’t be supporting stark necessarily it’s just telling truth about who the real murderer is aka Wanda)
Possibly your best yet. Concise with great examples. Keep up the good work.
I'm with cap on the Sokovia thing, but with Iron Man with Bucky, you can't just take an inmate and fly away. There are ways to do things, rules.
and those rules weren't beign followed for Bucky and US citizen
Stark was not in the right mind, he has always been a troubled person. His vision of the world is a good one but the problem is the way to execute it. There is most definitely a need for some regulation, however, Tony knows that he's going about it incorrectly. It's his personal faults that hold him back, we've seen him grapple with all these different issues and Superior Iron Man is probably his worst nightmare. Emotionally, hes broken, what he needs is redemption and I'm sure it's coming in Avengers 4.
Goddamn were you right
I felt like oversight advocacy was completely out of character for Tony.
Xandros999
Apparently this is the stand he took in the comics? But even further? I don’t really know, I’m not a comic person. Anyway, I think it fits pretty well in a way actually.
His whole character arc is about accountability. He said “We need to be put in check, whatever form that takes in game.”
Very good video, also bare in mind Cap wasn't completely opposed to working with the government if there were rules in place to protect private citizens but when he saw Tony's behaviour he backed out completely.
He was a criminal trying to cover
Up his crimes
Nothing more
Don’t forget that the secretary Who proposed (strong armed) the avengers with the Sokovia Accords is the same guy Who hunted the hulk for years.
Quite destructively and recklessly too.
@@FEEonline So the people Who cause heroes undue hardship are the ones telling them how to use their abilities? Art really does imitate real life sometimes.
Even though I love Iron Man WAY more than Cap, Cap does have the right idea here. The decision of their power usage should be on them, not the government.
4:00
Avengers 1. Gov’t tries to nuke NYC; Avengers put nuke inside space portal thing. Nuking the largest city in the US isn’t really doing much to reduce civilian casualties. That’s what, 10 million civilians dead in exchange for a few hundred aliens?
5:00
“A camel is a horse designed by a committee.”
Shield council isn't the government
Tony Stark is a textbook leftist. "I made some bad decisions and caused some problems, now everyone must be brought under heel and prevented from making my bad choices, even if they have shown a tendency to make good choices, historically."
People on the left have been on the right side of history more than the right in America.
@@xljoush With the exception of the last action in Iraq and Afghanistan, every war or major military action in US history started during a Democratic Presidency or was literally started by Democrats.
The Left is the wing of Eugenics, Union corruption, and "safety net" programs that reward defeatism.
@@CasualNotice The right/ conservatives are the wing of slavery, KKK, denying woman rights, Jim Crow laws, you guys blocked desegregation of the military based on race, sex, and sexuality; opposed interracial marriage; opposed same-sex marriage; opposed contraceptives; supported child labor; opposed the National Park System; opposed seat belts and airbags in cars as well as higher fuel efficiency standards; opposed expanding the voting franchise to women, African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, the poor, and 18-year-olds; opposed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), etc.
I've been with Cap from the beginning