if you are for what is known as or what is termed as the social contract put a one in the room and then let me ask you this what is your understanding of what the social contract is i never first of all i never signed a social contract don't you need two parties to sign and agree what is the agreed upon contract number one uh does the contract that this social contract that everybody is supposed to implicitly agree to does it change who changes it what are the terms what are the definitions who applies the rules if there are rules my understanding is that it's kind of an implicit agreement among the members of society to cooperate for social benefits from what i understand by sacrificing some individual freedoms for state protection is that how you guys understand the social contract because if that's truly what it is i'm not down with that i i agree with what benjamin franklin supposedly said that if you give up a little essential liberty to obtain in this case and in all cases politically promised security because let's face it that's where the promise comes from comes from the politicians then you deserve deserve neither liberty nor security apparently it's a moral and political philosophy where the social contract is this theory or this model that originated during the age of enlightenment and usually concerns the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual is there legitimate authority to the state if there is what is the state because i thought the state which bastiat describes as you know that great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else i thought the state was made up of people and if the state is made up of people and this is just my thought okay because i and the reason i want to talk about this is because i've spent a lot of time in the last i don't know half a day or so looking at some of the comments under my here's the deal channel on this video right here entitled you're a total loser tyrant your family should be embarrassed and this is uh this is chili chili runs the youtube channel delete laws and some people are asking questions about the social contract my understand with my understanding of the social contract and i'm willing to admit that my understanding could be deficient but with my understanding of the social contract that there's legitimacy to state power that the the state has a legitimate authority over the individual and that cooperative members of the society sacrifice some form of individual freedom for state protection if that truly is what the social contract is i'm i'm not a taker i'm not a buyer of that so what i would like to do and there was some there were some ugly comments under this video and you know what i want to do is first of all we we are all like pencils we all need to be sharpened okay and as iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens the integrity and character and countenance of his friend so in that spirit i just want to say i would like to come to the bargaining table or you know the table of fellowship actually and just talk about these things because none of us is greater than all of us and i would like to discuss the social contract and what i was thinking about doing is maybe getting chilly on a live stream because again none of us is greater than all of us chile doesn't know everything i don't know everything you don't know everything but all of us together can really come to some kind of understanding but what the understanding needs to rest on what it needs to really pivot on is strengthening freedoms of individuals not giving them away for something that sounds good like william pitt the younger said necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedoms it's the argument of tyrants and it truly is it's the creed of slaves and it truly is because the slaves want the tyrants to protect them and the tyrants don't come and say i'm gonna rule over you they say we're gonna protect you a tyrant that's worth his salt and deception is not gonna come and say i'm gonna i'm gonna i'm gonna rule over you with an iron fist he goes i am gonna protect you we're going to create some programs so that we can help the least among us that's what tyrants do so it doesn't matter really what tyrants say because you can always expect that they lie to you but back to this social contract is it legitimate is it legitimate this that the state should have power over the individual so that we can have an organized peaceful society think about it we're going to give a few people the power to harass steal from cage and kill the rest of us so that they can protect us from other people who are threatening to harass steal from and kill us it doesn't even make any sense and like lysander spooner said because we get back to the constitution i'm on board with what benjamin franklin said but but if you give up a little essential liberty to obtain politically promised security you deserve neither liberty nor security and i'm on board with what lysander spooner said he said whatever the constitution is whatever it is this must much is certain it's either authorized such a tyrannical government as we currently have and it gets worse and worse by the day or it's been powerless to stop it in either case it's unfit to exist and then somebody i can't remember who the person was i think it was yeah it was axiom axiom uh threw some through some knowledge my way and said that there's this case called baron versus baltimore in barron versus baltimore the supreme court ruled unanimously that the state can actually actually exercise authority over you and take away your rights supposedly given to you by the constitution it's a landmark united states supreme court's case in 1933 which helped define the concept of federalism in the united states constitutional law the court ruled that the bill of rights did not apply to state governments establishing a president until the ratification of the 14th amendment if you read the 14th amendment amendment to the constitution it doesn't talk anywhere in there about your rights but it does speak about privileges wait a second i thought we had inalienable rights not grant state granted privileges i got a real problem with the 14th 14th amendment and i think any liberty lover would have a problem with the 14th amendment but i think that what's key here in this baron versus baltimore is that and just to give you a little bit of background it's kind of a it's kind of a little interesting thing this happened in 1833 it's kind of interesting what happened to this guy the city of baltimore maryland initiated a public works project that involved the modification of several streams that emptied into baltimore harbor city construction resulted in large amounts of sediment being deposited into the streams which then emptied into the harbor near a profitable wharf owned by owned and operated by a guy named john barron the material settled into the water near the wharf decreasing the depth of the water to a point where it was nearly impossible for ships to approach it as it was no longer easily accessible for ships the business's profitability declined substantially baron sued the city of baltimore for losses urging that he was deprived of his property without the due process afforded to him by the fifth amendment now the fifth amendment is in the constitution and so basically he's appealing to the freedoms of for supposedly afforded to him by the constitution of the united states so that you can have life liberty property the pursuit of happiness baron was initially rewarded 4 500 and that's a lot of money back in 1833 in compensation by the trial courts but a maryland appellate court reversed that decision the supreme court heard the arguments on the case on february 8th through 11th and decided on february 16th 1833 it held that check this out this is this is so opposite of the way you would think it's supposed to be because the constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land it held that the bill of rights such as the fifth amendment's guarantee of just compensate compensation for takings of private property for public use are restrictions on the federal government alone writing for unanimous court chief justice this is john marshall held that the first 10 amendments contained no expression indicating an intention to apply them to state governments the court cannot apply them in other words the state has every right to violate your natural rights the state has the power to take away your inalienable rights and literally just trample them the state he's saying has every right to tell you sorry we don't we don't recognize your right to keep embarrassing shall not be in french we're going to go ahead and infringe them to demonstrate the constitutional limits did not apply to states unless expressly stated marshall used the exam example of article 1 section 9 and 10. here's what he says the third clause of section 9 for example declares that quote no bill of attainer or x post facto law shall be passed no language can be more general yet the demonstration is complete that it applies solely to the government of the united states the succeeding section it's so it's basically like the constitution marshal is basically saying is not actually giving you the protections that you think that you're getting john barron thought he would have protections of just compensation under the fifth amendment in the bill of rights in the u.s constitution john marshall was saying nope so they overturned the the original decision and baron did not get his compensation of 4 500 the succeeding section the avowed purpose of which is to restrain state legislation declared that quote no state shall pass any bill of attainer or expose facto law this provision then of the ninth section however comprehensive its language no contains no restriction on state legislation basically if you live in that state and the state legislators apply their little legislative magic pixie dust and dust and create a law that takes away the freedoms that you thought you had on the constitution there is nothing we can do about it yeah they're supposed to recognize it as the supreme law of the land but they don't have to act on that so it's almost like whoa the freedoms that i thought i had the inalienable rights like the declaration of independence said that are supposed to be protected by the bill of rights and actually stave off the federal government doesn't protect me from the state bureaucracy it's almost like the federal government did an end round and said oh we can we can circumvent that and still retain state power by telling the states that they don't have to recognize your inalienable rights it's it's nightmarish it's literally nightmarish so when i think about contract law or the social contract i just i just see that it seems bogus to me and i could be missing something here okay i could be missing something here that's why tomorrow night or maybe saturday night we'll have a live stream on my here's the deal channel i'm gonna try to i haven't reached out to chile yet i'm sure he'd be down with it but uh what i would like to do is have kind of a call in but i would like to have just a calm rational meeting of the minds uh you know kind of like a fellowship like we'd all be ha like we'd all be sitting together at the dinner table talking as friends will there be disagreement among friends yeah but should we keep it civil i think that's paramount i think it's paramount we don't need to be enemies with each other but we definitely need to have an understanding we definitely didn't need to define the terms we definitely need to safeguard individual rights and oppose anybody who encroaches on or infringes on those rights so let me know what you guys think about that it's it's pretty it's pretty alarming when you really consider all these supreme court cases that really appear to have gone completely against individual freedoms the freedoms that you thought were protected and i thought were protected by the constitution of the united states one more thing before i leave this one of the reasons that i bring up when i when i encounter law enforcers and when i review videos and add commentary i use the basis of the constitution because they the law enforcers the the public servants swore to protect and defend and uphold the constitution me specifically the bill of rights but if they do the exact opposite of what they swore they were going to do that's the that's the core for me that's the issue the issue is that you swore to protect my rights under the bill of rights and you're acting in the same the exact opposite so what does that say about your character it means you're not walking on principle you don't even bother to honor your own oath you're a dangerous human being the price of freedom will always be eternal vigilance and indifference to this notion will always be the reason by which people have secured their own oppression and i'll tell you just like jefferson said those who desire to be ignorant and free desire what never was and what never shall be ignorance will not help you we've got to gain knowledge knowledge is truly power so let me know what you guys think about that i plan on having that here on the here's the deal channel let me know if you'd be down with that let me know if you'd be willing to call in the way we would call in is probably on my telegram or maybe somebody can let us use their discord since mine got terminated but let me know what you think about that and if chili's watching this video let me know man i'll try to reach out to you on your gmail and see if you'd be willing to be a part of the conversation [Music]