All Episodes
Previous Next
March 30, 2018 - Louder with Crowder
01:41:01
Socialism is Evil | Change My Mind
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh, I don't even know where I'm going!
What is this? Alright, hey!
Hey, I saw you on the Twitter!
Thank you! Thank you very much!
Good? Alright, how you guys doing?
Jeez! This is, as you probably know, this is not the show we expect...
Is that a dog? I thought I was going to be the biggest violation of code tonight.
Guys brought a Yorkie.
Okay, so, listen, it's obvious...
Hey, that light went out there, Naki Jaren, just so he...
Hey, Naki Jaren, everybody! He's here, he's going to help me.
So, hold on a second. Before I move on...
Oh, damn it. Some of you have seen my binder, but don't ruin it for the people behind you.
This is our first time doing a Change My Mind live broadcast.
Anyone know the topic of tonight?
It's a new topic. We've never done this before.
Can we unravel this and show it to the crowd before we get on the table?
All right. Let's get out and show it to the crowd.
Of course, anyone is welcome.
It is so... James, throw these people!
Socialism is evil!
What do you have to say about you guys?
Thank you so much. This is not the show we planned on doing.
Anyone here see the SMU show last week?
Yeah! How riotous it was.
Anyone want a show like that? Yeah!
Well, we couldn't because your campus officers actually wouldn't show up.
So, hold on a second. There's one who did show up today.
There's one who showed up. Let's give it up for Officer Stillerson.
Yeah! One who showed up, and there are some private security details out here who are off-duty officers, and just so you know, the same lieutenant who told them that no one would show up because there was no credible threat told these off-duty officers, you can't carry on campus.
Well, he called someone above the lieutenant's head, and he said, what's he doing?
You carry, and I quote, you carry your f***ing gun!
Yeah! And a lot of them are amongst you who you do not know.
So thank you so much. So there was a mix-up.
Obviously, we couldn't get out here and do the show that we wanted to do.
It was going to be kick-ass. We wanted to do this whole, like, SMU. But instead, we loaded all of our misfits into a bus and shipped them across country against their will.
Gross violation of labor laws.
We said, we can't do the big comedy show.
We'll come back and do it. But we can do one hell of a change my mind because all we need is a table, some coffee, and some good conversation.
Are we right? Right? Right?
Thank you, guys. And one guy just yelled, and weed!
What was that? And a pin. All right, first off, I can't see while I'm in here.
Is there anyone out there who disagrees and would like to change my mind on the idea, the premise that socialism is evil?
Okay, now, by the way, okay, we see one person.
All right, let's bring one person in to start.
Hold on one second, hold on.
No, no, no, hold on, hold on, hold on.
We've got to pick one person.
There's two hands going up.
Are you an actual...
Okay.
One second here. One second.
One second. All right. And this is why we had to downscale this.
But by the way, I appreciate...
We actually have the ability to see any leftist organization in the country and how many people show up.
And just so you know, every time there's an Antifa protest, unless they're stabbing Ben Shapiro with an axe pick...
Every time there's an Antifa protest or Occupy and they post something, we can actually tell you that on average about 8% of people who claim they'll be attending, attend.
Whereas here, this is the last minute, there was a cancellation, we said, hey guys, we're gonna be in the quad, and I think it's actually two to three times the number of people who said they were coming.
So you guys actually show up!
And I know that's hard because many of you have jobs.
So that's what we're going to be talking about tonight.
For those who don't know, this isn't a comedy show.
I know some people are saying, well, why don't you come here and do a lecture?
It'd be like having Alice Cooper play jazz piano at Carnegie Hall.
I don't do lectures. It's not fun.
But with this, the goal here is not to, by the way, just to argue.
It's not ad hominem. It's the opposite of cable news.
If someone disagrees with me, I want to sit down.
And we use a Socratic method to rationalize their position.
Now, I know a lot of you won't be able to see me or hear me, so I wouldn't blame you if you walk out.
Like I said, this was last minute planned.
We appreciate every one of you who is here.
But I would love to sit down with someone who disagrees with me.
And everyone here, by the way, I know how high energy you are.
But make sure you give respect to anyone who sits down and disagrees and give them the chance to make their argument.
So hopefully we can be productive.
Now, okay, Jared, who do we want?
Who do we want to grab? Who's grabbing who?
Yes, Jared! Alright, so people keep saying messenger bag.
So Mr. Messenger Bag, hold on one second, come on out.
One second, come here, come toward me.
We're going to have someone pat you down real quick.
You got one person you can pat him down?
Nake Jared, there you go.
I fulfilled my legal obligations.
Alright, listen, what's your name, sir?
Ian. Ian, Ian, brass balls.
Come sit down, appreciate it. Give me a round of a hand.
A round of a hand. I don't even know what that means.
All right. What was that?
Actually, by the way...
By the way, because I know many of you here are still reeling from your rejections from Northwestern.
Don't insult Urbana!
Come on, that's asking a sparrow not to sing!
Urbana champagne, as we call it, the gates of hell.
You're like Detroit without the balls to follow through.
All right. We're kidding, but DePaul actually has rescinded their decision, and we will be going to DePaul sometime next semester.
And I'm kidding. Urbana's the best city in America.
All right. So, I believe, hopefully people can hear me.
We're just going to sit down and go through this point by point to see where we find common ground.
It's the first time we've ever broadcast it live.
A lot of people say, well, we think maybe you edited our hand-picked opponents.
Hey, can someone actually grab some water here and give him a clothes bottle so that, you know, he doesn't...
It is a really nice mug.
Wait, you ordered one?
Yeah. Wait, that means you're a fan.
You can't come up here. No, no.
I still have thoughts. No, you still have thoughts.
No, get out of here. We have to have someone who actually disagrees.
You can't be a fan.
Who here actually disagrees with me?
I appreciate it. I appreciate it, brother.
It's not evil. It is evil.
You, this guy seems to be really eager.
Or this guy in the orange. All right.
Okay. Well, let's bring up the guy in the orange.
Sorry. Hey! I know, I know, but listen, we didn't plan on this.
We have no idea. We usually just show up and do it, and people want us to get out.
What's your name, sir? Alex.
Alex, are you old enough? Do you go here?
No, I go to Urbana High School.
Oh, Alex, we can't do high school.
Hold on a second, hold on a second.
If I do this with a high school student, next thing that's going to happen is they're going to Laura Ingram me and say that I mocked someone who's not of age.
Are you 18? No.
Your parents have to give you permission.
I can't actually film you.
I appreciate it, Alex. I'm sorry.
This guy. Come on, let's bring this guy up here.
I'm so sorry. This is the process.
We don't want to break the law because we only have one officer who showed up because that's all you need for a crowd like this.
Alright, what is your name, sir?
Yusuf. Yusuf, nice to meet you.
Steven. So, I believe, let me explain my position.
I believe that socialism is fundamentally evil.
And I have this here. We usually don't reference this, but it's sources in case someone wants to look at them afterward, but I don't think, I won't use it.
It's not fair for me to use them. So, I believe socialism is evil.
You disagree. I would love to hear you change my mind.
Okay, well, what's your position on the minimum wage?
Hold on a second. This is your changing my mind.
I want to make sure. Yes, I want to get started.
Okay. My position is the minimum wage.
Yeah. You know what? I'm not a fan.
So you think there shouldn't be any minimum wage at all?
Yeah, not a fan. Not a fan.
Okay. Are you against illegal immigration and legal immigration from poor third world countries at the scale that we've been having it so far?
Am I against illegal immigration?
What was that? We're gonna do everything we can.
Like we said, this is last minute because we're not necessarily friendly here.
No, I mean, they don't consider us friendly.
So like I said, we appreciate you supporting us.
Of course I'm against illegal immigration.
But again, socialism, I believe.
The idea of socialism, let's do this before we go on, okay?
Because this is something, and I think this is important, this is something that we often see from both the right and the left.
See, we started with the premise where I made a statement.
Socialism is evil. And you've moved on to different questions and different topics.
So I'd like to first, before we move on, if it's okay, let's define socialism.
Okay. How do you define socialism?
So I know that we're agreeing on that premise.
Socialism is a system in which the state redistributes wealth from what it would be under a pure capitalist system.
Okay. I think we agree on that. Okay.
And then I think it's important to...
Don't move! This is just an actual discussion.
I might be wrong here. And what do you think I mean by evil?
Or what would we both agree the definition of evil is?
Harmful to society. Not necessarily in society.
I believe morally reprehensible.
It's immoral, okay? So as we both agreed, socialism is basically a collective, a governmental control of the means of distribution or production.
And when I say evil, I mean I believe that that is immoral.
So can we both agree with that? I don't agree that it's evil.
No, no, no, but we agree that that's what I'm saying.
That's my position. Yes. Okay, so what part of my position do you disagree with?
Again, the goal here is to change my mind, not score points.
Well, I'm trying to convince you that your own objectives, if you're a conservative, cannot be achieved under capitalism.
Okay. And so I'll give you an example of that.
Yeah. You have a lot of Republicans like Paul Ryan who are obstructing Donald Trump.
Well, hold on.
Hold on. You cannot deny that he is a big capitalist and he has lots of capitalist donors that would like nothing more than to increase their profits.
I think you can agree with that. And people like that have been opposing immigration reform for decades because they believe that mass immigration will lower the wages of the working class and increase their profits.
Now, I would say a lot of what you just said is correct.
In that many conservatives, Republicans, believe that mass immigration from countries like, say, Mexico, from quote-unquote third-world countries, could lower the wages.
Yeah, I do believe that a lot of Republicans believe that.
So I would agree with you on that.
So if you impose a minimum wage, you're not going to have this mass immigration coming in because the companies that are taking these illegal immigrants and taking these low-wage immigrants, if they had to pay them $15 an hour, we wouldn't have mass immigration like we're having right now.
Yeah, I don't necessarily know that I agree with that premise.
So let me kind of go, because first off, I would like to take that, hold it.
What example would we point to before we go on?
Because I know a lot of times we disagree, of a successful socialist country.
Well, there are different kinds of socialism.
I think you're thinking of the Soviet Union and Venezuela when you say these are unsuccessful countries.
But you also have Sweden, you have Norway, you have Finland, you have Denmark, you have Germany.
These are countries that have robust economies and high levels of socialization.
Right. What's their minimum wage?
I don't have the numbers off the top of my head.
What if I told you that they have no minimum wage?
There are plenty of countries that have high minimum wage.
Australia has a high minimum wage.
I know, but we didn't talk about them.
We talked about successful socialist economies.
Now, first off, I think it's interesting.
This is important because we need to find the premise.
First off, we're away from the premise, which is the moral argument.
I believe socialism is immoral.
The redistribution of something that you have not earned, I believe, is fundamentally immoral.
I believe that's theft. Are you an anarchist?
Are you an anarchist? Hold on a second. Hold on a second. So now we've moved on from that to the pragmatic.
And no, I'm not an anarchist.
And then you brought up some successful examples in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, I believe.
First off, these aren't socialist countries.
Now, the reason we would point to countries like, say, Venezuela or Cuba, for the same reason Bernie Sanders did for decades, is because they're true examples of socialism.
The Danish Prime Minister said, Bernie, stop referring to us as a socialist economy.
We're a free market economy.
They don't have a minimum wage, as we know it.
They only allow collective bargaining between unions, higher skilled unions, and their employers.
So these are countries, by the way, if we want to get into their immigration laws, the only way to make it work, if you refer to those countries, I guess I would have to ask, it sounds almost as though you're making an argument, are you a nationalist?
I would say I'm an economic nationalist.
You are an economic nationalist?
Yeah. Okay, so there you go. So you part ways with a lot of probably your more left-leaning brethren.
I never said I was a liberal. Okay, so you're a conservative socialist.
They're hard to come by.
So, no minimum wage there.
But again, this doesn't change the idea.
Let's get to the fundamental premise before we move on to the pragmatic, and I'd be happy to.
But I believe that socialism, the ism that we both agreed upon, the collective means, seizing of distribution, production, is immoral.
I mean, the argument is absurd, because if you say that it's immoral, then you also have to say that government funding of police is immoral, government funding of the military is immoral.
Anything the government does is immoral, and that's ridiculous, because you have to have some state that's going to socialize certain things.
And so the question is not, do we have socialization?
It's how much. Sure. I would disagree with that.
Now, would you know where I disagree with that?
Guess what I'm going to say.
I assume you're going to try to argue that government funding of the military and police is not socialism.
Why would I say that? Well, because if you don't argue that, then you're going to have to give some ground on socialism.
No, absolutely. I think you're right.
If I have to concede that police force, as he's saying, police force, military, roads, is socialism, the same as healthcare, education.
And I'm assuming that's why you're referring to Denmark and Sweden.
They're not socialist economies, but they have more of a social safety net.
That's kind of what you're talking about, right?
Yeah, they're social democracies.
Well, they're market economies with higher emphasis on a social safety net.
That's how they describe it. That's what a social democracy is.
So, okay, we agree on the term.
Let's go with social democracy. I just want to make sure we don't get confused like democratic socialism is all that changes anything.
But we just talked about this conceding that ground.
I don't believe that the military and the police force would be the same as socialized healthcare school.
Why not? Sorry, because we only have one microphone.
We had to do a late setup. I appreciate you working with me.
Well, I mean... Why not? Why not was your question?
Our definition was that... So why not?
Okay, so I want to make sure you don't...
Why not?
Because there's a difference between a public good and a commodity.
Can you explain to me the difference between public goods and a commodity?
Well, in economics, a public good is a good that is, I believe, non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Exactly. So that would include things like the police, the military.
You'd be hard-pressed to even find hardcore libertarians to say that we don't need those.
So there's a big difference. There's a fundamental difference between that And something like healthcare or school.
Or it goes to free internet, as Sven Computer talked about in Germany now.
High-speed internet is a right. The second you declare any commodity to be a right or to be a fundamental role of government, that means the government can now remove that right depending on who's in power, and that's the problem.
That's why I think it's fundamentally immoral for someone to take something they haven't earned, regardless of who's in power.
I think it's immoral for Donald Trump's administration to take it from you, just as you probably think it's immoral for Barack Obama's administration to take it from me.
So the difference there would be first, public goods versus commodity.
And I think that's an important distinction for everyone here to make because it's a common argument we hear from the left.
If you support any role of government at all, that means that this is socialism.
But it's not according to the definition that we agreed upon.
Something else I think it also matters is the constitutional parameters of government, right?
The Constitution defines what our government is and what fundamental human rights are.
Well, I want to get back to your earlier point where you said that because the military is a public good, that therefore it's not socialism.
In your definition, you never made any distinction between different types of goods.
You just said a socialist economy is one that takes wealth from some people and gives it to others, and that's what financing a public good is.
No, no, it's not. You talked about redistributing, the redistribution, the common means of production or distribution.
So, if we want to frame that in, I certainly wouldn't say that that's the police.
Oh, someone's yelling.
Hopefully we're good. So I would not agree with you if the military or police would be socialist.
But to move on here, again, let's go to the Danes, Denmark, Norway, Sweden.
You pointed to them as successful examples of socialism.
Because that would be different from your definition of socialism.
So now I've moved on from the idea that taking something you haven't earned to give to someone else is morally reprehensible, regardless of the reason, because socialism can only be enacted through the threat of violence.
That's really what taxes are.
At the end of the day, we all agree on that.
Violence is part of life. Okay.
Well, I don't believe there should be a part of life for someone with guns to come in if I don't pay for Timmy's healthcare.
I just disagree with that. If you don't pay taxes, you're going to have other forms of violence that arise spontaneously.
This sort of autistic libertarian idea of, oh, you can have a non-aggression...
Stop it! Stop it!
He's been watching Matt Damon videos.
Continue. This idea of a non-aggression principle is just fantasy.
Okay? You have to have some...
You just said autistic.
And this was very civil until you brought that up.
Define autistic here.
Well, it tends to be characterized by an overemphasis on logic and philosophy as opposed to reality.
You know, it's very easy to argue from syllogisms and axioms and all that.
So hold on a second. I want to make sure. Before you move, because what you do is you speak in these paragraphs.
We need to determine what these definitions are.
I think we both agree that's fair. Fine.
Okay. So you just said that autism, if I'm not mistaken, And I would love for you to bring this up, is rooted more in philosophy and theology than facts?
Than logic or reason?
Logics, syllogisms, that sort of thing.
That's what you believe is the definition of autism?
Well, because it leads you down these intellectual...
No, no. Do you believe that's the definition of autism?
No. No, you don't. I'm using it in an informal way.
Okay, so you're using it in an insulting way.
You could say that. Okay.
A little bit of banter. A little bit of, yeah.
Well, we don't call that friendly banter, generally.
We call that being a dick. So I want to go back to hopefully keeping it civil.
I wouldn't call you retarded.
I wouldn't say that you had a fight with the Clippers and the Clippers won.
I wouldn't do this. Let's keep this very civil.
So let's go back to Sweden, Denmark, Norway as examples.
You pointed to them as successful examples of socialism.
It was interesting to me that you said, I know you'd want to point to the USSR or Venezuela or these places, but really we should look to these Scandinavian countries.
Why? Because they provide a good quality of life for their citizens.
You don't have this gigantic gap between the working class and the upper class.
There is a commitment of the state to the well-being of their citizens, and I think that's a wonderful thing.
Okay. So, first off, I agree with you that, first off, the overall well-being of citizens is a tremendous thing.
I think we would all want, I think everyone here wants a better society, wants a better America.
I don't think that you want a worse America.
I hope that you don't believe I want a worse America, despite the fact that you implied I might be autistic.
So maybe I don't know what's best for America.
You know, autistic and such.
Keep your hate speech off this campus.
But your reasoning there, and correct me if I'm wrong, you said there isn't the same kind of gap, the inequality gap.
That was your, I want to get, because you speak in, like I said, in longer paragraphs, it seems the fundamental premise there was Denmark, Norway, Sweden, their examples, because they're successful, they have a higher Quality of living and the main purpose, the main justification you used was there's less of an inequality gap.
Am I correct? I don't want to misrepresent you.
Yes. Okay. So your problem is with inequality.
It's one of several problems.
I think another problem when you have...
But that was your first issue.
Let's go point by point. Okay.
Fair enough. Inequality. What's immoral about inequality?
Because there's this idea that you're going to have this society and everybody has social obligations, but If you have a situation where people are being crushed, where people's wages are going down, you lose the social cohesiveness of that society.
You lose the commitment that everybody has to advancing that society.
Now you're getting into potential results.
The hypothetical, almost autistic one could say.
But I ask again, what is immoral about inequality?
What's immoral is that it ruins the society.
That's what's immoral about it.
How does inequality ruin society?
Because it sounds to me, if I'm not mistaken, what you just went down to describe was a problem with poverty.
Yeah. So your problem is with poverty then.
But poverty is a consequence of inequality.
That's not necessarily true.
As a matter of fact, I would argue that there are two very different things.
Because I would say, and I think we'd probably have to agree, that the free enterprise westernized capitalist system has pulled more people out of poverty than any system in existence.
And if you look at countries, you said don't point to countries like Venezuela or true socialist economies.
There's tremendous equality, but everyone is equally poor.
So the problem you have is with poverty, it sounds like.
And I think we both have a problem with that, that we want to solve ways to eliminate as much poverty as possible.
It's not just poverty. Inequality matters too.
Because if you have inequality of wealth, you're going to have an upper class that controls the political system and secures its own interests instead of the interests of the people.
So yes, inequality matters as well.
Okay. So, describe to me, and I'd like to go back to that, examples of this.
The upper ruling class determining the political system.
Do you want examples of that? Yeah, I would like some examples of that.
For example, let's say you mentioned that inequality hurts people.
I would argue no, and I think that's because, again, this is more of a leftist view.
I know you said you're not really liberal, but I can tell you by your worldview in economics that you do lean more left because you're seeing it as a zero-sum game.
Wealthy people can't get wealthy off of the backs of poor people if they make them more poor.
That's kind of, if we're going to talk about motives and attributing motives that you've done a couple of times here, if I believe that, if I want everyone to be wealthy, I would necessarily, if I need a system of government that would want people to be wealthy, it would require people to be wealthy.
For someone who would want to control a system of government like in socialist economies, who would want to consistently talk or gain the votes of the poor, they could only be elected if people are poor.
Bernie Sanders is not going to be elected by a rich country.
We're not trying to make everybody rich.
That's not possible. We're trying to create a fairer distribution of wealth.
But I want to get back to your earlier question about how are the wealthy controlling the political...
Well, yeah, so an example of that.
I don't believe that inequality necessarily hurts someone.
I don't believe it's a zero-sum game. You know, for example, Tim Cook.
And I don't like Tim Cook, by the way.
Apple people, Android, they're going to start yelling.
Tim Cook creating a better iPhone, even though the iPhone X kind of sucks.
Thank you. That's where we get the passion.
That doesn't hurt me. Him making billions of dollars for that doesn't hurt me.
Poverty. Bread lines.
$160 for a dozen eggs.
That hurts me. I have a problem with poverty.
I don't care if someone else has more than me, so long as I have a system where I'm able to do okay.
Do you understand that it's the upper class and the capitalists that want mass immigration and want illegal immigration because it's in their economic self-interest?
If you're a Republican and you're with the capitalists, you're going against your own interests.
The capitalists are not conservative.
They're not. Well, honestly, we're talking about capitalists, conservative, Republican here.
So you're saying that capitalism, we're talking about the ism now, socialism versus capitalism.
I don't care what Paul Ryan does in his own time.
I don't care what his front page news press is doing P90X and what he thinks about immigration.
I couldn't care less. I don't believe, it seems that you would agree in securing the borders.
You would agree in stricter immigration laws.
I would. And you're not going to get it if you shill for the capitalists.
They're against you. Define shill.
I know you like to sound really intelligent by speaking in paragraphs.
One thing, you've misused words several times.
And if someone were to call you on it and be as rude as you are, you might look what you might refer to as stupid.
So saying autistic or shill.
Define, because it's a very specific definition.
You came in and just said shill.
And I'm really quickly ready to give the microphone to someone else if you don't stop doing this, because this isn't the goal of this.
What's a shill? Well, I think you're getting upset because you're losing the debate.
That's fair, that's fair.
What's a shill? No, no, no.
The person losing the debate is the one who refers to the other person as autistic and a shill.
That's generally a good sign.
So what's a shill? I don't have the exact definition, but essentially someone who's, I guess...
Pushing or advancing somebody else's interests, I suppose.
For profit. Fair enough.
But a lot of these conservatives who...
Well, you're not talking to these conservatives who are talking to me.
This isn't a performance hall here.
That's why we're doing this out here. This is a conversation.
You're talking to me. I just said that I'm against illegal immigration.
It's okay. You can look me in the eyes.
I'm not mad at you. I just think it's rude.
It's okay. Don't worry. We're okay.
I'm used to people being rude to me.
I'm sure you're probably aware of this to one degree or another.
Let's move back to, again, Norway, Sweden.
We didn't really kind of go to that. You've talked about them as successful examples.
Now, And I would agree.
I would agree that if we're going to take a model and say they've created a social safety net that functions better than many other countries.
For example, socialized healthcare and education.
Yeah, what's wrong with that? Good.
Well, like, so you would support school vouchers.
I think, you know, in general vouchers I think have a problem because they do lead to the incentivization of private schools.
But any way that the government...
That's what Sweden does.
So you would support more of a flat tax and increasing taxes on the middle class and the lower class?
I want a progressive tax. Okay, well that's not what happens in Denmark.
They should change it. Okay, so you would want a lower corporate tax rate.
Not necessarily. Okay, so here's the one thing.
We point to, and I appreciate you taking, what was your name again?
Yusuf. Yusuf. I appreciate Yusuf taking the time.
Everyone give a hand to Yusuf.
Appreciate it very much. We'll grab someone else here.
Thank you, Yusuf. This is always interesting to me because we talk about this a lot, and I know, and if we look here, just so, I think we've talked about this, we're going to be actually selling for like five or six bucks.
I'm not looking for New York. We're going to be selling the Change My Mind pamphlet so that you guys can actually be prepared for some of these arguments.
Right here on page three, I actually have, if anyone here, you know what, kind of like a magician.
Oh, you have a MAGA hat. Can you come here really quickly?
What are the words written down right there?
Denmark. Denmark?
Sweden. And?
Norway. And Norway.
So, if you guys know where people are going to try and direct the conversation, you don't get distracted by words like, you know, autistic or shill, which is what they throw out, you can be prepared very often for how people disagree.
Now, here's the thing. To provide a brief education on Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, I didn't think that was going to go anywhere super productive.
They made their wealth long before they became what you would call socialist economies.
Now, by the way, they're not socialist economies.
The Danish Prime Minister, when Bernie Sanders was saying, we should be like Denmark, socialist, he said, shut up!
He said we're a free market economy, and we place emphasis on social safety, which they are now scaling back.
Here's what's so interesting there.
If you look, they have far lower corporate tax rates than the United States.
Does anyone know the corporate tax rate here in the United States?
The marginal highest tax rate?
Yes. 35%, but now it's 27 with the tax tax.
It would go down to, yes.
The marginal rate, I believe, was up as high as 39.
Yeah, 39.
I think it's 35, but the marginal highest tax rate was 39%.
And in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, I think the highest they have is 25.
Some of them have it as low as 22.
So a good 10 points lower.
So they have corporate taxes low.
I think if you're comparing it to the United States, if you make 1.2 times the average income, so in the United States, that would be $50,000.
If you make $60,000, you'd be paying 60% income tax.
So what they do is they understand that they can't stifle businesses, so they have lower corporate tax rates, and the United States doesn't sound very socialist, and they have increased taxes on the middle and lower classes.
They pay more taxes. Everyone pays something.
By the way, super strict...
Well, it's changing, but at one point, super strict immigration laws.
Not everyone gets to take part in the social safety net if you haven't paid in.
And again, these are people who have the population about the size of Ohio or Michigan.
So to compare an entirely homogenous population...
To a country of 300-something million people.
By the way, I'm against illegal immigration, but the big difference between us and Denmark and Norway and Sweden is we're not a people.
We are a country of ideals.
And if you're willing to come in and make a go of it, we're going to provide you with equal opportunity, not ensure equal outcome.
That's the difference that requires a racial national identity and a constitutional republic.
So ironically, socialism almost invariably tends to be racist.
To a certain degree.
Which is funny when we say national socialism, democratic socialism.
Theft is theft.
If it's ill-gotten gain, something you haven't earned, theft is theft.
Something else I also find very interesting.
And I was talking about this. I just wanted to bring this up so you could see that these are things you can prepare for.
These are very common arguments.
Very interesting. If we take that kind of cultural, social fabric of Denmark, Norway, Sweden.
So take them. They do have a higher standard of living on average than the average American.
But if you take the Danes who are in America, if you take Swedish-Americans, if you take Norwegian-Americans, they actually have on average a 55% higher standard of living index than the Swedes in Sweden!
So it's because they've brought a culture with them.
Again, if you look at the very storied culture of hard work ethics, of personal accountability, of shame, they do better there, and they do far better in the United States than even in their homeland.
You get people who have that work ethic, who have that kind of cultural fabric, who have that history, and you give them a free enterprise system, my god, watch them bloom.
But I appreciate, I forgot his name, Yusuf, thank you very much.
Does anyone else want to disagree?
Yeah, Yusuf, yes, alright.
I see, balls of steel, thank you, Yusuf.
And by the way, I do mean Yusuf does have balls of steel to sit down and do this.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for anyone who enters the arena.
Yeah. I hear some people yell.
I don't want to yell anyone down.
Like I said, this is not the show that we wanted to do.
We'll bring that back through. We've never done this.
Usually a change of mind is sitting down with a couple of people, not a few hundred people out there in a quad, with a don't tread on me flag.
Looks like the Patriot.
He's going to be hitting someone with a tomahawk.
Yes, Pink Floyd shirt, I guess.
You have your hand up. Now, you're not a fan, correct?
Well, I just wanted a hand.
No, no, we can't do that.
We've got to have people who disagree.
I appreciate it. Yes!
I can't see. Could you pat him down?
Hold on, let Naki Jared pat you down, Mr.
Illinois. He's not gay, so it's okay.
It's okay. Thank you.
I love you too. Like I said, I'm really...
Thank you guys so much for hanging out.
We appreciate it. I know it's not what we planned to do.
Cheap pin? Someone, I don't know what this is, but I know someone's going to complain about it, so I'll have to look at it later.
I can't wear a pin.
Someone hands me a pin, like, wear it, so I can put it on, and anthrax.
I have no idea. What's your name, sir?
I'm Drew. Drew? Nice to meet you, Drew.
Appreciate it. So, again, like I said, I believe that socialism, the ism, socialism, is fundamentally evil.
Okay. Immoral. And if you disagree with me, and you think you can change my mind, I'm open to you.
Can you elaborate just a little bit on, like, evil?
Like, what do you mean by evil? I mean, immoral.
Immoral. Okay. Well, actually, I wrote a paper on this a couple years ago, and I mean, I'm not an expert by any means, but...
Why'd you bring up the paper?
What? Oh, okay, alright, alright.
I'm kind of an expert!
But I think that, based on research from past countries, That capitalism is great when a country is trying to get back on its feet.
But I think once you kind of, I don't want to say peak as a country, but economically, Once you kind of reach that stability and like you feel like your economy is thriving, I think then there should be a shift towards socialism, but not, I don't think a full-blown like socialism reform, socialist reform by any means.
But I think, like, I would...
So how would you define socialism?
Because I wouldn't go full-blown, so I want to make sure we know what we're agreeing on.
I mean, it in a sense is a redistribution of wealth, but not to the extent of communism.
Okay, so here, well, sorry, my right, your left, here's anarchy, here's communism, Here's free enterprise, here'd be socialism, and here'd be kind of the middle?
Yeah. Okay. We agree.
I just want to make sure. Because a utopian capitalist economy is anarchy.
A utopian socialist country is communist.
So I'm not as far as the communist side.
Although I think both of us could probably- I have no idea what- I know now they're teaching in school anarcho-communism.
Have you heard of this? Uh-uh. It seems redundant, doesn't it?
Yeah. I know, people told me I was the idiot because I was like, that doesn't make sense.
Yeah, that's totally stupid.
Look, we found common ground! Yeah.
It's very rare nowadays.
Yeah, I did a video saying, there, look, common ground!
And by the way, you seem very friendly.
I appreciate you being respectful.
So, again, this is one thing that I find pretty common with the Change My Mind.
And I think this is important because we have changed quite a few minds with this segment.
A lot of people have come back and said, hey, you know what, I didn't think about this before, or I hadn't looked at it from that angle before.
The premise and addressing the premise is important.
If someone fundamentally, and that's why it's framed this way, believes that something is evil or immoral, If you don't get them off of that, you have almost, you know, if I can't convince the mother, I have no hope of convincing the child.
I mean, I'll go on 34th Street. Anyone know?
No? All right. So, because they're doomed to a life of fear, dominated by doubt.
Anyways, movie quotes. I could go on all night.
Sorry, this is very rude of me. The point is, if you don't change my mind on the idea that it's immoral, because you said, I think once a country establishes itself, then they can kind of shift towards socialism, but not full-blown socialism.
So, let me, I guess, frame it this way.
I believe it's immoral to take something that you haven't earned.
Theft is the felonious taking of something that is not rightfully yours.
We would agree on that. So taking something that isn't yours is immoral.
I believe socialism is immoral because it's theft.
Now, how does that change if an economy is more stable or less stable if it's theft?
Exactly. I get where you're coming from with that.
I think the money that's being redistributed is going towards things that everybody can use.
Because I honestly, like this is coming from, I'm very left on this issue, not very, but I'm pretty left on this issue, and I think welfare is very abused.
But I think it is needed, um, to some extent.
And I think that, I mean, that goes hand in hand.
Like a battered housewife who won't leave her husband, like, okay, I'll make the roast!
Okay, well, yeah, alright, alright, alright, yeah.
It's abused, but it's needed.
That sounds pretty, you would understand how that sounds pretty dark.
People take advantage of it.
I would agree with you.
But... I think some people do need it.
I've met people that do need it.
But I think there's...
I'm getting off track here, but...
No, no, that's okay. Can I address this?
Because you said some people do need it.
And I don't disagree with you that there are people in this country who could use a leg up.
Exactly. So people... I would actually even go, let's remove the people who abuse welfare because we agree.
Look, common ground! I wish it was that easy.
Yeah, I know, but let's remove that from the argument, because we already agree, right?
Exactly. Let's talk about the people who would actually, let's say, legitimately need welfare.
So people we would both agree on.
I'm glad. See, this is a productive discussion.
You don't call me a retard. Again, let's take this as an example.
You see, because they really need it.
So, let's say I... Let's use an example of something I think people could all agree on.
The kids with cleft palates could probably use the $20 in my pocket far more than I can, right?
Exactly, yeah. And there are charities that provide fixes to this.
Yes, exactly. So, if you were to punch me in the face repeatedly, you know, go bam, bam, bagel on me and headbutt me and take my $20 and give it to a charity that helps kids with cleft palates...
Would that be moral? Would it change the fact that you Bam Bam Bigelow'd me and took my money?
No, I mean, I wouldn't. But I mean, the process is much different than punching somebody in the face with socialism.
Not all that different. Well, yeah, I understand where you're coming from totally.
That definitely makes sense.
I think... So if we agree that something is immoral, and it seems that we both agree theft is immoral...
Yeah, I agree. It doesn't change regardless of the need.
Yeah. So it comes down to, really, you'd have to present the argument, to change my mind here...
How socialism, how the redistribution, I see it as theft, is in fact moral.
Because it seems like we're both agreeing that it's not really moral.
Yeah. Yeah, I definitely get where you're coming from.
I'm glad you're, um, I mean, kind of changing my mind in a sense.
Hey! Hey!
Drew, was it? Yes.
Thank you, Drew. Look at that.
I want you to keep talking, though. This is great.
Now, by the way, you're changing my mind because now I realize that far leftists who write papers on socialists aren't dicks!
Hey! Hey! But, can we agree?
Alright, so I would say the U.S. economy, to make a rough estimate, is around 80% capitalist and maybe 20% socialist.
Just if you had to give percentages.
You know what, here's one thing. I don't know percentages, but I would agree with you that certainly the United States as it exists today is not a true free market economy.
We do have certain welfare states.
Exactly. My goal isn't to go even the majority socialism.
It's just, I think that a more shift, maybe like a 30-70, 60-40.
You know, 60% capitalism, that is, and 40% socialism.
I just want, I don't want a full-on socialist.
I just want a little bit, you know, a little bit more, like, more...
More taxing, more redistribution.
I'm not fully socialist reform, like, you know, let's overthrow any sort of...
So let's reduce kind of the comparison.
It sounds to me like, let's say instead of punching me, you pickpocketed me.
I wasn't looking. So you didn't hurt me, but you still took the $20 and gave it to the kid with cleft pallets.
That's the example of 60-40 versus 80-20.
Is that any more moral because you think it might be better, pragmatically speaking?
No, yeah, I agree with you on that point.
Have you heard? I guess we agree that socialism is immoral, the idea of socialism.
It seems like we agree on that, as we define it.
Yes. Okay, well, I appreciate that.
See, look, we agreed on something.
You said, maybe I'll concede this territory.
And now I would like to give you an opportunity, since you're well-spoken and very respectful, to go to the pragmatic.
I think that's also an important component.
It doesn't change the premise, but I would love to give you an opportunity, because I think you can probably articulate it well.
So I think the hard part about socialism also is you're always going to have an asshole dictator that's going to take over and try to make a communist because he wants it all.
Like Bernie and Jane Sanders.
Oh, that gets an ooh?
Shut up! But there have been cases where they have worked, but it's on a very small scale.
So we're talking small communities.
Everybody knows each other. A lot of people don't feel bad stealing from the poor guy if you don't know him.
But if you know the neighborhood drunk, that was just like a...
I don't understand.
It has worked on very small communities.
Could you give me some examples of where socialism, I guess, has outperformed what free enterprise has created with America today?
Because that's the standard I'm using, right?
I come from a socialist province, Quebec.
I wouldn't say an example of it working very well.
The French are assholes. No, there's definitely very bad examples.
I think Venezuela was mentioned earlier.
Sure. But I'm not going to talk about the Norway, Sweden.
That's already been done. Let me ask you this, honestly.
Before that guy left, were you planning on talking about Norway and Denmark and Sweden?
Well, my friend has a girlfriend who lives in Denmark.
Give me a yes or no first.
No, actually. Okay, good.
I was more focused on the percentages when I was telling you about Blake.
Okay. But, no, he has a girlfriend in Denmark, and I think the car sales tax is, like, above 200%, and that's outrageous to me.
I think that's, like, that's insane.
Oh, that's one more thing, actually, I should add that's very interesting, because probably if you wrote a paper on this, one thing, too, that people understand, not only is the income tax significantly higher in the middle and lower class, but the value-added taxes, these, you know, we call them VAT taxes here, those obviously impact consumers on a scale, which people would say, you know...
Here in the United States, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, they're very much against value-added taxes because they negatively affect consumers and the middle class more than the billionaires because how many yachts can you buy?
That's a huge component to the centralized economy in Denmark.
I'm glad you brought it up. I have firsthand experience with this, and I think they have one car for their whole family, which is not heard of in America.
But it encourages public transportation more.
It encourages, I think, more green.
We're not going to talk about that. Hold on a second.
You're using the word encouraged because you're a very nice man.
Yeah. If someone can't afford even a piece of shit car because of a 200% tax, encouraged to ride the subway is a little bit of a...
80% of campus, pretty much.
I mean, we all ride the bus here. That's because you're all poor and don't work jobs yet.
Exactly. I'm guessing you guys aren't necessarily recreationally choosing Urbana's luxurious public transit.
Oh, it's great. I love it.
So, again, discouraged.
So now we're talking again about the government being a moral arbiter of what behavior is acceptable.
Yeah. That to me is immoral.
Yeah. No, I agree with that too.
Okay. Yeah, I don't know where I was going.
I was talking about the small colonies that are working, but I just think it can never work on such a large scale.
That's why I'm not for a total reform.
I think it's just better, just a little shift.
It doesn't have to, you know, I think just progress towards a more...
Even though you agree that it's fundamentally immoral?
I think to be totally socialist is fundamentally immoral.
To take something you haven't earned is immoral.
Yes. You're talking about the pickpocket thing, which, I mean, that's a good way of putting it.
I agree with that. Sorry, go ahead.
Pickpocketing isn't the same thing to me.
I'm having a hard time articulating it, but I understand what you mean with the pickpocketing and the punching.
And the punching, and the kicking, and the screaming, and that you're autisticing.
Socialism is violent. Socialism is violent, and that's why anywhere you see true socialism, like you said, it runs into becoming a violent regime very quickly.
Which I think a lot of it has in fact to do with military.
Military and, like, dictator interference.
Well, that's another... A couple... Okay, two points now, and then I'd like to leave it here, because I think we've agreed on quite a bit.
Two points that you just brought up. You said, you know, well, I don't necessarily know that it's immoral.
Sorry, I know I'm touching your knee. It's just because I have to get the mic.
It's kind of cute. I like it. Is it kind of cute?
You're kind of cute. Not kidding.
Jared was... He was making eyes at you.
So one thing we talk about, you're like, well, maybe kind of if we redistribute it, when we get to a certain point...
Let's just say you don't agree with the pickpocketing or the punching example.
This is something I've never, and Thomas Sowell has talked about this, I'm not bringing anything new, so please people, I'm not ripping it off.
I know that these are not new arguments.
I've never understood why it is considered moral for someone to take money from someone else, that someone else has earned.
And I think maybe you can help me with this, but it's immoral for me to want to keep money that I've earned.
Yeah, no, that totally makes sense.
And I think...
Because that's what socialism is. Yeah, maybe my views will change when I'm making bank and I don't want anybody to take, you know, any money from me.
But, I mean...
As of now, I know what it's like to be a college student, a poor college student, and have parents that are helping me pay through college.
It would just be nice to have a little bit more of a break with that kind of stuff.
Listen, I agree with you.
Here's the thing. I agree with you, and I would actually like to see college be much more affordable.
I would like to see you do very well in this country, and I do believe that your views will change.
Statistically, they're very likely to change, especially considering how open-minded you are and how civil you've been.
I really, really appreciate you, Drew, sitting down very much.
Thank you. I just think...
See, this is a good example.
I'm glad we broadcast this live.
Would you say this is probably a more productive discussion?
Oh, no, this is great. This is, like, I love having conversations with people who have different views of me.
But would you say this is more productive than, say, like, Yusuf?
Oh, I caught the tail end of that.
But, yeah, I mean, from what I caught, that was probably more productive.
Yeah, the tail end is a good way to describe it.
Yeah, I definitely feel like...
I don't know. You changed my mind on some aspects.
I feel like I also made you see that like, you know, not everybody that's kind of more left is just a bad person.
Well, yes. Well, I don't believe that everyone who's left is a bad person.
Yeah, I know. What I do believe is that you're, I do believe your premise is incorrect.
And I do believe that then if we get to the pragmatically speaking, which we didn't really get to because it sounds as though you're kind of acknowledging on a grand scale it couldn't work.
I just think it's important to leave this conversation knowing that I understand you want what's best for America.
You understand that I want what's best.
Yeah. We disagree, and here I've given you something to think about, and I appreciate you taking the time to do it.
Yeah, definitely. Thank you, Drew.
I appreciate it, brother. Someone's yelling at him.
Someone's yelling at him. What?
What? What? What? Max, I don't know.
Hold on. Don't come up behind me like that.
All right, someone's going to pat you down, Max.
Hold on a second. Ho, ho, ho, ho!
Wait, wait, wait! Johnny boy, pat him down.
This guy yells, he's fine.
I'm gonna take your word for it.
The guy who gave me the pin. Max.
Max, nice to meet you, Max.
I appreciate it. Gosh, you were just chomping at the bit.
You just rudely elbowed some girls and came right on in.
I do not mean to be rude or anything.
That's not me. Okay, well, that's not me.
Alright, well, thank you. I think now we're just saying names.
Radicals! No, that would be socialism.
You can't have my water. Alright, Max, I believe that socialism is fundamentally evil.
Right. If you disagree and think you can change...
And then, by the way, after this, we'll move on to another topic.
Who'd like to do, actually, in this climate...
What? No, no, no. Hold on a second.
We're going to do the gun topic.
Pro-gun. Yeah! That seems like a crowd of people who like guns.
I know Max, but you can't take every...
Alright, hold on, calm down.
Max sat down. So I believe that socialism is fundamentally evil.
We don't have a ton of time on this, and we'll move on to guns with someone else.
Change my mind. So, I have some reservations about it.
I would not consider myself a full-on socialist.
That being said...
Nobody who sits down, by the way, does here.
That's what's so interesting. Everyone's kind of like hedging their bets.
It's kind of like that friend in high school who no one...
You want someone to be his friend.
You wish that he had friends, just not you.
So you're like, oh, he's not really my friend.
Full on, but kind of.
That's socialism, it seems, to everyone on this campus.
But I think dismissing all aspects of it as evil is guiding us away from some important policies that can be enacted.
Okay, well first off, I haven't disregarded all aspects of it.
I'm talking about the premise, the fundamental premise, the ism of socialism, right?
Isms are important. Right. So, I guess let's let you define.
Sorry, I know it's not ideal.
We just showed up and we appreciate everyone who's here.
If you can't hear me, I apologize.
The stream will be up online tomorrow.
I really do apologize. Again, thanks to the security who did come here to make sure we could do this tonight.
And we will try and come back.
So, I disagree with the fundamental premise.
For people who think, he said all aspects of socialism.
The ism is what matters.
So socialism, let's define that.
We've done it with everyone else. How do you define socialism?
So, you know, I wouldn't say there's a concrete definition.
You know, talk to various people.
You get various definitions. Let's go with the dictionary.
Right. So I guess you could argue that it is the communalization of the means of production, the socialization of the means of production.
Hold on a second. Hold on a second. This is very important.
And this is one thing I know when I went to college and I see them doing it more and more.
It's okay to say you would presume this, or maybe one might presuppose and talk about your arguments and opinions.
But there are certain things that aren't arguments or opinions.
There are certain things that are facts.
I think we have to agree on that. So I can't go with you down that trail if you say, I suppose you could argue that the definition you just gave, if you could repeat it and say we agree that's socialism, then we can have a conversation, because I'm not arguing what it is.
Well, what do you believe socialism is?
You said you're not quite socialist.
I want to know how you define it.
You just defined it in a way that I think we would agree on.
Can you redefine it?
Okay, sure. I believe that socialist leaning policies are ones that attempt to socialize means of wealth.
Means of production or distribution.
Wealth, means of production, distribution.
Those are your words. I just want to make sure.
Socialism is the means of socializing or the collective ownership taking or control of means of production or distribution.
Correct? Okay, hold on. We're going to have some time.
Don't worry. I just want to make sure we agree on that.
Yes, for sure. Okay. And I believe that that is immoral.
Definitely. Now remember, you were sitting down to change my mind.
Right. So that's the premise.
That's not all the tenetism.
That's the ism. We agree on the ism.
I believe it's immoral. Definitely. Okay, go ahead.
So what I wanted to say is that I think that, you know, blanketing these statements that socialism is as evil is driving our society away from A couple of beneficial policies.
One of them, I believe, is guaranteed basic income, which is an economic system that's been proposed by capitalists, by socialists.
Basically what it would do is it would change the welfare state as we know it, where everybody would be guaranteed a certain amount of income.
This would be around the poverty level.
So we're guaranteeing everybody, you know, like shelter, food, Clothing, however, it would create an incentive for free market enterprise at the same time and create an incentive to work, an incentive for people to get out and profit.
I don't think he was yelling at you.
I think he's just drunk on a Thursday.
Okay, can I address that? Yeah, certainly.
Go ahead. He said I'm a communist?
Alright. I think he must have been talking to you.
So, here's one thing that you just said, I think it would be to sort of eliminate this through the idea that it's evil, would be to not acknowledge the virtues, I guess you said, the beneficial economic effects, economic benefits of socialism.
Again, this is really important because it comes back to the idea that it's evil.
So, for example, many people in Germany argued, especially after the Treaty of Versailles, they would say, well, Hitler was great for the economy.
Does that change his idea of national socialism?
That's a total false equivalency.
No, it's not. The idea is what he did immoral if it had beneficial effects for the economy.
But he blamed it on certain classes of people.
That's not what people who promote socialist policies do.
So who would you blame the inequality problem on today?
Well, the inequality problem is dealt by problems with With, I guess, the rich.
The rich! The upper class!
See? It's a different classism.
Hitler's, you know, we say the 1%, Hitler said, the Jews!
So, the point is, no, no, it's not a false equivalency.
The point is, it doesn't change the fundamental morality of the policy, regardless of how beneficial it is economically.
I'm not saying it's rich people's fault.
I'm saying that that's where you get the wealth disparity.
But before that, as you said, it's to deny the economic benefits.
If the act that would drive economic benefits, for example, you're probably taught in school that the United States was built on the backs of slavery.
I don't agree with that, but you've been taught that, right?
I mean, that's a touchy subject.
I'm not going to get into it. Okay, so people say...
Let's agree that the United States has, let's say, built the backs off of slavery, right?
The Chinese built... There were definitely immoral acts committed with slavery.
I couldn't agree.
Okay, so let's say there are economic benefits to enslaving people.
There certainly are for some people.
It still goes on across the Islamic world.
Today, it still goes on because there are beneficial economic effects to certain groups of people.
Does that change the fact that slavery is immoral?
I'm kind of confused with how this can relate back to the topic that we're talking about.
Let me be really clear. Socialism is immoral.
Okay. Your point?
That's my only point.
And you're here to change my mind, and you're like, well, I'm disregarding that it's immoral.
What if Z? But it does matter if it's immoral.
How do you get socialism out of slavery?
No, the point is they're both immoral, regardless of economic impact.
The benefit of something doesn't change its inherent morality.
We used this example before. If I steal, I can steal money, and I can use it to go get hookers and blow, or I can steal money and I can give it to Bono's charity, which actually is a horrible example because Bono's charity gives less than 1% of charity.
That's not what I'm advocating for. Well, it is.
That's what socialism is. Well, I'm advocating for universal basic income, which is a socialist policy.
How do you provide it? Well, you provide it by taxes.
How do you get taxes? Tax people's income?
How do you do that? The IRS? What if I don't want to pay income taxes for universal income?
I mean, you go to jail.
You have to pay taxes.
That's a fact. And that is?
What do you want me to say to that?
That is the forceful taking of something that you have not earned.
That's the definition of theft.
You've just described theft.
But surely, I mean, you talked about this with someone earlier.
There are necessary goods that need to be provided via taxes that wouldn't be provided because of a free rider problem.
In this case, you can link that back to the universal basic income.
It provides goods that some people can't afford normally.
Again, we're going back. I think you're jumping around here, and I think we're about out of time.
We're going to do the gun argument. Because if I say that socialism is evil, and you grant that, well, maybe it is, but some people really need that theft to occur.
That's not what I'm saying. Well, that is what you're saying.
No. So you don't believe that threatening someone with jail, if they don't pay additional taxes to take their money...
It's not additional. It's not additional taxes. It's overhauling the welfare state system that we have in the status quo.
Okay. So how much is enough?
Wealthy people in America today pay about half.
What's the number? What's the moral number?
The moral number of a percentage that they should pay?
Well, I think it's important to audit where our money is going first and then evaluate how much it would cost for a universal basic income.
After that, you talk to the economists and you decide what would be an appropriate income tax level to provide for a universal basic income.
So, I mean, I'm not an economist.
You don't have those numbers?
I'm not an economist, so I don't.
I haven't heard of any legitimate economist who's argued that it would work.
What was your name again? I'm Max.
Max. I appreciate it, Max, because, again, if we both agree on the premise, you haven't changed my mind as to the fundamentalism of socialism.
Thank you, Max. I appreciate it. You can give the floor to someone else.
Thank you. You know what, Naki, Jared, let's change this to the firearm argument, the pro-gun change.
We have that, right? Do we have that banner?
Yeah. I don't know who the radicals are.
Are there radicals here? Hold on one second.
We are going to change...
What was that?
Okay, hold on. I got it by knock it here in three minutes.
So we're going to go with the next topic.
I'm sure you've seen this before.
Who here is pro-Second Amendment?
Woo!
That's so good!
Okay, so, pro-Second Amendment.
This is one, obviously, it's a hot topic right now.
You have a lot of high schoolers who are making the rounds.
And I know it's unpopular to say, I don't think that people should be determining policies, certainly as it relates to fundamental human rights, on an emotive response, regardless of whether they're 16 or 96.
I'm pro-Second Amendment.
For those who don't know, I was raised in a country where there is no Second Amendment, Canada.
There is also no First Amendment.
So when I came here, I shot my first gun.
I love this!
Alright? Kind of violates the principle of civil dialogue and changed my mind.
Denigrating an entire nation of people.
But the truth is Canada's pretty silly.
And so this is an issue right now that is, I think, particularly for a lot of people here, particularly, obviously, as we're talking about today, here at the school, you know, listen, we want to do this big show that we did, like, at SMU here, and we can't do it without security to ensure the security of the audience and the security of the venue.
And this is also something, before we get into the second event, so it's very near and dear to our heart, because many members of our team have had restraining orders or they've had serious security threats where, I won't say who, but some of them do have to carry.
Maybe I have to carry. Who knows?
I don't know anyone here whether you have a carry permit or not.
Isn't that the wonder of it?
Roll the dice. Let's see if you win the lottery.
So it's an issue, obviously, that's near and dear to my heart.
And I also think it's important to see kind of the bias by omission from the left that you see on campus.
It's one thing to just ban somebody on campus.
And it's another thing to make it impossible to bring in certain speakers.
It's another thing to make it impossible for people to come in and do what they've planned to do.
This right here is not ideal.
Yeah, we wanted to bring in like an SMU who had a fog machine and light shows.
My half-Asian lawyer, Bill Richman.
Who knows Bill Richman? Tranny Bain showed up.
It's a lot of fun. It's a stage performance.
We wanted to be the funnest party on campus.
Sven Computer was there, BP. Sven is an intern.
Sven is working home base to stream right now.
As a matter of fact, hi Sven. I think he's doing the live tweeting.
Hi! But this is something that's important.
The constant change, and it relates back to the Second Amendment.
With the campus, the reason that we did this is because we ran into a lot of roadblocks.
We knew it couldn't be safe.
We knew we weren't able to do the show we wanted to do last minute.
I think we're going to be doing it at A&M, if I'm not mistaken, later in April.
We'll be broadcasting that. We already taped some sketches and some segments and have some guests booked.
But we said, you know what?
Rain or shine, we're going to show up anyway.
This is what we can do.
Yeah! It's like that scene in Fred Claus where they make the hula hoops and the baseball bats.
All that matters is that a kid has a present to open up on Christmas.
That's what this is. We didn't want the fans to be screwed.
We know it's not ideal, but we appreciate you showing up.
And hey, look, we didn't get any rain.
So, I'm pretty sure that's a sign God hates socialism.
And then as to the rules that change that we talk about, I'm sure plenty of people have dealt with this with Facebook and Twitter and YouTube.
They make up these new violations and they change the rules and you don't know how to play by them because there really are no rules.
That's what happens when we often try to come to campus.
That's what often happens when we try to get everything booked in advance.
The rules change. There were some miscommunications here.
So we appreciate the private security detail who came out.
We appreciate the one officer who was willing to show up today.
And that's the same thing, yeah.
I'm sure Illinois unions have nothing to do with that.
If you show up to the Lotto with Crowder event, you'll meet the brass knuckles.
I don't know why Urbana sounds like a guy from New Jersey.
I have no idea. That's what happens with the Second Amendment, right?
We see that a lot. What do they say?
The ever-changing rules.
And so I think the premise is important, what the Second Amendment is, what it ensures.
Otherwise, you get into the territory of, oh, no one wants to take your guns away.
No one wants to do it. And now do we see?
We saw Justice Stevens say, let's repeal the Second Amendment.
Reiner. I know, and everyone tried to blame, like, yeah, that's a conservative thing because he has an R next to his name.
How many people here don't care if someone has an R next to their name?
It comes down to what your principles are.
Not being imprisoned?
What? Oh, shall not be infringed.
Yeah, I appreciate it. Thanks for yelling out.
I can't really hear you guys that well, so if I ignore some of your yells, I did hear Canada sucks.
That one was loud and clear. I think they heard you in Nova Scotia.
So I think it's important. This is why we go back to the fundamental issue.
As we talked about earlier, I appreciate you.
It's like nothing up my sleeves. You can see these notes here.
You know what, here, one second. You guys want to do an exercise before?
I can't show this to all of you. But what's your name?
What's your name? Debbie. Debbie.
Debbie. Would you mind sitting down, Debbie, real quick?
I know you're a fan real quick.
So, we're going to go to Second Amendment.
Oh, shoot. Sorry, I just spilled water.
Shoot, I got water all over myself.
So, this is what we have written down, as you can see here, kind of in red, while some of these are in black, are the claims that they might make.
And could you do me a favor? These are arguments that are very commonly made by the left.
So, it doesn't take a genius.
You just have to know the branch and then kind of the sticks that go off from the branch.
Now, guess what? You don't get off the branch if they can't convince you that theft, that socialism, is somehow moral.
Sorry, are you cold? I know, I wish I had hand warmers.
I'm freezing. That being said, we have these arguments.
Let's be careful. No, no, that's okay.
Thank you. I appreciate it. You're in a t-shirt.
You want to show that you do racy jujitsu, I appreciate it.
What are you? Bluebell? Purplebell?
Okay, good for you. Can you do me a favor?
Just so you guys can kind of see this, I don't think we've heard anything today.
Debbie? Debbie. Debbie, that we weren't already prepared for.
And this is something that's a fundamental difference between the right and the left.
It is very easy to prepare.
Why? Why is it easy to prepare?
Because they have the same arguments. Well, because what did I do?
I looked at what your professors here on campus say.
And by the way, it's the exact same when you go back to Marx, to Bernie Sanders, you go all the way to the media when they talk about democratic socialism, there's nothing new.
Now, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't prepare yourself for every possibility, but all I have to do is look at what your professors say, and we heard that parroted today.
So can you do me a favor here? Let's just read kind of these claims so people can kind of see.
We won't go through the rebuttals, but we'll just see the claims that we anticipated today.
Sure. The top 0.1% have as much wealth as the bottom 90% or any variant of that stat.
This income inequality is outrageous and immoral.
Now, of course, I wrote it as a more angry liberal.
But did you saw us run into that?
The idea of inequality, that that's more immoral than socialism.
Well, guess what? We were prepared for that.
And actually, we even agreed with Drew that that's not fundamentally immoral.
This one here, you saw socialist countries like Denmark, Sweden.
I don't think we actually had the corporation argument here.
Let's see what else we got. So, okay, let's read this one.
So what if it costs a lot?
Universal healthcare is way better in other countries.
You're reading it like Andy Kaufman reading The Great Gatsby.
You're very enthusiastic. It is better in other countries.
I appreciate it. We didn't hear someone bring that up, but we did hear people bring up the virtues of socialized healthcare.
One thing there that's really easy, by the way, Really, really easy.
When people say universal healthcare in other countries, because now we've gotten off the moral argument, keep bringing them back to, well, hold on a second.
If Hitler provided universal healthcare, I'm not comparing Bernie Sanders to Hitler, but I'm saying if you use nationalist socialism to provide healthcare for a certain nation of people, does that change the fundamental immoral act of that ill-gotten gain?
It doesn't. But even then, when we get to the pragmatic results, and we write this here, actually, we have these stats, but You don't need all these stats.
For example, 45% more likely to die in British hospitals.
Emergency rooms, you can see here, nine hours in Canada.
In the United States, it's two hours. I dealt with that one as a kid.
You don't need those stats. There's one stat you need to know when it comes to universal healthcare.
The only example that the left can point to of universal healthcare working better...
is our subjective polling methods where people are asked if they're satisfied with their level of health care.
Well, it's just like with college kids here.
If someone gave you a crappy 2002 Kia and you'd been riding the Champaign-Illinois bus for weeks, you would think that that was awesome.
If someone said, do you like your car, you'd probably say yes, right?
Now, that being said, someone who has a five-year-old Cadillac and is ready and is able to afford something better and wants to, they would have a different standard.
So the only stat that leftists point to, or I would say, I don't want to say only because I'm like, well, there's this one in this colony with these tribes.
Let's remove that. The main staff that's pointed to, and I would question your professors on this, when they say universal healthcare works better than these other countries, now we've gotten away from the moral argument, we've gotten away from the economic nationalism that you see in these countries, you're talking about subjective standards.
Because objectively, longer wait times are not better.
Objectively, higher mortality rates are not better.
Objectively, your chances of dying from some kind of a serious illness or not getting care are not better.
Objectively, the standards are not better.
Subjectively, they're better.
Be prepared for that and know that, because it's the most common argument I see, and I see so many conservatives going, well, I guess I didn't know that Cuba had better health care.
Did you see that? And Michael Morsico, for a perfect example, he claimed Cuba had better health care than the United States.
Why? Because they thought it was better.
They said, do you like your health care more?
And they said, yes, we think it's better.
But it's not. Alright, do we need to...
Wait, don't end it.
Hold on, this is a family show. Oh, no, no, no, we're good, we're good.
Okay, here's one that I think we ran into a few times.
Can you read this claim right here? Sure.
We already have many socialist policies in the US. Public roads, police, military.
Do you want to abolish those as well?
What's the harm of adding more?
Free healthcare. Nothing up my sleeve!
So see how many, I think all three of us, all three arguments run into that, right?
Yeah. This is what we call really a false equivalency.
Now how does that work? How do you prepare yourself for it?
And that's what we're going to be printing these booklets.
Hopefully, you know, any Mug Clubbers here, the more people who join Mug Club, the more we'll have time to print them out.
And money to do so. We're going to self-publish that.
Again, it's a false equivalency.
You need to know the difference between a public good, as we discussed, right?
Right. And a commodity.
Once you define that, that's why it's so important to define your terms.
What is socialism? What do I mean by evil?
What is a public good?
What is a commodity?
What's the difference? When you get down to the definition, Andrew Breitbart was a man who actually coached me.
I was just a stand-up comic... Thank you very much.
Yeah, he was a great guy.
Great guy. I'm talking about Breitbart the man, not the trademark, just the man.
I knew him personally. He was a tremendous guy.
I can't say enough good things about him.
And by the way, very flawed as well, as many great people are.
You look at the story of Churchill. I would certainly say he's comparable in the war on new media.
He always talked about knowing your definitions.
Because if you say, well, one could argue that socialism is, don't let him do that.
Because then guess what?
Now they can say, well, hold on, that's just one definition.
No, no, let's define what it is.
And let's discuss that. Do not allow the conversation to go on undefined.
Not only is it no longer productive, you'll just begin talking in circles and it becomes a cable news soundbite gotcha game, but it's also just a way to not be able to make a constructive argument.
It's just not helpful, and sometimes you end up looking stupid because you haven't defined what it is.
So, here we go.
That's all we have here on the socialism.
So what would you say? You say that pretty much all the arguments we heard were right here in this booklet?
Yes. Oh, there you go.
Debbie. 99.5 in your opinion?
Okay. Just like the 80...
95 to 99.
All right. What are you like?
It's like Mathry Roderick in the computer wore tennis shoes.
He's just... You're like Sven Computer. Beep, beep, boop.
95%. And by the way, we also have, as you can see, we have death rates here, all of these sources, which would be in the Change My Mind book when we release it.
Debbie, did you have any questions?
We're going to move on to the Second Amendment thing, but I appreciate you watching my back there, and I appreciate you helping me out with this.
Is there anything else you have to say? Can you follow me on Twitter?
I will follow you on Twitter.
What is your Twitter? Debbie Bernal.
Debbie Bernal? Add Debbie Bernal.
Everyone here, follow Debbie on Twitter.
Debbie Bernal. Oh, and by the way, if I can ask you guys, everyone here has a smart device, the stream is live on YouTube and Facebook.
If everyone here could take out your smartphone and make sure to tweet out the hashtag ChangeMyMind and Crowder Illinois Takeover, which was not self-titled, but I think it's pretty...
I'll go with it.
I appreciate it. You can take a selfie.
Yes, Debbie, because you assisted so well.
Thank you. So everyone follow Debbie and everyone retweet the stream.
You guys are fantastic.
Stop! Spell Bernard.
Bernal. B-E-R-N-A-L. B-E-R-N-A-L. Debbie Bernal.
Okay, no creepy... No one Anthony Weiner that.
I can see already people lifting their jacket, taking the Space Odyssey angle.
Sick puppies, all of you.
All right, so I am pro-Second Amendment.
This is a hot-button issue today.
I guess we don't really need this.
The socialism is evil.
I'm pro-Second Amendment.
Change my... Hold on one second.
Let's knock it, Jared.
Or someone, we need someone just to give him a check.
Right here!
Who's behind?
Hey!
Wait, is it MAGA hat?
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
He has a MAGA hat? Let me see.
Make data great again.
Okay, Silicon Valley fan.
All right, let's go. Bring him on.
What's your name, sir? Carvick?
Karthik, sit down, Karthik.
Nice to meet you. Everyone give a hand for Karthik sitting down having a discussion.
Nope, you don't get to take the microphone.
Sorry, sorry, sorry. Wow, that's a very college student of you.
My microphone! But you didn't earn it.
Mine! I'm kidding.
So, okay, I am pro-Second Amendment.
I support the Second Amendment wholeheartedly.
It seems to me that you disagree. If you do, I'm willing to hear your arguments and have my mind changed.
Sure. So, I just want to clarify.
I don't necessarily disagree with the Second Amendment itself.
All right. You don't disagree with the Second Amendment itself?
I disagree with certain implementations of gun policy itself.
Does that work?
No, it doesn't work.
It doesn't work if we say, well, first off, what do we agree on the Second Amendment to mean?
And this is something that we see a lot.
You see a lot when people come up, and they're a little bit more confident, and then people see some discussions kind of unravel the way they did, and they go, well, I'm not really a socialist.
I'm not really against the Second Amendment.
I'm against gun policy implementation, is what you've said now.
It doesn't work for me, but let's go along that trail.
First off, what do you believe the Second Amendment to mean?
I mean, I believe it's the right to bear arms, regardless of whatever type of gun.
I know you're going to have to have you speak up, Karthik.
Okay, sorry. You can yell at me, it's okay.
Just don't call me autistic. Can you hear me?
Yes. All right, so, I believe that the Second Amendment is...
I mean, it's the right to bear arms.
That can include any type of gun.
Okay. But I think from a policy standpoint...
Can you guys hear them?
Karthik, you have to speak up or we can't do this.
Okay, so I believe that from a policy standpoint, we have to regulate certain types of guns or just certain types of situations to account for certain external...
Karthik, you're very nice, but your voice is like white noise.
Okay, okay. We need to hear you.
And I'm not saying, I don't want to give you the boot, but if they can't hear you, we can't have the conversation.
Okay, so I really believe that the gun...
There we go! You starting to hear them?
Yeah? Good! Good!
I'm cheering you, Karthik!
They're rooting for you over me!
Go! Sound off like you got a pair!
I believe that there are certain situations where the government has to step in to account for certain externalities that might exist within, you know, whether or not that's the economy or the society.
So, from a certain standpoint, I agree that we should, you know, be very, well, I use the term lightly, but I believe we should be very liberal in terms of the type of guns we allow in the society.
I just think that we have to place certain regulations to prevent certain...
So, I'll get into that, right?
Well, hold on a second. What matters most is you said the Second Amendment is the right to bear arms.
Yes. You said period. Yes.
Okay. So what matters is also the why.
Why? I mean, I believe that it's to, you know, prevent against, like, an oppressive government.
Yes, yes. Well, both internal and external threats.
So we would both agree on that? Yeah. Okay, good.
Because, well, actually, they're often not teaching that in schools.
So I appreciate that you actually acknowledge that, that, okay, the Second Amendment is to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, historically understand why that exists, and you said that should include, we should be very liberal, including most firearms.
And now you've said certain externalities.
So that's, the reason why is it's, and by the way, we would both have to agree it's Amendment No.
2 in our Constitution.
It's a fundamental human right.
Yeah, absolutely. Okay, so now I'd like you to go on with why and when we should strip people of their human rights.
Sure. So, from my general understanding, there are two major problems with guns, and I don't think that mass shootings in general is...
I mean, I think it's a...
Can you guys hear Karthik?
Okay, okay, okay, okay, okay.
Okay, okay, so I don't...
Okay, so I... So I don't believe that mass shootings are the problem that we have to be looking at.
Because when we look at gun violence, the problems that I see are gang violence and gun-related shootings related to suicide, right?
So these are the real problems that I think I see with gun deaths, gun violence right now.
So I think these are the externalities that we have to try to account for.
So you mean, for example, you talk about gang violence.
So externalities like crime.
Yeah, sorry. Now you guys got him nervous.
He's literally eating the mic. Jerks.
Like crime. Right, absolutely.
So we should outlaw crime.
No, look, I agree.
I think that we do need to attack this from a standpoint.
Okay, hold on. So let's stop doing this. What changes would you make to the Second Amendment, or what do we need to do differently?
Because I don't want to walk around in circles here, especially when people get here.
The Second Amendment right now gives me the right to keep and bear arms, to protect myself against a tyrannical government, or someone kicking in my door, or all of the above.
What problem do you have with it?
So I think just as an addendum to the Second Amendment, right, and this is going to be very, very unpopular, right, but I believe that I think we need gun registry.
I think we need to keep a tally on who has guns.
And hold on, hold on.
I believe this because I think it can actually aid in law enforcement, right?
You can actually create risk pools, so where gun violence is likely to occur based on, you know, how many suicides have occurred in a certain situation.
In a certain area, right?
So if you have a gun registry, you can actually tally that data, and you can create...
I appreciate you taking time, Karthik.
That's where we're going to end this one. Give it up for Karthik, everybody.
It's hard to hear him. And the only reason I'm doing this is because there's no way...
Hold on a second, hold on a second, hands down.
There's no way... You can go wherever you want, or you can hang around for a bit.
There's no way that my mind will be changed on this, because we just talked about, okay, the Second Amendment, what it is, it's a fundamental human right to defend against a tyrannical government.
And this is one thing that kind of happens with the left.
It's a circular feedback loop.
What's the solution? To give the government the ability to know exactly who has guns, when they have guns, where they have guns.
Why? To empower the police force.
Keep in mind, the left today, as we know them, of course, as today's social movement, these are the people who believe that police officers are offing black kids in record numbers just because of the melanin in their skin.
So to say that we acknowledge that the Second Amendment is a fundamental human right to defend against a tyrannical government would fly in the face of the idea of a gun registry.
And if you look at this, you look at the Australian buyback that people often point to, you look at what's happened in places where there are gun registries, Yes, it is used directly to infringe upon people's human rights, which is the entire purpose of the Second Amendment in the first place.
I just didn't want to continue down that trail.
I know you guys couldn't hear him. I don't think it's a particularly convincing argument.
The second I hear gun registry, I'm not on board.
But yeah, this guy, good to go?
Go ahead. You have a gun registry in the state of Illinois?
Well, then don't be so upset when I insult Illinois.
Gosh. All right.
Sorry, go ahead. What's your name again?
Jonah. Jonah. Jonah, nice to meet you.
I am pro-Second Amendment. Appreciate it.
Change my mind. I can't you guys have a gun registry in Illinois
Okay Yeah, I was gonna say you guys
Oh, geez. Okay.
All right, guys, guys, guys, guys.
This isn't Gangs of New York, okay, Mr.
Dead Rabbits? These aren't the four corners.
Everyone just calm down. Jonah is here.
We want him to be calm, collected.
I am pro-Second Amendment.
I appreciate you taking the time to sit down.
I appreciate you finding the crowd down a little bit.
Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
You look like that kid, that actor who was in the Black Donnellys.
You ever see that show? I have not.
There was a film, I think, called The Ruins.
By the way, can people hear me all right?
I think we can. I thought that was a big issue.
All right, sounds good. It was a pretty big issue.
If they can't hear you, you know, obviously, then they can't hear you.
It's hard to have an argument, I guess, right?
Discussion. Or discussion, whatever you want to call it.
Sure. Hold on a second. Hold on a second.
Let's define our terms, right?
No, no. This isn't an argument.
I want to be really clear. I think we've had some really, really productive discussions with several different people today.
I mean, I don't think that there's necessarily a negative connotation.
I wouldn't give a negative connotation in this context with an argument, but this is beating around the bush.
Discussion, fine. Okay. Okay, so you're pro-Second Amendment, right?
Yes. Okay, and as you just did, let's define what Second Amendment is, purpose, and I totally agree with you.
Well, let's read it, actually.
Good. Appreciate it.
I don't have notes. I have the internet, you know.
No, and listen, by the way, I'm not using them.
People keep an eye on this.
I'm not using the notes. So I would love for you to read the Second Amendment.
Hold on, hey, Russian collusion. Jonah, I would like for you to read the Second Amendment.
Don't worry, they're just rambunctious because they didn't get Tranny Bain out here.
If you can read the Second Amendment for me, I would appreciate it.
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Hold on a second, one thing, one thing, one thing.
Hold on, hold on, calm down, hold on a second.
Guys, guys, hold on, calm down.
It's hard to have a discussion if I can't speak, right?
Yeah, I know, but you've seen, I'm doing my best, but I get to do this.
They're going to listen to me. They're probably not going to listen to you.
That's great. They love America.
Okay, so you just read the Second Amendment.
Wonderful. So we both still agree on what it is.
Yes, and let's just clarify it, right?
So it is the right to keep and bear arms to protect yourself against foreign and domestic threats.
Good. Including the government.
Thank you. Appreciate it. So, let's do that.
The implications of that statement are, I want a tank.
I should be able to go buy me a tank right now.
Yeah. Would you agree with that statement?
Here's what's ironic about that statement.
First off, tanks are allowed in Europe, which is very interesting to me.
And are you aware of Madison's letter of mark and reprisal?
I'm not. Okay.
So this is a letter actually giving...
It was a letter issued to a private ship that said, hey, are we allowed to have cannons on this ship to protect from pirates?
And Madison said, the Second Amendment.
Of course you are. So will we say that cannons are at least similar to a tank?
Back then it was the most basically advanced weaponry you could have.
Well, so...
So let me make sure I understand what you're saying.
You're saying that back in the day you could get, not just musket, but you said you could get a cannon.
A cannon, yes, yes, yes.
I'm saying that, yes, back in the day the Second Amendment covered, yes, all small arms, all individual arms that could be used defensively, yes.
So you're saying that I should be able, I'm 18, should I be able to go buy a tank?
Is that what you're saying?
Yes! First off, I know you brought up the Constitution.
Why don't we do this? Let's bring up, do me a favor, bring up the definition of arms.
Can I grab it?
They look pretty nice.
I'd like you to bring it up.
I'd like you to bring up the definition of arms to make sure that we're not going on down a rabbit trail where maybe we disagree.
If I search up arms, I'm going to get arms.
No, search up arms.
I'm sure Merriam-Webster, smart document there.
It'll give you the definition of arms.
Since I'm not using reference, I'm asking you two, because I don't think it would be fair for you two.
I will say one part about UIUC I can't stand is the Wi-Fi is terrible.
That's the only part? Well, anyway, it's not quite working here, but anyway.
It's not bringing up arms?
It's not. Can someone bring up the definition of arms?
Okay, who has the definition of arms as it relates to weaponry?
What's the definition of arms?
You said you had it.
You're like that kid in class, like, I have the answer, I have the answer, just because you want to stand up.
I forgot my answer. Okay.
Arms. Okay, do you want to read that for me?
Thank you, Nucky, Jared. Weapons and ammunition, armaments.
Okay, weapons and ammunition, armaments.
Okay, and then it says underneath that it includes a list.
Uh, let's see.
Weapons, firearms, guns, artillery, ordinance.
Yeah. Well, you know, the last kid said...
Hold on a second, I don't know how to lock this. Do you want a society...
Because, I mean, the Second Amendment, right?
The whole point of why we have a court, right?
Why we have a judiciary is to interpret what that means, right?
No. And what the implications are.
Really? So you don't think that the courts were...
The Founding Fathers made...
That made the judiciary to interpret the Constitution, to interpret our laws and those implications.
To ensure the authenticity and the implementation of the Constitution.
That's why I think we would both have a problem with activist judges on either side.
Activist judges, I mean, it's supposed to be an inherently non-political position.
That's obviously not the case.
Right. But certainly, like, you know, the lifetime appointments, right?
So you'll have both judges on both sides.
Okay. But forget about that for a second.
Let's go back to your thing, because I don't want to get you off topic, and I don't want you to think that I'm being unfair.
Let's go to the judiciary decision, the most recent of which is...
I'm not quite sure who's wrong.
D.C. versus Heller. Okay.
I'm not familiar with D.C. versus Heller.
Okay. Well, that's the most fundamental Second Amendment case in modern history.
So this is actually where we went down and there were dissenting voices at LOST, so the Second Amendment is currently as it is interpreted.
And it's interpreted as a way that you and I disagreed upon.
Which is, people have the right to keep and bear arms, period.
So, this was up Helen versus...
Helen. I was about to say Helen Keller.
I always get it. Heller versus D.C. What's really important there is you talk about the judiciary, because now we're talking about interpretation of the Second Amendment.
So, let me be really clear before, because then I'll let you know what the judiciary interpretation was of the Second Amendment.
What's your interpretation of the Second Amendment?
Well, as I said, I said it when we first started.
Okay, good. So we agree on that.
But I guess I'm saying, right, like, the First Amendment.
Then where's the disagreement, then?
I guess I don't see. Okay, so we can limit the First Amendment, no?
No. What is libel, right?
No, see, that's different.
Libel, slander, those are all limitations on your freedom of speech in the same way that you can limit your Second Amendment, right?
Incorrect, but continue. Come up here.
So, I don't believe that I should be able to go buy a tank.
Per se. Okay. I'd say that's promotion of general welfare.
That's domestic tranquility, right?
So, I think that the government has a variety of purposes.
And I know you believe in a small government.
That's fine. But there are inherent purposes in having a government.
That's why we have a country. We agree on that.
Okay, fine. So, in my mind, the government should and ought to limit certain things.
For example, I should not be able to buy a tank.
This is your opinion, yeah.
What I would really like to get back to is, I mean, do you believe that I should be able to have a...
Could you do me one favor? I don't want to...
Could you do me a favor? Because you just kind of jumped around to a bunch of different things.
The First Amendment. First off, you went through libel and slander, two very different things, and they're illegal, by the way, for different reasons, which do not infringe upon the First Amendment.
Just like when people use the argument yelling, fire in a crowded theater, it's the call to action.
Libel or slander is actually something that is designed to hurt somebody.
One in the written form, one in the spoken form, which is untrue.
So what you're effectively suing for is that it's a crime because it causes damages in a very tangible way that is fundamentally untrue.
It's not about freedom of speech.
You can say anything you want.
You can right now say anything you want.
You can yell out right now that I'm a dick.
I don't disagree on that.
Yeah, okay. Yeah, thank you very much.
So you can, and I'm not suing you.
There are no damages there.
Okay. Let's get back to the Second Amendment.
Because you just jumped around and said there are limitations of the First Amendment.
I agree, and let's try and stay on top.
So let's go back to the Second Amendment.
Now, the Second Amendment, we agreed on it, but now you're saying there are limitations that need to be interpreted judicially, correct?
Well, I'm saying I think oftentimes you will hear conservatives take this extreme approach whereby they would say, oh, Let's talk about, like, right now, right?
People are trying to, you know, ban semi-autos or etc.
There's a whole bunch of things, bump stocks, the whole thing, right?
Repeal the Second Amendment. Well, let's not talk about that, Greg, because that's not what all liberals think, that we should repeal the Second Amendment.
Many of them do. I don't know if that's true.
I mean, where are you getting that?
You just discussed, in theory, repealing the First Amendment.
That's what you just did. I did not say let's repeal the First Amendment.
I had no point in that. When you say let's put limitations, we can put limitations on the freedom of speech, we currently cannot do that.
That is fundamentally altering the First Amendment.
Let's call it an addendum as opposed to repeal.
I'm saying libel and...
Again, let's get away from the First Amendment.
My point is... What's your problem with the Second Amendment?
Let's get to this, because you're talking around. What is your problem with the Second Amendment, as we both agreed it to be?
And then we'll move on from here. Conservatives often will say, I want my high-capacity magazine, because when the government ultimately becomes tyrannical, and that's up for debate, but sure, fine.
Under the assumption that all governments become tyrannical...
No, no, no, no, no. Okay, hold on a second.
This is something that you can't do.
I know you came in and you said looking for an argument.
I think... Are you more of an argumentative person?
I mean, I don't know quite how to answer that question.
I'll say yes. Because what you just did was you presumed my premise.
You said most conservatives, and then you brought up something that most conservatives do not believe, and then you said all, the assumption that all governments become tyrannical.
So these are presumptions that you're making that I didn't make.
So what I want to do is avoid that.
And I talk about this a lot. Anyone who follows the program, I've not assumed your motive.
I've not assumed your position.
The reason for picking our terms and our definition here It's not trickery.
It's the opposite of it because I don't want to assume your position.
I want to hear your position. So your position in the Second Amendment, your problem with it, as you've agreed with me, it to be.
Again, so let me explain.
I'm saying oftentimes I hear conservatives say...
Is that better? Well, no, you said all government's becoming tyrannical.
But what is your problem with the Second Amendment?
So I'm getting there. Okay, go ahead.
My problem with...
It's not even so much...
So my problem with the Second Amendment is how conservatives talk about it and then not
follow through on their logical premise.
So I guess what I'm saying is, oftentimes...
Guys, don't shut him down.
Okay, listen, you guys, let's have this conversation.
I think it's more productive if we can hear what he has to say, and I appreciate him sitting
down.
So I appreciate your enthusiasm, but let's let him go.
I'm saying oftentimes I hear conservatives say...
Oh, I need an AR-15, I need a high-capacity magazine because I need to be able to protect myself from the government, which is the purpose of the Second Amendment.
And so then I'm going to say, okay, so in order to fully protect yourself from the Second Amendment, you ought to have a tank.
Is that what you're saying? And I think that's kind of an absurd thing.
That is not what I'm saying. I'm not saying in order to protect, you ought to have a tank.
That's not what I'm saying. Okay, so let's say the military all of a sudden tomorrow wants to take over the government, do a coup d'etat, whatever.
Then they'll come stroll into your house and do whatever they want, right?
Because they have a tank, and you can shoot them with your semi-automatic weapon, but like, the tank's gonna win.
No. No.
You'll go with an AR-15 over a tank, right?
Like, that's ridiculous. No.
No. Hold on. Everyone quiet.
No. I'll go with an entirely armed citizenry over a government with a registry able to take their guns away.
So hold on a second. You just made a bunch of presumptions.
No, I'm not saying you ought to own a tank.
It seems to me your problem is with conservative interpretation of the Second Amendment.
And so what you use to substantiate that is what I think you guys, if anyone takes philosophy in college, this reverse nirvana fallacy.
So you're talking about an imbalance of power.
The government has tanks, right?
So you're allowing this presumption to, let's say, this theory, the philosophical portion of this equation.
The government, let's say, became tyrannical, okay?
Sure. You're saying if it became tyrannical...
That's the purpose of the Second Amendment.
Right. You're saying there's potential.
Let's agree with that. So you're saying if they perchance became tyrannical, they would have this incredible advantage because they'd have tanks, not to mention drones, nukes, and your solution to this imbalance in power is to create an even greater discrepancy in power.
So I see what you're saying, and that makes sense.
I guess my point is...
I'd take an AR-15 over nothing, I'd take 300 million Americans with an AR-15 over a tank, and I certainly would take my fundamental human right to own one over someone else's opinion.
Yeah! Say that again?
I didn't hear that last part. And I certainly would take my fundamental human right over someone else's interpretive opinion of it.
So, this doesn't change the fact of...
None of us have disagreed.
It doesn't change the fact as to what the Second Amendment is.
But again, yes, if you look at Afghanistan, you look at guerrilla warfare, you look at, for example, Switzerland with World War II. Armed citizens, it is.
It absolutely is a deterrent.
We know it to be a deterrent. Switzerland was neutral in World War II. No, Switzerland was neutral in World War II, but Switzerland, every person was armed.
Geographically and because of an armed populace, if you look at documentation, that was a big part that allowed them to be neutral.
You read about the Japanese talking about the Americans where they didn't want to get into a land war.
That's ridiculous. I'm sorry.
If you actually think that a military is...
Yes, I do.
Well, I guess then we have a very fundamental misunderstanding that you think a military is scared of the U.S. population because they are well-armed.
Be quiet. I'm talking, right?
Like, calm down. Like, calm down. Here's the reason they're doing it.
They're getting upset because you're not being very civil when you presume things that I didn't say.
Okay? So, none of this changes what the Second Amendment is.
Pragmatically speaking, absolutely.
Of course, I do believe that an armed citizenry versus a tyrannical government is far better than a completely disarmed citizenry.
I know you disagree there, but yeah, I think that that's better overall.
And it doesn't change the fact that I have a fundamental human right in this country to self-protection, regardless of your opinion.
So the reason I ask you this is because your problem has been with the interpretation from conservatives, as you said, of the Second Amendment.
We're going to have to wrap it up here.
So this is my issue.
I have a problem with the leftists, the liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment.
And that goes back to when I asked you before about Heller versus D.C. Because we're talking judicially, the Supreme Court.
Do you know what the dissenting opinions, the opinions on your side of the ledger were for their view of the Second Amendment?
Well, I don't, but I know that in New York State, right, so there was another...
Well, I'm going to give you that, and then I appreciate it.
Was it Jonah? Jonah.
Thank you very much. Let's give it a round of applause for Jonah.
I appreciate it. I would encourage people to look up New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Cuomo.
Okay, great, thank you. And AR-15s were not protected under the Second Amendment.
Okay, I appreciate it.
But I would like you to look up Heller vs.
D.C. And this is so important because Heller vs.
D.C. It's not so much, by the way, we have an interpretation of the Second Amendment as we know it today.
How long have we been doing this?
An hour and a half. Alright, this is actually going to be the last one, so thank you to Jonah.
I want to leave it on this because this is really important.
We've talked about this quite a bit.
I actually have written it down. Actually, I would have you come and look at this to see if we can corroborate it, but you know what?
The truth is, I don't even know the... Actually, do you want Debbie to come on back out?
Debbie! Debbie Bernal, come on back out.
I think I have it. Do you have it?
I think, hold on a second, Debbie.
I don't know where this is. There's two genders, changed my mind.
Male privileges, a myth, changed my mind.
Pro gun is somewhere back here.
Debbie, you want to talk while I do this to buy time?
Who wants to hear from Not Gay Jared?
Jared, say something. Everybody, I just want to thank everyone again for coming out.
We're not wrapping up here, but just a big shout out to support.
That's a fun one.
Everyone come in and support this in this lovely weather.
It's awesome.
And we appreciate the love.
Sound off like you've got a pair.
See, now you see what happens when I give him control of the mic.
No, give it up for Naka, Jared.
He's the guy who made all this happen and came out here.
Oh!
There we go.
Jared! Jared! Jared!
Jared!
Jared!
Okay, so Debbie, I want to sit down.
By the way, don't take any pictures because we're going to sell them.
It's only for $5, but come on.
You guys can't just steal the intellectual property.
That's another argument. Does intellectual property actually exist?
And where does it infringe upon the rights of physical property?
Changed my mind. Okay, so something that I find interesting, actually here, he surprisingly didn't, no one brought up the mass shootings argument.
We have an overall kind of strategy that I write down.
I have a brilliant researcher named Reg who helps me and we prepare.
We sit down and kind of do mock debates through every scenario.
Listen, by the way, I'm showing you this to show you I'm not some skilled debate.
I'm not like a Ben Shapiro.
I'm not this brilliant. I'm not a Thomas Sowell.
I'm a comedian who happens to have a platform and I'm so humbled and grateful for it.
And I'm just hoping that I can help you guys go forward so you can have these conversations and actually change people's minds.
That's one thing that Naki and Jared and I will say.
You know, when we went out and we did Change My Mind the first time, We thought there's no way this is going to be a hit because I had been on Fox News for four and a half years and they were always like, soundbite kids, soundbite!
You know? That's why Al Sharpton just made things rhyme before he has the stroke and the teleprompter.
And we would sit down and do an hour conversation.
And it was just, what, tens of millions of plays?
I don't know how many. It's been one of our most successful segments because it tells me that there's a craving for truth out there right now.
That people want to see something raw.
They want to see something real.
And it surprised us.
It overwhelmed us. And so it's unbelievable that we're able to do this and people will listen.
And I do hope that it's productive and I want more people to go out.
We see people sending in pictures with Change My Mind booths.
We appreciate it. And so eventually we're going to do the book.
Yeah, it's a meme now too.
P is stored in balls. I know.
Bring it! Please continue memeing me.
So we have some strategies here, Deb, where we kind of write down overall, and this will be in the book when we sell it.
Make them define their terms.
Make them determine what the Second Amendment is.
Make them substantiate their claims.
In this case, no one really actually had any changes to the Second Amendment, but ask for their solution.
Determine exactly where their line is.
Have some positive... This is something very important.
Have positive solutions to offer, right?
But I want to see... The last claim that he made was, you think you should be able to have a tank, I believe, right?
Hold on. Let's see.
Let's see where this is. I believe that this is in here somewhere.
Hold on a second. One second.
Okay, here you go. Let's read this claim right here.
Debbie Bernal.
Okay. Okay.
So you say we need guns to resist tyranny.
Do you seriously think that you can resist the U.S. government with your own guns?
Yes, we can! That is the exact argument that we just heard, correct?
Yeah. And this is exactly what we talked about.
This is a reverse nirvana fallacy.
It's this idea of, well, we already live in a society where there's this discrepancy in power, where the government has so much power.
So the solution, I don't know, it's so illogical to me, the solution should be to strip the people who are already less powerful of the power they currently have.
It doesn't stand to reason.
Does the argument hold water?
It does not. It doesn't hold water.
And that's what the Socratic method is.
I've talked about this quite a bit.
Debbie, do you have anything else you want to peruse or read?
No? Debbie!
Debbie! Debbie!
DEBBIE! DEBBIE! DEBBIE! DEBBIE! DEBBIE!
What? Oh, hold on a second.
Alright, so we are going to have to get going pretty soon here.
And that's... well, thank you very much, I appreciate it.
Like I said, hopefully next time we come into Urbana, we bring one...
Debbie! Debbie!
Debbie! With the kick-ass fog machine, the light show, the security.
We just did SMU. By the way, we have been, we're so grateful and so humbled.
We've been grossly underestimating the audiences that show up.
As we did here today, this is last minute.
It was planned yesterday.
With McFarland Auditorium at SMU, we had to turn away people in a 2,500-seat auditorium.
Just making sure that the exits there are secure required, I think, 18, 25 police officers.
And so we're really trying to get everything up to snuff here.
We actually, specifically for you guys, just so you know, Specifically because of the miscommunications that fell through and security not being as helpful as we would have liked them to, and specifically because we weren't able to get in and bring in our equipment, we bought a shitty news van slash bus to equip so that when things like this happen, we can in an emergency drive across the country and get to you guys faster.
That way we can actually broadcast from the van.
We will broadcast from the van on the side of the road, if we have to.
We'll find a place. This is the deal.
We've talked about this. This is no longer just coming to play nice.
This is intellectually a hostile takeover.
We are coming to your campuses, period.
Whether you ban us or not, we're going to find a way.
We'll be right near the campus.
We want to come in and do the Lotter with Crider.
It's a comedy show. We want to do the same shows that liberals are able to do on campus.
We want to come in and make it entertaining for you guys so everyone can have a night of laughs and escape for a little bit.
But if we're not allowed to, if they start putting up these roadblocks, we'll just get in a bus and drive up anyway.
Because you guys...
And I say this, I'm hunched over here.
I feel like the BFG. You guys, this is genuinely about everyone out here, and I appreciate everyone here being respectful and not shouting anyone down.
This is not about the police officers on campus.
This is not about the college Republicans.
This is not about me. It's not about Nakai Jarrett.
It's about the audience here, the fans, people out there who crave truth, who want to walk in the light of truth right now on campus.
And I know it's hard. I know it's time to...
I had an email here today.
This is something I hate to end it on a dour note, but this happened at SMU. Can I talk about this?
It's a little bit kind of sensitive.
This kid sent an email today.
He talked to me, and I gave him an email to send it to.
And this is not to be self-aggrandizing.
It's because I think Nakei Jared would agree we've realized the responsibility that we have.
And that's why everyone got into a van and drove 14 hours?
Yeah, 14 hours. I had to fly, but I'm getting in the van back with him.
I'm not looking forward to it.
There was one flight left to Champaign.
Apparently a bustling airport.
But a kid came up and he talked to me after SMU. And he said, you know, your show saved my life.
I know that sounds like, well, how could it?
He said, I felt so alone, and I was very depressed, and I'm a conservative on campus, and I was constantly vilified, and as I came out of the closet as a conservative, I lost friends, and I think, I won't get into private details, but this is someone who obviously has some mental health issues.
Which is also why, by the way, I don't believe in removing fundamental human rights for people who have mental health issues because that's one thing when we talk about not wanting to stigmatize all gun owners, I think it's also important to not stigmatize anyone who has PTSD or someone who as a teenager was depressed and miserable because they tried to whack them out on drugs because they weren't more like kids and then tell them they can't own a gun to protect themselves because they have some issues.
He said, I was depressed.
Apparently, I shouldn't say kid.
Apparently PTSD. Apparently this is someone who I believe served.
It wasn't entirely clear.
You never know with the left. Sometimes they'll say PTSD because we came on campus.
But I do believe this man actually had it.
And he said, you know, really, I was depressed.
I was in a bad place. I was suicidal.
And watching this show made me feel less alone.
And here's the thing. The only point to this, and this is, we want to arm you guys.
Arm, gosh, we're going to get in trouble. With the ability to provide information to everyone on campus, we want you to all be able to provide your own arguments.
This is the opposite of exclusivity.
This is the opposite of having some secret formula.
We want to give it out to as many people as possible.
We want all of you to be able to have these conversations and change minds.
We want you to be able to do so in a way that's productive.
You don't, listen, obviously our show is pretty offensive, but we don't want to give, you don't want to give the left an excuse just by being a dick and not being able to substantiate it.
That's why we're out here, is to make sure that you guys don't feel alone.
To make sure that you guys don't feel afraid.
And if you see people like us, if you see us get banned from Twitter, if you see us get banned from YouTube, if you see us not able to be able to visit campus, I know.
We see kids, what shot do you have?
We get these emails all the time. This kid, this guy said he was really depressed and it made him feel less alone.
And this is one thing that I think everybody needs to understand.
I think it changed my mind. This whole conversation has helped.
You see with Black Lives Matter.
You see with the idea of male privilege.
You see with the idea of modern feminism.
You see it with Antifa.
And by the way, here's the thing. I understand that some of these people have had some pretty bad breaks in these groups.
I understand that some of them have legitimate grievances.
But what I also understand is they do not have a corner.
On feeling alone. Or on being afraid.
None of them do. No one has a corner on being afraid.
No one has a corner on having a tough life.
Listen, Black Lives Matter coming out and talking about systemic discrimination.
I get that this guy might have had a bad encounter, but are you going to tell me that just because of the melanin in his skin, his experience was worse than a guy who came in out of the military from an abusive alcoholic father who was suicidal with PTSD, felt so alone he was close to blowing his brains out, and then what helped him was watching a show with Not Gay Jared and I dressed up like Swedish twins.
That should tell you how afraid people are right now out there.
And the reason we do this, the reason we came here and showed up, and like I said, I know it's not ideal, we really wanted to put on something else for you guys, is just because I want you all to understand that you don't have to be afraid.
There are a lot of things to be afraid of.
Speaking up is not one of them.
The fact that you're here should vote for your confidence.
Look! Look at everyone here!
There's a movement right now, and I've been around for a long time, there's a movement afoot that I have not seen since I've been involved, since I've been alive.
This is an opportunity right now, and everyone, look at this, this would have not happened five years ago.
This would have not happened right after Barack Obama was elected.
And not only did it happen, it happened without riots, it happened without looting, and it happened where we actually seated people down, and you were more polite to them than they were to you, even though you watch a show that has people like Tranny Bain and my half-Asian lawyer telling Twitter to go f**k themselves.
You can have fun and you can still be productive.
And above all else, do not be afraid.
We love you guys so much. Let them hear your warrior!
Everyone! God bless you!
God bless Illinois someday!
▲
Export Selection