1. I like these videos. Interesting and educational. I do disagree with some of your views (not the whole weed thing, though), but at least I can see where you are coming from and I understand the reasoning. I'm not really a political personal and also not American, so I had to read up a bit about the definitions of conservatism. When you said something like "a conservative would never say we don't want that because it is new", that was kind of what I though conservatism was (total over simplification of course). I think that is because when American politics make the news over here, it is usually with the more extreme stances that someone has (of which there seem to be a lot make since Trump is president, I don't think people outside of the US saw that much about US politics before that). This traditional/religious/national conservatism I often fundamentally disagree with, but the idea behind what you call "true conservatism" (which best fits the Wikipedia definition of "liberal conservatism" as far as I can see), I can understand and in principle I agree.
    I just think that the concept of minimal government intervention often does not work and then we should abandon it. For example: There are laws against things like harming people and I don't think anyone in their right mind would disagree with that. If we did not have these laws, there would be a lot more crime (wouldn't really be crime then but whatever).
    So I think we also need laws/regulations that prevent people from harming the environment, because otherwise giant companies are going to fuck up the place we live in permanently just to have some short term benefits.
    Same with guns: I'm not against guns and if you handle it responsibly, you should be allowed to have a gun if you want to. But if it comes to a point where there is a mass shooting once a day on average, then maybe it's time to think about regulating them. Like pro-gun people always say: Guns aren't the problems, people are. And if people can't handle the guns then they loose the right to have them.

  2. I like to quote Genesis 1:11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. If god saw the plants and seeds as good then no one can argue love of god and weed is bad at the same time.

  3. Ok after getting home after doing a 12 hour shift flagging on the road watching this video just flat out is relaxing. I like Louis GoPro video's even more than his repair video's. What he says makes sense and i find it interesting. 🙂

  4. The argument is bull*** that weed is not a cultural thing because the is data that it is, but so is your government healthcare argument. The US spends ~8.5% GDP in form of public money for health care, like any European country with very good universal health Care (i.e. Austria) but I'm the US the total % in GDP spending (incl private) is nearly double the amount of those very good general health care.
    My argument would be, that the deregulated health care system in the US has grown that inefficient, that in this system it is impossible to get general health care.
    So you have 2 options. Either not care about too poor people (circumstances be damned) or reform the system.
    But saying: the government is bad in healthcare, is objectively false, when you see what efficient governments can do with half of the money the US spend on this (in %GDP. so even less on pure amount as the GDP of the US is higher than Austrias for example)

  5. Capitalism is no less evil than Socialism. It exists to protect the rich by exploiting & suppressing the poor. This is achieved by paying people just enough to spend in your store, but not to compete for that house or open another store next to you

  6. Allow my opinion about this… Comparing marijuana with alcoohol is a truckload of bullcrap : when you take a beer, or a glass of good wine during dinner, you don't get drunk after a glass or a sip, it's mostly for the taste or the refreshment and the goal is not invariably to get drunk, you can stay clear minded. On the other hand, the main goal of taking a joint of weed is exclusively to get stone, period. Not for the taste, not for anything else than to get stone and bang your head on the wall (if you don't get stone then the weed is bad and you're unhappy)… As opposed to alcohol, when you take weed the only single outcome as a goal is to break you "social contract" as a citizen, especially at your workplace : you sabotage your own person, efficiency, etc., in a context of "interdependency" with others, like breaking a confidence and a rightful assumption about this. Which is clearly not the case if you take a beer or a glass of wine during your lunch time ! Of course one can abuse alcohol and get drunk, of course there are alcoholic people out there, but we don't make alcohol illegal because most of the time people don't get drunk every time they drink alcohol and these people have the right to appreciate a good wine or a beer etc. Thus, these two products CANNOT be compared like this : stating that since alcohol is allowed, than weed should also be allowed, would be a non-argument.

    This is serious, the pandora box has been opened : since Canada has made weed legal, nowadays, Ontario (especially Toronto) is considering to make other drugs like heroin, cocaine and such as legal, for some dogmatic "freedom" to get stone… However IMHO the only "freedom" here that would be involved, is the freedom for some people to make money on the back of human biological weaknesses (addiction for instance), and that's not "freedom", it's a mob-like neoliberal fascist shit! ("neoliberals" must not be confused with "liberals", the prefix "neo" being important: these are Marxist-Trotskyist from the 60's and share the same "values" as neoconservatives on the following matter : a machiavellian type of power over what they consider as the "irrelevant masses", like a remnant of Leo Strauss from the "School of Chicago").

  7. The US federal reserve is a private organisation not owned by the UIS government. Making it go away involves intervention by the US government to both get rid of it and take over control of the that part of the US economy.

  8. I think to that its intellectually dishonest to form a political belief based on faulty data and assumptions about how the world works with no actual foreknowledge of weather or not what you have been told is true. I think people fall in love with the notion of a tribe weather it be the color of their skin or a donkey/elephant that you base your tribe association with.

  9. Glad I found someone with the same views. I'm glad to see more and more conservatives leaning toward marijuana legalization. I would personally never use marijuana, but why stop someone who wants to? why would I care what people do in their spare time? Keep up with the videos, Louis! Love them!

  10. It’s not just alcohol, but also tabac. Both discovered for centuries. Brain damage and cancer and causing hurt to surrounding people, loved ones. But weed is actually actively being used to positively help people in different ways, when properly used. It’s only addictive when mixed with corporate cancer sticks.

  11. Awesome Stream!!!! Cultural or not, Cannabis has been around since plants began, a tad bit longer than alcohol. And that guy is a jackass, Government intervention, LOL!!! there had to be government intervention to make it illegal in the first place and it's government intervention to keep it illegal. As for harm and health affects, the ones who scream the loudest against it are the ones who have never touched it or even know what it looks like. Keep up the streams Louis !!!!!!!!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.