The Marketplace of Ideas | Germany vs. USA

What’s up everyone. It’s your favorite self-loathing German here. So, Democracy is kind of bad right? Its slow to address problems, without an informed
voter base it’s pretty much worthless and gets easily paralyzed by corruption. The best way to keep a democracy functioning
one might say is the free and open exchange of ideas because if a democracy does not allow
for that, it stops being one. But what if someone uses his freedom in this
marketplace to take away the freedom of others and ultimately to dismantle democracy. And this is a problem that all free societies
faced in the past and face today. Adolf Hitler himself decried that he had been
stripped of his right to free speech after being banned from speaking in Bavaria before
abolishing the same right as soon as he had the ability to. Before that, the Nazis were pretty open about
how democratic processes are just a means for an end to them. When the Nazis first entered the national
parliament in 1928 Joseph Goebbels remarked: “Like the wolf breaks into a flock of sheep,
so shall we [come into parliament.]” And in the same speech Goebbels mocks the
very idea of democracy and calls it outright stupid for paying them to destroy it once
in parliament. But does it have to be that way? Does a democracy have to grant its citizens
the weapons to abolish it? Why don’t we take a look at the different
answers to this and at the end, we’ll hopefully figure out what the biggest threat to the
marketplace of ideas currently is. Democracy is the system of government which
has the hardest time combating its internal opponents. While Germany actively suppresses the activity
of non-violent extremists, the United States for instance largely follows the “Marketplace
of ideas” approach in which good arguments will beat out the bad arguments and therefore
state intervention for the most part isn’t necessary. And Germany is no stranger to this solution
actually. When the German constitution was drafted,
one of its co-creators proudly proclaimed Germany to be the most democratic nation in
existence and another one claimed Germans to now be the freest people on the planet. Although, I have to correct myself here a
bit. By “German constitution” I mean the constitution
of the Weimar Republic. Yeah that whole thing didn’t work out so well. But that alone doesn’t proof anything. Democracy (putting democracy in air quotes
here) in the United States has existed for way longer than any German state. Ideally, we shouldn’t have to crack down on
citizens with non-orthodox opinions. Or as Rosa Luxemburg once said… As Rosa Luxemburg once said: “Freedom is always
the freedom of dissenters.” Before she was murderer for uh, being a dissenter. Anyway, let’s look at how modern-day Germany
handles this in compared to the American way but first, we need to clarify what we are
even talking about here. Part 1: Extremism and you
What constitutes extremism is seen differently in the two countries we are talking about. In Germany extremism is very clearly used
to describe parties, movements or individuals who strive towards the abolition of the democratic
order. In the US. The term is used much more broadly and refers
more to a style than actual goals. An extremist in the American use of the term
is someone who is relentless and unwilling to compromise. And while this description is perfectly fine
to use for the various far-right movements that exist in the US. It could also be applied to someone like Martin
Luther King who was frequently labeled an extremist for his determined fight for civil
rights. In his famous letter from Birmingham jail
he wrote: “(…) the question is not whether we will
be extremist, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate, or will we
be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation
of injustice, or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?” A relentless fight against the status quo
is enough to be labeled an extremist in the US. And that might be problematic on its own but
if one considers to give the state the ability to crack down on anti-democratic elements,
there is need for a much more specific definition. So, for this video we will run with the German
understanding of the term. If the modern German state determines you
to be an extremist it is possible within the bounds of the German constitution to employ
various levers of state repression against you. And you don’t even have to actually do anything
that realistically threatens the democratic order like committing a terrorist attack or
planning a violent coup. It is enough to actively pursue the abolishing
of it to get into the crosshair of the state. Part 2: The institutions
Now unlike other intelligence agencies, the German constitutional protection does not
have any police authority. They can’t arrest or interrogate you and that
might seem weird at first glance but given the legacy of institutions like this (the
Gestapo comes to mind) this is actually just a protection against the government employing
another secret police force that snatches up dissidents. They mostly employ surveillance and infiltration
to gather intel on groups they suspect. That is, if they don’t
– Violate the rights of German citizens on behalf of British intelligence agencies
– Destroy evidence that links their informants to neo-Nazi terrorists
– Employ former members of the SS and Gestapo after the war
– Advise far-right parties on how to avoid monitoring
– Prevent far-right parties from being banned by not disclosing the actions of their agents
– Failing to observe Muhammed Atta while he was living in Germany prior to 9/11
– Contact the employee of innocent people and get them fired
Or monitor innocent left-wing politicians while a literal neo-Nazi terror organization
operates unstopped for over 10 years and is even supported by certain members of the constitutional
protection. If they are not doing any of that stuff, they
sometimes also do good things. Putting that aside, important to note here
is that this agency is not supposed to expose everyone who rejects democracy or the German
state. If you’re part of a group that openly states
“democracy is bullshit” that kind of stuff is protected by the right to free speech. But as soon as there is a political effort
that goes against democracy, the German state does not fuck around. If our constitutional protection classifies
a group as extremist, they hand over their information to our constitutional court which
is then able to then bring out the big guns. This goes as far as to restrict several civil
rights like: – Freedom of the press
– Your property rights – The right to assembly
And a few others. The court is also able to dissolve political
parties, like the Socialist Reichs-party in 1952, extremely subtle rebranding there. Or the communist party four years later. The Weimar republic had compareable institutions
but they only we able to do something once the threshold of violence was crossed. In the US. A comparable institution like Germanys constitutional
protection that monitors non-violent extremist groups doesn’t really exist. Although it existed briefly from the early
fifties until the seventies in form of the FBI. But that was just because black people were
demanding civil rights so something had to be done about it, I guess. There was also this whole communism thing
going on but that’s a disaster for another day. Theoretically speaking the US. Congress also has the power to establish commitees
that would fill this role but the last time they tried that, it didn’t really work out
so well either. So since then this approach has never been
tried again and the FBI is not only forbidden from monitoring non-violent political extremists
but they also are not allowed to publish reports about anti-democratic efforts that lack the
context of explicit violence. But who are we kidding it’s not like the FBI
would stop this stuff just because a few innocent lives got ruined. Nonetheless, officially they don’t and here
is where we get to those organizations who fill the gap today. And in true American fashion, it is left up
to the private sector. The two biggest watchdogs monitoring extremist
activity in the US are the Anti-Defamation-League founded in 1914 to combat anti-Semitism and
the southern poverty law center which aim it is to preserve the achievements of the
civil rights movement. Now these two organizations both have multiple
approaches on how to combat hate-groups or extremists but it mostly boils down to a kind
of specialized journalism. “A big part is actually exposing what we see. Educating people about what an ideology is,
exposing something that people may not be familiar with and say, well, this is the background
of this group or individual and this is why they are extreme. So, educating and exposing tend to be hand
in hand and that is a big way that we confront and combat the extremism that we see.” Both organizations also train police officers
and work together with law enforcement in sharing information or shedding light on local
extremist groups. One of the key-differences between the understanding
that these watchdogs have compared to Germany’s constitutional protection, is that they themselves
reject the government taking a preemptive approach:
“I do not think that the country needs new laws, I do not think that the country needs
to slash groups that have radical views but that are not engaged in criminal violence. It seems that we are close to right here. […] We are an organization that has no police
powers, we cannot put anybody in jail, we cannot prosecute anyone on a criminal charge. So, the fact that we gather what is really
political intelligence about people and groups is no harm, right? We may know that you slept with somebody who
is not your wife, but we cannot put you in jail, right? It is quite different. The government cannot collect political information
except in the context of a criminal investigation. What I am trying to argue is that it is a
very clean separation. It keeps the police from becoming political
and it keeps the people who are gathering political information, which will be us, from
becoming police,(…). It seems like these organizations have struck
the perfect balance between holding up free speech and combating extremism but they are
also often criticized from across the political spectrum. Here you have the Rosa Parks of pronoun-usage
talk about the SPLC in the context of leaving Patreon because a YouTuber was banned for
using racist and homophobic slurs. A whole variety of companies and organizations spear headed not least by the southern poverty law center that hatefal organization Yeah, the worst. That has decided that they’re going to uh, compel, encourage uh, What? Defame companies perhaps that dont band togehter to regulate what they see as hate-speech Maajid sued them and actually won. So there is a push-back but this is just another level of the stand Its like, they can not be trusted to sit on the boards of any of these organizations that are deciding what terms of service… Yeah but they are But criticism does not just come from the right. Recently the ADL called the support of the
BDS movement by US congress women Ilhan Omar “alarming” and also implied supporting Boycott
Divestment Sanctions towards Israel contradicts supporting a two-state solution, something
that is objectively not true. BDS is a form of political protest against
Israels occupation of territories in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. It doesn’t argue for a one or two-state solution
but aims to overturn Palestinians restricted access to travel, water, health care, civil
rights and labor protections. Criticisms like these pop up from time to
time but a structural critique of these watchdogs is that they bought in to the lefts cultural
Marxist agenda to end the white race. Just kidding folks. The real (not deranged) criticism points towards
the organization being a private business that relies on donations. In the year 2011 the full assets of the SPLC
amounted to 223,8 Million with the CEOs yearly salary coming in at 350.000 dollars. As a comparison the annual budget of Germanys
constitutional protection is about 400.000 dollars. Tied to this criticism is the accusation that
the ADL and the SPLC inflate the existing threat by extremist groups to conjure up more
funding. And while that accusation makes sense considering
private companies don’t have any kind of oversight, the SPLC is completely transparent with the
funding they receive and how they spend it. The numbers they deliver regarding hate groups
usually also reflect the findings of the Department of Homeland Security. Granted, the threat of extremist groups towards
the average weekly standard columnist might be next to non-existent but even in tiny numbers
these groups pose a very real threat to people of color or other minorities. Now which approach might be the better one
isn’t really a question worth asking because Germany on the one hand has already answered
that questions for itself, and in the U.S. there is really no other possible legally
ok approach than private watchdogs to monitor non-violent extremist activity. Or is there? Part 3: Free Speech & the Constitutions
In the US you’re allowed to say much more openly without repercussions from the government
than in most of Europe. And that is something a lot of Americans are
very proud of. The differences between Americas and Europe’s
approach aren’t actually that fundamentally different when examined up close, because
even the United States does not have absolute free speech. You still can’t yell fire in a crowded theater
or knowingly defame a person without potentially getting in trouble with the government. The goal of laws that limit free speech in
the US is to prevent citizens from abusing that right to harm other people and its really
no different in Europe. A prime example that is often subject to criticism
is Europe’s punishing of holocaust denial. On the surface everyone should agree that
every citizen should be free to destroy his reputation like that and banning opinions,
abhorrent as they may be, comes close to authotarianism. The same could be said for free speech restrictions
in the US though. F.I. you can’t blatantly lie when advertising
a product, you sell and what your opinion is doesn’t matter. Maybe it’s your opinion that someone who takes
brainforce pills will grow by 6 inches, it is objectively false though. In the same way it is objective false to say
there was no state sponsored genocide of Jews under the Nazis. And while there may be no customers who get
harmed by denying the holocaust, banning it serves the protection of everyone in the country. The goal of holocaust denial is not reaching
a more accurate historical consensus but the rehabilitation of Nazi ideology. If you follow that to its conclusion, the
idea of the holocaust being a hoax becoming wide-spread would end up threatening not just
Jews but everyone in the country. The prospect of certain claims becoming main
stream climaxing in the destruction of democracy ultimately can justify that democracy to prevent
this from happening. But most important of all, the state should
not be allowed to overreach and censor free speech under the fig leaf of protecting democracy. In Germany neo-Nazis hold marches and demonstrations
all the time but they have to abide by the rules. That means not using Nazi iconography or openly
calling for the abolishing of democracy. This way they are essentially doomed to a
kind of political children’s ball pit. You can have your little chants and marches
but if you openly call for overthrowing democracy, you lose your ball pit privileges. A neo-Nazi in this situation of course will
decry that your limiting his free speech but the appropriate response should not be to
hand him the tools to take away your and everyone else’s freedom, but to pat them on the head
and explain that you’re not allowed to play with the other children if you can’t abide
by the rules. If this makes your alarm-bells go off and
the government restricting speech for political reasons makes your stomach turn, that’s a
reasonable position to have. But if you’re also from the U.S. , this is
already happening around you. Recently the Senate passed a bill that gives
state and local governments the right to divest money and refuse to work with companies that
take part in the earlier mentioned BDS protest. Senator Marco Rubio who pushed for this bill
claims that the constitutions only enshrines the individual right to use speech to boycott
companies like Caterpillar, whose bulldozers have been used to topple Palestinian homes
in the West Bank to make room for new settlements. Settlements the UN deems illegal. Rubios bill on the other hand gives the state
the right to boycott people for doing so. Now I have my criticisms of the BDS movement
but no matter how you spin this bill, it is the government exercising power to limit how
US citizens can use their free speech. And you probably won’t see any of YouTubes
free speech heroes lose a word about that. But if a private company refuses to work with
someone like the founder of Jihad Watch who was cited over fifty times in the manifesto
of far-right mass-murderer Anders Breivik, it apparently becomes an unacceptable threat
to free speech. Very interesting where the priorities lie
there. Anyway, the United States is usually much
more lenient when it comes to demonstrations. An example of this would be the neo-Nazi rally
in Charlottesville where people openly displayed Nazi iconography and chanted “blood and soil”
or “Jews will not replace us”. The general consensus is that this might be
offensive to some, but it is protected by the first amendment. “True threats of violence” that are directed
at a person or group of persons that have the intent of placing the target at risk of
bodily harm or death are generally unprotected. If we take chants like “blood and soil” and
“race war now” with honesty, one cannot deny that these are announcements to commit genocide
if they should get the chance to. The counter argument to that might be that
these people won’t ever actually get the chance to do that since their opinions are universally
condemned but it remains a threat nonetheless. In the same way I could say that even if I
yell that I’m gonna set a fire in a movie theater, that doesn’t mean anyone will take
me seriously or I’m actually gonna do it. The truth is that chants like the ones in
Charlottesville harbor much more potential to get people hurt and killed than yelling
fire in the biggest movie theater in America. The more space these people get, the more
spaces they will take over. And theoretically speaking, they could get
voted in and change the constitution to reach their goals, if there was majority support
for it. This is actually something the United States
constitution and the one of Weimar Germany have in common. They are both value-neutral which means everything
is up for grabs, if the majority demands it. In the current German constitution this is
not the case. The very first paragraph for instance �Human
dignity shall be inviolable� can never be changed, even if all of Germany wanted it
to. The structuring of Germany as a democratic
republic can also not be changed without Germany seizing to exist as a political entity. The goal of these “eternity-clauses” are to
prevent the stripping of certain rights, even if the government views that as necessary. The end of the first German Democracy is usually
marked at March 24, 1933 when the Reichstag passed the enabling act which destroyed the
democratic foundation of the country and handed all of the power to the Nazis. There is no legal way to turn Germany into
a dictatorship again compared to the United States where theoretically speaking, it is
possible. It might be highly unlikely but it’s not impossible. Even with Americas two-party system, extremist
elements can still rise through the ranks. In 1989 former leader of the KKK David Duke
was elected as a State Representative in Louisiana and later lost in the election for the US
Senate with 44% of the votes. What’s even more disturbing is that although
Duke lost the election in 1990, 57% of white men still voted for him. But here is where we get to what makes American
democracy so great. It might come off as me presenting the German
approach to democracy as the perfect way but that�s not true at all. America has a long history of democracy (partially
at least) that Germany can only be envious of. What ultimately brought down David Dukes campaign
was the public outcry his candidacy got. America has prevented becoming a fascist state
like Nazi-Germany or Franco’s Spain largely because of its long history of democracy and
self-governing. America was founded on the premise of individual
liberty (for white people) while Germany was founded as an authoritarian monarchy. The US constitution might theoretically be
changeable, but there is virtually no document the public views as more sacrosanct than the
constitution. And while Americas conception is rooted in
horrific racism and the exclusion of parts of the population, the underlying principles
it was founded on serve as a stronghold against anti-democratic forces today. Well, partially it does. There is one threat to democracy the US and
Germany both are continuously falling victim to and that represents the biggest threat
to our self-governing and the marketplace of ideas. Part 4
Here is where our analogy of the free exchange of ideas as a market comes full circle. Because markets can and repeatedly do fail
with disastrous consequences. Western nations today are mostly understood
as liberal democracies meaning democratic nations with free markets. It’s important to not conflate liberalism
with democracy though. For most of their history the two concepts
were even seen as directly opposed to one another and the fathers of economic liberalism
like Benjamin Constant certainly weren’t fans of democracy. Historian Helena Rosenblatt even goes as far
as to say: “Indeed, it would not be wrong to say that
liberalism was originally invented to contain democracy.” It’s also not like the early liberals didn’t
have a point in thinking that way because capitalism and democracy follow completely
different logics. Democracy is all about striving towards the
common good with debate, compromise and majority decision making. Capitalism on the other hand is all about
the bottom line and the decisions are not made by what the most people want but by managers
and capital owners who themselves are only part of a hierarchy. Now here is where a capitalist might say that
these two systems are actually a match made in haven because you have the �freedom�
of the free market with that market still being bound to the will of the majority. If were looking at the political developments
of the last 40 years, that is not really what we are seeing. A 2015 study by the Center for the Study of
Elections and Democracy on voting patterns in the US senate showed that “senators’ preferences
reflect the preferences of the average donor better than any other group”. Different studies on the subject also point
in the direction that money is corrupting our politics and with that our democracy. The truth is that the socioeconomic inequality
which has sharply risen since the 80’s directly transforms into political inequality with
politicians being much more beholden to their donors then the majority of the people. As more time goes by, these developments only
seem to get worse. After two landmark decisions by the US. Supreme court in 2010 and 2014 that essentially
opened the floodgates for unlimited amounts of money to flow in the electoral system,
former President Jimmy Carter stated openly that American democracy was essentially dead
now: “It violates the essence of what made America
a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited
political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected
president. And the same thing applies to governors, and
U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we’ve just seen a subversion of our
political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors
for themselves after the election is over. … At the present time the incumbents, Democrats
and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that is already in Congress has a
great deal more to sell.” But it wasn’t always that way, or so I’m told. The capitalism that emerged after WW2 was
subject to much more control by an interventionist welfare state that tried to keep its worst
excesses in check by regulating and stabilizing the economy. The goal of what was called “Rhine-Capitalism”
was to ensure that the markets served the majority and make a frictionless coexistence
possible. Wolfgang Merkel in his essay “Is capitalism
compatible with democracy?” concludes this era like this:
“This period proved to be the zenith of coexistence between social capitalism and social democracy
in Northern and Western Europe. Yet, it remained incomplete, precarious and
different from country to country”. What killed this version of an organized capitalism
was essentially that capitalism outgrew its constrains. The regulations that existed up until that
point were developed in the context of the nation state and the rapid globalization partially
rendered the tools of a democracy useless. Threatening a corporation with higher taxes
if they don’t stop blasting smog into the air that we all have to breath becomes an
empty threat when the corporation can just move to a different country but still serve
the same market. And instead of setting up global institutions
to combat this, we got even more de-regulation and less interference by the state. In the situation that we are in right now,
Americas free exchange of ideas and Germanys attempts to fortify democracy become completely
useless to protect our ability to self-govern. Even the most powerful institutions and brilliant
constitutions we can come up with aren’t worth much if the power keeps flowing away from
these institutions and concentrates elsewhere. And the effects on our democracy are popping
up all over the place. At the time I’m uploading this video the Utah
Senate just passed a bill that will roll back Medicaid expansion which the people overwhelmingly
voted for in the 2018 midterms, essentially overruling their democratic mandates. The same thing happens in the US in terms
of climate change. �Over a hundred and nine countries around
the globe have enacted some form of policy regarding renewable power, and 118 countries
have set target for renewable energy. In contrast, the United States has not adopted
any consistent and stable set of policies at the national level to foster the use of
renewable energy.” That should be worrying on its own but the
real problem is that this disparity is not explained by public opinion in the US, which
is much closer to global norm. It exists because the people who have a majorly
disproportionate influence on our democracy have an interest in it being that way. The current head of Americas Environmental
Protection Agency, which is the arm of the federal government to ensure cleaner air and
protect human health is a former coal lobbyist. And while you might scoff at the idea of me
putting oligarchs in the same box as extremist, if we diverge from the German definition for
a bit: Letting people die because they can’t afford medical treatment is extreme. Going against the scientific consensus on
climate change being an existential threat to the human species for the temporary profit
of a few already rich assholes, is extreme. And it doesn’t even stop there. Simultaneously, there are constant efforts
to misinform the public with pushing for bills like the Environmental Literacy Improvement
Act that propose “balanced teaching” of climate science. Which is essentially coded language for including
something in the curriculum that goes against the scientific consensus. And this approach is only one of many. The same people that push for this legislation,
like the Koch Brothers, also funnel money into organizations like the Young America’s
foundation who use that money to spread “conservative” ideas on campus. But in all honesty, they should stop getting
Ben Shapiro because that’s just wasted money at this point: So lets say, lets say for the sake of argument that all the waterlevels around the world rise by lets say five feet over the next 100 years, lets say ten feet over the next 100 years and it puts all the low-lying areas on the coast underwater Lets say all of that happens. You think people aren’t just gonna sell their homes and move? Get ready to snatch up all the cheap under
water property folks. The US. Is often singled out in showcasing how capital
threatens democracy but it is really no different from Europe, here it’s just less obvious. The most recent example of that would be the
uncovered Cum-Ex scandal in which the European taxpayers were robbed of 55 billion euros
in taxes with a practice called dividend stripping. I’m sorry, I have no idea why these financial
scams all have sex related names. But just to put that number into perspective,
if you would take Germanys entire costs for the refugee crisis in 2016 you’d still be
5 billion euros behind the sum that these individuals stole from the tax payer. Add another thirty billion and you have the
amount of reparations Germany paid the Jewish victims of Nazi Crimes over the last six decades. The reason for why this stunt was even possible
in Germany were bills proposed by the banking lobby in 2010 which passed unchanged. And even if you wanted to change them now,
the system has grown so complex that the government relies on the private tax advisory industry
to craft legislation. The connection between capitalism and extremism
becomes even more apparent when the system collapses. The leftist dictum goes “Fascism is what happens
when capitalism fails” but that doesn’t always follow. For example, the financial crisis that catapulted
the Nazi party from the fringe into the mainstream hit the United States much harder. Compared to Germany, people in the U.S. did
not turn away from democracy in their desperation. But we can acknowledge that the emergence
of fascism is much more complicated that just being a result of capitalist failure and still
recognize that the two are undeniably linked. In Germany the ripple effects of the 2008
financial crisis for instance still manifest in negative interest rates that devour the
life-long savings of the average worker. It’s no surprise that this person being continuously
failed by the status quo might end up turning towards Germanys far-right AfD party. A party that harbors a political agenda which
contains “first actual indicators” for it being directed against the German democratic
order according to a recent 400 page report by our constitutional protection. Part 5: What do
It is important to be nuanced about when intervention is necessary to keep the freedoms that makes
democracy worth preserving. The point of comparing the US to Weimar Germany
is not to scaremonger and to argue for the US to adopt tighter restrictions on free speech,
but to show that there is no free speech principle that applies to every country the same way. It’s not like Weimar only failed because of
its constitution or any other singular reason. But what we can say definitively is that democracies
fail when citizens stop believing in the legitimacy of democratic institutions. And even if we are able to protect ourselves
from extremist elements, what is currently hollowing out our institutions is the encroaching
oligarchy that the US and Germany are struggling to ward off. Maintaining a democracy is constant struggle
and one that sometimes requires being realistic instead of idealistic. I would love to live in a world where ideals
and Voltaire quotes were all that mattered but history demands that we put facts over
feelings. And the fact is that pointing out to your
countrymen that he is committing the naturalistic fallacy won’t prevent him from bulldozing
your body into an open mass grave because he deems you inferior. In the same vain it’s also a fantasy to think
people who have the power to bend democracy to their will, won’t use that power given
the opportunity. Extremists break the marketplace of ides because
they don’t play by its rules, the same way the rich can bypass it entirely for their
own benefit. If we want to keep our freedoms and ability
to self-govern, we should not just view the Richard Spencers of the world as anti-democratic
threats but also the Kochs, the Mercers and everyone else who is able to replace a good
argument with money.This video was NOT made possible by the Koch
brothers, although I hear they pay pretty well. Its sponsored by the nice people over on Patreon
who you can join if you like and get some nice rewards like access to commentary videos,
which are basically me in front of a camera commentating my own videos. If that’s something you would want to see,
for some reason, link is in the description. Big thanks to YouTuber Mexie for fitting the
role of the angry YouTube commentator. Usually she’s not that angry so make sure
to check out her channel via the link down below. Yeah, I think that’s it. Thank you for watching and I’ll hope to see
you the next time. Until then have a good one.

100 Replies to “The Marketplace of Ideas | Germany vs. USA”

  1. As a typical right leaning person I love your videos and watch them frequently! Although I immediately stopped when you said BLM is for black to stop getting shot at. Either way I believe you should really discuss the issue of BLM. As it was used before with a real issue but now it is just used by the media to get votes and exaggerate stuff.

  2. Of course the genocide of the jewish population happened but what some people deny is not wether it happened or not but the exaggerated number of deaths which is a subject that should be legal to be argued and debated.

  3. 13:31 Couldn't this logic be used to ban any viewpoint? I could call for making it illegal to say that communism works simply based on the Soviet atrocities. This logic was used by the catholic church to go after protestants during the reformation.

  4. 22:15 The federal government has more regulations now than there were in the 50s

    Another point often brought up is that the top income tax rate was 90% but very few people actually paid this rate. Back then, there were more tax loopholes than there currently are today.

  5. 24:09 But the US has still seen its power grid become more environmentally friendly. In 2000, 52% of America's electrical output came from coal. In 2019, this number was less than a third. Most of this decline was caused by the rise in natural gas which only produced 16% of America's electricity in 2000 but produced a little over a third in 2018. This is significant because natural gas emits less CO2 into the atmosphere for the same amount of electricity. On the other hand, you have hydraulic fracking which has gained controversy over the years.

    In other news, wind and solar have made impressive strides, at least since 2000 when wind was responsible for 0.15% of America's energy and solar was responsible for just 0.013% (less than biofuel and geothermal). In 2018, wind was responsible for 6.58% of America's electricity while solar produced 1.59%.

  6. 27:08 I beg to differ. The US reached a peak unemployment rate of 24.9% in 1933. Germany's unemployment rate reached a peak of 30% in 1932. Also, the country experienced hyperinflation.

    However, Germany was able to recover quicker than the US was. Like the US, Nazi Germany spent money on public programs, one of which was the autobahn; they also increased spending on military (though this was in violation of the Treaty of Versailles). However, unlike the new deal which extended labor protections, Hitler's plan actually reduced them, even going so far as to outlaw labor unions. Another aspect was privatization, even as other nations were nationalizing certain industries. On the other hand, in October 1937, they dissolved all corporations worth less than $40,000 and forbade the establishment of new ones worth less than $200,000.

    Also like other countries, Nazi Germany sought protectionism. They couldn't completely cut themselves off from every other nation but they limited trade to certain countries, mostly in Southern Europe.

  7. who gets to define extremism. I found much of your talk towards the end of this video to be extremist. In fact I found most of it to be emotional nonsense. You have no proof for your claims. That there are extremists, that they are significant, that businesses have undue influence over american democracy. It's all narcissistic blabber, you grew in germany, and so view the world through a german lens. Disappointing.

  8. "Ben Shapiro is a waste of money."
    Dog, Ben Shapiro is a waste of atoms, but hey!! his wife is a doctor.

  9. Hello three arrows, self-hating bigoted meritocrat here. I'm praised of well research you made. The question is, what about education in both America and Germany that it's already broken since the 70's, how would they fix it?

  10. ben shapiro is a great example of someone who fits into the fascist play.

    He is a fascist to his core, yet hides behind religion and claims to morality. Yet writes books and statements that demonize religious minorities.

    faux intellectual promoting fascist identity.

  11. SPLC oversteps a bit sometimes in a way that I think approaches defamation, and the Majid Nawaz case is a good example. There are a few people on that list that merely criticize the worst elements of Islam. Being Anti-Islamic Extremism is not the same as being Anti-Muslim. Of course there are people who hide behind that as well, but when making allegations like that you can't have such a broad definition.

  12. OH. MY. GOD! I can not believe that someone with the channel name "ThReE ArRoWs" would DARE to quote ROSA LUXEMBURG! May I remind you that it was the GERMAN SOCIAL DEMOCRAT-

  13. Watching this while at work.

    When the Ben Shapiro part came on, I had to contain my laughter so hard.

    OMG I am dying with laughter.

  14. A bit late but I have a question. Is it legal in Germany to have a political party or movement that would argue for Germany to become a monarchie? It's sort of a grey area in my opinion since a person being born in to a position of power is inherently undemocratic but there are such thing as parliamentary monarchies that are actually neighbouring countries to Germany and I don't think anyone can call Holand undemocratic. But for Germany to become a monarchie the constitution has to be changed and when you get enough power to do that all bets are off.

  15. I would like to say thank you very much for your videos and ideas. You are gloriously articulate and doing entirely necessary work rebutting the assholes who want to bring us back to an uglier, stupider more fascist time.

  16. "The goal of Holocaust Denial is Nazism" Uh Three Arrows half of the Middle East, Africa, and West Asia say the holocaust did not happen….

  17. Hi, I know am kind of late but I was wondering if anyone got the source for the anti ethical activities and inefficiencies of the German intelligence agencies. I’m a student and I’m doing and investigation (that hopefully ends up in paper) about the roles of intelligence agencies in the day to day affairs of several countries, it’s mainly centered in the Cold War but the modern examples can be useful too, thank you in advance

  18. You know HOW false claims and things like the abolition of democracy don't happen in free societies? By letting people hear those ideas and for them to be rebutted. Neither the government nor private organizations have any business trying to punish people or monitor groups with a certain ideology because they hold those beliefs. The same goes for holocaust denial, somebody coming out and saying that the holocaust didn't happen doesn't hurt anybody and isn't a threat to anybody.

  19. Irish tax payers were forced to pay unsecured bonds owed to German banks after the crash. We were crushed under the capatilist boot.

  20. I believe Germany is free but not in the same sense as we Americans. We are free in that our rights are broader howerver, in Germany people have not actually understood why freedom matters and neither have we saddely. I cannot say which society is freeer thought. It is with your values I suppose. I admire your channel because you actually give sources in German which I personally like that a great deal. I read German and study the langauge and its history. Though I would say that your conception of how law works is not how it works in the USA. Largely laws are to serve the few not the many and thanks to the Überwachungssystem it is worse now then 20 years ago under Clinton.

  21. I give you immense credit for being able to make me question one of core political axioms. That being that all political opinions must be protected by the state. I have to wrestle with this now and have a more complete worldview because of it. Not that I've never contended with the issue of allowing people to use the mechanisms of democracy to destroy it but I had yet to be exposed to a coherent argument against it, (being an American it's pretty built into the culture that it's completely off the table).

  22. Political Ideals. Are what we now fill the Twittersphere, fakebook , and NOT face to face. But that does not matter. The ultimate failure of Ideology is the masses. The basic needs of the peoples that make up any society and ergo means of living in a group is the fundamental of all politics. This includes the basics as of water, food, shelter. The way societies treat the peoples of such circumstance. And as a residence in of a major city on the west coast of the united states is that idea and the society that it has birthed, has failed. And yet I only speak as of USA citizen,. No city is proud when its public buildings reek of human waste. THAT is a failure society.

  23. and BY THE BYE… Never trust Germany. Especially Germans that are "only just a little left vs the Status Quo"

  24. Wouldn't the government controlling the capitalism, or rather "reign it in, so it doesn't go out of control" work?

  25. @25:10 Oh wow, the stupidity of the term scientific consensus…

    To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge.

    — Nicolaus Copernicus

  26. Well let's just say even today just like in the 40's Germany losses. Merkel can barely keep it together and used the US for ages. Do it yourselves now. I predict the fall of the EU.

  27. Dude. The ADL and SPLC are racist crooks. I don't expect you to understand but you don't live here. Stick to Germany.

  28. No, the US is NOT fighting off the encroaching oligarchy; both parties are overwhelmingly beholden to Big Money, and the current administration is hard at work both deregulating industry further, and putting people on the courts who are extremists in the sense of not protecting the people at large, but the people in power. What is even worse is that Trump and his supporting ilk are busy sowing and fanning distrust in people about democratic institutions — and not the right kind of distrust, namely that of capitalists having way too much influence. Republicans have for years worked to limit democracy through gerrymandering, voter suppression, and even occasional outright election fraud, and I don't see much being done about it, because Democrats have also shifted rightward, where the money is, and only a few progressives still fight the good fight.

    I wouldn't be too sure that the US is safe from turning fascist. The 1% won't save us; many were busy sucking up to the Nazis too. I actually have more trust in Germany for avoiding that; after all they at least have experience, and are surrounded by a Europe that remembers. Whatever faults the EU may have, there's that. The US on the other hand sees itself as exceptional and doesn't care what the international community says because might makes right. And it continues to drag its allies into bigger and bigger messes. Why does Europe have a refugee problem? Thank the US which now refuses to even remotely handle its share of the problem. Next time, maybe say no to waging wars of aggression; how about it?

    Global capitalism without sufficient fetters on its bottomless greed is doing us in. Used to be I never wanted to die because the universe is so amazing and there is so much to see and learn, but now I'm glad I am old and will soon be dead of natural causes, before the climate change shit really hits the fan.

  29. Even if it may help somewhat, entrusting the state with these kinds of powers is just too dangerous, and creates yet another organ of class rule. However, the inherent properties of capitalism without a doubt make speech less fair and free than whatever you seem to support, which is comparatively minor (but that doesn't invalidate my previous criticism).

    Also, the "But its obviously okay to stop people from yelling fire in a crowded movie theater when there isn't one!" is a false equivalency.

    (also also, yelling fire in a crowded movie theater wouldn't be quite as dangerous nowadays compared to back when those laws were first implemented)

  30. "Get ready to snatch up all that cheap under-water property, folks" made my day, nay, my month. Good job, Dan. Thorough, yet entertaining analysis, as always.

  31. Okay, thats it. Time for the ultimate resolution. Throw the entire human species out. We are clearly the cause of all issues.

    I do believe in Freedom of Speech with consequences. And America has honestly done nothing to make me change that idea.
    I think the worst part of all of this. No system is perfect, and even with the best intentions things can go awry and be turned into a weapon. Its a delicate balance that relies on a people keeping the government up to standard, and vice versa. And we need to keep each other in check.

  32. This seems to fly under peoples radar but the 14th amendment to the US constitution contains a section that forbids anyone that serves in the US government and has committed acts of rebellion (I would argue trying to undermine the democratic institution falls under that) is forever banned from serving in goverment

  33. Great video but just to point out the shouting fire in a theater was never a legally binding statement. In terms of threats, the speech that is illegal is speech that presents a clear and present danger and likely imminent lawless action. So if you want to say that Charlottesville should have been stopped, always mention that they were armed thereby presenting likely imminent lawless action

  34. "Here's the Rosa Parks of pronoun usage talking about these organizations"

    *Cut to Jordan Peterson whining about the SPLC*


  35. Ich bin ein wenig spät drann aber du hast was übersehen: Eine Verfassungsgebende Versammlung kann eine Verfassung ohne den Fortbestand der Klauseln mit Ewigkeitsbestand verabschieden.

  36. I'm struck by the breadth and depth of your knowledge of the U.S.  . Your misconceptions thus stand out . The U.S. does not have a two party system ; indeed it has no party system at all . It's election system just causes most elections to gravitate towards 2 parties . Second , your assertion that the country was founded on "horrific racism" is not only needlessly inflammatory , but betrays at best a sophomoric understanding . I recommend further study before speaking on it . I believe you innocently misspoke regarding the election campaign of David Duke . You make it seem as if 57% of white males Nationally voted for him .

  37. Welcome to late-stage global-capitalism! Nothing is free is and everything is for sale! COMING SOON: ROBOTS

  38. The problem I see with the German system is that it is ultimately capitalocracy and may make transition to communism impossible.

  39. This might seem odd, but I really appreciate your sense of humor in your videos. For such didactic content I've laughed out loud listening to most of them. Keep up the good videos.

  40. Oh my god as time passes i resent democracy more and more

    The only critique i ever even have to place on democracy is that peasants can be convinced of anything. Through a variety of means. Social pressure, posters, repeating the message… Its inherently stupid to allow these people to have a say in anything. Some kind of technocratic republic thing where only the highly educated get to vote for example, while not ideal itself as it favors the upper class, is still way better than what we have in most of the world.

    And as i said before, people need to stop seeing democracy as some kind of an axiom. As some unwritten rule. There is a reason why it wasnt used in the majority of countries, all the good and bad government ideas that didnt use democracy had the same criticism as i do. The majority isnt eligible to vote.

    And as always i will add that im not biased towards myself, if creating a better system means i lose voting power, but nazism and discrimination of minorities never happens again, i will gladly give it up.

    Monarchies/dictatorships are worse though, its like giving one flawed human the power of the whole state. Its an even worse idea than democracy.

  41. My critic in regards of the misconseption about the weakness of the state to reign in capitalism, you only have to deny access to the market if the company does not comply to the rules erected by the state. Also my critic on the EU, the EU could do a lot more and the companies would comply because every company that does not play by the rules is missing its piece of the 19 trillion Euro cake!

    Of course there has to be the political will to reign in the companies and call their bluff when they state that they will just move on. Yes? GL with that one and your none access while at the same time others will take your place and say THX for the piece of the cake you gave up for free!

  42. Ewww National Socialists using the original German tricolor, they are disgracing the cultural significance and beautiful history of pre colonial Germany.

  43. FYI, the adl was not formed to combat antisemitism but to clear the name of a convicted necrophillic pedophile, which they are still trying to achieve to this day

  44. 22:55 this is a straight up lie, post war capitalism was destroyed by the stagnation of the 1970s. This is you going against the academic consensus by economists. This is a thing leftists always do, fighting for science while supporting New Monetary Theory and all that bullshit

  45. I fail to see how allowing someone to say something is taking anyone's rights away. Censoring an opinion is, as you admitted, authoritarian. People can think for themselves and just because someone is saying something outrageous doesn't mean people are gonna start believing it. The defamation thing is an attack on someone's specific character and reputation therefore ruining there life. Someone being able to deny the holocaust hurts no one. Also what about if a government gets elected that has opposite views on what is acceptable to say? What if they say you not being a proud German undermines the German nation as a whole?

  46. People in America killed by Antifascists in past ten years: 0
    People in America killed by right wing extremists in past ten years: 313.
    Who is the danger to American democracy?

  47. Someone's ideas themselves won't take away the freedom of others. Actions will. The speech itself doesn't cause the restriction and shouldn't be restricted. We have had free speech for Nazis and communists and others that believed in referring rights of others in the US for decades but they haven't come to power because their ideas are antithetical to the ideals of liberty. So the practice of freedom not restriction is what keeps those ideologies from being enacted. Free speech is the solution. It makes sense of we are to preserve democracy then you draw a hard line on basic civil rights.

  48. A self righteous indignant German is telling everyone how superior his fourth Reich is to the freest nation on earth ,Imagine that ,(self defense prosecution intensifies )

  49. SPLC has aligned itself with feminists by listing men's advocacy groups as hate groups. I think it no longer can be considered an objective arbiter of what is and isn't a threat to the public.

  50. Just to add more info about Utah, the public also voted and passed a medical marijuana bill and a bill to set up an independent committee to be in charge of redistricting to help prevent gerrymandering. All three of those bills have been taken apart by our government and changed to their liking. It's been discouraging how much power we don't have.

  51. It is a moral wrong to silence someone, even if they are morally bankrupt. The german state has silenced not only political extremists, but criticism of religion and unsavory music.

  52. Lying about a product is a form of force that could harm someone without their knowledge or consent. Totally different.

  53. American democracy is already effectively dead because both parties essentially serve the same masters, and the political system effectively prevents a third party from gaining ground.

  54. All your claims are emotional, based on nothing but fear. "If you don't 'play by the rules' (rules which I choose), then ALL THE WORLD SHALL BE CONSUMED BY THE NAZIS!!!!!" Yeah, obviously not. Take your argument for banning the freedom to express doubt about the Holocaust, for instance. Your claim that, if everyone believed the Holocaust never happened, then we would soon kill Jews again, is laughable. If the knowledge that we once killed Jews prevented us from killing Jews again, then we couldn't kill Jews, because that would create new knowledge about us killing Jews. It's not the Holocaust that prevents us from committing further genocides, it's the understanding that genocide is bad – no matter how many genocides against what peoples happened before. I'm sure you'll agree that a genocide against a group that has never been genocided before (if such a thing exists) would be exactly as bad as another Holocaust against the Jews.

    The only reason why you can make this (emotional) connection at all is because you're incapable of disassociating the claim itself from some of the people who made that claim. There are Holocaust deniers who are historically illiterate, but not genocidal – I've spoken to some. Yes, some people probably did deny the Holocaust because they wanted to repeat it. But that doesn't make the claim itself a wish to repeat the Holocaust, nor does it make everyone who makes that claim genocidal.

    And this pattern just streches through all of your thinking. Every opinion or symbol that you don't like must be banned immediately because else the Nazis take over. This is the problem with the "paradoxon of tolerance" nonsense. You speak of opinions that take away others' rights – but that is outside the bounds of what opinions can do. Actions can take away rights, but not opinions. If you act against someone expressing an opinion and thereby not infringing on anyone else's freedom, then you must leave them alone, unless you want to be a tyrant. Once they act to remove someone's freedom, only then you can act. Your arguments are nothing but rationales for being a tyrant.

  55. In what way was liberalism founded to subvert democracy? Pretty much all movements towards democracy in the 18th and 19th century were informed by liberalism. Even afterwards, liberalism was and is continuously perhaps the most pro-democracy ideology out there. Prominent liberals right from the start were at the cutting edge of anti-authoritarianism.

  56. I dunno the US gov was monitoring anti war groups after 9/11 lol (not sure if it was Homeland sec or the FBI)

  57. I think you underestimate how difficult it is to change the US constitution. It's theoretically possible to change the entire thing, however, amendments require 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress and ratification of 3/4 of the states. Also, on edge cases like Marco Rubio's bill that has not passed, it is arguably unconstitutional and ultimately the constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it says. You can't really cite a bill that is not law and has therefore not been vetted by the Supreme Court, which it ultimately would if passed, as an example of the US government limiting political speech.

  58. Honestly after awhile you get tired of defending the rights of people who you know full well will return the favor by stripping you of your rights.

  59. If Europe and America fails to enact laws that limit the ultra rich, the people who want to lob their heads off will get in power. One of the reasons why Teddy Roosevelt enacted reforms that limited the rich and monopolies.

  60. Please do another video with just the last 10 min or so of this one! As you may know, American attentions spans are pretty short, and the end of this is pretty powerful and would make a good one to share around.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *