September 3, 2025 • 22 mins
We review the first 10 amendments to the Constitution and relate these to organizational psychology principles. We talk about freedom of expression, property rights, personal boundaries, and pushing the power down in the organization as far as it can go. While the Constitution structures the government to prohibit abuse of power, the Bill of Rights clarifies the individual liberty of the citizen.
Follow Us:
YouTube
Twitter
Facebook
Bluesky
All audio & videos edited by: Jay Prescott Videography
Follow Us:
YouTube
Bluesky
All audio & videos edited by: Jay Prescott Videography
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
You're listening to the podcast Coffee with Mike and Juliet
Libertarians Talk Psychology. This is current commentary from an NBA
businessman and a PhD psychologist.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
So I kind of wanted to talk about this for
a while, and it's on the agenda. There's so little
news going on that nothing triggered me and uh bitching
about anything. All that's in the news is the border
patrol is being mean and the Democrats are sucking when.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
We have a couple of wars. But you know, after
a little while, even that gets boring.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
I mean, well it's not boring, it's just Putin's not
going to negotiate. Trump's gonna have to do something. The
guy's gamester. He gets together and talks happy talk and
then bombs the hell out of people. And Trump is
not fallen for it. But I'm not sure he knows
what to do. So this is something that's been on
(01:07):
my mind a while. It's the overlap between organizational psychology
and the Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights as
far as liberty, I mean, it addresses the important things
about we libertarians. The Bill of Rights is the heart.
I mean, you get the Constitution as an organizational structure.
(01:30):
The important thing about the organizational structure is they put
it together as best they could to promote the most
productivity of people and the least amount of abuse of power.
So that's the whole Constitution. But when you get to
the amendments, the first ten amendments are so beautiful. It
was kind of like they step back, the authors framers
(01:53):
stepped back and thought what we miss and they miss
big stuff and they put it in the Bill of Rights.
The overlapping isn't exactly what happened. Yeah, that's exactly what happened.
As far as my knowledge is. That's exactly. Like what
else were you thinking could have happened.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
I could have this totally wrong. But my memory of
it is they sent it to Thomas Jefferson and he said, well,
this isn't complete. And I thought he wrote the bills
in order to complete.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
Oh, I'm not familiar with that. The amendments were added later. Yeah,
So I thought we'd go over the ten amendmutes if
we have time, and just comment on them and think
about what's important for libertarians but also what's important in
psychology that it has to do with the first Amendment.
(02:42):
And I love this amendment. Most of all, this is
mine love affair with the first Amendment. I even like
the way it reads. Congress ship make no laws respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?
Are reaching the freedom of speech, are of the press,
(03:03):
are of the right of the people peaceably to assemble
and petition the government for redress of grievances. That basically
says people have the right to speak out and bitch.
And in psychology, that is a protection of the detection system.
The minute you start censoring people, you censor the detection system,
(03:25):
and you have no rights. Censorship and suppression of expression
is the royal road to destruction of a system.
Speaker 3 (03:34):
Well, I find it interesting that the religious part of
it is the very first phrase. Can you read that.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Part again, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, are prohibiting the free exercise there In other words,
not a lot about it. You know, it's funny that
religion is in there with free speech. Everything else is
freedom of expression.
Speaker 3 (04:00):
Thing they talk about religion.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
But religion must be a part of free expression in
their mind. But they say, we're not going to support
your religion. But We're not going to prohibit the practice
of your religion. Is like, religion is separate than from government.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
And I don't know if religion is mentioned elsewhere in
the Constitution, but the subject comes up all the time
about religion. Do we have freedom of religion or do
we have freedom from religion? In other words, as government
we have both. Well, when government shows the Ten Commandments,
they are pushing a certain religion.
Speaker 4 (04:38):
Well, of course, yeah, it's not clear.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
To me if that's an acceptable thing to do per
the Constitution.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
They go back and forth, they go back and forth,
and you know, it's like it's going to be I know,
Trump knows this is going to happen, but he passed
executive order saying that you can't desecrate the American flag. Well,
there's no more free speech expression than burning the flag.
Speaker 4 (05:04):
It's like burning the flag.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
You can burn the flag, then you clearly have free speech.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
Yeah, the Spreme Court is not going to uphold that
you can't burn the flag.
Speaker 4 (05:17):
You know, but he's doing it.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
You know, he's doing it because he's urinating around the territory.
It is staking out.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
His right turmoil. Even when he knows he can't.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
I'm gonna almost skip over amendment too because it's so controversial.
But anyway, a well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep in bear arms shall not be infringed. This
has to do with can a person keep a weapon?
So the organizational psychology has very little say about that.
(05:58):
But I think it's a complex is you is what
kind of weapons can people have?
Speaker 4 (06:02):
And will you raise your fingers?
Speaker 3 (06:05):
So yeah, the only comment I want to make about
that amendment is that I do believe when they make
us register that we have qualified on that is a
form of infringement. In other words, they are keeping track
of who has guns and who doesn't have done To me.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
I think I agree with you on that. I don't
know what can a person have a nuclear bomb? I
have some questions about some of this, But anyway, there's
not much psychology there except that it has to do
with escalation of violence. To me, the second Amendment says
if others can escalate, you can escalate. You can meet
force with force if you want to. But I have
(06:45):
nothing more to say about that. Amendment Three. No soldier shall,
in the time of peace be quartered in any home
without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war,
but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Well,
what was the movie we were watching where the soldiers
just came in and took over the house.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
I don't know, but my ancestors should be blamed about.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
It, them taking over the house.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
Took over Kentucky ancestors. They just took over the house.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
Well, this, yeah, has to do with that. They take
over the house, then you have no property. Then you
have no rights at all. So apparently it was such
a problem at this point in time. Let's see Amendment
number three, seventeen ninety one the Bill of Rights. The
first ten amendments were all ratified in seventeen ninety one.
(07:37):
Amendment number four is a huge another property right. The
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effect against unreasonable search and seizures shall not be violated,
and no warrants shall issue but upon probable calls supported
(07:59):
by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to
be searched, and the persons are things to be seized.
Speaker 3 (08:07):
That great amendment, it.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
Has been infringed upon. But there again we see that
the founders were protecting the boundaries. It's a great amendment
to have psychological boundaries. You can't take away the persons
their houses. They would need to be secure in their persons.
What does it mean in their persons, be secure in
their persons? I guess you say be secure. They spell
(08:35):
it out houses, papers, and effects, so your stuff can't
be seized. But you know that is being violated right
and left. In Beverly stubb Afield's case, they seized her
assets so she couldn't defend herself.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
Well, that's getting around that amendment. When they did that,
that's getting around that.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Somehow they got around it with the somehow the FBI.
That was the FBI. They did that a bunch of
vile people.
Speaker 3 (09:07):
Fellow psychologist was working for them.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
They wanted her to flip and testify against the other person.
They all have these strategies that are.
Speaker 4 (09:19):
All illegal in my view.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
They have a strategy and they get rewarded for their prosecutions.
Speaker 3 (09:26):
And there's no consequence and they do something wrong, as
if their department has to come up with money to
compensate a person.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Yeah, yeah, So the founding Fathers were doing their best
to stop this type of stuff. They put several amendments
in Okay, Amendment five is the same thing, so they
were really on top of unfair prosecution of people. Amendment
number five. No person shall be held to answer for
a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless a presentiment, I
(09:57):
guess that's the right word. Our indictment of a grand jury,
accepting cases arising in the land or naval forces, or
in the militia, et cetera, et cetera. In other words,
you can't just drag somebody into court because you feel
like they, you know, have been doing wrong. You know,
we're watching this show Hell on Wheels, which is really good,
(10:18):
and there's no law and order, and this guy, the Swede,
just drags people.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
In and hangs them.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
You know, might makes right. So it's human nature to
do that. So you have to have these assurances in
writing that people won't do what they feel like doing,
which is be judge, jury and executioner.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
Now I'm with you when it comes to what a
great organization that our founder.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
How does it relate to organizational psychology? I have no idea,
but what I can say is organizational psychology in an organization,
a business organization, you already have these rights protected. I
never ran into a case when I was working an
indietry like this. But you couldn't go in someone's desk,
you know, the company couldn't go in without They could,
(11:07):
but they didn't, but without you know, reason, there was
privacy and dignity offered to employees.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
Well sure as the didn't observe that in the places
I worked.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
Oh really, they go into your desk if if they
wanted to, Well, there you have it. How did you
feel about that?
Speaker 3 (11:26):
Well, I don't remember anyone going in my desk, but
I think they probably did. They felt like it was
their property and they could do whatever they wanted to
do on their property.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
Well, I guess I can kind of understand that. You know.
It's like you bring stuff, you bring any kind of
contraband here, you know, look.
Speaker 4 (11:43):
For it to be discovered.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
Yeah, so this personal privacy boundary and all that, I'm
not sure how that relates to organizational psychology, but I
know that good leaders respect the boundaries of their employees
a good point, you know, and if you're at a
company that doesn't respect boundaries, you're going to try to
find a way to leave eventually or put up with
it and be miserable or put up with it and
(12:07):
take it out on the company.
Speaker 3 (12:08):
What you're bringing up is a positive characteristic of a
free market place. If you're in a business where you
don't like the way the boss is treating you, you know,
you start chopping around for a better job. Yeah, different job,
a job that doesn't pay as well, but you have
more freedom. The marketplace takes care of a lot of
this stuff.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Yeah, I've told this story before. I remember that operator
that told me, you know, they don't understand what happens
if they treat us like shit. We can take a
teaspoon of this chemical and add it to the reactor
and you're down for a week. And he said that,
and I thought, oh my god. You know you can
sabotage things so easily and they can't track who did
(12:51):
it or whatever.
Speaker 3 (12:52):
Well, I would say that's a little different from my
free market argument.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
Yeah, well that operator could have gone and gotten another
job somewhere else, or he can take it out. But
whise leaders understood that. And if you're not going to
do something that violent, you can at least work less,
because what is it used to be the statistic worked.
I don't know if it's the same thing. But white
(13:17):
collar workers worked at about sixty percent of their productivity
and blue collar worked at about fifty five percent of
their productivity.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
So oh, and when you say that that means a
certain percentage of an eight hour day is how much
they were working.
Speaker 2 (13:33):
Yeah, I mean somehow they measured it. But in other words,
you could get eighty percent out of your men there
are women, or you can get forty percent out of
your men or women. So if there's a lot of
variability there, that is up for grabs.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
I've worked in a couple of different times for the government,
a state government and a federal government. Man, that percentage
you just mentioned goes way down when it comes to government.
There's some very productive government.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
There's some very unproductive. Well, that's where you get the constitution.
The constitution the arrangement is for the most freedom. It's
also for the most productivity. But it doesn't mean everybody's
the same productive. You know, the most productivity. Some people
are just more productive than others. Let's go ahead so
(14:23):
we can get to all ten. This is number six.
Amendment six. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy
the right to a speedy and public trial by an
impartial jury. Impartial jury like in New York, like Trump
got in New York with a five million dollar fee
(14:46):
for marketing his real estate business to a.
Speaker 3 (14:51):
Bank where one claimed that they were on.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
Yeah, and where the bank was very knowledgeable about the
overpricing tactics. I'm not even sure he overpriced that.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
Probably it was totally open between him and the bank,
and the bank could check up on that, which they did.
You know, they protected themselves, but government decided to insert itself.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
A right to a speedy and public trial. So speedy
is so that we don't forget the issues, so you
don't wear down the defendant and cut his legs out
from under him. And public is so the detection system
can work. So they were big on this. There are
more things included in Amendment six. Informed of the nature
(15:36):
you know, that's due process rights in Amendment six, previously
ascertained by law, and informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation, be confronted with witnesses, have the assistance
of counsel.
Speaker 4 (15:50):
You know, these guys were so good.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
It's pretty amazing.
Speaker 4 (15:54):
They are so good.
Speaker 3 (15:56):
I don't familiarize myself with this.
Speaker 2 (15:59):
Well, you don't have you met are I was signed
up for KTO. I have these all around the house.
They sent them if you gave them a donation, they
keep sending you these booklets.
Speaker 4 (16:11):
You need a pocket copy of the Constitution.
Speaker 3 (16:14):
But it is interesting to hear.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
So Amendment seven in suits at common law, where the
value is in the value of the controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars. They shouldn't have put twenty dollars in there.
They should have foreseen that time would change that. I'm
sure that the right of a trial by jury shall
be preserved. So that's just right of a trial by jury,
so you're not dependent on a judge if you get
(16:39):
a bad judge. Oh, here's one Amendment eight. Excessive bills
shall not be required, and are excessive fines imposed? And
are cruel? Are unusual punishments inflicted. This is where they're
talking now in the news about Trump filing a constitutional
lawsuit for his Amendment eight rights having been violated with
(17:01):
that fine. I wonder what happens if he does. Trying
to get to make sure we have time to talk
about Amendment ten and then wrap up, because Amendment ten
does the most important that's the most important one. To me,
Nine's pretty good. This is really important. Nine and ten
go together. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights
(17:26):
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained
by the people. Well, it means that if when we
said it, that does not mean you can expand it
and deny others. It's kind of related to Amendment ten,
which is more clear along the same line. Amendment ten,
(17:48):
the powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution and are prohibited by it to the States are
reserved to the States respectively or to the people.
Speaker 4 (18:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
Now, that of course is along with the first Amendment.
Amendment ten is just basic organizational psychology, which you can
summarize by pushing the power down in the levels of
the organization to the lowest level you can get it.
That's what libertarians want to do. We want to push
(18:23):
as much power down into the organization of people to
the individual as can be pushed down effectively, and we
want to keep those powers from falling into the hands
of the people.
Speaker 4 (18:38):
At the top of the organization is individual freedom. Individual's freedom.
Speaker 3 (18:44):
Yeah, we think individual freedom is the best.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Yeah, because that's what the bureaucrats do they take away
your individual freedom because they gather responsibility and accountability around themselves.
And you get that in an organization, and you just
kill the lifeblood of the organization because people are into control.
The bureaucrats are into control. They cut off and delay
(19:09):
and block and stifle and censor everything that can be
in the fuel of the creative fire.
Speaker 3 (19:17):
And the thing I would add to that is when
it's a private company, there is a consequence. If they
are inefficient, then they do not produce their product.
Speaker 4 (19:29):
Well, that's that's a good point.
Speaker 3 (19:32):
They suffer. When it's a government body, there is no
consequence to them.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
There's no feedback loop in the same way, there's no
self correcting of the system.
Speaker 3 (19:41):
But I do agree that even on the private side,
that bureaucracy is automatically developed. It's just that you have
this all setting and sending to have a quality product.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
You do measure the outcome. It's a confusing thing to
me why government isn't measured by its outcome. But we
just finished thirty or forty years of democratic rule where
the outcome was sucky and no one seemed to pay
any attention to it or care about it. Now I've
run into that and the psychologists leftists don't care about
(20:15):
their outcomes. They really don't pay attention. They aren't rule
bound there. Anything goes as long as everybody's happy and all,
there's harmony, and it's the illusion of harmony that is
their goal. I mean, they think it's harmony, but it's
actually just an illusion.
Speaker 3 (20:33):
The way I would say it is that the Addressives
are worse than the Conservatives, but the Conservatives are bad
to you.
Speaker 4 (20:40):
Well, we're seeing that.
Speaker 3 (20:42):
Comes to government. They both believe in government. The first
thing that comes to their mind when they ass the
problem was, hey, let's increase government and get government more involved.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
Yeah, we're seeing the rough edges of the conservative now,
the harsh treatment by them ice people, and you know,
it's it's kind of iffy and all that. But still
we're seeing, you know, issues with new process violations.
Speaker 3 (21:09):
I think the burning of the flag.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
That's a good example that that's a pure example. Is
like we're gonna make it against a law to earn
the flag.
Speaker 3 (21:18):
That's a pure example of conservatives going too far.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
I agree with you wholeheartedly on that. So that's the
first ten amendments. So many of them have to do
with criminal prosecution, that they don't really have to do
with organizational psychology except for the fact that an organizational
leader wants to respect the boundaries of the employees and
if they don't, it's a big problem.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
And of course we kind of halfway commented during your
discussion that our government has travel all over these amendments
as much as they can possibly do.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
Yeah, there's a problem, and that if there's a violation,
you have to go to court, and then you have
to hope that the court you go to has good sense.
They're not written in stone, they're just written down on
a piece of paper as good ideas. Obviously they aren't
always enforced. I want to give a shout out to
Susan again in case she didn't hear it last time.
Speaker 4 (22:14):
I thank her for other card
You're listening to the podcast Coffee with Mike and Juliet
Libertarians Talk Psychology. This is current commentary from an NBA
businessman and a PhD psychologist.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
So I kind of wanted to talk about this for
a while, and it's on the agenda. There's so little
news going on that nothing triggered me and uh bitching
about anything. All that's in the news is the border
patrol is being mean and the Democrats are sucking when.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
We have a couple of wars. But you know, after
a little while, even that gets boring.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
I mean, well it's not boring, it's just Putin's not
going to negotiate. Trump's gonna have to do something. The
guy's gamester. He gets together and talks happy talk and
then bombs the hell out of people. And Trump is
not fallen for it. But I'm not sure he knows
what to do. So this is something that's been on
(01:07):
my mind a while. It's the overlap between organizational psychology
and the Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights as
far as liberty, I mean, it addresses the important things
about we libertarians. The Bill of Rights is the heart.
I mean, you get the Constitution as an organizational structure.
(01:30):
The important thing about the organizational structure is they put
it together as best they could to promote the most
productivity of people and the least amount of abuse of power.
So that's the whole Constitution. But when you get to
the amendments, the first ten amendments are so beautiful. It
was kind of like they step back, the authors framers
(01:53):
stepped back and thought what we miss and they miss
big stuff and they put it in the Bill of Rights.
The overlapping isn't exactly what happened. Yeah, that's exactly what happened.
As far as my knowledge is. That's exactly. Like what
else were you thinking could have happened.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
I could have this totally wrong. But my memory of
it is they sent it to Thomas Jefferson and he said, well,
this isn't complete. And I thought he wrote the bills
in order to complete.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
Oh, I'm not familiar with that. The amendments were added later. Yeah,
So I thought we'd go over the ten amendmutes if
we have time, and just comment on them and think
about what's important for libertarians but also what's important in
psychology that it has to do with the first Amendment.
(02:42):
And I love this amendment. Most of all, this is
mine love affair with the first Amendment. I even like
the way it reads. Congress ship make no laws respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?
Are reaching the freedom of speech, are of the press,
(03:03):
are of the right of the people peaceably to assemble
and petition the government for redress of grievances. That basically
says people have the right to speak out and bitch.
And in psychology, that is a protection of the detection system.
The minute you start censoring people, you censor the detection system,
(03:25):
and you have no rights. Censorship and suppression of expression
is the royal road to destruction of a system.
Speaker 3 (03:34):
Well, I find it interesting that the religious part of
it is the very first phrase. Can you read that.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Part again, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, are prohibiting the free exercise there In other words,
not a lot about it. You know, it's funny that
religion is in there with free speech. Everything else is
freedom of expression.
Speaker 3 (04:00):
Thing they talk about religion.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
But religion must be a part of free expression in
their mind. But they say, we're not going to support
your religion. But We're not going to prohibit the practice
of your religion. Is like, religion is separate than from government.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
And I don't know if religion is mentioned elsewhere in
the Constitution, but the subject comes up all the time
about religion. Do we have freedom of religion or do
we have freedom from religion? In other words, as government
we have both. Well, when government shows the Ten Commandments,
they are pushing a certain religion.
Speaker 4 (04:38):
Well, of course, yeah, it's not clear.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
To me if that's an acceptable thing to do per
the Constitution.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
They go back and forth, they go back and forth,
and you know, it's like it's going to be I know,
Trump knows this is going to happen, but he passed
executive order saying that you can't desecrate the American flag. Well,
there's no more free speech expression than burning the flag.
Speaker 4 (05:04):
It's like burning the flag.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
You can burn the flag, then you clearly have free speech.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
Yeah, the Spreme Court is not going to uphold that
you can't burn the flag.
Speaker 4 (05:17):
You know, but he's doing it.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
You know, he's doing it because he's urinating around the territory.
It is staking out.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
His right turmoil. Even when he knows he can't.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
I'm gonna almost skip over amendment too because it's so controversial.
But anyway, a well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep in bear arms shall not be infringed. This
has to do with can a person keep a weapon?
So the organizational psychology has very little say about that.
(05:58):
But I think it's a complex is you is what
kind of weapons can people have?
Speaker 4 (06:02):
And will you raise your fingers?
Speaker 3 (06:05):
So yeah, the only comment I want to make about
that amendment is that I do believe when they make
us register that we have qualified on that is a
form of infringement. In other words, they are keeping track
of who has guns and who doesn't have done To me.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
I think I agree with you on that. I don't
know what can a person have a nuclear bomb? I
have some questions about some of this, But anyway, there's
not much psychology there except that it has to do
with escalation of violence. To me, the second Amendment says
if others can escalate, you can escalate. You can meet
force with force if you want to. But I have
(06:45):
nothing more to say about that. Amendment Three. No soldier shall,
in the time of peace be quartered in any home
without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war,
but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Well,
what was the movie we were watching where the soldiers
just came in and took over the house.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
I don't know, but my ancestors should be blamed about.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
It, them taking over the house.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
Took over Kentucky ancestors. They just took over the house.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
Well, this, yeah, has to do with that. They take
over the house, then you have no property. Then you
have no rights at all. So apparently it was such
a problem at this point in time. Let's see Amendment
number three, seventeen ninety one the Bill of Rights. The
first ten amendments were all ratified in seventeen ninety one.
(07:37):
Amendment number four is a huge another property right. The
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effect against unreasonable search and seizures shall not be violated,
and no warrants shall issue but upon probable calls supported
(07:59):
by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to
be searched, and the persons are things to be seized.
Speaker 3 (08:07):
That great amendment, it.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
Has been infringed upon. But there again we see that
the founders were protecting the boundaries. It's a great amendment
to have psychological boundaries. You can't take away the persons
their houses. They would need to be secure in their persons.
What does it mean in their persons, be secure in
their persons? I guess you say be secure. They spell
(08:35):
it out houses, papers, and effects, so your stuff can't
be seized. But you know that is being violated right
and left. In Beverly stubb Afield's case, they seized her
assets so she couldn't defend herself.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
Well, that's getting around that amendment. When they did that,
that's getting around that.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Somehow they got around it with the somehow the FBI.
That was the FBI. They did that a bunch of
vile people.
Speaker 3 (09:07):
Fellow psychologist was working for them.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
They wanted her to flip and testify against the other person.
They all have these strategies that are.
Speaker 4 (09:19):
All illegal in my view.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
They have a strategy and they get rewarded for their prosecutions.
Speaker 3 (09:26):
And there's no consequence and they do something wrong, as
if their department has to come up with money to
compensate a person.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Yeah, yeah, So the founding Fathers were doing their best
to stop this type of stuff. They put several amendments
in Okay, Amendment five is the same thing, so they
were really on top of unfair prosecution of people. Amendment
number five. No person shall be held to answer for
a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless a presentiment, I
(09:57):
guess that's the right word. Our indictment of a grand jury,
accepting cases arising in the land or naval forces, or
in the militia, et cetera, et cetera. In other words,
you can't just drag somebody into court because you feel
like they, you know, have been doing wrong. You know,
we're watching this show Hell on Wheels, which is really good,
(10:18):
and there's no law and order, and this guy, the Swede,
just drags people.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
In and hangs them.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
You know, might makes right. So it's human nature to
do that. So you have to have these assurances in
writing that people won't do what they feel like doing,
which is be judge, jury and executioner.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
Now I'm with you when it comes to what a
great organization that our founder.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
How does it relate to organizational psychology? I have no idea,
but what I can say is organizational psychology in an organization,
a business organization, you already have these rights protected. I
never ran into a case when I was working an
indietry like this. But you couldn't go in someone's desk,
you know, the company couldn't go in without They could,
(11:07):
but they didn't, but without you know, reason, there was
privacy and dignity offered to employees.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
Well sure as the didn't observe that in the places
I worked.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
Oh really, they go into your desk if if they
wanted to, Well, there you have it. How did you
feel about that?
Speaker 3 (11:26):
Well, I don't remember anyone going in my desk, but
I think they probably did. They felt like it was
their property and they could do whatever they wanted to
do on their property.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
Well, I guess I can kind of understand that. You know.
It's like you bring stuff, you bring any kind of
contraband here, you know, look.
Speaker 4 (11:43):
For it to be discovered.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
Yeah, so this personal privacy boundary and all that, I'm
not sure how that relates to organizational psychology, but I
know that good leaders respect the boundaries of their employees
a good point, you know, and if you're at a
company that doesn't respect boundaries, you're going to try to
find a way to leave eventually or put up with
it and be miserable or put up with it and
(12:07):
take it out on the company.
Speaker 3 (12:08):
What you're bringing up is a positive characteristic of a
free market place. If you're in a business where you
don't like the way the boss is treating you, you know,
you start chopping around for a better job. Yeah, different job,
a job that doesn't pay as well, but you have
more freedom. The marketplace takes care of a lot of
this stuff.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Yeah, I've told this story before. I remember that operator
that told me, you know, they don't understand what happens
if they treat us like shit. We can take a
teaspoon of this chemical and add it to the reactor
and you're down for a week. And he said that,
and I thought, oh my god. You know you can
sabotage things so easily and they can't track who did
(12:51):
it or whatever.
Speaker 3 (12:52):
Well, I would say that's a little different from my
free market argument.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
Yeah, well that operator could have gone and gotten another
job somewhere else, or he can take it out. But
whise leaders understood that. And if you're not going to
do something that violent, you can at least work less,
because what is it used to be the statistic worked.
I don't know if it's the same thing. But white
(13:17):
collar workers worked at about sixty percent of their productivity
and blue collar worked at about fifty five percent of
their productivity.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
So oh, and when you say that that means a
certain percentage of an eight hour day is how much
they were working.
Speaker 2 (13:33):
Yeah, I mean somehow they measured it. But in other words,
you could get eighty percent out of your men there
are women, or you can get forty percent out of
your men or women. So if there's a lot of
variability there, that is up for grabs.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
I've worked in a couple of different times for the government,
a state government and a federal government. Man, that percentage
you just mentioned goes way down when it comes to government.
There's some very productive government.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
There's some very unproductive. Well, that's where you get the constitution.
The constitution the arrangement is for the most freedom. It's
also for the most productivity. But it doesn't mean everybody's
the same productive. You know, the most productivity. Some people
are just more productive than others. Let's go ahead so
(14:23):
we can get to all ten. This is number six.
Amendment six. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy
the right to a speedy and public trial by an
impartial jury. Impartial jury like in New York, like Trump
got in New York with a five million dollar fee
(14:46):
for marketing his real estate business to a.
Speaker 3 (14:51):
Bank where one claimed that they were on.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
Yeah, and where the bank was very knowledgeable about the
overpricing tactics. I'm not even sure he overpriced that.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
Probably it was totally open between him and the bank,
and the bank could check up on that, which they did.
You know, they protected themselves, but government decided to insert itself.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
A right to a speedy and public trial. So speedy
is so that we don't forget the issues, so you
don't wear down the defendant and cut his legs out
from under him. And public is so the detection system
can work. So they were big on this. There are
more things included in Amendment six. Informed of the nature
(15:36):
you know, that's due process rights in Amendment six, previously
ascertained by law, and informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation, be confronted with witnesses, have the assistance
of counsel.
Speaker 4 (15:50):
You know, these guys were so good.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
It's pretty amazing.
Speaker 4 (15:54):
They are so good.
Speaker 3 (15:56):
I don't familiarize myself with this.
Speaker 2 (15:59):
Well, you don't have you met are I was signed
up for KTO. I have these all around the house.
They sent them if you gave them a donation, they
keep sending you these booklets.
Speaker 4 (16:11):
You need a pocket copy of the Constitution.
Speaker 3 (16:14):
But it is interesting to hear.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
So Amendment seven in suits at common law, where the
value is in the value of the controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars. They shouldn't have put twenty dollars in there.
They should have foreseen that time would change that. I'm
sure that the right of a trial by jury shall
be preserved. So that's just right of a trial by jury,
so you're not dependent on a judge if you get
(16:39):
a bad judge. Oh, here's one Amendment eight. Excessive bills
shall not be required, and are excessive fines imposed? And
are cruel? Are unusual punishments inflicted. This is where they're
talking now in the news about Trump filing a constitutional
lawsuit for his Amendment eight rights having been violated with
(17:01):
that fine. I wonder what happens if he does. Trying
to get to make sure we have time to talk
about Amendment ten and then wrap up, because Amendment ten
does the most important that's the most important one. To me,
Nine's pretty good. This is really important. Nine and ten
go together. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights
(17:26):
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained
by the people. Well, it means that if when we
said it, that does not mean you can expand it
and deny others. It's kind of related to Amendment ten,
which is more clear along the same line. Amendment ten,
(17:48):
the powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution and are prohibited by it to the States are
reserved to the States respectively or to the people.
Speaker 4 (18:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
Now, that of course is along with the first Amendment.
Amendment ten is just basic organizational psychology, which you can
summarize by pushing the power down in the levels of
the organization to the lowest level you can get it.
That's what libertarians want to do. We want to push
(18:23):
as much power down into the organization of people to
the individual as can be pushed down effectively, and we
want to keep those powers from falling into the hands
of the people.
Speaker 4 (18:38):
At the top of the organization is individual freedom. Individual's freedom.
Speaker 3 (18:44):
Yeah, we think individual freedom is the best.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Yeah, because that's what the bureaucrats do they take away
your individual freedom because they gather responsibility and accountability around themselves.
And you get that in an organization, and you just
kill the lifeblood of the organization because people are into control.
The bureaucrats are into control. They cut off and delay
(19:09):
and block and stifle and censor everything that can be
in the fuel of the creative fire.
Speaker 3 (19:17):
And the thing I would add to that is when
it's a private company, there is a consequence. If they
are inefficient, then they do not produce their product.
Speaker 4 (19:29):
Well, that's that's a good point.
Speaker 3 (19:32):
They suffer. When it's a government body, there is no
consequence to them.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
There's no feedback loop in the same way, there's no
self correcting of the system.
Speaker 3 (19:41):
But I do agree that even on the private side,
that bureaucracy is automatically developed. It's just that you have
this all setting and sending to have a quality product.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
You do measure the outcome. It's a confusing thing to
me why government isn't measured by its outcome. But we
just finished thirty or forty years of democratic rule where
the outcome was sucky and no one seemed to pay
any attention to it or care about it. Now I've
run into that and the psychologists leftists don't care about
(20:15):
their outcomes. They really don't pay attention. They aren't rule
bound there. Anything goes as long as everybody's happy and all,
there's harmony, and it's the illusion of harmony that is
their goal. I mean, they think it's harmony, but it's
actually just an illusion.
Speaker 3 (20:33):
The way I would say it is that the Addressives
are worse than the Conservatives, but the Conservatives are bad
to you.
Speaker 4 (20:40):
Well, we're seeing that.
Speaker 3 (20:42):
Comes to government. They both believe in government. The first
thing that comes to their mind when they ass the
problem was, hey, let's increase government and get government more involved.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
Yeah, we're seeing the rough edges of the conservative now,
the harsh treatment by them ice people, and you know,
it's it's kind of iffy and all that. But still
we're seeing, you know, issues with new process violations.
Speaker 3 (21:09):
I think the burning of the flag.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
That's a good example that that's a pure example. Is
like we're gonna make it against a law to earn
the flag.
Speaker 3 (21:18):
That's a pure example of conservatives going too far.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
I agree with you wholeheartedly on that. So that's the
first ten amendments. So many of them have to do
with criminal prosecution, that they don't really have to do
with organizational psychology except for the fact that an organizational
leader wants to respect the boundaries of the employees and
if they don't, it's a big problem.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
And of course we kind of halfway commented during your
discussion that our government has travel all over these amendments
as much as they can possibly do.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
Yeah, there's a problem, and that if there's a violation,
you have to go to court, and then you have
to hope that the court you go to has good sense.
They're not written in stone, they're just written down on
a piece of paper as good ideas. Obviously they aren't
always enforced. I want to give a shout out to
Susan again in case she didn't hear it last time.
Speaker 4 (22:14):
I thank her for other card
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com