Might want to switch to this backup as its a better copy

*backup=[...snipped...]

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by eric3579.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Alameda, five oh, wild west, guns' to 'Alameda, five oh, wild west, guns, Stanley Roberts, People Behaving Badly' - edited by eric3579

Cool. Thanks.

Videos like this are always good for a game of Guess How Far Down The YouTube Comments The First Racist Post Is.

*quality

Invocations (quality) cannot be called by SFOGuy because SFOGuy is not privileged - sorry.

Damn Oakland, you scary!

Yep Wild Wild West: Oakland, CA. Except that, until now, only cops and criminals were armed. In a real Wild Wild West scenario, law abiding and decent people are also armed. And that makes a huge difference. Like in that town in Mexico where the population organized into a citizen's army and drove out the cartels/gangs, in addition to keeping the cops at bay. Just another instance where I think private police agencies (like the Old West 'Pinkertons' and bounty hunters) would do what needed to be done where public "cops" don't really want to (or simply can't).

After the end of the "war on [some] drugs" and the welfare state, gangsters will have to do something -- maybe get jobs -- other than 'side-show' and standing around all night, shooting (expensive) bullets into the air.

*wildwestshow

Adding video to channels (Wildwestshow) - requested by Trancecoach.

No this is how it should happen, just ask the *statist circlejerkers like @chingalera

Things are so much better when the cops are useless eh?

Wow. Used to live just south of Oakland. It wasn't that bad then (almost 10 years ago). Whew.

I know one thing...you can't blame this on conservatives.

oakland=a libertarians wet dream.
@Trancecoach these gangsters have jobs.
they sell drugs,sell sex and run gambling dens.they provide security for those who do not wish their private property violated.
they provide essential services.

why do you hate the free market?
are you a socialist?

@enoch, you must have your head in your own rectum if you think that Oakland is anywhere close to a libertarian's wet dream. You clearly have no interest in having a real discussion about any of the principles I've outlined for you, and I have little problem ignoring your posts.

If anything, Oakland is more like a statist's dream, right now. The inevitable result of regulations and criminalization of drugs. Drug dealers, pimps, bookies, and such are, in fact, "cronies" of the governmental system due to the fact that their jobs are overpaid by the illegality of these services.

If Oakland decriminalizes all of the above mentioned "services" that these guys provide, then I would grant that the city is, indeed, moving in a libertarian direction. Otherwise, only psychos and low-lifes tend to take those illegal jobs given that they are subject to the precariousness of the whims of the legislators

I don't mind them doing any of the above activities, actually. But shooting guns in the air could be a violation of someone else's property, depending on where the bullets fall or on whom/what. And obviously the state "protectors" are doing nothing about any of these things.

Like I said, let private security take over and these random shootings would be curtailed..

Make Oakland business-friendly, and you will see it become much less violent. A libertarian's "dream" does not look like an over-regulated Oakland.

Private enterprise/private property does not put up with random shooting into the air in the middle of a city. Tell me: Why are there are no gang shootings inside the Google campus? Or at Disneyland?

Why do these things tend to happen only in "public" spaces? Tell me.

That cop heckled by the gangs had zero incentive to risk his life for no gain. Businesses, on the other hand, have the incentive to keep gangs off of their property. And they will find those willing and able (for the right price) to deal with the gangsters in ways the government cronies simply can/will not..

I would like to answer some points here....
1.You certainly SEEM to have a problem ignoring his posts, you even responded to them.
2. These 'crimes' have been 'decriminalized' because the police are unable to enforce the laws, decriminalizing nearly everything, at least in practice if not by law.
3. The state doing nothing is what libertarians are all about, so again, in practice this does seem to be the libertarian dream, just not by law.
4. Private security HAS taken over in Oakland. Private security only protects what they're paid to protect, and nothing else usually.
5. To make Oakland 'business friendly' you first need to make if FAR less violent.
6. I can't see ANY regulations being enforced there, what are you talking about with 'over-regulated Oakland'?
7. Oakland is in America, and nearly all of it is 'private property/enterprise' that IS putting up with that. There are no gang shootings (or fewer) at Google and Disney because they are in low crime areas and can afford good private security for themselves, Oakland is a high crime area with little money for security.
8. Wow, you are really stretching there. These things do NOT happen only in public places, most of Oakland is private property and high crime.
9. Where do you get the idea that struggling businesses have the funds to pay for private security? That's simply wrong and insultingly so, as it implies that they have the ability to stop, and a reason to allow the high crime in their area.

10. to the idea that everyone in Oakland should just be armed to reduce crime, is anyone offering the free guns to them? I guarantee you, most hard working upstanding people in Oakland can't afford a gun.

Before someone claims I have no idea of what I speak, my brother lived in East Oakland for a year and I visited often, and we lived in S. Berkley for years, almost on the Oakland border...I do know the Oakland of the 80's and 90's (true, I have no personal knowledge of 2000+ Oakland, but it seems the same).

*snuff , as described in the video

This is clearly not snuff.

"Please do not post pornography or "snuff" films (which we define as the explicit depiction of loss of human life displayed for entertainment).

Note: The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera."

#1 I clicked "ignore" after responding to his post. That is what I have no problem with doing.

#2 Bullshit. (sorry but it is) Hundreds if not thousands of people get arrested and prosecuted regularly for drug possession, drug selling, and even drug use. Tell me what's been decriminalized!

#3 The state is doing quite a bit in Oakland, actually, like preventing the private institutions that would solve these problems from arising in the fist place from setting up there (but instead hold failed monopolies over those industries). For example, there are no legalized drug dealers (See bullshit #2). Again, that kind of gang activity happens on a "public" street. It does not happen on private property. And even if it did, it'd be no one's business but the owners'.

#4 If this was even close to true, then it's even more proof of the superiority of private police over "public" law enforcement. Because, like I said, you don't see this kind of thing happening on private property, do you?

#5. Wrong. Businesses will take care of that if given an incentive to move there. Have you not heard of people complaining about (so-called) "gentrification?"

#6. Huh? Really? So, are there no business permits needed to set up a business in Oakland? Do the business owners and residents of Oakland not have to pay taxes? Is there no open carry for law-abiding citizens? (now there will be it seems). Is there no enforced rent control in Oakland? If you don't see any regulations being enforced, then you are willfully ignorant.

#7. There are no gangs at Disney because it is private property and its owners will not put up with something so bad for business as gangs. Disneyland and Google have gentrified the neighborhoods they are in -- they were not always low crime areas as they were before they moved in.

"Oakland is a high crime area with little money for security."

Yeah, those usually go together. The ultimate results of statist interventions are always poverty and crime.

#8 Much of the violent crime happens in the "public" spaces, like the streets. Sure, there are break-ins to private homes, etc. but as you say, the poverty does not let people hire private security, and the "public" police (that have monopolized that industry) are, like you point out, completely useless to the tax-paying residents who live there.


#9 I'd rather I wouldn't have to pay for taxes and pay for my own security than having to give the money to the state in exchange for getting nothing in return. In fact, I'm aware of several security services that are available to people living in the ghetto for as little as $35/month.


#10 So, only gangsters can afford guns now? Maybe it will be cheaper without the gun "permit" costs. Or the restrictions about buying them more cheaply online.

And I highly doubt the peoople in Oakland can't afford guns, given how many guns there are in Oakland. But, for the sake of argument, lets say it's true. If not for the illegality of the drug trade, then gangsters would also not be able to afford guns (the illegality of the drugs is what's driving up the price and, as a result, the profitability of gangsterism). And if it wasn't for the regulations, Walmart would make sure to provide more affordable armaments, just like they do in other states.

I recommend spending just a few minutes inside the Oakland traffic court and you'll see how many "hardworking upstanding people" there are who somehow manage to pay for hundreds of dollars in fines and/or do community service for an equivalent minimum wage to pay for these. You could easily get a gun at Walmart for much less.


"Before someone claims I have no idea of what I speak, my brother lived in East Oakland..."

Well, if you think Oakland is a libertarian "dream," then you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Having a brother who lived in Oakland for a year does not make you an expert on (or even vaguely familiar with) what a libertarian "dream" place looks like (or even -- as you apparently reveal -- what actually goes on in Oakland).


Just the fact that, as you say, Oakland is rather poor makes it a non-libertarian city at all. A free market society/economy (cronyism is not a free market, so don't even go there) has much less poverty than a 'regulated' one.

Sure, if you go from a state-dependent "economy" to a free market overnight, without having had time to rebuild the private institutions that the state demolished and/or took over and/or monopolized, then, sure you may have a chaotic transition period. That's why a controlled dismantlement is far more preferable to an anarchy that comes about by sudden collapse. But, you have to take what you can get.

(As we may find out first hand) the problem with a government going bankrupt is that, at first, it may seem like a good thing, but it can also bring about a worse repression from the state. Praxeology cannot answer the unknown. It falls more within the realm of thymological prediction/analysis.

Huh? I'm confused by this response.

I would applaud the police if they shot and killed everyone of the thugs surrounding and kicking that police car.....

Check my response above.

This is Democrat failure of epic proportion.

From Wikipedia:
Politics

"Oakland was politically conservative from the 1860s to the 1950s, led by the Republican-oriented Oakland Tribune newspaper. In the 1950s and '60s, the majority stance shifted to favor liberal policies and the Democratic Party.[156][157] Oakland has by far the highest percentage of registered Democrats of any of the incorporated cities in Alameda County. As of 2009, Oakland has 204,646 registered voters, and 140,858 (68.8%) are registered Democrats, 12,248 (5.9%) are registered Republicans, and 41,109 (20.1%) decline to state a political affiliation.[158] Oakland is widely regarded as being one of the most liberal major cities in the nation.

The Cook Partisan Voting Index of Congressional District 13, which includes Oakland and Berkeley, is D+37; among the six most extremely Democratic congressional districts in the US."

Crime:
Oakland's crime rate began to escalate during the late 1960s, and by the end of the 1970s Oakland's per capita murder rate had risen to twice that of its neighbor city, San Francisco, or that of New York City.[125]

During the first decade of the 21st century Oakland has consistently been listed as one of the most dangerous large cities in the United States.[126] Until 2010 the homicide rate dropped four times in a row, and violent crime in general had dropped 27%.

Violent crime in general, and homicides in particular, increased during 2011.[127] In 2012 Oakland reported 131 homicides, the highest since 2006 (when there were 148 recorded).[128][129]"

or Astronauts.

If these folks can afford guns, then the good, hard-working people in Oakland can most certainly afford guns.

In fact, this small Mexican town really understood the meaning of the "consent of the governed." They disarmed the police!

One thing I think gets missed by most people is that people aren't saints. But nor are they devils. If empowered, they won't let a minority of criminals take over their community. Even when this drug cartel tried to take over this Mexican town, the residents eventually said "Enough" and took matters (and arms) into their own hands. (And of course, the police tried to stop them.)

In addition, few people grasp how the belief/faith in the need for a police force in order to "protect" us from our neighbors, implicitly engenders a tacit distrust among those with whom we share community -- all in the name of some faceless, unnamed "third party" called The State.

I don't know about you, but between the police and my friends, I will invariably trust my friends more than any cop. Every. Single. Time.

1. OK
2. Not THESE crimes, the one's I talked about. When violence and drug dealing can happen in front of the police with no repercussion, it's de-facto decriminalized.
3. BULLSHIT. Oakland is not telling anyone they can't hire private security, they do say you can't form a violent gang (which seems to be what you're advocating) even if it's intent is to stop other gang activity. What private institutions are clamoring to come in and solve the crime issues, only to be held at bay by the state? I've never heard of one (and a mob or gang of citizens does not count).
There are numerous legal marijuana dispensaries in Oakland, legalized drug dealers according to the feds....and pharmacies.
What, crime happening on private property is no one's business but the property owner?!? Just wow. Don't know where to go with that mindset...but I might ask, how many slaves do you own?
4. yes, most of the video was shot on private property. Edit: Ok, I noticed it's not mostly on private property. Lot's of crime is, but not this. I was wrong....still...
Private security does not stop this kind of criminal, especially when outnumbered. They document it in hopes the police will do something.
5. yes, I have heard (and disagree with) that complaint. Business won't move to these places UNLESS you give them incentive (like tax huge breaks and/or free land grabs), they do not just go there and fix things unless we all pay to let them. Never heard of it happening, anywhere. Please give an example.
6. Not for the illegal businesses, which are a large percentage. There are regulations to be sure, but many aren't enforced and they certainly aren't over-regulated as I see it, with small exceptions. Over-regulation did not cause the crime in Oakland, that's just ridiculous and ignorant.
7. Disney is not Oakland...and has not gentrified the surrounding areas. I know someone that lived across the freeway, and it was HIGH crime. They don't allow crime on their (ever expanding) property, period. Living in their gated communities is ridiculously expensive and regulated down to the colors you can paint your home or the types of grass you may have in your lawn. It's draconian. They show clearly that private ownership/control leads to MORE regulation, not less, it's just not government regulation.
8. Oakland HAS been high crime with little money, no statist intervention was ever needed. Much if not most of the crime happens in parking lots and buildings, on private property, not in the street. Your apparent assertion that police have unfairly and wrongly stopped mob justice that would assuredly solve all the crime (by committing crimes against criminals) is laughable.
9.Your taxes are not used only for 'security' you know. For the portion that does, you could not hire private security that did anything, nor can you for $35 a month. People will gladly take your money, but what do they do for you?
10. Not what I said, buy your idea is to arm EVERYONE, and everyone can't afford a gun. That does not mean only criminals can afford one, that's terrible comprehension. Most honest people in Oakland are struggling, or they wouldn't live there. Even if guns were cheaper, they can't afford rent and food, so it doesn't help...especially when you and yours stop paying taxes and all services they depend on to survive dry up. ;-} It's not an issue of them being over-regulated that stops most (or any, it's insanely easy to buy an illegal gun there) from owning one, it's just not.
Because people find ways to pay their bills and fines does not mean they have disposable income to spend on firearms, as you suggest.
Yeah yeah, I just know nothing, so ignore me. That seems to work for you. That's fine. First I'll ask, how long have YOU lived in Oakland, since you're an 'expert' and I am not (I never claimed to be)? How long did you live in the libertarian utopia you want to emulate?
I don't think Oakland is a libertarian dream, but I do think it's what you get when you de/under fund police and have terrible governing. I don't think the answer is to stop governing and policing, it's to do it better (which doesn't necessarily mean more).
Where is this utopian free market that has "much less poverty" you reference as evidence, I can't find it.
Ahhh, so you admit, anarchy is preferable to you over a government that's not libertarian...hmmmm. I don't think the working people of Oakland, or most anywhere else would agree. If I'm wrong about that, we're all in trouble.
And back to 'praxeology', an infant 'science' with questionable if any results. People are inherently difficult to study, we're all freaks. (every mention reminds me of the foundation sci-fi series).
BTW...I was a libertarian until the Tea party came along...then I had to re-think.

How fast do you think the army/national guard would be involved if that happened in the USA? That said, if things were as bad in Oakland as they were in Mexico, I might change my stance. I don't think they're anywhere near that bad, they're just not good
I don't know about you, but between a well regulated and trained police force (ours needs better regulating and training, agreed) and a mob of random untrained angry armed strangers, I will trust the police. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. (and make no mistake, I don't trust the police much at all) That's just me.

If this is all due to political affiliation, why are other democratic 'strongholds' not in the same position?
It seems to me like you simply want this to be 100% the democrats fault so you can degrade them some more.

Uhhh.... *controversy I guess.

#2 They weren't dealing drugs in that video, were they? And the Oakland vice squad does conduct raids, does it not? I personally know a detective who worked there for years.

#3: "how many slaves do you own?"

Obviously slavery violates self-ownership rights. Shooting a gun on your own property violates no one's rights.

#4: "They document it in hopes the police will do something."

Don't hold your breath.

#5: "Business won't move to these places UNLESS you give them incentive (like tax huge breaks "

Sure, like in Pittsburgh or Singapore.

> "they do not just go there and fix things unless we all pay to let them."

Tax breaks is not "paying them." In fact, you have no moral right to tax. Taxation is theft.

#6: You're too vague positing little more than a bunch of opinions and declarations. Nothing here which really warrants a response.

#7: "They don't allow crime on their (ever expanding) property, period."

That's what I said. Only "public" property allows that kind of violent crime. No legitimate business would. So, while Disney can raise the standard of living on and around its grounds, it's under no pretense to maintain the civility outside of its property.

> "They show clearly that private ownership/control leads to MORE regulation, not less, it's just not government regulation."

When I say "regulation," I mean state-imposed regulation. Of course, however someone wants to regulate within their own private property is within their rights to self-ownership and private property. It's fine since it is not aggression/coercion. I'm not against private regulation. In fact, I regulate who enters into my house or uses my car. Duh. Don't you?

#8: "Oakland HAS been high crime with little money"

This is often the case. The same underlying causes for crime and poverty.

> "Much if not most of the crime happens in parking lots and buildings, on private property, not in the street."

Certainly not while the owners are using the property or while they are liable for allowing a crime to occur there. But tell me: where specifically?

I was making reference to what is happening in that video. If you want to talk about other specific instances, then tell me which ones and we can look at each one specifically.

> "Your apparent assertion that police have unfairly and wrongly stopped mob justice that would assuredly solve all the crime (by committing crimes against criminals) is laughable."

I don't know where you get this "mob justice" from. You are reading into what I said or something.

#9: "nor can you for $35 a month."

Yes I can, and better than what the police offers.

> "People will gladly take your money, but what do they do for you?"

If you are talking about the police, then nothing really.

> "Your taxes are not used only for 'security' you know."

Technically, they are used mostly to pay for war and the national debt. But police is also paid from taxes.

#10: "Most honest people in Oakland are struggling, or they wouldn't live there."

I don't know if this is true, but apparently you do. Somehow, I doubt they are struggling so much that they cannot buy a gun.

> "they can't afford rent and food"

Most "hardworking people" in Oakland cannot buy food? Really?

> "especially when you and yours stop paying taxes and all services they depend on to survive dry up."

I guess they'll still have you to pay for them and the wars and the debt. Although I'm not against charity, in fact I am actively engaged in such activities. But if you need my money, then put the guns away and ask nicely.

> "it's insanely easy to buy an illegal gun there"

But most law abiding people don't want to break the law on this or many other things.

> "Yeah yeah, I just know nothing, so ignore me."

I kind of do.

> "I don't think Oakland is a libertarian dream"

No, that was @enoch who said it was.

> "it's what you get when you de/under fund police and have terrible governing."

You always have 'terrible governing' when it comes from the state, politicians and such. It's a logical fallacy to conclude otherwise.

> "I don't think the answer is to stop governing and policing, it's to do it better (which doesn't necessarily mean more)."

Sorry, but this will NEVER happen. (But, hey, good luck with that. I'm certainly not stopping you. Go ahead. "Do better.")

> "Where is this utopian free market that has "much less poverty" you reference as evidence, I can't find it."

Then you must not be paying attention. Virtually all progress comes from the free market.

And again, if you are not interested, then it doesn't matter if you find it or not, does it? It's your life. You decide what you want and go ahead and do it and live with the consequences.

> "Ahhh, so you admit, anarchy is preferable to you over a government that's not libertarian...hmmmm."

In my opinion, a government cannot be libertarian. The logical conclusion to libertarian non-aggression is anarchy, i.e., no ruler; no state. A "libertarian" state is not really "libertarian." It's a contradiction in terms.

> "I don't think the working people of Oakland, or most anywhere else would agree."

So what? Who cares if they agree or not? They obviously don't agree and, therefore, as you say, they live in Oakland and are "struggling." If most people in Oakland agreed, they could probably turn things around. But as you say, they don't. So they, like everyone else, must live with the consequences of their decisions, their beliefs, their behaviors.

See, the good thing about being libertarian is that you don't really need to convince anyone of anything. That futile endeavor is the lot of those who hope -- against all evidence -- that they will somehow get "good government" if they can only convince others to elect the "better politicians." I sincerely wish you the best of luck with that. I'm certainly not counting on it ever happening. You have your idea of what "good government" means and how to get there, and so do many millions of other people. And they obviously don't agree.

> "And back to 'praxeology', an infant 'science' with questionable if any results."

Questionable in what way(s)? What do you know about it?

> "BTW...I was a libertarian until the Tea party came along...then I had to re-think."

The Tea Party is not libertarian. They have some libertarian preferences, but that's it. They are certainly not anarchists.

Anyway, in sum of all of this, let me say that, if you think you have the answers, then I encourage you to put them into practice. See if you can and deal with the problem!

Fast. The US is highly militarized. And its military/police are much better funded than in Mexico.

"a mob of random untrained angry armed strangers"

If they are my friends and neighbors, I would not call them a mob (I don't know how you view your friends but I don't see my friends like this) and I would trust them more than the police. So did the American Revolutionaries. They trusted their fellow colonists more than the "well regulated and trained" British Army. But even then, many trusted the establishment, the Red Coats.

And who are you even talking about? Because, to each other, they are not "random strangers." The police are the "random strangers!" For most people, anyway.

This scene comes to mind.
Like Corleone implies, it's good to know where your loyalties lie. And that of those who engage with you.

"I will trust the police. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. (and make no mistake, I don't trust the police much at all) That's just me."

Yep, that's just you, and some others, for sure. So what?

"I don't know about you"

Now you know.

And like I said: Good luck with that. I wish you the best and that you never have to 'rely' on the police to 'protect' you.

Anyway, @newtboy, suffice it to say, you're not paying me for this information, nor am I charging you.. You've got the State to 'educate' you. If you think I have something you want, then you can ask for it respectfully. We're done.

@Trancecoach
lighten up francis.
i was playing around.
learn to take a lil ball busting..its good for the soul.

@bobknight33 @Trancecoach

Christians were once the majority in Lebanon, and they made Beruit "the Paris of the Middle East." But that era is over. They lost a battle of the cradle.

It's the same story with Oakland, Baltimore, and Detroit. Detroit was once "the Paris of the West," but the people who made it that way were forced out, and the culture, mismanagement, and corruption of the new caretakers couldn't maintain what had been built.

[edit: link removed]

We now live in a different world than our parents' 1960s, when most of our current ideas were invented. (I'm speaking to the minority of people from all ancestries who are on the side of civilization.)

@dag and @gwiz665 Don't let this happen to your countries

I live in West Oakland. Before I moved here all my friends told me it was inevitable that I was going to get shot and my apartment broken into.

That has not been true AT ALL. Not only that but I walk around the really really terrible "Lower Bottoms" *gasp* everyday, I'd say a good one hour of foot traffic up and down Lower-Bottoms and I have not seen anyone doing anything in the least bit threatening to anyone's property or man-flesh.

Oakland is actually FUCKING awesome. Yeah, like any city there are portions that are not so great. What was showcased here was a portion of East Oakland a little past Fruitvale BART station.

Yes, there are spots that are dangerous there but Oakland is a sprawled out city, is Oakland the Wild West? I'd venture to say it is somewhat but it certainly is not even close to as bad as people make it out to seem - especially compared to most cities on the East Coast.

Am I reading Stormfront, or videosift? This type of comment should not be tolerated here. Comment links to: http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2014/02/year-around-curfew-centers-needed-in.html

Shite like this is the reason I moved out of California, living in good old Saint Paul, Minnesota now. Oxnard California is like a mini-Oakland. Here I have a 3000sf home built in 1901, 1 mile from downtown and no worries. My daughter is 10mos, one due in July, and we so enjoy walks in the neighborhood in the summer. My stepson walks to baseball 1 mile away, we meet him there pushing baby and walking dog, walk home as an American Family. It makes it all worth while. My wife is a CPA but I am a blue collar truck driver.

I think there are ALL KINDS of problems that lead to places like this in Cali... Fresno is almost as bad. Parts of the low desert are very bad, etc. If you want to write 2 page posts defending your view of WHY, maybe that's one of the reasons why as well, and you should define it, man up, and put it in there at number 12 or whatever. Sure "democratic stronghold" is part of the problem. American counter-culture has also been rewarding consumerism above all else for decades. Asians, Latinos, and Blacks cash in today and sell out tomorrow. The west coast is also way too expensive, real estate is too high, and money is the only incentive.

Obviously there is a problem. The left wants to look at answers that sound might or will help but accountability cant be ignored. The right wants to go to war and justify a police state when we are all Americans defining our on future together.

As a side note I might have had 10-15 encounters with these types over the years in and around Oxnard and if their skin was white and I was armed, maybe they would have died...or me. Who knows, there are always more than one way to deal with a problem. In the end the minorities pay the price and it isn't fair. They get worse jobs, their property isnt worth ShXXt, their children receive a poor education. Cookie-cutter whites, in the end, benefit on the left. The drive their Volvo SUVs on highways to schools or doctors or what have you paid for by the masses.

Funny. I live in the bay area, and walk my son to soccer in the park all the time with no worries. We can take easy, peaceful strolls outside in the summer and winter. Looking around, it's no Norman Rockwell, but all I see are american families. We are surrounded by the best schools and universities in the country.

As far as Oakland goes, it's a great city to visit and to live. It's not just me that feels this way, demand for housing there has only increased in the past decade. It's expensive to buy there because people want to live there. Alot more than St. Paul, by the way. Last time I checked, St. Paul also had its crime ridden parts; or can you walk anywhere at night in your town?

So these dystopian pictures being painted on this thread exist in this thread only. In real life, Oakland is a thriving city with alot going for it, and the people with means who actually drive the economy agree, and are voting with their feet and wallets, and corporate headquarters.

I visit Oakland often. The last trip, I took my son on a tour of the USS Hornet, where he got to see the first footsteps of the Apollo astronauts after they returned to Earth. Before that, we visited the world class planetarium and took in great views of the valley. I love going to the great restaurants and live music venues downtown.

Private security can not fix social problems.

First you fix poverty, then crime.

Other way around, there is only one way: forever sentences, "no rehabilitation only penalty" is the goal. Trying to sweep "undesirables" away, clean and neatly tucked away in private prisons. It's very neat way of "fixing" the leak by pusnihing one part of your own populace on different rules. What do you think will happen once it goes for a generation? Children are taught from ground-up to not trust the government, the police and the rest of the society that's want to basically kill them but are too afraid so it's dealt with another route: destroying any chance of social mobility by promoting inequality, making tougher laws for crimes that are mostly only happening on lowest economic classes, giving out sentences for the same crimes differently depending how those background factors are that the people themselves can't help. That is an effective solution, it's not final but in these quarterly run world, nothings forever but instead "make profit now".

And then after all that claiming "it's the land of the free", "pursuit of happiness" etc. Everything is very logical under those circumstances. If you are poor, it's your own fault. That is the message blasted all over. Even when shown the overwhelming evidence how equality promotes happiness, social mobility, prevents poverty, it seems that every US citizen, poor or rich thinks otherwise.

The inequality in USA means POWER. It means "i'm better than you". The whole country is sick in that attitude (Sorry, US citizens, i wouldn't say all this if i didn't lover you and your country). You are never good if you're as good as the next person.

Countries that do promote equality, the attitude is "this is enough", i don't need to be better than my neighbor to feel good. It doesn't mean they are lazy or unambitious, it means that boasting with wealth is considered vulgar, idiotic, uncivilized. You can have a guy earning triple right next to you and you can't really see the difference.

This does not fit US frame of mind where money is the only way to happiness and you never can have enough. If you have it, you want to shove it in everyones face.

2. I'm fairly certain there was drug dealing going on in at least one of those crowds harassing the cops. If not, it would be out of character for these groups.
3. Well, you said crime on private property is no one's business but the owner...that's Bullshit, which you admit now.
Shooting a gun violates public discharge laws, sends a projectile on a random arch to impact somewhere, and creates noise violations (especially in the middle of the night like these)...or can I come to your neighbors property and start my shooting range.
4. My point exactly
5. Use of taxpayer services while shirking your duty to pay taxes is theft and treasonous.
6. once gain, business regulation didn't cause the crime problem.
7. Are you suggesting giving the public property to private industries for them to 'take over' the entire city? First, can't happen. Second, shouldn't happen. Living in Disney is terrible, oppressive, expensive, and draconian. I don't see a difference between paying taxes for services and paying 'homeowner fees' for services, except homeowner fees are usually far more expensive for fewer services and more regulation. Not the direction I think most want to go, or a place where most Oaklandites could afford.
So, you aren't anti regulation, only if a Kenyan is doing it to you? That's just dumb.
8. Yes, but those reasons are not capped and/or solely created by having a democrat in power, as you and others suggest.
Most property owners in Oakland are absentee landlords that don't inspect their property regularly, because private ownership does NOT mean better management.
I get mob justice because you keep pushing for it, it's what the Mexicans did that you keep referencing, and it's what you get with a private, unregulated, armed 'group'.
9. Send me the URL to a company that gives actual security for $35 a month that isn't simply a guy you call on the phone who then calls the police. Never heard of any such thing, and if it exists, you are paying your on-post 24/7 security guard $1 a day, I don't think they'll care so much when you get knifed in the throat for that money.

So, you don't drive, you don't US dollars, food products, electricity, mail, internet, phones, water, sewers, public property, items that are imported, items that traveled inter-state, television, or any other service provided by the feds? Impressive. So many of your fellow Americans do that it makes semse for everyone to pay for part of these things so they are available to EVERYONE. Private institutions taking over make all of these for profit, removing their usage from many if not most people.
Yes, really, many people in the bay are having trouble paying their bills and feeding themselves, it's insanely expensive there.
I don't pay much in taxes, only my fair share. That's not enough to support one indigent. If you pay enough to support Oakland by yourself, you are either Bill Gates or a liar.
Most law abiding citizens have no inclination to grab their gun and go on the streets to patrol.
This didn't seem like you ignored me, neither did the 2 other posts that followed.
Sorry, mixed up the insanity.
You always have terrible governing from any governing body, from some point of view. It's a fallacy to conclude otherwise.
If you got your 'lack of governing' you would quickly get foreign governing.
So, there is no utopian free market, just the real, regulated one you're complaining about.
I don't think most libertarians agree with you that libertarian government is anarchy. I don't.
Well, I'm confused. You've spent a bunch of time and effort trying to convince me of your points, but you claim you know it's futile to even try...so what are you doing then?
To me, good government means doing the minimum it can to do what the populace wants, with safeguards to keep one group from taking unfair advantage of another. Better safeguards could make better politicians (yes, that's regulation, of politicians).
I know very little of 'praxology' that I didn't read in Foundation. Not in my science publications that I read regularly.
The tea party took over the libertarian party, and the republican party.
I do, I vote, and I pay my taxes. I don't have these problems, or over-regulation problems where I live. WOW! It worked!

And I paid for my excessive education, I only did 2 years in public school which was daycare. You don't seem to have any information I'm looking for.
If you think a mob of only your friends and family should roam the streets armed to 'protect your interests' then you support gangs. That's exactly what they are. To get enough to regulate activities in a place like Oakland would take a HUGE mob, far more than you have friends and family I'm certain.
I might hope you DO need the police to help you (with something minor, but enough to create your 'need'), then you might realize they are not all your enemy or useless and not far worse than anarchy. It's sad to think that it would take a personal need for you to realize that, but apparently it would.
The police are not a 'foreign' army, like the red coats.

This reply makes it seem you can't distinguish between democracy and democrat.
It also seems you can't distinguish between devastation by war and devastation by economic collapse. They are quite different things.

West Oakland and East Oakland might as well be different countries. Kind of like Palo Alto (insanely upwardly mobile, I lived there in the early 80's) and East Palo Alto (murder capital of America in the late 80's, when I lived THERE).
I've spent time in both East and West Oakland, quite a difference, at least 10 years ago.
EDIT: East Palo Alto has become far better since then, for numerous reasons...and not just because I left!

If they are your friends and family, I would call them a mob....if they were mine, you would call them a mob. Get it now?

@longde
Out of politeness, I've removed the link.

But the article's chronicling of the urban decay data seems to be a useful companion to mainstream sources, which need to either spin data optimistically or not report it. That leaves behind a lot of victims who could have prevented the crimes against them.

The only mention of race in my comment was inclusive of all ancestries: "I'm speaking to the minority of people from all ancestries who are on the side of civilization."

The rest of the comment is about culture. Many people try to make them the same thing. They're not the same. That's why I included the clarification about all ancestries.

These types of considerations are far from the site you mentioned, which isn't a place I'd ever go. They'd consider me a hippy.

"The police are not a 'foreign' army, like the red coats.""

Um, is this really what they taught you in those private schools you attended? Yikes! The redcoats were the British army/police. The colonies were British (until a small group of colonists claimed otherwise).

"You've spent a bunch of time and effort trying to convince me of your points"

I have done no such thing. Like I said, you've done nothing to interest me in correcting any of your errors in thinking.

"Well, I'm confused."

Yes, I'd say so.

"shirking your duty to pay taxes is theft and treasonous"

If serfdom make you happy, then by all means, be a serf! For me, there are many legal ways to avoid the non-duty. Just ask Romney and practically any/every crony and rich non-crony, and anyone who's actually paying attention. In the meantime, I've far better things to do with my time than attempting to argue you out of the kind of thinking which conduces the bottom of the social ladder.

Wow. Interesting discussion going on here, and I say "interesting" because there's a lot of conflict between people who share the same vision of what society should be, but place blame for the reasons why it's not (in the context of this video) in completely different pieces from one another.
I've never posted to a thread this long before because I assume that it will get lost in the shuffle/argument/whatever, but I wanted to share how I broke the scene down and what I gathered from the video.
The fundamental problem here, which is subjective so I understand if someone doesn't agree, is that:
"most people" would not be comfortable walking down the street in this neighborhood.
"Most people" want safety, or more specifically; as much of a chance to not fear for their lives while existing.
What would remedy this? The hard rule of law? Or let it pan out as-is. The former has never stopped me from an action that society might not agree with. I don't run people over or shoot guns into the air because I believe in not hurting others, and both those actions either do, or have a decent chance to.
On the other hand, I really believe this is one step removed from a war-zone. Not to mistakenly define this scenario as a binary gradient between order or chaos, but if one group of friends became violently entangled with another group of friends, that's exactly what would result: armed, faction opposition.
Most people seem to argue over the solutions we know of, rather than the problems that exist, but it seems to me that none of those are working.
So I guess my question is: how would you make these neighborhoods "safe" for non-violent people to live in that isn't attributed to some form of government?

I'm sorry that this is going to sound callous, but:
Don't take your shitty government for the norm.

> "I don't think most libertarians agree with you that libertarian government is anarchy."

Yeah, many who use the label seem rather confused.. So sure, many libertarians are not libertarian anarchists.

> "So, there is no utopian free market, just the real, regulated one you're complaining about."

This is what the crony-capitalists, the pluto-klepto alliance thinks -- and it's one of the reasons why they don't bother doing away with it but rather just continue to exploit it. Which is also an option available to some.

> "Better safeguards could make better politicians (yes, that's regulation, of politicians)."

Haha, go ahead, 'regulate' them. I'm not stopping you. "Regulate" the politicians all you want. See how it goes for ya!

> "I do, I vote, and I pay my taxes. I don't have these problems, or over-regulation problems where I live."

Then maybe you are happy with your situation.

> "I might hope you DO need the police to help you (with something minor, but enough to create your 'need'), then you might realize they are not all your enemy or useless and not far worse than anarchy."

I've had a number of experiences with the police, that were supposedly for "my benefit" but were in reality much worse than anarchy, and were, in fact downright detrimental to me.. Like for example, getting hit by a car during an irresponsible and unnecessary police chase in which I had no involvement until I got hit.

> "It's sad to think that it would take a personal need for you to realize that, but apparently it would."

Since you seem to be cursing me to have a "need" for police, I doubt you really feel "sad" about it.

> "because private ownership does NOT mean better management."

If I was a gambling man, I'd bet that you're not a landlord.

> "I don't pay much in taxes, only my fair share."

Of course. It's usually folks like you who pay little to nothing who want everyone else to pay for your "services."

> "Send me the URL to a company that gives actual security for $35 a month that isn't simply a guy you call on the phone who then calls the police."

Sorry, no freebie for you. You'll have to do with the "services" you get from other people's taxes.

> "I don't see a difference between paying taxes for services and paying 'homeowner fees' for services, except homeowner fees are usually far more expensive for fewer services and more regulation."

Homeowner fees are voluntary. You can choose not to live there and you don't get thrown in jail for not paying them.

But you did have to mention the roads, didn't you? There's an epidemic of "road zombies!" I tend to take Satochi Nakamoto's point of view when it comes to this kind of nonsense. Like "John Galt," Nakamoto thinks that socialists dislike Rand so much because Galt actually scares them.

But then again, somehow I've given you the impression that I actually care about that you think or not. But "all in all you're just another brick in the wall." (Kinda crazy, arguing with bricks. As a psychologist, I'm rather selective about these things.)

Suffice it to say that, for folks like you who "like" the Leviathan or think you're going to somehow control it, I have little if anything to contribute.

Um...colonies are places 'captured' and then ruled by foreign governments...that's how they work.
There were many non-British in America, from many different places, when the British colonies were established. They were quite upset at taxation without representation (not in taxation at all, get it right please). That's what the private schools taught me.
Oh, then I guess you're writing to yourself...I'll stop responding now unless you direct a reasoned question at me...as you've repeatedly implied you would.
Interesting you again completely ignore the fact that you use the services you shirk from paying for (in any underhanded way possible), and typical of those that think taxes are 'wrong' in their entirety or concept.
'Bottom of the social ladder'? Hmmmm. Doesn't feel that way where I sit, on my beautiful acre of orchard in my 100%paid for home surrounded by friends and family. I only wish this was the bottom, then no one could complain about their status.

Well, where do you live? I agree that CA has worse government than many other places. But that doesn't make government the optimum option anywhere.

> ""Um...colonies are places 'captured' and then ruled by foreign governments...that's how they work."

More private school wisdom? So sad. I actually grew up in a colony.

> "They were quite upset at taxation without representation (not in taxation at all, get it right please)."

They were upset about a 3% tax dude. 3%.

> "Interesting you again completely ignore the fact that you use the services you shirk from paying for (in any underhanded way possible), and typical of those that think taxes are 'wrong' in their entirety or concept."

This from the guy who says he pays little in taxes?

I can't speak for them, but I know quite a number of folks who would find it quite laughable that you think that you contribute your "fair share" to the roads you use as compared to that which they contribute relative to their use of the roads. But I guess that you can convince yourself of anything with enough confusion.

""'Bottom of the social ladder'? Hmmmm. Doesn't feel that way where I sit, on my beautiful acre of orchard in my 100%paid for home surrounded by friends and family. I only wish this was the bottom, then no one could complain about their status.""

Like I said, you may enjoy your station. Some statists are actually benefitting from the system.

OMFG!!!Wow... I guess I have to answer that.
Why do you continue to refer to the utopian free market that you admit never existed, you can't possibly know how it would turn out since you have nothing to reference, so please stop acting like you "know" how it would be, that's simply making your politics a religion, with no need to explain and no basis for your argument but supposition.
If only more people would vote FOR a candidate instead of out of fear of the "other" candidate, my political "regulation" would work great. I can't control others, only try to explain my position and hope they agree.
I am quite happy where I am, but I also know other places are not as nice. I feel it's mostly due to overpopulation/high population density, but that's another subject altogether.
I'm sorry your experience with police is so one sided...I do wish it were not so. I think blaming them for an accident during a car chase may be a little unfair, not knowing the details I'll reserve judgment. I would hope you were properly compensated if it's as you suggest. My experiences have been both unpleasant and helpful, but I could understand the position of the one's that were unhelpful, even if I disagreed completely. My wish is that others would understand that, on average, having police is far better than not (even when they end up not always helping YOU), without needing personal NEED for the police to understand...I'm including you in that wish.
You would lose that bet...I'm a landlord.
I'm disabled and don't take a dime in public assistance, but pay my fair share for having roads and water systems (and then some) because it's a good thing to have them for everyone. I could find ways to pay less taxes, or fight for them with my vote...I just see that as shirking a duty owed to one's fellow citizens, so I don't. No man is an island.
So, no $35 real security exists that you'll show us? Can't imagine why that would be. No evidence, no existence.
By your logic, taxes are voluntary, you can choose not to live in the US and you don't get thrown in jail for not paying them. (most HOA's have a clause where they can take your home if you don't pay).
Again, you claim you don't care about my thoughts, but you continue to prove you do by responding.....you do see that, right? I don't claim to not care about your position, I try to not simply ignore those I disagree with as that tends to end intellectual evolution on both sides. Sometimes it's a futile effort.....
Again, because I don't want to disband the government doesn't mean I (or others) LIKE it, but we do have control, we simply need to assert it in thoughtful ways, not react out of fear of the possible future. That's my viewpoint anyway.

OK, I can continue the discussion if you like....
...because they had no representation for it. EDIT: and wasn't it a 3% RAISE in taxes, not 3% total?
'little' in taxes is subjective...and you don't know what I think "little" is. It could be $100K per year for all you know.
You think you know how much I drive? Interesting. What if I don't drive at all, or drive less than 5000 miles per year, how does the argument hold up? I actually do only drive that much, while paying near $5 per gal for gas (much in taxes).
Again, your 'if you're not with me you're against me' mentality devolves into making what you consider insults. Not being a statist they don't resemble me so they don't bother me, but the sentiment is unpleasant...I think intentionally.

> "By your logic, taxes are voluntary, you can choose not to live in the US and you don't get thrown in jail for not paying them."

Not true at all. The US will tax you wherever you live. "If you don't like it move" is totally different from "if you don't like it, don't buy this condo." The condo has an owner selling it under some conditions. The "country" or "state" has no "owner" whatever you might think.

> "Again, you claim you don't care about my thoughts, but you continue to prove you do by responding"

I grant you that.

> "but we do have control, we simply need to assert it in thoughtful ways, not react out of fear of the possible future. That's my viewpoint anyway."

You say government sucks and yet, you say something to the effect of, "It doesn't feel that way from where I sit, at my reserved table at the Bohemian Grove, surrounded by cool people, not you losers."

Go ahead and "control" the government. Like I said, no one's stopping you. Do whatever you want from your beautiful acre of orchard and 100% paid for home. Enjoy it.

And if you don't like my tax ideas, who cares what you think?

However you justify your love for the state, that's ok. You're entitled to it. You aren't entitled to any actions that attempt to force your beliefs on me or anyone. Of course you'll try. But as Satochi Nakamoto (or any plutocrat) has (implicitly) said: :-P Good luck with that.

It seems more and more that libertarians and plutocrats, while not in agreement about means, do share the same goal: to be left alone by "the people."

> "OK, I can continue the discussion if you like...."

Haha, you're really into this, aren't you! Maybe there's not much to do in your beautiful orchard.

> "and you don't know what I think "little" is. It could be $100K per year for all you know."

Sure, whatever, what does it matter what you think "little" means?

> "I actually do only drive that much, while paying near $5 per gal for gas (much in taxes)."

Gas tax is a flat tax, yes, so? The more gas you use, the more you pay (and the less the less).

> "Not being a statist they don't resemble me so they don't bother me, but the sentiment is unpleasant...I think intentionally."

No, it just seems like an accurate description based on the little information you've provided.

You say you are not a statist. I say you are, so? Maybe it's a matter of definition or maybe we disagree on this but, so what? It's not an insult.

If you change your citizenship to wherever you move they can't tax you anymore...why can't 'free marketers' buy a whole country and try it out fo realsies?
The country and state are owned by us all, we are represented by our government (no matter how poorly). Did school not teach you how that's set up? It should have.
You are saying it SHOULD be all private, which would make it the same thing with no recourse to move out of it, just to different controllers, the new one's not even elected or replaceable. Bad move.
Thank you, the implication that I'm unworthy of discussion with, then continued discussion was at best, odd.
I say the present government sucks, and sucks worse in some places than others. I'm saying we can make it better if we elect better reps, but never perfect for everyone, just not possible. I agree that there's too much 'governing' with far too little result, but I disagree that the answer is to stop governing.
I am surrounded by both cool people and losers, but we're spread out enough that it's easier to ignore the losers from here. I got lucky.
I do, I vote. That's how it's set up to be done, if people were more thoughtful, it would work better.
I only pointed out my situation because you had apparently decided I'm a worthless taker, and that's a mistaken assumption (but an understandable one, I'm odd).
Are you saying I said that 'who cares what you think'? because I never meant to. If you are saying that yourself, that's a problem for rational discussion.
I have little love for the state, but I do see a need for some actual 'higher power' (religious one's don't cut it) to further society in less harmful directions.
If you feel a discussion is me forcing beliefs on you, that's just sad to me. To me, that means you're closed to any discussion that's not preaching to your choir, or to put it another way, you're only interested in mental masturbation, no distractions.
There are degrees of being 'left alone'...just as there are degrees of 'able to do anything that doesn't HARM another'...it's about where you draw the line of 'left alone' or 'harm another'...we obviously draw it in differing places, I'm OK with that.

> "why can't 'free marketers' buy a whole country and try it out fo realizes?"

Trying dude, trying. Not so easy to buy a country these days.

> "The country and state are owned by us all, we are represented by our government (no matter how poorly)."

The government does not "represent" me in any meaningful way. This is an absurdity, plain and simple.

> "Did school not teach you how that's set up? It should have."

Another thing you learned in private school?

> "Thank you, the implication that I'm unworthy of discussion with, then continued discussion was at best, odd."

Yes it is.

> "I'm saying we can make it better if we elect better reps"

No you can't. But like I said, go ahead and prove it. I'm not stopping you.

> "I agree that there's too much 'governing' with far too little result, but I disagree that the answer is to stop governing."

Again, go for whatever 'solution' you think is best. I'm not stopping you. I'm also not participating in it, obviously, as long as it seems like a ridiculous idea.

> "I say the present government sucks, and sucks worse in some places than others."

See? Even we can agree on one thing.

> "I agree that there's too much 'governing' with far too little result"

Two things.

Look, if you're pro taxes, pro police/military, but not a "statist" and consider yourself a (former) libertarian, then perhaps you're an Objectivist or a Randian. Randians would think that Oakland has a "shitty" government but that a right-wing one would be good and necessary. Rand did not call herself a libertarian and rather hated 'anarchists'.

> "but I disagree that the answer is to stop governing."

This is kind of a straw man argument you're setting up. "Governing" does not mean the "State." Being anti-state does not mean anti-governing. There are other ways to govern that does not require a state monopoly.

> "I am surrounded by both cool people and losers, but we're spread out enough that it's easier to ignore the losers from here. I got lucky."

If you live outside of an urban area, that's of course an advantage when it comes to not being subject to a deluge of regulations.

> "I do, I vote. That's how it's set up to be done, if people were more thoughtful, it would work better."

It doesn't work. But again, I'm not stopping you. Vote to your heart's content for your favorite liberal or conservative or whomever. To me it makes no difference.

> "I only pointed out my situation because you had apparently decided I'm a worthless taker"

Don't know where you get this from. I said no such thing.

There was an easy, cheap one available just off England, an old WW2 observation platform in international waters, that could have been a start. I think an internet data bank took it over and refuses to comply with international warrants for the data (but that was a while ago, no idea what's happened since).
You need enough like minded people to vote thoughtfully and rationally and it will.
...and elsewhere.
Trying, it's hard to buy back a whole country. ;-}
So, you don't vote? No wonder you have no representation, that's your fault though.
...and there you go...and again.
I don't think a divisive party line government of either party is helpful, in Oakland or elsewhere. I have to consider myself independent now, because I can't find a group that fits me (or vice versa). Never heard of Objectivisim...I'll have to do research there.
EDIT: I hope that wasn't too hard to follow.

> "I have little love for the state, but I do see a need for some actual 'higher power' (religious one's don't cut it) to further society in less harmful directions."

A "lesser evil" is still evil. I find this a contradiction at best. But you don't, so no need to get into it. So far you seem to be saying that such a "higher power" is or has to be the state, even though you say don't love the state.

> "If you feel a discussion is me forcing beliefs on you, that's just sad to me."

A "discussion" does not force beliefs on anyone. I understand that you are just stating/declaring what you believe. And like I said, I don't think your vote counts for much, so I can't even say that you are forcing your political view on me or on anyone else. So no, I don't think you are forcing anything on me, just stating your beliefs that I can chose to ignore.

> "To me, that means you're closed to any discussion that's not preaching to your choir, or to put it another way, you're only interested in mental masturbation, no distractions."

I'm not sure what you are interested in, so I can't really comment on it.

> "we obviously draw it in differing places, I'm OK with that."

Of course, you have to be ok with it because you can't really do anything about it one way or the other.

>"You need enough like minded people to vote thoughtfully and rationally and it will."

Good luck with that. I predict failure in this. But what do I know? And again, I am not stopping you. Go ahead and convince or find as many like-minded people as you need and vote to your heart's content. Obviously, I won't be one of those who agrees with you, as we have different ideas on what "thoughtfully" and "rationally" means. Voting is your strategy to get what you want out of the state. That's ok. That's your choice. Good luck. It obviously holds little to no interest to me. But I don't need to convince any "like-minded" people to do anything. I can just act on my own and take advantage of all the many ways there are to opt out.

> "So, you don't vote? No wonder you have no representation, that's your fault though.""

Wrong. None of the candidates represent me, so this is an idiotic thing to say. Who should I have voted for that would have "represented" me? Last I checked, there were two heinous options available. And unless there's a tie, your vote simply does not count. And then, will they do what I want them to do even when elected? Sorry. Waste of my time. But again, vote to your heart's content. I'm glad for you that you are being so well represented by your politicians of choice.

>"I can't find a group that fits me (or vice versa)."

Even more remarkable then that you have "representatives" that adequately "represent' you.

You are fortunate in so many ways.
Good for you.

I didn't mean to, I thought that's what you wanted, no government anarchy, followed by free market utopia. Non-governmental forcible governing is a terrifying concept to most.
Now you understand...at least that part.
Voting works, if there are enough like minded people that vote with you, and one that's willing to represent them.
From here..." This from the guy who says he pays little in taxes?"
here..." I can't speak for them, but I know quite a number of folks who would find it quite laughable that you think that you contribute your "fair share" and here..."Some statists are actually benefitting from the system."
Maybe I misunderstood, but seemed like I'm a 'taker' from that.

> "Non-governmental forcible governing is a terrifying concept to most."

I don't really know what this means....

I am in no position to judge you as a "taker" or not, I know virtually nothing about you or your situation.

I don't think voting works. It does nothing for me. But again, good luck with that. I'm not stopping you. Vote all you want. Have fun with it. You seem satisfied with the results you've gotten from it. Good for you.

Personally, I find this to be a kind of crazy thinking ... That if you can somehow just "convince" me or others (by being argumentative and dismissive of my views), you will get enough people to vote "rationally" for some hypothetical "great" politician that will govern as you think you should be governed -- "thoughtfully," of course. "The Great Fiction." You think the state sucks, but only because it's not being run by the people who agree with you. You'll never get the clones of yourself into office. And even if you did, it wouldn't turn out as you hope.

But... hey.. It's your delusion. Good luck.

(EDIT: I'm curious as to where have you been finding the "like-minded" people who will vote "rationally" and thoughtfully" and the politicians willing to represent those people (and able to win elections)?)

Always chose the lesser of 2 weevils!

You could have run yourself!

I have a hard time finding a candidate I can really get behind, and never vote on party lines (and I try to avoid the 2 main parties like the plague). My candidate rarely wins, and my view is under represented (to my liking, but probably not percentage wise). With corporate personhood and few campaign limits, it seems people are all under represented today, one solution is to try to ignore the barrage of campaigns and look for other alternatives to make main stream (someday). One is to refuse to vote for anyone not actively working to fix the system, no matter what else they do for or against you.
I know, good luck with that. A newtboy can dream, can't he?

@Trancecoach

One way that voting does work well: vote for greater states' rights.

Otherwise, democracy is just making compromises that please nobody. Robert Putnam at Harvard found living with those who disagree with you lowers trust and social capital, increasing the selfishness of voters that you describe.

I'd support socialists' right to try to turn their states into socialist utopias, as long as they support my right to try to turn other states into meritocratic utopias.

Then we can test which governments yield more improved metrics.

and so...you have a problem with MY implied or otherwise philosophy of how to live and my archaic science of ideas and you wanna tell WHO and WHAT how to not let WHICH happen WHERE??!!

Have you ever been to Oakland Baltimore or Detroit?? ARE YOU ON EARTH?

I guess what I'm really trying to ask you is, what fucking planet or corner of the closet are you from and how did you ever think you had a clue?

Oh, and I suppose the question begs, what were YOUR parents doing to or for you in the fucking 60's???

Far right of left of your shit Maynard, get a fucking rubber-ribbed and lubed fucking room already??!

Oh wait *edit...MY BAD..Thought you were VooDoovVoov

....got so booglerized from reading the back 'n forth between newt 'n trance that I slipped into a newttransmittance er summpthin'...I now side with your particular take on your own delusional ramblings Velocity, carry-on please

> "(and I try to avoid the 2 main parties like the plague)"

How is that working out for you?

Ah, I see, your candidate rarely wins. I'm surprised any of your candidates win at all, if they are not Democrats or Republicans. Where do you live? Still, you are doing quite well for yourself, a beautiful orchard and all, so things are good. You are fortunate.

> "try to ignore the barrage of campaigns and look for other alternatives to make main stream (someday)."

Well, you know what I will say... Good luck with that but don't hold your breath.

> "One is to refuse to vote for anyone not actively working to fix the system, no matter what else they do for or against you."

Is this what you do? I wouldn't be able to vote for anyone, following this advice, since no politician seems actively working to fix the system in any way I consider an actual "fix". (They'd be out of a job, if they did!) And voting only legitimizes what I consider to be an illegitimate system anyway.

> "I know, good luck with that. A newtboy can dream, can't he?"

Yes, like I have been telling you, good luck with that. You sure can dream, all you want. It is a freedom not yet legislated against. So enjoy it. And if you find a way of making your dreams a reality, even better!

*✨

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, February 13th, 2014 6:52pm PST - promote requested by chingalera.

It may not work as well as one would like, but compared to the alternative, no input in the process, it's pretty good! You are welcome to disagree, thanks to thoughtful men voting to guarantee you that right. It worked for them, it can work again.
Being satisfied that the process can give good results is not the same as satisfaction with the current results.
The convincing I suggest is convincing those that already think like 'you' to vote the same (and put up reps to vote for that truly think the same). Easier said than done.
I'm not dismissive, I'm still discussing it with you, and never said you're not worth the discussion or 'it's time to ignore you', that was you to me. I am argumentative. I have admitted crippling personality flaws in the past, and will again. That's one. I try to do it respectfully (until intentionally insulted, then it can be ON!).
You misunderstood, my idea is to put people in that are going to fix the system, not dismantle it, and not just feed it.
It will never be perfect (there is no perfect), it can always be better, unless it's no longer existing. That's when there's no hope of improvement.
I wouldn't want clones of me in office, nor would I (they) want to be there. I would like people that want to fix the campaign finance system and get out, that's one main tap root of the problem in my eyes, one that's easy to fix with enough push. True enough, I'm not finding those people to vote for, usually. I can clamor for them though, maybe they'll turn up. (as I said before, my candidate rarely wins, I'm poor at finding the like minded.)
"My delusion", and who's dismissive?

> "One way that voting does work well: vote for greater states' rights."

Check out the Tenth Amendment Center.

> "Otherwise, democracy is just making compromises that please nobody."

The smaller the political unit, the fewer the compromises. What is the optimum size for you? For me, one person. In some cases, a family or group.

Do you know of the book "The Human Scale"? (I think Kirkpatrick, who wrote that book, maybe one of those rare state secessionist progressive/leftist.)

> "Robert Putnam at Harvard found cultural diversity lowers trust and social capital, increasing the selfishness of voters that you describe."

Would you consider yourself Right-wing?

> "I'd support socialists' right to try to turn their states into socialist utopias, as long as they support my right to try to turn other states into meritocratic utopias."

That, for sure, is an improvement over federal rule! What would you consider to be a meritocratic utopia? Is that like what China wants to be?

> "Then we can test which governments yield more improved metrics."

I'm in favor of this. I am no fan of states, whether a federal union or the individual ones, but yes, this is an improvement over the monolithic federal government. But why stop at states? Why not scale it down to counties and municipalities? I would even go smaller than that! (But, sure, any downsizing is welcome.)

I would go down to neighborhoods and households and all the way down to individuals. But again, any downsizing is welcome.

@newtboy

> "You are welcome to disagree, thanks to thoughtful men voting to guarantee you that right."

Yes we disagree. But I do not owe my right to disagree to anyone, thoughtful or otherwise. That is my natural right. Some may want to violate that right, but that's a different issue. No one can take away my right to disagree or force me to agree/disagree.

> "It worked for them, it can work again."

Who are you talking about? The slave owning "founders"? Politics often (though not always) works for the elites, sure. But again, I wish you good luck with that -- and in making it work for you.

> "Being satisfied that the process can give good results is not the same as satisfaction with the current results."

I know. You have hope/faith that the process can and may at some point give you the results you like. I say, good luck. It may or may not happen, depending on what will satisfy you or not.

> "The convincing I suggest is convincing those that already think like 'you' to vote the same (and put up reps to vote for that truly think the same). Easier said than done."

I think it's virtually impossible. If you prove otherwise, I may be the first to congratulate you (if you let me know about it).

> "I'm not dismissive, I'm still discussing it with you"

I'm not sure what you mean by "not dismissive". You are telling me what you believe, I understand that. I'm still responding.

> "and never said you're not worth the discussion or 'it's time to ignore you', that was you to me."

Good, I guess.

> "I am argumentative."

I can tell.

> "I have admitted crippling personality flaws in the past, and will again."

Crippling? Wait, I'm not about to get into a therapy session here...

> "You misunderstood, my idea is to put people in that are going to fix the system, not dismantle it, and not just feed it."

Go ahead. Do it. Put the people in that are going to fix it. I know you don't want to dismantle it. That's my preference, not yours. I get that.

>"I would like people that want to fix the campaign finance system and get out, that's one main tap root of the problem in my eyes, one that's easy to fix with enough push."

We each have preferences and opinions. Go ahead and do it. I have little interest in that so I'll leave it up to you. We can't all be focused on the same things. And you should probably be happy that I have no interest in politics since I would work to dismantle the system. Not what you want. So my not being involved, not even voting, works to your benefit (in this sense).

> "True enough, I'm not finding those people to vote for, usually. I can clamor for them though, maybe they'll turn up. (as I said before, my candidate rarely wins, I'm poor at finding the like minded.)"

Like you said, and I agreed, you can dream. Nothing wrong with that. Carry on. Good luck.

Where do you live?

@Velocity5

If I was to advocate voting as a strategy, I'd probably take a look at the Tenth Amendment Center (linked above). Vote on local elections for candidates that will 'nullify' regulations imposed from above, like counties ignoring/countering state laws and states ignoring/countering federal laws.

The Free State Project is actually about 'taking over' (so to speak) New Hampshire through the political process for such purposes. And I suspect that the initiative to break California into several states has similar goals.

OK, then you owe your unrestrained right to do so to intelligent thoughtful (some slave owning) imperfect men that voted to secure it from legal interference.

Far N cali.

Uhhh, YEAH? Just ask anyone who's not a pig in this fucking video sir, if they NEED a fucking cop whose not doing something FOR the community around them.

So you wouldn't want to be there, neither would I, it doesn't follow that your government ( 'YOUR' emphasized, or at least it should be) should be poised to fuck you..You and your children's children, which is what they fucking eventually do best oh thoust goddamned self-righteous, intelligence fucking-itself, sleep-walker!

Ya wanna point a finger at why the worlds' the way it is, check a fucking mirror?!

(Fuck me and 'So sayest' the Jigga, and his fucking Johnson.)

Cops aren't useful OR useless dumb ass, they are becoming more useless to the non-criminal and and MORE criminal daily, and people like yourself are becoming more cruel and ignorant. ANYONE with a clue can look at this video and see no difference between that of the lawlessness of these people in the streets and the cops hauling-ass away from there in their little cop cars.

I would hasten to guess, that the cops (asshole fucks) IN those cars leaving the scene, have been challenged by their piers to take that drive through there as a 'coming-of-age' challenge, probably all rookies.

You idgits in your insulated little fantasy world, haven't a fucking clue.!!

I don't ascribe to labels like 'statist' either-The state is criminal, plain and fucking simple, use the English language and respect it please sir, and beware evoking a name and the flood that follows.

Thanks for the links. I'm new to advocating for states' rights

> "What is the optimum size political unit for you?"
My main concern is SENS and reprogenetics for everyone who wants them. Making my purpose in life to be building my career maximizes my odds of making it to SENS. I'm fine with living in huge nations as long as taxes are low, law and order are maintained, and the government is fiscally sound. But I think all 3 of those issues are going to be under increased pressure.

>"Would you consider yourself Right-wing?"
No, I just consider myself a science and tech nerd. When I debate with right-wing people, they think I'm a hippy. I'm too self-reliant and career and family-focused to really care much about politics. I think we'll eventually have a Star Trek world. I dislike any trends that seem to make that outcome less likely.

But I read enough science to know that wool has been pulled over our eyes about human evolution and inequality.

>"What would you consider to be a meritocratic utopia?
I think Silicon Valley is the closest thing we have to a meritocratic utopia.

>"Why not scale it down to counties and municipalities?"
In my work, I collaborate with people on the other side of the country. It's best for us to work with them than with cheaper people in Ukraine or India because we share a cultural background and are within the same legal environment. It'd be much harder to take legal action against someone in other countries, and that means parties can't have the level of trust afforded by shared legal protections. Commerce increasingly interconnects the world, and dividing large jurisdictions into many smaller jurisdictions would be a drain on commerce.

Y'know, with the US now ranking 43rd, one notch above Haiti and one below New Guinea, or something like that, in freedom of the press, I'm not sure how much your freedom to express yourself without legal interference is the result of "imperfect men."

But that's just me.

Good luck.

Lulz, Oakland . . .

> "dividing large jurisdictions into many smaller jurisdictions would be a drain on commerce"

I don't think this is necessarily so. Both ancient Greece and Renaissance Italy prospered due to multiplicity of competing city-states. The more the competition between states, the more they will have to lower taxes and make the environment business-friendly. It creates a meritocracy as those states that fail to attract "clients," citizens and businesses will not survive. Small states make it very easy to do business with them, as in for example, Singapore, Lichtenstein, Monaco, Bahamas, etc. Small jurisdictions adapt their laws to make it easy to do business with them from abroad. Only big ones, like the US, make it a hassle to deal with from outside the country.

A free market society is as close to a meritocracy as you can get.

In a free market you can only really do well by providing goods and services that others want.

A common legal framework comes from commonality of culture, not from state control. And cultures adapt to each other for purposes of commerce.

Let commerce operate freely and people will find a way to adapt legal protections for successful and peaceful commerce. A small jurisdiction that "rips off" foreign business partners will find itself very quickly with no business partners and.being small, have a hard time surviving. Out of self preservation they will want to be trustworthy for others to want to do commerce with them.

Oh, and Silicon Valley will probably be closer to a meritocracy once it does away with IP laws.

I don't know what's worse, the fact that so many live in such a miserable shithole constantly, or that tools here would use that misery to push their TLDR political propaganda and attacks...