Wow. I actually did make it through the whole thing The whole thing is infested with logical fallacies: false equivalencies, ad homs, strawmen, and even a no true scotsman thrown in for shits and giggles.

And that ignoring the standard problem with the Libertarian\Anarchist viewpoint where they spend all this time criticizing the problems of gov't and NEVER ONCE demonstrate how it would work without these systems.

And this idiot's answer to the education system is to just point everyone to Google?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

Gov't is demonstrably false? Last I checked, there are a lot of independently verified gov'ts out there. LOL!

You know what is demonstrably false? Anarchists independent from the gov't they claim to hate. Every one of these youtube crusaders are comfortably enjoying the perks of a system they despise.

You want to impress me? Go find an island somewhere and show us how awesome non-statism is.

Even Ayn Rand took gov't assistance.

Rand was certainly not a great writer (as is often the case with those who write novels in a language that isn't native to them). As such, there's no comparison between Rand's use of English and say, Dickens' (but you could probably say that about Dickens and almost anyone else, John Oliver included. And Harry Potter isn't much better than The Fountainhead! Or most popular fiction for that matter.)
I doubt most of Oliver's audience have read Crime and Punishment, or The Brothers Karamzov, or The Sound and the Fury. I doubt Oliver's fans are any more "intellectual" or well-read than Rand's, quite honestly.

But Rand didn't even believe in small government. Just limited government. She was certainly no anarchist. John Galt was, perhaps, but not Rand. (The character is not the author.) Both Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand learned from Ludwig Von Mises, and they took what they learned in very different directions.

Yet, most of Oliver's audience probably haven't even read Rand and she's hardly that much of a contemporary topic worth talking about.. So why would Oliver (HBO) want to spend valuable broadcast time talking about her? She wouldn't be a "thing" if they chose to ignore it, and yet they aren't. Why? Might this bit be (the $beneficiary of those who are) uneasy with a potential Rand Paul presidential run, thus needing a straw man with which to link him with "libertarians" and Ayn Rand?

All this "OMG Rand!" going around, and yet her work continues to stick around long after she's gone.. And will likely remain so, given ^programs^ (and commenters) like this and their unwillingness to let it go.

regulations benefit mankind? don't let the libertarians/anarchists see this!

Getting back to the subject at hand, the evidence appears to show that the police officer was in the right, while the decedent prompted his own demise.

meanwhile, the anarchists and other malcontents will continue to extoll the virtues of thugs like Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown and kiss the asses of parasites like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Still angry about that small sample size eh? still haven't looked up anecdotal either I see.

That's a very poor definition of thug, as that actually describes life in general.

traditions are ALWAYS challenged and eventually put down, convention is ALWAYS challenged and put down, Laws are always challenged and changed. Social responsibility is an ever changing term

30 years as a cop means nothing, it's just a pathetic appeal to authority fallacy, and you just being insecure...again, about a great many things, which prompts you to play your tired Internet Tough Guy routine. The 90s called, they want their early internet "debate" tactics back.

as a former cop (gee, wonder why you aren't anymore) you should know that you are answerable to the taxpayers...That means I'm your boss dipshit. not the other way around, your former coworkers would do well to remember that.

you push us? we push back.

funny, I don't see the thug term being applied to any white criminals. just the black ones.

Anarchist? are you deaf blind and dumb? (oops, my bad, of course you are)

choggie and blankfist are/were the resident anarchists. Both were banned and my comment history shows me arguing with them constantly. You don't like to read though do you..

You just aren't very good at this are you.

Wrong again, brainiac. Thug is a word that describes living the 'thug life', you know...disregard for tradition, convention, laws, social responsibility.

A thug is a criminal, someone who commits a shoplifting by force, a felony in most jurisdictions.

naturally, you being an anarchist... the cops are always wrong.

You won't stand by? tell us then. what are you going to do?

Are you going to pout? Are you going to whine? Are you going to ramble incoherently? Are you going to abuse substances again to cope? Are you going to lash out more against people who don't buy into your anarchist-wannabe ideas while you sit at a computer, in comfort, enjoying the perks of a society of laws and law enforcement which you rail against?

Are you going to do nothing? Are you going to make another account? Are you going to leave?

I'm genuinely curious. What *are* you going to do if you aren't going to "stand-by" Talk is cheap.

Cops are a criminal organization? Maybe in Chicago or Moscow, but the 700,000 cops who work in the US do not all work for Chicago. So go hyperbole your stupid ideas on the anarchist websites.

...says the burnout anarchist-wannabe who yet still enjoys the perks of living in the self-described fascist state, so ultimately is a coward who is unwilling to put his money (or lack thereof) where his very large mouth is.

<sarcasm>

So yes, I take everything you, the wise internet prophet, say and claim seriously and consider it highly reliable and plan on immediate action.

</sarcasm>

all blabbering, no action. Get a job, Choggie and move out of your mom's basement.

Hmm.. 0.01 percent of about 12,000 climate scientists "reject" that climate change is man made? Is that so? And the other 99.09% all agree that it is man-made? Is this a fact?
(BTW, are you a vegetarian? If not, then you probably don't care very much about the issue. Are you also an anarchist? Because, if not, you're supporting the states, which are the worst polluters throughout the world. If you are truly concerned about climate change -- and even if you just want clean air -- you should actually do something about it... you know.. rather than freaking out simply for the sake of it. Of course you're welcome to do that on your own or with all the other supposedly concerned individuals who none-the-less pollute as much or more than any man-made climate change "denier").

If the state got out of the way, we'd be much closer if not already there with clean energy sources. Man-made climate change or not, who really likes to smell car exhaust? Or driving behind some dirty truck? Because, however convinced you may be about man-made climate change, people are not going to stop driving, or riding on airplanes, or buying plastic (and I doubt you're an exception, but I could be wrong about that). And people are not going to stop using heat or stop having children either.

Belief in man-made climate change alone is irrelevant. California with all its supposed "environmentalism" is one of the dirtiest states when it comes to air quality. So really, what difference does it make that 74% or whatever number of climate scientists think there is evidence that substantiates man-made climate change and 26% do not?
(And by the way, a scientific truth is not based on a majority vote).

If you're not making these changes in your own life, then perhaps you could just write a paper and send it to "some" climate change scientists for peer review.

I'm all in favor of not polluting.

Haha.. a .gov link is about as unreliable as you can get!

I live in the Bay Area. Go to Whole Foods around here, and you can see that it runs on solar power. Go to the DMV or to city hall or any of the other state-run facilities and you can see that they don't (but instead are major contributors to the waste and pollution they purportedly "regulate"). Anyone who really cares about the environment should no doubt become an anarchist and work towards abolishing the state. All of them.

(Surprisingly, in Texas, too, the state is a bit less "crony" when it comes to their energy companies. That is to say, citizens actually have a CHOICE between several energy companies they can use. A friend who recently moved there -- and who is one of those few people who genuinely cares about the environment regardless of the "science" -- told me how pleased she was that she could select a provider that uses wind power to generate the electricity.)

Still, scientific consensus is dubious.

(Note that the 97% statistic remains unclear as to whether it is 97% of 75? or of 65? Or less? The fact that the 97% consensus paper is false, however, does not mean that "climate change" is or is not happening. Only that that is a bogus statistic.)

Where did you get your degree in pseudopsychology?

But you seem to know a great deal about Jesus. You must be one of those Jesus freaks...not popular around here, so you might want to cool it.

The really cool ones are the atheists. Right next to them are the anarchists who love the gov't.

It's a mess!

As "The Captive Mind" posits that the primary means of ensuring compliance from "the people" is not propaganda, but physical coercion. The state does not 'reason' or 'debate' with non-compliance. 'Students' are forced to go to school and learn the 'official' version of history, for example (home schooling aside), and accept it (i.e., the hierarchical "binge-purge" model of education in which regurgitation of ossified narratives is valued more highly than any independent or creative thought).

Propaganda serves as post-facto justification in order to give people some way to rationalize what goes on around them. This helps to allow the threat of violence to suffice as a means of maintaining control without the state having to resort to actual violence, in most cases.

In one of Stefan's other videos, he calls professional licensure a dog collar that you're forced wear. He calls modern folks 'free-range slaves'. The 'human farms,' as he calls states, are run by 'farmers' who have realized that free-range slaves are more productive than those kept in a more strict captivity. (And it undoubtedly is better for for everyone than the slavery-of-old.) He says that allowing a few slaves escape here and there creates a desired illusion of freedom. One could argue about the accuracy of Stefan's ideas, but I don't find that as useful as simply accepting it as Stefan's own aesthetic/philosophical position, or his worldview, and understanding it or interpreting it as you would for say, any other artist/philosopher. This brings to mind the understanding that the 1% consists mostly of "human farmers" (i.e., kleptocrats and cronies) and other escaped 'slaves'.

It seems that folks who tend to take issue with my comments here (@enoch, @ChaosEngine, @newtboy, @Taint, among others) have taken on the recent swell of anti-"libertarian" rhetoric as their own (particularly the more tabloid-like forms of it).

That's not as important to me as the question of why there seems to be so much media attention given to these ideas of late? I think it may have to do with setting the stage for opposing a possible 2016 presidential run by Rand Paul (who has already been 'branded' as a 'libertarian' by opponents of both parties).* Or it may have to do with how technology (particularly in the Bay Area, where I live, but certainly in other places as well) is increasingly making individuals less reliant on the state, more self-sufficient, and more able to access the information they need to recognize their status as a serf, and/or plan their means of escape from the 'farm'.

*I guess the media cares less about an "ideological war" against "libertarianism" than they do about crafting a practical strategy of electoral politics. Hence their insistence in conflating conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, and even anarchists (which couldn't be more dissimilar at their core).

> "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'.