> "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.

#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!

"Over time, we're going to see what works and what doesn't and things will generally settle down"
Illusion and fantasy...total confabulation.

A government is a simple creation really, it uses force to achieve the end goal which is control, not unlike a rapist or a thief-The antithesis of liberty in the example of say, the American government works because force is used by an immoral core of liars and thieves to achieve goals that benefit the few rather than the whole of society. Examples of just how fucked things are at face value VooDooV, why bother to cite the examples that are glaringly obvious to anyone who at their core, is a moral and free individual...pointless and insulting to anyone who can think.

Mind you, infrastructure and social safety nets enhance freedom, but what should the end-goal be? To enhance the moral framework of a society, which has surely not been done so far with the American form of government, on the contrary, we see the fabric of what makes a society prosper and maintain a fairness for all being eroded to serve the interests of a few, through force and control...through civil liberties being chipped-away at through surveillance and more prisons, more laws, more fines and punishments for more people, etc. Deficit spending pays debt forward to further enslave the recipients of services like roads and social welfare programs, higher education, etc. The freedom to make poor choices at a micro and macro level is what the current government is all about, getting worse every year.

Urban sprawl will continue as folks with pipe-dreams tout more green, less energy usage, cleaner burning cars and factories, etc. One 'problem' is addressed by creating one for another somewhere else.

Ever listen to Buckminster Fuller's idea of a 'green' or 'energy efficient society'? It doesn't use ANY of the current models of societal structure, it pretty much SCRAPS them all for a trans-formative way of moving forward. The old models are shit if they accomplish them through force and control of human activity. YOU don't live in a democratic system, in case you have been asleep for your entire life, democracy is only a fucking word, a concept not unlike any 'ism' created by humans in the past 3000-7000 years.

The financial structure of the United States is inherently evil. It can not be made fair and moral for everyone, it wasn't designed to. It is designed to serve the few at the top, with enforcers and regulators at the bottom-tier of their system. The government is NOT inherently evil but it has been hijacked by cunts.

Just because you think you know how politicians should perform, does not make it happen that way. Sane health care system? Nope. Maybe for the privileged classes-What they hand the masses is complete shit. National debt? Foreign policy? How would YOU do it? Then that's probably saner than the way it's being run, innit? Government is not needed for ANY of these aspects of a civil and moral society to function. All it takes is moral and sane judgement and agreement at solutions and for folks to voluntarily subscribe to these actions, without force, without police, without armies, etc.

Many more examples too many to pontificate upon, many variables of systems, all of which could function to afford everyone freedom and liberty, WITHOUT a government. The government is a construct just like everything else man creates-It takes willing humans to make them either function efficiently, or to scrap them for something new and improved.

I'm no libertarian, no anarchist, just a practical human being.
There are more reasons for scrapping the world system of government than there are for maintaining them, you simply refuse to see any other way THAN systems of government.

Mankind can self-govern if it does so with a formidable and sound moral compass...Is mankind doing that? It can also make the entire planet it's playground if it chooses to do so...Is mankind doing this??
FUCK NO!

"i admit my utter failure in expressing my position and decide to use someone i highly admire who could explain it better."

If your position is the same as Chomsky's, I understand that position. I have heard Chomsky talk about it repeatedly. (Here's a take on Chomsky by David Gordon with which I tend to agree).

"i want to understand why you choose your flavor of libertarianism."

If you want to understand my position, why send me Chomsky to explain YOUR position? Why not read what I sent you? Or what I've recommended that you read? Or simply respond to my comments?? This is NOT how you "understand" another position: by stating your own (or, someone else's, in this case, Chomsky's).

"which i dont because you never address the elephant in the room."

If the 'elephant' is all the conjectures you've seen about corporations/business taking over in evil ways, then I've already explained that those scenarios cannot happen under anarchy. That's not how business works in a government-free market.

"it appears to me your style of libertarianism is circa 1790."

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

"even Blankfist agreed that corporate power and influence MUST be restructured and possibly returned to temporary partnerships"

Let me restate it again then for you, since you seemed to have missed my position the first few times I've said it. Maybe I didn't say it enough times:

If you can do any of this, with no initiation of violence, zero, never initiating any physical violence against anyone's person or property, then I'm for it, whether you want to call it socialism, communism, anarchism, capitalism, whatever. But the requirement is zero initiation of violence. None. I don't know how you can have that with any form of syndicalism or socialism, unless everyone unanimously agrees on everything and that is quite rare. I doubt that it can happen except in the smallest groups, and even then, it's in specific and circumscribed ways. That is why a private property system is the only system that can ensure zero legal physical coercion/aggression against anyone's person and/or property. (Here's Rothbard's take on syndicalism. Worth reading.)

"like that the system will ultimately begin to cannibalize itself when growth becomes stagnant?"

This cannot/will not happen in a free market. Only when aggression is introduced could this happen.

"that unfettered capitalism will lay waste to everything"

Unfettered voluntary exchanges will never lay waste to anything. Do you understand how absurd this sounds to me? You are proposing the replacement of voluntary exchanges with coercion. Yes, you are -- because I have been clear that capitalism, as I am defining it, means free, voluntary exchanges. I don't care what corporations do as long as they engage in voluntary transactions providing goods and services that consumers want. Only through government-granted privileges -- enforced through violence -- can corporations do otherwise. There are no "natural monopolies." There have never been. Ever.

Even after watching the video, there is nothing there which "proves" that there is such a thing a "natural monopoly" or that "proves" that aggression is better than non-aggression. Is there?
But like I said, if you can show how to do any of what you'd propose with zero aggression, then I'm for it.

"you are not the person i gave you credit for."

Bad thymology, then, apparently.

"i made certain assumptions about you based an very little."

Similar to making all sorts of assumptions about corporations and the free market based on very little evidence.

"i was never trying to say you were wrong"

Really? What were you saying then??

"i just wanted to understand why you believe the things you believe."

Then, instead of insulting me or trying to shame or coerce me (what's with this posting "for Trancey"?! What?!), you could simply ask me polite questions, instead of ones like, "do you even know this or that"? No dice.

And instead of just telling me what "thou believe" or not. Is this about understanding my view or about you telling me what you believe or dictating what I ought to believe?

"is the corporate tyranny not as evident to you"

No. How is Apple tyrannizing you?
They haven't tyrannized me. Not one iota. In fact, they have provided my friends with some useful goods, for which they have gladly given them several thousands of dollars.

If you have a specific grievance against a specific company, let me know, and I can point out to you what your remedy could be. Any grievance that does not involve a government.

I wouldn't particularly appreciate you (or anyone) trying to interfere, through violence or the threat thereof, in any voluntary non-aggressive exchanges I choose to engage in, whether I do so as an individual or as a group, even as a group where we choose to call ourselves a corporation. And if our group does or does not want to structure itself as a syndicate, what business is it of yours?

Call me 1790 or whatever, but I don't really consider someone who'd want to impose their will on me like that a bonafide 'anarchist' despite what they choose to call themselves. I know, that's just my choice. I am not preventing you from calling yourself whatever you want. Just don't expect me to agree.

I'm an anarchist, I have a very narrow view of Trancecoach...because of my tiny little eyes.

you do realize that anarchism is incredibly diverse right?
it is not some rigid dogmatic approach to structural societies.
the political philosophy can stem from a strict individualism to a pure collectivism,yet both can be an anarchist philosophy.

i will post some lectures that can clarify our discussion much more competently than i ever could.

because it seems we are getting snagged on definitions.
i use the classic definitions and you retort with the "americanized" and no matter how many words we type to each other...if we are not on the same page in regards to the most basic of agreements, "definitions", then we will always be in the weird loop-d-loop of circular reasoning.

we will probably still disagree but at least we will understand each other better.

Anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-socialism, anarcho-commuism, all of these contradict themselves. Syndicalism, socialism, and communism cannot be anarchist because they require someone to administer "communal" property, come up with "communal" regulations, etc. and that is, by definition, non-anarchist.

How anarchist will the situation be for those who refuse to go along with the "communal" program? How will the "communal" programs be enforced?

Nonsense.

"as an anarchist i believe all systems of authority and power to be illegitimate until proven otherwise."

I have a different take, in my preferred anarchism. The only one I see as functional, all voluntary hierarchies and authorities are perfectly legitimate. I am free to submit or not to any authority I choose to for my benefit and that is my legitimate right. Also private property owners have a legitimate authority over their property. I can do whatever I want with my property (without violating anyone else's self-ownership and property rights). And under the same conditions, I can legitimately enter into any agreements I want with anyone I want. That would be legitimate private property anarchy.

As of now, the government makes what is naturally legitimate, into something arbitrarily illegitimate, based on the whims of legislators and bureaucrats.

"the burden is on those who profess authority."

I understand what you are saying. And don't think the burden is on anyone. Do not initiate violence on anyone's person of property. Simple. That's it. There's nothing else to prove or not. If anything it is the "burden" to prove you own what you own, in cases of ownership disputes. For that, there is legal precedent on who has the burden of ownership proof etc.

"because even as an anarchist i have to recognize that there needs to be a system which keeps the hands on the scales that keeps the playing field even and the kids playing nice."

The only thing that can interfere and wreck a private property anarchy is aggression, i.e., the initiation of violence against anyone's person and/or property. To prevent that you have legal enforcement and arbitration services (courts). Just like now. Except that there wouldn't be a state monopoly over these. A private law society can work just as well or better than having a monopoly of law enforcement and courts. Monopolies are always inefficient and costly. Always. For any and all goods and services. No exceptions.

"these systems are for the people,by the people and run by the people."

There is not such thing as "the people," in any practical sense. Show me "the people" and I'll show you an abstraction. There are only individuals. "The people" cannot run anything. Even you and I disagree. How are we "the people?" (Furthermore, to have a truly non-violent society, individuals would have the choice as to whether or not to engage in agreements with other individuals. Unlike now, where people are forced into agreements by which "majorities" -- whether actual or rigged -- impose their will upon the minorities. That's what you call "democracy.")

"BUT..you stop there. are you implying that we have a free market now?"

No, we don't have a free market now. We have pockets in which free markets function, however.

"did you actually infer that america begot its wealth and power purely through free market exchanges?"

Yes, mostly it did.

"have you even been paying attention?"

What the fuck does that mean?

"corporate america has been exploiting third world countries for over a century!"

No, some corporations with the help of the US and/or foreign governments have been exploiting some people in third world countries, enriching those corporations and government officials in the US and mostly in third world countries. But this is what made these corporations and government officials wealthy, not what made America as a whole a wealthy nation. America is no longer a wealthy nation as a whole (particular companies are not "America"), but an indebted nation, because of things like these, which go hand in hand with military expenditures too. The average person profits nothing from these corporations and politicians exploiting third world (or any) countries. So no, this does not make America wealthy.

The free market, however (which this exploitation is not), did make America a wealthy nation with rapid economic improvement for the average person (with the regrettable exceptions of African and Native Americans).

"and our government has been the fist that punched the:exploitation,ruination and demise of those countries.hell thats the reason WHY they are third world!"

If you are arguing that the government has been responsible for all this evil, then you are preaching to the choir. Although I take issue with the idea that it is "our government." I don't own it, nor would I want to.

"its shameful and if thats your idea of a free market.
well..you can fucking keep it."

I don't think you have been paying attention, @enoch. No, I don't think we have a free market and you cannot have a free market if there is a government interfering with it. So I don't know what your, "you can fucking keep it," bullshit is about.

"you only seem to address one part of the equation.
or are you oblivious to the harm that corporate america has wrought for the past century?"

Corporate American is a corporatist system, kind of fascist if you want to get technical. It is a mix of private business with government-granted privilege. That is not a free market. Let me say it again, in case you missed it, a truly free market cannot exist while a government monopoly grants privilege to some businesses. That is crony-corporatism, fascism. A free market can only exist as market anarchy. Corporations exploit because of government privilege, be it granted by the US government/state or third world governments/states.

"who or what will keep that behemoth in check?"

Private law based on the rights to contracts and the right of freedom from aggression to person and/or property, enforced by a private legal enforcement system.

The state has not and will not "keep that behemoth in check" as you call it. In fact, the state is the "behemoth." It is absurd to expect the state to police itself. It has not and it will not. That plan is a failure. But "good luck with that."

(btw, I you want to know the real reasons third world countries are third world, particularly Latin America, I suggest you read Alvaro Vargas Llosa's well researched book, "Liberty For Latin America," and see how 500 of state intervention/abuse has led to the current situation. If you want to lecture me about why Latin America is "third world," you'd better do some more research first and really know your stuff. I am quite familiar with the situation there.)

"what do you think will happen when you take regulation off the table?"

When you take government-granted privilege off the table, things get better and corporations and (more importantly) governments cannot abuse individuals, as some corporations and virtually all governments now do. And you replace those privileges (euphemistically called "regulations") with laws based on non-aggression and enforcement of rights to self-ownership and property.

All "exploitation" comes from aggression. All of it.

Aggression means initiating violence. Without government support, no one can initiate violence without becoming a criminal. And criminals shall be dealt with accordingly. But as long as governments/states grant aggression privileges, then you have legalized crime.

"do you understand what feudalism actually is?"

Perhaps you'd like to restate this in a non-condescending way. If you have something to say about feudalism, then say it. Explain whatever you want to explain...

"we are living in what is now being called a "neo-feudalism" state."

I don't care to have a state, so you can take this complaint to the statists. (Good luck with that.)

"you point to the government but not to the invisible hand that owns it.which is corporate america"

"Corporate America" could do little harm if any, if it weren't for some corporations' use of government. Government serves no purpose other than to allow those who control it take from those who don't. The only solution to this is to not have that tool/weapon available to whomever takes control of it. Corporations don't own it. They just use it as much as possible (just like unions do, just like all sorts of special interest groups do, just like voting blocks do, and mostly just like politicians and bureaucrats do, and even citizens who "game" the system in one way or another).

"then again.i am a pretty crappy capitalist."

That likely makes you a "pretty crappy anarchist" too.
No offense intended.
Libertarian socialist kind of contradicts itself, does it not?
Take what you want from this message or not.
Good luck.

@Trancecoach
um..did you just take an analogy i made and make that your entire premise to defend your position?

sighs.
look man.
i am an anarchist.
i am not defending the government.
why you assume that i do not know..but if i gave that impression,then i apologize.

let me posit this for your perusal.

as an anarchist i believe all systems of authority and power to be illegitimate until proven otherwise.
the burden is on those who profess authority.

as an anarchist i agree that a free market can work quite well,BUT you have never once posited the counter balance to that equation.
because even as an anarchist i have to recognize that there needs to be a system which keeps the hands on the scales that keeps the playing field even and the kids playing nice.

these systems are for the people,by the people and run by the people.
and if they begin to falter and become suspect in regards to corruption.
they shall be discarded in favor of a new system.

so when you say the government is too large and bloated and needs to be made smaller..i agree.
BUT..you stop there.

are you implying that we have a free market now?
did you actually infer that america begot its wealth and power purely through free market exchanges?
have you even been paying attention?

corporate america has been exploiting third world countries for over a century!
and our government has been the fist that punched the:exploitation,ruination and demise of those countries.hell thats the reason WHY they are third world!
hundreds of thousands of humans dying and suffering so we can have cheap crap to buy.
its shameful and if thats your idea of a free market.
well..you can fucking keep it.

you only seem to address one part of the equation.
or are you oblivious to the harm that corporate america has wrought for the past century?

who or what will keep that behemoth in check?
what do you think will happen when you take regulation off the table?
(and i am not making a case FOR regulation by the way.kinda sad i have to caveat that).
do you understand what feudalism actually is?
we are living in what is now being called a "neo-feudalism" state.
or as sheldon wholin called "inverted totalitarianism".

you point to the government but not to the invisible hand that owns it.which is corporate america.

so i am really trying to understand your position but if you are not willing to acknowledge that very real dynamic i dont know how i can take your position seriously.

then again.i am a pretty crappy capitalist.
exploitation aint my thing.
though i dig libertarian socialist.
has a ring ya?

"As I see it, there is a finite amount of money"

This is only true if cryptocurrencies like BitCoin have their way. According to the Fed, by contrast, an infinite amount of money is but just one click away...

Cronyism aside, this is not true at all:
"When one minimally productive person gets 50% of the capital in a project, it's impossible for anyone else to be compensated fairly."

No minimally productive person would get 50% in a free market. And "minimally productive" according to whom? Are you going by the Labor Theory of value? Because the Subjective Theory of Value posits otherwise. It shows that this could not happen (providing an absence of cronyism which, at the moment, is baked into the system). In other words, no one would voluntarily pay 50% of anything to someone they consider to be minimally productive. Would you?

Money is just a medium of exchange whose value is determined by the market. There are some scarce resources (as well as some non-scarce ones). Having limited money/medium of exchange makes prices go down. Wouldn't you want to pay less for gas, food, etc.? When the central banks inflate the currency (i.e., increase the money supply), there is potentially "unlimited" money to buy scarce goods. The market then makes prices rise as a result, making people effectively poorer.

"To say "much of the world is coming out of poverty" ignores reality. Perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty"

Flat wrong: Look at the statistics. Millions in India, China, Southeast Asia, and other places throughout the world have come out of poverty in the last couple of decades. This is a fact.

The ruling class is never among the poor so I don't know what you mean by, "perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty." What?

"This is usually not in spite of governments, but rather because of them."

Sure, it is mostly because of governments that such poverty takes so long to be eradicated. Corruption and stupid ideas like the "war on poverty," along with cronyism, currency inflation, commercial regulations, taxes, "intellectual property" laws, and more all contribute to this stupidity which keeps people poor. Throughout the history of civilization, only innovation and free commerce has brought people out of poverty on a larger scale.

I won't argue, however, against the idea that governments are always corrupt, since I completely agree. Nothing good comes out of government that could not come to us, more efficiently, more cheaply, and more effectively from private free commerce.

"Praxeology only shows what human behavior is like"

More or less, it shows the logic and the logical consequences of the fact that humans act.

"it is not an accurate predictor of behavior in an environmental hypothesis."

It depends on what you mean to predict. It is not prediction. It deals in apodictic certainties. Humans act and employ chosen means to achieve desired goals. These are certainties, not predictions. Other things are unknowns, like time preference, the means chosen, the goals desired, etc. and those you need to either predict (thymology) or wait and see (history).

"History is better, and when wealth inequality becomes so outrageous that the populace can't survive on what's left for them, they revolt."

So far yes, history would indicate this is a likely outcome or consequence, although you may need to look more closely at which sector of "the populace" has historically revolted or instigated revolt.

"I hope that this asshat (even if he's just pretending to be an asshat) is among the first ones hung, quartered, and force fed to his own family (like they did in France)"

What has he done to deserve being tortured and murdered? I am unclear about that. The revolution in France, of course, was a disaster that amounted to little good for all involved. But things like that have happened before, and could certainly happen again. Same with the Russian Revolution. Or the Nazi takeover of bankrupt Weimar Republic.

Human behavior cannot be predicted mathematically. Only econometricians seem to think so. Certainly not praxeologists! In fact, that's the basis of Misean praxeology: that you cannot predict human behavior and so economics differs from the natural sciences and requires a different method of analysis.

"that placates the Right Wing, right?"

I have no idea what would "placate the Right wing" or not. Let's not conflate right-wing statists with anarchists. Two completely different things. I also don't care what would "placate" the right wing.


If you really care about inequality, do what you can to oppose government policy, especially warmongering and central banking. They are the biggest contributors to the class divide, regardless of how you parse the data. (Of course, you may find that you can do very little.)

If you think you should be paid as much as the CEO of Apple, then by all means you should try applying to that job. I am not saying you are not worth it, but it's not me you have to convince...

@chingalera
/chuckles
oh i know man.

my comment was with tongue firmly planted in cheek but my basic point remains the same.

some people have to make concessions in order to survive in this fucked up system.
maybe they have children.
maybe they are married with an asston of debt hanging over their heads.

i am an anarchist.
so i have arranged my life in a way where my participation in this zombie system is shaved to a bare minimum but i also have to recognize that some people do not have that luxury.since i am not living their lives i refuse to judge them.

just look at the comments here.
your assertion of an imagined polemic plays out in this thread,quite conveniently making your point.

we have @bobknight33 posting the heritage foundations position almost verbatim (thanks for responding bob,i like when you participate.sincerely),in regards to capitalism.

then we have @Sagemind posting a more "left" leaning comment.

and then we have the always ironic @lantern53 bemoaning the ills of government.yet his salary is provided by taxpayers,and hence the very government he is deriding.he is such a closet socialist.(loooove you lantern../hugs).

yet all these positions have validity.

the governments role should be criticized and examined.
corporations should be exposed for their undue influence.

this is not a simple issue and it is where i think you and i totally agree.
i too get frustrated when people talk about this subject in a binary way.
it is NOT just a black/white,good/evil,right/left matter.

and when people engage in this form of perception they also tend to demonize the "other" side.
so if someone posits an opinion that happens to be contrarian to ones views,they are automatically dismissed as "wrong" and anything they have to say is discarded as being stupid,ill-thought or just plain downright wrong.

this is the fundamental flaw in this binary thinking.
and it is not by accident but rather by design.

divide and conquer.

in the developed western world we have 30 choices for toilet paper but when it comes to things that TRULY matter?
we get two.

so the true elite and powerful of this country pick their prized horse and offer up to us,the american public,a choice of TWO rich fuckers.
would you like democrat?
or republican?

doesnt really matter who you choose because either one is going to serve their masters.
who of course are wall street and corporate america.
not you or i.

we are fed a constant stream of populist bullshit that gives the appearance of solidarity and nationalism but in reality serves only the corporate masters in fleecing the american people of more and more of their own hard earned:money,rights,liberties and ultimately our independence.

the problems with un-fettered capitalism are well known and well understood.
just as the problems with socialism are well known.

it is the SYSTEM that needs to be challenged and questioned,examined and ultimately discarded if we find it lacking.

and i find it lacking.
morally,socially and financially.

it is time we kill the beast.
because it is feeding on itself and putting us ALL at risk.

bah..you fucker.got me ranting.

let me conclude with this:
i find all structures of power and authority to be illegitimate until proven otherwise.
i find the system of plutocracy currently in place to be illegitimate.
it serves only the upper eschelon and commodifies the poor.
the poor have become fodder for the military industrial complex as well as the private prison system.
the working poor have become cogs in a machine that is slowly crushing them under the weight of the hubris of those who feel entitled to their fortunes and that somehow they are more deserving then their fellow man.

the beast is sick with its own arrogance and needs to be put down.
the only recourse us normal folk have is to stop feeding the beast.

if only 5% stopped going to work and took to the streets you will see a very frightened beast begging us all to the negotiating table.

thats my 2 cents anyways.

So governments are there to rule us and not serve our every whim?

No shit.

Every time I meet an anarchist I want to punch them in their face and steal their shoes. See how fast they cry for the police.

Governments are always evil and we should all live in peaceful little anarchist communities instead? Sounds like robber baron's wet dream to me.

Your video, who is noam chomsky's favorite anarchist thinkers?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

@lantern53, basically what @enoch said.

EDIT: Warning.... very long post ahead... I'm sure there will be many TLDRs.

Let me be clear. I have no objection to businesses making a profit, or the people who run and operate those businesses to make more income than their workers... where I have a problem is when a bushiness fires 350 people, then tells the rest of the employees the company can't afford to give them raises then the owner goes out and buys a jet on the companies dime, the next year he fired 250+ people, and last year 450+ people, and no raises to anyone but the executives all those years, because the company couldn't afford it. How many jobs did that jet cost? Apparently 1,000 jobs so far, and many more who've made minimum wage for 4 years now so that one man can have a jet? Unrepentant greed is my issue. Where I have a problem is where the 6 Walmart heirs have a net worth over the bottom 30 some percent of the American population, meanwhile they pay their workers minimum wage and give few benefits... All of that would be somewhat acceptable, but for the fact that those on the right get mad at those 1,000 people that guy fired to have his jet for having lost their jobs, they are mad at the employees still there and working jobs like Walmart, Target, McDonalds and the like for not being paid a living wage. People on the right are mad at the people stuck at the bottom rather than saying those at the top should be held mildly accountable. It's like that cartoon where a rich guy, a middle class guy and a low wage worker are all at a table with 100 cookies, the rich guy takes 99 of them, the middle class guy gets 1, and the rich guy points to the poor guy with crumbs and warns the middle class guy that the poor guy wants his cookie... and rather than be mad at the rich guy for taking everything from everyone, the middle class guy (read those on the right, or at least those who vote that way, as those in control know what's going on) gets upset at the poor guy who was left with crumbs. The right are angry at the victim rather than the person doing the crime.

And like Enoch pointed out, it isn't Democrat vs Republican. They are very much the same, especially nowadays. The ideological differences are greatly exaggerated by the media... [And no, there isn't a "liberal media", at least not mainstream. Over 90% of the news is controlled by like 6 companies, none of whom have an interest in making American's aware of just how big the wealth distribution divide is, how fast it's growing, how the income gap is growing at an alarming rate... The fact that if minimum wage kept up with inflation since 1968, it would be over $10.50 by now, and if it kept pace with worker productivity it would be over $21.72 and a bit higher (I can't find the exact figure at the moment, but it was around $24) if it kept pace with executive/CEO pay... but I'm getting way off topic.] The truth is, they are far more alike then the media makes it out to be, especially right wing media. The reason it seems so vast is because that drives ratings, making people angry and distracted. Making mountains out of molehills, keeping people up with the Kardashians, Honey Boo Boo, Miley Cyrus, and other people that don't matter rather than focusing on the stuff that matters... rather than just report the news, they now feed you how to think about it (especially used by those on the right when they go "if you really think about it" then make some logical leap that isn't there, but makes their listeners/viewers think they are being smarter than they are... mainstream media does the same though, so...)

I am ultimately an anarchist. I'd love to see an end to government, but until such point that humanity can grow up, get past the evils of greed, lack of education, lack of empathy, and superstitions, then government is a necessary force to maintain those with greedy motives that want to take advantage of those lacking education, who are superstitious. We need a government of people of empathy who can understand those people, and help those people free themselves of the greedy elite are are pulling way too many strings... sadly they are using government to do so, but that is the thing about democracy, representative or not, we can change the outcome, we can make things better for all, not just a select few.

I get it. I used to be a hardcore Republican. I used to hate the poor, and thought that "teach a man to fish" type stuff, and thought the best way to help them was to kick them in the water and let them sink or swim essentially, some may drown, but many would swim and rise above it all. Then I started to have issues with how the Republican party wanted to control what people did on their own, that wasn't hurting anyone else, and I became a hardcore Libertarian, still belittling the poor (funny as I was poor myself). I stopped watching and defending Fox and Rush and the like, but I held to the Libertarian ideals of free markets being the best solution. Then as I studied God's Word, I started having issues with how the Republican right and Libertarians were sort of contrary to His teachings that I already commented on in my earlier post. At the same time I was learning critical thinking to analyze not just what was said, but who's saying it, and vetting their sources, and I started to see that not only did it conflict with my faith, it conflicted with logic, at least with how man is now... that critical thinking would soon be applied to faith as well, already shaken by the fact that so many people were clearly voting for a party that proclaimed Christianity but was so vastly opposed to the teaching of Christ I had to ask why wasn't God screaming at His people that they were wrong (some liberal Christians would agree that perhaps God was saying something, but making sure the right lost the Presidency, as God is in control, and appoints all leaders, but I was too far off faith by that point). I came to question other aspects of faith, and eventually lost it fully. [I think the Christian Right has been taken over by Christian Reconstructionist who don't admit they are Reconstructionist or even Calvinist, but they clearly are. They try to slightly distance themselves from Rousas John Rushdoony and his ilk, but they are all the same, and they will turn more and more people off Christianity than anything else in this world... save perhaps education and learning to think critically... and ultimately is the true power behind the Tea Party movement... Reconstructionist mixed with a healthy dose of Millennialism...] Anyhow, again getting way off topic, I get it, I was there once myself. I have an old account here on the Sift (I could never resurrect as Hotmail kept losing the password reset requests) where I defended Fox News, where I said something stupid and ignorant about evolution... heck, one look at the old political or religious posts on my blog (personal blog, not a videosift blog) and one would see how far to the right I used to be. I learned though that everyone is closer to one another than the media and politicians and the elite that are pulling the strings would have you believe.