Cops get singled out because it is their JOB, which they are paid decently for, garner respect for (warranted or not), (edit: are given authority because of), and get many other perks because of, to be a "rat" as you put it, or a cop as others would put it. When that's your job, to police people, it's ridiculous to single your group out to not "rat on" or police, especially when some of them are not acting like 'police'.
I understand it, most people won't call foul on their own 'team', I simply disagree that it's acceptable or defendable, especially when that is who and what you are, a 'police' person. It's kind of like being a referee, but refusing to call interference on another referee that catches the ball, to me. Their culture is already set apart in many ways, I only wish they were set apart by a higher moral standard as well (that they live up to).

#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!

Dogs don't feel "guilt". That's human anthropomorphism.

Dogs DO however, feel "expectation of punishment". They live in the now. The "guilt" people attribute to them is explained by the owner's actions and behaviour.

Unless you catch them in the act, you're just abusing the dog. It knows not what you're angry about.

They can notice the ripped pillow and go OMFG!!! A RIPPED PILLOW!!! OWNER IS GONNA SHIT ON ME!!! The fact they did it is moot to them, the pillow wasn't ripped, then it was. You have to catch them ripping it or the lesson is lost.

In a society where you expect the children to never leave their home communities and where their future education and job are predestined by where they live, that might make sense. I don't want that kind of stratification. That opens up situations where Bible belter children are never exposed to evolution (for an easy target), or where some district just up and decided that heck, their kids never need to learn long division.

The ideal is a society that's much more fluid than that, and the reality is that this is a world where not only are the children from rural Arkansas going to be competing with the ones from NYC for colleges and jobs, but with people from all over the world. Kids can already be extremely hampered just because of where they went to school, which is what the CC (I'm assuming good intentions) was supposed to help. Obviously it is not doing a good job, but I think it's a matter of implementation rather than the idea itself.

@Velocity5
it appears to me you do not fully comprehend what it is to be an artist.

the argument you put forth would make sense in the context that being an artist can be quantified as a "career choice".

i assure you....it is not.

artists live in the present.
they reveal new ways of seeing,thinking and feeling in a constant parade of melodies woven together by the very fabric of humanity.

sometimes beautiful..other times horrific.
the artist rips the veil back to reveal a deeper truth.

the artist is sometimes exhalted.
many times vilified.

but it is never simply by choice.
they cant help themselves.
it is who they are.

so they live their lives according to the truth they perceive around them.
the ones who DO make it a career choice are not artists.
they have sold a talent in exchange for comfort and security and we always are the lesser for it.

*promote

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised...

The US has a long storied history of destroying freedom. The prohibition, the Cold War years, post 911 etc. The fact that a lot of people still buy in to the comfortable lie that they live in the "land of the free" is because admitting they are meat puppets for a corrupt government is too bitter a pill too swallow + the US national sense of superiority to places like China because they do things better than those totalitarians...

This will not change. There is no analogous period in history to compare to. The participants of the French revolution or the American war of independance didn't have facebook or twitter to sit around whining on and feeling like they were making a difference. They got off their asses and rose up because the only alternative was to be ploughed under.

Online slacktivism is an acceptable panacea for the discontented masses, they have an outlet to complain while easily identifying themselves as 'persons of interest'.

I remember when the limited horizontal viewing angle on LCDs used to be advertised as a "privacy filter."

Gotta love the marketing department. Useful idea though. I like the idea that I could be sitting at my computer with everyone else looking at me like I'm crazy.

edit: Oh, also: "They Live" anyone. It would be great if you could have a screen that displayed one thing at all sorts of polarities, and then another through the correct filter. Spreadsheet for everyone else, porn for me.

@artician

Even if the models for the decline of empires are inexact, poorly sourced or even exaggerated, they are doing so to combat the overwhelming force of the status quo that feeds us a constant stream of comforting, mind-numbing bliss through mass media, mostly delivered though TV news, advertising and cleverly veiled in the actual entertainment that the audience enjoys.

It's hard to mount a comeback against a presupposed cultural truth supported by any form of economic interest. The tobacco industry, for example, mounted powerful misinformation and doubt as scientific evidence slowly leaked out that smoking was harmful. People just don't want to hear that the way they live and what they "know" to be true is going to change and that personal choice is going to have to be limited to some extent.

The same is true for global warming, deforestation, species extinction, pollution, etc., etc. You can resist the "ineffectual mumblings" of Hitchens, Chomsky and the like, but you do so to at your own peril. People like you are the do-do bird in this scenario. People like you are the 2 pack-a-day smoker who thinks they've been smoking for 20 years and feeling fine so why quit now. "Screw the scientists, they're all out to make themselves rich so they concoct these cackamamy experiments to 'prove' they need more research funding." Okay, it's your right to dismiss the advice of people smarter than you.

This video follows the same vein as Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist series (which I suggest you watch or rewatch for shits and giggles.) The idea of consumption tax seems a lot easier for our system to adopt than Joseph's idea of a "Resource-Based Economy." It just sounds more fair that those consuming resources pay back into the system and less airy-fairy than some socialist "to-each as to his need" idea. And let's face it, it's right on a social level. It's just too hard to get there based on our current economic and political structure.

Our wasteful way of life is just unsustainable. I don't think anyone can deny that the ponzi scheme of FIAT money is eventually going to collapse because the balance of wealth is way out of whack AND ONLY GETTING WORSE. And the USA is at the top, and yet owes trillions in funny money that they can only pay back if they stop building missiles and tanks. But I think we all know that when the shit hits the fan, we're going to want to get behind those tanks to ride out the storm of resistance from the 99%. Not the privileged 99% in the west, the 99% of destitute, impoverished poor that build the toys, sew and clothes, glue the plastic Walmart crap, and GROW THE FOOD that we want.to have cheap. We're doing this all on the backs of the "free slaves" in undeveloped countries: Columbia, Bangladesh and on and on.

Search your feelings, Luke. You know it to be true.

These cops are hideous fucking people. How can they live with themselves?

@Babymech

ok.let us examine your counterpoints.

1.yeah.i agree.i never saw him as anybody but roddy piper.
2.agreed.while long,it does wear the banner of awesome.zizek may possibly be guilty of over-analyzing,but his comparisons bear some consideration.i find them to be justified.
3.this point you make is an exercise in circular logic and actually makes zizecks point.
where do you get your ideology from?
do you even have an ideology?
what makes you so certain of your ideology?
it is the question that is the real truth.
4.dont really understand your outrage here.sarcasm?
zizeck is exercising the pedagogy of philosophy.
referencing the matrix and pointing out that the wachowski brothers were not the first ones to create a movie with heavy philosophical tones.
john carpenter did it in the 80's with "they live".
and the philosophy of both movies is not exactly new.unless you consider 150 years to be "new".

maybe you disagree with the questions?
or are uncomfortable with the answers?
seem awfully defensive about people asking questions.

@newtboy what exactly is then a "normal reality" consider your answer from the premise that "reality" is a construct of an individual's
perception...I don't agree with "them" either and see the ever-increasing justification for such and future similar actions as an affront to humanity as a whole.

These cops are enforcing laws that scream "police state" plain and fucking simple. The less we do to protest, the more motherfuckers they are going to pack into ready-made plastic holding containers and eventually, "disappear."

The real problem I can see here is that these cops are putting food in the mouths of the people they live with in order to feed yet another generation of assholes who may eventually become cops. It's a ludicrous, self-perpetuating clusterfuck.

@enoch I love when threads go off track like this! Who would have imagined that a cute video of a bird landing on a guy's head would lead to a hunting debate and even cannibalism (long-pig?? Really @chingalera? Haha) Anyway, I hope nobody is offended by the discussion. I really enjoyed reading all the comments and couldn't wait to log in to see who said what next! I wish every video would get people talking like this. It makes the site so much more interesting and it's nice to get to know people better by hearing the stories about how they live.

Most of the surfers I see are sexy, but they live in camper vans.

How this this unique? They live in a trailer. Lots of people live in trailers.

They live again.