I believe the problem is with the government's use of competitive judiciary : where each side debates their case, regardless of merit, and the expectation is that the 'right' argument will win simply because truth should naturally be able to present a stronger argument.

This assumption not only leads to some face-palm-worthy cases/charges, it also inevitably leads to people being convicted in situations where everyone involved knows with absolute certainty that the defender is innocent (often because quirks within the rules of the official process).

In this case, the "right" thing to do is : Apologize to the man, and refund him any costs that he's incurred so far due to this mess.

But "process" requires that the government push their argument to its absolute limit, even with zero merit, because the officially sanctioned way by which the situation is resolved is via argument in court (conveniently, the need to do this is also decided by people working in court - effectively excusing their professional existence and securing their very employment).

There is no 'admitting there was a mistake'. A mistake has to be proven in court. So even though everyone involved knows that the man is not at any fault, they will still force him to spend his time and money arguing a case, just to jump through hoops, and in the end it's _extremely_ unlikely that his personal costs will be refunded to him (lawyer fees, etc).

In the mean time, everyone on the government side is simply doing their 9-5. None of this is a burden to them, and it's in fact 'how they put food on the table'. If they aren't charging him, they're charging someone else. This is just another day at the office.

The guy getting screwed can't say 'no thanks, I'll not participate', because men with guns will show up and drag him away (police arrest for not going to court). It's effectively a predatory practice whereby the government fleeces people. Everyone involved knows it's meritless, but they simply force you to dance [else go to jail], and collect some fees in the process.

Because, really, what's at stake is not 'the truth' or 'justice'. It's simply "process". An excuse to inflate the number of court cases, to keep court spending high (to secure next year's budget - "use it or lose it" accounting), to keep collections high, and generally keep the high paid welfare cases (9/10 govt employees) employed.
TBH, for a country that supposedly "hates communism", actual communist countries haven't even managed to work it out this well. (I'm not talking fairy tale boogey man communism like you see in old propaganda. I mean the practical day to day actual workings. Vast government employment, bureaucracy, "process above all".)

-scheherazade

@VoodooV: "Every one of these youtube crusaders are comfortably enjoying the perks of a system they despise."

What perks? Like roads and firemen? You know, it's not like we couldn't have those things without government. And those kinds of services are only a small portion of the federal budget. In fact, from all the excise taxes collected on gasoline, tobacco and alcohol, they'd cover the roads completely, which costs around $60 billion annually. In fact, things like the EPA, Dept. of Trans, NASA, Dept. of Edu, all cost less than the revenue the federal government categorizes as "other." Look it up: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals

So what about all the wars and militarism? Is that, too, a perk? And the prison industrial complex that locks up 1% of our population? What are these perks you speak of?

Even Ayn Rand took gov't assistance.

I love it when statists bring this up. I personally am not an Objectivist, and find lots of flaws with their ideology, but this is a cheap blow. Obviously it shows the economic illiteracy of most statists. For one, she's forced to pay into social security, so therefore why shouldn't she receive some of it back? And second, if you spend more than a couple seconds reading about U.S. monetary policy, you'd know that the purchasing power of the dollar is reduced over time due to inflation, and hence savings are always impacted. This should alarm you instead of excite you.

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.

By all means don't take any time to point out which things he said were these things. No, that'd be helpful, and we wouldn't want to cloudy any appeals to emotion with pesky things like fact and well thought out rebuttals.

they spend all this time criticizing the problems of gov't and NEVER ONCE demonstrate how it would work without these systems.

I think there are plenty who do. It's just that statists don't accept those answers, or any answers that don't emulate the current status quo systems they're accustomed to. I'm not interested in replacing public schools with another bureaucracy.

pfft, the rich have welfare, they just call it tax breaks, and they have the lobbyists to keep them.

No one wants those on foodstamps to use them for alcohol and other frivolous items. name me one non-foodstamp-using person who does? It's a strawman that the right obsessively cling to.

As with so many things, it's not about laws or bureaucracy, it's about enforcement. laws mean nothing without enforcement. I'm getting sick of seeing more and more panhandlers downtown where I live and I completely agree that handouts are not an efficient solution.

but you know what isn't a good solution either? negative reinforcement. We've been living under the conservative idea that if we just keep punishing the poor and making their lives more miserable, then obviously that will be motivation to not be poor.

IT DOESN'T WORK. maybe it works for a small percentage of people, but those people aren't poor then. so you have a group of people that are continually being punished and devalued for no good fucking reason because if they aren't motivated to not be poor under these kinds of conditions, then they never will be.

so again, we have this situation where there are two solutions that aren't really effective, but one is slightly less bad than the other. sure some people may use their foodstamps for alcohol and other shit...but many people do actually use their foodstamps for...food. shock.

Even if you had a much more equal distribution of wealth, we're still going to have poor people and people in poverty.

I think the issue is largely mired in health, physical and mental. Even with all our technology...mental health is still unreliable and some people are so physically impaired that they can't work or work well.

Despite largely claiming to be pro-life, the right would either secretly want them to die alone in an alley or make them indentured servants to some corporation if they aren't already. That, I submit, is no life, at least not a good and healthy one.

I don't have the answer, all we can really do is point out that many of the things we've tried aren't working and will never work, and even if there are some successes, it's still largely inefficient, but what's the alternative? if you are "pro-life" then an inefficient solution is still preferable to a solution that simply doesn't work. So I call bullshit on people who like to claim they have the solution. If someone out there has the solution, they certainly haven't demonstrated it yet.

You're missing the forest for your own trees concerning these government agencies and how they are used by special interests, people-Lands declared federally-owned then 'managed' in this country have been historically for public use. According to the Sierra Club: "Public lands are used in the production of oil, gas, coal, hardrock minerals, timber, and livestock in addition to being used for roads, power and gas lines, and communication facilities just to mention a few. Likewise, the Public lands are an environmental treasure house for recreation and wildlife and scenic wonder from desert to seacoast, mountain top to prairie, grassland to forest -- a shared heritage for now and the future."

Most generational ranchers don't fuck-up the land, they don't abuse it , it's their goddamn livelihood. They know it's vibe way better than the feds and their little friends....

Bundy was paying to, and had a preexisting deal with Clark County and his damn family had been cattlemen on these lands for a few generations, living in harmony with the goddamn turtles, and not trashing the place like newtbox (god you think you know what the fuckit is you know nothing about except what the TV tells you) here and others use in defense of the encroaching and over-reaching bureaucracy whose ONLY goal is to save their own interests in the rights of this land for their nefarious personal good-ol' boy club purposes.

Urbanization and ominous government with peeps with votes never getting involved in righteous decisions during the process of being ASS-RAPED from behind tomes legislation with special interest laws piggy-backed within legislation has ALWAYS been the method of politicians, licking the asses of the money-men.

If people would get an ACTUAL clue abut how the government works to benefit these cunts, they'd start to sound like people who did their homework instead of self-righteous cunts trying to sound smart.

I am happy to accommodate the cries of 'ignorance' and 'fail', heard all this shit before, so go fuck yourselves unless you have anything else to spew but scripted 'what you think you know' horse-shit. I understand that certain types of dum-basses are quite satisfied with themselves to talk a lot and say nothing but whats fed them.

The United States government fucked the Native Americans, now they're fucvkng cowboys and ranchers......No digression with land and money drunk robber-barons, especially when they have dutiful putties to interpret history to suit their delusions.

Wanna fix the situation America? Stop eating their meat. Try turtle soup, the shits awesome.

The molecule cares

Hey gorillaman, your numbers are surprisingly close to those proposed by the Georgia Guidestones-My personal favorite is #7: Avoid petty laws and useless officials. Planet now is currently at a pace to match or trump the bureaucracy portrayed in Terry Gilliam's film, 'Brazil.'

I will accept bureaucracy as a reason. Thank you.

Before I watch this, I wonder how exactly THIS is biased. If it's too biased scottc I'm coming for your ass.

EDIT: Ok this is an utter piece of shit and scottc suck a dick mother fucker. I was against Obamacare because it didn't go nearly as far as the public wants or needs. It's a lame ass thing that keeps money in health but gives it to a few more people. It's great that some people are getting more coverage, it's shit that it's patching onto the current system of wasteful bureaucracy.

In conclusion, this video is biased and stupid, Obama is a cunt for many things but not healthcare really. Oh and scottc can suck a dick.

Just asking.

Why do you think it too so long ? Government bureaucracy? ineptness? No one really cares how long you wait? Surge of ill people causing temporary under staffing?

Why did Australia service you so quickly?

Shut up Stupid you don't get to post a shit whiny propaganda piece like this hunk of crap and not get taken to task for it. Now take your lumps you Breitbart wanna be.

It's this kind of attitude that allows the ONLY PEOPLE to be in the public spectrum calculating, over coached little nothings. We're the ones that are the victims here, we make it so no actual human beings can get elected because we make it a "job" only for sociopaths.

You go after someone who's not funny trying to make a joke while on a Late Night Talk Show, and whine that she's called people Knuckleheads. What did she hurt your feelings? Grow the Fuck Up this shit has nothing to do with the argument about Obamacare, it has nothing to do with "Marketing" it's a shit hatchet piece by some fucking morons and you post that shit here and DON'T fucking destroy it? You're not this stupid.

Also the Health Care system is so immeasurably fucked up due to bureaucracy that instituting a SINGLE PAYER System would actually lower the debt. We wouldn't go bankrupt at all, we'd come out ahead. A majority of Americans supported it back in the 2004 election, except the corporations which is why it wasn't brought up during the campaigns as an option. Till fucking GM learned that hey they're spending $2000 per car more in Detroit than Canada because of health care costs.

You can look up the Australian Health Care system on your own, suffice to say it's not brought up in the media as an example of socialized medicine because it's easier to pick holes in the UK and Canadian systems.

The grander point is, you're being a hack with this crap. This is the kinda shit we take the fuck apart because it's retarded. If a liberal was going around saying "Oh Laura Bush called young people a knucklehead" we would be right to fucking destroy that liberal douche. This is hacky propaganda, quit placing yourself in the same corner as these pieces of shit from Campus Reform.

And why in the FUCK trancecoach, would there have to be examples cited, when it's glaringly obvious the system is flawed and fucked in favor of those who have perpetrated the ruse that IS, the completely fucked government scenario of what we have? Tell us all this please, in just how many ways is it NOT fucked, from prisons, to infrastructure, to bogus bureaucracy, to the nightmare of surveillance and privacy violations that make the Stasi in East Germany and the Soviet Union KGB look like fucking children's birthday parties?? The system worldwide is as inefficient as any goddamn circa 1840's battleship, and I will be fucked if I have to listen to this kind of trite brain-dead soliloquy of justifications as to what the fuck any news-hound's sources are or what the fuck she says, who gives a fuck if she has any examples cited?? Are you fucking asleep or simply that goddamn naive??

As far as I know this hot bitch is working for the cunt Putin, whose sucking Obama's dick and they're both licking his wife's asshole.

Goddamn. The issue at hand is this smug fuck laughing in the faces of every human on planet earth while fucking them and lying his ass off.

"Outrage get's a lotta shit done right."

People so emotionally attached to the regime (as @st0nedeye seems to be) are often either regime propagandists being handsomely compensated or serfs who feel so vulnerable and afraid (and maybe even inept themselves) that they can't think of how they would survive without the "rulers" to protect them. (Of course, the jokes on them since that protection, safety, and security, is mostly an illusion.)

If they are regime propagandists, then unless you pay them more to take on whatever views you want them to stick to in the hopes of cashing in on the cronyism.

If they are true believers or fanatics (due to fear, insecurity, envy, etc.), then they will try to tear up anyone who tries to give them information, even if that information will ultimately help them out, improve their lot (help, to be sure, that was not solicited by them, and they have a right not to be given).

These are the attitudes that made Edward Bernays and others rather loathe "the people," allowing them to rationalize the various forms of manipulation imposed in the 20th century. This propaganda was ostensibly for "the people's" "safety," but was more accurately for personal profit. It's a fate though that I can't totally disagree is not deserved.

Still, despite the crazy analysis, I commend @st0nedeye for bringing up the interesting topic of the situation in Europe after the "fall" of Rome (which happened gradually and parallels that of most empires, including this current one). It's worth considering that the collapse of the Soviet Union also, a collapse that even to this day many in Russia bemoan -- just like st0nedeye bemoans the collapse of Rome. Life under the Roman bureaucracy and plutocracy was not as glamorous as many people would have you believe (maybe if you were a one of the beneficiary plutocrats).

Brain dead policies are the bread and butter of large organizations. Every major corporation, every major bureaucracy, every major NGO has plenty of them. It's what people do, when they gather in groups, make stupid unthinking rules.

Welcome to the human race.

Unbelievable. It's stupidity all around. Just go. They're your kids, and you owe nothing to this ridiculous institution with a fetish for bureaucracy.

> "you are sounding more and more like an anarchist.
> you didnt click the link i shared did you?
> it explained in basic form the type of anarchy i subscribe to. "

The link is about libertarian socialism, not strictly anarchism. I consider libertarian socialism, not left-libertarianism, but rather a contradiction. Coherent left-libertarianism, like that of Roderick Long, is for free market, not the traditional definitions of socialism. Different people define these differently. I use libertarianism to mean adhering to the non-aggression principle, as defined by Rothbard. But whatever it means, socialism, communism, syndicalism, and similar non-voluntary systems of communal ownership of "property" cannot but interfere with individual property rights, and by extension, self-ownership rights. These also need rulers/administrators/archons to manage any so-called "communal" property, so it cannot fit the definition of anarchy. If you don't have a bureaucracy, how do you determine how resources get allocated and used? What if I disagree from how you think "communal" resources should be distributed? Who determines who gets to use your car? It is a version of the problem of economic calculation. That wikipedia article conflates several different "libertarian socialist" positions, so which one does he adhere to?

> "i agree with your position.
> i may word mine differently but our views are in alignment for the most part."

This may be true, at least once we do away with any notions that socialism, or non-voluntary "communal" property can be sustainable without a free market and the notion that you can have any such thing as "communal" property, owned by everyone, and not have ruler/administrators/government to make decisions about it. that shirt you are wearing, should we take a vote to see who gets to wear it tomorrow? How about if there is disagreement about this? Anarcho-socialism is unworkable.

> "what i do find interesting is how a person with a more right leaning ideology will
> point to the government and say "there..thats the problem" while someone from a
> more left leaning will point to corporations as the main culprit."

Governments exist without corporations. Corporations cannot exist without government. Governments bomb, kill, imprison, confiscate, torture, tell you what you can and cannot do. Apple, Microsoft, Walmart do not and cannot. Government produces nothing. Corporations produce things I can buy or not voluntarily and pay or not for them. There is no comparison in the level of suffering governments have caused compared to say Target.

If you disobey the government, what can happen? If you disobey Google or Amazon, then what?

> "in my humble opinion most people all want the same things in regards to a
> civilized society. fairness,justice and truth."

Yes, but some want to impose (through violence) their views on how to achieve these on everyone else and some (libertarians) don't.

> "i agree the federal government should have limited powers but i recognize
> government DOES play a role.i believe in the inherent moral goodness of
> people.that if pressed,most people will do the right thing."

If people are inherently good and will do the right thing, then why do we need government/ruler?

Why not just let everyone do the right thing?

> "this is why i think that governments should be more localized.we could use the
> "states rights" argument but i would take it further into townships,local
> communities and municipalities."

I agree. And from there we can go down to neighborhoods, and then households. And of course, logically, all the way to individuals. And any government a voluntary one where everyone unanimously agree to it. But this is not longer government per se, but rather contracts between voluntary participants.

> "for this to even have a chance this country would have to shake off its induced
> apathetic coma and participate and become informed.
> no easy task.
> in fact,what both you and i are suggesting is no easy task.
> but worthy..so very very worthy."

Ok.

> "when we consider the utter failures of:
> our political class.
> the outright betrayal of our intellectual class who have decided to serve privilege
> and power at the neglect of justice and truth for their own personal advancement,
> and the venal corporate class."

So if people are basically good and do the right thing, why has this happened? Then again, when have politician not been self serving kleptocrats?
few exceptions

> "we,as citizens,have to demand a better way.
> not through a political system that is dysfunctional and broken and only serves the
> corporate state while giving meaningless and vapid rhetoric to the people."

True.

> "nor can this be achieved by violent uprising,which would only serve to give the
> state the reason to perpetrate even greater violence."

True.

> "we cannot rely on our academic class which has sold itself for the betterment of
> its own hubris and self-aggrandizing."

True.
Nothing a libertarian anarchist would not say.

> "even the fourth estate,which has been hamstrung so completely due to its desire
> for access to power,it has been enslaved by the very power it was meant to
> watchdog."

I have not gone into this, but you can thank "democracy" for all this.

> "when we look at american history.the ACTUAL history we find that never,not
> ONCE,did the american government EVER give something to the people."

Yeah, governments are generally no-good.
Let me interject to say that I agree that plutocrats cause problems. I certainly agree that kleptocrat cause even more problems. But I am not ready to exclude the mob from these sources of problems. As Carlin said, "where do these politicians come from?

> "it is the social movements which put pressure,by way of fear,on the political
> class."

The mob can and does often get out of control.

> "we have seen the tea party rise and get consumed by the republican political
> class."
> "we saw occupy rise up to be crushed in a coordinated effort by the state.this was
> obama that did this yet little was ever spoken about it."
> "power is petrified of peoples movements."

I don't disagree. But people's movements are not necessarily always benign. And they have a tendency to fall in line with demagogues. Plutocrats bribe kleptocrats. Kleptocrats buy the mob. They are all guilty. I know, you say, they people need to be educated. Sure, like they need to be educated abut economics? How is that going to happen? If everyone was educated as an Austrian libertarian economist, sure, great. Is that the case? Can it be? Just asking.

I do support any popular movement that advocates free markets and non-aggression. Count me in.

> "power is petrified of peoples movements."

People's movements are often scary. And not always benign. But non-aggressive, free market ones, like Gandhi's, sure, these are great!

> "because that is the only way to combat the power structures we are being
> subjected to today. civil disobedience. and i aim to misbehave."

Maybe. This is a question of strategical preference. Civil disobedience. Ron Paul says he thinks that maybe that's the only option left or it may become the only option left sometime in the future. But, like you said, secession to and nullification by smaller jurisdictions is also a strategy, although you may consider it a "legal" form of civil disobedience. You seem on board.

I see great potential for you (writer), once you straighten out some economic issues in your mind.

> "there will be another movement.
> i do not know when or how it will manifest.
> i just hope it will not be violent."

If it is violent, it is not libertarian in the most meaningful way, adhering to non-aggression.

> "this starts exactly how you and i are talking.
> it is the conversation which sparks the idea which ignites a passion which turns
> into a burning flame.
> i am a radical. a dissident. but radical times call for radical thinking."

If you want something not only radical, but also coherent and true, here you have libertarian anarchy.

> "you and i both want fairness,justice and truth. everybody does."

Yep.

> "some of our philosophy overlaps,other parts do not.
> we discuss the parts that do not overlap to better understand each other."

Yes, good. Keep listening, and you will see for yourself.

> "this forms a bond of empathy and understanding.
> which makes it far more harder to demonize each other in terms of the political
> class and propaganda corporate tv."

And for clarity, I don't say the corporate is made up of saints. I only point out that their power to abuse comes from government privilege that they can control. Whether corporations control this power or the mob does, either way, it is a threat to individual liberties. Break the government monopoly, and let the market provide for what we need, and they will have little power to abuse, or as little as possible, but both more power and incentive to do good.

> "I don't say the corporate world is made up of saints"

As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, abusive plutocrats will arise.

As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, kleptocrats will seek office to enrich themselves and cronies, as well as for the power trip.
As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, kleptocrats will bribe the mob (the so-called people) with stolen goods taken from their legitimate owners through force.

The only real positive democracy, is market democracy, the one much harder to exploit and abuse. the one that is not a weapon used to benefit some at the expense of others.

> "the power elite do not want me to understand you,nor you to empathize with me."

But I do empathize with you! And you are making an effort to understand me.
And remember, many not in the "power elite" have been bribed/conditioned also to turn on you and prevent you from understanding/empathizing.

> "fear and division serve their interests.
> hyper-nationalistic xenophobia serves their interests.
> i aim to disappoint them."

Good for you! And for everyone else.

> "maybe it will help if i share the people i admire.
> chomsky,zinn,hedges,watts,harvey,roy,
> just some of the people who have influenced me greatly."

I know them well. Now perhaps you can take a look at things from a different angle, one that I think corrects some of their inconsistencies.

> "nowhere near as polite and awesome as you."

Thanks, man. You too

You have to look at how much individuals pay for healthcare, all hidden costs included, proportional to the amount of money they earn and get to keep.

The US government pays a lot for healthcare. When you work for a major university (as I have you), you became acquainted with how much funding their university hospital gets for research from the government. And in countries like Canada, where you can't even find a doctor and have to wait months to see one, of course the spending will be less as they have fewer medical providers and fewer variety of services. But your point is well taken. The US government does spend more "tax" dollars per capita than many of these other socialist healthcare utopias.

I agree with this from the article you posted:

"So what’s the moral of the story? Simple, notwithstanding the shallow rhetoric that dominates much of the debate, the United States does not have anything close to a free-market healthcare system."

Because we have just a partially socialized system, we have only a partial healthcare clusterfuck. But it can get much worse. Ask my colleague why he came to the US for cancer treatment (like Canadian politicians and the rich do) and didn't stay in Canada.

The US government has more money than other governments, so it can spend more. But I was referring to how much individuals pay, not how much a government pays. So, I'm not entirely sure I understand your question fully since I don't equate "Americans" to the US government. Not one and the same.

And look at what's included under "healthcare" costs. Is paying the overpaid humongous US "healthcare" bureaucracy a "healthcare" cost? What about Congressional medical insurance? Or military hospitals?
It's really hard to know, given the lack of economic calculation involved in government spending.

But you can see both sides use the same "US spends more per capita" to come to opposite conclusions. One says, it spends more but because it is not more socialist, it sucks more (not true, though). The other says, it spends more, so it means it is too socialist compared to other countries.

See if you can find data on where exactly the money is spent and the breakdown, more specifically than "healthcare."