My opinion is any natural "drug" should be legal. Any substance that is found in nature, with minimal processing should be absolutely 100% legal, no doubt about it.

The irony of this is that there are still great legal natural "drugs" out there. They still allow San Pedro (mescaline), you can still easily buy Morning Glory (LSA similar to LSD), you can still buy plants to create ayahuasca and extract DMT, you can still buy Yopo seeds and snort that shit (5 MEO DMT) and obviously everyone knows about Salvia.

The only reason I can think of that these haven't been scheduled is due to the fact that they never became very popular/rampant in popular culture.

And now they have more to deal with - due to the banning of weed and stuff people want like MDMA - everyday dangerous new analogs (far more dangerous than the real stuff) come out which are "legal" until banned. They ought to just let people do what they want to do and let the "free market" sort it out like the capitalist bullshit they propagate everywhere else. There are successful working models out there to guide the little boy blue.

@bobknight33
"socialism is not american"

i swear sometimes bob i dont know what the fuck you are talking about.

even when people put out,quite correctly i might add,that america has socialism in its economic structure.you respond like they didnt state anything.

it is like you live in this weird bubble and that any information that attempts to enter,that may possibly contradict your own personal understandings.

so when i say that you can have a socialist democracy,i am not just pulling that out of my ass:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

or that america already has socialist programs,and a majority of them YOU and your children enjoy:
https://mises.org/blog/bernie-sanders-right-us-already-socialist-country
(this is from the von mises institute.not exactly a bastion of liberal/progressive ideology.just in case you wanted to pull that tired and stupid response:well,they are a liberal website blah blah blah)

so if YOU think that socialism is SO bad and harmful and utterly un-american.let us revert to a pure capitalist society shall we?

here are the things that we will be saying goodbye to in your new capitalist america:
1.child labor laws.
thats right...your 8 yr old grandchild can now quit her fucking whining and get to fucking work.hmmmm...nothing like forced labor for the children working 14 hr shifts with no breaks,and 6 days a week.no work on sunday!
because:god.

2.minimum wage.
gone will be a basic minimum wage imposed by federal law.now we shall see the TRUE market place in action! of course,since there is surplus of available workers and there is no minimum.we can exploit the most desperate and vulnerable of our society and pay them 25 cents an hour!
take THAT china!

3.public schools.
education? only if your are part of the new american aristocracy! and what child will be going to school for an education? they are too busy working at the plant! pfffft..education.it is over-rated anyways.

4.fire and police.
now why would i spend my hard earned money in taxes, so my neighbor can be protected from fire damage and property damage? pay for your own protection fuckface! oh...you're too busy working 3 jobs,making .25 per hr? and your kids are working too? aww too bad loser.shoulda pulled yourself up by your bootstraps.

5.voting.(yep.you read that right)
i am a hard working american.who pays his taxes and owns property AND a business! and i JUST gave my employees a raise to .27 per hour! i have a RIGHT to vote! why should those non-property owning losers get a vote as well? i am obviously far more important than they are.whats next? women voting? the horror.

6.social security and medicaid.
now why would we waste time and resources providing a safety net for those losers again?how is it MY responsibility that they couldnt plan for their sunset years? i did give them a raise didnt i? fucking crybabies.and so what if they actually PAID into those programs.i feel better creating my own reality by calling those programs "entitlements",because it makes me feel morally superior to them.

7.public libraries.
there is that pesky "education" again.why should i be responsible for someone else family and their access to literature and information?what do you think i live in? a society? with neighbors? communities?this is just more government intrusion upon MY life and MY freedoms!

look man,i know i am being a cheeky shit in this comment,and i am not anti-capitalist..at all.
capitalism has brought great things for society as a whole..BUT..there is a difference between capitalism and unfettered capitalism,and what we have now is NOT capitalism.

it is socialism for the rich:
see: the bank bailout
see: corporate subsidies (welfare)
see:corporate tax breaks (welfare)
see:our current political system which has been totally over-run by corporate money.a corporate coup de'tat.
which we are all fed the bullshit line of how wonderful captialism is,but the only beneficiaries are corporations,wall street and the dept of defense.

the only people that get to engage in capitalism are the poor and middle class,because actually having to compete is for suckers and losers.

I'd probably beat people up to if she were my mom. But, probably the first time I was given a weapon (up there by the stone's throw Russia, I think the age is 3?) I would have blown my brains out with it anyway. Evil capitalist whore.

@ChaosEngine

if you are referring to the established political class,the pundit class and those with relative power and influence i would agree with your assertions.

which is pretty much what i am talking about.

if you look how ron paul was being treated by his own party and compare that treatment to sanders by the DNC,there are some glaring similarities.

while both paul and sanders have differing politics,they did align in a few areas i.e: audit the fed,citizens united,money in politics and restructuring the military to name a few.

they both had/have immensely popular grassroots support.ron paul garnering 20 million in small donations and sanders broke that record with 30 million.

they both held large rallies with high attendance.

they both had a populist flavor that appealed to their own political base.challenging the current corrupt power structures.

and they both have/had experienced a weird media blackout,even though they were/are incredibly popular with the voters.

now we can question WHY that is,but i don't think it too much a stretch to come to the conclusion that both candidates challenged the current power structures that dictate this countries dysfunctional and corrupt political system.add to that mix a paid propaganda pundit class that never challenges the current narrative,all put on display on corporate media which is owned by what? 5-6 entities? who just happen to be the biggest lobbyists in this country?

nader experienced pretty much the exact same treatment from the DNC in regards to media exposure and it went even further in his case with him being outright denied to some debates,or made to jump through almost insurmountable dictates to even get ON the debates.

so when i assert this is a well crafted and intentional practice by the parties,i do so with precedent.

because all three,nader,paul and sanders all had/have massive public support from the voters,but not their respective parties.

so when ron paul started to become a real thorn in the RNC,who did not want him anywhere near the nomination.they changed the tactic from ignoring or downplaying pauls message..to creating the "kook" myth.this was from his own party!!

nader received similar treatment,though in a different context.the establishment as a whole came out against him.

so what can we assume,based on previous tactics from these political parties in regards to sanders?when they can no longer ignore his popularity? his grassroots campaign donations? his rally attendances?

there will soon come a time when they can no longer ignore sanders and his grassroots success,and they will respond the exact same way they did with nader and paul.they will concoct a narrative that plays on peoples fears and biases and begin to portray sanders as an anti-capitalist "kook".that somehow him being a democratic socialist means the end of our civilization.just the word "socialist' makes many a republican wet their panties.

could i be wrong?
oh please god let me be wrong.
i happen to like much of what sanders is promoting,not everything,i have issues with some of what he proposes,but over-all i dig not only what he is saying but how he is going about conveying his message.

there is one huge problem if sanders gets the nod,and that is the support you mentioned.he has almost none in the legislature.which will make much of what he is trying to change in washington damn near impossible.

which will create it own political mess and just create fodder for the pundit class to ineffectually pontificate on,just so they can have a job.

i think it would be such a great thing for this country if sanders got the nomination,but the establishment has already made its intentions clear:they dont want sanders,they want hillary.the establishment does not play by the rules nor do they play nice.

playing by the rules and being decent is for the peasant class.

hope i am wrong.
i hope that every single point i made will never occur.
i hope that sanders gets the nod and things may change,because this country needs a fucking enema.
but my cynicism really struggles with that kind of hopeful optimism.

Capitalist totalitarianism is a term I'll have to remember, nice.

Being China, the exploitative companies and the repressive regimes are the same people, are they not? Even Hong Kong is no longer free of total government control, is it? I was under the impression that everything is 'owned' by the state in China, although some entities are given more autonomy than others to give an illusion of capitalism.

@Asmo
capitalist totalitarianism.
nice man,i like that one!

Oh I'm fully cognisant of the nature of the system, but it's telling that it originates from an entertainment company and a retailer rather than the Chinese gov...

It's capitalist totalitarianism. Using your customers as your advertising/enforcement, and as you said, playing on peoples selfishness. A viral promotion of obedience and conformity (because viral marketing started in China right? \= )

One of the most repressive regimes on the planet got schooled on invasive social engineering for better control by a couple of exploitative companies. Speaks volumes.

How is this different to any other social pressure pushing bullshit in other countries (US, Aus, UK).

Vocal people apply pressure to change the status quo. Look at the treatment of integrated and peaceful Muslims around the world at the moment...

It's not the Chinese gov. you have to worry about, it's Facebook, Google etc... Where the fuck do people think this evil ass data mining and social pressure started? Monetising your preferences and forcing people to bow to social (peer) pressure or face shaming. Tencent and Ali Baba are the real motivators behind this and even if China went full capitalist tomorrow, those companies would continue to promote this system and it would still work in exactly the same way.

The real horror is that we look at China and think that they are getting the short end of the stick. We need to look at ourselves. We're not free, we're consumers. We accumulate stuff and we think that equates to having choice. China is just following the sterling example set by others...

I've been pondering this a lot recently. Basically, I am the sole supervisor of a complex money making system - I've watched the Vice President manipulate the money in strange ways to make himself look efficient - another bullet-point on his LinkedIn page. All the while I'm not making anywhere close to what I should and they refuse to give me a raise - even though I single handedly bring in about $100k every week.

So - I just started coming to work super late EVERY DAY. And when I get called out for it, or threatened I just smile and say "definitely" in a real snarky way to anything they say because I know I have their fucking ballsacks in a cage and they can't do fucking shit about it.

So in the meantime, I bought 17 acres in the Santa Cruz mountains, it's completely off the grid, solar, grey water (still get good hotspot reception for sifting). Any day now, I'm just going to walk off the job and royally fuck the slave owner capitalist scum fucks and start living like a true patriot. Can't wait.

The article linked above mentions Röpke and Eucken as champions of free market capitalism, so to speak. Ironically, Bernie Sanders is quite in line with many of Walter Eucken's core ideas. For instance, Eucken declared legal responsibility to be an absolute necessity for competition within a market economy. Meaning that under Eucken's notion of capitalism, US prisons would be filled to the brim with white collar criminals from Wall Street and just about every multinational corporation, including Volkswagen.

Ludwig Erhard, credited by many to be the main figure behind the German "Wirtschaftswunder" (nothing wonderous about it), postulated real wage growth in line with productivity and target inflation as an imperative for a working social market economy. Again, very much in line with Bernie Sanders. Maybe even to the left of Sanders. A 5% increase in productivity and a target inflation of 2% requires a wage increase of 7%, otherwise your economy will starve itself of the demand it requires to absorb its increased production. You can steal it from foreign countries, like Germany's been doing for more than a decade now, but that kind of parasitic behaviour is generally frowned upon. Minimum wage in the US according to Erhard would be what now, $25-$30? So much for Sanders' $15...

Sennholz further mentions the CDU as a counterweight to the SPD. Well, the CDU's "Ahlener Programm" in 1947 declared that both marxism and capitalism failed the German people. In fact, it put significant blame for Germany's descent into fascism at the feet of the capitalistic system and called for a complete restart with focus NOT on the pursuit of profit and power, but the well-being of the people. They called for socialism with Christian responsibility, later watered down and known as social market economy or Rhine capitalism.

As for the economic policies conducted by the occupation forces: German industry, and large corporations in particular, were shackled for the role they played during the war. If you work tens of thousands of slaves to their death, you lose your right to... well, anything. If they had stripped IG Farben, Krupp and the likes down to the very bone, nobody could have complained. No economic liberties for the suppliers behind a genocide.

Next in line, the comparison with Germany's European neighbours. Sennholz wrote that piece in '55, so you can't really blame him for it. Italy had more growth from '58 onwards, France had more growth than its devastated neighbour from '62 onwards. The third Axis power, Japan, had significantly more growth from '58 onwards.

Why did some European and Asian countries grew much more rapidly than the US? Fair Deal? Nope, Bretton-Woods. Semi-fixed exchange rates caused the Deutsche Mark and the Yen to be ridiculously undervalued compared to the Dollar, thus increasing German and Japanese competitiveness at the cost of the US. Stable trade relations created by the semi-fixed exchange rates plus the highly expansive monetary policy in the US – that's what boosted Germany's economy most of all. Sort of like China over the last two decades, except we were needed as a bulwark against the evil, evil Commies, so the US kept going full throttle.

Our glorious policians tried the same policies (Adenauer/Erhard) in East Germany after reunification, even though global conditions were vastly different, and the result is the mess we now have over there. The entire industry was burned to the ground when they set the exchange rate too high, thus completely destroying what little competitiveness remained. Two trillion DM later, still no improvement. A job well done, truly.

Anyway, if anything, Bernie Sanders' program is closer to post-war German social market economic principles than to the East-German bastard of socialism, state capitalism and planned economy imposed by an autocratic system. However, even that messed up system produced significantly less poverty, both in quality and quantity, than the current US corporatocracy. No homelessness, no starvation, proper healthcare for everyone – reality in the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). And despite the fact that they were used as cheap labour for western corporations, no less. My first Ikea shelf was produced by our oppressed brothers and sisters in the East. The Wall "protected" the West from cheap labour while letting goods pass right through – splendid membrane, that one.

PS: Since that article was written in '55, I have to mention one of my city's most famous citizens: Otto Brenner. He was elected head of the IG Metal, this country's most influential trade union, in 1956 after having shared the office since 1952. The policies he fought for, and pushed through, during his 16 years in charge of the union are very much in line with what Sanders is campaigning for.

as a legal immigrant who left the US but has a lot of friends and family there, Ill just add two points-

1) a lot of immigrants take very good jobs in the US that low skilled americans are far, far away from doing. There is tons of research on how the US takes the best and the brightest from around the world, just in my immediate family there are 3 people with 3 degrees from the best american and european universities that work in the US who would instantly become the top experts in their fields if they decided to come home. Beyond what they pay in taxes, invest in the economy, real estate, their kids' educations etc etc, they make important contributions in their fields and Im quite sure that the US' big lead in technology for example would fall apart if american universities could no longer bring in international students. A lot of the technological breakthroughs happen in the US at US universities, but driven by foreign/immigrant students.

2/ Its not our fault if american businessmen are hypocrites like Trump who hire illegals then complain about them taking jobs from americans. Just like the factories in China that killed US manufacturing belong to corporations with mostly western management. By your own capitalist philosophies, if anyone is responsible it is american consumers unwilling to pay for fair trade and quality products, instead preferring cheap goods produced with slave wages- you cant have your cake and eat it too.

I have to admit that I'm partially on the "wrong" side of this one.

Housing, not being fired for being gay, that kind of stuff, I'm with John Oliver 100%.

But restaurants, bakers, etc. ... I dunno, I'm a little torn.

Places like Big Earl's in the clip put up a sign that says "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason". I tend to think that is a right that we should allow private businesses (NOT things that are set up for the public good like utilities, gas stations, govt. agencies, whatever) to have.

That is NOT to say that I approve of the way that these clowns exercise that right. Dude doesn't want to make cakes for same-sex weddings ... fine. You're a retard, passing up potential customers for a really stupid reason, and also possibly discouraging business from other people that empathize with those that you are denying service to, but ... hey, it is your goddamn business. If you don't want to make a cake for people who's name starts with a Q, I'd support your right to make that (equally dumbass) decision.

Kinda the same thing goes for Big Earl's. That might even be one of the cases where the comfort of your standard clientele (redneck bigots) is potentially more important/beneficial to your bottom line than the potential lost business that your discriminating policy causes. In other words, from a purely capitalistic viewpoint, the policy might be a net positive to the business. Maybe.


The one thing that gives me pause on those more private businesses being allowed to "deny service to anyone for any reason" is shifting from LGBT equality to race equality. If that cake maker refused to make cakes for a black wedding, I'd be more accepting that we need some government intervention. I know that my opinion should be the same in both instances, but I can only honestly admit that at the gut level, I have a different reaction to those 2 scenarios.

I sorta think that even the racist cake-maker should be allowed to continue to be racist (so long as we're talking cakes, and not something more *necessary* to public good), because a racist cake maker will probably put themselves out of business without the need for any government intervention. BUT, I'm sure there are places in the US where that wouldn't have been true (and where it wouldn't be true today), and we needed the push of federal mandate to force such people to remove heads from asses. Maybe the same thing is true for LGBT discrimination.

But I do still feel conflicted about it. Even though I know I shouldn't.

Your video, Key and Peele: Terrorists Turned Capitalists, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 10 Badge!

This is one of the reasons why I hate internet feuds - everybody involved seems to feel that it's not only ok but necessary to give their point of view in as one-sided, hyperbolic a way as possible. Like the Reddit CEO resignation, with some describing it as a clueless venture capitalist (Pao) ripping out the infrastructure heart of reddit until a popular uprising managed to stop her, and others calling it a white power assault on a woman of color (Pao).

The Techdirt article seems like a reasonable enough take on this situation; I'm not sure the friend testimony adds much. I am happy to learn of, and a little worried by, the Canadian vaguery of a peace bond. It sounds a lot like an asbo, which is also pretty icky.

This was his comment about the video.

“Who are the officers?”
Officer Aymee Race (badge #6856), she works for the Utah Transit Authority Police Department. Name and badge number are given in the video because it's in the public interest. The officers in the video are public servants acting unlawfully.

“You brought it on yourself! You wouldn’t have been given a ticket if you would have just politely complied!”
I knew that if I stood up for my rights they were going to give me a ticket (or worse), but $50 is a small price to pay for my dignity. “The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose.” –Fredrick Douglas

“You set up the video! You went there to harass the cops!”
No. I didn’t. This is my only youtube video, and frankly I wish it had never happened.

“You should never insult police officers! You’re only going to make them mad and get it worse!”
You’re the problem with America. Bootlicking cowards like you make me sick. You all deserve the government you have.

“You should never give an officer your I.D.! “
Utah is one of the few states with a show me your papers law. I had a busy schedule that day and I couldn't afford to be arrested. But thanks for the amateur legal advice.

“You’re grammar is horrible and discredits your point!”
I’m not very computer savvy so I had a cheap Bangladeshi freelancer edit the video through skype. I didn't even take the time to review his work. I didn't notice it had posted and gone viral until months later.

“Did you sign the ticket?”
Yes, with the words “by coercion” written next to my signature. Like I said, $50 is nothing, and I had very important things to do that day, I couldn’t afford to be arrested.

“Is the UTA private property or public property? Why are police working security?”
Both unfortunately. The UTA is a great example of crony-capitalism. It’s a tax payer subsidized private company.

A note from the owner of this channel:

Since this video first went viral I have received many death threats and I’m sure the officers involved have received death threats. I was once a very outspoken anarcho-capitalist, but as time has passed my political views have matured. All I want now is to tend to my business and live my life. All the anti-police violence is not conducive to freedom. Things are getting bad. And it’s only going to get worse. A lot worse. I want nothing to do with it. When the shit hits the fan I'll be watching the U.S. government and the revolutionaries have at it from my laptop on the beach in Tahiti. I'm not going to support changing an evil system for a slightly less evil one (or a worse one). A real revolution is a philosophical one, once a revolution becomes violent it is already lost. And frankly the human race has let me down. I know now that human beings are just not ready for peace. What are human beings fit for other than being ruled? It is what it is. I’m now a social darwinist, I'll support whoever benefits my business and my family. ..and political instability is not beneficial to either one. Anarcho-Capitalists like to compare livestock to people and say that animals (humans) would be able to live free without the farmer (ruling class). Well, I disagree; some species of animals are so stupid, so domesticated, that they would starve without the farmer. And I think that is the case with 99% of the human species. Human beings need government, and they usually get the government they deserve. Don’t get me wrong, I do have empathy for the people being oppressed, but I now understand the ruling class, I see were they’re coming from. Again, I want nothing to do with politics. I’m not a social activist. All I care about is my business and my family. So please leave me alone.