He's a world hero. Whether he thinks he deserves it or not, or whether he intended to or not, at the very least he's started the process that will wake the population of this planet up.

There are a lot of problems for us to get past - peak oil, global warming and corruption of the capitalist system. The sooner we get started on fixing those things, the easier they will be to fix.

Human governments can learn a lot from nature, including the natural Emergent orders of ant colonies. These are anarchic systems which adapt into collective (i.e., socialist or communist) or transactional (i.e., capitalist) forms of functionality in the absence of central control.

I'm advocating passivity because I don't recognise overpopulation as a threat, more an inconvenience, and one that we couldn't really prevent even if we wanted to.

I don't see what's preposterous or optimistic about taking widely accepted birth rate data and projecting based off that. Birth rates are predictable and stable sampled over a large population. The data consistently shows that as societies come out of poverty, their birth rates fall. The only assumption here is that there isn't another GFC event that hinders growth which at this point is not particularly likely.

All taken into account we already know it's plateauing, and have known for decades. This isn't a hypothesis, it's happening right now. Unless you can show me why this trend will suddenly and irrevocably reverse, despite population data being incredibly stable and predictable historically, it seems the onus is on you to explain why you're so pessimistic.

Again, I think you're still conflating (1) what I want / whether it's bad versus (2) whether it could plausibly be stopped. I would also rather live in a less populated world. At current rates of technology and resource utilisation, things would be cheaper, there'd be more to go around. Reality is not like that. But as I said before, every policy focus has an opportunity cost. I don't see a plateauing population as a threat and I would rather see that effort devoted to poverty which will help reduce it anyway.

We're nowhere near an economic bubble. Maybe a short term stock market valuation bubble right now, but there's plenty of economic under-utilisation in the US and Europe, and China and other developing countries have decades to grow.

The term technological bubble is a bit nonsensical. You can have a technology sector bubble but actual physical technology which works now, will not magically stop working tomorrow based on inflated expectations. If you're saying instead we'll reach some cusp of innovation, well people have predicting that for decades.

We're nowhere near a peak oil event. Every time people say current known reserves are dwindling, they either (1) discover a huge reserve in under developed countries that were previously not surveyed (Africa and parts of SE Asia at the moment), or (2) something like fraking comes along which unlocks new supply. The US is forecast to be the largest oil exporter by 2020 based on that second point.

Hell, I'll play devil's advocate with you. Suppose we do reach a glut. We'll know this at least a decade ahead based on dwindling new reserve discoveries. The price of energy will leap up far, far ahead of us running out. That will spur innovation in more efficient sources of energy and will incentivise both individuals and businesses to be more energy efficient. A gradual adjustment like I've talked about endlessly here. Why am I wrong?

Environmental damage is a different issue and something that I agree needs to actually be addressed. I'm sure if you search back through my posts you'll see me talking about the economic rationale of addressing this directly when corporations who pollute aren't subject to the negative externalities that they impose in our current capitalist system and that will inherently create issues. Hopefully countries will take note of the smog clouds in China's big cities.

I went to the Stormcloudsgathering website, and they don't have any information about their organisation at all (that I can find). Anyone know their background?
edit: this site seems to have the best discussion on him (Aaron - the site owner)
http://www.revleft.com/vb/stormcloudsgathering-t182981/index.html?s=9d21dce2306298a909c1fac28deddd7f&

It appears he's a libertarian free market capitalist type, not sure who's funding him though.

(Because I know you won't really read any links: Texas VOTED to REMOVE Capitalism from their textbooks. Yes, you read that correctly. Texas, REMOVED the word Capitalism from their textbooks because of negative connotations. Instead, you should use the term Free-Market Enterprise. So yeah, good thing those pesky liberals didn't vote to keep the word capitalism in the textbooks . . . )

You do know we have an education BECAUSE of liberalism. Much like everything else conservatives hold sacred . . .

You WILL mind dumb kids when they can't pay their taxes to support your liberal/socialist social security checks later in life, or the roads you have to drive on.

You WILL mind dumb kids when statistically speaking, less educated men are more likely to commit violent crimes and less educated women will have more children, which means more food stamps. You know, the things conservatives hate spending .5% of our annual government budget on.

So while us "liberals" have been petitioning for more teacher freedom, higher pay to attract better teachers, been against standardized tests and against for-profit schools, you conservatives can keep trying to hawk your proven to fail for-profit "capitalist" schools.

Oh, and I hate to tell you, but public schools don't teach kids to hate capitalism. Neither does the Lego Movie either. Turn off Fox News once in a while and step outside. Maybe talk to a total stranger (which means putting the gun down for a minute and not Standing Your Ground). Which coincidently, would diminish greatly with a robust liberal education. (In case you didn't get the play on words, as in teaching kids more than how to recite words and flip hamburgers. It's called A Mile Wide, An Inch Deep.

But hey, you would know all this if the Texas School Board wasn't eliminating pieces of history because they don't fit their current political agenda.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/culture/texas-school-board-approves-controversial-textbook-changes/954/

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20131122-texas-education-board-approves-science-books-that-fully-cover-evolution.ece (They wanted to prevent evolution from being taught despite the piles of evidence supporting it.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html You want to talk about "bias"? Yeah, conservatives are trying really hard to rewrite history in their favor by making sure no experts ever have a say in the selection of textbook material, but people who "feel" like there is a bias. You know, because truth has a well known liberal bias.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/23/education/texas-education-board-flags-biology-textbook-over-evolution-concerns.html?_r=0

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jun/21/how-texas-inflicts-bad-textbooks-on-us/

Yeah, I'm sorry, but the facts don't bear out in your case. Except, that our system is going downhill, but it's not because of their "liberal" education, that's for sure.

Once again, the neocon answer is dismissiveness and insult, with no logic, reason, or facts.
You certainly don't have me pegged, sir. I'm not a dumb kid of today, nor did I spend much time in public schooling. 1290, 3.5, 138 and graduated...sorry to disappoint or confuse.
Your comprehension of my position is appallingly incorrect, and knee jerkingly insulting to boot.
I have both been taught, and learned from experience, that capitalism is not the best answer to every problem, nor is liberalism (not that they are opposites or related). Neither is evil or good, those are things only people can be. Neither is a panacea.
Educators want nothing of the sort...you are describing baby sitters.
Wow, amazing that you aren't chanting "We're #1" like most neocons mindlessly do. I'll give you props for that little victory. I agree, our position is sad, more so when you consider the cost we pay for that result, and the costs we will pay because of it.
I do think you are (redacted) wrong that any TEACHERS want this kind of mind numbing chanting or dumbing down of their students...I do agree there aren't enough teachers teaching, and too many babysitters in their place. I also think this is due, in large part, to the lack of respect and compensation available to a public school teacher....you've already shown the former quite clearly, and your political affiliates have seen to the latter.
You seem to have convinced yourself that, since I don't go along with your narrow train of thought, that I'm all for, and 100% behind the current education system, I never even hinted at that straw man arguement. What I did say is that capitalist business always does the least work possible to get the most pay out, and that's not what we want for our tax dollars, especially not our education system. As was said before, this particular flaw is an issue caused by for-profit privatization with not enough regulation, which if it must be politicized is a right wing baby.

Don't need to "Edumacate" myself thanks. As for arguing a point? Well, with certain closed minded conspiracy theorists it is pointless. Especially with someone who sees ALL the problems wrapped neatly up in a capitalist plot. Their answer? they have none other than "overthrow those in control." Well, you don't need to look far to see what anarchy brings. Or should I spell it out for you? It brings exactly that; Anarchy, in fighting, tribalism, persecution and pain. You stick to your childish revolutionary talk and I will, with all its flaws, stick to the best there is at the minute ie, capitalism and democracy (such as it is).

Amusing, as many people who have spent any real time examining economic issues and social justice would call your dismissive attitude the naive one. Try actually arguing on a point by point basis against the economic exploitation that lies at the basis of current capitalist systems where jobs = survival and the whole system's been carved up into little feudal kingdoms instead of just accepting claims on their face simply because you've been told your whole life how wonderful our way of living is for all of us.

If you approach the task with any sincerity, you'll first realize that there's a metric fuck ton of awful things that we have done in the name of economic domination to preserve our power over others (as a nation, as a collection of businesses, as a herd of lazy people buying products made by child labor simply because it's convenient), and you'll likely then also realize that your history book was just as rose-tinted as the Japanese governments' when they refuse to talk about Japan's war crimes.

Edumacate yourself and then see if you can still just throw out trite dismissals like that.

Lol, without looking I just knew there had to be a tired, anti-capitalist, naive, rant by chin.

Because right wing elitists led by a corporate-sponsored neoliberal capitalist in Venezuela against a democratically elected regime massively supported by the country's impoverished and nationalist neo natzis like Spovoda in Ukraine need Jared's support!

> "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.

Spoiler warning: If you have not seen the Lego Movie, and you want to (you should, it's great) DO NOT READ..

If they had watched the movie, they'd understand why the "Bad Guy" was named President Business. It had nothing to do with business. [spoiler]At the end of the movie, the "God/Creator" character that is discussed by the main characters is revealed to be a little boy, that's playing with his Father's massively awesome Lego set. The boy, who is not allowed to play with the Legos, thinks of his father as a business man that never creates anything unique/creative with his Legos.[/spoiler]

It is not an Anti-capitalist movie. But this video is another perfect example of Fox reacting to something without having a proper understanding of what they're reacting to.

And what you just said was relevant to anything other than your own narrow preconceived notions of what is or is not a worthwhile use of someone's time and property?

What I was doing was taking your initial argument and demonstrating the absurdity at it's core by extrapolating it's logical consequences. This is what one does when one has been taught to argue at a level beyond pre-school debating classes. I haven't just "read some Chomsky" I have spent my entire academic career studying Philosophy and linguistics/rhetoric.

Chomsky and I actually disagree on many things & frankly the fact you would choose him and not say Jacques Fresco, Jean Jacques Rousseau or Slavoj Zizek etc. with whom my beliefs have a much greater affinity suggest that you yourself have a paper thin grounding in the political and philosophical subjects you are trying to pull me up on. (and to be clear I don't fully agree with any of those people either, my political philosophy is based upon my own conclusions built up over years of study and consideration)


So lets be clear, generating $7000 of income is to you a pointless activity? (a point you have consistently refused to acknowledge as it undermines your entire argument). What about trying to entertain people? Are all attempts at comedy fruitless because they didn't make YOU laugh?

"Immature", "funny" and "necessary" are all highly subjective concepts.

Clearly YOU didn't find it funny, others (about 7 fucking million in fact!) did.

Clearly YOU thought the video creator lacked maturity, plenty of people would regard his sense of timing, context and dare I say it low level satire as indicative of a potentially very mature and cognicent individual. (not saying he is but the evidence supports either notion)

But most of all NOTHING in the universe is demonstrably necessary, not even the universe itself. The very concept of necessity or usefulness is entirely subjective in it's nature. We as humans invented it, nature has no such qualms, it simply exists and continues to do so (unless you wan't to bring God into this at which point my eyes will likely glaze over).

This did start as your observation regarding the "pointless" destruction of a phone, an observation I was suggesting had it's basis in little more than your own narrow preconceptions about what is and is not a laudable use of ones time and resources.

The point about other evils in the world was an (unsuccessful) attempt to point out the absurdity of getting your knickers in a twist about something so trivial it's almost funny. What you consider a serious problem on the global level specifically is less important than the simple fact that this dude smashing up a phone is utterly negligible by comparison to virtually anything one might care to mention. The best counter you have here far as I can see is to suggest that everything is pointless/subjective which would naturally be totally self defeating. (or to backtrack and redefine your position as one of mere distaste and aesthetic preference rather than an objective truth as you did)

Maybe your a Randist or an anarcho-capitalist or something. That's fine and while I might disagree with the premise of those positions their proponents would support my core notion just the same. i.e. getting angry and this dude smashing up his phone is by a country mile the most inconsequential and asinine point of contention in this whole discussion.


Also to be clear, I utterly reject the entire notion of the left/right wing paradigm and you're attempt to once again put my argument in a box of your own design (i.e. straw man again) is not going to work.

I'm not anti capitalist I'm anti Nepotism and Cronyism. My own ideas about how to fix the world involve both capitalist and socialist principles (along with replacing "democracy" with "meritocracy"). If you had enquired further rather than just generalising my suggestions into a straw man to support your own argument you may have had the opportunity to realise this and engage with the ideas intellectually (rather than as a reactionary).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Learn to think critically instead of dressing up your own prejudices as objective facts (and attacking the arguer instead of the argument itself).

Some might consider an inability to separate subjective preconceptions from objective facts a far greater sign of immaturity. One of the reasons children are considered immature is because they cannot tell or control where their own Ego stops and other peoples begin. (though naturally this is itself a subjective notion and should probably never be defined as an objective truth either)

I don't expect you to respond like a Harvard professor but please at least engage with the content of the argument rather than painting me into a box and trying to assassinate my character. I'm sure you're probably a reasonably intelligent person and I'm always happy to back down or take back arguments if I'm presented with a well thought out reason why I might be wrong etc.

Wait!?!?! Did she just say "To Hollywood it's all about the bottom line." RIGHT AFTER: "It's well known that Hollywood is full of the far left who are all anti-capitalist." . . . . . . . . . Talk about hoping on the insane train full speed.