#1 I clicked "ignore" after responding to his post. That is what I have no problem with doing.

#2 Bullshit. (sorry but it is) Hundreds if not thousands of people get arrested and prosecuted regularly for drug possession, drug selling, and even drug use. Tell me what's been decriminalized!

#3 The state is doing quite a bit in Oakland, actually, like preventing the private institutions that would solve these problems from arising in the fist place from setting up there (but instead hold failed monopolies over those industries). For example, there are no legalized drug dealers (See bullshit #2). Again, that kind of gang activity happens on a "public" street. It does not happen on private property. And even if it did, it'd be no one's business but the owners'.

#4 If this was even close to true, then it's even more proof of the superiority of private police over "public" law enforcement. Because, like I said, you don't see this kind of thing happening on private property, do you?

#5. Wrong. Businesses will take care of that if given an incentive to move there. Have you not heard of people complaining about (so-called) "gentrification?"

#6. Huh? Really? So, are there no business permits needed to set up a business in Oakland? Do the business owners and residents of Oakland not have to pay taxes? Is there no open carry for law-abiding citizens? (now there will be it seems). Is there no enforced rent control in Oakland? If you don't see any regulations being enforced, then you are willfully ignorant.

#7. There are no gangs at Disney because it is private property and its owners will not put up with something so bad for business as gangs. Disneyland and Google have gentrified the neighborhoods they are in -- they were not always low crime areas as they were before they moved in.

"Oakland is a high crime area with little money for security."

Yeah, those usually go together. The ultimate results of statist interventions are always poverty and crime.

#8 Much of the violent crime happens in the "public" spaces, like the streets. Sure, there are break-ins to private homes, etc. but as you say, the poverty does not let people hire private security, and the "public" police (that have monopolized that industry) are, like you point out, completely useless to the tax-paying residents who live there.


#9 I'd rather I wouldn't have to pay for taxes and pay for my own security than having to give the money to the state in exchange for getting nothing in return. In fact, I'm aware of several security services that are available to people living in the ghetto for as little as $35/month.


#10 So, only gangsters can afford guns now? Maybe it will be cheaper without the gun "permit" costs. Or the restrictions about buying them more cheaply online.

And I highly doubt the peoople in Oakland can't afford guns, given how many guns there are in Oakland. But, for the sake of argument, lets say it's true. If not for the illegality of the drug trade, then gangsters would also not be able to afford guns (the illegality of the drugs is what's driving up the price and, as a result, the profitability of gangsterism). And if it wasn't for the regulations, Walmart would make sure to provide more affordable armaments, just like they do in other states.

I recommend spending just a few minutes inside the Oakland traffic court and you'll see how many "hardworking upstanding people" there are who somehow manage to pay for hundreds of dollars in fines and/or do community service for an equivalent minimum wage to pay for these. You could easily get a gun at Walmart for much less.


"Before someone claims I have no idea of what I speak, my brother lived in East Oakland..."

Well, if you think Oakland is a libertarian "dream," then you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Having a brother who lived in Oakland for a year does not make you an expert on (or even vaguely familiar with) what a libertarian "dream" place looks like (or even -- as you apparently reveal -- what actually goes on in Oakland).


Just the fact that, as you say, Oakland is rather poor makes it a non-libertarian city at all. A free market society/economy (cronyism is not a free market, so don't even go there) has much less poverty than a 'regulated' one.

Sure, if you go from a state-dependent "economy" to a free market overnight, without having had time to rebuild the private institutions that the state demolished and/or took over and/or monopolized, then, sure you may have a chaotic transition period. That's why a controlled dismantlement is far more preferable to an anarchy that comes about by sudden collapse. But, you have to take what you can get.

(As we may find out first hand) the problem with a government going bankrupt is that, at first, it may seem like a good thing, but it can also bring about a worse repression from the state. Praxeology cannot answer the unknown. It falls more within the realm of thymological prediction/analysis.

What about all those jobs created to demolish these houses?

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 8 Badge!

Congratulations! Your video, Retired police Captain demolishes the War on Drugs, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 8 Badge!

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 31 Badge!

Your video, Retired police Captain demolishes the War on Drugs, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

It looks to me that the "cap" is the part that is sticking out a few floors down, and also the stuff above that. It's hard to tell because they designed it to closely resemble the original building, so it is less noticeable. If you look closely at the top "floors" they don't have any windows, like the real floors below the part that sticks out. So when they first started to build "the demolisher" cap, the height of the building+cap probably looked like it grew a few floors.

One from New Orleans, about an urban art project in a building that was about to be demolished.

http://videosift.com/video/Rosenwalds-Dying-Days

*spoilers*

tesserect was explained more in "Captain America" and being as this is effectively a culmination of all the previous movies, it shouldn't be detrimental to expect people to have seen the previous movies.

2 Asian extras killed in a row? I guess that's there for comedies sake, but I hardly see how that's against the movie again.

The little girl can find banner because he's helping cure the native population of some plague, and it even says in the movie "You found me?" "We never lost you".

The "Second pissing contest" was the exact reason loki wanted to be captured in the first place. He wanted to turn the Avengers against each other so they'd never work together, crossing two points off right there.

The entire alien invasion is a threat because it's demolishing the city. Just because we never actively see anybodies head explode in a family movie, doesn't mean that people aren't getting killed. The city is in flames, and buildings are being destroyed. Kinda doubt everybody is totally okay in that.

I could go on, but I really feel that if I do my nerd muscle will explode. Seriously, I saw the movie twice, both times when it was in theatres months ago, and I still managed to explain 6 of his points away with ease.

"The new Chinese laws make it illegal to demolish private property by force without an agreement."

Wow, property rights! Chinese society is advancing by leaps and bounds!

Next thing you know, they'll be raising the age of consent above 14!

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Ahh the "I know you are but what am I" argument. I see you've fallen to @bobknight33 levels of competence in debating.

Time for bed, but feel free to make another long winded self-important, wall of text post that is easily demolished in a sentence or two. I'll read it and chuckle in the morning.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm not the one doing the dodging here, VoodooV.
>> ^VoodooV

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^spoco2:
Exactly... this is why 99.9999999999999999999% of all conspiracy theories are absolute bunk.
All this shit that people think they 'know' about 9/11, and how it MUST have been thermite, MUST have been re-rigged to demolish.
They really need to get their heads around the fact that what they've come up with is something that is maybe, possible plausible but in NO WAY the most likely, the most reasonable, or even probable... they just come up with convoluted ways that things could conceivably occur and then decide that that MUST be fact.

Speaking of the Kennedy assassination there was no reason to kill him. None. People think it's because he was going to pull the troops out of Vietnam but he was never going to do that, they took one quote and turned it into a promise of his to pull them out like he was fighting more powerful interests. He was a bastard like all the other bastards. His historian even had to rewrite the books to make it look like he was a big pacifist.


there has been various speculation that Kennedy wanted to shut down the fed.
if true, i imagine that would have gotten him rather unliked by essentially the most powerful people in the world.

meh, I hope he lives to see the place condemned and demolished...