>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why not answer some tough questions?

@blankfist, since you seem to be too chicken to take up DFT's challenge, how about I try to play devil's advocate and try to argue the libertarian position for you.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Underregulated markets in early America resulted in slavery, child labor, monopolies, labor abuse and the great depression. Why should we want to return to those dark days?

We wouldn't return to those days. To take on each in turn:

1. Slavery
   
   No one would be compelled by violence to do anything they like. People may choose to sell their entire lifetime worth of labor voluntarily if they so choose, but they will not be coerced to do so with violence.
   
   
2. Child labor
   
   Again, no one would be compelled by violence to do (or not do) things. If children don't want to work, they may choose not to. But if you're 9 years old and want to work 80 hours a week to help your family, what right does the government have to coerce people not to?
   
   
3. Monopolies
   
   Natural monopolies, where the cost of entering a sector of the market outweighs the expected return, are just part of market economics, and should be tolerated. Market leaders that become a de facto monopoly, but do not actually enjoy 100% market share (such as Microsoft Windows), are not monopolies, and also a natural result of the free market, so government must not interfere.
   
   Government sponsored monopolies, like the USPS, are evil in ways the others are not because their existence is based on violent coercion, not natural market choice.
   
   
4. Labor abuse
   
   Everyone is free to quit and seek employment elsewhere. It isn't abuse if you voluntarily subject yourself to it.
   
   
5. The Great Depression
   
   This was caused by government interference in the market, an no amount of historical or economic facts will ever convince me otherwise.
   

Of course there's no guarantee that none of these dark things will come back, I'm just saying it's totally legitimate for them to come back provided no violence is used to coerce people. Coercion in the form of economic desperation is totally okay though.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Deregulation and privatization always seem to result in massive unemployment, economic inequity, inflation and corruption. Is this the desired effect?

Deregulation in Chile is a huge success story. Ditto for China, Ireland, southeast Asia, etc.

On the other hand, the economies of Cuba and North Korea have remained depressingly stagnant. Everyone's equally poor.

To use John McCain's turn of phrase "I'm not worried about who's getting a bigger slice of the pie, I'm trying to grow the pie!"

Just...don't ask me about Sweeden, they give me a rash with their high equality, high tax, high growth model. Must be something unique and exceptional about Scandinavians that's superior to us Americans.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
There is no evidence to suggest a libertarian society would function at all. Why should I join you on blind faith?

It's about doing what's right. When Lincoln tried to free the slaves, no one knew how the economy could function without slave labor. They did it anyway, because you have to do what's morally right!

In this case, we're talking about ending violent coercion, because everyone knows that only people who work for the government ever use violent coercion. Eliminate government, and it'll be gone forever!

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why do corporations fund your movement? What do they have to gain out of supporting your cause?

Good question, it must be patriotism, or altruism. Rich people are actually really nice, and very generous!

They're willing to adopt a radically unregulated, untaxed world, knowing that it's somehow against their interests. Much more altruistic than agreeing to let their taxes go up so the government can waste it on children's education, helping the poor, the sick, the elderly, maintaining roads...

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why does this American version of libertarianism require absolute fealty to market capitalism? Doesn't that kind of totalitarianism go against the concept of liberty?

No, you must adopt my narrow conception of liberty! Government telling you that you have to serve black people = tyranny, businesses telling you that you have to submit to a drug test as a condition of employment = liberty.

Once properly understood, it's about fealty to nonviolence, at least government-based nonviolence. Corporations using violence to enforce their rules on the use of their property is self-defense, and therefore totally morally justifiable. Duh.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why is it that violence, blackmail and intimidation seem to be the primary ways of bringing these kinds of free market changes to other countries around the world? Liberty at the butt of a gun?

Only governments do those things! Wealthy businessmen would never go along with that, because they're all paragons of moral virtue. They'd never let a thing like considerable personal gain motivate them to call for these things in the first place...

I'd like to see mandatory drug testing to get income tax deductions for mortgage interest. I'd like to see mandatory drug testing to get a high school diploma. I'd like to see random mandatory drug testing to get a driver's license.

If we can expose the hypocrasy of people who break drug laws with impunity because they are never scrutinized, then this insanity of the war on drugs may end.

>> ^Ti_Moth:

How on Earth do they justify this?


Since when do they have to justify anything?

Ugh, don't be so deluded.

You never hear about the TSA capturing a terrorist cause there are no terrorist.

No one that works for the TSA is working there for National Security. They work there because of the guaranteed employment and benefits.

You can sleep easy at night because you're not the one being detain without cause, or having your loved ones deported or your toddler molested then drug tested.

I know you've been indoctrinated with endless propaganda.. but it's time to think [and see] for yourself.

>> ^MayaBaba:

Transportation Security Administration officers are working on the edge where bad people are and bad things happen.

They are doing a job I for one would not wish to do, they are doing the job well!


What do you think they should do when they discover a device on a passenger?

I'd like to believe you, but I can't imagine that they have given it that much thought. Seems more like the police in a third world country's "we do it because we are paid to do it" mentality. Though I'm willing to give your idea more thought. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^vaporlock:
Who are the people who think that this is a good idea?

They're called statists.

>> ^vaporlock:

Who are the people who think that this is a good idea?


They're called statists.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Not to defend the judge or the "war on drugs" at all but, if the kid killed himself over going to JH, he had bigger issues. It's sad that he didn't get help but that part isn't the fault of the judge.


At some point it isn't, however......over punishing petty crimes even if he didn't take bribes for it is bad. Add in taking money for it, makes it worse. He had incentive to send people who were obviously not meant to be there away for crazy amounts of time given the "crimes" (which are highly debatable and subjective). It's not just the judges responsibility or for that matter a jury's responsibility to send people away for as much time as possible, but also to make sure the person is mentally capable of understanding that they committed a "crime" and that the punishment given them will correct the problem. If you got a guy who has no record, has a trivial offense for a multi-offender..but one that for a first time offender is so minor as to be laughable. The scare of being in front of the judge would often times correct the issue, but if not, they hand out probationary periods and mandatory drug tests to show them how inconvenient their life can become if they keep up with the drug path.

He chose, for money, to skip all other avenues at his disposal on a first time offender with a very very very very very very minor non-violent offense and sentence him with time in juvenile detention. I mean that alone could very well ruin your chances at anything since anyone who knows you spent time in juvenile detention is gonna wonder how fucked up you are...since historically this is a place they put the too young to be tried as adult whack jobs....or the kids who never seem to attempt to turn it around and keep stealing cars or mugging people.

And to think that if he had probated the kid, there would have been a chance to find out the kid had mental issues? Maybe he was bipolar or schizo. Many doctors find that bi-polar sufferers tend to self-medicate via drinking or drugs. The kid wasn't given a chance to be diagnosed, he was stuck straight into the worst possible place someone with a fragile mental state should be stuck...no "alternative" was offered him...it wasn't a choice anyone but the judge could have made. And he made that choice for dollars in his pocket, condemned a kid with a potentially fragile mental state to a living hell for someone that age...who came out broken. Because why bother? He was shown that a judge will not show leniency he will put you away for as long as possible, whether it's the best option or not. I mean seriously, that is a system that promotes you "die by cop" every time you break the law..otherwise you might spend life in prison putting cash in some judges pocket.

It is most definitely the fault of the judge, and it's even more so if the judge didn't have him mentally evaluated or the government didn't try to help the kid out when he got out. That is all on the judge, he exacerbated this kid's problems by an immeasurable amount.

If it's a requirement of the employer, then that's fine - it's their job, so they can arbitrarily set up demands for it - and pay accordingly. A union interjects itself between the employer and worker as a third party essentially going "if you want to work for that guy over there, you gotta talk with us".

It doesn't feel right.
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^gwiz665:
When unions start being monopolizing - "you must be a part of this union to work here, or you're a scab" I have a problem with them.
What's the issue with "you must be a part of this union to work here, or you're a scab"?
When you agree to work for an employer, you're required to agree to all sorts of things you might not like. For example, as a programmer you're pretty much always required to sign away the intellectual property rights to anything you develop for the company. Hell, a lot of times you have to consent (nice oxymoron there) to drug testing, and maybe even an FBI background check.
At the most fundamental level, you're agreeing to let them own your labor for X number of hours, in return for money. Unless you're exceedingly lucky, chances are you'll be asked to do things in those hours that you wouldn't have chosen to do if you weren't being paid.
It seems to me that compared to those things, being required to become a part of a union isn't really the worst of the things you agree to when you agree to work for an employer.
If you don't like that condition (or any of the others), you're free to find work elsewhere.

>> ^gwiz665:

When unions start being monopolizing - "you must be a part of this union to work here, or you're a scab" I have a problem with them.

What's the issue with "you must be a part of this union to work here, or you're a scab"?

When you agree to work for an employer, you're required to agree to all sorts of things you might not like. For example, as a programmer you're pretty much always required to sign away the intellectual property rights to anything you develop for the company. Hell, a lot of times you have to consent (nice oxymoron there) to drug testing, and maybe even an FBI background check.

At the most fundamental level, you're agreeing to let them own your labor for X number of hours, in return for money. Unless you're exceedingly lucky, chances are you'll be asked to do things in those hours that you wouldn't have chosen to do if you weren't being paid.

It seems to me that compared to those things, being required to become a part of a union isn't really the worst of the things you agree to when you agree to work for an employer.

If you don't like that condition (or any of the others), you're free to find work elsewhere.

Schizophrenia runs in my family. So....I've known and loved and lived with lots of schizophrenics. Pot definitely helped manage the symptoms of those who chose to use it. One was even told by his shrink to continue smoking it as it worked really well for him provided he didn't combine it with alcohol or other drugs. For an exboyfriend, self medicating with pot prevented him from self medicated with harder substances.

It also doesn't cause nasty side effects like tardive dyskensia, which is a worry with traditionally prescribed anti-psychotics. I'm not suggesting anyone stop taking their anti psychotics and rely on marijuana, I'm just saying, I've got a load of anecdotal evidence that tells me pot is often helpful to schiozphrenics.

When my schizophrenic cousin joey (a regular pot smoker since age 14) killed himself, he hadn't smoked in 4 months.... he was keeping his urine clean while on probation.... if he had failed one more drug test, they would've sent him to jail. he was 24 years old, his crime? possession of marijuana. My aunt says those last 4 months were the most terrifying of either of their lives. joey's symptoms were so terrifying that he threw himself in front of a train.

fuck prohibition.

>> ^vaire2ube:

Yes, yes he can.
http://blog.norml.org/2010/05
/26/latest-research-on-pot-and-schizophrenia-runs-contrary-to-mainstream-media-hype/

Age Of Onset Of Schizophrenia Not Associated With Marijuana Use, Study Says
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=8213
In fact, it may even help people with the disease cope with their symptoms.
Or they rapin e'rebody. Probably 50/50, so lets outlaw a plant.
I think pot use led to the purchase of a large capacity magazine to increase his killing power. Therefore we should outlaw pot and make weapons more powerful.

I don't know if it's training or personal experience, but there has been a plethora of police officers, sheriffs, etc that have only been stopped from escalating situations involving my brother by my father or another police officer who is less gung ho to kick it up to 10 on the action meter.

My brother has something that is obviously wrong with his mental state, it was believed it was drug related (marijuana specifically...possibly laced) but after he spent over a month in jail for outbursts in court and during drug testing he was worse. My parents have tried to get him treated but it's remarkably difficult to force an adult into treatment they refuse, all it takes is a no from the patient at any point and the doctor will stop whether they agree or not....he was even released from psychological evaluation holds by different doctors than the ones who placed them (72 hour hold suddenly becomes 4 hours type deal). The police agencies would rather lock him up for months on end than send him to a facility to force treatment on him. That said, this had some situations where the majority of police basically wanted to kick his ass when they got involved and were restrained by my father or another police officer.

One situation was where he snapped for the first time, he wasn't hurting anyone but he did smash a cell phone and lock himself in the house. From the story multiple people called police, my mother, a younger brother, and neighbors. They showed up, he had locked himself in the house. My dad shows up and tells them to wait outside and he'll get him to come out peacefully, they tell my dad to move aside and that they are going to have to kick in the door to "deal with him". At this point my dad tells them "You're not kicking in my damn door, so either you leave or I get him to come out." They attempt to kick in the door anyway, leaving a big black mark down the door from their boots. Basically they were ready to go in and rough him up on the notion that he was inside murdering everyone....even though you could see his figure on the other side of the glass door holding the lock so it couldn't be unlocked.


Second, he was at the courthouse...this would be after he's had the law called on him multiple times for acting irrationally...trying to get someone to make it so my parents could force treatment on him to try to get him thinking more clearly. He's in court for drug possession, he rants at the judge, she let's him go. One out of half a dozen police officers there tells the others that he'll handle it, because the rest of them want to tackle and subdue him thinking he's high on something. They take him over to be drug tested by the judge's orders, he refuses like he does everything else...the one officer who took responsibility for him stopped them from taking him down yet again. He called and got the judge's permission to arrest him for the outbursts and refusal....and they stick him in jail. They attempt to get him a mental evaluation, he's sent to a mental evaluation facility. So my brother lucks out and gets an officer who actually tries to get him the help he needs through the judge where the rest of the officers wanted to tackle him and lock him up. But then they fuck up yet again, send him to be tested for competency but nothing else. So he still has an undiagnosed and untreated mental disorder, but they find him competent because he understands why he is on trial. They gladly gloss over the fact that the only medication he will willing take is marijuana or pill form equivalents of THC called marinol or something like that for cancer patients....which they won't give him...and he's on trial for drug possession. No druggie in their right mind is going to ask to be treated with an illegal substance when that's whats keeping him from being out on the streets where he can get more drugs.

He got put on house arrest after all this (not even for the drug charges because he has never been sentenced on this yet due to all this competency stuff and how slow the court is). He was court ordered to seek treatment and follow doctor's orders....which of course my brother won't take any medication but what he demands. So back into jail he goes. Except this time they stick him in general population...he was there for about 2 days before a couple of guys beat the hell out of him. They dragged him out of bed off a top bunk and initial evaluations were that he'd need surgery to fix his arm, but they've changed their opinion on that since. He won't admit to getting beat up, says he fell. Even though investigators are certain he was beaten.

So he's in medical holding while everyone hopes they finally force treatment on him to get him straightened out. But I suspect they put him on trial for the drug charges untreated/undiagnosed and let him continue to bring suffering upon my parents as they try to get him treated......which the law won't allow them to force treatment on him unless they take guardianship of him etc etc......and they won't help you with that either.

Basically what Im saying is, cops in general aren't the problem. It's just a general inability or disdain for doing anything that doesn't follow procedure. Chances are the guy who was killed in this news story is just as messed up as my brother, and if my father hadn't been there to mitigate the police response or a specific officer hasn't been there in court...my brother could have been killed in a similar fashion. I've tried to talk to him about this crap he thinks, he's just totally irrational and it pisses you off fast trying to talk to him about anything....so if someone thought he was dangerous I could see them progressing to lethal force if he acted even remotely aggressive. It ain't right, but I suspect it's what they are taught or what is expected out of them 99% of the time and if they don't react in that manner and an officers gets hurt..they'd probably be in deeper shit than if they shot the guy. It doesn't make it any better, but it seems like a pretty simplistic view to take. And mental disorders are only going to increased and worsen as the economic problems continue.

Seems like a pretty reasonable grounds for suspicion. By comparison, if a student is uncoordinated and bumping into things, that's not very good evidence that he's drunk. If his breath also smells like alcohol, that's pretty damn solid. In either case you should have a drug test to be sure.

Should it be okay for kids to come to class drunk or high? No of course not. It makes them incompetent, disruptive, and is generally a bad habit to get into.

The only bit that angers me is the punishment. How is being suspended and getting behind in classes supposed to help? That's just going to make the kid more miserable and isolated, and help fuck up his chances with college. Just send him home for the day and let his mom know. There's no reason not to have compassion for all the druggie kids, and especially those with murdered fathers.

So.....which is more likely. Well paid corporate guy putting out statements to cover the company ass implying that anyone working for BP is allowed to speak to the media. AND/OR, Out of work water/dock-related workers desperate to keep a job being told by a "staffing" firm that hires for BP that if they speak they will be immediately fired and unemployable for the rest of their life?

I'd say it's exactly what I've said above. BP can "truthfully" say their workers can talk to anyone. Workers are kept silent because they are not employed by BP, they are employed by We Love BP Long Time Staffing Co.

Friend of mine when he was in high school was confused by mixed signals from GM back when he was in high school (mid-late 90s) concerning his job duties and what they needed from him for employment purposes. So he doesn't show up on specified day for something because he was told he needed certain paper work or a drug test administered..prior to this...whatever it was..he was told opposing things by the same department. So, he was fired and banned from employment with GM for life for the misunderstanding with no chance to explain or straighten it out. So if GM can do that, I think BP can keep you from talking to the press quite easily in a economically and environmentally devastated location during a world wide depression/recession.

It's not like the Congress is truly trying to "make them pay" for something they caused, and this video just smacks of that being carried over. Hey it's a rich company the US "NEEDS" in this recession from hell. And in good times it's Hey it's a rich company the US "NEEDS" because competition! or jobs! or it'll go overseas! or obviously they learned a valuable lesson and will be the best oil spill handlers till the end of time!

If an individual caused the damage to a coastline equivalent to what BP did in just one city/state...they'd probably already be charged and serving time by this point. And if it was a small corporation, every asset would be gone, all benefits and salaries of employees yet unpaid gone, and there would be a criminal investigation into each and every person who had hands in it. That's if someone didn't go batshit and kill the people for completely ruining their land and livelihoods for themselves that may taint the land long enough to prevent their grand children from taking up the trade.

Congratulations, for getting off of probation; I'm glad they didn't drug test you.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/niacin-overdose/AN01644

Have fun with your Toxicity.

I was told that all your daily nutritional needs should be taken from food sources only, and you should always stay away from supplements.

You may have heard that too much niacin can be harmful because of Internet rumors. The rumors falsely state that by taking a large amount of niacin, people can flush the chemicals that show they've used marijuana out of their bodies before they take a drug test. No studies have shown that niacin can do this, and this can be very dangerous because it may lead to niacin overdose.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/niacin-overdose/AN01644

What do you know! Another Tax Exempt religion pushing its Pseudoscience around. Proof of their fraudulent behavior and thus their tax exemption should be removed.