You, like Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and other conservatives, make the mistake of thinking your concept of liberty is objective. It isn't. And, until you understand this, you will always be at its mercy.

Can't you see the problem with defining narrow and partisan political beliefs as the perfect embodiment of liberty? Perfection is beyond the need for criticism. By believing free markets are the perfect embodiment of liberty, it prevents you from being able to judge them critically, much like the religious are not able to judge the Bible critically because of the perceived perfection of God. This, I believe, is why you get shut down so often in our conversations. This is why you have to resort to insults, jokes, silence or changing the subject when I go beyond your framework of understanding. This is why you have that long list of unanswered questions, because you can't comprehend how anyone could criticize liberty or freedom. If I disagree, I must hate liberty - where have I heard that before?

Free markets aren't liberty, brother. They provide a certain amount of freedom to those with means, but it comes at a cost of freedom to those without. I've made this point (the subjectivity of your concept of liberty) so many times and you never address it. Care to give it a go? It would probably be easier to just call me stupid again.

http://videosift.com/talk/Gov-t-stopped-funding-charity-private-donations-surge-500?loadcomm=1#comment-1186057

>> ^blankfist:

I'd like to think you're not an idiot. But then you say things like this and how do you expect me to look at you?
Obviously you've read zero of anything I've written on here gauging by the way you try to describe me or my politics. You're head is so filled with your party's nonsense that your understanding of liberty is not an understanding at all. It's a rehearsed diatribe.
Oh and for the record it's agorist not argoist.

You, like Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and other conservatives, make the mistake of thinking your concept of liberty is objective. It isn't. And, until you understand this, you will always be at its mercy.

Can't you see the problem with defining narrow and partisan political beliefs as the perfect embodiment of liberty? Perfection is beyond the need for criticism. By believing free markets are the perfect embodiment of liberty, it prevents you from being able to judge them critically, much like the religious are not able to judge the Bible critically because of the perceived perfection of God. This, I believe, is why you get shut down so often in our conversations. This is why you have to resort to insults, jokes, silence or changing the subject when I go beyond your framework of understanding. This is why you have that long list of unanswered questions, because you can't comprehend how anyone could criticize liberty or freedom. If I disagree, I must hate liberty - where have I heard that before?

Free markets aren't liberty, brother. They provide a certain amount of freedom to those with means, but it comes at a cost of freedom to those without. I've made this point (the subjectivity of your concept of liberty) so many times and you never address it. Care to give it a go? It would probably be easier to just call me stupid again.


>> ^blankfist:

I'd like to think you're not an idiot. But then you say things like this and how do you expect me to look at you?
Obviously you've read zero of anything I've written on here gauging by the way you try to describe me or my politics. You're head is so filled with your party's nonsense that your understanding of liberty is not an understanding at all. It's a rehearsed diatribe.
Oh and for the record it's agorist not argoist.

I'd like to think you're not an idiot. But then you say things like this and how do you expect me to look at you?

Obviously you've read zero of anything I've written on here gauging by the way you try to describe me or my politics. You're head is so filled with your party's nonsense that your understanding of liberty is not an understanding at all. It's a rehearsed diatribe.

Oh and for the record it's agorist not argoist.

He milked that one joke like a pro. It was brilliant. A good comedian will go out with a whole bunch of angles on the same joke, and as long he gauges that the audience will be brought higher if he continues, he will do so. This audience was wrapped around his finger, and he did his thing just perfectly. He really knew how to use silence, pauses, and facial expression.

>> ^gargoyle:

Fluoridation is also suspected of being a contributing cause to hypothyroidism. Can't find anything rigorous on this yet. Still looking.


It is hard with all the conflicting and conflated data and opinions out there to accurately gauge it. I am not a chemist either, but I know it makes my soil toxic to plants over time. I believe the chemical classification for Sodium Fluoride is a Toxic, Irritant, but for some reason the CDC lists it an an inert...which is completely false. People who do organic farming are really critical with the CDC on this point because Sodium Fluoride is anything but inert and violates the organic farmers main goal; of removing all toxic elements from food production. With fluoride in toothpaste, I really don't see a purpose for water fluoridation anymore. Like someone mentioned earlier, why ingest something that is supposed to be a topical application. Now that toothpastes all come with it, that topical nature is realized and drinking water fluoridation should fall away. Sodium Fluoride has electrolytes, what plants crave!

@RedSky

There is an old legend about a Sensei who provides instruction to his students for free. As the months go by, the students start to feel guilty for not compensating their instructor, so they offer to pay him. When approached, the Sensei replies, "If I were to charge you, you couldn't afford me".

Teaching is a calling. No one goes into teaching to become rich, they do it because they believe it provides a valuable social service. When you throw 'merit pay' into the equation, it changes this dynamic. It cheapens the interaction. Whatever pittance that would be offered would be insulting compared to the amount of time and effort teachers spend on and off campus.

If you are doing it right, there should be a sense among schools, teachers and students that they are all in it together as a team, all striving to be the best they can be and cheering their peers to do the same. There would be nothing worse for this kind of camaraderie than to throw a roll of quarters on the ground and ask them to fight over it. In the private sector, where value is measured in dollars, fighting over loose change is part of the game, but to introduce this kind of game theory into what should be a supportive and nurturing environment couldn't be more wrong headed. When Coke and Pepsi fight, the consumer wins; when students, teachers, schools and districts start duking it out, we all lose (and corporations win says issy astutely). You can't solve social problems with market solutions.

Competition is not part of the soul of education. Sure, you find competitive elements in sports, arts competitions, science team, etc., but the point of education is not to 'win'. The point of education is to learn, and more specifically, to 'learn how to learn'. Tests are about winning and losing and do nothing to promote critical thinking or a greater understanding of the world we live in. Sure, you need tests to gauge progress, but when you make testing the center piece of the educational experience, you fail in the bigger picture.

Education should be about critical thinking, about asking questions and about preparing students to be intelligent and thoughtful adults, who will hopefully one day make this world a better place. To fill their heads (or their teacher's heads) with the motivating factors of greed, selfishness and fear is no way to make this world a better place.

berticus turned me on to a great book that is helping me to understand this debate better (among other things). It's not a book about education or politics per se. It's about the psychology that governs our decisions and interactions. The book is called 'Predictably Irrational' by Dan Ariely. You'd like it.

I've done a lot of teaching in many different contexts; one-on-one instruction, coaching small groups and directing big ones. When you do a good job, it is its own rewards, when you do a bad job, it is its own punishment. No amount of money in the world can give you the feeling of changing someones life for the better, and no amount of salary in the world can spare you the shame of failing a student.

It frustrates me that people want to force education into the shallow mold of markets. We've been at it for a decade now and our educational system is still in shambles. Heck, market solutions have fucked up nearly every aspect of our country, from jobs to banks to mortgage fraud to war to poverty. Enough is enough.

If this is too discordant and erratic, try : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVNAdwFFWjI

Thanks for posting this, really. I hadn't heard of Himori Uehara before and I'm off to buy everything she's ever done and send her envelopes full of my hair.

Self-fascinated wall of text time!

I write music and the more I learn and develop, the less music seems interesting, like the "magic" is slowly being eroded the more I understand composition. Classical, prog and jazz - really good jazz - are protected against that effect, and remain as amazing as they were the first time I ever heard them. Jazz is especially stimulating and fascinating, although I still love everything from Muse to King Crimson to Nobuo Uematsu to Miles Davis. Hiromi Uehara just makes me want to blow my fucking head off with 12 gauge.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Truckchase:
That said, local and federal taxes do fund state health departments, which in some cases can be very, very good. To go back to state's rights; if you're concerned with the food poisoning aspect you're free to move to a state that doesn't have a crappy health departmet.

So, another case of "like it or leave it". Let me clarify that statement. Another case of "we force you to pay for this, and if you don't like it you're free to go elsewhere. I hear Somalia is nice this time of year."


True, true. I should have added a to that. This is a personal interest post more than anything. I'm close with people that work for a few different state health departments in food-born illness, and they're some the hardest-working, most underpaid people I know. (based on necessary college degrees) At the same time they've told me of their peers in other states who phone it in every day and take home a bigger paycheck. It's a difficult situation to gauge. All of them though have been on the same page that the FDA is, shall we say, lacking in it's ability to act. Anyhow, this was a bit of a topic divergence on my part. On to the show!

Gauge symmetry confuses me. Just can't grasp it for some reason.

>> ^Psychologic:

I plan on using this argument next time I rent an apartment. Sure, I moved there intentionally, but if my son is born there then he should be able to benefit from it indefinitely for free.
Charging my kid rent after I die, regardless of age, would be theft... when did he ever sign a lease? He didn't choose to be born there and it's a really nice building so why should he be expected to move? If anyone demands payment then he can just request "evidence" and "the facts" about what a "rentpayer" or "rentable occupancy" is.
Sure, it takes money for the "landlord" to keep the place in good condition, but that isn't my kid's problem. If anyone else thinks they aren't paying enough rent to keep the building running then they're more than welcome to pay extra.


My sarcasm detector is broken, so I can't gauge the real mood of this comment! However, it brings to mind a thought experiment I have been playing with recently about government systems that are maintained only by volunteering funds. It's existence would be akin to the salvation army, or a church in the way funding is captured. The benefits are you directly support elements of government that you elect to. For instance, I don't agree with social welfare programs, but if I saw the government was doing a better job than salvation army, I could give more (or less if they do poor, less to the order of none). Same goes for NASA, I hate that taxes are co-opted from people, but I would willing give many dollars to this particular cause.

The counter argument to this is, of course, if people aren't forced to do something, they won't. A dubious argument, that has elements of truth...but is mostly inaccurate IMO. I think one of the inherit flaws in government entities is their immunity to the demands of the people. Our demands get trickled though representatives that then get diluted among other representatives. In a system of direct finance, you vote with your dollar, and every vote counts its weight in gold. It would be a first in the world that a government ever exists completely by voluntary funding. It sounds wacky and unrealistic because it has never been done before, ever. With that said, I know it can work because we see things like it work around us all the time. Perhaps it can't work for everything the government needs to do, like national defense, or international affairs, but for literally everything else, I think it has merit.

I think someone is going to make an assassination attempt on her one of these days. One of her security staff would "accidentally" misjudge a situation and hopefully someone with a 12 gauge will POW her teeth into the back of her head. She'd be so worth it!

>> ^OmarBinHashishin:

•Can't get a gauge on speed through this maze of proxy servers

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Macintosh the da house, bi-otch

FYI- the "generated" time has nothing to do with your connection nor your computer. It's not how long the data takes to reach you; it's the amount of time the Sift servers took from the time they received your page request to the time they finished generating the content to respond to your request before ultimately sending it to you.

Obviously, even with greater overall response times, some page loads are occasionally a little laggy, but hopefully for the most part, the majority of users are experiencing a bit of a speed-up the majority of the time.

•Can't get a gauge on speed through this maze of proxy servers

>> ^quantumushroom:

First of all I do respect you for defending yourself quantumushroom, Sorry about the cheap jab earlier.
No biggie.
Hate to oversimplify, but generally, when government gets involved, costs for everyone go up and innovation suffers. When government practices the lost art of 'benign neglect', the free market rapidly punishes and rewards ideas. People do more when you allow them to keep more of what they earn.
As the necessary evil it is, government has vital, mandated roles, such as protecting the borders and enforcing private property rights.
Battling child obesity, making smokers second class citizens (while spending tobacco tax revenue), providing "free" healthcare and making land owners get 'permission' to chop down a tree on their own property are not legitimate government functions. Nor can the buffoons "run" markets, except into the ground.
Right now, the federal mafia is simply too damned big, and they don't know what they're doing, just as FDR didn't know the long-term effects of his alphabet soup agencies that are STILL with us. Yes, you won't budge; just be aware there is evidence FDR's policies prolonged the Depression. Or you can merely observe today's scamulus doing nothing.
As blankfist can point out better than me, the Federal Reserve is about to print another trillion dollars, making the money in your wallet and savings account less valuable.
The left has an important part in this narrative; I just disagree with their conclusions.


I don't understand this. "The government" should essentially be us. They should be a good friend selling us shit at cost. When I buy weed off my pot dealing friend, he sells it to me at the same price he gets it. Cost. If I buy off the other guy, I pay a good amount more. If the government is the people serving the people, the people are the greatest benefactors.

I think it's wrong that, in Canada, we sell the right to build lines all through our country, and then the we let the people we sold it to(Bell and Rogers) gauge us for an internet connection.

I can see, however, how it could happen that government run programs might have people in charge who want to look good, so they might strive for a profit. I think this is wrong. It would be wrong for them to turn a profit and then redistribute the profit to other government run programs, but even wronger for them to take that profit and give it as bonuses to their CEO's.

At the end of the day, the problem with "Government" is that it doesn't serve the people, and it won't, unless the people keep on top of them.

We need to call a spade a spade. Like the recently passed law stating corporations can donate unlimited amounts, anonymously. How the eff is there not more outrage regarding that? It doesn't essentially mean the ultra rich control politics, no, not essentially, it 100% means the ultra rich control politics. Why not allow each party a set amount? Wake the fuck up...

"In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population." -Noam Chomsky

I see a huge difference in argument styles between the two parties. Conservative arguments are usually little more than a stringing together of buzzwords and slogans, with little understanding of the thinking behind the concepts, or the ability to follow up when put under scrutiny. Fiscal responsibility (code for tax cuts for the rich), socialism (code for public works that don't directly benefit corporations), small business (code for big business), small government (code for limiting that parts of government that don't massage corporations as opposed to say... defense), constitutionalist (I can never get a conservative to explain how corporate ideology fits into the constitution, especially when you consider that corporations were illegal at the time the constitution was composed), etc.

Liberals simply don't have access the same kinds of corporate, think tank propaganda that conservatives do. If they did, I'm sure many would use it, but because that kind of propaganda is scarce and often amateurishly put together (Air America), liberals generally have to logic it out for themselves.

The liberal commentary on this site is very thoughtful.


In reply to this comment by hPOD:
Well, it's hard for me to disagree with you on this specific point. While there are those that I disagree with politically, I don't mind disagreeing with them so long as they at least make solid points, whether I agree with them or not. While it's pretty arrogant for me to 'guess', when it comes to online forums such as VideoSift, Digg, Reddit, I'd say 95% of those posting/responding know very little [or are void of self-opinion] and are merely repeating what they've heard/read from others. And that goes for those on the far left and those on the far right.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't mean it as an insult, they are literally lacking in political knowledge. If you'd like me to use a more respectful term for ignorance, I'd be happy to oblige. Knowledge impaired? Intellectually disabled? I'll go with whatever you like best...

>> ^hPOD:

Calling people ignorant because they have different views/opinions than yourself is, in and of itself, ignorant.
Fiscal Responsibility isn't a vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless slogan unless applied to politicians/politics, be it on the right or the left, as IMO, neither are fiscally responsible. It's hard to be fiscally responsible when you aren't spending your own money. I live my life in a fiscally responsible way. Aside from my mortgage, I have no debt. None. I do not live beyond my means. I do not spend more now expecting everything to work out later, as sometimes it doesn't work out as we expect. That is fiscal responsibility.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^'Fiscal Responsibility' is a vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness slogan designed for use by those too stupid to formulate their own arguments. It will indeed be interesting to see how well the tea party does tomorrow, as a gauge of just how easy it is to manipulate ignorant Americans.