OMG!!!
I could not disagree more.
Trump wrote a book about how to lie your way to 'success', the truth simply is not within that man. 2 days ago he claimed to not know the KKK or David Duke, but 8-10 years ago he refused to join any organization that Duke supported...so what happened? It can't be true he doesn't remember, he said he has the best memory in the world, remember? So he's just lying again, right? It is how he said you get what you want, just lie until you get it, then forget all the lies you told and insult and attack anyone bringing them up.
He's also totally incompetent, failing over and over at businesses, including one business that's nearly impossible to lose at, casinos, he's had 3, and bankrupted all of them 4 times! Then there are Trump steaks, vodka, magazine, mortgage, the game, airlines, and even his terribly named web site...gotrump.com (supposed to be go-trump, not got-rump). He claims to be a successful builder, but he doesn't build things, he just stamps his name on things others build. I think the reason he won't release his taxes is they will show he's actually lost money, never made any, and is only rich today because he was once massively rich (thanks to a huge inheritance and before that, no interest, 'never pay it back' loans from daddy) and lost a ton of money, both his and investors, not because he ever made money or was particularly successful at anything...contrary to what he says.
So, the contention that he 'knows the best people and will put together a team of greatness' goes against his record of putting together teams that fail miserably at businesses that are idiot proof! The contention that his big mouth will let us in on what he's doing supposes that he'll tell the truth...something he never does.
Clinton may have no spine, be a liar, and may wave whatever way the wind blows (all 3 of which Trump trumps her on), but for 'more evil', Trump is definitely your man.

Um, it's more like taking a little from <5% to improve the lives of all 100%, so off the bat 'Regan' is lying. Having a 'bottom' 15% living well below poverty levels creates a climate that's good for no one, including those at the top. Creating a 'safety net' for those people creates a society with less crime and more opportunity for all, and wastes less money on policing, prosecuting, and incarceration, as well as less production lost. Yes, there will be a few who 'take advantage' of the programs to loaf, but there will be more who take advantage of the programs to succeed where they had no opportunity to do so without them.
The classroom play was also ridiculous. Socialism would mean that they all got the education they needed to preform on the test, including the classroom materials and tutoring if needed, capitalism would mean those who inherit books and can afford classroom materials and teachers get to 'learn', those who can't afford them only get to 'learn' by osmosis if they're allowed to participate at all, never learn directly, so only the truly exceptionally gifted might 'learn' while the rest sit in the corner getting dumber. (in their analogy, 'learning' is analogous to 'succeeding financially')
In this ridiculous classroom fantasy, they offer an extreme version of the downfalls of pure socialism, but absolutely none of the benefits, then show how that system doesn't work.
Because of this disingenuous one sided portrayal of the system it's claiming to explain, I dub this *lies.

I think it's a matter of degree. Prior to WW1 (Or to say, around the turn of that century), the Jewish faithed presence was quite small. Roughly ~90% of the population was non-Jewish faithed. There was very little conflict prior to WW2, because prior to that, the immigrants purchased their land from the locals. As per the nature of humanity, the only conflict-free methods for transfer of property are : inheritance, trade/sale, or gift.

The League of Nations was inconsequential. As a result of WW1 Britain captured the territory of Palestine from its previous occupiers (Turks, by one title or another, dating back to the Roman empire), and by right of conquest could do as it pleases with it.

I refer to religious insularity, not genetic.
Yes, they are quite accepting of anyone with Jewish faith. Almost the entire Jewish faithed population in Israel, regarding this last century, is either immigrant, or born of said immigrants. The Jewish faithed population rose from around ~600k to ~7 million between 1947 and today. Even taking into account the rule of thumb 'population doubles every ~40 years', that would leave the population roughly 85% immigrant or children thereof.

Which in turn elucidates many of the issues at hand in modern times. Land prices are extreme, with more people than there is room for, so expanding for living room is a necessity. Hence colonial expansion into greater Palestine is inevitable. Further, the dramatic division in income equality puts a lot of social pressure on the government, which the government can further alleviate by expansion. A, because it can relocate those that can't afford to live in more expensive areas, and gives those people a place to busy themselves taking care of, and B, because the inevitable tensions that come from displacing the previous residents causes the government to serve as a protector from those unfortunates that were offended, which serves as a good distraction from other problems that the government isn't doing well to fix. Essentially, the same formula that nations have followed throughout history (Heck, Australia can thank its current existence for similar policies in Britain).

-scheherazade

After seeing the colony freeze, go hungry, suffer plague, have it's foreign support removed, get swindled by outsiders, and eventually descend into near-anarchy, Bradford made the following entries:


All this whille no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expecte any. So they begane to thinke how they might raise as much torne as they could, and obtaine a beter crope then they had done, that they might not still thus languish in miserie. At length, after much debate of things, the Govr (with the advise of the cheefest amongest them) gave way that they should set corve every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to them selves; in all other things to goe on in the generall way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcell of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end, only for present use (but made no devission for inheritance), and ranged all boys and youth under some familie. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more torne was planted then other waise would have bene by any means the Govr or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave farr better contente. The women now wente willingly into the feild, and tooke their litle-ons with them to set torne, which before would aledg weaknes, and inabilitie; whom to have compelled would have bene thought great tiranie and oppression.

The experience that was had in this commone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Platos and other.ancients, applauded by some of aater times; -that the taking away of propertie, and bringing in communitie into a comone wealth, would make them happy and $orishing; as if they were wiser then God. For this comunitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much imployment that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For the yong-men that were most able and fitte for labour and servise did repine that they should spend their time and streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, with out any recompence. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in devission of victails and cloaths, then he that was weake and not able to doe a quarter the other could; this was thought injuestice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalised in labours, and victails, cloaths, etc., with the meaner and yonger sorte, thought it some indignite and disrespect unto them. And for mens wives to be commanded to doe servise for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, etc., they deemd it a kind of slaverie, neither could many husbands well brooke it. Upon the poynte all being to have alike, and all to doe alike, they thought them selves in the like condition, and ove as good as another; and so, if it did not cut of those relations that God hath set amongest men, yet it did at least much diminish and take of the mutuall respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have bene worse if they had been men of another condition. Let pone objecte this is mens corruption, and nothing to the course it selfe. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in his wisdome saw another course fiter for them.


Competitive Slackline Tricking https://youtu.be/iRezj9BOEBQ

https://youtu.be/7QDMaTGsOBo

The Racism Of Mass Incarceration http://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/404890/prison-inherited-trait/

Queens of Brooklyn: The NYC Girls Dominating Youth Chess https://youtu.be/Kxdoh1a5dwc

https://youtu.be/ge4HNwOpfRk

A most beautiful demolition https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TnG3jh6KTQ

https://youtu.be/XYUEW3_WvH0

In the field of artificial intelligence, a genetic algorithm (GA) is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural selection. This heuristic (also sometimes called a metaheuristic) is routinely used to generate useful solutions to optimization and search problems.[1] Genetic algorithms belong to the larger class of evolutionary algorithms (EA), which generate solutions to optimization problems using techniques inspired by natural evolution, such as inheritance, mutation, selection, and crossover.

I direct your attention to the first sentence. In the field of AI, in other words, an artificially created intelligence. Now even if you go to the the idea Turing had that a computer could learn and adapt itself to the point of AI, it is a device that had to be created by an outside designer at some point. It didn't just manifest, it was created and reached AI level, then it could at that point begin to try to 'imitate' natural selection.

It has become clear to me over our last couple of discussions that you are incredibly reluctant to think outside of the box YOU have created for yourself. You believe what you believe and damn the torpedoes with the rest.

Most life. The survivors, we outside the land of Twitter, will inherit the earth. Constant awareness of Twitter must be a genetic flaw, and such a singularity would prove it.

It would be cool to know where the Olympics scraps ended up. Like if I die, who will inherit my organs?

Things were great under Regan and under Clinton. I would say Clinton era went strong because of the internet The internet bubble burst and then Bush got in. Bush did not blame Clinton ( like OBAMA) for the mess he inherited.

Kennedy, It was post war every thing was going gang busters, Democrat or Republican did not matter who was in charge. This lasted up through Johnson then came the oil crisis which drag the economy down and 15%+ interest rates, Carter got caught up in this and became the worst president to that date. (Obama is now the worst).

Regan policies turn this around. Trickle down worked and still does.

But you still cant change the fact..

You are living in a opposite world. Everything you believe Democrat leadership stand for, they have delivered the opposite.


We can thank the disappearing middle class and the poor being worse off from 6 years of the failed leadership.
But on the bright side the rich are richer, Thank to Democrat leadership.

Well if you like the disappearing middle class keep voting Democrat.

Here, take as long as you want. All the info and sources are exactly where he says they are, in the YouTube description. I've copied them here for you. If he hadn't provided all of these I might be inclined to agree with you. But he did provide the evidence, so you don't just have to believe the buzz words, you can actually check it out for yourself.

SOURCES

On average, black men's prison sentences are 20% longer than white men's for comparable crimes: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142...

Black people and white people use illegal drugs at similar rates, but black people are far more likely to be arrested for drug use: http://www.vox.com/2014/7/1/5850830/w...

African Americans are far more likely to be stopped and searched (although the contraband hit rate is higher among white people) in California: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/...

And in New York (where the data isn't quite as good but appears to be comparable to CA): http://www.nyclu.org/content/nypd-qua...

Those wrongfully convicted and later exonerated by DNA are disproportionately African American: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Conte...

Black kids are far more likely to be tried as adults and more likely to receive life sentences: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/...

Black former convicts get fewer employer callbacks than white former convicts: http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/...

Emily and Brendan are more hirable than Lakisha and Jamal: http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/...

On that front, this study is also interesting: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/apl/9... and similar results have been found in the UK: http://www.theguardian.com/money/2009... and also in Australia: http://ftp.iza.org/dp4947.pdf

Also, this news story has some great analysis: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/bus...

High schools with mostly African American and Latino students are less likely to offer courses in Algebra II or Chemistry than high schools with mostly white students: https://www.documentcloud.org/documen...

This article explores many of the other ways that increasingly segregated schools have negatively affected African American students: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/sun...

And this story discusses the fact that African American students are more than twice as likely to be suspended as white students--even in preschool. http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2...

The ACP report on racial disparities in U.S. health care: http://www.acponline.org/advocacy/cur...
This (dated) study is also damning: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36... and there's lot of good info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and...

More info on increasing disparities in life expectancy between black and white people in the US: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic...

The most recent polls show fewer white people thinking racism is not a problem than the ones I used in this video (although still a huge divide): http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/22/politic... and http://www.washingtonpost.com/politic... and http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2014/12...

Racial wealth disparity and the role that inheritance plays: http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Author/...
Related wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_i...

The widening of the wealth gap: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/...

Nonvideo recommendations: I really like Roxane Gay's work in Slate and The Butter; this story in the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/bus... Chris Rock's recent interview at http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news..., and Ashley Ford's commentary and analysis: https://twitter.com/ismashfizzle. Also Kiese Laymon's wriitng is great, including http://gawker.com/my-vassar-college-faculty-id-makes-everything-ok-1664133077

If the 'overage' of A's 67 votes is 33, D would not inherit all 33.
D had 1 2nd place out of 67. So he inherits proportionally.
D would get 33 * (1/67) = less than 1 vote.
33 * (66/67) would simply be non transferable, because they have no other place option.

Personally, I prefer a system where each candidate is individually rated from -100% to +100%.
So a ballot with 3 people, would let you write down 3 numbers. 1 per candidate.
- Each candidate's final result if the average of his rating.
- Final ratings are sorted by highest average, top N rated candidates are elected to N positions.
- All candidates are required to have an above 0 rating to be electable.
Meaning that there can be a vote of no confidence and no one is elected. (Aww, I guess we'd have to keep the laws we have until the next election cycle. No one elected to write more laws. Too bad )

-scheherazade

That doesn't work. Take a situation with candidates A,B, C and D; and 100 votes. If candidate A receives 67 votes (with D receiving 1 second place vote, and 66 "no second choices" ). B Receives 20 votes (with A as a second choice for all voters). C receives 13 votes, and D receives no 1st place votes. In your method D would inherit 33 votes and get elected, even though only person voted for D (as a 2nd choice behind A!)


I'd expect each candidate to receive 8/34ths of a vote with the extra 16/34ths staying with the original candidate. Regardless, the video itself doesn't address this situation, and it therefore flawed(Even if the voting system isn't).

Nailed it dude!

The only angle I feel hasn't really come up so far is the idea that private enterprise and public governance could easily be regarded as two manifestations of the same "real" social dynamic: Establishment/challenger (or master/slave if you want to get fully Hegelian about it)

Like, why do we even develop governmental systems in the 1st place?

I have yet to conceive a better answer than: "to curb the destructive excesses of private wealth/power."

Why would we champion personal freedom? I would say: "to curb the destructive excesses of public wealth/power".

Or something to that effect at the very least. The idea of a society with either absolute personal, or absolute collective sovereignty seems hellish to me. And probably unworkable to boot!

There seems to me a tendency in the history of societies for these two types of power to dance either side of equilibrium as the real power struggle unfolds i.e. between reigning establishment and challenger power groups/paradigms.

Right now the establishment is both economic and governmental. The corruption is mutually supporting. Corporations buy and control governments, governments facilitate corporations ruling the market and continuing to be able to buy them.

The circle jerk @blankfist IMHO is between government and private dynasty and moreover I strongly believe that in a vacuum, one will always create the other.

Pure collectivism will naturally breed an individualist challenger and visa versa.

People are at their best I think when balancing self interest and altruism. Too much of either tends to hurt others around you and diminish ones capacity to grow and adapt. (being nice is no good if you lack the will and capacity to get shit done)

It seems natural that the ideal way of organising society would always balance collective state power, with private personal power.

Libertarianism (even the superior non anarchist version) defangs the state too much IMHO. Some collectivist projects such as education, scientific research and exploration I think tend to be better served by public direction. But more importantly I expect the state to referee the market, just as I expect public transparency to referee the state.

Total crowbar separation between the three: public officials cannot legally own or control private wealth and cannot live above standard of their poorest citizens. Private citizens cannot inherit wealth legally, only earn and create it. The state cannot legally hold any secret or perform any function of government outside public view unless it is to prepare sensitive legal proceedings (which must then be disclosed in full when actioned).

In the age of global communications this kind of transparency may for the first time be a workable solution (it's already near impossible to keep a lid on most political scandals and this is very early days). There is also the possibility of a steadily de-monetised market as crowdfunding and crowdsourcing production models start to become more advanced and practical than traditional market dynamics. e.g. kickstarter style collective investment in place of classical entrepreneurial investment.

The benefits and dangers of both capitalism and socialism here would be trending towards diffusion amongst the populace.

And then there's the whole Meritocracy vs Democracy thing, but that's really getting into another topic and I've probably already gone on too long now.

Much love

One of the most common arguments I hear is that people would have their parents or grandparents "put down" to get at their inheritance quicker, which says more about the mentality of the people who put forth that argument than it does about euthanasia.

I actually read a comment from someone who said he wouldn't read Terry Pratchett because he was "morally reprehensible". When asked about it, he sad it was because Pratchett supported being able to choose when to die.

He felt it was more moral to force not only him, but also his friends and family to suffer the indignity of watching him lose his mind and become a pale imitation of his former self.