So for some reason i'd thought the no shoes while driving was a thing, now i know better. Barefoot driving here i come!

Joe Rogan - of the "fuck everybody else, I only care about me" crowd. No shirt, no shoes , no service went over without a blip, but put on a mask for the sake of other humans in the midst of bugs that can kill you, and meatbags like this lose their shit because someone's telling them to do it. How hard is it?

Congratulations! Your video, The Emperor has no shoes, 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 45 Badge!

Your video, The Emperor has no shoes, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 45 Badge!

Here's the song debut on The Late Show:

*related=http://videosift.com/video/No-Shirt-No-Shoes-No-Knuckleheads

"No Shirt, No Shoes, No Knuckleheads" has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

This looks really interesting but unfortunately, I'm gonna have to brush up on my Russian. No subs.

Really interesting read! It's amazing how flexible people can become in adapting to their surroundings. Chasing a deer through the the Siberian outback in the dead of Winter with no shoes? Daaayum.

>> ^blankfist:

All land is owned but people buy land all the time. There's not some evil Bill Gates sitting on the land, laughing maniacally because he won't sell any of it. If you want to "rent" the land, then it's in the interest of the landlord to offer that land at a competitive price. Again, it's not a crazy Bill Gates charging a poor family a zillion dollars just because he can.

I think you're missing my point. My point is why should I give a shit what Bill Gates thinks? Why does he get to threaten me with violence unless I give him something, just so I can create my own food to sustain myself?

Because he or some government drew a line in the sand, put a gun in my face, and told me I can't?

>> ^blankfist:
What threats of violence? You mean if you "steal" the food from the grocer who in turn had to pay the shippers and the farmers?

Why did the grocer "have to" pay the shippers and farmers? Threats of violence if he didn't?

>> ^blankfist:
If you create a victim out of the grocer and steal his property, then of course he'd have the right to protect it. It seems like you're grasping at straws trying to paint self-defense and defense of property (that which is purchased by the profit of your own labor) as the same violence used by the state. It is not.

Like I said, you might think the violent threats are justified. That doesn't change that you're talking about threatening violence against someone whose only crime is violating the edict of some authority who said "don't eat this food, or I'll inflict violence on you".

All you're doing is saying you side with the violent authoritarian, because you think his authority is legitimate.

>> ^blankfist:
The state, in your scenario, is more like the person who claims he's in need of the food and must take his fair share from the grocer. This is in fact stealing. What's the difference?

Absolutely backwards. The grocer is the one who's saying he must take his "fair share" from the hungry man. If he doesn't get it, he'll use violence. That certainly deters our starving poor from trying to take food from grocery stores without paying the grocer's ransom.

I don't see the difference between what the state does and that, honestly.

>> ^blankfist:
And this is the important part, so feel free to grab your pad and pen: One is offensive violence, and one is defensive violence. There's a big difference between a woman being attacked and using pepper spray versus, say, a group of white Mississippi cops spraying a bunch of "negro" protestors during a 1960s civil rights march.

But those are examples of person-on-person violence. The hungry man who eats the grocer's food isn't being violent at all, yet he will have violence inflicted on him for defying the wishes of the grocer.

Not unlike the poor non-violent resident of California who will have electrodes strapped to his nuts for failing to pay his taxes.

>> ^blankfist:
I don't think California is a "better deal". You're way off base. It's not a better deal. It's my fucking home. The US is my home.

Okay, but it's also not a prison. If you wanted to leave, you could. Staying is a choice, and one you make absent any coercion.

The US is also not your property. The allodial title is held by the US government. Buying real estate in California does not grant you a tract of sovereign territory. You are still obligated to follow the laws of California, and the US, including the ones regarding taxes.

If you don't like the rules and obligations that come with living in the US, you don't have to live in the US, just like if you don't like your local grocer's rule of "no shirt, no shoes, no service" you can shop somewhere else.

In both cases, you can complain all you like, and try to persuade the property owners to change things to be more to your liking. But according to your own views on property, there is no issue of "rights" that would compel either property owner to accede to your desires.

However, if you just take what you think you're entitled to over the objections of the property owner, then you're committing the same crime you accused my hungry man of: stealing.

I think learning to run barefoot as a kid probably helps a lot of those African runners with technique.

I switched to barefoot running recently. I'm working on building up the callouses on my skin and do small distances with no shoes at all. Feels great, even in the street. I use Vibrams for longer runs. My joint pain has disappeared. Long story short, my running shoes were making me run badly. I don't hit my heel on the ground anymore, and I land with much more bend in my knee. My stride feels more fluid ... and I have to say a lot less bouncy. I still don't have the extension, but I'm working on that.

This NPR report has an interesting video comparing the stride of a runner who wears shoes and a runner who always ran without shoes. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123031997.

yah that guy w/ no shoes... didn't even look that stable to me. looks like it was hard to stay on

No shoes.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, but why are you making a distinction in ownership between residential and commercial property? Why can't it just be property that's owned and therefore simply private?

That was basically my question to you. I gave an example where the implicit social expectations, and legal expectations were completely different, despite both being privately owned.

What is the basis for your argument that they should be considered the same? Do you think those social and legal conventions should change to reflect that sameness?
>> ^blankfist:
When you buy a good, it becomes your property and you own it. If you purchase groceries, do you believe you have sole ownership of it? Or should that also be considered privately owned public food and therefore not really owned by you? See? It's doublespeak.

I gave an example where the line between public and private is blurry, you gave one where it is less so. I said a couple posts back that I believe there's a spectrum of ownership. Some objects, when owned, are clearly close to the libertarian ideal in terms of the benefits of ownership.

But let's go with specific object ownership for a second. Let's say you buy a cucumber, and I come up and stab it with a needle, should the penalty be the same as if I'd done the same thing to your arm? I mean, in both cases I'm damaging your property, but the cucumber will never heal, whereas your arm will, probably very quickly.

In either case, the monetary value of the damages done are trivial.

Should the police treat assaults on property the same as assault on people's bodies? If so, why? If not, why not?
>> ^blankfist:
That isn't aggression. And it certainly isn't constraining freedom. If the local grocery store doesn't want me as a customer, then I have the choice to go elsewhere.

Then the cartoons are totally valid portrayals of the fucked up things libertarians believe. So Rosa Parks should have made sure to check if it was a private or public bus before getting mad about being asked to move to the back of it?

I mean, that's the argument you're making here. On a Metro bus, discrimination is morally wrong (why?), but on a Greyhound bus, discrimination is the business owner's moral right, and should be enforced by the police if uppity negroes get it into their heads that they're people too.

This is the basic problem -- libertarians don't believe that "Civil Rights" are or should be rights.
>> ^blankfist:
He has limited my options, but so do places I cannot afford to eat at. Or what about private airports? Shit, why can't I walk on the tarmac of the Santa Monica Airport?! That's constraining my freedom, right?! Sigh.

Well, the Civil Rights Act doesn't forbid you "discriminating" for those reasons. You can still make service conditional on payment (or not), and you can still mark off "Employees only" sections of privately-owned public areas. Signs that say "No shirt, no shoes, no service" are okay. So is kicking someone out for being a jerk to you, or even for taking too long to order, Soup Nazi style.

It's about taking away your "freedom" to put a blanket ban on people on the basis of race, group, or class, and giving people who've been subjected to that kind of discrimination legal means of recourse.

@burdturgler

I explained to my girlfriend it is required for her to post tits if she wished to continue expressing herself on teh internets, and she refused. She cited womens rights and gender equality blah blah

Also, you're absolutely 100% correct. The niqab is not the problem. Full facial coverings are the problem when engaging the public. If niqab's are determined to be reasonable, and are accommodated as such then I might start going out in full face masks too. I don't much like people and, honestly, I would love to be able to enjoy the same level of anonymity in the real world as I enjoy online.

Again, I'll group yamakas in the same category as earrings and baggie pants. If I didn't know any better, I'd say they're no less an expression of individuality, or lack thereof, then shutter shades. But the niqab, if I didn't know any better, and even if I did know better, looks to hide the identity of a person.

Look, I get it. I'm also worried about the governments plans. I'm worried they'll watch my internet traffic and decide I'm a Ron Paul supporter and then they'll slow my internet down / cause disconnects often.

I'm worried they will hand over too much power to corporations. I'm worried they will show too much preference in tax breaks to religious institutions.

But if tomorrow they enacted a law similar to the "No shoes, no shirt, no service" signs you see sometimes. I'd have no problem with that. It would be optional. Meaning if you walk into my store and refuse to show your face, I can legally refuse to serve you. That seems reasonable to me. "No face, No place."

It's a different issue when it's government services. But the necessity to show your face during exams and while voting stands.

Totally a leg man, which leads to minor foot and stocking fetishes. No shoes though! [/tmi]

There's a big sign at the pearly gates that says "No Pets Allowed"

also "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service"

also "Return Your Old Glasses Here!"