@newtboy
you misunderstood.

respectable investigative journalists gain that respect by being consistent with their reporting.

chris hedges is such a journalist.

but,by your metric,him being on RT negates that respect.now this is an assumption on my part,but i am using your words to come to that assumed conclusion.you have yet to agree or disagree with what chris hedges is saying,choosing instead to attack the medium in which he is saying it.this is your right,i just happen to disagree with you on this matter.

i refer back to one of my original comments,and a point i tried (and i guess failed?) to reiterate:discernment is the key.

so in a sense..yes..it is our responsibility to do our due diligence to vette the veracity of an investigative reporter.

those "reporters" who shill for either the democrats or republicans reveal themselves as the whores they are fairly quickly.

demagogues can almost be instantly identified due to their constant appeals to emotion.(keith olbermans new youtube channel from GQ "the resistance" comes to mind).

and reporters who are simply bad or lazy are quickly revealed as well.by other reporters.

let's take @bcglorf review of chomsky,and how chomsky is singular in his constant criticism of american foreign policy and asks the question "why can't he,just for once,speak on the positives that america has done in the world,or speculate on what could have happened had american not intervened in third world country A or B".(paraphrased)

now this is not an entirely unfair question,and in chomsky's books..he does address the very specifics that bcglorf would like to see chomsky address,but in lectures you are lucky to get a sentence in regards to such subjects.

but notice that while bcglorf would like to see chomsky speak in more broad terms,he never once questions the veracity of the details chomsky is laying down.

do you know why?
because chomsky does his homework,and backs up everything he says.

bcglorf respects chomsky for this,while simultaneously wishing he changed the channel once in awhile.

bcglorf utilized discernment to come to the conclusion that chomsky is a worthy,if infuriating,read/listen.

i do not mean to be speaking for Bc,and maybe i am missing the mark by a long shot using him as an example (if i did,please forgive Bc).

but my basic point is that we ALL discriminate and discern using our own subjective tools,our experiences and ultimately our understandings.

the problem here,and it is the underlying message on this thread,is confirmation bias.

we all know about this,and this election cycle REALLY brought this up to the forefront.

what i find interesting,and always makes me giggle,is how people will point to the "mainstream media" as an outlet for:propaganda,fake news,biased and slanted news ..but..it is NEVER the news THEY consume.the news THEY consume is hard hitting journalism.

so when i see people dismiss a piece that may happen to be on a questionable outlet..i laugh..because MOST outlets are ALL questionable.

so yes my friend,it is up to us to discern what is valid and what is bullshit.secondary sources help.concrete,trackable sources help and discussing and talking with one another is probably the greatest help of all.

but if you reside in an echo chamber,and everybody is just smelling each other farts.then some information may come as a shock.

my faith dictates my politics.
i am a dissident,and a radical.
the dynamic is always "power vs powerlessness",and i am always on the side of the powerless.

so it should be no surprise that on my list are people such as chomsky or hedges.

because they criticize power.

@bcglorf
i was gonna respond,and most likely fail,in expressing what @radx nailed.

which,again,embarasses the fuck out of me,because @radx is german and english is his second language and he STILL beats me to a pulp when talking about these matters.

but i will add that we NEED dissenting voices.
we NEED people critical of power,the excesses of power and the abuse of power.

i totally agree with you Bc that we need balance,but for that balance to even EXIST,we have to have all voices heard.

how can you or i come to a well reasoned,and rationale conclusion if parts of the book are not even being allowed to be spoken out loud?
because it just happens to conflict with a current narrative the political elite are trying to shove down our throats.

the dynamic is NOT republican vs democrat,nor liberal vs conservative.

the dynamic is power vs powerlessness.

and let me be clear,because maybe some here are misunderstanding my support of hedges as somehow translating to supporting putin.

this is false.
i support hedges because of his stellar work.
putin is a thug who murders political enemies and challengers,and russia itself is dominated by oligarchs.russia is a fucking mess.

these are two separate issues,and to conflate them and apply that metric to my words is simply wrong.

@bobknight33

"You just bent because you you team is finally getting called out for what they are. Biased and fake ."

have you met me?
or is your account used by multiple people,and this particular bob is one i have never engaged?

reread my comment.
GO..i'll wait.

notice anything?
that maybe i accused CNN of the very same partisan fuckery as FOX?

this is just a house negro who sold his integrity years ago for his own personal gain.who pretended faux outrage in order to appeal to the politically unsophisticated so he can buy a BIG house,and drive an expensive car and rub shoulders with the powerful.

but bob,you view things in such a binary and limited way that if i
criticize an opinion pundit,a cable celebrity,who makes his cookies by undermining journalism and promoting propaganda,and just happens to work at FOX.then i MUST,therefore,be rooting for the other "team".

there is no fucking TEAM bob.
there is simply the truth,and those who whore themselves for personal gain,while fucking the rest of us over.
neil cavuto is a dirty little whore slut.

does this mean that everyone on FOX is like slutty cavuto?
of course not.shep smith does some good work.
and the very same accusations can be leveled at CNN,or MSNBC,or CNBC.

the majority of cable news have all adopted the FOX model,because it makes money.a LOT of money,and as long as they are populated by dirty little whores like cavuto.who are willing to sell their integrity for safety and financial security.the amercian people will always suffer those fuckheads selfish hubris.

one of the greatest things to come out of this surreal and absurd election cycle is that the american people have begun to "get it".they have come to the slow (and infuriating to me) realization that cable news is not news at all.it is propaganda.it is opinion by way of presenting as "news".

and ALL the big players are guilty.
they all have their own celebrity demagogues.
pushing their own agendas to their own little,easily manipulated fiefdoms.

so stop projecting bob.
i have no interest is self righteous moralizing predicated on inadequate information and even worse politics.

i KNOW who the real enemy is,and cable news is the mechanism in which they spread their divisive and warped ideologies.

you appear to continue to buy into their bullshit.
that this is somehow a right vs left,or dem vs repub.
american liberals are not the problem.
american conservatives are not the problem.

no...bob...

the two party duopoly,the two party dictatorship.
THAT is the problem.
this is about power vs powerlessness.

and little whores like cavuto do NOT serve you!
he,and his ilk,serve power.

it is time for you to choose a side bob.
which side on you on?

*edit:oh shit,just realized you were talking to newtboy.
my bad bob.../chuckles...
sighs..guess i was looking to scrap a bit.
bad enoch..baaad.

i am just going to add to the opinions and perspectives that @MilkmanDan ,@ChaosEngine ,@dannym3141 and especially @newtboy who i agree with so clearly that i swear we are related.

since many dynamics have already been covered, i.e:police culture,racism,incompetence etc etc.

i shall offer a historical perspective in the ways of the power dynamic.

while this is a power vs powerlessness dynamic dealing with agents of the state,it helps to understand just how we got to this point,and it is NOT the first time we have been here.

see:labor movement of the 30's and the labor strikes,and the response from not only the business community but our own government.

see: the civil rights movement and segregation,and how demagouges used political power to divide by way of racism,and then used police to intimidate,beat and imprison.

there are many MANY examples here in america where the police have been used to suppress and oppress a people or community for less than altruistic reasons,and most certainly not aligning with the ideology we were taught in school the function of police.nevermind the syrupy sweet,idealized picture shoved down our throats since an early age.

so we see on our facebooks,our twitters and/or whatever social media you prefer,that black lives matter...and the counter point,that NO..ALL lives matter.

now this would make sense in a world that never took history into account,or a growing cultural norm of violence and oppression that had been slowly seeping into poor communities (mainly black and latino).

oh wait..
that's right.
social media pundits NEVER fucking consider any of those factors,because just like bill o'reilly,those are pesky nuances and context conflict with their own narrow narrative.

but let us consider them and how they may possibly be a major driving factor in americas current climate.

let us take ferguson as an example,that is a good place to start.
and let us go back to 2008,where we can see the boiling begin to take place in this extremely impoverished community which was already struggling.

the population is a black majority,poor to working poor.home ownership is low,food stamp recipients are high and the future is pretty bleak.

in 2008 ferguson received approximately 18% of it's total fiscal revenue from misdemeanor infractions i.e:traffic,parking,moving violations.small time stuff.basic fines for small infractions.in 2008 that number jumped to 66%.

why?
what happened?
what changed?

well the comptroller of ferguson (and greater st louis),along with HUNDREDS of other smaller municipalities across the country,had bought the rotten fish that wall street was selling in the form of bullshit derivatives.

now wall street and the big banks got their tax payer bailout,but towns like ferguson did not.they lost millions,sometimes billions.this meant pensions were either reduced or outright denied,because there was NO money!

but a town still has to pay police.
fire fighters and school teachers,
clerks and judges,
keep the roads paved and the street lights working.

so what is a local government to do?
can't tax the working class who own homes.you already jacked their property tax to the roof.
can't tax the local business,you already squeeze them as well.
how about those non-property owning people in ferguson?
they need to pay up as well,and let's use the police force to relinquish them of the paltry money they don't have.

to the tune of 66% of all of fergusons revenue.
that is insanity.

so what if you live in ferguson?
chances are you are black,and either poor or working poor.

you make,if you are lucky,20 grand a year and by one man's testimony he paid over 2,000 in traffic tickets in one year.the majority of americans dont see those kind of numbers their entire lifetime.

and what if you began to realize that it was not just you.that almost every person you know or talked to had similar stories.

would you begin to feel a tad bit targeted?

what if the city of ferguson started to become very creative with not only their rules but how they enforced those rules?

what if every year the fines went up?
not remained the same,but actually UP? every year.

what if,as a community people began to actually fear the police? to experience anxiety just by the sight of a patrol car,even though they were not engaging in anything illegal? and who knows...maybe there is some new ordinance on the books that you are unaware of?

would you become paranoid and suspicious of law enforcement?

and then..what if....you started losing friends to cops.people you grew up with being shot in the street,and every time the mayor comes out and calls it a "justifiable killing".

would that make you feel any better?
any less paranoid or anxious?

there was ONE police shooting in ten years and then..as if by magic ..(which is how the media seems to always portray this..shocking news..at 11)..you lose 5 friends in a year.all to cops..all "justifiable".

would you begin to think there was a conspiracy?
targeting you and your neighbors?

i BET you would.
i know i would.

now lets look at the cops.

they are just a tool.
an instrument for the state to uphold the law and write citations for infractions.they dont MAKE the laws,nor the infractions,not even the fines.

they just do what they are told.

and they are told to go into these poor and working poor neighborhoods and write tickets,a LOT of tickets.

do you really think they are unaware of the growing hostility towards them? the looks of disgust,fear and apprehension?

but...this is their job,and they do what they are told.

they see.
they know.
they are aware of the growing hatred towards them,and this makes them anxious..and defensive..and in some horrible,tragic cases...trigger happy.

a natural and normal response to heightened stimuli in the face of great uncertainty.

so they react impulsively and out of fear in a way that ten years ago would have been unheard of.

they think themselves good cops.
they do a good job.
they do what they are told.
and the people hate them for it.
so they respond instinctively and with poor judgement.

we..as citizens,respond with disgust and indignation when a cop abuses his/her authority.we see this as a major moral breach in the citizen/cop relationship,because we feel as agents of the law they should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us...and rightly so,but when you put a human being in a tense and dangerous situation,not of their making,they will fail at some point to react correctly and with sound judgement.

they SHOULD be held accountable,but so should the city council members and the mayor and all the local representatives who created this toxic climate in the first place.

the lesson to be learned here is that nothing is a binary situation when people are concerned.

so when black lives matter protestors address people to make them aware of the situation,this is what they are talking about.the police killing are only a last stage manifestation of a situation that began in 2008 on wall street.

and we need to be aware,because right now it is the predominantly black communities,but soon coming to a neighborhood near YOU.

the poor and working poor have become expendable.no longer relevant to the system.which is why police shootings are being handled the way they are.our value is ever increasingly being judged on how well we can feed the system.

until this disparity is addressed there will continue to be police shootings.people will die and there will be no indictments.

because police do what they are told.

it is up to us to make policy makers accountable for their actions,and in doing so address a toxic climate that both the poor,working poor and cops alike have to swim in.

stop forcing cops to write tickets to fund a city that lost it's savings due to fuckhead bankers.

this blood..all of it..is on those bankers hands.

@bobknight33

the reasons why blacks tend to vote for democrats for the past 50 years is not a mystery and it has been long understood.

labor unions.

the democrats saw the power that was arising from americas labor unions and decided to shift their message to appeal to this growing demographic.

just like the republicans co-opted the evangelicals in the late 70's.

this is about political power,plain and simple and little to nothing to do with actual political philosophy.

this is the second video you have posted today where you appear to be trying to make a case for the republicans,and the presenters are offering a seriously edited,cherry picked and manipulative picture of history.when the history is quite clear.

this is not a republican/democratic dynamic.
this is a power vs powerlessness dynamic.
this is about retaining power at any cost.
to the detriment of our society.

and it is not exactly a secret,but these videos you have posted are a disservice to those who may not know,which it appears,may include you bob.

@Babymech

are we playing the numbers/statistic game?
oh goodie../claps hands
i love these games.
can i play?

since i actually agree that mens issues are different than womens in certain cases,and that you recognize that the "patriarchy" affects men as well as women.i see no reason to address something we both agree on.

so we can agree the base premise is "power vs powerlessness",and that women have a right to address this power structure,just like men do,because BOTH suffer under its influence.

but then you posted some tasty links for our enjoyment,and then made the specious claim that this somehow made your argument MORE valid.

ok..lets play by YOUR standards shall we?

1.the gender pay gap,which before 1962 may have been a valid argument,but since it is ILLEGAL to discriminate in that way in regards to pay,and if true would translate to waaay more women in the workplace (because corporations love them some dirt cheap labor).so why is this trope still trotted out?why is it given so much validity as being born as fact?when no serious economist ever sites this disparity,yet so many keep regurgitating this gap is being a real thing?

well,i will just let a feminist economist break it down for you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

see? just got me one of them fancy links you like so much.

2.political power in regards to gender.well,i cant argue the statistics.there ARE more men in politics,but what your link fails to do is ask a very basic question:why?why are there more men than women?

pew research addresses that question,and is fairly in line with your link:http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/01/14/women-and-leadership/

3.as for who suffers from the most sexual violence.well,according to your link which uses cdc numbers,women suffer far more,BUT (and is the statistic that the women in my video pointed out) when you include prison (which the cdc did not) that number flips on its head:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html

so the situation is not some cut and dried situation,and there are extreme elements of any social movement,but those elements should not invalidate the message.

just like this woman in my video is not dismissing feminism,she is disagreeing with feminisms more extreme authoritarian bullies,who because they scream louder and are more controversial..get more attention,but that does not make their position MORE important just because they are louder and more obnoxious.

in fact i would posit that this obnoxious behavior works against the very thing they are trying to convey.

we can all agree that we all want equality,fairness and justice and the current,and historical power structures,have always sought to retain and even further their own power.which has been traditionally held by men,but this does not automatically equate to men getting a free ride,quite the opposite.

so women absolutely have a right to challenge this power structure,just as men do.what they do NOT have a right to is imposing their ideologies upon me,or this woman in my video.

this woman has received death threats and threats of physical violence from other feminists! just because she had the audacity to disagree with their position.

at the end of the day this is actually a human issue,and a valid one and we all have a right to our own opinion,but not a right to impose it upon another.

feel free to disagree.

@coolhund
dude..chill.
while i totally respect and admire your passion,@dingens is correct in pointing out your ad-hom swipe.you made overly broad assumptions about him with zero evidence to back those assumptions up,at least on this thread there is no evidence.

i think you owe him an apology.

you appear,to me anyways,to be taking any opinions or criticisms as a personal attack upon you and your stance.

i do not really see people disagreeing with you,but rather pointing out the complex dynamics.this does not equate to disagreement,just a desire to refine the parameters of the discussion.

i totally get what you are trying to say and i agree with you,but in your (understandable) frustration you are lashing out at people who do not deserve your ire.

you are correct to point out that the elephant in the room is never questioned,never mind discussed.i.e:america creates the situation,then plays the victim.

which is your basic hegelian dialectic:problem-reaction-solution.

the real discussion is POWER vs POWERLESSNESS,and the abuses of power to the detriment of society,locally and globally.

at least thats how i was reading your commentary.i could have it all wrong but i do admire your passion.

if i could offer some unsolicited advice my friend:do not become so invested in your passions that you forget the plot.the people who have commented here are not your enemies.

they are just commenting,and maybe if you feel they are not understanding what you are laying down..clarify your position by engaging with these people to collectively formulate a better understanding.no need or reason to lash out at them,because maybe they just misunderstood what you were trying to say.

oh god...just realized i am that uncle on the holidays that tries to keep the peace by getting everyone drunk.

ok everybody!
beers on me!
lets go get drunk!

there many forms of enslavement,to wit most people are wholly unaware,either unwittingly or unwillingly.

"none are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free" van goethe.

consider this my friends:
if you accept currency for your labors,where you toil for anothers financial gain.you are literally renting yourself.trading your time,creativity and labors for coin.you are a wage slave and a hundred years ago our ancestors were very aware of this and found it detestable.they literally saw it as a form of slavery.

now as @Lawdeedaw pointed out,there are some protections put forth by our government,along with other governments,but those were not just handed out.they had to be fought for,and many died for those protections.by whom? wage slaves,but in those days they KNEW thats what they were,and proceeded from that premise.

the philosophy of the matrix even addressed this very idea of slavery (yep,i went there).that the majority of the people had become so entrenched and immersed in the system,that to even question the system would illicit a violent and defensive response.they would fight to remain in the system.

just look at our friend @Barbar 's reaction.
even the term "slave" was enough for a visceral reaction.

i am reminded of a doug stanhope routine in where he states " at least i KNOW i am a slave,YOU,however..remain clueless".

so let us take the term "slave" off the table and instead use the dynamic of "power vs powerlessness".

the current systems of power have the majority of people running on hamster wheel of desperation.may it be "pay check to paycheck" or "mortgage and credit cards" or the subtle doctrine of "conform and obey".this could also be "all of the above".

the real question is this:
do you consider yourself free?
because a comfortable slave.....is still a slave.
the term may be dramatic,but it is accurate.

@Barbar

your comment is a non sequitur.
the video was not addressing those points but solely revealing the:employee/employer dynamic.

there is plenty of documentation that backs this videos claim that when people are given the illusion of being "free" they become far more productive.

there is nothing in your examples that the state gave out of benevolence.every example you posted were hard fought battles that were executed by the people.many died to earn those concessions,and they ARE concessions.

as for your final example of "quality of life".this just equates to more comfortable slaves.

the dynamic of employer/master/owner vs slave/peon/worker remains intact.

maybe it is the usage of the term slave that you find offensive?
ok..fair enough.the word is used for dramatic effect i agree.
how about we change the terminology to:power vs powerlessness.

in that context would you find this video more palatable?

the common misconception by our lantern is that because we become outraged and incensed over the actions of bad cops being..well..bad,we do not have the capacity to understand that there are far more GOOD cops performing their duties with honor and conviction.

this is not only insulting and offensive....it is dishonest.

while i can understand lanterns desire to defend his chosen profession,being motivated by his own,personal understandings.i cannot understand his almost knee-jerk reactions to criticisms when they are warranted and that somehow all of us harbor this incredibly small and narrow view of police officers.that we do not have the capacity to realize that not all cops are bad,violent,thuggish brutes.

what lantern fails to realize,possibly because he is so close to the situation,is WHY we become so outraged.
police wield immense power over ordinary citizens.they hold in their pocket the power and authority of the state.most cops are aware of this and act accordingly,with honor and integrity,the statistics bear this out.

so when a cop over-reaches said authority,or performs acts of violence against an unarmed citizen,or lies about his actions to avoid the consequences (be they malicious or accidental).

it really pisses us off.

the argument is still:power vs powerlessness.
or in many cases with police over-reach:power vs the vulnerable.

think about it this way lantern:
if a grown man abuses or molests a child,that man is vilified and condemned by society.hell,they KILL men like that in prison!

why?

because it is a total abuse of power and authority,perpetrated upon the innocent and vulnerable.this act is viewed by society as to be so venal and grotesque as to warrant the most harshest of punishments.

that young child trusted the adult to protect them.to keep them from harm.that adult betrayed that trust.

we even,in this society,blame the other adults in the situation for not interceding,because we view the protection of the vulnerable as everyones duty,and to abdicate that duty makes you complicit and henceforth....guilty.

now i am not saying that police are child molesters.
what i AM saying is that to abuse the power and authority of your station upon the innocent and vulnerable is the exact same betrayal of trust.

which is why we become outraged.

you also seem to miss why we become outraged at the supposed good cops looking the other way when bad cops break the law.basically you are the complicit housewife who allowed her baby to be molested.you share in the guilt,even though you did not perpetrate the offense,you allowed it to go unpunished.

choices have consequences and standing up and taking responsibility for those choices is the cornerstone of not only being a man but a decent human being.yet time and time again we see bad cops lying,creating false evidence,even having other cops as co-conspirators in their fabrications,all to avoid the consequences of their actions.

this is NOT what men do.
this is what children do and it is up to the parent to correct this devious,weak and irresponsible behavior.a parents job is to teach their offspring accountability.that their actions will have consequences...sometimes dire..and to accept those consequences like a man.

so when we see bad cops being irresponsible and suffering zero consequences..

it pisses us off.

and when we see you defend these bad cops.trying to perform mental gymnastics to abdicate bad policing,we take you to task.

yes yes...
we all know good cops can make a mistake.
that there are mitigating circumstances and that we were not there.some cops become so distraught over a single mistake that they may leave the force,or tragically,take their own life.

we all understand this and it is not we take issue with.
we take issue with the coward who will not take responsibility.
we take issue with the lying.
we take issue with the systematic refusal of a "justice" system which allows these bad cops to abuse their authority with impunity.
we take issue with the brutish and thuggish behavior.
we take issue with the unnecessary violence.

we are full aware that there are some fantastic cops out there,but we call out the bad cops for being bad.

and you should as well.
because they besmirch the very profession you are employed in and their behavior tarnishes the reputation of the job you perform with honor and integrity.

all good cops should be calling to the carpet every cop that over-steps his authority,abuses his power,perpetrates violence for no other reason than to be violent.if you guys did that we would have far less youtube videos revealing the subtle rot in your institution.(not so subtle anymore,thank you camera phones!).

we realize that these bad cops do not represent you lantern,so do not feel the urge to defend every single cop video.those bad cops can own their actions...if they had any balls,which they do not.

stop defending these pussies.
they are performing their duties poorly.they are making your job not only harder but less safe and they leave a stain on the job you love (at least i think you love it).

so,
just stop.
and realize we totally understand and that we wont stop calling bad cops out for being bad.

/end rant

*doublepromote

i would not say i am anti-establishment but rather suspicious of power and authority,and rightly so in my opinion,but thats all that is..my opinion.

i tend to post chomsky because he is the most quoted and since he is so critical of power his research tends to be thoroughly vetted.i also post:chris hedges,henry giroux,sheldon wolin,carl popper all whom are extremely critical of the current power structures.

my faith dictates my politics and to me the argument is always,and i mean always:power vs powerlessness

i am critical of power.
i challenge authority and question its validity,forcing said authority to prove its relevance in todays society.

just because i criticize and challenge current power structure in no way dismisses the very good and beneficial accomplishments of the society i reside in.there are many positives to be acknowledged and applauded,but we must be vigilant and do our due diligence in order to challenge extremely powerful forces that seek to undermine the myriad of hard-won rights and privileges in order to benefit themselves at the detriment of everybody else.

so while my politics may be perceived as radical by some,it is not radical at all to me.which should be self-evident.

and disagreement is not only fine by me but welcomed,and i am glad you will engage with me (some people fear conflict).engagement forces me to refine and examine my own ideologies and if they are found lacking,then they must be discarded.without challenge and criticism we will all sit in our own hubris,an echo chamber of our own insular ideologies,smelling our own farts.

now where is the fun in that?

anyways..always a pleasure sparring with ya.
stay awesome brother and merry christmas happy new year!

@enoch .At no point did I say stupid. I said 'you'd have to be ignorant to not understand the facts about immigration'. Which is true.
Facts are facts. I'm not demonizing, that is something THE SUN and MIRROR do to immigrants on a daily basis.

It was @A10anis who used the words "you are joking', half wit, childish, shut up, STUPIDEST"

btw. I agree with your point "the argument is always power vs powerlessness." and I also enjoy your videos.

@billpayer

i dont really understand your attack tactics.
what does it serve?
@A10anis may be many things,but stupid and ignorant are not one of them.
he/she just has a different perspective on things.which @dannym3141 addressed quite succinctly,and respectfully.

i actually agree with many of your posts and i happen to like and respect russell brand for having the balls to stand up for the little guy,but i cannot respect when you presume to know someones political philosophy based on so little.

are you aware that you are using the very same tactics that rabid,rightwing nutters use?
it is so easy to dismiss someone when you can demonize them.
we all become so much easier to manipulate and control when we all buy into the over-simplifed tropes of :conservative/liberal,which are both viewed as dirty words and insults and is a massive success for the propaganda state.

the argument is never conservative versus liberal,those are just labels used to beat us over the head with and paint a divisive line in the sand.where people can take sides and throw poop at each other.it serves nothing and no one besides those who wish to dominate and control.

no,the argument is always power vs powerlessness.

but nothing will ever be gained if we stick to the narrative being fed to us by the very same power structure that wishes us to remain compliant and subservient to a system that no longer serves the population.

so attacking @A10anis 's point of view and opinion,presuming his level of knowledge based on almost nothing,will gain you nothing but perpetuate the very power system that holds us all down.

have to give respect to receive respect.

in an anarchal society the corporation could not and would not exist.they would go back to being temporary business alliances in order to complete an assigned project and then disbursed.

Who tells Enron or Blackwater they have to disburse? Who enforces this?

in an anarchal society,if a company wanted to move its plant over-seas and would leave thousands un-employed,effectively destroying that community.they would first have to seek permission from that township and/or sell the plant to the town in order to change base of operations.

Again, what's stopping them? In fact, what stops a company from cutting down a massive forest or polluting a river?

in an anarchal system,there would be no war on drugs.no criminalizing the poor.no war on terror or wars of aggression.

Maybe, but it would simply be replaced by something even worse.

look,the argument is always,and i mean always:power vs powerlessness.

anarchy is about power to the people in its purest form.
and i hold zero illusions that it may be remotely perfect but if i have to choose..i will always choose YOU over some wealthy elite power broker.

And that's why I believe in a representative democracy. To me there are only a few ways the world can work:
- there's what I would call historical anarchy, where there was nothing to stop groups of the powerful banding together to oppress the weak. This has been the default position for most of human history.
- there's small scale communal anarchy, where people live in small communities. It's possible for this to work, but some bright spark usually figures out that these people are easy pickings for oppression (see above). Even if that doesn't happen, it's incredibly limiting. All of our greatest achievements only happen with cooperation on a large scale. If we're ever to get off this rock and see what's out there, it's not going to happen with hippie communes.
- representative democracy. It's ugly, inefficient, susceptible to corruption, open to pointless "moral crusades" and can be heartless and bureaucratic. And it's still the best system we have....

Churchill really wasn't kidding when he said "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"

@ChaosEngine

i think you fell into the same trap that bc did i.e:only one flavor of anarchy and that simply is an untruth.

i also think you are aware that on some issues we are in total agreement.

what i find most interesting is that latter part of your comment actually makes an argument FOR an anarchal system.all the things you listed that you hate,well..im right there with ya and so is the majority of not just your and my respective countries,but globally!

anarchy has worked but usually on smaller scales and there are certain criteria that most people are unwilling to meet.
for anarchy to work there must be:
an informed citizenry.
and a citizenry that participates.

which is a tall order here in america.

another problem is that societies will build structures that will become institutions that will become sensitive to corruption.that governments will eventually become bloated beasts that seek to only perpetuate its own continued existence,at the cost of the people and the virtues they have tried to uphold.

this we see playing out all over america and europe.

the anarchist realizes that the TRUE power in a society is NOT the government but rather the very people in that society.if that government no longer serves the people then it must be dismantled,on morals grounds alone this is the right thing to do.

in an anarchal society the corporation could not and would not exist.they would go back to being temporary business alliances in order to complete an assigned project and then disbursed.

in an anarchal society the federal reserve would lose its charter.

in an anarchal society,if a company wanted to move its plant over-seas and would leave thousands un-employed,effectively destroying that community.they would first have to seek permission from that township and/or sell the plant to the town in order to change base of operations.

in an anarchal system,there would be no war on drugs.no criminalizing the poor.no war on terror or wars of aggression.

in an anarchal system there would be no surveillance state,nor system of controlled indoctrination because that would be anathema to the very goals of an anarchic system.

look,the argument is always,and i mean always:power vs powerlessness.

anarchy is about power to the people in its purest form.
and i hold zero illusions that it may be remotely perfect but if i have to choose..i will always choose YOU over some wealthy elite power broker.