Yes, because I didn't say that.
I said it MIGHT have helped, not that it should have been their only option. Imagine if ALL the fighting age men that immigrated to Palestine in the 30's were on the Allied side, in place before Hitler struck. It may have made a HUGE difference in the war efforts.

I also said we (the US) should have done a better job accepting refugees, because that's what they were in the 40's. Granted, we were busy putting Japanese in prison camps, but we can do two things at once.

All that said, because things are bad someplace doesn't make it OK to take someone else's land, and that's what Israel is, stolen land. Don't take things that aren't yours, and treat others as you would have them treat you. The Zionists have broken both those rules heinously.

At this point, Israel are basically holding a midget at arm's length, kicking him in the balls with steel toe caps whilst Palestine slap ineffectually at their hand.

Israel has the capability to deal with the attacks on "their" land (let's not forget the UN recognise much of their occupation as illegal) without indiscriminate shelling of areas populated by MOSTLY innocent civilians. They are basically investing in future terrorism by choosing not to do so, giving themselves an excuse to elaborate on their prison camp which we refer to as Palestine.

You don't have to be FOR hamas to be AGAINST the killing of innocents, and i'm afraid Israel does the lion's (and the lioness', and the cubs') share of that. They can and should be better than retaliation.

Economics is not a matter of faith. It's a matter of rationality. Logic. The laws of geometry do not change on the basis of one's interpretation. Same is true in economics. As such, one can apply this logic in the absence of any particular belief system. I cite Mises' book because it lays out, in a clear and understandable way, why this is so. But you can read others on the topic (e.g., Hazlitt, Hayek, and Rothbard), as I am not attached to any sort of "fundamentalism" despite your attempts to depict me as such. But so long as you (or anyone) believes they're going to gain any understanding or insight or ability to parse the type of rhetoric demonstrated in this video, then the confusion and suffering that it propagates will continue. I assure you, nowhere in the text I linked (nor in any of the work of the authors I've cited) have addressed, specifically, the "babysitter economy" or the "prison camp economy," and yet, somehow I've pointed out the flaws in the postulated arguments here (flaws, I might add, you chose to ignore, opting instead to engage in a diatribe about me personally).

I could care less if you or anyone on videosift likes me as a person, but stupidity can be addressed with education. Willful ignorance, on other hand, cannot be helped.

Haha!

If everyone's a babysitter, well, that's not a genuine division of labor, is it? And if money can only buy babysitting, well, that's not really money, is it?

And free markets don't work by agreeing through contract how much a currency will buy. If you restrict currency to one "babysitting" unit only, then, of course you'll have problems. You don't need to "print" more of these tokens. Deflation will invariably take place instead in an actual market, not in one where you have to contractually "centrally control" the value of each token.

And of course, a prison camp is not a free market. No entrepreneur can simply start supplying the goods and services needed.

The prison camp does not represent a "free economy," but only a prison camp economy.

I don't think either of those two examples are useful in any real way, but what exactly did you think you'd learn from them?

This isn't "how an economy works," but it's maybe how a non-divisible "currency" works in a one product/service "market;" or how a food embargo works.

P.S. If you really want to understand how economies work, you should read Mises' "Human Action" (PDF) and stop being lazy, thinking you'll learn something from these short youtube videos. (Once you hear Krugman mentioned, it's enough to know that everything that follows is about as rooted in reality as a kindergartner's fingerpaintings.)

This video's always worth revisiting...

He's def on to something when he suggests the US does the same thing re: prison camps. What do you call it when you force people to do prison work in order to stay in the general population? So what if they don't starve or whip them if they don't work? We have a very narrow definition of what slavery is in this day and age. We update our definition of slavery to fit the times. It is very, very common now all over the world.

Relevant to the conversation...

http://www.utsalumni.org/news/how-one-man-escaped-from-a-north-korean-prison-camp-3549/

Falun Gong is a meditative practice. It involves no nudity, no harassment, no physical contact and literally nothing that could offend anyone in public. It doesn't cause harm to the people who practice it and poses no threat to anyone who observes it. There is absolutely no logical reason to ban it.

Gambling, drugs, public nudity, etc, are not valid comparisons because they are either potentially harmful (financially or physically) or generally offensive (most people are against public nudity because the average body is not appealing to look at). A meditative practice that you perform in the privacy of your own home or with others who share your beliefs isn't analogous to any of those things.

Again, if you want a valid comparison, you should compare Falun Gong to a religion. In the U.S., there is no ban against any religion. Actually, gay marriage is an example that could work in your favor. There are no victims as a result of gay marriage (though the long-term effects of having gay parents hasn't been well-researched) so the ban isn't really justified. And while it is indeed banned in many states, the government isn't sending gay couples to prison camps and you won't be arrested for trying to get married if you're gay. The state just won't allow it.

So when you consider the crime and the punishment, there is no U.S. equivalent of how China is dealing with Falun Gong.

People in U.S. prisons aren't always there for violent crimes, that is correct. However, they are in there for other crimes like theft, burglary, rape, molestation, etc. Comparing those crimes to the practice of Falun Gong is ridiculous and it's even more ridiculous to compare China's treatment of Falun Gong practitioners to the U.S. imprisonment of thieves and rapists.

If the U.S. suddenly decided to ban Islam and put all Muslims in prison camps, your comparisons would be justified. As it stands, they are just silly because they completely ignore what Falun Gong actually is and why it's being banned by the Chinese government.

I'll answer some of messengers questions:

"1. Which part of, "Palestinians in Gaza are the prisoners of Israel, and Hamas is fighting against Israel because Israel has taken away the freedom of Palestinians in Gaza," do you disagree with?"

Gaza is now basically a prison camp, and yes, Israel is behind that, but thats not why Islamic totalitarian terrorists are fighting. They are not seeking freedom, they are seeking islamic totalism and the extermination of jews.

"2. Do you think that Hamas would continue fighting Israel if Palestine returned to its 1946 borders?"
Yes, probably.

"3. Do you think Hamas would stop fighting if all Israelis in the world were killed, but some other country kept Palestinians confined in Gaza and continued the embargo?"

If the occupiers were muslims, imprisoning and ruling Gaza with an islamic iron fist, then yes, probably. It is a strange and sad fact that Islamic societies are rabidly anti-semitic and anti-everything-not-islam, and at war with any neighbour that doesnt conform to islam, while being strangely content and silent if oppressed by fellow muslims, as is the case in so many islamic countries, where were the islamic suicide bombers fighting the oppression of Saddam?, The taliban, kohmeini? Muslims, especially women, are suffering every day all over the place, and most of the suffering is NOT caused by Israel or the west, but by islamic or muslim thugs at the helm of an oppressed people. I'd love for the palestinians to have freedom, but not just from Israel, but also from the violent ideology of the terrorists claiming to fight for them.

"4. Are there any rules against celebrating after killing your enemy?

5. Is killing someone worse than celebrating the killing?"

Firstly, The enemy is not israeli civilians, secondly this question sets up a false dichotomy: obviously killing is worse than celebration, but celebrating the death of innocent people doesnt exactly show that you are ready for peace or reconcilliation.It shows that Hamas' tactics are not simply last-resort, desparate actions from an imprisoned people, but something they at some level rejoice in doing. If Hamas were the peace-loving hippie freedom fighters you seem to think they are, they surely would not celebrate like this?

>> ^luxury_pie:

And by the way: what the heck is wrong with that childs face at 1:52+ ???
That's a forced smile they have to put up otherwise their parents will be killed or sent off into prison camps
yes, those artificial smiles and fake-ly happy choreographed moves are kinda creepy.. and child-to-guitar proportions are really whacky.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Yes, sure- use the excuse that they thought the first guy's camera was a gun- that doesn't justify gunning down a whole van of people who were trying to help the wounded. There's just no valid excuse for this. If you listen to audio- these guys are trigger-happy idiots who should be court-marshalled.
>> ^Throbbin:

I can't tell if you are being facetious or not, but MAYBE the first incident could be justified. The 2nd incident, with the van and no weapons in sight could never, ever be justified by anyone. Any organization or government that tries to justify it should be brought down.>> ^joedirt:
Dag, you are clueless.
Even the UN would rule this a justified shooting. Somehow the US is allowed to shoot anyone on sight of what they think is a gun. It's crazy, but that is what occupation means. No one gets convicted of these war crimes. Look at Gaza, look at Faluja. Look at any prison camp run by US military..

I can't tell if you are being facetious or not, but *MAYBE* the first incident could be justified. The 2nd incident, with the van and no weapons in sight could never, ever be justified by anyone. Any organization or government that tries to justify it should be brought down.>> ^joedirt:

Dag, you are clueless.
Even the UN would rule this a justified shooting. Somehow the US is allowed to shoot anyone on sight of what they think is a gun. It's crazy, but that is what occupation means. No one gets convicted of these war crimes. Look at Gaza, look at Faluja. Look at any prison camp run by US military..

Dag, you are clueless.

Even the UN would rule this a justified shooting. Somehow the US is allowed to shoot anyone on sight of what they think is a gun. It's crazy, but that is what occupation means. No one gets convicted of these war crimes. Look at Gaza, look at Faluja. Look at any prison camp run by US military..

3. A certain prejudging of foreigners - if you behave in a certain way or have a certain alternative belief, it is inevitably due to your foreignness.

Wow, I didn't know the aboriginies were so prejudice. I guess you can't blame 'em after England pretty much took their home land from them and turned it into a giant prison camp.

Happy Australia Day!

I find it disappointing that Stewart didn't press him further on the issue of torture as a war crime that America had prosecuted in the past, because there was at least one case where a Japanese prison camp officer was convicted of war crimes and torture because he waterboarded American personnel.