2. I'm fairly certain there was drug dealing going on in at least one of those crowds harassing the cops. If not, it would be out of character for these groups.
3. Well, you said crime on private property is no one's business but the owner...that's Bullshit, which you admit now.
Shooting a gun violates public discharge laws, sends a projectile on a random arch to impact somewhere, and creates noise violations (especially in the middle of the night like these)...or can I come to your neighbors property and start my shooting range.
4. My point exactly
5. Use of taxpayer services while shirking your duty to pay taxes is theft and treasonous.
6. once gain, business regulation didn't cause the crime problem.
7. Are you suggesting giving the public property to private industries for them to 'take over' the entire city? First, can't happen. Second, shouldn't happen. Living in Disney is terrible, oppressive, expensive, and draconian. I don't see a difference between paying taxes for services and paying 'homeowner fees' for services, except homeowner fees are usually far more expensive for fewer services and more regulation. Not the direction I think most want to go, or a place where most Oaklandites could afford.
So, you aren't anti regulation, only if a Kenyan is doing it to you? That's just dumb.
8. Yes, but those reasons are not capped and/or solely created by having a democrat in power, as you and others suggest.
Most property owners in Oakland are absentee landlords that don't inspect their property regularly, because private ownership does NOT mean better management.
I get mob justice because you keep pushing for it, it's what the Mexicans did that you keep referencing, and it's what you get with a private, unregulated, armed 'group'.
9. Send me the URL to a company that gives actual security for $35 a month that isn't simply a guy you call on the phone who then calls the police. Never heard of any such thing, and if it exists, you are paying your on-post 24/7 security guard $1 a day, I don't think they'll care so much when you get knifed in the throat for that money.

So, you don't drive, you don't US dollars, food products, electricity, mail, internet, phones, water, sewers, public property, items that are imported, items that traveled inter-state, television, or any other service provided by the feds? Impressive. So many of your fellow Americans do that it makes semse for everyone to pay for part of these things so they are available to EVERYONE. Private institutions taking over make all of these for profit, removing their usage from many if not most people.
Yes, really, many people in the bay are having trouble paying their bills and feeding themselves, it's insanely expensive there.
I don't pay much in taxes, only my fair share. That's not enough to support one indigent. If you pay enough to support Oakland by yourself, you are either Bill Gates or a liar.
Most law abiding citizens have no inclination to grab their gun and go on the streets to patrol.
This didn't seem like you ignored me, neither did the 2 other posts that followed.
Sorry, mixed up the insanity.
You always have terrible governing from any governing body, from some point of view. It's a fallacy to conclude otherwise.
If you got your 'lack of governing' you would quickly get foreign governing.
So, there is no utopian free market, just the real, regulated one you're complaining about.
I don't think most libertarians agree with you that libertarian government is anarchy. I don't.
Well, I'm confused. You've spent a bunch of time and effort trying to convince me of your points, but you claim you know it's futile to even try...so what are you doing then?
To me, good government means doing the minimum it can to do what the populace wants, with safeguards to keep one group from taking unfair advantage of another. Better safeguards could make better politicians (yes, that's regulation, of politicians).
I know very little of 'praxology' that I didn't read in Foundation. Not in my science publications that I read regularly.
The tea party took over the libertarian party, and the republican party.
I do, I vote, and I pay my taxes. I don't have these problems, or over-regulation problems where I live. WOW! It worked!

And I paid for my excessive education, I only did 2 years in public school which was daycare. You don't seem to have any information I'm looking for.
If you think a mob of only your friends and family should roam the streets armed to 'protect your interests' then you support gangs. That's exactly what they are. To get enough to regulate activities in a place like Oakland would take a HUGE mob, far more than you have friends and family I'm certain.
I might hope you DO need the police to help you (with something minor, but enough to create your 'need'), then you might realize they are not all your enemy or useless and not far worse than anarchy. It's sad to think that it would take a personal need for you to realize that, but apparently it would.
The police are not a 'foreign' army, like the red coats.

#2 They weren't dealing drugs in that video, were they? And the Oakland vice squad does conduct raids, does it not? I personally know a detective who worked there for years.

#3: "how many slaves do you own?"

Obviously slavery violates self-ownership rights. Shooting a gun on your own property violates no one's rights.

#4: "They document it in hopes the police will do something."

Don't hold your breath.

#5: "Business won't move to these places UNLESS you give them incentive (like tax huge breaks "

Sure, like in Pittsburgh or Singapore.

> "they do not just go there and fix things unless we all pay to let them."

Tax breaks is not "paying them." In fact, you have no moral right to tax. Taxation is theft.

#6: You're too vague positing little more than a bunch of opinions and declarations. Nothing here which really warrants a response.

#7: "They don't allow crime on their (ever expanding) property, period."

That's what I said. Only "public" property allows that kind of violent crime. No legitimate business would. So, while Disney can raise the standard of living on and around its grounds, it's under no pretense to maintain the civility outside of its property.

> "They show clearly that private ownership/control leads to MORE regulation, not less, it's just not government regulation."

When I say "regulation," I mean state-imposed regulation. Of course, however someone wants to regulate within their own private property is within their rights to self-ownership and private property. It's fine since it is not aggression/coercion. I'm not against private regulation. In fact, I regulate who enters into my house or uses my car. Duh. Don't you?

#8: "Oakland HAS been high crime with little money"

This is often the case. The same underlying causes for crime and poverty.

> "Much if not most of the crime happens in parking lots and buildings, on private property, not in the street."

Certainly not while the owners are using the property or while they are liable for allowing a crime to occur there. But tell me: where specifically?

I was making reference to what is happening in that video. If you want to talk about other specific instances, then tell me which ones and we can look at each one specifically.

> "Your apparent assertion that police have unfairly and wrongly stopped mob justice that would assuredly solve all the crime (by committing crimes against criminals) is laughable."

I don't know where you get this "mob justice" from. You are reading into what I said or something.

#9: "nor can you for $35 a month."

Yes I can, and better than what the police offers.

> "People will gladly take your money, but what do they do for you?"

If you are talking about the police, then nothing really.

> "Your taxes are not used only for 'security' you know."

Technically, they are used mostly to pay for war and the national debt. But police is also paid from taxes.

#10: "Most honest people in Oakland are struggling, or they wouldn't live there."

I don't know if this is true, but apparently you do. Somehow, I doubt they are struggling so much that they cannot buy a gun.

> "they can't afford rent and food"

Most "hardworking people" in Oakland cannot buy food? Really?

> "especially when you and yours stop paying taxes and all services they depend on to survive dry up."

I guess they'll still have you to pay for them and the wars and the debt. Although I'm not against charity, in fact I am actively engaged in such activities. But if you need my money, then put the guns away and ask nicely.

> "it's insanely easy to buy an illegal gun there"

But most law abiding people don't want to break the law on this or many other things.

> "Yeah yeah, I just know nothing, so ignore me."

I kind of do.

> "I don't think Oakland is a libertarian dream"

No, that was @enoch who said it was.

> "it's what you get when you de/under fund police and have terrible governing."

You always have 'terrible governing' when it comes from the state, politicians and such. It's a logical fallacy to conclude otherwise.

> "I don't think the answer is to stop governing and policing, it's to do it better (which doesn't necessarily mean more)."

Sorry, but this will NEVER happen. (But, hey, good luck with that. I'm certainly not stopping you. Go ahead. "Do better.")

> "Where is this utopian free market that has "much less poverty" you reference as evidence, I can't find it."

Then you must not be paying attention. Virtually all progress comes from the free market.

And again, if you are not interested, then it doesn't matter if you find it or not, does it? It's your life. You decide what you want and go ahead and do it and live with the consequences.

> "Ahhh, so you admit, anarchy is preferable to you over a government that's not libertarian...hmmmm."

In my opinion, a government cannot be libertarian. The logical conclusion to libertarian non-aggression is anarchy, i.e., no ruler; no state. A "libertarian" state is not really "libertarian." It's a contradiction in terms.

> "I don't think the working people of Oakland, or most anywhere else would agree."

So what? Who cares if they agree or not? They obviously don't agree and, therefore, as you say, they live in Oakland and are "struggling." If most people in Oakland agreed, they could probably turn things around. But as you say, they don't. So they, like everyone else, must live with the consequences of their decisions, their beliefs, their behaviors.

See, the good thing about being libertarian is that you don't really need to convince anyone of anything. That futile endeavor is the lot of those who hope -- against all evidence -- that they will somehow get "good government" if they can only convince others to elect the "better politicians." I sincerely wish you the best of luck with that. I'm certainly not counting on it ever happening. You have your idea of what "good government" means and how to get there, and so do many millions of other people. And they obviously don't agree.

> "And back to 'praxeology', an infant 'science' with questionable if any results."

Questionable in what way(s)? What do you know about it?

> "BTW...I was a libertarian until the Tea party came along...then I had to re-think."

The Tea Party is not libertarian. They have some libertarian preferences, but that's it. They are certainly not anarchists.

Anyway, in sum of all of this, let me say that, if you think you have the answers, then I encourage you to put them into practice. See if you can and deal with the problem!

1. OK
2. Not THESE crimes, the one's I talked about. When violence and drug dealing can happen in front of the police with no repercussion, it's de-facto decriminalized.
3. BULLSHIT. Oakland is not telling anyone they can't hire private security, they do say you can't form a violent gang (which seems to be what you're advocating) even if it's intent is to stop other gang activity. What private institutions are clamoring to come in and solve the crime issues, only to be held at bay by the state? I've never heard of one (and a mob or gang of citizens does not count).
There are numerous legal marijuana dispensaries in Oakland, legalized drug dealers according to the feds....and pharmacies.
What, crime happening on private property is no one's business but the property owner?!? Just wow. Don't know where to go with that mindset...but I might ask, how many slaves do you own?
4. yes, most of the video was shot on private property. Edit: Ok, I noticed it's not mostly on private property. Lot's of crime is, but not this. I was wrong....still...
Private security does not stop this kind of criminal, especially when outnumbered. They document it in hopes the police will do something.
5. yes, I have heard (and disagree with) that complaint. Business won't move to these places UNLESS you give them incentive (like tax huge breaks and/or free land grabs), they do not just go there and fix things unless we all pay to let them. Never heard of it happening, anywhere. Please give an example.
6. Not for the illegal businesses, which are a large percentage. There are regulations to be sure, but many aren't enforced and they certainly aren't over-regulated as I see it, with small exceptions. Over-regulation did not cause the crime in Oakland, that's just ridiculous and ignorant.
7. Disney is not Oakland...and has not gentrified the surrounding areas. I know someone that lived across the freeway, and it was HIGH crime. They don't allow crime on their (ever expanding) property, period. Living in their gated communities is ridiculously expensive and regulated down to the colors you can paint your home or the types of grass you may have in your lawn. It's draconian. They show clearly that private ownership/control leads to MORE regulation, not less, it's just not government regulation.
8. Oakland HAS been high crime with little money, no statist intervention was ever needed. Much if not most of the crime happens in parking lots and buildings, on private property, not in the street. Your apparent assertion that police have unfairly and wrongly stopped mob justice that would assuredly solve all the crime (by committing crimes against criminals) is laughable.
9.Your taxes are not used only for 'security' you know. For the portion that does, you could not hire private security that did anything, nor can you for $35 a month. People will gladly take your money, but what do they do for you?
10. Not what I said, buy your idea is to arm EVERYONE, and everyone can't afford a gun. That does not mean only criminals can afford one, that's terrible comprehension. Most honest people in Oakland are struggling, or they wouldn't live there. Even if guns were cheaper, they can't afford rent and food, so it doesn't help...especially when you and yours stop paying taxes and all services they depend on to survive dry up. ;-} It's not an issue of them being over-regulated that stops most (or any, it's insanely easy to buy an illegal gun there) from owning one, it's just not.
Because people find ways to pay their bills and fines does not mean they have disposable income to spend on firearms, as you suggest.
Yeah yeah, I just know nothing, so ignore me. That seems to work for you. That's fine. First I'll ask, how long have YOU lived in Oakland, since you're an 'expert' and I am not (I never claimed to be)? How long did you live in the libertarian utopia you want to emulate?
I don't think Oakland is a libertarian dream, but I do think it's what you get when you de/under fund police and have terrible governing. I don't think the answer is to stop governing and policing, it's to do it better (which doesn't necessarily mean more).
Where is this utopian free market that has "much less poverty" you reference as evidence, I can't find it.
Ahhh, so you admit, anarchy is preferable to you over a government that's not libertarian...hmmmm. I don't think the working people of Oakland, or most anywhere else would agree. If I'm wrong about that, we're all in trouble.
And back to 'praxeology', an infant 'science' with questionable if any results. People are inherently difficult to study, we're all freaks. (every mention reminds me of the foundation sci-fi series).
BTW...I was a libertarian until the Tea party came along...then I had to re-think.

#1 I clicked "ignore" after responding to his post. That is what I have no problem with doing.

#2 Bullshit. (sorry but it is) Hundreds if not thousands of people get arrested and prosecuted regularly for drug possession, drug selling, and even drug use. Tell me what's been decriminalized!

#3 The state is doing quite a bit in Oakland, actually, like preventing the private institutions that would solve these problems from arising in the fist place from setting up there (but instead hold failed monopolies over those industries). For example, there are no legalized drug dealers (See bullshit #2). Again, that kind of gang activity happens on a "public" street. It does not happen on private property. And even if it did, it'd be no one's business but the owners'.

#4 If this was even close to true, then it's even more proof of the superiority of private police over "public" law enforcement. Because, like I said, you don't see this kind of thing happening on private property, do you?

#5. Wrong. Businesses will take care of that if given an incentive to move there. Have you not heard of people complaining about (so-called) "gentrification?"

#6. Huh? Really? So, are there no business permits needed to set up a business in Oakland? Do the business owners and residents of Oakland not have to pay taxes? Is there no open carry for law-abiding citizens? (now there will be it seems). Is there no enforced rent control in Oakland? If you don't see any regulations being enforced, then you are willfully ignorant.

#7. There are no gangs at Disney because it is private property and its owners will not put up with something so bad for business as gangs. Disneyland and Google have gentrified the neighborhoods they are in -- they were not always low crime areas as they were before they moved in.

"Oakland is a high crime area with little money for security."

Yeah, those usually go together. The ultimate results of statist interventions are always poverty and crime.

#8 Much of the violent crime happens in the "public" spaces, like the streets. Sure, there are break-ins to private homes, etc. but as you say, the poverty does not let people hire private security, and the "public" police (that have monopolized that industry) are, like you point out, completely useless to the tax-paying residents who live there.


#9 I'd rather I wouldn't have to pay for taxes and pay for my own security than having to give the money to the state in exchange for getting nothing in return. In fact, I'm aware of several security services that are available to people living in the ghetto for as little as $35/month.


#10 So, only gangsters can afford guns now? Maybe it will be cheaper without the gun "permit" costs. Or the restrictions about buying them more cheaply online.

And I highly doubt the peoople in Oakland can't afford guns, given how many guns there are in Oakland. But, for the sake of argument, lets say it's true. If not for the illegality of the drug trade, then gangsters would also not be able to afford guns (the illegality of the drugs is what's driving up the price and, as a result, the profitability of gangsterism). And if it wasn't for the regulations, Walmart would make sure to provide more affordable armaments, just like they do in other states.

I recommend spending just a few minutes inside the Oakland traffic court and you'll see how many "hardworking upstanding people" there are who somehow manage to pay for hundreds of dollars in fines and/or do community service for an equivalent minimum wage to pay for these. You could easily get a gun at Walmart for much less.


"Before someone claims I have no idea of what I speak, my brother lived in East Oakland..."

Well, if you think Oakland is a libertarian "dream," then you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Having a brother who lived in Oakland for a year does not make you an expert on (or even vaguely familiar with) what a libertarian "dream" place looks like (or even -- as you apparently reveal -- what actually goes on in Oakland).


Just the fact that, as you say, Oakland is rather poor makes it a non-libertarian city at all. A free market society/economy (cronyism is not a free market, so don't even go there) has much less poverty than a 'regulated' one.

Sure, if you go from a state-dependent "economy" to a free market overnight, without having had time to rebuild the private institutions that the state demolished and/or took over and/or monopolized, then, sure you may have a chaotic transition period. That's why a controlled dismantlement is far more preferable to an anarchy that comes about by sudden collapse. But, you have to take what you can get.

(As we may find out first hand) the problem with a government going bankrupt is that, at first, it may seem like a good thing, but it can also bring about a worse repression from the state. Praxeology cannot answer the unknown. It falls more within the realm of thymological prediction/analysis.

I would like to answer some points here....
1.You certainly SEEM to have a problem ignoring his posts, you even responded to them.
2. These 'crimes' have been 'decriminalized' because the police are unable to enforce the laws, decriminalizing nearly everything, at least in practice if not by law.
3. The state doing nothing is what libertarians are all about, so again, in practice this does seem to be the libertarian dream, just not by law.
4. Private security HAS taken over in Oakland. Private security only protects what they're paid to protect, and nothing else usually.
5. To make Oakland 'business friendly' you first need to make if FAR less violent.
6. I can't see ANY regulations being enforced there, what are you talking about with 'over-regulated Oakland'?
7. Oakland is in America, and nearly all of it is 'private property/enterprise' that IS putting up with that. There are no gang shootings (or fewer) at Google and Disney because they are in low crime areas and can afford good private security for themselves, Oakland is a high crime area with little money for security.
8. Wow, you are really stretching there. These things do NOT happen only in public places, most of Oakland is private property and high crime.
9. Where do you get the idea that struggling businesses have the funds to pay for private security? That's simply wrong and insultingly so, as it implies that they have the ability to stop, and a reason to allow the high crime in their area.

10. to the idea that everyone in Oakland should just be armed to reduce crime, is anyone offering the free guns to them? I guarantee you, most hard working upstanding people in Oakland can't afford a gun.

Before someone claims I have no idea of what I speak, my brother lived in East Oakland for a year and I visited often, and we lived in S. Berkley for years, almost on the Oakland border...I do know the Oakland of the 80's and 90's (true, I have no personal knowledge of 2000+ Oakland, but it seems the same).

@enoch, you must have your head in your own rectum if you think that Oakland is anywhere close to a libertarian's wet dream. You clearly have no interest in having a real discussion about any of the principles I've outlined for you, and I have little problem ignoring your posts.

If anything, Oakland is more like a statist's dream, right now. The inevitable result of regulations and criminalization of drugs. Drug dealers, pimps, bookies, and such are, in fact, "cronies" of the governmental system due to the fact that their jobs are overpaid by the illegality of these services.

If Oakland decriminalizes all of the above mentioned "services" that these guys provide, then I would grant that the city is, indeed, moving in a libertarian direction. Otherwise, only psychos and low-lifes tend to take those illegal jobs given that they are subject to the precariousness of the whims of the legislators

I don't mind them doing any of the above activities, actually. But shooting guns in the air could be a violation of someone else's property, depending on where the bullets fall or on whom/what. And obviously the state "protectors" are doing nothing about any of these things.

Like I said, let private security take over and these random shootings would be curtailed..

Make Oakland business-friendly, and you will see it become much less violent. A libertarian's "dream" does not look like an over-regulated Oakland.

Private enterprise/private property does not put up with random shooting into the air in the middle of a city. Tell me: Why are there are no gang shootings inside the Google campus? Or at Disneyland?

Why do these things tend to happen only in "public" spaces? Tell me.

That cop heckled by the gangs had zero incentive to risk his life for no gain. Businesses, on the other hand, have the incentive to keep gangs off of their property. And they will find those willing and able (for the right price) to deal with the gangsters in ways the government cronies simply can/will not..

oakland=a libertarians wet dream.
@Trancecoach these gangsters have jobs.
they sell drugs,sell sex and run gambling dens.they provide security for those who do not wish their private property violated.
they provide essential services.

why do you hate the free market?
are you a socialist?

But who will take away her private property that she apparently loves more than family and friends and leave her in a ditch somewhere to be food for the crows?

im no statist but this video is so childishly naive as to be laughable.

might as well call the free market jesus.

jesus is the way and the light.
follow jesus for salvation.
only jesus can absolve you of your sins.

this is about power.
if the libertarian is willing to acknowledge that the government is bloated and corrupt but unwilling to recognize the abuse of power wrought by corporations...because the corporation is part of the "free market"...they can end their sermon right there.

i am no longer interested.

if a libertarian preaches the importance of individual sovereignty and individual rights but dismisses that they are part of a community in a larger society.
they can proselytize at somebody elses door.

if a libertarian wishes to shower me with the glories of private property and ownership but ignore the importance and basic human dignity of the very workers who produce everything for those private owners.

then i say unto them that they wish to enslave their fellow man and the freedom they seek is for them alone and the rest of humanity be damned all in the name of profit and greed.

they can take their cult of ayn rand and masturbate somewhere else.

UNLESS....
they are willing to admit that:
1.as @VoodooV pointed out,we live in a society and a society is populated by PEOPLE.

2.that people deserve more than just the right to trade freely (which i agree with) but that human dignity and compassion,and yes..the right for life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

3.that the corporation is actually MORE vicious than a government.a corporation is amoral by design! so if we are going to address the abusive powers of government,the abuses of corporations should be recognized as well.

4.the argument that corporations would not exist without governments is a canard.that may have been true in 1910 but no longer.there are corporations that have a higher GDP than most nation states.

5.the argument that governments start wars are only half-truths.can you guess what the other half is? thats right! banks and corporations using their power and influence to oppress third world nations...through the use (or abuse to be more accurate) of this nations military.see:smedley butler.

6.while a non-state would be amazing i am not naive enough to believe it could ever happen in our lifetime.yes many arbitrary borders have been penned by empires but there will always be lines drawn by cultural,religious and ethnicity..lets be honest.

7.while i do not share voodoos optimism in this democratic representative republics current health status (i feel it is broken and dysfunctional),it is a FAR better thing than the authoritarian,totalitarian system that is the american corporation.unless they went all democratic on me and i didnt get the memo.

8.government does have a role in our society,though it should be limited.
defense (not illegal and pre-emptive wars of aggression).
fraud control and law enforcement.
roads,fire,police,education and health,because thats what a society does for each other.
we take care of each other.
you dont like that? move to the mountains..have fun!

9.the corporate charter should be re-written."for the public good" should be re-instated for one thing.
a.i was talking to a libertarian and he used the term "non-aggression" and i really REALLY liked this.so a corporation will be held responsible for any and all:destruction to the ecology (local and abroad),destruction of peoples health,home and property.externalization of any sort will be seen as "aggression" and the CEO and all officers will be held liable to be paid by:dissillusion of company of jail time,they can choose.
b.a corporation is NOT a person and ZERO funds will be drawn from company money to purchase a legislator.they may spend as much money as they wish from their own personal accounts,but ALL contributions shall be made public over a certain amount.
c.any corporation that has been found to pay their workers so little as to put the burden on the tax payer shall be found performing an "aggressive" act against the american people and shall either pay the amount in full or forfeit their company.

dammit.im rambling ...again.
but oh baby am i digging this non-aggression dealio!

can i rewrite the corporate charter?
please please please please.....

*promote the discussion

"i admit my utter failure in expressing my position and decide to use someone i highly admire who could explain it better."

If your position is the same as Chomsky's, I understand that position. I have heard Chomsky talk about it repeatedly. (Here's a take on Chomsky by David Gordon with which I tend to agree).

"i want to understand why you choose your flavor of libertarianism."

If you want to understand my position, why send me Chomsky to explain YOUR position? Why not read what I sent you? Or what I've recommended that you read? Or simply respond to my comments?? This is NOT how you "understand" another position: by stating your own (or, someone else's, in this case, Chomsky's).

"which i dont because you never address the elephant in the room."

If the 'elephant' is all the conjectures you've seen about corporations/business taking over in evil ways, then I've already explained that those scenarios cannot happen under anarchy. That's not how business works in a government-free market.

"it appears to me your style of libertarianism is circa 1790."

I don't even know what this means...

"even Blankfist agreed that corporate power and influence MUST be restructured and possibly returned to temporary partnerships"

Let me restate it again then for you, since you seemed to have missed my position the first few times I've said it. Maybe I didn't say it enough times:

If you can do any of this, with no initiation of violence, zero, never initiating any physical violence against anyone's person or property, then I'm for it, whether you want to call it socialism, communism, anarchism, capitalism, whatever. But the requirement is zero initiation of violence. None. I don't know how you can have that with any form of syndicalism or socialism, unless everyone unanimously agrees on everything and that is quite rare. I doubt that it can happen except in the smallest groups, and even then, it's in specific and circumscribed ways. That is why a private property system is the only system that can ensure zero legal physical coercion/aggression against anyone's person and/or property. (Here's Rothbard's take on syndicalism. Worth reading.)

"like that the system will ultimately begin to cannibalize itself when growth becomes stagnant?"

This cannot/will not happen in a free market. Only when aggression is introduced could this happen.

"that unfettered capitalism will lay waste to everything"

Unfettered voluntary exchanges will never lay waste to anything. Do you understand how absurd this sounds to me? You are proposing the replacement of voluntary exchanges with coercion. Yes, you are -- because I have been clear that capitalism, as I am defining it, means free, voluntary exchanges. I don't care what corporations do as long as they engage in voluntary transactions providing goods and services that consumers want. Only through government-granted privileges -- enforced through violence -- can corporations do otherwise. There are no "natural monopolies." There have never been. Ever.

Even after watching the video, there is nothing there which "proves" that there is such a thing a "natural monopoly" or that "proves" that aggression is better than non-aggression. Is there?
But like I said, if you can show how to do any of what you'd propose with zero aggression, then I'm for it.

"you are not the person i gave you credit for."

Bad thymology, then, apparently.

"i made certain assumptions about you based an very little."

Similar to making all sorts of assumptions about corporations and the free market based on very little evidence.

"i was never trying to say you were wrong"

Really? What were you saying then??

"i just wanted to understand why you believe the things you believe."

Then, instead of insulting me or trying to shame or coerce me (what's with this posting "for Trancey"?! What?!), you could simply ask me polite questions, instead of ones like, "do you even know this or that"? No dice.

And instead of just telling me what "thou believe" or not. Is this about understanding my view or about you telling me what you believe or dictating what I ought to believe?

"is the corporate tyranny not as evident to you"

No. How is Apple tyrannizing you?
They haven't tyrannized me. Not one iota. In fact, they have provided my friends with some useful goods, for which they have gladly given them several thousands of dollars.

If you have a specific grievance against a specific company, let me know, and I can point out to you what your remedy could be. Any grievance that does not involve a government.

I wouldn't particularly appreciate you (or anyone) trying to interfere, through violence or the threat thereof, in any voluntary non-aggressive exchanges I choose to engage in, whether I do so as an individual or as a group, even as a group where we choose to call ourselves a corporation. And if our group does or does not want to structure itself as a syndicate, what business is it of yours?

Call me 1790 or whatever, but I don't really consider someone who'd want to impose their will on me like that a bonafide 'anarchist' despite what they choose to call themselves. I know, that's just my choice. I am not preventing you from calling yourself whatever you want. Just don't expect me to agree.

"as an anarchist i believe all systems of authority and power to be illegitimate until proven otherwise."

I have a different take, in my preferred anarchism. The only one I see as functional, all voluntary hierarchies and authorities are perfectly legitimate. I am free to submit or not to any authority I choose to for my benefit and that is my legitimate right. Also private property owners have a legitimate authority over their property. I can do whatever I want with my property (without violating anyone else's self-ownership and property rights). And under the same conditions, I can legitimately enter into any agreements I want with anyone I want. That would be legitimate private property anarchy.

As of now, the government makes what is naturally legitimate, into something arbitrarily illegitimate, based on the whims of legislators and bureaucrats.

"the burden is on those who profess authority."

I understand what you are saying. And don't think the burden is on anyone. Do not initiate violence on anyone's person of property. Simple. That's it. There's nothing else to prove or not. If anything it is the "burden" to prove you own what you own, in cases of ownership disputes. For that, there is legal precedent on who has the burden of ownership proof etc.

"because even as an anarchist i have to recognize that there needs to be a system which keeps the hands on the scales that keeps the playing field even and the kids playing nice."

The only thing that can interfere and wreck a private property anarchy is aggression, i.e., the initiation of violence against anyone's person and/or property. To prevent that you have legal enforcement and arbitration services (courts). Just like now. Except that there wouldn't be a state monopoly over these. A private law society can work just as well or better than having a monopoly of law enforcement and courts. Monopolies are always inefficient and costly. Always. For any and all goods and services. No exceptions.

"these systems are for the people,by the people and run by the people."

There is not such thing as "the people," in any practical sense. Show me "the people" and I'll show you an abstraction. There are only individuals. "The people" cannot run anything. Even you and I disagree. How are we "the people?" (Furthermore, to have a truly non-violent society, individuals would have the choice as to whether or not to engage in agreements with other individuals. Unlike now, where people are forced into agreements by which "majorities" -- whether actual or rigged -- impose their will upon the minorities. That's what you call "democracy.")

"BUT..you stop there. are you implying that we have a free market now?"

No, we don't have a free market now. We have pockets in which free markets function, however.

"did you actually infer that america begot its wealth and power purely through free market exchanges?"

Yes, mostly it did.

"have you even been paying attention?"

What the fuck does that mean?

"corporate america has been exploiting third world countries for over a century!"

No, some corporations with the help of the US and/or foreign governments have been exploiting some people in third world countries, enriching those corporations and government officials in the US and mostly in third world countries. But this is what made these corporations and government officials wealthy, not what made America as a whole a wealthy nation. America is no longer a wealthy nation as a whole (particular companies are not "America"), but an indebted nation, because of things like these, which go hand in hand with military expenditures too. The average person profits nothing from these corporations and politicians exploiting third world (or any) countries. So no, this does not make America wealthy.

The free market, however (which this exploitation is not), did make America a wealthy nation with rapid economic improvement for the average person (with the regrettable exceptions of African and Native Americans).

"and our government has been the fist that punched the:exploitation,ruination and demise of those countries.hell thats the reason WHY they are third world!"

If you are arguing that the government has been responsible for all this evil, then you are preaching to the choir. Although I take issue with the idea that it is "our government." I don't own it, nor would I want to.

"its shameful and if thats your idea of a free market.
well..you can fucking keep it."

I don't think you have been paying attention, @enoch. No, I don't think we have a free market and you cannot have a free market if there is a government interfering with it. So I don't know what your, "you can fucking keep it," bullshit is about.

"you only seem to address one part of the equation.
or are you oblivious to the harm that corporate america has wrought for the past century?"

Corporate American is a corporatist system, kind of fascist if you want to get technical. It is a mix of private business with government-granted privilege. That is not a free market. Let me say it again, in case you missed it, a truly free market cannot exist while a government monopoly grants privilege to some businesses. That is crony-corporatism, fascism. A free market can only exist as market anarchy. Corporations exploit because of government privilege, be it granted by the US government/state or third world governments/states.

"who or what will keep that behemoth in check?"

Private law based on the rights to contracts and the right of freedom from aggression to person and/or property, enforced by a private legal enforcement system.

The state has not and will not "keep that behemoth in check" as you call it. In fact, the state is the "behemoth." It is absurd to expect the state to police itself. It has not and it will not. That plan is a failure. But "good luck with that."

(btw, I you want to know the real reasons third world countries are third world, particularly Latin America, I suggest you read Alvaro Vargas Llosa's well researched book, "Liberty For Latin America," and see how 500 of state intervention/abuse has led to the current situation. If you want to lecture me about why Latin America is "third world," you'd better do some more research first and really know your stuff. I am quite familiar with the situation there.)

"what do you think will happen when you take regulation off the table?"

When you take government-granted privilege off the table, things get better and corporations and (more importantly) governments cannot abuse individuals, as some corporations and virtually all governments now do. And you replace those privileges (euphemistically called "regulations") with laws based on non-aggression and enforcement of rights to self-ownership and property.

All "exploitation" comes from aggression. All of it.

Aggression means initiating violence. Without government support, no one can initiate violence without becoming a criminal. And criminals shall be dealt with accordingly. But as long as governments/states grant aggression privileges, then you have legalized crime.

"do you understand what feudalism actually is?"

Perhaps you'd like to restate this in a non-condescending way. If you have something to say about feudalism, then say it. Explain whatever you want to explain...

"we are living in what is now being called a "neo-feudalism" state."

I don't care to have a state, so you can take this complaint to the statists. (Good luck with that.)

"you point to the government but not to the invisible hand that owns it.which is corporate america"

"Corporate America" could do little harm if any, if it weren't for some corporations' use of government. Government serves no purpose other than to allow those who control it take from those who don't. The only solution to this is to not have that tool/weapon available to whomever takes control of it. Corporations don't own it. They just use it as much as possible (just like unions do, just like all sorts of special interest groups do, just like voting blocks do, and mostly just like politicians and bureaucrats do, and even citizens who "game" the system in one way or another).

"then again.i am a pretty crappy capitalist."

That likely makes you a "pretty crappy anarchist" too.
No offense intended.
Libertarian socialist kind of contradicts itself, does it not?
Take what you want from this message or not.
Good luck.

If there's no water use or deed restrictions stating rules of washing one's own vehicle in his neighborhood, he's on private property there should not be a problem. Cop wasn't a dick but his neighbors (most likely just one problem neighbor) probably are. Depends on the local law or community guidelines. What state would be my question.

Please learn the meaning of the word "literally", it does not mean "figuratively".
I also think this is a setup. There were way too many witnesses (and a public video) for it to be a real felony vandalism/destruction of private property unless the guy with the white car and the concrete company both have under an 85 IQ (which may be the case, there are lots of dumb people out there).

Yes you should be able to tell them to get a warrant. If they don't like it? They can stay outside the building or patrol that area until there is a fight again. Private property is MEANT to be that way.

Also I make it a point to not associate with people that would be beating on me and I think everyone should probably put that in their top 10 list.

I shouldn't have my rights infringed on because some woman who is getting beat doesn't have the common sense to leave when the police show up or scream for help again if she's "locked upstairs". Because you know why? If the woman is like that she'll just keep going back to him anyway. So the police showing up doesn't make a damn bit of difference anyway.

The police aren't counselors and they are not parents. People make dumb choices and they have to be held accountable for their actions at some point.

Fuck those little bastards. The lady was acting very reasonable - she's the manager, it's private property, those kids were 100% in the wrong. It also looked like the one that lost the board was intentionally trying to collide with her.

I hope this video gets popular, the police trace it down (dumb for uploading it...), and she presses charges against them. Of course since they are under 18, not much will happen, but hopefully they learn something.