I confuse my heroes who are characters with the actors that play them sometimes.
Apparently, Will Smith is not the guy from The Pursuit of Happiness.
Apparently, Will Smith is not Fresh Prince.
Apparently, Will Smith is not that heroic pilot from Independance Day.
Apparently, Will Smith is an asshole.

Meaningless fiction.
In the post Trump era, it’s more likely that aliens will land and offer free telepathic abortions on demand than it is Democrats and Republicans will agree on anything enough for a 2/3 majority. When one party’s entire platform is “obstruct the other party”, constitutional evolution is dead.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness….that makes abortion a right on all 3 counts, since pregnancy can threaten life, denies liberty, and who could be happy forced to be a life support system for another? Also, the logical extension of that obligation means healthy people forced to donate kidneys, transfuse their blood, repeatedly donate partial livers, etc. …anything that other person needs to live should be the obligation of anyone who can supply it. Same as forced pregnancy. That makes it a constitutional issue, the denial of life, liberty, and property without due process, conviction, or even a crime is addressed in the constitution, and applies here.

Liberty is the answer. You have to convince Americans that they don't stand for simple freedom, they stand for motherfucking liberty; which accounts for all people, not one people or the other.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness...

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Not only that, but when you suffer at the hands of cold, calculating oppression lacking entirely in humanistic compassion, when its flashing a badge and looking down on you like lesser than an enemy, but a nothing, a problem, a defect barely worth your time that simply needs handcuffs and a room without a view. The bounds of civil society begin to evaporate, because you no longer have a value to western civilization. Your pursuit of happiness ends and the collapse of your individual capitalist worth plummets.

And then nothing matters. Nothing. I fully understand why some people pick up guns and bombs and go on rampages. Even if it sickens me to consider such atrocity, i get it. Im staring into the darkness and it stares back and it makes sense.

Maybe after years of worthless surveillance, the powers that be will begin to understand this simple and very human truth. Dont devalue other humans.

Ever.

It always seemed to me that, if 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' are 'guarantees' in America, health care should be free, otherwise only those with money get the former, while those without money may lose all 3 because of their uncared for health issues. That never seemed to be the intent of our system to me, and also does not seem moral or humane, and certainly isn't 'Christian'. It's not even financially sound, it's cheaper by far to take care of everyone properly rather than the system we have now under the ACA, which is better than before ACA.

There's quite a wait time for elective surgery in America too, I can't fathom why that's an issue for some people about single payer systems...if you count the time it takes to get pre-authorization from your insurance company, Canada is probably faster than America even on elective surgeries, and certainly far cheaper.

Private security can not fix social problems.

First you fix poverty, then crime.

Other way around, there is only one way: forever sentences, "no rehabilitation only penalty" is the goal. Trying to sweep "undesirables" away, clean and neatly tucked away in private prisons. It's very neat way of "fixing" the leak by pusnihing one part of your own populace on different rules. What do you think will happen once it goes for a generation? Children are taught from ground-up to not trust the government, the police and the rest of the society that's want to basically kill them but are too afraid so it's dealt with another route: destroying any chance of social mobility by promoting inequality, making tougher laws for crimes that are mostly only happening on lowest economic classes, giving out sentences for the same crimes differently depending how those background factors are that the people themselves can't help. That is an effective solution, it's not final but in these quarterly run world, nothings forever but instead "make profit now".

And then after all that claiming "it's the land of the free", "pursuit of happiness" etc. Everything is very logical under those circumstances. If you are poor, it's your own fault. That is the message blasted all over. Even when shown the overwhelming evidence how equality promotes happiness, social mobility, prevents poverty, it seems that every US citizen, poor or rich thinks otherwise.

The inequality in USA means POWER. It means "i'm better than you". The whole country is sick in that attitude (Sorry, US citizens, i wouldn't say all this if i didn't lover you and your country). You are never good if you're as good as the next person.

Countries that do promote equality, the attitude is "this is enough", i don't need to be better than my neighbor to feel good. It doesn't mean they are lazy or unambitious, it means that boasting with wealth is considered vulgar, idiotic, uncivilized. You can have a guy earning triple right next to you and you can't really see the difference.

This does not fit US frame of mind where money is the only way to happiness and you never can have enough. If you have it, you want to shove it in everyones face.

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

The basic form of a social contract is the foundation for every state in the world. Every individual within the territory forfeits a set of rights and is imposed with a set of duties instead. That's a social contract as described in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "Du contrat social".

Doesn't help much with regards to Anglo-Saxon capitalism, does it? Beyond its most basic definition, social contract means, in theory, a recalibration of metrics beyond mere profit, within a society. Whatever metrics one might think would reasonably map progress towards the ultimate goal: the pursuit of happiness.

A concrete example would be the political-economic system of Germany, 1948 onwards, the so-called "Soziale Marktwirtschaft", wherein capitalism is (or was) constrained by agreements to the benefit of the whole of society. Not any individual, not any group, all members of society. Manifestations of it would be the safety net in all its forms and shapes, the health system, the pension system, the rejection of military interventionalism, the preservation of nature, no tolerance for fascism, etc. All specific policies that have their origins in an understanding of what society agreed upon would be best for everyone. The extent is subject to constant political debate, but the underlying concept remains untouched.

So the claim that there is no such thing as a social contract strikes me as a continuation of Thatcher's insistence that there is, in fact, no society. I don't subscribe to that notion, and as far as I can tell, neither does continental Europe as a whole.

If people prefer a system without a "society" beyond the very basic neccessities of a functioning state, go ahead. Do your thing. Competition of ideas and whatnot.

But I'm going to stay a member of this society, thank you very much. And as such, I take the liberty of leaving this "discussion" again. Cheerio.

Ideology and Insanity are not mutually dependent.

You can have :
Sane Ideology
Insane Ideology
Sane non-Ideology
Insane non-Ideology

The principles of an individual can be constructive or destructive, whether or not they are part of an ideology.
What matters is the specific principles, and not whether or not they are associated with an ideology.

As individuals, we have animal impulses.
These include :
- Feeling combative in the presence of a verbal threat or insult.
- Feeling combative (inclined to silence/sensor) in the presence of ideas that are at odds with one's own.
- Feeling impulse to take shortcuts to reward (eg. stealing money fast vs earning money slow).

Ideology helps to fix these things.
This includes :
- Personal feelings don't take precedence over other people's physical condition.
Words are only words, actions are what makes a tangible measurable difference. We are masters of our own emotions, only ourselves can be blamed for our happiness or malcontent.

- Inherent equality of individuals. Ideas out in the open can live or die by their own merit as determined by all people. Censoring is taking privilege over other people by predetermining for them what ideas they are allowed to consider.

- Respect for domain. Doing as we like with what is ours, and not affecting what belongs to others.


"The moon does not care" (TM).
Nothing is intrinsically universal.

There are worldly concepts native to life on earth (protecting one's children, guarding one's domain, suffering/pain response, etc), but the higher order concept of "Idea X is _unacceptable_" is a purely human invented "meta" issue.



Sanity is Rationality is Logic ... which in turn is the ability to find a path from state A to state B.

For example:
[Given A=alive]
If your desire is to survive (B=alive), then eating poison is illogical.
It would be insane then to eat poison, as it would not be a path from A to B.
But if your desire is to die (B=dead), then eating poison is logical.
It would be sane to eat poison, as it would be a path from A to B.

Point being, people like to view the world with their own goals in mind.
Given that other people invariably have different goals in mind, the judgment of sane or insane becomes relative ... that's not "just words", that's quite real.
If a miserable person with a painful disease eats poison, is it logical for a healthy happy individual to say "that's insane"?



Much of our body politic is the projection of a subset of people's standards onto a larger population, with disregard for the other people.

At this point, politically, we are mired in populism, and we lack ideology - even though we were handed a pretty good one at the beginning.

Instead of having some guiding concepts that we use to restrain emotional impulses, we [as a society] fly off chasing populist agendas fed to us by our "team" (party) of choice.

Ironically, often rooting for a position that we are at odds with. (eg. "I hate the Affordable Care Act" even though "I like having coverage for pre-existing conditions")

The constitution does a good job at laying down the rules for an equitable relationship between government and people, but it's practically a dead document these days.
Elected officials neglect their obligation to represent and instead fashion themselves as leaders.
Lawmakers pass laws in violation of the constitution day in and day out.
Judiciary enforces lower laws that are constitutionally null.

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness aren't just words. They're text from the highest law of the land.
Under such a standard, you would think that it would mean that a person would be able to lead their personal life as they please. But not as it stands.

Most of our public debate, is about whether or not people should "allow" other people to do things with themselves or other consenting individuals.
"Allowing(y/n)" people to do drugs [while not harming others].
"Allowing(y/n)" people to have firearms [while not harming others].
"Allowing(y/n)" people to marry [while not involving others].
etc.

With the main objections being "I'm not physically involved, but I wouldn't do things that way if it were me, so I choose to have hurt feelings (and call that a personal involvement), and subsequently push my personal standards onto others".
It's a selfish, impulsive, capricious, predatory behavior ... lacking any meaningful ideological temperance.

-scheherazade

The Constitution is about personal freedom and responsibility. When the gov't takes your private property and gives it to another person, that interferes with my pursuit of happiness. The gov't has gone so far beyond it's mandate...which is why we are $16 trillion in debt, why $4.4 billion goes to farm fraud, why $500M goes to an electric energy company which fails...etc ad infinitum. You people who think gov't is the solution, don't forget that it was the gov't that almost eradicated the Native Americans, who locked up Japanese-Americans during WWII, etc. I waste my breath, you think the purpose of gov't is to make everything equal. Good luck with that.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by geo321.

shit *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Lissie-Kid-Cudi-live-cover-Pursuit-Of-Happiness

*dupof=http://videosift.com/video/Lissie-Kid-Cudi-live-cover-Pursuit-Of-Happiness

Even if you honestly do believe a CEO deserves 380x the pay of the average worker, they're certainly not working 380x harder. it would be physically impossible.

The reality is that the CEOs do less, yet they earn more. They were typically either born into their wealth or they lucked into it or they simply know other wealthy people.

Social mobility in the US, (in other words, the notion that if you "work hard" that you'll succeed and climb the ladder") is abysmal. I forget the number but we're ranked pretty low amongst other civilized/industrialized nations.

You can't blame this on Obama, you can't blame this on Bush, It's bigger than government. we allow the 1 percenters to have an unfair amount of influence over our gov't so as @Trancecoach mentioned, the game is rigged against you.

In all reality though. Income inequality would not be so much of a problem if everyone's necessities were met. All things being equal, I could give a shit that the 1 percent had so much wealth, but the problem is for most people, the instant you have a major illness, you're instantly bankrupt.

I've got no problem with capitalism when it comes to things that are not necessities to living a healthy life. Want the latest Apple trinket? sorry, you need to work harder and get a better job for that. But I shouldn't have to become a CEO just so that I don't have to worry if I or my loved ones has an accident and is hospitalized. It shouldn't matter if I'm an engineer or a janitor when it comes to healthcare. In case you've forgotten, we're supposedly all equal and deserving of the same life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.