Let's be brutally honest here. The reason most people in the US are ok with drone strikes is because they're mostly killing brown people in faraway lands that dress funny and speak some weird language. I mean, even if they're not actually terrorists, they probably know some terrorists, right?

I've said this before, but imagine the UK government had drones 30 years ago during the height of the Northern Ireland "troubles"*. Let's look at the facts: you have a genuine terrorist organisation who are successfully carrying out bombings, shootings, etc. on your home land. They have a reasonably sympathetic populous in a nearby sovereign country, and can easily hide there.

Seriously, picture Al Queada, but living in Canada and way more competent. Say what you want about the IRA, but at least they were smart enough to plant a bomb and then fucking leave it there.

Now ask yourself:
- if you would be ok with the UK government drone striking rural Ireland
- what you think the political fallout from that would be (esp from the US)

The answer is that there's no way in hell they could do it. Bombing the Republic of Ireland? The US would go mental.

But that's exactly what's happening here.

It's really easy to make excuses for drone strikes, but they are one of those things that are ultimately just flat out wrong.


* only in Ireland could we describe a 30 year campaign of civil oppression, bloodshed and terrorism by both sides as "troubles"

Yes, monarchies are inherently oppressive. They're an archaic throwback and an embarrassment to any country that still clings to them.

For the record I am a citizen of the Republic of Ireland and a permanent resident of New Zealand. I'm a member of the NZ Republic movement. I am not a subject of the crown, and the requirement to swear allegiance to the Queen is the one thing that is stopping me getting my NZ citizenship (which I have long since qualified for).

This is a point of principle and I would support any movement in any country to remove the monarch as head of state, even if they are only a figure head.

Now, all that said, what does that have to do with my approval for Norway's oil industry, NZs gun laws or socialised healthcare in pretty much the entire developed world?

You do realise that one can approve of one aspect of something while simultaneously disliking another aspect of the same thing? I think fast cars are cool, but I don't like their environment impact. I love beer, but I know that it's full of calories, and so on.

Anyway how would secession work in this case? There's no single geographical region to secede. Unless by secession you mean that the citizens of a country should have the right to determine how their country is run, in which case I wholeheartedly agree.

@Trancecoach holding a doctorate doesn't make you capable of understanding the scientific literature. If you held a bachelor's degree in one of the three sciences you'd stand a lot better chance of being able to understand the literature than someone who had a doctorate in say Art History. I would actually refer back to the Dunning Kruger effect and suggest that holding an unrelated qualification might lead you to overestimate your abilities.

And for someone who says that they *are* capable of understanding the scientific literature (and therefore the scientific method and approach), you dismiss "scientific consensus" as not being "scientific evidence". I don't understand what you mean here, but i think that's because you don't understand what scientific proof is.

I think it's a fundamental mistake that you're making. Scientists propose theories. Those theories that most accurately describe the situation and are most rigourously investigated are the ones that are accepted as being the case, and when things are found that are not correct, adjustments are made to the theory or other theories are proposed. There is never ever, ever.... EVER.. absolute evidence of anything in the way in which you request it, and that's your fundamental error, and stems from you not understanding the scientific method.

We have a lot of scientific consensus about gravity, but we do not have "scientific evidence" in the way you describe it. The evidence is ALL of the science that is done, ALL of the experiments ALL of the conclusions, positive and negative, and the consensus of the scientific community is reached and refined based on that research and ongoing research. There is no one document anywhere that constitutes "proof" that gravity is how we think it is. Not even all of the documents do that. They merely indicate to us what is most likely to be happening according to all of the knowledge and ingenuity that we've built up over the years.

I don't appreciate the scatter gun method you've used by posting all those links. You said in your latest post here that people try to confuse the issue by redirecting your request for "evidence" - the type that doesn't exist - towards other issues that you deem contentious. Yet you have almost drowned me in what appears to be about 15 different links to pages that seem to show singular examples of individuals that deny climate change. (Again, there are so many, and so many quotes, and no actual specification of what you are disagreeing with me about, that i can't rightly assess any of them.)

My point here is twofold - 1) don't try to be confusing like you accuse your opponents of, i.e. throwing as many links as possible to extend the argument to other points and 2) if that isn't what you were doing, could you perhaps condense your 15 links and selected quotes into a smaller point; that point being what it is about my previous posts you disagreed with?

Here are my points for you, simplified:
1) Scientific consensus does not mean "THIS IS HOW THINGS ARE" - it means that, on balance, according to everything we know and the opinions of those that are in the know, this is how we think things are until we know better.
2) There is no such thing as "scientific evidence" in the way you use the term; the only absolute proof is the one Descartes spoke about; the only thing you can know for sure is that your consciousness exists.
3) It is very easy to be misled by articles such as the one you linked from "the libertarian republic" website. This is also true of the last link you recommended for my research; you used that book to support your opposition to my assertion that human-caused climate change is not a matter of debate in the scientific community. Yet the same author was involved in the Copenhagen Consensus which lists as 6th most worthy of investigation (for the benefit and future of mankind), i quote; "R&D to Increase Yield Enhancements, to decrease hunger, fight biodiversity destruction, and lessen the effects of climate change"

I think that out of courtesy you should select one link which backs up whatever it is that you wish to refute, because it's not a good use of my time to have to go through each individual link, find out what you disagree with me about, and then spend time looking into it.

So, we disagree on one of the following:
1) The scientific consensus is that human-caused climate change is real, and that consensus represents the best of our current understanding as a species.
2) "Proof" in the sense you use it doesn't exist, the correct term is scientific evidence. The more evidence and the more convincing it is, the more firm the belief in a theory.
3) The article you linked from the libertarian website was unfairly representing its argument in relation to the paper it was referring to.

Please let me know. Remember - nothing is "beyond scepticism" in your words. I am sceptical about everything, including gravity, which i have an incredible amount of evidence for. However i am still sceptical about our understanding of it - i am always looking for differences. That doesn't mean that our understanding isn't the best one we have, and we should use it for our own advantage and safety.

I also note that you seem loathe to have a proper discussion with me. Our discussion could have been either about the scientific method or about the article you linked, but to throw all these links at me makes me feel you're unwilling or incapable of challenging your own opinion based on evidence. You don't even refer to the assessments of the article that i offered; you immediately discarded the article from your argument and linked me to other people that may or may not be misrepresenting the argument.

So...NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, HuffPo, AP, Reuters, Bloomberg, Xinhua, Politico, BBC, NYT, Free Republic, RT, NKorea News not enough, eh?

I think it is a cultural difference, vil. You are from the Czech Republic. I am assuming you don't have this insult in your country.

Trust us that it is an insult here. Both to men and girls.

I couldn't find a video that didn't cut the sound off at then end, but I found a list for you and posted it here:

1. My dick is so big, there's still snow on it in the summertime.
2. My dick is so big, I went to The Viper Room and my dick got right in. I had to stand there and argue with the doorman.
3. My dick is so big, I have to call it Mr. Dick in front of company.
4. My dick is so big, it won't return Spielberg's calls.
5. My dick is so big, it graduated a year ahead of me from high school.
6. My dick has an elevator and a lobby.
7. My dick has an better credit than I do.
8. My dick is so big, clowns climb out of it when I cum.
9. My dick is so big, it was once overthrown by a military coup. It's now known as the Democratic Republic of My Dick.
10. My dick is so big, it has casters.
11. My dick is so big, I'm already fucking a girl tomorrow.
12. My dick is so big, ships use it to find their way into the harbor.
13. My dick is so big, there was once a movie called Godzilla vs. My Dick
14. My dick is so big, it lives next door.
15. My dick is so big, I entered it in a big-dick contest and it came in first, second, and third.
16. My dick is so big, it votes.
17. My dick is a better dresser than I am.
18. My dick is so big, it has a three-picture deal.
19. My dick is so big that the head of it has only seen my balls in pictures.
20. My dick is so big, Henry Aaron used it to hit his 750th home run.
21. My dick runs the 440 in fifteen seconds.
22. My dick is the Walrus, koo koo ga joob.
23. No matter where I go my dick always gets there first.
24. My dick takes longer lunches than I do.
25. My dick contributed $50,000 to the Democratic National Committee.
26. My dick was once the ambassador to China.
27. My dick is so big, it's gone condo.
28. My dick hit .370 in the minors before it hurt its knee.
29. My dick was almost drafted by the Cleveland Browns, but Art Modell didn't want a bigger dick than he was on the team.
30. My dick is so big, I use the Eiffel Tower as a French tickler.
31. It's so big, when it rains the head of my dick doesn't get wet.
32. My dick is so big, I could wear it sas a tie if I wasn't so aftaid of getting a hard-on and killing myself.
33. My dick is so big, I have to use an elastic zipper.
34. My dick is so big, it has feet.
35. My dick is so big, a homeless family lives underneath it.
36. My dick is so big, it takes four fat women and a team of Clydesdales to jack me off.
37. My dick is so big, my mother was in labor for three extra days.
38. My dick is so big, they use the bullet train to test my condoms.
39. My dick is so big, it has investors.
40. My dick is so big, it seats six.
41. My dick is so big, I use a hula hoop as a cock ring.
42. My dick is so big, we use it at parties as a limbo pole.
43. My dick is so big, King Kong is going to crawl up it in the next remake.
44. My dick is so big, it has an opening act.
45. My dick is so big I can fuck an elevator shaft.
46. My dick is so big, it has its own Wheaties box.
47. My dick is so big, I have to cook it breakfast in the mornings.
48. My dick is so big, the city had to carve a hole in the middle of it so cars could get through.
49. My dick is so big, every time I get hard I cause a solar eclipse.
50. My dick is so big, it only plays arenas.
51. If you cut my dick in two, you can tell how old I am.
52. My dick was once set on fire for a Dino DiLaurnetis movie.
53. My dick is so big, it needs an airplane warning light.
54. My dick is so big, Trump owns it.
55. My dick is so big, that we're all a part of it, and it's all a part of us.
56. My dick is so big, I can never sit in the front row.
57. My dick is so big, it has its own dick. And even my dick's dick is bigger than your dick.
58. My dick is so big, you can't blow me without a ladder.
59. My dick is so big, it only does one show a night.
60. My dick is so big, you can ski down it.
61. My dick is so big, it has an elbow.
62. My dick is so big, I have to check it as luggage when I fly.
63. My dick is so big, it has a personal trainer.
64. My dick is so big, that right now it's in the other room fixing us drinks.
65. My dick is so big, it has a retractable dome.
66. My dick is so big, it has stairs up the center like the Statue of Liberty.
67. My dick is so big, there's a sneaker named "Air My Dick."
68. My dick is so big, I'm its bitch.
69. My dick is so big, it's against the law to fuck me without protective headgear.
70. My dick is so big, I could fuck a tuba.
71. My dick is so big, Stephen Hawking has a theory about it.
72. My dick is so big, it has its own gravity.
73. NASA once launched a space probe to search for the tip of my dick.
74. My dick is so big, it's impossible to see all of it without a satellite.
75. The inside of my dick contains billions an dbillions of stars.
76. My dick is so big, it has a spine.
77. My dick is so big, it has a basement.
78. My dick is so big, movie theatres now serve popcorn in small, medium, large, and My Dick.
79. My dick is more muscular than I am.
80. My dick is so big it has cable.
81. My dick is so big, it violates seventeen zoning laws.
82. My dick is so big, it has its own page in the Sierra Club calendar.
83. My dick is so big, it has a fifty-yard line.
84. My dick is so big, I was once in Ohio and got a blow job in Tennessee.
85. My dick is so big, Las Vegas casinos fly it into town for free.
86. My dick is so big, I can braid it.
87. My dick is so big, than when it's Eastern Standard Time at the tip, it's Central Mountain Time at my balls.
88. My dick is so big, I painted the foreskin red, white, and blue and used it as a flag.
89. My dick is so big, I can sit on it.
90. My dick is so big it can chew gum.
91. My dick is so big, it only tips with hundreds.
92. My dick is so big, the Carnegie Deli named a sandwich after it. Actually, two sandwiches.
93. My dick is so big, the city was going to build a statue of it but they ran out of cement.
94. My dick is so big, Michael Jackson wants to build an amusement park on it.
95. My dick is so big, when I get hard my eyebrows get pulled down to my neck.
96. My dick is so big, you're standing on it.
97. My dick is so big, it only comes into work when it feels like it.
98. My dick is so big, it plays golf with the president.
99. My dick is so big, it charges money for its autograph.
100. My dick is so big, it has an agent. My dick's people will call your people. Let's have lunch with my dick.
101. My dick is so big, it's right behind you.

This is just a distraction. Obviously the attendees at Bilderberg are not doing anything about "climate change" one way or the other.

(The Roman Republic also had Tribunes of "the People" who could veto laws. It made no difference at all to the lifestyle and activities of the Patricians, Senators, and military men of the Republic. If you -- who clearly has no influence over what the state does or doesn't do -- think that you "are the government," then I have little interest in trying to "cure" you of that delusion (unless you're a paying client of mine). And, by some definitions -- that ultimately make no practical difference -- you "are" the government, then I have every confidence that you can and will "deal with these issues" yourself to your satisfaction. And I wish you the best of luck!)

So he wants to challenge the 1% influence with his influence. That's not good.

If he supported backing individuals that followed the Constitution and hence bring back balance to the government then ok.

We don't live in a democracy we live in a Republic. Big difference.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/lawrence-lessig-we-the-people-the-republic-we-must-reclaim

lawrence lessig-we the people the republic we must reclaim has been added as a related post - related requested by Grimm.

"I alone can make an empire out of a republic, to restore former glory, to return lost territories and pride for this country."

Fucking brilliant.

Ok, let's change the territory. Forget Muslims and Al Queada and the Middle East and all that.

Let's roll the clock back 30 years, and let's find a comparable scenario where we have stateless actors living in a country who's reluctant to extradite them (either through inability to locate them or because they don't really like the country asking for extradition). These actors are responsible for a number of atrocities committed in the name of a political cause that has some tacit support by the locals of this country.

So we have the IRA hiding in the Republic of Ireland for bombing civilians in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

Now let's assume the British have drones. Is it acceptable for them to drone strike targets within the Republic leading to civilian casualties? If not, why not?

Hell, let's go forward 20 or 30 years to when Iraq or Afghanistan have drones and the USA refuses to extradite the people that illegally invaded their country and then committed crimes against humanity there. Is it ok to drone strike Texas to get to GW Bush?

This is not a door we want to open. You're happy with it now because you're the ones holding the big stick, but legitimising international assassination because you don't get your way is a recipe for a nightmare.

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

"As I see it, there is a finite amount of money"

This is only true if cryptocurrencies like BitCoin have their way. According to the Fed, by contrast, an infinite amount of money is but just one click away...

Cronyism aside, this is not true at all:
"When one minimally productive person gets 50% of the capital in a project, it's impossible for anyone else to be compensated fairly."

No minimally productive person would get 50% in a free market. And "minimally productive" according to whom? Are you going by the Labor Theory of value? Because the Subjective Theory of Value posits otherwise. It shows that this could not happen (providing an absence of cronyism which, at the moment, is baked into the system). In other words, no one would voluntarily pay 50% of anything to someone they consider to be minimally productive. Would you?

Money is just a medium of exchange whose value is determined by the market. There are some scarce resources (as well as some non-scarce ones). Having limited money/medium of exchange makes prices go down. Wouldn't you want to pay less for gas, food, etc.? When the central banks inflate the currency (i.e., increase the money supply), there is potentially "unlimited" money to buy scarce goods. The market then makes prices rise as a result, making people effectively poorer.

"To say "much of the world is coming out of poverty" ignores reality. Perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty"

Flat wrong: Look at the statistics. Millions in India, China, Southeast Asia, and other places throughout the world have come out of poverty in the last couple of decades. This is a fact.

The ruling class is never among the poor so I don't know what you mean by, "perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty." What?

"This is usually not in spite of governments, but rather because of them."

Sure, it is mostly because of governments that such poverty takes so long to be eradicated. Corruption and stupid ideas like the "war on poverty," along with cronyism, currency inflation, commercial regulations, taxes, "intellectual property" laws, and more all contribute to this stupidity which keeps people poor. Throughout the history of civilization, only innovation and free commerce has brought people out of poverty on a larger scale.

I won't argue, however, against the idea that governments are always corrupt, since I completely agree. Nothing good comes out of government that could not come to us, more efficiently, more cheaply, and more effectively from private free commerce.

"Praxeology only shows what human behavior is like"

More or less, it shows the logic and the logical consequences of the fact that humans act.

"it is not an accurate predictor of behavior in an environmental hypothesis."

It depends on what you mean to predict. It is not prediction. It deals in apodictic certainties. Humans act and employ chosen means to achieve desired goals. These are certainties, not predictions. Other things are unknowns, like time preference, the means chosen, the goals desired, etc. and those you need to either predict (thymology) or wait and see (history).

"History is better, and when wealth inequality becomes so outrageous that the populace can't survive on what's left for them, they revolt."

So far yes, history would indicate this is a likely outcome or consequence, although you may need to look more closely at which sector of "the populace" has historically revolted or instigated revolt.

"I hope that this asshat (even if he's just pretending to be an asshat) is among the first ones hung, quartered, and force fed to his own family (like they did in France)"

What has he done to deserve being tortured and murdered? I am unclear about that. The revolution in France, of course, was a disaster that amounted to little good for all involved. But things like that have happened before, and could certainly happen again. Same with the Russian Revolution. Or the Nazi takeover of bankrupt Weimar Republic.

Human behavior cannot be predicted mathematically. Only econometricians seem to think so. Certainly not praxeologists! In fact, that's the basis of Misean praxeology: that you cannot predict human behavior and so economics differs from the natural sciences and requires a different method of analysis.

"that placates the Right Wing, right?"

I have no idea what would "placate the Right wing" or not. Let's not conflate right-wing statists with anarchists. Two completely different things. I also don't care what would "placate" the right wing.


If you really care about inequality, do what you can to oppose government policy, especially warmongering and central banking. They are the biggest contributors to the class divide, regardless of how you parse the data. (Of course, you may find that you can do very little.)

If you think you should be paid as much as the CEO of Apple, then by all means you should try applying to that job. I am not saying you are not worth it, but it's not me you have to convince...

There's a Lawrence Lessig talk that is in line with some of the ideas presented here.

http://videosift.com/video/lawrence-lessig-we-the-people-the-republic-we-must-reclaim