Thou shalt kneel before thine *religion of statism and follow thine Commandments, which include, but are not limited to:

1) Thou shalt kill and/or pay for the killing of anyone who the state deigns deserving of murder, regardless of their "crime" or innocence;
2) Thou shalt make enemies of thine friends, relatives, and neighbors so as to divide thine families and communities for the sake of vying for state-granted "privileges" at everyone else's expense;
3) Thou shalt work for the state and receive just enough "freedom" to sustain the illusion of being "free-range" chattel;
4) Thou shalt seek loopholes within the laws while aiming to restrict others within them;
5) Thou shalt only seek to create laws, but never repeal them;
6) Thou shalt vote for cronies who pursue their own self-interest (and those of their financial interests) while claiming to "represent" you;
7) Thou shalt only use fiat currency, which can be -- and frequently is -- arbitrarily inflated and devalued, at will, by those in the central bank known as thine Federal Reserve;
8. Thou shalt keep the idea of government holy, and never take the name of its offices in vain;
9) Thou shalt remember thine mafia-like extortions known as taxes, and always pay on time;
10) Thou shalt honor thine state-imposed educators and regulators and give up thine rights whenever police officers and other authorities deem it convenient for you to do so.

Thou shalt not think for oneself.

well done on that physicists video.
political arguments dressed up as science is such a cynical and disrespectful approach to such a complicated,and possible species ending,situation.

the movie "they live" was a documentary.

i promoted the video if only to further the discussion and expose a political argument that has NOTHING to do with the science,but rather EVERYTHING to do with the singular,monied interest of powerful influential players who care nothing but their own self-interest.

and at what cost?
possibly everything and everybody.

this physicist sold his soul for money.
he is a whore.
no..worse than a whore,because at least a whore has more integrity.

Nailed it dude!

The only angle I feel hasn't really come up so far is the idea that private enterprise and public governance could easily be regarded as two manifestations of the same "real" social dynamic: Establishment/challenger (or master/slave if you want to get fully Hegelian about it)

Like, why do we even develop governmental systems in the 1st place?

I have yet to conceive a better answer than: "to curb the destructive excesses of private wealth/power."

Why would we champion personal freedom? I would say: "to curb the destructive excesses of public wealth/power".

Or something to that effect at the very least. The idea of a society with either absolute personal, or absolute collective sovereignty seems hellish to me. And probably unworkable to boot!

There seems to me a tendency in the history of societies for these two types of power to dance either side of equilibrium as the real power struggle unfolds i.e. between reigning establishment and challenger power groups/paradigms.

Right now the establishment is both economic and governmental. The corruption is mutually supporting. Corporations buy and control governments, governments facilitate corporations ruling the market and continuing to be able to buy them.

The circle jerk @blankfist IMHO is between government and private dynasty and moreover I strongly believe that in a vacuum, one will always create the other.

Pure collectivism will naturally breed an individualist challenger and visa versa.

People are at their best I think when balancing self interest and altruism. Too much of either tends to hurt others around you and diminish ones capacity to grow and adapt. (being nice is no good if you lack the will and capacity to get shit done)

It seems natural that the ideal way of organising society would always balance collective state power, with private personal power.

Libertarianism (even the superior non anarchist version) defangs the state too much IMHO. Some collectivist projects such as education, scientific research and exploration I think tend to be better served by public direction. But more importantly I expect the state to referee the market, just as I expect public transparency to referee the state.

Total crowbar separation between the three: public officials cannot legally own or control private wealth and cannot live above standard of their poorest citizens. Private citizens cannot inherit wealth legally, only earn and create it. The state cannot legally hold any secret or perform any function of government outside public view unless it is to prepare sensitive legal proceedings (which must then be disclosed in full when actioned).

In the age of global communications this kind of transparency may for the first time be a workable solution (it's already near impossible to keep a lid on most political scandals and this is very early days). There is also the possibility of a steadily de-monetised market as crowdfunding and crowdsourcing production models start to become more advanced and practical than traditional market dynamics. e.g. kickstarter style collective investment in place of classical entrepreneurial investment.

The benefits and dangers of both capitalism and socialism here would be trending towards diffusion amongst the populace.

And then there's the whole Meritocracy vs Democracy thing, but that's really getting into another topic and I've probably already gone on too long now.

Much love

Again and again with the false sarcasm....Who is this charlatan anyway with a personal hard-on for anyone who doesn't suck his dick?? Transparent bullshit and you want to force me into a goddamn corner?? Fuck that shit.

"Pretentious polemics and entitled self-interest, isle 13-This week only, two-for-one asshole with your purchase of one or more king-sized-tow-sacks of adult garments ."

About as rational you are as Chipotleaway...

The point I'm driving at is that this is one of the cases where I think the end justifies the means.

People can take away what they like from watching it. "Aww poor kid", "Man those wrestlers are nice", "What a pack of bastards, exploiting the little bugger"... And that's fine, I'm not trying to tell people how to feel.

But one little guy who was suffering got a bright moment in the sun. I don't care if they go full idiot and publicise the shit out of it because it was worth it. Hell, I'd be pleased if self interest caused more people to be "altruistic" to high note themselves. It's the core of things like Ronald McDonald house, which is a PR exercise in it's purist form and yet still helps.

And if they hadn't publicised it, being an Australian who doesn't actually watch much wrestling, I probably wouldn't have heard of it at all.

@RedSky - You aren't reading what I'm saying.

I'm talking about finding an equilibrium in which humanity can thrive economically, socially and environmentally.

I'm only saying that things like environmental damage, fracking, certain food production techniques, the current flavor of resource wars, and the fact that a massive proportion of our current population really can't feed itself are all evidence that the effort required to sustain current and future population levels doesn't fit my definition of finding balance.

The only point of no return I'm talking about is that at some point it will be essentially impossible to get to that place of balance that I favor. It's a nebulous concept for sure, but I do think it is relatively imminent and at the very least that we are heading in the wrong direction - especially in light of the notion proposed by this video where exponential growth can give you a false sense of security right up until just before you hit it.

I actually agree with you and think that earth could sustain an arbitrarily large population of say 20 billion or even more.

But we'd have to spend more of our time and efforts competing (sometimes violently) for the resources, we'd have to shape ever larger proportions of the natural world to our own narrow needs, we'd have to put up with a much less pleasant environment, and since it will be challenging enough to just get the resources to feed and clothe your own people, there is a really good chance that unfathomable (billions) quantities of human beings will be marginalized by this system and spend most of their time suffering.

Again, a far cry rom my definition of equilibrium.

As for your notion that vague global threats don't cause change, for starters I'm not sure that's true - there are significant popular environmental movements around the world and also some threshold of self interest can be breached. For example if you look at negotiations over things like the Kyoto protocols you will see that developing nations who are much more susceptible to environmental changes like shifting climates and rising sea levels are significantly more likely to sign on. It's no coincidence that Bangladesh and a few other island nations were the only countries to ratify the thing.

But there are also educational and social strategies that can have a huge effect. I think that you'd get a lot of mileage from just increasing women's rights around the world.

Neither of which compare to 12 MILLION slaves taken from Africa.

It's tragic that so many had to die, but the fault lies with those who kept slaves.

And your quote shows that Lincoln didn't believe in racial equality. That's unfortunate, but ultimately irrelevant to his position on slavery:

This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world—enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites—causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty—criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.

Lyrics (found the translation on this site, which is definitely worth visiting to learn more about the group) are below. I've removed the original Japanese and Romanji transcriptions so that it is easier to read:

Title:
え・い・り・あ・ん
e i ri a n
A - L - I - E - N

Words and lyrics by Maximum the Ryo-kun

Flattering government
Deceiptful presentation
Fabricated details
Danger enterprise

Praise and censure creed
Jumbled up truth
All of Japan deploring
Has nihilism come?

Self-contradiction, loop of complaints
Fall into dilemma, many cases of depression
Swarming around rights, self-important men in suits
Coveting usury, some group or other

Self-interest slave loaded with empty arguments
Money disappears as vain expenses
Embracing distrust, discord arises
Standing idly on the side, discover indignation


Ego? Freedom? LOL. / Fart stench, sinister / “Why don’t you…?” Selfish
Ego? Freedom? LOL. / Fart stench, sinister / “Why don’t you…?” Selfish

Save me!! Treatment is yet to come!! / Throw it away!! Treatment is yet to come!! / Take it off! Treatment is yet to come!!
Save me!! Treatment is yet to come!! / Throw it away!! Treatment is yet to come!! / Take it off! Treatment is yet to come!!

Twenty years old, head to the election!!
The elected official will not be allowed into office!

A judge determintes eligible voters / Discretely and delicately / Straight to the future
Believe in the Force...Jedi
Believe in the Force...Jedi
Believe in the Force! Era!!

“I get it I get it I get it! You idiots!”
“Later Later Later I’ll e-mail you later”
“Your whiny whiny whining is noisy, idiot! Stop going out of your way to be so annoying”

“Chopper, go! Futoshi!”*
*Translator’s note: Futoshi is MTH’s bassist

Brother rescue
Brother let’s go
We are brothers, WE!!
You’re my brother, YOU!!

Cunning dependence / More frozen / Next season / Revived rhythm
Cunning dependence / More frozen / Next season / Revived rhythm
Cunning dependence / More frozen / Next season / Revived rhythm
Cunning dependence / More frozen / Next season / Revived rhythm

Booing, at you! A touch of abusive language! Booing! At that! STOP! Conspiracy!
Booing, at you! A touch of abusive language! Booing! At that! Prevent! Conspiracy!

Whose ally??? Whose ally???
Only your way of life cannot be taken by anyone

Vaaaaaaaaaa!!! Vaaaaaaaa!!! GO!!!

Every day meaning scrutiny / Every day meaning scrutiny / Every day meaning scrutiny

Alien, alien, kidnap me like in a movie...
Alien, alien, I am no match for eternity


STOP! STOP WINNY UPLOAD!!
STOP! STOP WINNY UPLOAD!!
*Translator’s note: Winny was a p2p pirating software like napster that was very popular in Japan but isn’t really used anymore. In an interview, Ryo-kun (who does hate when his music is pirated, I think) was asked why he used such an old reference, he mentioned that he wanted to have a catchy “STOP” phrase where other stuff like “STOP NUKES” could be replaced.

STOP! STOP WINNY UPLOAD!!
STOP! STOP WINNY UPLOAD!!

STOP! STOP WINNY UPLOAD!!
STOP! STOP WINNY UPLOAD!! STOP WINNY!

STOP! STOP WINNY UPLOAD!!
STOP! STOP WINNY UPLOAD!!

STOP! STOP! STOP! STOP THE WINNY!
STOP! STOP! STOP! STOP THE WINNY!

STOP! STOP! STOP! STOP THE WINNY!
STOP! STOP! STOP! STOP THE WINNY!

STOP! STOP! STOP! STOP THE WINNY!
STOP! STOP! STOP! STOP THE WINNY!

STOP! STOP! STOP! STOP THE WINNY!
STOP! STOP! STOP! STOP THE WINNY!

STOP! STOP! STOP! STOP THE WINNY!
STOP! STOP! STOP! STOP THE WINNY!

STOP STOP! STOP STOP!
STOP STOP! STOP STOP!
STOP STOP WINNY!

STOP STOP WINNY!

PV spoken ending:

D: We will not forgive use of WINNY under any circumstances! Anything but WINNY!

N: People aren’t even using WINNY these days. And there are plenty of other things we have to say “STOP!” to. So there’s no point in raising your voice like that. All the kids have left.

D: But, we can’t allow any more uploads...

N: No, I know, but look at the one kid left, about to cry.

D: (to kid) You think so too, don’t you?

N: No no no! She definitely has no idea. And now the last kid has left. You hate WINNY too, don’t you? I said, no one uses WINNY anymore.
Look at you, over there looking like Mitsue (Daisuke’s mom)...

D: What?!

N: Get that Mitsue look off your face.

N: It's one thing to talk bad about me...!

End

no no no.
you misunderstood my intent.
i wasnt berating you or anything,i was just being too lazy and not really looking for an argument is all.

i know that you and i dont always agree but i respect your input.
you didnt have to defend your position in regards to percy.i believe you,i was just unaware of that part of the dynamic.

how can we ever come to a rational and reasoned solution if we dont have all the information?

propaganda is propaganda.no matter where its origins are and it takes vigilance to sort through all the malarky and self-interest to get to the truth.

we do that by discussing with each other.

i do not wish to reside in an echo chamber where everybody is having a wonderful circle jerk and sniffing their own farts,clapping each other on the back on just how clever they are.

we need dissenting voices.
we need opposing opinions.
if only to solidify our own perceptions and understandings.
and sometimes to eject a false dichotomy.

you have always been respectful,and even though we may disagree on certain points,i will always give ear to what you have to say.

you have earned that my friend.

I don't get the Right's logic on stuff like this... More and more wealth is moving to the top few percent, and more and more of the earnable wages are moving to the top few percent. Walmart for example could easily afford to pay every employee something like $2-3 more an hour, give benefits and hire more people so their stores are properly staffed and still make a profit. And they get upset at the people working there needing help... "oh it's the government's fault for giving them aid letting the company do that"... What?! The company made a choice, and they blame the government actions for it... it's like when they blame moving jobs overseas on the government instead of the rich guy who decided that it is in his own greedy personal self interest to send the jobs there rather than pay Americans. Or its like that cartoon where a rich man, a middle class man and a working class person are all at a table with 100 cookies and the rich guy takes 99 of them, the middle class guy gets 1 and the working class guy has crumbs, then the rich guy warns the middle class guy "better watch out, he wants your cookie" and they fall for it, they get mad at that guy rather than the guy who took 99 cookies for himself...

They get upset at wanting to keep minimum wage in pace with inflation, something that happens in most countries. They get upset at the idea of the cost to business to do so, but somehow businesses do it all around the world... heck, when we were thinking of moving to New Zealand and a few other places we discovered that most countries force employers to give paid vacation time, not just a bonus that some/most employers offer after 1 or 2 years of service if they want. Almost every country forces employers to offer paid maternity leave, and paid holidays... American businesses have it easy compared to most countries, one could possibly argue they have an unfair advantage compared to the rest of the world. And it's not like those businesses outside the US don't make a killing, as in those countries the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, so that isn't a unique US trait.

They claim that only like 4% of the workforce get paid minimum, but ignore the fact that figure doesn't account for the fact that if minimum kept pace with inflation, that is the actual cost of living, then it would be over $10 something right now, which means everyone making less than that is below minimum... that guy working at Walmart, Target, McDonalds or whatever for $9, yes, they may be "above minimum" but if you account for the actual cost of living they are below it...which means that person making $12, while they are well above minimum isn't that far above it. Stretching it further, if minimum kept pace with worker productivity, and nobody is suggesting it should, it would be over $17, so the companies are getting great value out of their workers, and still would be even if minimum wage kept pace with inflation. That doesn't even account for where it would be if it kept pace with CEO/Executive pay of over $22...

And yes, Walmart is near the bottom of the rung in jobs, no matter what the right may say about them having a choice... Nobody grows up wanting to work at Walmart, McDonalds and the like. Most people working at those sort of jobs work them because that was the best job they can get, and after a while, you gain "job security" as well as you can call it that, which makes it harder for them to move on, up and out, taking a risk that some rich guy might ship their jobs overseas so he can take more for himself while screwing over his workers and the American public. So they get stuck, because it's the best option that they have, especially in a country that is so far lopsided in favor of the business over the workers... in one of the few countries that doesn't guarantee health insurance for everyone, that took a Republican created plan that makes people buy health insurance from for profit insurance companies (which if I recall correctly was one of the top 3 most profitable businesses in the US per dollar earned, with banks at number one, and pharmasutcal companies), and made it the law of the land, while those same Republicans, many who co-sponsored the legislation when Republicans tried to pass it at the federal level, now oppose their own creation... because apparently the changes that the left made to the bill (not being able to deny people for pre-existing conditions and not being able to charge them extra, and moving to comprehensive coverage rather than just catastrophic coverage, so two things that mean insurance companies have to pay out more for) are bad.

I think these so-called unstoppable warlords that siphon off our aid is an even bigger myth. The United States of America defeated the British Empire, invaded Nazi Europe, dropped a nuclear fucking bomb on Axis Japan, sacrificed thousands of lives in Vietnam, stood head to head against the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis, landed on the moon, funded Nicaraguan revolutionaries using money from arms sales to Iran, assassinated Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, lied about weapons of mass destruction and invaded Iraq, fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, and yet we can't deal with warlords and civil wars in Africa where (at least with Rwandan civil war) weaponry is in the form of crate after crate of machetes made in China?

If all of those things are possible for the biggest super power in the world, how is it not possible to stop these warlords from siphoning our aid?

Lies.

We don't care so nothing of real consequence happens. All of those above events have one thing in common: our own goddamn self interest.

Everything sucks. May god have mercy on everyone's soul.

(I also posted this reply on his profile not realising in case that causes any confusion)

My 1st post in that thread was intended purely to inform. Most people I meet who own dogs are painfully unaware of what I was describing and consequently foster futile behaviour and negative emotional outbursts around things their dogs do (the idea that everyone in that thread already knows about this is laughable). This is far from the biggest ill in the world but it's there and I saw an opportunity to present an alternative view of events in the hope that perhaps someone somewhere might learn something (or at least consider an idea rather than just mindlessly following social tradition). Where I learned that idea is irrelevant, it stands or falls on its own merits.

Your response garnered hostility because it was indistinguishable from saying "your spoiling our fun by trying to suggest that the animal might actually be terrified and confused and our fun is more important than someone/thing suffering". You didn't try to challenge what I said, you simply indicated some level of disdain for the fact I was even trying to say something intelligent, or because I didn't mindlessly jump on the "look at the terrified dog" bandwaggon like the rest.

Your damm right it was an emotional response, the attitude you displayed from my POV causes untold suffering throughout the world (and I don't just mean dogs which in the grand scheme of things is relatively harmless). If you read my reply again you'll see that at no point did I suggest you were disagreeing with me, I was insulting you precisely because you didn't even try, you just tried to indite me for trying to raise the level of the conversation. It was that and that alone that garnered my hostility, I'm happy to be proven wrong or even for people to switch off and ignore me but to give me flack just for trying I have little patience for.

You have clearly misunderstood my whole argument against you, if I were to take my own advice then I would either challenge your point (which I did) or accept that I didn't understand enough to try and counter intelligently.

What you did was insult me for just trying to make an intelligent argument. That is where the " little gem of "Fuck You"" came from.

Also it's no good getting on a high horse about me being "over sensitive" when you took the time to jump onto my profile and unleash a boatload of bile yourself. That argument would only have worked if you said it to yourself and got on with your life. But you didn't, you felt you had to give me a piece of your mind just like I did.
I'm not going to call you over sensitive, I'm just going to call you human because that's what you are, just like me ;-).

Edit: for the record that Bill Hicks quote refers to precisely the kind of anti-intellectualism I'm accusing you of. It was because an audience member objected to Bill trying to raise an idea above the trivial self interested level that they felt had been threatened. Or to put it another way Bill had spoiled their fun by trying to make an intelligent point rather than just wallowing in their own unconsidered ignorance. As far as I'm concerned it was entirely appropriate.

You know what really annoys me? So-called theists that trample over the idea that "we don't know what happens when we die", as if it were something never before considered in western philosophy. Shadows on a wall. That's all any human can know. Oh, but the voices (or "feeling" of a holy/unholy spirit) of "god" in your head confirmed that they're real because they said so..!? K...

Does anyone else not see the inherent security risk here? How does a god truly interface with a human mind and authenticate its validity beyond all shadows of doubt? Oh, you just know right? As if you're the expert on human perception. If the concept of demons or Satan be real, perhaps there is only that. Have you considered? Of course not, devout theist, the clause exists for a reason -- do not tempt. Never question. Does this sound like freedom... or tyranny at work?

Maybe the voice of "good" is in reality bad. Perhaps all voices from other realms (should you wish to believe such a concept) are the voices and feelings from another world bent on conquering our own. You don't know and you're better off ignoring ALL of this bullshit. One man's god is another man's demon and thus it's safe to just assume they're all demons, should you even fucking ignorantly consider believing this nonsense.

It's the only rational conclusion that I can imagine which takes into account the inherent security risks between potential "linked" worlds, and in which relinquishes fearful self interest and acquisition of "treasures" in the after life (afterlife class war much?). It's like clicking on an insane URL in an email from Sender: "God" h__p:/godisreal.com/eternity?reward=/script%3E%123.45.69%mansion%in%the%sky/script%3E!YOURMINDSASLAVENOW. Would you seriously do that? You have no idea and you didn't even consider that belief could lead to damnation. It's just too easy. And what do we say about things that are too easy? I know what that means in this life, thank you very much.

Now you're hacked. Idiot. And you call unbelievers stupid and sad. For fuck's sake you can't even control your own mind's will to sync with the known patterns of security that we use for survival in this world. You think you're going to be safe in the next? You're ensnared and if you have an eternal soul, I HAVE PITY FOR YOU.

All we really know is that we don't know. It's not a revolutionary idea and in my honest opinion, if there is a life after death, then facing the ultimate fear of your own mortality is a challenge for true fulfillment of an undeserving eternity.

To believe in an after life without question is not to admit ones mortality. Admitting your mortality is a sobering and freeing concept. Again, I continue to feel pity for those whose minds are not free to process this.

Every system has coercion.
The specifics may change, but they're all based around gaming the rules to get ahead, and preventing others from catching up.

Even if there are no government rules, you end up with private rules, set by the private owners of things you depend on, or things you have to work around or work with.

Deregulated systems are great, but they have one major flaw. Over time, you will end up with a monopoly. It's 100% certain. One business will always grow at least a tad quicker than others, and given enough time, will displace the others.
Especially when larger size creates beneficial economy of scale, and makes for prices that no one else can beat, which only accelerates the growth, leading to the inevitable.
This was the case for the U.S. in the "Rockefeller/Morgan/Vanderbilt-esque" days, and it is becoming the case to day in China.

(China is an amusing example. They have essentially wild-west capitalism and no effective labor laws. It's a bubbling brew of mega rich and mega poor. Much like pre-ww1-ish USA.)

Most economic crises we've had were the result of a few influential agents acting in their own best self interest, while their self interest did not coincide with national interest.

Local optima vs Global optima, mathematically speaking.

For example, oil speculation leads to higher oil prices, which means you can then sell your oil options for a good profit. It's quite good for the speculator.
It just isn't good for the rest of the nation, as higher energy costs drive down everyone else's profits/revenue.

In a more cartoonish sense, you can for example: get land real cheap by purchasing all the land around it, land-locking the access, and not agreeing to a public easement.
Then the land owner of the center-plot is holding worthless land, it's useless to anyone else, and the only possible customer is you.
You get to set the price, because it's you or nobody.
*Also, this is a real example that happened in my neighborhood.

-scheherazade

@enoch, if I sound evangelical, it's because I have an allergic reaction to misinformation and a deep aversion to disinformation...

Here are my comments, interspersed:

> and how come all your examples are the european countries that got fucked
> in the ass by corrupt currency and derivative speculators?"

By corrupt currency, do you mean the Euro? These are a big percentage of the so-called "1st world countries."

> are you working for goldman sachs?
> whats the deal man?

Are these borderline ad hominem, or did I miss something...

> denmark? finland?

Is that it, do you want to limit the evidence to the scandinavian countries? Fine, list for me the countries you want me to address and compare to the US or more free market economies and we will proceed from there.

> but its apparent you dont know shit about socialism.
> socialism-communism=not the same.

Personal attacks aside, communism is a type of socialism in the Marxist sense. But to clarify, please define 'socialism' as you think it should be defined, if something other than public control over the means of production.

> and no free market carny barker never seems to want to talk about.

Are you getting upset about something, or are you not calling me a "free market carny barker"?

> 1.how do you fix the currency issue with its pyramid scheme?

What is the currency issue? The central bank's monopoly in currency? You get rid of legal tender laws and let people decide what currency they want to use and accept.

> 2.how do create a level playing field for the wage slave? or debt slave?

You have to be more specific as to what "level playing field means in practice" so that I can answer this.

> 3.or can you outright buy people?

Do you mean slaves? No, that goes against free-market non-aggression and self-ownership principles.

> 4.since nothing is communal and there is no regulation.is there anything that
> cannot be commodified?

Again, please be more specific about what you mean by "commodified." Do you mean are you free to buy and sell anything as long as you don't violate self and property rights? Not clear what you mean here but I'm sure with some clarification I can address it.

> look man.i get it.lots of good things can happen with a free market. but so can
> a lot of bad. eyes open my man.

Sure, but please tell me, what specifically bad can happen in a free market that cannot happen as bad or worse in a non-free market?

> reminds me of the scientist who came up with game theory.
> from the rand institute i think. the whole cold war was set up on this dudes
> principles of self-interest. did a bunch of testing on dudes and the data
> seemed conclusive...until he did the same experiment with secretaries. turns
> but they were unwilling to dick each other over and were more prone to co-
> operate with each other.

How is this relevant? People like to cooperate. That's the basis for the voluntary free market and why it works.

> well how about them apples.co-operation as a way on interacting. ya dont
> say? very interesting.

I agree. Voluntary interaction equals cooperation. That is the free market. Coercion is the non-free market. Is there disagreement here, because I don't see it.

> i know we both agree that what we have now is a clusterfuck.
> and i agree that the free market should have a place,that its even vital. but
> unrestricted free markets? naw..no thanks.

I still don't know the specifics of how exactly you want to "restrict it" and how specifically you want to restrict it. You must forgive me if I don't think you are as competent to restrict me and my life and my business and I myself am. The same with your life and business, I am not qualified to restrict it.
Who is then? Specifically, "who" do you want to restrict you, and your freedom to engage in free trade?