@Trancecoach
you are starting to sound damn near evangelical about this free market lovefest you are having.
and this:
"Socialism promotes equality: "it's only virtue is equal misery for all" (with the exception of the rulers, of course)"

thats a beaut.

and how come all your examples are the european countries that got fucked in the ass by corrupt currency and derivative speculators? are you working for goldman sachs?
whats the deal man?

how about throwing out some countries are doing pretty damn ok?
denmark?finland?

ill give ya props for knowing capitalism and all the positive bennies that can go with it but its apparent you dont know shit about socialism.
socialism-communism=not the same.

so while we are at it lets discuss some things that are from the dark side of capitalism and no free market carny barker never seems to want to talk about.

1.how do you fix the currency issue with its pyramid scheme?
2.how do create a level playing field for the wage slave? or debt slave?
3.or can you outright buy people?
4.since nothing is communal and there is no regulation.is there anything that cannot be commodified?

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.

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 out they were unwilling to dick each other over and were more prone to co-operate with each other.

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

the scientist later recanted and dismissed his own study(years later though).

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.

@enoch,

I think were we differ is the context from which we are looking at the conflict. You state a desire to see a political solution. Virtually every human on the planet would share that desire. You state a fear and desire to avoid military conflict, once again virtually all of us are agreed with you.

The trouble is I look at Syria, and the political solution was approached the most honestly, and productively while the opposition was mounting peaceful protests across the country. That effort towards a political resolution was ended alas by Assad's soldiers with military action. Pretty much exactly like his Father had before him. This time though it didn't end with a quick massacre pacifying the opposition but instead has escalated and progressed into the ongoing civil war.

From that context, I hear your call for a political resolution, and I feel it is at best wishful thinking and at worst cynical front to prevent any foreign protection of Assad's citizens from his armed forces. I hear your fears of military actions and the consequences they bring, but I see an existing and ongoing civil war already, and one which has in all probability seen the deployment of chemical weapons on civilian targets.

I can understand the fear of making things worse by getting involved, but just how many war crimes are you comfortable watching occur with NO reaction by the global community but talk? If we want to consider the expected actions of any world leader, from Obama through Putin through Assad, we can rest assured they will act in their own and/or their nations self interests. In Obama's case, he has an empowered public that can make his life difficult if he ignores them. That is not the position Assad is in. If Assad believes that chemical weapons will help him gain the edge in his conflict it is guaranteed he will use them. I deem it highly probable this recent attack was a test of what the world is willing to do in response, and if he doesn't think anyone will step up I fully expect him to continue.

you are sounding more and more like an anarchist.
you didnt click the link i shared did you?
it explained in basic form the type of anarchy i subscribe to.

which leads us further into the rabbit hole of governments role.
which by your response it appears i need to describe a tad further.

so lets change the question from:
"what is governments role?"
to
"what,if at all,is the FEDERAL governments role"?

which of course we can refer to the federalist papers or the articles of confederacy.
one is a great argument in regards to what federal powers should be the other was an absolute failure and needed to be discarded.(too much anarchy lol)

that argument is still going on today.
well,between people like you and i,not from the political class.

i agree with your position.
i may word mine differently but our views are in alignment for the most part.

what i do find interesting is how a person with a more right leaning ideology will point to the government and say "there..thats the problem"
while someone from a more left leaning will point to corporations as the main culprit.

you need to understand i point to both.
hence my "plutocracy" argument.
so while you are correct that a corporation cannot throw you in jail,they can and DO influence our legislation (in the form of alec,lobbyists,campaign funding) to enact laws which may make anything their competitors do "illegal" or keep them out of the market completely.or make anything they do "legal".both governments and corporations do this for their own survival and self-interest.

the war on drugs and the private prison system come to mind.since weed is becoming more and more acceptable "illegal" immigrants will become the new fodder for the prison.

in my humble opinion most people all want the same things in regards to a civilized society.
fairness,justice and truth.

now how we get there is the REAL discussion (like you and i are having right now).

i agree the federal government should have limited powers but i recognize government DOES play a role.i believe in the inherent moral goodness of people.that if pressed,most people will do the right thing.

this is why i think that governments should be more localized.we could use the "states rights" argument but i would take it further into townships,local communities and municipalities.

for this to even have a chance this country would have to shake off its induced apathetic coma and participate and become informed.

no easy task.
in fact,what both you and i are suggesting is no easy task.
but worthy..so very very worthy.

active citizenship basically.

when we consider the utter failures of:
our political class.
the outright betrayal of our intellectual class who have decided to serve privilege and power at the neglect of justice and truth for their own personal advancement,
and the venal corporate class.

which all have served,wittingly or unwittingly, to create the corporate totalatarian surveillance state we now find ourselves living in.
there can be ONLY one recourse:

we,as citizens,have to demand a better way.
not through a political system that is dysfunctional and broken and only serves the corporate state while giving meaningless and vapid rhetoric to the people.

nor can this be achieved by violent uprising,which would only serve to give the state the reason to perpetrate even greater violence.

we cannot rely on our academic class which has sold itself for the betterment of its own hubris and self-aggrandizing.

even the fourth estate,which has been hamstrung so completely due to its desire for access to power,it has been enslaved by the very power it was meant to watchdog.

the institutions that existed 50 years ago to put pressure on the levers of power are gone,destroyed and crushed or outright abandoned.

when we look at american history.the ACTUAL history we find that never,not ONCE,did the american government EVER give something to the people.those rights and privileges were hard fought for by social movements.
in fact,america had the longest and bloodiest of labor movements on the planet.
the woman sufferagists.
the liberty party in its stance against slavery.
the civil rights movement.

it is the social movements which put pressure,by way of fear,on the political class.

we have seen the tea party rise and get consumed by the republican political class.

we saw occupy rise up to be crushed in a coordinated effort by the state.this was obama that did this yet little was ever spoken about it.

power is petrified of peoples movements.

there will be another movement.
i do not know when or how it will manifest.
i just hope it will not be violent.

because that is the only way to combat the power structures we are being subjected to today.
civil disobedience.
and i aim to misbehave.

this starts exactly how you and i are talking.
it is the conversation which sparks the idea which ignites a passion which turns into a burning flame.

i am a radical.
a dissident.
but radical times call for radical thinking.

you and i both want fairness,justice and truth.
everybody does.
some of our philosophy overlaps,other parts do not.
we discuss the parts that do not overlap to better understand each other.
this forms a bond of empathy and understanding.
which makes it far more harder to demonize each other in terms of the political class and propaganda corporate tv.

the power elite do not want me to understand you,nor you to empathize with me.
that does not serve their interests.
fear and division serve their interests.
hyper-nationalistic xenophobia serves their interests.

i aim to disappoint them.

now go watch that video i posted for ya.
when ya got time of course lol.

maybe it will help if i share the people i admire.
chomsky,zinn,hedges,watts,harvey,roy,
just some of the people who have influenced me greatly.

anyways.
loving this conversation.
i am in 3 other debates with highly educated people.
nowhere near as polite and awesome as you.
then again..i am kicking the crap out of them.
arrogance really annoys me,makes me vulgar and beligerent.
peace brother man.

Oops! I posted to the wrong profile. Sorry about that! Glad we were able to continue our dialogue.

My comments/responses interspersed:

> "economics has never been my strong suit."

I know, my friend, I know. As soon as I hear some defense of "socialism," I know.

> "but i AM quite literate in history and government and of
> course politics."

Yes, my dear friend, but history is tied to economics, and these days, unfortunately, politics too.

> "while you are correct that a socialist state can become a
> fascist one,so too can a democracy."

Again, we agree! Yes, in fact, fascism is the offspring of democracy. And while not strictly a fascist, was not Hitler elected?
Is there here some assumption that I regard "Democracy" as some sort of "holy cow?" On the contrary, "democracy" is a type of "soft" socialism.
At least as practiced and typically defined.
Not market democracy, however, which is the same as the free market, and not problematic. But pandering political democracy is something else.

> "it is really the forces of ideology"

Yes, in fact the book I am now reading makes this point throughout. So did Mises. But I will say that Mises was not altogether correct in dismissing Marx' assertion that systems and structures influence ideology and not the other way around. Mises was mostly correct, ideology creates systems and structures and institutions, but Marx was a little bit correct, there is also some influence in the other direction.

> "i do apologize for my oftentimes rambling.maybe because i
> am a little out of my comfort zone when it comes to
> economics"

Do not worry my friend, this is the case with most people who have strong political/economic opinions. It has been called afterall the "dismal science." If people knew about economics, we'd have a totally different system of government or no government at all.

> "your last post really cleared so many misconceptions i was
> having during this conversation."

Glad to hear. Some of my other "debaters" get very little out of our debate so it is a refreshing situation.

> "i knew we were more in agreement than disagreement.
> and we are."

I think most people are actually in agreement about goals, they just disagree about means, mostly because of lack of economic education. But once that is cleared, the agreements become more evident.

> "the banks need to held accountable."

1. yes banks need to be held accountable for fraud, like any other business or person.

> "which by inference means the governments role should be
> as fraud detector and protector of the consumer."

2. if you still want a government, meaning you still want a monopolist to do this. But a monopoly is inefficient (this is one of those "economics" laws, but one I think is almost self-evident). So asking a monopoly run by kleptocrats to do this is like asking the wolves to look over the sheep.

> "you didnt mention it but i hope you agree the corporate
> charter needs to be rewritten in a way where they are NOT a
> person and therefore shall be removed from the political
> landscape."

3. Since I don't think government (monopolist) are necessary, I don't think it should be inventing legal entities and forcing those on everyone else. Corporations are the creation of the state. Without a state monopoly, they would look much different than they do at present. In actuality, regardless of legal definitions, a corporation is a group of persons, like a union or social club or a partnership.

> "this will (or should) re-balance our political system (which is
> diseased at the moment)."

4. Corporations are a symptom, not the cause of all our social ills. Lack of economic calculation is much more problematic on all levels. In short, government is not a solution, but the major contributor to the problem. And we still have not gone into the whole issue of how the government is not "we" or "the people" in any meaningful way and how having coercive rulers is a problem.

> "which will return this country to a more level playing field and
> equate to=more liberty."

5. I don't know that we agree here. Corporations are not the cause of lack of liberties. Government is. Corporations won't throw you in jail for not obeying the rulers; government will. Corporations will not garnish your wages. Government will.

> "this will open innovation,progress and advancements in ALL
> fields AND due to competitive forces ,will lower prices."

6. Things like getting rid of IP laws will do so. So will getting rid of most/all taxation and arbitrary regulation.

> "how am i doing so far?"

Doing great!

> "what is governments role"?

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
I don't want government to do anything for me, and I don't want it to force me at gunpoint to do anything at all.
A monopoly cannot do anything good that a free competitive market cannot do better.

> "the anarchist finds it perfectly acceptable to tear down that
> government to build a new one."

If you want someone to rule over you by force, you are not an anarchist. What kind of government would you consider "anarchy?"

> "if something aint working the way it was meant to,get rid of
> it and try another."

What if I don't want you or anyone else imposing rulers on me? What if I believe I have a right to self-ownership and voluntary interactions and property?
What if I don't want your form of "government?' Then what? You still want to impose it on me?
I thought you were my friend.

> "well in an unrestricted market and pesky government out of
> the way what do YOU think is going to happen to a system
> driven by self interest and profit?"

Everything will improve. But government had to be totally out of the way. btw, where do you get that government is not driven itself by self-interest and profit?

> "and i am ok with that."

Well, the difference between what you want and what I want is that what I want is not to be imposed on you but what you want is to be forcefully imposed on me, violently too, if I don't comply.

> "illegal to have an employee owned business."

Like I said, government is a problem.

> "i dont know why it was illegal in this area and i dont see how
> employee owned companies would threaten a free market."

In a free market anyone can own any business they want or else it is not a free market.

> "but as you figured out.
> economics is not my strong suit."

Just because there is a law prohibiting co-op ownership of a bar, it does not mean that it is there for some reason that makes economic sense. It actually makes no economic sense so it must be there for some political reason or because someone somewhere profits from this restriction, as is always the case with regulations.

> "and my man,cant tell ya how grateful i am to have had this
> conversation with you.i learned tons,about you and your
> views and even some about free markets."

Remember, a free market means free, not "semi" free. Not privilege for some, like regulations tend to do.
Always a pleasure.

well thank god i visited your page!
oooo../claps hands
what a delight to read your response!

i agree with almost everything you expressed.
oh thank you my friend!

economics has never been my strong suit.i know..shocker.
but i AM quite literate in history and government and of course politics.
while you are correct that a socialist state can become a fascist one,so too can a democracy.
it is really the forces of ideology which can push a state to either a fascist or swing despotic.
but i get your point.

i do apologize for my oftentimes rambling.maybe because i am a little out of my comfort zone when it comes to economics,so i rely on my history and governmental knowledge to fill in the gaps.
your last post really cleared so many misconceptions i was having during this conversation.

i knew we were more in agreement than disagreement.
and we are.

1.the banks need to held accountable.
check.
2,which by inference means the governments role should be as fraud detector and protector of the consumer.
check.
3,you didnt mention it but i hope you agree the corporate charter needs to be rewritten in a way where they are NOT a person and therefore shall be removed from the political landscape.
check.
4.this will (or should) re-balance our political system (which is diseased at the moment).
5.which will return this country to a more level playing field and equate to=more liberty.
6.this will open innovation,progress and advancements in ALL fields AND due to competitive forces ,will lower prices.

how am i doing so far?

now.
since we have to talk about politics when we talk about markets.
my old professor dr paul (great man,miss him very much).
he reduced politics down to one simple question:
"what should we do"?
or in terms that we have been discussing:
"what is governments role"?

thats it.
now people like to make it more complicated,especially people getting paid good money to postulate on sunday morning tv shows,but thats it.

being an anarchist is not one dimensional.
the anarchism YOU are speaking of is the extreme.
i am more the libertarian socialism flavor.(yes..you didnt convert me)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
the anarchist may see a form of government that no longer works.that is weighed down by its own hubris,greed and corruption.
the anarchist finds it perfectly acceptable to tear down that government to build a new one.

and why not?
if something aint working the way it was meant to,get rid of it and try another.

now you wanted to know why i feared and unrestricted free market.
(which is how i was talking your previous post and confused me greatly).i see now i may have misinterpreted your commentary so my next point may be a moot one.
if so..i apologize.

if we put everything on the table as an unrestricted free market.we would be going back to feudalism.
the flaw in capitalism is not just the boom and bust but the exploitation of the common man,or worker if you like.

not only would the most vulnerable of us be exploited but it would make the class structure even WORSE than it is now (which by comparison is not too bad when compared to,say..somolia).

we see pockets of this happening now here in the US:
http://youtu.be/GVz_yJAxVd4

imagine having to pay for any road you drove on.ALL of them.all owned by different companies and subsidiaries.every one of them a toll road.
the market would dictate what burden could be held sufficiently in order to turn a profit.
what percentage would be prevented from driving those roads due to lack of funds?

see what im saying?

lets take this template and put it with firefighters.
would having a firehouse every couple of miles be profitable?
i mean,how many fires are there actually occurring on any given day?
so the firehouse would have 2 choices that i see.
shut down the more rural and spread the firehouses more thinly OR charge a monthly fee.
since a nominal fee would be the most likely avenue,what about those people who cant afford that fee?
does the firehouse BILL them?
"sorry for the loss of your house ..pay us".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwJrPa8Ps7A

and what about police?
they already have become revenue generators and protectors of the privileged.
what happens to poor folks in an unrestricted market?
police wont have a station in any inner city areas.no profit there.
no no no..wait a minute!
there would be HUUUGE profit there!
/smacks head
what was i thinking!
of course!
just like our prison system the police would be paid by the state PER arrest.
to be reimbursed on a quarterly basis!
BRILLIANT.
then poor people could be commodities!

nope nope nope.not gonna work.
that would mean the state would have to impose a tax or something to generate the revenue to pay for the arrested subjects.

hahaha im being an asshole now.forgive me.

ok.lets talk schooling.
lets privatize em!
free market baby!
based on the local population and average income we can fill those seats.
aaaand maybe get rid of NCLB and standardized testing,which i loving refer to as the giant ball of bullshit.
now this would be GREAT.

wait a minute.
what about the poor families that cant afford the tuition?
what do they do?

well in an unrestricted market and pesky government out of the way what do YOU think is going to happen to a system driven by self interest and profit?

welcome back child labor!!
and the 80 hour work week!
and beatings for not making quota!
and how awesome is it that that poor family of 5 gets to live with grandma,grandpa,uncle lou and aunt sara and there 3 kids all in one 3 bedroom house.
its 1913 all over again.
happy days are here again.......

ok ok.dont get mad at me.that was mostly tongue in cheek.
i realize after your post tonight that you are not suggesting an "unrestricted" free market but a free market.

and i am ok with that.
if we can limit government intrusion.
allow companies to tank when they fail.
rewrite the corporate charter (or dissolve them completely,or as i suggested previously make them accountable and put back the phrase "for the public good").
reign in bank fraud and make the rules to keep em honest.

in my opinion the only thing we really seem to disagree on is when it is in regards to labor.

i tried a few years ago to buy my friends bar/eatery with most of the employees.
did you know what i found out?
we were not allowed.
could not get the permits.
the owner even offered to finance us all..
nope.
how about them apples.illegal to have an employee owned business.

that is changing though.
employee owned businesses and co-opts are popping up like recurring herpes.

i dont know why it was illegal in this area and i dont see how employee owned companies would threaten a free market.

but as you figured out.
economics is not my strong suit.

and my man,cant tell ya how grateful i am to have had this conversation with you.i learned tons,about you and your views and even some about free markets.

thank you my friend.thank you.
namaste.

translation: I know you are but what am I.

Libertarianism in the best case is a redundancy. I still remember the first time someone introduced me to the concept of what a Libertarian was. My reaction was "duh, how could anyone possibly be against that?"

Reality however is quite different. Every time we've had an instance of a politician defending the "right" of a corporation to do things everyone knows is harmful to other people, guess what! they're a libertarian!!

Everytime we have an instance of someone complaining about some form of government excess or incompetency and that someone argues we should scrap the whole system, yet has no answer to the question of what would you put in it's place that would be better. Guess what..Libertarian again!

Everyone who seems to think rational self-interest will protect the strong from bullying the weak, again, probably a Libertarian.

Guess what? that conveys the sense that Libertarians = Anarchists or Objectivists/Ayn Rand worshipers.

We only hear about Libertarians when they're bitching about gov't. If the guy in the video is correct and they do agree that Gov't has a role? please elaborate? where IS gov't allowed to step in and intervene and be proactive? If your answer is the Military. BZZZT try again. Every fucking party on this planet agrees that we need a military, the only disagreement is in how much.

So it just does nothing to advance the idea that Libertarians do anything but bitch about the gov't Well get in line...everyone has some grievance with the gov't. Every single party on this planet wants gov't intervention in some things, no intervention in other things. They just disagree in what parts.

So it just makes Libertarians seem redundant. Every single person throughout the political spectrum wants gov't to be no bigger than it needs to be. If you think otherwise, then you need to put on your tinfoil hat.

Even if there was a better way of distinguishing Libertarians apart from the other parties. Guess what. every "ism" on the planet has the problem where not everyone agrees on how things should be done. Ask a 100 libertarians how they think gov't should operate and you'll get 100 different answers, just like if you ask 100 Christians about God, you'll get 100 different answers. Same thing goes with every party.

I'm sure there are some very well intentioned Libertarians out there. Name me someone who doesn't have good intentions? But it's been demonstrated as I mentioned earlier how Libertarianism gets used as an excuse to get away with doing shitty things to people who don't know any better. So tell me how I can tell the difference between the good Libertarians and the "bad" ones

Till then, Libertarianism is a meaningless term.

A shocking exposé! Well, not really that shocking, unless you're a fan boy for the current US administration.

It just goes to show that the entire liberal/conservative (Republican/Democrat) debate is a joke. They're basically the same, but the self interest of the population creates these crack-pot, liberal fringe groups and insane right wing movements like the Tea Party. It's all just a distraction from the fact that corporations are running the show regardless of what party is in the president's office. The US and its allies are the conductors of an orchestra of world wide destabilization and they're robbing their own citizens to do it. Wake up and smell the oil!

My love affair with Libertarianism was crushed by reality. I was a big Libertarian, pushing for Ron Paul up until the actual election of 2008 (I pushed Paul through the primaries). Then the company I worked for at the time sent a memo saying that if Obama won, and put his tax plans in place, they would have to fire over 300 people. Then before Obama even was in office, the company fired 350+ people, and sent a memo to the rest of us that there would be no raises (nobody at that company but the executives have had raises since) as the company couldn't afford it, and claimed that the cost of living went down anyhow. The owner then went out and purchased a private jet and another mansion in a gated community where he already had the second largest mansion in it. I called BS on that, as did a few others. I then started looking at the rich and corporations as a whole and started doing some real studies, not just Libertarian propaganda, and realized that they wouldn't operate on the rational interests of society, but would gladly screw over anyone just to advance their own short term self interests. That owner who fired over 1000 people and kept everyone else under his employ at the same pay rates over 5 years wasn't an aberration, he was the norm, a very high percentage norm. Libertarians are under a delusion that corporations and the rich will act in the rational interests of society, but they could care less about anyone but themselves, and that isn't misusing the phrase "could care less" because less than 2-3% of them care about what would be best for society as a whole, and sure I'm pulling that figure out of my ass, but I'm sure I'm being generous with that guess).

It became clear that without minimum wages, companies like McDonalds and Walmart would gladly pay their workers $1 or $2 an hour. The Libertarian response that people just wouldn't work there then, is BS, because nobody really wants to work at those places for minimum like they do now. The workers would be stuck, just like they were in the days prior to labor unions and minimum wage laws. The 40 hour work week that we have the unions to thank for, would be gone, as companies paid less, people would be forced to work more, and with the Libertarian ideal of removing overtime laws and other pay laws, people would end up working 80 to 100 hour work weeks just to make what used to be minimum. I'm sure we would see child labor return too, as families would have no choice but to put their kids to work to help make ends meet.

It became clear that without government in the way they would gladly pollute and destroy the environment if it means better short term profits and if they don't have to worry about paying clean up costs later, and in a Libertrian world, they won't have to pay for the clean up costs later as nobody would force them to.

I still believe in individual freedom. I believe drug laws are an impairment to individual freedom, the right to do with your body as you will. I don't believe that a company has unlimited freedom, corporations are not people my friend. I believe in the social contract, that we have an obligation to help lift people up, and the only way to do that is via a government that is designed to help those that need it, and that taxes must be collected to achieve that. I believe that if we teach people that greed is bad, to work in the rational interests of all, then we could eventually get rid of government, but it is needed for now to overcome those that would abuse the people. Bring government back to the people and away from the corporations and rich.

i think a more basic explanation is that humanity at this stage of our evolution is generally very self interested. and given the opportunity, humans gravitate towards self-interest.
it's really just another example of our present stage of evolution which, on a planetary timeline, is still in it's infancy.

On a grand scale, our overall tendency towards self-interest and our complete lack of species awareness is causing the rapid consumption of our ecosystem.

A more evolved understanding of species behavior suggest that cooperative behavior, rather than competitive, is much more beneficial to all, including the individual.

Everything good in our lives has come through a process of sharing, not competition. Whether it is language, art, science or mathematics. We are products of a communal effort, yet we continue to glorify the more primitive instinct -- competition.

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

I think it's a mistake to think of "the government" as a single entity and capable of doing good or bad - it leads to all kinds of problems.

There are bad policies, bad laws, misguided individuals within government, people driven by self-interest, fear and prejudice, internal cultures that lead to incompetence and bad actions - all of those things - but no Emperor Palaptine in the woodworks - covertly angling for more power for its own sake.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant and that's what's needed in the US government. I like the French idea that a government should fear its people (as it does in France) and not the other way around.

Just the fact that Obama and his intelligence chief try to justify the program by saying that it only targets foreign individuals blows my mind - I mean WTF?? Don't we deserve privacy here in Australia? It's like a giant fuck you to the near 7 billion people who don't happen to live within the US borders.

It makes me so angry - especially that all of these American tech companies were in cahoots with the NSA - yes even Apple.

It's hilarious how people will make themselves look completely ignorant just to try and score a political point...

The very definition of leaderships is making the hard decisions that no one else dares to. Dealing with two entire houses full of bickering fucking 5 year olds who are far too self interested to do things for the greater good, and a country who's defining quality is "me first, me second and whatever is left, I'll have some of that as well" (ie. the voters will kill off people who make the hard decisions to save their asses from future ruin because they can't look beyond their immediate future) means that those hard choices may never succeed, but they have to put forward anyway.

Joe doesn't "get it". Like so many of his ilk he is only able to empathise when it is sufficiently close to home. That he has children of that age is what made him "get it". What he gets is that this could have affected him. This isn't morality. It's fear via self-interest.
Unless he is a moral particularist he has no principles with which to appeal, just reflexive emotions. What will it take for him to "get" that civilian causalities, let alone American troops losses, in the "war on terror" far far outweigh the initial act of terror? What principles guide him that do not rest on the end of his nose? None.

http://imgur.com/a/EmhRt
So, the first part is just me moving around a few things to make more room, because I think the top of the site is wasting lots of space.

I think the Promoted videos loks sort of like ads, but the sift of the week is exactly like an ad to me - look at picture 2 where it has an ad right above it.

I would like to see the whole right side bar only use small things, while the left main page can show big things.

When something is promoted to the front page like bareboards2's post, I would want that above the promoted videos, as it seems to break the flow of reading - and * frontpage should be more powerful than * promote.

There's something off about the promoted videos. They obviously try to squish in the title in small font so it can be shown, but at the same time it feels weird I think. Compare a promoted thumbnail with a regular one:
http://i.imgur.com/GFnBp.jpg
The bottom bar on the regular one actually presses in vital information about comments, which is the centerpoint of the sift, together with the videos themselves. This should not be overlooked - the promote needs something like that.

The "Featured" banner is unnecessary - "show, don't tell". We know it's featured, because the damn thing is right in our faces!

I also can't see who posted the video, which is part of my "1 second evaluation" of whether or not I should give the video a chance. There are people I know have tastes that correspond to mine, so this will often give a video that I've already "passed" a second chance at my precious vote/view.

Here's a quick mock-up of a different, but similar way of doing it:
http://i.imgur.com/Hqets.jpg

As for the mechanical way of having only three at the top at any point, I think it gives the wrong incentives.

They will only rotate out when someone "knocks another one down", so there's inherent trolling in that.

There's uncertainty in what you get for your precious powerpoint, uncertainty ALWAYS lead to inaction - so people are scared off and won't use them at all.

@dag mentioned the guiding principles:

"1. Changes should promote altruistic social behavior and limit self-interest (that's been with us since the beginning)
2. Changes should increase the usefulness of the site"

If you can align both points in the first, that's much better. People are inherently self interested first and altruistic after that. Just "consuming" videos is a self-interested thing as well, so we have to make it as easy for someone to absorb the content as possible. For the posters, we also must give the fitting incentives for providing value to the site, but the two types of visitors and two very different animals (although almost all posters are also viewers).

I feel the promote system limits the usefulness of the site for the posters. I don't really want to promote anything, because it'll just be gone again as soon as anyone else gets the idea of posting. I also have to consider whether or not I want the currently promoted video to stick around a little longer before posting - maybe the promoted videos are something I don't like, so me and my posse of late night sifters keep promoting them away from the promote reel with our videos of Maru, the wonder-cat, jumping into things.

I hope my ramblings and child-like drawings make sense.

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

I would say that we have been as inclusive in the development process as possible. We had several rounds of feature request discussions, we let testers in as early as possible and we implemented *many* features directly from ideas thought up by Sifters. The maximum power points by year limitation, for example.

I don't know how we could have been more inclusive. At some point Lucky and I have to make decisions and implement.

No, we did not implement everything that everyone asked for - a camel is a horse designed by a committee. We were going for horse - not camel.

we do have a couple of guiding principles though that we use for making changes:

1. Changes should promote altruistic social behaviour and limit self-interest (that's been with us since the beginning)
2. Changes should increase the usefulness of the site

I'm not saying we succeeded on those points - but that's what we're always going for.

Well, excuse me, but I am offended that my criticism of the promote system is being written off as purely self-interest. I stopped promoting because I didn't want to mess with other Sifters' promotes -- how is that being selfish about my own presentation?

I understand that lucky and dag have a duty to the site as a whole. Which is why I asked the question -- how many complaints were generated about the old system? That was a real question. Those of us on the site a lot can get stuck in our own bubble. If there have been complaints about how the site was working, then we all need to know about them. Something put a burr under dag and lucky's saddle about the way promotes used to work -- but I just don't see it and they aren't helping me to understand.

And -- for whatever was prompting this overhaul of the promote system, lucky's new solution is fine. Meets their interest of minimizing the number of promotes on the front page -- lets Sifters promote without worrying about messing with other Sifters promotes -- promoted videos no longer look like ads and they will have full data without having to click through.

I am beginning to wonder if this whole promote controversy is related to mass number of Sifters finally figuring out that they can work cooperatively to get their vids promoted -- to promote your own costs two power points. If you work cooperatively with someone else, you each get a promoted vid for the cost of one power point. And hence the number of promoted vids went up.

I don't see that as a problem in and of itself. I think that makes for a stronger community, where we work together so all can succeed. It encourages conversation between Sifters, which is all to the good of the community.

I really appreciate dag and lucky and all that they put into this site. I appreciate that my opinion is asked. I am not above begging for my point of view. Bottom line, though, it is dag and lucky's deal and I suspect that they are privy to issues and complaints that we know nothing about.

Thanks, our fearless leaders. I appreciate the opportunity to offer my two cents. And I appreciate that you guys clearly are taking EVERYONE'S two cents into account.