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

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

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

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

Don't hold your breath.

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

Sure, like in Pittsburgh or Singapore.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> "they can't afford rent and food"

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

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

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

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

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

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

I kind of do.

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

No, that was @enoch who said it was.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My brother in-law grew up in southern California but has since lived in Indiana, Singapore and now Texas. Everytime he comes to visit the first nights dinner is always at the local Round Table Pizza.

I think most of the country is not as uptight about pizza as NY and Chicago are. But especially in California we just don't have rules when it comes to good pizza other than "does it taste good"?

This.
Objectivism is the political equivalent of Young Adult Fantasy.

“I’d been kind of an Ayn Rand guy before that,” he said. “And then you go to Asia and you see people who are genuinely poor and genuinely suffering and hadn’t gotten there by whining.” While on a break in Singapore, walking back to his hotel in the middle of the night, he stopped by an excavation site and “saw these shadows scuttling around in the hole. And then I realized the shadows were old women, working the night shift. Oh, I thought, Ayn Rand doesn’t quite account for this.”
-- George Saunders, on his time in Asia during the 90s.

"Ha, those asian races that are all racists, unlike us!"
Please kindly go fuck yourself ^__^

With love,
- Hong Kong, Singapore, Java, Bangkok, Guangzhou, etc...

...to Singapore?

Singapore's Vandalism Law

Action Comics #479, Superman comes in at about mach 6 on a decommissioned air strip in Singapore and does a low-in fly-over scraping his face against the tarmac to lose that shadow...

The public transport is so good that there really isn't a need to drive a car around Singapore, so it's like a self imposed tax on those who can afford it.

*length=6:20

Fast & Furious 6 stars are shocked by Singapore car prices has been added as a related post - related requested by braschlosan on that post.

Fast & Furious 6 stars are shocked by Singapore car prices has been added as a related post - related requested by braschlosan on that post.

Considering the complaint to the "Ministry of Manpower", I would guess Singapore.
On the other hand, it could be three guys in L.A.
Who knows.

This is in Singapore and the mailboxes are for a public housing building. Because of this mailbombing, they have since changed the mail to be backslotted through a locked door.

I think that's like saying bosses have no responsibility to treat their subordinates in a human manner.

In the real world, it's in bosses' best interest to build a good company culture that makes their employees happy. It costs nothing, and it saves a lot of money because employees behave better and don't quit as frequently. In my work, that's what I do with the employees who report to me, and that's what I hope those to whom I report do for me.


I largely agree with you. I'm all for much more severe punishment of actual scumbags, like is done in Singapore and the Middle East, which tend to be low crime as a result. But this woman seems just disorganized and unlucky, not sociopathic.

It's not in our best interest to convince her that society will treat her unjustly whenever it gets the chance.

True, sounds too uncommonly....'named' to be anonymously produced by just anyone pissed-off with some common sense......Maybe it's them Jee-hovers Witnesssees er one-a them, Ultra Centrist Radical Meritocratic's sects outta Singapore?! Who the fuck cares eh, they speak the language of, *WTF!

Actually America's GDP is only 1st in the world because our population is 3rd in the world. Our GDP per capita is about 8th.You probably have a better standard of living if you live in Singapore, Norway, Switzerland or Hong Kong. I think we'd be doing even better if were were spending more on education and wasting less on the military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita

I really hate when people pull stats like this out of their asses because it downplays and belittles the difficulties of living in poverty.

There is so much vagueness in your statement that I shouldn't even bother with it, but it is upsetting me, so here we go:

What is the First World? The best current definition is probably the group of countries which have the highest Human Development Index, generally meaning that life there is pretty damn good. That would include countries you might not expect (like Chile, Argentina, Bahrain, and Singapore) but it is a better definition than the historical meaning of First World (basically, US, Canada, and Western Europe).

Combined population of First World countries: 1.136 billion people

Let's assume that poverty is the bottom 10 percent of that population, so you are looking at a non-impoverished First World population of 1.022 billion

Account for China's middle and affluent classes, who are surely better off than poor people in Croatia or Latvia, by adding 350 million

Do the same for India and let's call that 70 million people

Then assume that the top 1% of the rest of the world is probably better off than the bottom 10% of the First World, and you can add a further 33 million people ((World population - First World - China - India) x .01)

So then, the total number of people living better than poverty stricken First Worlders is ...... 1.77 billion people or about 25% of humankind.

So, yes, you are "richer" than 75% of humankind even if you are poor in the First World, but even that is relative if you consider purchasing power.

All of this isn't to say that I am sick of hearing about "first world problems" especially when I am from there but don't live there. I walk out my door everyday and see the very real problems of abject poverty, malnutrition, lack of access to clean water, and on and on. But I also understand how difficult it is to be poor in the US and European countries, and I think we should never downplay that struggle. Telling people to stop complaining because it could always be worse has never been a very convincing argument for me.