Yeah people...Focus on the this cad-killer's loquacious verve and not his past douchebaggery! Go easy on the poor cunt, he kicked a nasty coke habit and has a bad ticker....lighten-up on him for Bosnia and Somalia, too

>> ^Fletch:

Now there's an idea... move all the Repugs (Teapublicans?) to Somalia.


I believe the PC term is Repugnant-American.

Now there's an idea... move all the Repugs (Teapublicans?) to Somalia.

http://videosift.com/video/Somalia-Libertarian-Paradise

Let the Paultards move to Somalia.

That approximation of civilian casualties alone is reason enough to question the intent of this video: objective journalism or propaganda?

Add the "almost supernatural effectiveness" or the grossly misleading "inherent right to self-defence under international law" and I'm inclined to say that this is a disgusting propaganda piece.

When he emphasized the "humane" behaviour of operators (let the children leave before pulling the trigger) and the insinuation that victims of drone attacks are actually thankful for it, well that's just icing on the cake.


What he fails to mention:

-- low rate of civilian casualties: every male of fighting age in the target area is now considered a militant, so everything you hit is a target, unless there is concrete intelligence to prove otherwise, posthumously.

-- pinpoint accuracy: UAVs hit their targets, but the targets themselves are defined as such by piss-poor intelligence or no intelligence at all.

-- guilt by proximity: if you are near a suspect or, generally speaking, in a strike-zone, your mere presence makes you a suspect yourself, as defined by the Obama administration. Now try to square this definition with previous accusations that terrorists embed themselves into the civilian population.

-- double-tap: again, your mere presence at the site of a strike, even if your intent is to provide medical assistance, turns you into a target (eg Collateral Murder). And better stay away from funerals as well, or else they send you a present.

-- US citizens Anwar al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were intentionally killed by drone strikes, without trial.

-- collateral damage: when you kill a person's family, you provide that person with a non-ideological reason to fight the US, a personal vendetta. Recent drone attacks in Yemen increased the numbers of AQAP members by killing civilians left, right and center.

-- covert killings, proxy warfare: the use of UAVs, particularly in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, reminds us of the good old days. Death from above or how I learned to love the drone.

@Stormsinger whatever system you're envisioning seems to me like a common fantasy of underestimating the complexities of society. I invite you to rethink your idea of a society with economic freedom, because it's definitely not Somalia, an uncivilized society ruled by criminals has no freedoms.

No state regulation doesn't mean less regulation. Instead of coming from above in the form of laws, regulation would come from the people and however they decide to organize themselves to deal with anything they perceive as abuses in the economy, without resorting to force. State only comes in to enforce contracts and respect for private property.

Yes, there would be failure, bankruptcy, loss, but that's what makes a system alive, adaptable and capable of evolving, as opposed to the static oligarchic power structures we have now. If you think people are stupid and don't care past the end of their noses, wait until they have to pay dearly for their bad decisions. Which doesn't mean I want to live in a cruel and abusive world, I want a society that can learn and react faster and more appropriately to whatever complex problems that may come up. Leaving that job to regulators and central economic planners is painfully inefficient, not to mention anti-capitalistic.

You know why you talk about a system where regulators, which would still have power, would be held responsible for their actions? Because you like responsability, and I like it too. No one should have power and not be held accountable for their actions.

So here's a thought: take the power away from regulators, let people have the power and the responsability: if they use it wisely, they succeed and profit, otherwise they crash and burn. No, I don't like to see people failing either, but forcibly removing failure from society is what leads society itself to fail.

>> ^renatojj:

>> ^Stormsinger:
Capitalism is virtually guaranteed to become state-sponsored, over the long run, especially in a democracy (or republic, there's little effective difference). When the government has no built-in opposition to the capitalist class, sooner or later, it gets bought.
The big question is how do you build in a negative feedback loop to limit the power of the oligarchs.
I think what truly undermines capitalism is:

- Public education: if you let people be educated by the state, they'll be deprived of the critical thinking needed to challenge it.
- Economic intervention: if government has any power over the economy, those with money will buy that power. Are TV networks and newspapers lobbying government to censor competitors? No, because censorship is unnaceptable in a free speech society.
Oligarchs don't want free markets, they're the ones who built this crony capitalism, where they get to make rules for their own benefit.

- The issue has -nothing- to do with public education. Even the stupidity of our electorate has nothing to do with education...it's that most people don't care about anything past the end of their nose, and are too stupid to actually think about issues in the first place. Education won't change that, it never has. But it makes a nice red herring.


- Yes, of course. The answer to a capture of regulators is to abandon all regulation on the offenders whatsoever...I'm sure that'll make things better. We can obviously count on their better nature to ensure our well-being, once we stop trying to do it for ourselves. Typical libertarian lunacy. You might want to see Somalia for the actual results of that sort of thinking.

A much better answer is to design a system such that those people involved in regulating have an incentive (and the power) to stay opposed to any increase in power of the oligarchs. Negative feedback loops are the time-proven method of maintaining a balance. Designing such a social system is difficult, of course, and implementing it is likely to require a violent overthrow of our current system. But it's going to have to happen sooner or later, if we want an end to these boom-and-bust cycles of the robber barons.

>> ^Auger8:

There is more than enough food for every man, woman, and child on the planet but there are two things stop those people from getting what they need to survive.
Politics
&
Money a.k.a. Greed.

>> ^Peroxide:
I will not be impressed until they can fire food into areas of the world experiencing famine.



And the more local the greed and politics the greater the suffering.

People living in Somalia and North Korea are at the top of the list of the world's hungry people, and 90% of the reason for their suffering is the evil men around them denying them the ability to feed themselves because it benefits the evil men.

Not only should gay marriage be legal, and socially accepted, so should:

Polygamy
Incest
Prostitution
Contraception

Plus, anyone in the U.S. who gripes about their taxes being too high needs to be deported to Somalia.

And gwiz already mentioned it, but there is no such thing as free will.

>> ^renatojj:

@bcglorf, @Drachen_Jager, economic freedom doesn't mean you're free to use force, how could you think that? That would be the opposite of freedom.
It's like saying freedom of expression allows you to shoot people in the face to express yourself!
Well, I guess it's real easy to hate libertarianism when you don't understand what it stands for.


Taxation restricts economic freedom.
Please explain how you intend to prevent people from using force without some level of taxation for a police force.

This isn't some idea anti-libertarians have come out with to smear it. The idea of eliminating spending on police and military forces is an idea frequently championed by self proclaimed Libertarians. Don't pretend you haven't heard the lament of how many puppies could be saved if we redirected the billions spent on national defense. The logical conclusion of eliminating all that spending though is millions of saved puppies, but no defense against Somalia like warlords ravaging what's left.

Somalia is as @renatojj describes it. There are no private property rights and no rule of law.

Libertarians are not anarchists.

But seeing how @Drachen may believe that American corporations are the same as warlord-driven Somalian gangs, I hereby swear allegiance to the McDonald's' McMillitia.

'Egg McMuffin' is just a beautiful name for a boy. Or a girl.


>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^renatojj:
@Drachen_Jager, Uh... no? Somalia is very oppressed by criminal militias, that's a huge restriction to doing business, how do you suggest I secure private property and enforce contracts in that environment? A society that is not civilized, has no freedoms, including your precious freedom of speech.
You aren't taking this seriously, I'm a bit disappointed. Is this recession a joke to you?

His point stands, there is no central government doing the repressing. Somalia IS the utopia that the extremist libertarian/anarchistic minded folk are lobbying for. If you want to eliminate ALL taxation and ALL government rule, Somalia IS what results.

>> ^renatojj:

@Drachen_Jager, Uh... no? Somalia is very oppressed by criminal militias, that's a huge restriction to doing business, how do you suggest I secure private property and enforce contracts in that environment? A society that is not civilized, has no freedoms, including your precious freedom of speech.
You aren't taking this seriously, I'm a bit disappointed. Is this recession a joke to you?


You want someone to enforce contracts! But that's a restriction on business. So you DO think businesses should not be completely free to do as they please.

Those 'criminal gangs' as you call them are the paragons of free-market corporations. Give the same freedom to American corporations and they'll behave the same way.

I never promoted blanket freedom of speech either, even though you keep bringing it up. There is no total freedom of speech in any country, including the US.

All things in moderation. Extremism is the real danger, and believe me, you are as extremist as an Al Quaeda Imam in your own way.

>> ^renatojj:

@Drachen_Jager, Uh... no? Somalia is very oppressed by criminal militias, that's a huge restriction to doing business, how do you suggest I secure private property and enforce contracts in that environment? A society that is not civilized, has no freedoms, including your precious freedom of speech.
You aren't taking this seriously, I'm a bit disappointed. Is this recession a joke to you?


His point stands, there is no central government doing the repressing. Somalia IS the utopia that the extremist libertarian/anarchistic minded folk are lobbying for. If you want to eliminate ALL taxation and ALL government rule, Somalia IS what results.

@Drachen_Jager, Uh... no? Somalia is very oppressed by criminal militias, that's a huge restriction to doing business, how do you suggest I secure private property and enforce contracts in that environment? A society that is not civilized, has no freedoms, including your precious freedom of speech.

You aren't taking this seriously, I'm a bit disappointed. Is this recession a joke to you?