Yeah ive become more cynical in my view of these types. It seems that its' always "the rules apply to everyone except me getting more stuff" and is rooted more simply in the idea that they are selfish.

Gov benefit for everyone? THAT'S SOCIALISM AND WHAT NEXT NAZIS? WHAT? YOU WANT EVERYONE TO HAVE EVERYTHING FOR FREE? THEN WHAT? NO ONE WORKS? NANNY STATE? STATISM!!! TYRRANY!!!"

Gov benefit for me? Well... I'm gettin' mine...OF COURSE.

@bcglorf
this video is from larken rose,a seriously devout libertarian.
he views statism as a form a religion,and that if a state is given too much power it will always lead to a form of tyranny.

i didn't post this as some kind of statement,or that the content reflects my own philosophy or ideals,but i try to understand all points of view to the best of my ability,even if i disagree.

so i am not making the case for when it is ok to shoot a cop,but i find larken's arguments compelling on a philosophical level.

because he does have a point in regards to america's hyper-militarized policing over the past decade.that is something that should concern us all.

anyways,for me it is just hearing a viewpoint from a different camp other than my own,and i thought his argument interesting.

I didn't say 'for 17 years'. I said 'for all these years', which are the years of Obama's administration. Before that he was shilling for whatever liberal pablum he spewed.

It is true that i didn't watch him, just an occasional clip, because while he is funny, he's also quite clueless. He has good intentions, like most liberals but he doesn't think things through.

Rarely does he see through the BS of statism.

And he has less to make fun of with Obama? Wow, you must be joking!

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.

Spare me you little crybaby. Censorship my ass. Freedom of Speech doesn't exist on a private website. Besides, isn't Freedom of speech some rule some dirty statist cooked up? Proves you're a hypocrite though. Rails against statism, but attempts to run and hide behind protections established by statism

Never made the claim that Trance was right wing. The suggestion to ban him is over the abuse of the voting system which is why I quoted the guidelines which is irrelevant to his political leanings or lack thereof. It's good to know you've been paying attention so well.

Integrity of this site? That's rich coming from someone who has been previously banned. And your return which I've heard from others was a detriment to this site's integrity.

Don't like guidelines here? Go troll elsewhere. You have no inherent right to be here.

The reason why these campaigns will get nowhere: the subtleties asked for are sometimes too arbitrary and too subjective to expect large numbers to go along with it and because women are not always mind readers (contrary to what this one may think), and misinterpretations can easily occur. Some dangerous psychos and sociopaths actually come across as being quite "charming," while some friendly and innocuous comments may be interpreted as being rather creepy. So, campaigns like this will get nowhere in actually changing anything for the better.

The skills of understanding context will continue to devolve as communities break down (along with families and childhood education). Increasingly, we are living in a society of strangers, and this is yet another result of the statism that progressives continue to defend. See, it's all about feeling safe. And without community, contexts that feel safe become more scarce. A state-driven "society" is not a community.

Meanwhile, in reality, the very attempt to legislate behavior like this will serve to further develop two trends: the "catcall" culture they so dislike and something along the lines of what's going on in Japan, the other opposite. Despite what this video attempts to portray, I have already heard the complaint many many times from women that they either get harassment or they get no attention at all.

And this'll be yet another "I told you so" that they'll miss.

Gov't is demonstrably false? Last I checked, there are a lot of independently verified gov'ts out there. LOL!

You know what is demonstrably false? Anarchists independent from the gov't they claim to hate. Every one of these youtube crusaders are comfortably enjoying the perks of a system they despise.

You want to impress me? Go find an island somewhere and show us how awesome non-statism is.

Even Ayn Rand took gov't assistance.

@ChaosEngine

I will venture that "socialization" of the means of production can remain separate from their "nationalization," and also their only possible compliance with non-aggression while contributing to free-market prosperity, comes -- if by "means of production" we mean, not the built factories, railroads, whatever, but the allowance of such building. That is, if we socialize "intellectual property."

As such, patents plain and simple legally restrict "the means of production" to those who own them. Socialism, when it comes to IP, does make sense. It makes no sense, however, when it comes to scarce goods.

In this regard, Wilhelm Reich's "Mass Psychology of Fascism" (PDF) is a good book to read on this subject as it goes a long way towards explaining the mass appeal of the state. He may focus too much on irrational drives, and remains stuck in untenable syndicalist ideas, but here we must distinguish thymological irrationality from praxeological "irrationality." Praxeologically, humans are always rational, never irrational.

For this, I think it'd be interesting to put Reich's theory next to "public choice" theory for a more complete picture, but then, we'd need to have an intelligent discourse rather than the name-calling and epithets I've come to expect.

While this may all seem rather academic, this discourse has many practical uses, like understanding the chances of reversing social trends towards statism, etc. since it seems to me that a Manichean system, with a mix of chaos and order dominating, and periodic tilts towards one end (chaos, nazism, communism) or the other (order, rationalism, anarchy), can serve social orders like a yin-yang with neither pole ever dominating totally or for long.

@enoch

Currently I'm paid mostly via commission. I work for a small company where my boss/partner and I work completely independent of any management. I have in the past been paid hourly, biweekly, etc.

It is a stretch to call people slaves, livestock, etc when they are working and exchanging goods and services in a market like ours. Granted there are inequalities, manipulations, and individuals or groups who operate with little morality.

It is a further stretch to blame government for abuses like Abu Ghraib. If 11 or so soldiers commit terrible acts. Does that mean all soldiers are bad? That the government of the country they were from are bad? It just doesn't follow.

The speaker is confused about a lot of things. Democracy is a livestock management approach? What?

Statism is not an excuse for violence. Ignorance and intolerance are. Statism is a general term.

Thank you kevingrr, for that glaring display of passive-aggression , a perfect display of robotic reaction taking precedence over a thoughtful response-I'll be sure to fix this one and all the dead videos of mine shortly, less work for me you see....

Capitalism didn't write the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Government did. And it was Andrew Jackson who signed it into law, and he was the first Democratic president who believed in the power of popular votes. Also a huge racist. But if you want to blame capitalism for the ills of majority rule and statism, knock yourself out.

And I do find it amusing that you can mention Stalin in one sentence and then claim statism has done far more good than harm. I believe a basic knowledge of human government through history would easily disprove that assertion.

I think what's more apt is that statism tries to reform its past failings. Marriage shouldn't even be a government issue, in my opinion, gay or otherwise. I don't know you well enough, but I assume when the forty-year war on drugs finally ends in the US you'd chock that up to "See? In the long run government works!"

Even though it causes the very problems the people beg it to fix. Government is a sick cult.

I'm going to leave aside the highly dubious assertion that is was democracy and not rampant capitalism that stole the land from the Native Americans.

But you still don't get it. I am not required to condone or accept everything that is done in the name of "statism", any more than being an atheist makes me condone Stalins religious purges.

Once again, yeah, that is a terrible injustice and it should be righted. But on balance, "statism" has done far more good than harm.

Nice double strawman there.(for lack of a better term for it)

Though I'm surprised you could see my one post in the *huge* sea of police apologists in this sift as you predicted...oh wait, there weren't any...not a single one. How embarrassing! Lots of call outs for misleading titles though. shock!

let me guess, you're going to backpedal now and claim you merely forgot to hit the sarcasm button on your post.

I know, I know, just blame it on statism again, surely it has to work eventually right? broken clock and all that.

misleading titles, obsession with statism, so predictable...so blankfist.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'statism' to 'statism, opinionated, libertarian propaganda, half assed documentary' - edited by JiggaJonson