I find it hard to believe that so many people are bitching about this.

The web was unregulated till 2 years ago when Net Neutrality was put into place.

Now the web is of government control again.

Did any one notice any difference?

Not in America. Our crime stats show that immigrants, even illegal immigrants are far less likely to commit crimes than citizens (if you omit the crime of illegal entry). Foreign born (legal and illegal combined) had an incarceration rate of around .7% while citizens are incarcerated at about 3.5% (both stats for men age 18-39 from a 2007 study)

I would counter that refugee camps are mostly dangerous places because they are relatively unregulated warehouses for disparate, desperate people with little opportunity for education, work, and often food and water. Limit those things, jam differing populations together without any meaningful law enforcement and the population will become dangerous every time, no matter who they are. Desperate anarchistic struggles for survival usually do that to people. Well run camps that offered opportunities and some security to those living there have been far less dangerous places historically.

I hope by now people know me well enough to know I am far from a Trump supporter.

But we would be missing out on a huge opportunity here if we didn't highlight that 99% of what politicians say is different looking, but equally foul bullshit.

I'm not joking. If you actually look into the 'facts' and 'statistics' that are used to push and promote the different policies, they are all based in falsehood or manipulation of meaning, a few off the very top of my head:
- Austerity - based on a study that was discredited not long after it was used to strip assets and cut funding for those who need it most
- Immigration caps - Theresa May talks big about reducing immigration now, saying what a problem it has become but she was *home secretary*, responsible for handling immigration policy
- Benefit caps - for years they have painted benefits cheats as the great drain on the British welfare system with TV shows and press releases, but the majority of the benefits bills go towards subsidising low pay (working tax credits, people in full time work that doesn't pay enough to live on) and paying rent to private landlords (rents which are unregulated, landlords who are already privately rich).
- Greater autonomy for local government - sounds great, we get a better say about things that affect us locally, except when we say that we don't want fracking in Lancashire, they over rule us and say we WILL have fracking in Lancashire. Greater autonomy only meant "we're not giving you any more money."

I'm barely getting started. You can go on and on - tax policy when it comes to big multi nationals who don't pay their fair share, but we let them haggle and pay a tokenistic amount - but the reason we don't have enough money is because of the burden of benefits cheats and immigrants??? We paid for the damage done by the financial crash, but the same people are still in charge and now they're taking billions in bonuses too - why don't we get any of it back!??

I can turn on the news at any time and within 30 seconds find something that is skirting with the truth or outright pulling the wool over our eyes.

The entire political system is fucked up in America and in the UK, it's not just Donald Trump. Donald Trump is like a huge fist sized bubble in a strip of freshly laid wallpaper. We don't just need to fix the big obvious bubble; we need to change the way we put wallpaper up because when you look at the rest of the wall, there are thousands of smaller bubbles that amount to the exact same problem of a fucked up wall.

Donald Trump is the dead canary in the coal mine. He's the clear and obvious indicator that something is horribly, horribly wrong. Getting rid of the canary's corpse does not solve the fucking problem.

The blowback from the alt-right, these vicious people spouting nationalism and racism and sexism. AND the constantly bickering and clamouring SJW lefties who want to dominate free thought and free speech. Both these sets of people have been pitted against each other intentionally so that they don't turn on the people at the top. It is the oldest trick in the book - don't blame the guys in charge, blame each other, it gives us longer to get away with it. Divide and conquer. Spread hate, spread war, spread fear, spread anger and people gravitate to the extremes... they are easier to control at the extremes.

...rant over i guess

TLDR
If you found this boring, if you didn't want to look into it, you're part of the problem. You're contributing to the environment in which Trump can flourish.

There is no scrutiny, there is no being held to account. There is only the court of Rupert Murdoch and the Barclay brothers.

@Gratefulmom

Hey, if parents want to send their kids to a completely unregulated daycare where the "education" is having kids swing sticks around in the rain and -20 degree weather, that's their choice (though it sounds to me more like ancient Sparta than a modern Kindergarten).

As for me, on the other hand, I prefer my daughter get the scientifically proven lifelong benefits of a proper preschool education. See this book for an example of the scientific evidence I'm talking about.

All the science I've seen on kids playing outdoors (including that on outdoor kindergartens: see for example this article) shows that around 1-2 hours a day outside is enough to see significant results. My daughter gets at least that much in the park after kindergarten most days when the weather is nice, so I'm not so worried about her development.

Another issue... Uber is a taxi dispatching service for unregulated "gypsy" taxi drivers. It is NOT a "ride sharing" service.

Why?

A ride sharing service would be the Uber driver broadcasting out "I'm downtown, and I'm heading to the airport, anyone need a ride?" and if no one takes him up on it, and he GOES THERE ANYWAY BECAUSE HE HAD TO, he's ride sharing.

If he's just sitting around, waiting for a passenger to broadcast "I'm downtown and need to get to the airport, come get me." then he's a taxi.

Uber doesn't need to be regulated, but they SHOULD only deal with properly licensed, insured, and legal transportation providers. Even if that's just a one-man, one-car business.

ugh...watching that was painful.
reminds me of my time running a metaphysical shop with my girlfriend at the time.

she had got it in her head that she wanted to take the shop in a new direction which was in the form of similar "miracle" cures such as this.

the arguments we had were epic!

i just didnt see a need nor a reason.we already had massage therapy,aroma therapy and reiki.we made our own lotions and soaps and had a massive line of candles.why would she want to delve into supplements? that were unproven and possibly dangerous?

well,i lost that argument and after a few months i understood her reasoning=money.
good lord our customers would spend a fortune on these supplements,which made all kinds of claims (all with zippo research to back those claims up),and all unregulated.

and our customers SWORE that these bullshit remedies worked and that they felt better,more energetic and clear-minded.placebo effect on steroids.

of course my girlfriend would never actually admit that profit was her motive.that would go against her own professed morality,but that is what it was:greed.

that was the beginning of the end for our relationship.i was sincerely attempting to help people and her behavior was a disillusionment that my moral compass just could not assimilate.

i am a man of faith,and every aspect of my life is directed by that faith,from politics to personal interactions,and i had lost faith in her.

i find it reprehensible and disgusting to profit off of people when they are the most fragile and vulnerable,and i refuse to engage in that form of vile practice.

*promote the grifting!

This....
"THE pixie dust does exist - you could snort if you wanted to and it would show you" ....

The pixie dust @ulysses1904 first referenced and you replied to is (from my reading) the pixie dust that makes you religious.

You assume I have not 'taken the plunge' just because I don't take it the same way you do? Quite an assumption for you to make, an erroneous one. I've taken many a 'trip' in my day, on many a substance. I feel that I have enough grasp on reality to understand that anything they made me see or feel was a chemical reaction in my brain to a drug, not a mystical, religious, spiritual, or other experience.

Drug experience are as false as religion, IMO. Your mind creates images and thoughts that are not based in reality. If you can gain some measure of peace or knowledge from that, good for you, most can't, and suggesting they take unregulated, often permanently damaging drugs in a random setting is not responsible.

@newtboy: He's just plain idiotic. I'll bet many of his "points" come straight from Faux News...I'm pretty sure I've heard some of this insanity before.

Fox News? Really? You don't understand libertarianism at all, do you? Also, you and Voodoo should spend some time making substantive points instead of emotional arguments.

I always wonder how these people ignore the fact that, if their theory about 'self regulating business' was true, it would work that way now. It's because industries repeatedly and consistently DIDN'T regulate themselves and thrived on the public ignorance of their actions that regulations were enacted in the first place. DUH.

Again, more appeals to emotion. That aside, I've heard this argument often from statists. The truth is they tend to forget things like regulatory capture and the sheer number of regulations on the books that create barriers to industry for those without significant capital to compete. These are all unfair advantages the government gives the rich and connected.

Also, I'm not sure if the two of you were asleep when he mentioned that corporations are fictitious entities given legitimacy by the government, and shields the rich from liability? That didn't happen because of unregulated markets.

Umm, I'm not sure how your response is relevant to my comment...

Thalidomide was a drug given to pregnant women for nausea iirc which caused horrible defects in children. It was a classic case of a drug that was not regulated properly and should never been allowed on the market.

The reason why drugs undergo testing is because sometimes the side effects are far worse than any benefit they might provide. ShakaUVM was going on about deregulation, but if he'd watched the vid he would have seen the segment on a homeopathic remedy (ie. unregulated) which caused deaths and severe reactions. Perhaps if there was regulation, those people wouldn't be dead...

@My_design guns are dangerous tools. A little regulation really isn't that unreasonable.

No one really believes that firearms should be completely unregulated (unless you feel you have a right to a nuclear bomb?), so you've already accepted in principle the concept of some gun control.

And while I applaud Morgan for at least highlighting the issue, it doesn't change the fact that he's an awful human being.

Natural order is decentralized, emergent, and unregulated.

2. I'm fairly certain there was drug dealing going on in at least one of those crowds harassing the cops. If not, it would be out of character for these groups.
3. Well, you said crime on private property is no one's business but the owner...that's Bullshit, which you admit now.
Shooting a gun violates public discharge laws, sends a projectile on a random arch to impact somewhere, and creates noise violations (especially in the middle of the night like these)...or can I come to your neighbors property and start my shooting range.
4. My point exactly
5. Use of taxpayer services while shirking your duty to pay taxes is theft and treasonous.
6. once gain, business regulation didn't cause the crime problem.
7. Are you suggesting giving the public property to private industries for them to 'take over' the entire city? First, can't happen. Second, shouldn't happen. Living in Disney is terrible, oppressive, expensive, and draconian. I don't see a difference between paying taxes for services and paying 'homeowner fees' for services, except homeowner fees are usually far more expensive for fewer services and more regulation. Not the direction I think most want to go, or a place where most Oaklandites could afford.
So, you aren't anti regulation, only if a Kenyan is doing it to you? That's just dumb.
8. Yes, but those reasons are not capped and/or solely created by having a democrat in power, as you and others suggest.
Most property owners in Oakland are absentee landlords that don't inspect their property regularly, because private ownership does NOT mean better management.
I get mob justice because you keep pushing for it, it's what the Mexicans did that you keep referencing, and it's what you get with a private, unregulated, armed 'group'.
9. Send me the URL to a company that gives actual security for $35 a month that isn't simply a guy you call on the phone who then calls the police. Never heard of any such thing, and if it exists, you are paying your on-post 24/7 security guard $1 a day, I don't think they'll care so much when you get knifed in the throat for that money.

So, you don't drive, you don't US dollars, food products, electricity, mail, internet, phones, water, sewers, public property, items that are imported, items that traveled inter-state, television, or any other service provided by the feds? Impressive. So many of your fellow Americans do that it makes semse for everyone to pay for part of these things so they are available to EVERYONE. Private institutions taking over make all of these for profit, removing their usage from many if not most people.
Yes, really, many people in the bay are having trouble paying their bills and feeding themselves, it's insanely expensive there.
I don't pay much in taxes, only my fair share. That's not enough to support one indigent. If you pay enough to support Oakland by yourself, you are either Bill Gates or a liar.
Most law abiding citizens have no inclination to grab their gun and go on the streets to patrol.
This didn't seem like you ignored me, neither did the 2 other posts that followed.
Sorry, mixed up the insanity.
You always have terrible governing from any governing body, from some point of view. It's a fallacy to conclude otherwise.
If you got your 'lack of governing' you would quickly get foreign governing.
So, there is no utopian free market, just the real, regulated one you're complaining about.
I don't think most libertarians agree with you that libertarian government is anarchy. I don't.
Well, I'm confused. You've spent a bunch of time and effort trying to convince me of your points, but you claim you know it's futile to even try...so what are you doing then?
To me, good government means doing the minimum it can to do what the populace wants, with safeguards to keep one group from taking unfair advantage of another. Better safeguards could make better politicians (yes, that's regulation, of politicians).
I know very little of 'praxology' that I didn't read in Foundation. Not in my science publications that I read regularly.
The tea party took over the libertarian party, and the republican party.
I do, I vote, and I pay my taxes. I don't have these problems, or over-regulation problems where I live. WOW! It worked!

And I paid for my excessive education, I only did 2 years in public school which was daycare. You don't seem to have any information I'm looking for.
If you think a mob of only your friends and family should roam the streets armed to 'protect your interests' then you support gangs. That's exactly what they are. To get enough to regulate activities in a place like Oakland would take a HUGE mob, far more than you have friends and family I'm certain.
I might hope you DO need the police to help you (with something minor, but enough to create your 'need'), then you might realize they are not all your enemy or useless and not far worse than anarchy. It's sad to think that it would take a personal need for you to realize that, but apparently it would.
The police are not a 'foreign' army, like the red coats.

His Darwin/Wallace descriptions is rather unfair on Darwin, Darwin had been working for 20 years on what became "The Origin of Species" when he received Wallace's letter, He already had his theory of natural selection worked out, he just hadn't actually published yet. This is a pretty well known historical fact, based on extensive documentation(Darwins notes/letter etc, see http://darwin-online.org.uk/ .

Also the jump to "nazi Germany" is complete bullshit. If natural selection looks like any political system it would have to be unregulated capitalism or total anarchy. Both of which might turn out to be very bad, but why should you base a political system on natural selection anyway? He confuses Darwinism with "social Darwinism" which really has nothing to do with Darwin or his theory. At best, it was a complete misreading of the theory, confusing strength/looks/class with fitness and using it as an excuse to sterilize and or kill the "unwanted" and "weak". But even social darwinism really had nothing to do with "nazi germany", As the extermination of the jews were largely based on religiously inspired resentments and superstitions, combined with an exploitation of the frustrated german people, looking to place the blame for their post WW1 plight.

Seems like this guy also misunderstands why Darwin/Wallace is credited with "discovering evolution". Its correct that they didnt, but neither did Lamarck, really, as it was obvious for some time that animals seemed to have looked differently in the past, and that something had changed over time. What Darwin and Wallace discovered was the mechanism: How evolution actually works, why it works, and so on. Lamarck also presented a mechanism (inheritance of acquired traits), but it turned out to be wrong.

Okay then, lets arbitrarily exclude everything that's not part of the so-called "first world" -- which leaves the U.S. "empire" and its satellites/provinces.

"Regulated" how? What specific "regulations" did you have in mind? (You have an "out" by saying that it has to be the "right regulation," so, pray tell, what is the "right" regulation?)

And ultimately, so what? Is Greece better off because it is more "regulated" (whatever that means)? Or because it has less "inequality?" Or is Greece now no-longer part of the "first world?"

And by "Europe," do you mean the EU (have you seen Europe's economy lately)? How about Switzerland? Are they more "regulated" (whatever that means)?

In case you have noticed, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, the UK (most of the EU, really) isn't doing that great right now, is it?

Edit: Let me know of the specific regulations you have in mind that will make everyone equal (like the Greeks, apparently). Hint: Just "regulations" does not mean anything without context. Do you mean to say that the EU has more laws than the U.S.? I wouldn't think of the U.S. as being a "deregulated" or an "unregulated" place. Would you? I live in California where the legislature is just now reviewing no fewer than 400 new laws to implement. I doubt that many (if any) Swiss cantons have more laws and regulations than California. Or Luxembourg. Or Estonia (which, by the way, is Europe's most recent economic miracle: a country with one of the freest -- albeit not perfectly free -- markets, relative to other countries).

Or perhaps you mean the Scandinavian countries (which I contest are not as "regulated" as you might think)?

With that in mind here's a list of people that make me variously: scared, uncomfortable, upset and sometimes outright angry. I find it deeply unpleasant and sometimes disturbing to have to deal with them and I think life would be a lot better if we just locked them away.

Police
Politicians
Pro-lifers
Anyone who watches X-factor
Anyone who doesn't think the British royal family are murderous tyrants.
People who play music on their phone speakers on the bus/walking down the street.
People that use the term "free country" without irony.
The unregulated hyper rich over class.
Rugby players on a night out drinking.
People that advocate the death penalty.
Hyper nationalists.
Xenophobes, Racists and Homophobes.
The priesthood of amen/the brotherhood of shadow.
Young people in tracksuits/hoodies.
Anyone that uses the word "party" as a verb.
Practising Christians, Muslims and Jews (doubly so if they are raising their children religiously).
Hyper-Atheists.
Chimpanzees! (seriously, fuck the chimps they scare the shit out of me)
People that use the phrase "I just don't give a fuck" and actually mean it.
The Chinese scientists developing the "death robots" (you might laugh now....)

Whilst some are clearly more serious than others, all of the above represent things/traits which deeply concern me. Many of the people on that list I'd label as outright insane and/or seriously dangerous to my health and well being.

Some, were I to be confronted by them unexpectedly, would outright terrify me, much more so than that lady. There's a good chance that by simply responding with concern and a lack of antagonism she could have been talked down, but certainly pulling an incredulous expression and calling her a crazy lady is not likely to diffuse the situation one iota.

As I said before maybe she is a genuine danger to herself and others, such people do exist and there are systems in place to try and deal with it.

The issue here is that your not even remotely in a position to make that diagnosis, nor are any of us here. We don't know how serious her condition is or how likely she is to respond to various forms of treatment. Speculating based only on video's made during episodes (i.e. at her worst) with no context of her medical history just fuels the kind of knee jerk "lock them away" mindset that contributes heavily to these poor bastards getting the way they are in the 1st place.

For all you know a bit of in the community C.B.T. and mentoring might be all she needs/needed. Not everyone displaying psychotic symptoms benefits from or warrants full on institutional incarceration, it often makes things much worse.
She clearly needs/needed further investigation and perhaps having the benefit of her medical history and first hand interaction it might be reasonable to conclude that some form of isolation is needed. But I'd rather leave that down to those who are professionally qualified to make that judgement than bystanders who merely witnessed a few isolated psychotic episodes and know sweet F.A. about her as a person.

It's you that's failing to see the bigger picture here. You want to put her in a neat little box marked "crazy" so you don't have to face the implication that in some fundamental sense you are the same thing. The crazy person sits next to you on the bus and you think "I don't deserve to have to put up with this inconvenience. How dare they make me feel uncomfortable".......

....Do you have the remotest idea of the kind of deep lasting damage that does to a person when virtually everyone they ever meet thinks and behaves that way? How it feels for someone to just condemn you to be locked away without even attempting to understand what your all about?

It's only about 50 years ago that it was standard practice to basically label everything as just various forms of "madness" and lock them all away in the same building. While we've come along way there's still very much a ways to go and the public perception of acute psychotic illnesses is by far the most backwards.

If you'd said maybe she might need institutional treatment, or that you had concerns that the behaviour she displays could escalate to a violent incident (both legitimate concerns) then I wouldn't have reacted with such hostility.
But you didn't do that, you outright declared she that must be forcibly segregated and treated and moreover that she is definitely a danger to herself and others. No grey area, isolation is the only alternative!

I don't want this to descend into a personal attack, you might after all be a really nice person and this is a deeply rooted prejudice common to most people I come across. Much like many peoples homophobia isn't especially malicious it's just an unchallenged social convention (one fortunately that is changing).
But malicious or not the damage done is the same, for crazies, ethnic minorities and homosexuals alike. And I don't think its unfair to say that the "crazies" are the more vulnerable group by quite some margin.

You don't begrudge offering a little time and understanding for say a disabled person holding you up in a door way, why is taking a little step back when confronted with a "crazy" person so different? That postie clearly recognised she wasn't occupying the same reality as himself very quickly, but his response is to pull a face that says "what the fuck is your problem?" and just dismisses her as crazy. She might have calmed down and gone away peacefully in the space of a few mins if he'd tried to diffuse it, but he didn't, he escalated immediately. (because he's mentally ill too, just in a different way)
That's basically like someone getting in your way, you realizing its because they are in a wheel chair and then treating them like an arsehole because they had the indecency to be out in public and get in the way of the able bodied people! Those bloody cripples, they should be taken away for their own protection! (the fact the rest of us don't have to worry about dealing with them any more is just a bonus naturally )

Now obviously this is a somewhat flawed analogy as people with mobility impairments don't have heightened rates/likelihood of violent outbursts (though I'm sure there are plenty twats who just happen to be in wheelchairs). But the fundamental point I'm trying to make about how people treat the extravertly mentally ill stands. If your being directly threatened with no provocation is one thing, but this guy isn't he's just antagonising someone in a clear state of paranoia and delusion/misunderstanding (which he recognises within seconds). He doesn't even attempt to address that he just closes off and becomes passively hostile.
As I said before its understandable, but only in the same way as being frightened of homosexuality, alien cultures, physical disfigurement etc.. It's just cultural isolation, get to know a few people from any of those groups and it quickly starts to sublime into respect and understanding.

She didn't walk up to him screaming she walked up and firmly presented an accusation that the postman knew could not possibly have been true. She became aggressive/shouty only after he became dismissive, before that she was only restless and paranoid. And even then she didn't make any aggressive physical moves we can see. Postie doesn't look at all in fear for his safety to me, he turns his back on her several times and barely maintains eye contact, not the behaviour of someone that feels physically threatened!

How might she have reacted if postie had looked genuinely scared? Maybe she'd have backed off? Changed her attitude? And yeh maybe she'd have got even more threatening or attacked him with a stick too.

We don't know what she'd have done because we don't know her or anything about her other than a few paranoid videos on the internet. Leave the judgements to the people that have done the research, interviews etc. and know know what the fuck they are talking about with regards to this lady's condition and best treatment.

Speculation is one thing, outright declarations of fact is quite another. People are not guilty before you can prove their innocence...