I live in Finland, one of the top countries on guns per capita. Also one the lowest gun crimes per capita. Very strict gun control, in fact, i can't own a single casing, let alone live bullet. All have to be licensed, all counted, no guns licenses without a hunting or shooting club membership, no guns without proper training. No backyard sales, not even ammo. We have long hunting tradition. Also a long militia background, guns and the need for them are acknowledged in every part of our culture and history, armed uprisings (albeit all of them failed) against oppressive conquerors are our heroes.. And of course that one little squirmish against Soviet Union, we got thru with it with guns. But the tools they used are not worshiped, just appreciated as good tools.

Hand guns are not for hunting and as such, they are even more controlled. No ONE has ever raised an opinion that our freedoms are being oppressed by our gun laws. Overwhelming majority likes them the way they are, only wanting more control on mentally disturbed individuals. Some of course want no guns at all and very small portion wants guns for all. But majority and i mean majority as in +80% are very happy the way things are now. If i want to start hunting or shooting as a sport; i can. I can't, however, get a gun just because i want one.

Also, front doors in Finland are sturdy enough that you can't just kick it in... Something to think about, we got the best locks in the business (google abloy, 99,99% of our locks are ABLOY). In fact, and this is coming from experience, our burglars don't pick locks. They remove the whole doorframe with hydraulic jacks (or remove the whole lockbase and part of the door with tons of force.. or drill the lock)..Locksmiths here don't have lockpicks as the locks are protected very well against lockpicking, in fact abloy is one of the benchmarks on lockpickers and it still takes hours. Instead locksmiths carry a big ass cordless drill with the hardest drillbits you can find; they drill out and replace the whole cylinder and it's noisy as hell. That's what our doors are like, maybe there is some answer there; you don't feel afraid when your front door can take a bear.

What sentiment? Cameron has hammered the poor and needy of this country, sold off the post office to his chummies at half price, raised tuition fees (thanks very much Clegg) and nearly ripped Great Britain apart. Fortunately he knew the right people to oil up and got major banks and businesses to pull out in the few days prior to the vote, scaring people into saying no.

Every single scot i've spoken to (and i speak to loads, my mum lives there) has said that they would let the north come with them if they could and they only want to leave because Westminster and the south are completely disconnected from the rest of the country. It's a different world, and the people running the system have absolutely no experience what life is like for the people that have to use it.

Even John Major came out and said that there are too many (something like 80%) rich background public schoolboys in government. Can you tell me with a straight face that you've been to places like Blackpool near where i live, had to use the buses or queue for unemployment, or had family members suffering with disabilities and/or cancer, and then tell me that you think people like Call-Me-Dave in any way represent their best interests or understand their problems, struggling day to day?

I don't want to sound aggressive, but i do have experience with things like that, and some people in this country are getting to the point of desperation but of course that kinda thing doesn't get on the national news and the majority remain oblivious. If we don't see significant democratic reform in this country, i predict a significant social uprising within a lifetime.

Sadly HK is a totally different deal altogether. When Britain returned it to China, people there were used to a certain way of life and they were given a pretty unique status as being semi-separate to China but still part of it. They're currently trying to take away the right for people in HK to choose their elected official (or perhaps refine the choice to China-favourables).

The people there are very sensitive to getting trampled on. They're so different and separate in many ways to mainland China... i don't see how the Chinese can force their mainland rule onto HK without a complete uprising on their hands. Imagine taking the vote away in a western country.

What you posted does nothing to refute the crapiness of the design. Why the recurrent laryngeal nerve give off branches to the cardiac plexus is very simple: The RL nerve is a branch of the Vagus nerve, which is THE source of parasympathetic innervation to the heart. The fact that some fibers may branch off of the Vagus early with the RL nerve and then rejoin the cardiac plexus further along is hardly uprising. That does NOT explain why the nerve fibers that innervates the larynx have to make an unnecessary loop downwards around the aorta.

If there WAS an intelligent designer, he could have easily made those nerve fibers innervating the the larynx split off the Vagus higher up, where the Vagus nerve PASSES BY RIGHT NEXT TO THE LARYNX.

Trying to refute this video by quoting Gray's Anatomy is either a sad misunderstanding of basic scientific concepts or just willful ignorance. Almost as bad as Kirk Cameron and the banana.

I wonder what sort of stuff would be on american television if they were imprisoned and illegally settled by another people? Are we also to call le resistance terrorists too? Polish ghetto uprising? They are similar to Hamas. But fortunately, that occupation didn't last long enough for children to grow into lifeless, soulless terrorists who had every shred of humanity ripped from them when they saw their childhood friends, pets, family ripped to pieces by indiscriminate shelling. God, if you didn't hate "the people" who did that beforehand, you would after. I don't support Hamas, but you can't possibly try to suggest they wouldn't exist anywhere else given the same circumstances. And furthermore you can't act like Israel's death tally is anything but an investment in MORE TERRORISM.

The numbers matter though - the numbers you see represents a massacre. If you took time to look it up, you'd find the majority of those killed in Palestine were women and children - something like 700, and it's rising, so even if you counted every Palestinian male above 18 was a terrorist using a child as a literal human shield, that's still more Palestinians than terrorists. This "human shield" thing hasn't been proven in any kind of article i've seen anyway, and i suspect it's simply to dehumanise them for western palatability.

It's the world's biggest concentration camp. Even the UN are beginning to say words to the effect now, do you think they go against American interests for fun?

Given the balance of women and children killed to men, and even allowing every man to be considered a terrorist, how can you think that 700 women and children to two is a matter of equality in everything but weaponry, and how can that be used to justify continuing on this path of destruction? Surely 700:2 has to be a good argument for a different approach?

I'm not after an argument here man, i'm trying to explain the other viewpoint.. More PEOPLE are dying by Israeli weapons than combatants, that is not a good way to end the hatred that leads to terrorist attacks..

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. And yes, international law does protect the right of people the resist their occupiers. However, this is a bit more than a "ghetto uprising" because a political group (Hamas) has formed and claimed to have some control over a territory and the people of that territory. Actually let me back up, even if that weren't true, it wouldn't matter for the point I want to make.

Armed combatants in a violent conflict, whether international or non-international, whether they are party to the conventions or not, are bound by international humanitarian law to uphold the Geneva conventions. “The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations.” This places a requirement on armed actors to take reasonable steps to separate their military activities from the civilian population.

However, if people knowingly and willingly stay in place in order to serve as a human shield to military activities, then they can no longer be considered "hors de combat" (outside of combat) and become legitimate targets. The problem here is that Hamas will always say they are innocent people being killed, that Hamas does not launch attacks from residential areas, and that no one is being forced to stay to act as a human shield. Israel will always say that rockets were launched from there and they had no choice but to attack in order to "degrade" military capabilities.

BUT, humanitarian law aside (sorry, it's one of my things) I think it is disgusting doublespeak that Israelis can actually convince themselves that Hamas is killing Palestinians by making Israel fire weapons into densely populated areas. That is disturbing and distressing rationalization that they explain away by saying that there are thousands of rockets being fired on their cities, never once acknowledging that not a single one of those rockets has landed and hurt someone.

You actively admit supporting terrorist organisations? Why stop at Hamas then, you can’t have double standards now can you. Here I’ll help you:

"There are no terrorist targets in Iraq. Occupied people have a right to resist, both ethically and under international law. Al-Qaida rocket fire/suicide bombings isn't terrorism, it isn't war, but a ghetto uprising; just as doomed and just as noble."

Do you think it’s noble to fire rockets out of hospitals hiding behind defenceless civilians?

The whole world expect Russia,Turkey and China sees Hamas as a terrorist organisation, maybe you should consider moving from the UK gorilla warfare man.

There are no terrorist targets in Gaza. Occupied people have a right to resist, both ethically and under international law. Palestinian rocket fire isn't terrorism, it isn't war, but a ghetto uprising; just as doomed and just as noble.

@newtboy
while appreciate the sentiment and ideology behind your commentary,i just do not see it play out in reality.

i was going to post links to convey just how broken our democracy is,and those links are legion.the data is incontrovertible and to be quite honest...depressing.

i tire of people making this about libs/repubs.
that is NOT the argument,though it IS the argument that is presented to all of us.
no.
the REAL argument is about POWER and POWERLESSNESS.

the only true power the people have is they,themselves and the ability to form associations,to group up and put pressure on those who wield power.to create institutions which force..by sheer numbers..those in the ivory tower to hear the voices of the common folk.

but those institutions and associations have been dismantled and the people marginalized.

would you like scumbag A or dirtbag B?
and maybe a possible third party candidate,which leads to the inevitable "lesser of two evils" argument you are alluding to.

all of that does not change the fact we are getting our clock cleaned by the elites who only seek to further their own interests.

we lost.plain and simple.

but i cannot ignore the optimism in your post.
i just wished i shared it.
in my opinion the only path we have left is mass uprising.
to grind the gears of the machine to a halt and force those in the ivory tower to come to the bargaining table.

i do not share you enthusiasm and trust in a totally (in my opinion) broken political system that threw us all overboard 40 years ago.

that is playing THEIR game by THEIR rules.
and that game is rigged and in their favor.

i think the evidence of that has become abundantly clear to anybody who has been paying attention.

its like gambling in vegas.
yes..there are a few who win big but the majority lose their shirts but the illusion that maybe...juuust maybe..you too might win big keeps people coming back to the table.

they have stacked the odds in their favor and to play the political system is no different.
either way..the house always wins.

so why play a rigged game?
why play by rules that have been instituted to benefit the elites and fuck us all over?

the time has come to change the game and create new rules.

i apologize for the lengthy rant.
i truly wish i could share in your optimism newt.
i do realize there are those who are doing their best to fight this inequity and corruption.
so there is hope....a tiny..slim..sliver of hope.

and on that note i hope right along with them.

I've noticed a predictable yet still disheartening trend in the comment threads of many videos covering the Ukraine uprising: anti-Occupy Wall Streeters pointing to the relative pacifist nature of the Occupy movement as proof of that movement's insincerity and ineffectiveness.

What the anti-Occupy folks need to understand is that the only thing separating America from the Ukraine is that a weak ember of faith that the system can still be reformed with non-violent tactics still smolders in the hearts of the have-nots and will-never-haves.

They should be celebrating and thanking their gods for the non-violent nature of Occupy yet they mock and draw erroneous conclusions that have the potential to produce a hell on earth that until today, only happens on their televisions in distant lands.

You talk like Iran is a person. Last time I checked it was a country which, like most countries contains a diverse mix of beliefs and personalities.

Your not entirely wrong to suggest that Iran is ruled by people who appear to espouse the hard-line apocalyptic interpretation of Islam in much the same way as significant aspects of the US and Israeli ruling classes are into the Zionist/revelations side of Christianity and Judaism.

And for what it's worth a really serious Christian, Muslim or Jew would take that position. Why would you take a half arsed attitude if you truly believe our eternal souls are at stake!!!

But crucially, not everyone is an extremist. In fact most people aren't extremists they are just conformists. Iran is no different and the uprising a few years ago was mostly fuelled by the younger generation rebelling against the oppressive theocracy you are referring to.

There is a purist aspect to all Abrahamist religions that will never be appeased but Iran & by extension Islam is only one of the three pillars (of satan) and much like has happened in the west the rise of free communication via the internet etc. is causing to to start to be outgrown by its people.

In short: there are nutters (such as yourself) on both sides and not every (or even perhaps most) Iranians hate the west just like not all westerners hate Iran. Don't buy into the us vs them propaganda, there is a 3rd side here and its not restricted by nationality or culture, nor does it celebrate death over life. Only knowledge, evolution and temperance


You all seem dangerously delusional far as I can tell. Unless the basic concept of "I might be totally wrong about all this" isn't built into your religion/belief system you can go and get stuffed....(and you will be as a relic/warning to the kids of the future)

Off the start, there's a good chance I'm older than you .

My real problem isn't the moral relativism angle. It is the mindset of holding America to a higher standard not only when placing expectations on it, but when analyzing a situation and the expected results. The situation with the recent chemical weapons attack isn't at all special. War crimes are almost always committed within the fog of war. The trouble I have is people that are completely willing to accepted circumstantial evidence or even simply motive for accusations against America or an ally, but if it's the other side suddenly the burden of proof becomes much, much higher. List a heading that American forces were involved in a massacre of dozens in Iraq or Afghanistan and people just say yep, must be true. List the same heading that Assad has done the same and the response is show us the proof! That attitude and mindset is what I mean to oppose.

You asked who is 'more' evil, or which actions are more evil. Arming and training Syrian rebels, or Assad waging his campaign against them. Assad rules Syria because his father ruled Syria. His father held onto his control by massacring an entire town when the brotherhood spoke up. In the current conflict, the uprising started up as peaceful protests. Assad broke that peace by shooting the protesters when it became clear they weren't stopping.

When it comes to concern for international law, I don't understand if you've been paying attention to it for the last couple decades. When push comes to shove, NOBODY cares about international laws. Well, at least nobody making decisions on the international playing field. International laws did a great job protecting people in Darfur. International laws did a great job protecting Rwandans. International laws did a great job in Chechnya, Serbia, Somalia and on and on and on. Russia, China and Iran will respond to the situation in Syria based on the perceived benefit to them, just the same as America, Israel and everyone else, and not a one of them will waste a thought for international law at the end of the day. The only thing they will consider is what impact they expect their actions to have and they will choose the one they perceive to have the greatest benefit to them. Syria is long on it's way into a quagmire, and not a place of great value to Russia or China for long if the status quo continues. That is why you see their rhetoric softening, because they just have less to gain by maintaining their relationship with a regime that holds less and less control over it's resources.

What I would like to see if I got to play quarterback is the imposition of a no fly zone over regions of Syria, much like in Libya and northern Iraq after the first Gulf war. That alone could force enough of a line where neither Assad nor the rebels could hope to make serious in grounds upon each other. You might even persuade people to talk then but the 'cease fire', even then, would make the Israel/Palestine borders look pristine. I don't see Obama or Putin being dumb enough to each put their own boots on the ground to start anything over Syria. Neither one of them has reason to care enough. Putin, through Iran has strategic access to all of Iran and most of Iraq as it is, and solidifying relationships through Iraq is more than enough to keep Iran occupied.

i guess in the end I do not choose the non-intervention route because if you allow dictators to use chemical weapons to hold onto power, what exactly IS worth intervening for? During the Darfur genocide all the same arguments kept everyone out because you don't want to worsen a civil war. In Rwanda, same story. In Iraq it took 3 campaigns of murdering 100s of thousands before anyone finally took sides against Saddam, and even then his removal is held up as on of the worst violations of international laws and norms ever. It'd be nice for a change to at least find someone that figures starting the Iran-Iraq war and the Al-Anfal campaign against the Kurds where even worse. Far more people died, and the sole end game of them was to enhance the prestige and power of a mad man.

You do recall that those "reports" calling this a CIA induced uprising were written by Assad? Are you aware that the ONLY ones claiming uncertainty who was behind the attack are Assad and the Russians? Assad being the one who actively blocked the UN from investigating the site he claimed would prove his innocence?

You are advocating we do nothing as a dictator uses chemical weapons against his own people. How is it humanly possible to have any more certainty than we already do about what is happening within a war zone? This isn't the first time Assad's family annihilated a people. His father put down a rebellion in his time by taking an entire city and simply turning it into a parking lot and mass grave of the residents. Assad has been deliberately targeting civilians and unarmed protesters from the very beginning. This latest attack isn't some lonely isolated charge, it's the icing on a very horrific cake of war crimes.

None of that is to say anything positive about the rebel forces, disparate and varied as they are. Yes, they include people I would declare our allies in the region who from the start were protesting and advocating for a Syria free of dictatorship and the Assad crime family. Unfortunately, the rebels most effective/powerful fighting forces largely seem to be jihadi fighters back by Saudi money, or even worse, Al Qaida and like minded foreigners coming over from Iraq to take on a hated Shia led military in Assads forces. Al Qaida sees a chance to win hearts and minds among Syria rebels, and we play right into that by doing nothing.

More over, with all that Assad is doing, you need to stop and think before apologizing for him. You need to at least admit that when advocating that we do nothing you are up front and honest with the horrific crimes you are demanding we ignore.

> "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. "

The link is about libertarian socialism, not strictly anarchism. I consider libertarian socialism, not left-libertarianism, but rather a contradiction. Coherent left-libertarianism, like that of Roderick Long, is for free market, not the traditional definitions of socialism. Different people define these differently. I use libertarianism to mean adhering to the non-aggression principle, as defined by Rothbard. But whatever it means, socialism, communism, syndicalism, and similar non-voluntary systems of communal ownership of "property" cannot but interfere with individual property rights, and by extension, self-ownership rights. These also need rulers/administrators/archons to manage any so-called "communal" property, so it cannot fit the definition of anarchy. If you don't have a bureaucracy, how do you determine how resources get allocated and used? What if I disagree from how you think "communal" resources should be distributed? Who determines who gets to use your car? It is a version of the problem of economic calculation. That wikipedia article conflates several different "libertarian socialist" positions, so which one does he adhere to?

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

This may be true, at least once we do away with any notions that socialism, or non-voluntary "communal" property can be sustainable without a free market and the notion that you can have any such thing as "communal" property, owned by everyone, and not have ruler/administrators/government to make decisions about it. that shirt you are wearing, should we take a vote to see who gets to wear it tomorrow? How about if there is disagreement about this? Anarcho-socialism is unworkable.

> "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."

Governments exist without corporations. Corporations cannot exist without government. Governments bomb, kill, imprison, confiscate, torture, tell you what you can and cannot do. Apple, Microsoft, Walmart do not and cannot. Government produces nothing. Corporations produce things I can buy or not voluntarily and pay or not for them. There is no comparison in the level of suffering governments have caused compared to say Target.

If you disobey the government, what can happen? If you disobey Google or Amazon, then what?

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

Yes, but some want to impose (through violence) their views on how to achieve these on everyone else and some (libertarians) don't.

> "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."

If people are inherently good and will do the right thing, then why do we need government/ruler?

Why not just let everyone 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."

I agree. And from there we can go down to neighborhoods, and then households. And of course, logically, all the way to individuals. And any government a voluntary one where everyone unanimously agree to it. But this is not longer government per se, but rather contracts between voluntary participants.

> "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."

Ok.

> "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."

So if people are basically good and do the right thing, why has this happened? Then again, when have politician not been self serving kleptocrats?
few exceptions

> "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."

True.

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

True.

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

True.
Nothing a libertarian anarchist would not say.

> "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."

I have not gone into this, but you can thank "democracy" for all this.

> "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."

Yeah, governments are generally no-good.
Let me interject to say that I agree that plutocrats cause problems. I certainly agree that kleptocrat cause even more problems. But I am not ready to exclude the mob from these sources of problems. As Carlin said, "where do these politicians come from?

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

The mob can and does often get out of control.

> "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."

I don't disagree. But people's movements are not necessarily always benign. And they have a tendency to fall in line with demagogues. Plutocrats bribe kleptocrats. Kleptocrats buy the mob. They are all guilty. I know, you say, they people need to be educated. Sure, like they need to be educated abut economics? How is that going to happen? If everyone was educated as an Austrian libertarian economist, sure, great. Is that the case? Can it be? Just asking.

I do support any popular movement that advocates free markets and non-aggression. Count me in.

> "power is petrified of peoples movements."

People's movements are often scary. And not always benign. But non-aggressive, free market ones, like Gandhi's, sure, these are great!

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

Maybe. This is a question of strategical preference. Civil disobedience. Ron Paul says he thinks that maybe that's the only option left or it may become the only option left sometime in the future. But, like you said, secession to and nullification by smaller jurisdictions is also a strategy, although you may consider it a "legal" form of civil disobedience. You seem on board.

I see great potential for you (writer), once you straighten out some economic issues in your mind.

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

If it is violent, it is not libertarian in the most meaningful way, adhering to non-aggression.

> "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."

If you want something not only radical, but also coherent and true, here you have libertarian anarchy.

> "you and i both want fairness,justice and truth. everybody does."

Yep.

> "some of our philosophy overlaps,other parts do not.
> we discuss the parts that do not overlap to better understand each other."

Yes, good. Keep listening, and you will see for yourself.

> "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."

And for clarity, I don't say the corporate is made up of saints. I only point out that their power to abuse comes from government privilege that they can control. Whether corporations control this power or the mob does, either way, it is a threat to individual liberties. Break the government monopoly, and let the market provide for what we need, and they will have little power to abuse, or as little as possible, but both more power and incentive to do good.

> "I don't say the corporate world is made up of saints"

As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, abusive plutocrats will arise.

As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, kleptocrats will seek office to enrich themselves and cronies, as well as for the power trip.
As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, kleptocrats will bribe the mob (the so-called people) with stolen goods taken from their legitimate owners through force.

The only real positive democracy, is market democracy, the one much harder to exploit and abuse. the one that is not a weapon used to benefit some at the expense of others.

> "the power elite do not want me to understand you,nor you to empathize with me."

But I do empathize with you! And you are making an effort to understand me.
And remember, many not in the "power elite" have been bribed/conditioned also to turn on you and prevent you from understanding/empathizing.

> "fear and division serve their interests.
> hyper-nationalistic xenophobia serves their interests.
> i aim to disappoint them."

Good for you! And for everyone else.

> "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."

I know them well. Now perhaps you can take a look at things from a different angle, one that I think corrects some of their inconsistencies.

> "nowhere near as polite and awesome as you."

Thanks, man. You too

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.