lol. Every accusation an admission. You’re so blind deaf and dumb you don’t even know you tried and failed with this narrative before.
No amount of proof ever sways your belief in nonsense. You still cannot ever admit you were wrong despite NEVER being right. It’s hilarious you don’t understand how insecure that proves you are.
No amount of pulling ever removes your head from your ass.

The straw man, that if I don’t agree cities are lawless cesspools I’m claiming they’re utopian gardens of Eden or Shangri-la, is asinine and the level of thought I expect from someone so wholly dishonest and intellectually void.

Once again you can’t argue against or even understand any point I made, so you just make a baseless blanket insult. Very Trumpian of you.

What killed a federal job guarantee in 1945? Jim Crow.

Check out page 7.

"The Full Employment Bill had potential to change the prevailing system of racial and labor relations premised on the subordination of African Americans. Consequently, the bill faced opposition from business and farm lobbies, who sought to replace the bill with one that was less threatening."

Also, get a load of its details:

“all Americans able to work and seeking work have the right to useful, remunerative, regular and full-time employment. And it is the policy of the United States to assure the existence at all times of sufficient employment opportunities to enable all Americans [...] to freely exercise this right.”

That's part of what I mean when I laugh at the notion that policy proposals by Sanders/Corbyn are "radical". A federal job guarantee was accepted mainstream in 1945, yet a living wage is considered pie-in-the-sky utopian madness in 2017.

I understand what you are saying I would say though that in the past, a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away- media in this country was a bit more "journalistic". Able to take multiple views and be the devil's advocate, if need be. Now everything is streamlined and slimmed down with an agenda set by their corporate sponsors and shareholders. It wasn't ALWAYS like this in the very specific way that it is now.

I think I abstracted my point, sure - Trump would be great for capitalism and business and I do understand why many asshats think "in the box" for that sort of utopian status quo bullshit. Unfortunately, we're no longer in the 50's & 60's... we have MANY issues that demand progressive answers.

Welp, my friends - soon we might just have to join a Snorkel Colony. Thanks Trump, alt-right-wingers & capitalism! I always wanted to go back to my roots in the ocean!

ahh, the neo-utopians. Everything was perfect before ....

The problem with JJ Abram's Star Trek is that he destroyed the core of Roddenberry's vision. Star Trek IS the optimistic, utopian future of mankind.

The popularity of themes comes and goes with the hopes and fears of the current culture. But if zombies are in and vampires are out at the moment, you don't try to make a vampire movie where vampires act like zombies. Just make a fucking zombie movie!

So maybe Roddenberry's core theme is not popular at the moment. If audiences want to see a future of betrayal, violence and individualist motivations in their plot, then pick a franchise that represents those themes and have at it. Remake "Forbidden Planet" any way you like. Shit, do "Logan's Run" in space with a shit ton of CGI.

Or get out ahead of the curve. Old testament angels in an anachronistic setting is just WAITING for a good director to come along.

this is pretty high on the retarded scale.
and tagging this in the *education *philosophy and *learn channels is insulting to those who use their brains.

look man,i get that you disagree with socialism as an economic system,and you are perfectly within your rights to hold that opinion,but it is apparent that you have no clue what socialism is and continue to regurgitate the tired old tropes from the mcarthy era.

you,my friend,suffer from an incredibly bad case of doublethink.

you cannot on the one hand view taxes as theft and then turn around and support the military.which is a socialist institution and uses taxes to fund itself.

what you fail to realize is that this discussion goes back to the beginning of this country:what is the governments role.since the constitution was a brilliant document,and what made it brilliant was NOT simply the words written but the fact that our forefathers KNEW that they didnt know everything and they allowed for the constitution to be changed,as our society changed.

which is why we got rid of slavery,and allowed women to vote.we expanded the bill of rights to include blacks.

we did these things as a society.

we got rid of child labor and we decided that basic education was a fundamental right.

socialism is not a utopian philosphy.it is an economic philosophy and it can be just as abused as capitalism.the bank bailouts in 2007 was a socialist reaction,and one the majority of the american people disagreed with,but so was the interstate highways...which we DID agree upon.

so to title this "socialism explained" is pretty fucking stupid.

i already linked you an actual breakdown of american socialism,which appears you failed to read.so allow me to try again and i implore you.give it a read:
https://mises.org/blog/bernie-sanders-right-us-already-socialist-country

What the hell?!? I thought Utopia was some stupid 'big brother in the wild' kind of American 'reality' television show about creating a utopian society out of random strangers.
What was that?!? What channel is this Utopia on?
And who was that brilliant man? I want to pay him to sit in my farmer's market every week and say the same thing.

Another example of 'I'm not a cop but I know what/how/why cops do things totally bass-ackwards from my utopian view'.

How do you know a person is unarmed? Until you know for a fact, why would choose a taser over a gun? Do you know how fast someone can charge 20 feet? Do you know the effect clothing has on a taser, or drugs in the body? Are you willing to risk your life on your lack of knowledge?

OMFG!!!Wow... I guess I have to answer that.
Why do you continue to refer to the utopian free market that you admit never existed, you can't possibly know how it would turn out since you have nothing to reference, so please stop acting like you "know" how it would be, that's simply making your politics a religion, with no need to explain and no basis for your argument but supposition.
If only more people would vote FOR a candidate instead of out of fear of the "other" candidate, my political "regulation" would work great. I can't control others, only try to explain my position and hope they agree.
I am quite happy where I am, but I also know other places are not as nice. I feel it's mostly due to overpopulation/high population density, but that's another subject altogether.
I'm sorry your experience with police is so one sided...I do wish it were not so. I think blaming them for an accident during a car chase may be a little unfair, not knowing the details I'll reserve judgment. I would hope you were properly compensated if it's as you suggest. My experiences have been both unpleasant and helpful, but I could understand the position of the one's that were unhelpful, even if I disagreed completely. My wish is that others would understand that, on average, having police is far better than not (even when they end up not always helping YOU), without needing personal NEED for the police to understand...I'm including you in that wish.
You would lose that bet...I'm a landlord.
I'm disabled and don't take a dime in public assistance, but pay my fair share for having roads and water systems (and then some) because it's a good thing to have them for everyone. I could find ways to pay less taxes, or fight for them with my vote...I just see that as shirking a duty owed to one's fellow citizens, so I don't. No man is an island.
So, no $35 real security exists that you'll show us? Can't imagine why that would be. No evidence, no existence.
By your logic, taxes are voluntary, you can choose not to live in the US and you don't get thrown in jail for not paying them. (most HOA's have a clause where they can take your home if you don't pay).
Again, you claim you don't care about my thoughts, but you continue to prove you do by responding.....you do see that, right? I don't claim to not care about your position, I try to not simply ignore those I disagree with as that tends to end intellectual evolution on both sides. Sometimes it's a futile effort.....
Again, because I don't want to disband the government doesn't mean I (or others) LIKE it, but we do have control, we simply need to assert it in thoughtful ways, not react out of fear of the possible future. That's my viewpoint anyway.

> "I don't think most libertarians agree with you that libertarian government is anarchy."

Yeah, many who use the label seem rather confused.. So sure, many libertarians are not libertarian anarchists.

> "So, there is no utopian free market, just the real, regulated one you're complaining about."

This is what the crony-capitalists, the pluto-klepto alliance thinks -- and it's one of the reasons why they don't bother doing away with it but rather just continue to exploit it. Which is also an option available to some.

> "Better safeguards could make better politicians (yes, that's regulation, of politicians)."

Haha, go ahead, 'regulate' them. I'm not stopping you. "Regulate" the politicians all you want. See how it goes for ya!

> "I do, I vote, and I pay my taxes. I don't have these problems, or over-regulation problems where I live."

Then maybe you are happy with your situation.

> "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."

I've had a number of experiences with the police, that were supposedly for "my benefit" but were in reality much worse than anarchy, and were, in fact downright detrimental to me.. Like for example, getting hit by a car during an irresponsible and unnecessary police chase in which I had no involvement until I got hit.

> "It's sad to think that it would take a personal need for you to realize that, but apparently it would."

Since you seem to be cursing me to have a "need" for police, I doubt you really feel "sad" about it.

> "because private ownership does NOT mean better management."

If I was a gambling man, I'd bet that you're not a landlord.

> "I don't pay much in taxes, only my fair share."

Of course. It's usually folks like you who pay little to nothing who want everyone else to pay for your "services."

> "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."

Sorry, no freebie for you. You'll have to do with the "services" you get from other people's taxes.

> "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."

Homeowner fees are voluntary. You can choose not to live there and you don't get thrown in jail for not paying them.

But you did have to mention the roads, didn't you? There's an epidemic of "road zombies!" I tend to take Satochi Nakamoto's point of view when it comes to this kind of nonsense. Like "John Galt," Nakamoto thinks that socialists dislike Rand so much because Galt actually scares them.

But then again, somehow I've given you the impression that I actually care about that you think or not. But "all in all you're just another brick in the wall." (Kinda crazy, arguing with bricks. As a psychologist, I'm rather selective about these things.)

Suffice it to say that, for folks like you who "like" the Leviathan or think you're going to somehow control it, I have little if anything to contribute.

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.

#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!

1. OK
2. Not THESE crimes, the one's I talked about. When violence and drug dealing can happen in front of the police with no repercussion, it's de-facto decriminalized.
3. BULLSHIT. Oakland is not telling anyone they can't hire private security, they do say you can't form a violent gang (which seems to be what you're advocating) even if it's intent is to stop other gang activity. What private institutions are clamoring to come in and solve the crime issues, only to be held at bay by the state? I've never heard of one (and a mob or gang of citizens does not count).
There are numerous legal marijuana dispensaries in Oakland, legalized drug dealers according to the feds....and pharmacies.
What, crime happening on private property is no one's business but the property owner?!? Just wow. Don't know where to go with that mindset...but I might ask, how many slaves do you own?
4. yes, most of the video was shot on private property. Edit: Ok, I noticed it's not mostly on private property. Lot's of crime is, but not this. I was wrong....still...
Private security does not stop this kind of criminal, especially when outnumbered. They document it in hopes the police will do something.
5. yes, I have heard (and disagree with) that complaint. Business won't move to these places UNLESS you give them incentive (like tax huge breaks and/or free land grabs), they do not just go there and fix things unless we all pay to let them. Never heard of it happening, anywhere. Please give an example.
6. Not for the illegal businesses, which are a large percentage. There are regulations to be sure, but many aren't enforced and they certainly aren't over-regulated as I see it, with small exceptions. Over-regulation did not cause the crime in Oakland, that's just ridiculous and ignorant.
7. Disney is not Oakland...and has not gentrified the surrounding areas. I know someone that lived across the freeway, and it was HIGH crime. They don't allow crime on their (ever expanding) property, period. Living in their gated communities is ridiculously expensive and regulated down to the colors you can paint your home or the types of grass you may have in your lawn. It's draconian. They show clearly that private ownership/control leads to MORE regulation, not less, it's just not government regulation.
8. Oakland HAS been high crime with little money, no statist intervention was ever needed. Much if not most of the crime happens in parking lots and buildings, on private property, not in the street. 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.
9.Your taxes are not used only for 'security' you know. For the portion that does, you could not hire private security that did anything, nor can you for $35 a month. People will gladly take your money, but what do they do for you?
10. Not what I said, buy your idea is to arm EVERYONE, and everyone can't afford a gun. That does not mean only criminals can afford one, that's terrible comprehension. Most honest people in Oakland are struggling, or they wouldn't live there. Even if guns were cheaper, they can't afford rent and food, so it doesn't help...especially when you and yours stop paying taxes and all services they depend on to survive dry up. ;-} It's not an issue of them being over-regulated that stops most (or any, it's insanely easy to buy an illegal gun there) from owning one, it's just not.
Because people find ways to pay their bills and fines does not mean they have disposable income to spend on firearms, as you suggest.
Yeah yeah, I just know nothing, so ignore me. That seems to work for you. That's fine. First I'll ask, how long have YOU lived in Oakland, since you're an 'expert' and I am not (I never claimed to be)? How long did you live in the libertarian utopia you want to emulate?
I don't think Oakland is a libertarian dream, but I do think it's what you get when you de/under fund police and have terrible governing. I don't think the answer is to stop governing and policing, it's to do it better (which doesn't necessarily mean more).
Where is this utopian free market that has "much less poverty" you reference as evidence, I can't find it.
Ahhh, so you admit, anarchy is preferable to you over a government that's not libertarian...hmmmm. I don't think the working people of Oakland, or most anywhere else would agree. If I'm wrong about that, we're all in trouble.
And back to 'praxeology', an infant 'science' with questionable if any results. People are inherently difficult to study, we're all freaks. (every mention reminds me of the foundation sci-fi series).
BTW...I was a libertarian until the Tea party came along...then I had to re-think.