^ What Mr. Chomsky neglected to mention here was scale & production cost vs payoff.

Yes anyone can grow their own strawberries but how many could you ever hope to produce in the average back garden/greenhouse? Probably not enough to let you eat Strawberries everyday I'd bet, and you certainly would'nt pull much of a profit selling them to people at a domestic scale (the key issue here).

Pot however....... even a modest indoor backroom grow can easily net between 30-90oz when dried (alot!). And this can easily be repeated up to 3-4 times a year.

Tobbacco by comparison yields very little for the space and time taken. There's a reason basically no-one home grows tobbaco, you need a huge farm and large scale processing to produce a profitable quantity. Hence it being the preserve of big business and thus legal (plutocrats sure know how to lobby!).


For what its worth though, I do think the Hemp fiber thing was probably the bigger factor in legislation, but what Chomsky is alluding to here is also pretty valid I think.
Pot is a massive cash crop that is seemingly always in demand and relatively easy for a consumer to produce in their own garden/backroom.

There would be a profit in industrial production (always going to be plenty lazy people), but combined with the hemp industry and the effect it tends to have on people (makes you think!) I can totally see why the establishment fears it so much.
It'd be slow, but legal Pot would start eroding the very foundations of the elites power as it's much more profitable for the lower and middle class of society than the Plutocrats at the top and the scale is huge.

A more equal distribution of wealth/economic power is bad for Plutocracy!

I couldn't answer whether cattle rustling is still big business, but your question reminded me of this Stan Rogers song:

http://youtu.be/eZt_Kcoi3Ck

@00Scud00 if businesses collude to keep prices high, their enemy are other businesses not profiting from that collusion. Getting into the fold cuts into their profits.

Big businesses use government to regulate the market and skew costs in their favor, raising barriers of entry to competitors.

If government is removed from the picture, yes, it's one less person to bribe. It also removes all those barriers, and all unfair advantages big businesses currently enjoy.

With free markets, as with most freedoms, it's not all unicorns and rainbows, quite the opposite. There will be plenty of abuse and unfairness to go around. However, being free from a mountain of laws and bureaucracy, without anyone to come crying to, begging authority to right all wrongs, society will be more flexible, creative, responsible, and inclined to solve problems on its own. People are better at solving problems than bureaucrats, and they'll more likely do so if they have to do it themselves.

It's like the internet. I believe most problems on the internet today can be solved technologically. Is that magical thinking? I don't think so.

Sure, there's a role for a few legal rules, but they should always be kept to a minimum. Let people figure things out creatively, without resorting to violence. Add too many laws to the internet, and it'll be bogged down. People will try less to come up with creative solutions, and resort more to petitioning their representatives.

I resent the insinuation that I use free market as a mantra. I'm trying to clear its name. It currently enjoys a terrible and undeserved reputation.

@vaire2ube and who do you think sticks an insurance company between you and your doctor? It shouldn't be that way!

If the market were allowed to push prices down, people would resort less to insurance and pay for medical services through other means. You can thank the collusion of government and big business for keeping prices high and making health insurance such a big part of healthcare. Now it's even mandatory. They're forcing you to pay for their costly shitty services.

Don't think government has your best interests at heart when they "extend health care benefits" or whatnot, it's just more meddling engendered to stifle the market, to keep competition out, and help big business with whatever makes them more money.

So, you're blaming BIG BUSINESS. I'm blaming BIG BUSINESS + GOVERNMENT. You can't get rid of big businesses, you shouldn't. You can, however, relieve their unfair entrenchment in the market, by getting GOVERNMENT out of the equation.

@Rufus so, freedom, to you, is synonymous with pervasive violence? Is that what you were told as a small child?

Hey, if only government just protected our lives and property, I'd be very happy about it. You do realize that's roughly why libertarians often talk about a limited government, right?

Too bad it isn't limited at all, far from it. It uses violence a lot more than it should, in ways you don't know about or haven't carefully considered. Probably both. Hell, it even scared you into fearing freedom.

@petpeeved so you're saying government price fixing by bureaucrats is the solution, because they're better judges of "real world supply and demand" than the collective judgements of millions of people trading vigorously every day? Wow, if only it was you running the centrally planned economy of Soviet Russia, I bet we could have stopped its apparently avoidable collapse.

You think the health and healthcare industry is "unfettered capitalism"? That's so delusional I don't know where to start. It's one of the most regulated industries in America. That's government intervention for you. Why do you think there's so much disgusting lobbying for special interests? Because government is everywhere, you can't move an inch without greasing the hand of a dirty bureaucrat.

Get government out of healthcare, and there will be no laws to protect the crooked big businesses. Let the industry compete with higher quality and lower prices, like any business tends to do in less regulated environments.

There was a time when I was excited about the future of gaming. I mean, I'm still excited, but it's taking way longer than it should... When the most exciting game to come out in 10 years is Minecraft (IMHO), that's when I call shit on the entire industry and realize that's just the shitty way that the shitty world works. Things become less awesome the more that everyone gravitates towards said same things. Companies see the money being generated and the only return on interest is to keep doing that thing that people say (more like "think") they like about the game(s).

As a consumer I think: Big business is fucked and always will be. I don't want to be marketed to. I don't want people to anticipate what I desire. When that shit starts happening, I'm done and I no longer desire. Because what I desire most is freedom from the constraints of this awful, mind-numbing, driven-into-the-ground system control. Stop, just stop trying to figure us out and by design minimize our being.

Trends are like two sides of an ascending roof coming to meet in the middle. On one side are publishers and on the other side are developers & consumers. When the two sides meet in the middle, business happens. BUT development and consumers (developers are consumers, thus are driven by the same motivations, albeit with the ability to make change) want to keep ascending to a new spot... AND PUBLISHING WON'T LET THEM GO HIGHER BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE UNCERTAINTY LIES. NOT. PROFIT.

Profit. Profit. Profit. YAY FOR THE FUTURE.

"[...]and now Wallstreet, this is a big business issue, and what everyone is talking about is what is going to happen to the solar industry."

What kind of sentence is that? Did she just want to insert Wallstreet and Big Business issue into a sentence?

Guns are big business. The NRA is a lobbying firm. Change in legal status could cut into profits.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

God I hated that movie. It wasn't because it was bad (and it was fucking awful), but more because it could have been amazing. It had the chance to be awesome high concept sci-fi with decent action thrown in. Instead it resorted to the worst kind of b-movie schlock and a stoned first year arts students idea of profound philosophy.
And that's ignoring how much the movie hates science. Honestly when that retard took off his helmet and said "don't be a skeptic", I nearly walked out at that point.
"Don't be a skeptic"? Are you fuckin' kidding me? Yeah, let's just ignore one of the fundamental tenets of science!
bah....


You hit the nail on the head. They had so many of the right elements actually sitting there, ready to use... But, they really needed another writer or two. They needed one writer to make sure the story wasn't "all-over-the-place", to streamline it while leaving its intellectual side intact and at full throttle; in fact it should've been increased a bit in a few areas, which is my next writer. They needed to keep some of the more unrealistic elements in check as well, like the crashing spaceship...rolling...and her running, IN-LINE with it, such a stupid and corny seen; just CRASH the damned thing!

The second writer needed to shore up all the inconsistencies with the characters and their supposed "psychological persona" created for the movie. We all hate the fact that scientists are in a VERY foreign environment and yet he takes his helmet right off and shows everyone that his science degree was from a Bible University... This trend continues the entire movie, with of course in-line running girl, because that is where the camera is! And, so, so, so, many more to be enjoyed in drinking games to come. This writer would've made sure these idiocies were stopped dead in the script, secondly he would also interject about how certain characters would react to various scenes--in a REALISTIC fashion, not some cheesy SyFy Original movie of the week release...

The aliens themselves, who have seeded life, SENTIENT LIFE (planned out to the extent that the sentient beings would appear very far down their original "release" of DNA material into the environment--that is called ULTRA-INTELLIGENCE!) screw up minor details on their "WMD". This is another ridiculous notion, because if they can plant sentient life around the Galaxy then setting up a spaceship properly would be "kids play" to them... Another hole that needed a script fix or major change.

This movie just needed more development and perhaps less "ego" on-set and more realistic planning and even a real script with insight into the fields being used in the show: anthropology, biology, engineering, and all the other trades and skills used within--they needed to invite REAL scientists on set and to read the script, and to highlight things that were obviously things that wouldn't happen--even IN a "big business" scenario. The actors could've used real "shadows" of their job and a good idea how that scientist would do their job, with advanced technology and knowledge.

BTW, *quality

What liberal doctrine? Be specific.
>> ^quantumushroom:

If there was no Bill Moyers using tax dollars to push unchallenged liberal doctrine, I'd agree.
>> ^packo:
PBS actually has factual news
not a propaganda arm of big business
must die

If there was no Bill Moyers using tax dollars to push unchallenged liberal doctrine, I'd agree.

>> ^packo:

PBS actually has factual news
not a propaganda arm of big business
must die

PBS actually has factual news

not a propaganda arm of big business

must die

Vetoing the 2012 NDAA would have held up the military budget and would not have stopped the detention clause. It was a lose/lose game of political chicken and Obama chose pragmatism over idealism.

Obama has greatly helped the country by creating a healthcare program, by passing stimulus, by using quantitative easing to keep the recession from going depression, by ramping down military operations in the middle east, by favoring diplomacy over sabre rattling in Iran.

As far as promises go, he has kept (or at least attempted to keep to the best of his ability) most of his big promises, like ending combat in Iraq, creating a health care system, ending the use of torture, putting needed financial regulations into place, restricting warrantless wiretaps, ending denial of health coverage for those with pre-existing conditions and signing an executive order to shut down Gitmo. Congress blocked his order to shut down Gitmo, which means the timetable is dependent on getting Republicans out of congress this November. Contrary to popular belief the executive branch is not all powerful. I know you don't like Obama, but can you at least admit these are positive changes for the better that would not have happened under a McCain or Romney administration? What were the broken promises you were talking about?

I love intellectuals like Chomsky and Chris Hedges and respect their criticisms of Obama. I think it would be much more productive to be informed by intellectuals, rather than slumming it in the right libertarian gutter. This video is just as frivolous as the Jackson video, if not morso.

I wish Obama was could be more progressive too, but that isn't going to happen in a conservative country where big business and the military industrial complex wield as much power as they do. We need both idealism and pragmatism if we are going to make progress. The country is far from how I'd like it to be, but I am happy that Obama is moving us in the right direction.

@KnivesOut the healthcare industry was already highly regulated before Obamacare. While you might be inclined to think the industry was doing poorly despite all the regulation, I'd argue the industry was doing poorly because of so much regulation.

Remember, big businesses that are in bed with government usually lobby for regulation that will protect their interests and discourage competition. It's no different in the healthcare industry.

If we want to benefit the patient, the best route is to dial back all these regulations that guarantee profits for big businesses with the help of government and unleash the market forces that will give patients more choices, choices that will compete with each other pushing prices down, and making healthcare more affordable.

I'm moving this to your profile or else the troll wins.

I see what you're getting at, and it's arguable that I came on too strong, but I think you're missing that we generally know the difference between a different opinion from ours and trolling. bk33 can criticize and vent his vitriolic bile as much as any of us (I'm including myself in that category), and I don't think there's anybody here who has a problem with that. There aren't many vocal conservatives on the Sift, but there are some (Chilaxe comes to mind), and as long as they know how to carry on a discussion, there's little issue. Tempers flare, of course, but nobody seriously thinks they're trolling, just wrong, and that's great. But bk33 contributes nothing. And I don't mean he contributes nothing to my side of the argument -- I mean he leaves the place measurably worse than when he found it.

About CrushBug's comment. He's just venting. He didn't make any claims at all, let alone unsubstantiated ones, unless you mean about renaming The Government of Canada to "The Harper Government", which Harper has actually really done. Google it. So I think you're not seeing the qualitative difference between CrushBug's comments and bk33's.

Real mobs kill people. We just happen to outnumber him. We can't hurt or even remotely silence him.

In reply to this comment by frosty:
Sometimes there is such intolerance of opposition in opinion here at the Sift. When your typical liberal Sifter decries the greed of the private sector, vilifies "big business" and slams Fox News, it is hailed throughout the ranks as a battle cry, but when bobknight33 suggests the inefficiency of government-controlled industry and criticizes MSNBC, he is bombarded by the mob with accusations of naivety, not substantiating his remarks and being a "troll." For instance, take a post like CrushBug's -- "Fucking Harper. I am glad they have spent the time and money to change the name of the gov't to "The Harper Government" so once this horrible aberration of politics is voted out we can easily identify and kill this kind of evil bullshit." This is the quintessence of unsubstantiated, ad hominem attack. Yet it is met with resounding approval and hardy back slaps aplenty, buoyed up by the inertia of the throng.