This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by EndAll. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/City-Council-Fart

Why do markets allow people to suffer?

1. Better system than capitalism would be a balanced hybrid system of capitalism and socialism controlled by people in a true democracy - as opposed to the plutocratic charade we live under now. Think Finland, Switzerland, Nordic Slavic type social democracies. These systems are infinitely better than our capitalist nightmare by any metric.

2. All the think tanks that tell you what to think are funded by deep corporate pockets. Your guru milton Friedman was chummmy with all the neocons - Reagan, Rummy and some pretty nasty dictators. David Koch was even on the libertarian ticket. Open your eyes to reality, friend.

3. Feudalism is only freedom for the wealthy elite. You don't seem to understand that you have a very subjective and limited concept of 'liberty'.

7. Free market reforms are terrible to labor, as we are seeing right now, where libertarians are calling on American labor to 'get competitive' with Chinese slaves. No fucking thank you.

8. There's no shortage of excuses for your belief system, and never any empirical data. This is why I deride your political beliefs as religious beliefs.

9. It's nice that you used 'Corporatist America' as a way of refuting my contention that European social democracies are superior.

It's amazing to me that someone with such a tenuous grasp on reality could call anyone else ignorant. Time and time again your politics are debunked on this site, only for you to redouble your efforts. I hope one day you are able to overcome your indoctrination.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I'm an atheist. When I attribute things to God and say things like, "Why does God allow the his devout followers to suffer?" I don't mean, "Why does the ancient fictional religious construct that you based your life around allow his devout followers to suffer?" What I do mean is, "Why does your personal god that you believe in allow his devout followers to suffer?"

Most atheists, I think, tend to use God in this way, not because they believe in the existence of a personal god, but because it's the widely held understanding of God (if not the original definition). It's irrelevant to our conversation, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Your analogy is bad, IMO.

And you and I will continue to disagree what free markets are, and that's something I cannot change.

1. The claim was "[A free market] states that altruism and empathy are bad; greed and selfishness are good." That's what I was responding to. Still ridiculous. I've said constant that if you could find a better system than Capitalism, I'd be on board, but there IS NONE. All of this tap dancing around definitions is obfuscation.

2. Patently false. An absolutely disingenuous and false statement. What's pathetic about this comment is how you continue to twist this bastardized government legitimized entity back on free exchanges when we've covered this a billion times. Again, corporations are antithetical to free markets, because they enjoy a government created reduction of competition, government subsidies, corporate welfare, and so on. In short, they enjoy intervention in the marketplace, which is what YOU'RE touting, not me. So, it's YOUR concepts of government that have been and continues to be shaped by corporations?

3. I think people claim the free market is "self-correcting" more than "self-regulation", but that's a digression. But listen to what you wrote. "Claims of freedom, liberty" will spring forth in a free market? Yes. Yes very much. Why, you ask? One must only look to the definition of a free market: the voluntary exchange between people without coercion. That is liberty and freedom on its face. The opposite, your idea of regulated and interventionist markets, is coercive and authoritarian. The opposite of free.

5. Good for them.

7. What? No, I'm saying you're associating things like lowering taxes and "taking away power from labor" with free markets, which is ridiculous.

8. Failed states caused by the failure of statism (and the pilfering of government employed opportunists) is not the free market in action. Nice try.

9. Says you. California is a perfect example. It's struggling at the moment to pay for the huge number of government pensions for those unionized "heros" that retired at age 55 and get 90% of their income for the rest of their long lives. But then just recently the LA city council, a haven for modern liberalism and your capitalist/social-democratic utopia, cleared a 1.2 billion dollar construction project to build a fucking luxury hotel. According to this article, "overtime pay for the Los Angeles Fire Department soared 60 percent over the last decade", and "the department's top earner racked up a total of $570,276 in overtime in the last three years, including $206,685 in 2006." And that's just overtime. I could go on, but I've already been over this with NetRunner. Suffice it to say, this is your utopian hybrid in action, and it's a complete failure. And it's slowly going bankrupt. In fact, California has asked the Federal government repeatedly for a bailout.

Do go on, though. I like to watch you dig that grave a little deeper.

Ignorance is not a moral high ground.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
It's very common in arguments of religion for atheists to attribute things to "God". Why does God cause so much pain and suffering? Why doesn't God heal amputees?, etc. It rolls off the tongue a lot better than 'Why doesn't the ancient fictional religious construct that you based your life around heal amputees.?'

It's not the definition of 'free market' that I question, it's all the wide eyed, miracle elixer promises that are used to entice gullible followers. For instance, there is no evidence that free markets self-regulate. There is no evidence that living under unfettered markets would create a desirable political climate for anyone but the super rich. All that stuff about 'voting with your wallet' is naive.

Free Markets do not equal free people. This is the big lie that gives this ideology its (fake) moral center. Under a free market economy, there would be a huge power imbalance between business and labor, which is why corporations champion (if disengenuously in your eyes) the free market. Deregulation, privatization, gutting social welfare programs and other "Free Market" inspired austerity measures always result in low wages, unemployment, poverty and labor abuse. Free Dumb.

1. Friedman has praised greed. Rand has praised selfishness. You have complained about the dangers of government programs motivated by compassion. Do you dispute this?

2. My point is that corporations, regardless of how you feel about them, are the driving force behind American styled libertarianism. Doesn't it give you a moment of pause that your concept of liberty has been, and continues to be shaped by corporations?

3. Again, it's not the definition I object to, it's the wild ass claims of freedom, liberty, self-regulation and other doctrinal bullshit that is supposed to mysteriously spring forth somehow once a set of arbitrary conditions are met. When I talk about lack of evidence, I'm talking about these pie in the sky promises.

5. It is funny that liberalism and libertarianism have swapped meanings in this country. American libertarians are always so confused when Chomsky calls himself a libertarian.

7. So you are saying that deregulation, privatization and the cutting of social programs would not function as intended if they were implemented by force? Why is that? Can you understand my skepticism when individual elements of free marketism fail on their own, and then I'm told that we need even more elements of free marketism for everything to work correctly? It's like a homeopathic doctor saying "of course these homeopathic remedies are making your cancer worse, you forgot the ginseng. You can't cure cancer without ginseng, silly fool."

8. Failed states with no taxation or government should be free market wonderlands, no? It's a common swipe at free market partisans that never gets addressed. Care to give it a go?

9. The most successful states are currently capitalist/socialist hybrids. We trail behind other states (European states) with a more even balance of state and business. If I believed in utopia, I wouldn't be a liberal, because compassion and empathy would be unnecessary in a true utopia.

http://videosift.com/video/The-evolution-of-empathy

For a rugged individualist, you sure do love your little categories and boxes. Do you ever notice your need to be defined and to define others? I don't share your need for precise definition. I like to keep my options open.

"Ignorance is not a moral high ground." I like this quote, especially when you use it to defend an irrational belief system. I'm stealing this quote.

I'm an atheist. When I attribute things to God and say things like, "Why does God allow the his devout followers to suffer?" I don't mean, "Why does the ancient fictional religious construct that you based your life around allow his devout followers to suffer?" What I do mean is, "Why does your personal god that you believe in allow his devout followers to suffer?"

Most atheists, I think, tend to use God in this way, not because they believe in the existence of a personal god, but because it's the widely held understanding of God (if not the original definition). It's irrelevant to our conversation, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Your analogy is bad, IMO.

And you and I will continue to disagree what free markets are, and that's something I cannot change.

1. The claim was "[A free market] states that altruism and empathy are bad; greed and selfishness are good." That's what I was responding to. Still ridiculous. I've said constant that if you could find a better system than Capitalism, I'd be on board, but there IS NONE. All of this tap dancing around definitions is obfuscation.

2. Patently false. An absolutely disingenuous and false statement. What's pathetic about this comment is how you continue to twist this bastardized government legitimized entity back on free exchanges when we've covered this a billion times. Again, corporations are antithetical to free markets, because they enjoy a government created reduction of competition, government subsidies, corporate welfare, and so on. In short, they enjoy intervention in the marketplace, which is what YOU'RE touting, not me. So, it's YOUR concepts of government that have been and continues to be shaped by corporations?

3. I think people claim the free market is "self-correcting" more than "self-regulation", but that's a digression. But listen to what you wrote. "Claims of freedom, liberty" will spring forth in a free market? Yes. Yes very much. Why, you ask? One must only look to the definition of a free market: the voluntary exchange between people without coercion. That is liberty and freedom on its face. The opposite, your idea of regulated and interventionist markets, is coercive and authoritarian. The opposite of free.

5. Good for them.

7. What? No, I'm saying you're associating things like lowering taxes and "taking away power from labor" with free markets, which is ridiculous.

8. Failed states caused by the failure of statism (and the pilfering of government employed opportunists) is not the free market in action. Nice try.

9. Says you. California is a perfect example. It's struggling at the moment to pay for the huge number of government pensions for those unionized "heros" that retired at age 55 and get 90% of their income for the rest of their long lives. But then just recently the LA city council, a haven for modern liberalism and your capitalist/social-democratic utopia, cleared a 1.2 billion dollar construction project to build a fucking luxury hotel. According to this article, "overtime pay for the Los Angeles Fire Department soared 60 percent over the last decade", and "the department's top earner racked up a total of $570,276 in overtime in the last three years, including $206,685 in 2006." And that's just overtime. I could go on, but I've already been over this with NetRunner. Suffice it to say, this is your utopian hybrid in action, and it's a complete failure. And it's slowly going bankrupt. In fact, California has asked the Federal government repeatedly for a bailout.

Do go on, though. I like to watch you dig that grave a little deeper.

Ignorance is not a moral high ground.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
It's very common in arguments of religion for atheists to attribute things to "God". Why does God cause so much pain and suffering? Why doesn't God heal amputees?, etc. It rolls off the tongue a lot better than 'Why doesn't the ancient fictional religious construct that you based your life around heal amputees.?'

It's not the definition of 'free market' that I question, it's all the wide eyed, miracle elixer promises that are used to entice gullible followers. For instance, there is no evidence that free markets self-regulate. There is no evidence that living under unfettered markets would create a desirable political climate for anyone but the super rich. All that stuff about 'voting with your wallet' is naive.

Free Markets do not equal free people. This is the big lie that gives this ideology its (fake) moral center. Under a free market economy, there would be a huge power imbalance between business and labor, which is why corporations champion (if disengenuously in your eyes) the free market. Deregulation, privatization, gutting social welfare programs and other "Free Market" inspired austerity measures always result in low wages, unemployment, poverty and labor abuse. Free Dumb.

1. Friedman has praised greed. Rand has praised selfishness. You have complained about the dangers of government programs motivated by compassion. Do you dispute this?

2. My point is that corporations, regardless of how you feel about them, are the driving force behind American styled libertarianism. Doesn't it give you a moment of pause that your concept of liberty has been, and continues to be shaped by corporations?

3. Again, it's not the definition I object to, it's the wild ass claims of freedom, liberty, self-regulation and other doctrinal bullshit that is supposed to mysteriously spring forth somehow once a set of arbitrary conditions are met. When I talk about lack of evidence, I'm talking about these pie in the sky promises.

5. It is funny that liberalism and libertarianism have swapped meanings in this country. American libertarians are always so confused when Chomsky calls himself a libertarian.

7. So you are saying that deregulation, privatization and the cutting of social programs would not function as intended if they were implemented by force? Why is that? Can you understand my skepticism when individual elements of free marketism fail on their own, and then I'm told that we need even more elements of free marketism for everything to work correctly? It's like a homeopathic doctor saying "of course these homeopathic remedies are making your cancer worse, you forgot the ginseng. You can't cure cancer without ginseng, silly fool."

8. Failed states with no taxation or government should be free market wonderlands, no? It's a common swipe at free market partisans that never gets addressed. Care to give it a go?

9. The most successful states are currently capitalist/socialist hybrids. We trail behind other states (European states) with a more even balance of state and business. If I believed in utopia, I wouldn't be a liberal, because compassion and empathy would be unnecessary in a true utopia.

http://videosift.com/video/The-evolution-of-empathy

For a rugged individualist, you sure do love your little categories and boxes. Do you ever notice your need to be defined and to define others? I don't share your need for precise definition. I like to keep my options open.

"Ignorance is not a moral high ground." I like this quote, especially when you use it to defend an irrational belief system. I'm stealing this quote.

Dude, is it so hard to believe a public employee makes $12,000 a month? That's only $144,000 a year, not $1.4 million. It's possible. Especially since so many groups are unionized in this state.

Remember this video with Councilman Bernard Parks banning fast food in South LA? Well, according to this article from LA Times (you know how right wing they can be), Parks makes $178,789 a year plus "$22,000 a month in city retirement benefits". Plus a police pension of $265,050 being the highest paid police chief in US history. But that's just one councilman and retired police chief in LA.

The entire Los Angeles general fund budget is $6.7billion, and they're projecting a deficit. The police budget's over 1 billion. And check this article out:

Los Angeles could face nearly a $1-billion shortfall by 2010 because of a mammoth bailout needed for the city's employee pension funds, which have seen investments tank in the spiraling national recession, according to a city budget report released Friday.

Sure, they're cutting some jobs, but look at all the new spending and hiring they're doing. On the news right now they're reporting about LA City Council voting to fund a $1.2 billion-development project to build a luxury hotel. And what about the high speed railsystem from San Diego to San Fran? The point is, LA and California spend a lot of money, so why is the $12,000 monthly salary for a fireman too big for you to swallow? Usually there's nothing too big for you to swallow.

Hell, a quick google search could've easily proven my "apocryphal firefighter" is in fact not so questionable. According to this article, "overtime pay for the Los Angeles Fire Department soared 60 percent over the last decade", and "the department's top earner racked up a total of $570,276 in overtime in the last three years, including $206,685 in 2006." And that's just overtime. How are they able to earn so much? Is it because the number of fires magically leapt to historical highs over the last couple of years? Well, according to the article, that sounds unlikely:

Recruits earn overtime for after-hours remedial training "if they feel the need for more time to grasp the skills," a department spokeswoman said.

So, do you now still call bullshit on me, my CPA, and your mom the two of us were fucking when we told each other that story? Or does it seem possible (nay probable!) that maybe the city workers in unions here in LA (and all over California for that matter) are making a very good (and at times great) salary on our tax dollars?

My CPA also told me a story of an architect who got tired of struggling as a small business and having to pay so much in taxes, so he quit the private sector to make more money working for the city. You wanna call BS on my apocryphal architect?

And I do care about the taxes I have to pay. I envy you that you don't. You must've had a great life as a lawyer's son. Always having more than you owe. I wish we all could come from there so we could also take the same sanctimonious positions you do. Only people of privilege seem to say things like, "money isn't everything." As if they scowl at the rest of us for wanting better for ourselves. Now excuse me while I go back to that mom of yours I was fucking when I told you this story.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I'm not accusing you of lying, I'm just expressing skepticism since it doesn't line up with either my personal experience, nor with objective analyses of the changes in tax law from 2009 to 2010. Since you don't seem to have any firsthand knowledge about why your taxes might be higher, there's not really any way for us to get to the bottom of the discrepancy in our viewpoints.

I can't say the same about your secondhand hearsay about a supposed fireman who's making six figures. I call bullshit on you, your CPA, and the pig the two of you were fucking when you told each other that story. It's either a total fabrication, or the guy's primary source of income has nothing to do with firefighting.

As for Ireland, Greece, Spain and the UK, they're not in the same boat as the US. They're all engaged in much sterner deficit-reduction policy than the US has adopted or is likely to adopt in the near future. And to answer the question I posed to you, the net result is that they're just making things worse. What on paper should have reduced the budget didn't since it depressed the economy so much, and as a result they're no better off in terms of government debt, and much worse off when it comes to their general economies. Countries who took the liberal path like Canada and Sweeden are in pretty good shape. The US is pretty much splitting the difference, and while we're not getting worse anymore, we're not really recovering either.

I kinda feel sorry for you if you really think taxes are the only thing standing between you and a happy, satisfying life. A 35% raise wouldn't give that to me, nor would even a 350% raise. It'd be nice to have to be sure, but I feel like I've passed the point where even large increases in my income would have a qualitative impact on my overall quality of life. I don't really make all that much in the grand scheme of things either -- far less than your apocryphal firefighter.

I appreciate your candor in admitting that you don't care about wars, or humanitarian crises that happen to other people, just about how much taxes you have to pay and whether people you know make fun of you or not. Most people who feel that way don't have the guts to come right out and say so.

Just a word of advice, but money isn't everything. It can feel like it if you're not able to put food on the table, a roof over your head, or pay your medical bills, but beyond that happiness and satisfaction has a lot more to do with your emotional needs and the relationships you have with the people in your life than much of anything else.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Well, I'm certainly not lying. And it was 35% on my adjusted income, or what they call taxable income, I think. And it was in no way over or even in the same ballpark as $373k. Not even close.

I don't own. I rent. It is LA, after all. Buying a home in the city is tough. But I shouldn't be penalized for that, should I? We didn't get married last year, but we're certainly doing it this year. That may help next year, but why punish people who are single? Does that seem fair to you? And why punish those who don't want to work in the public sector or for a corporation? You know, I did employ two freelancers, so I create jobs this year. Shouldn't I be rewarded for that? It just makes zero sense to me.

I don't know why my tax is so high, to be honest. I have a CPA that deals with all of that. I just give him my itemized deductions and the amount I made, and he does the rest.

Yes, Ireland, Greece, Spain and the UK are exactly the same as the US. Bravo. Their EU is part of their problem, but that's an entirely different conversation, isn't it? I like how you bipartisan types take someone's real problems and make a political statement out of them. You know, taxation of this magnitude is not a partisan issue. This affects real people with real lives. Right now in my life, the only thing that stands in the way of me building a better life and the ability for me to pursue my happiness is the government. I owe them every year, and every year it goes up, and every year the Democrats call me a liar. I don't understand that.

Meanwhile, my CPA tells me of some of his clients. The firemen and policemen in LA. One fireman, a captain for a firehouse, makes $12,000 a month, and he'll retire when he's 55, and he'll take home 90% of that for the rest of his life. Good for him. A police captain makes enough to buy a home in Malibu overlooking the water. According to my CPA, he's got one helluva beautiful manicured backyard, too. Good for him. Glad I can pay for it. And you wonder why some of us hate public unions. Because I have to pay for them to retire at the age of 55 and take home a pension for the rest of their lives, yet the small businessmen can't catch a break because we're just middle class. I hear it's a helluva lot easier to just get on welfare and ride that out for a while.

So, you can comeback all you want with "Spain! UK! Greece!" but it means little to people like me, because I don't give a damn about your partisan bullshit, and it's not worth my effort to sit here and point out the many flaws in that argument. I care about how this affects me. The wars, the world affairs, the humanitarian efforts, and whatever else to me is just a distraction. What's important is I shouldn't be raked over the coals, and then have a gaggle of confused statists scratching their heads and point fingers at me as if there was some taxation glitch in the system.

More info from Reddit:

Found a bit more over at Correio do Povo from RS.
1) It was an organized event. The rides for Critical Mass are held on the last Friday of every month. Along with this, there were more than the normal amount due to them celebrating the inauguration of a newly opened "cultural space" in the city called "City of Bicyclists".
2) The manager of the Public Company for Transportation and Circulation (EPTC) was aware of the gathering from Critical Mass (since it's held on the same day every month), but did not receive any requests to accompany or provide security for the event.
3) The police have classified this as multiple attempted homicides, not an accident. As mentioned in the title of the post, the car has been found (a VW Golf) but the owner of the car is MIA. It's still unknown who was driving the car.
4) The president of the City Council of Porto Alegre has promised to set in motion the implementation of bike lanes for the city (which were already approved...just not started).
5) The Critical Mass group has already stated that next month's "rally" will be held in front of the house of the owner of the car.

i'm amongst that stastitic. i don't vote because its fucking bullshit. not because im not smart enough to grasp the issues, but because the options do not, will not and never have represented me. i can not lend my support to someone who is owned by a moneyed interest. i'm in texas too, it's fairly obvious that all our politicians are owned by oil companies, natural gas companies, home builders, halliburton, lockheed martin and wal mart. it's insulting and it is a waste of time. all the options are false.

oh, i take that back. i do vote in local elections like school board and city council and railroad commissioner and judges, etc. but only when i have reason to believe that at least one of the candidates isnt working for a church or a company. and i do a pretty thorough evaluation.

poor does not equal stupid. i would say poor simply equal unrepresented. but none of you are being represented, unless one of you happens to own lockheed martin, then you probably are very well represented.

anyway, voting is such bullshit.

i do however, enjoy vandalizing campaign signs. like, a lot. i go around and rip them out of the ground during the day, like im the person in charge of them and im supposed to be doing it. then i take them home, deface them with clever graffitti. then drive back around and put them back in the ground. like im supposed to be doing it. sometimes i just strategically relocate them, like in front of strip clubs or "gentlemen's spas". i highly recommend you all adopt this tactic in your own towns.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Nearly 64% of the lowest 20% income bracket do not vote. Tell me DT, why do you hate poor people?

I am CERT trained and on my neighborhoods CERT team (Community Emergency Response Teams), I organize a weekly neighborhood cleanup, my girlfriend is on our neighborhood city council, and we rent our house where we've lived for four years and have no plan on moving. If we do, it will be to another house in our community.

According to WP, we don't have any "skin in the game".

Although, I'll bet a gazillion dollars that WP has probably never lifted a finger for his community.

Also, as is usually with the fake conservatives who squack loudly on the internet, let's look at this a different way:


Home Ownership:
---
Whites: 70%
Asian American: 51%
African American: 42%
Hispanic/Latino: 41%

I think I now know the real reason why people like WP only want home owners to vote.

I never understood the appeal of bottled water. *Fear seemed like the only reason to go for it.

I know I'm always into the political angle, but there's just something unusual about how Americans react to government. It seems to me that if you think your tap water is dangerous, it's time to join a campaign to throw the bums out of your city council, and get some people who will put decent standards in place and enforce them.

To most Americans, that's too much work. They prefer to say "government can't do anything right", and spend ridiculous amounts of money to buy tap water in a plastic bottle with a pretty sticker on it that isn't any safer, and certainly isn't any cheaper.

In our culture, it's like you have to pay a lot money for something before you think it's worth anything.

>> ^Mysling:
>> ^NordlichReiter:
Now, here is where it is different: Fuck you and your point of view. That is an expression of my distaste for your position on the matter at hand. Had I said, Fuck You! Then you can construe that as fighting words. That is not, under the law correct free speech. You must put context with the situation.

I see your point, but in my opinion both the examples you use should never be used in a debate, or publicized. By anyone, no matter what viewpoint they are representing.
I see neither "fuck you!" or "fuck you and fuck your opinion" as arguments. They are meant purely to provoke, and bring nothing to a discussion. In that respect, I see Fitna as a giant "fuck you an fuck your opinions" with incredibly little rational discussion or debate. Bringing that into the public arena is an extreme lapse of judgement as it creates much more emotional harm than rational discussion.
While you may be technically right that Fitna can be considered as freedom of speech, I don't feel anything deserves that label if it doesn't take itself seriously enough to atleast compose its arguments in a rational manner.


But, once again it is in your opinion that they mean to provoke, that is why there is a Judicial system in place, to solve these conundrums. Hence the reason that Philidelphia supreme court protected David Hackbart right to give the bird to a citizen, and a peace officer, because he was expressing his distress with his current situation.

http://news.aol.com/article/pittsburgh-city-council-awards-david/786635

In fact the city gave him 50,000 to settle the matter.

If curse words were not freedom of speech then men like George Carlin would still be in prison.

But I think we are arguing two different things, however related. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression, which are invariably tied. You cannot have one without the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Carlin

An example of Carlin's thought process. This argument is exactly why the Wilders is in court in the first place.

sorta like how all those european immigrants illegally invaded the americas?

and by invade i mean: showing up unannounced with guns and swords and killing the heads of state rather then asking permission to live with them

if a band of mexican drug lords started killing city council members, state senators and then built settlements for their cartels, it would be the thing.

but again, none of that matters to you because you predefined your lineage as somehow special or better then brown people.

Of course you can respond. I don't want a concession I haven't earned.

The failure of Circuit City (or any of the others on your list) has had no meaningful impact on reducing corporate abuse. Circuit City was replace by Best Buy, which treats its employees worse than its predecessor. So in this case, 'wallet democracy' has actually made things worse.

This is because "wallet democracy" isn't based on intelligence, wisdom, morality or any kind of desire for social justice, it's based on convenient location, ad campaigns, low prices and blue light specials. These out-of-whack priorities have no real chance at achieving anything positive, and usually end up doing the opposite, by empowering the worst offenders, like Wal*Mart. I've not shopped in a Wal*Mart in over a decade, but still they thrive, despite my furious wallet. I guess the people have spoken, and working class dignity is an inferior candidate to low low prices.

'State's Rights' is another favorite corporate think tank meme, for the simple and obvious reason that corporations would rather face small enemies than large ones. Corporations have vast resources that they can use to bribe desperate states, to pit states against each other, and to punish states that don't toe the line, among other things.

I don't see local politicians being any less susceptible to lobbying; or local voters being any less susceptible to expensive ad campaigns, in fact, small town folk might be more suceptible to the glitz and glamor of corporate favor than their seasoned national counterparts. A few of the larger metropolitan areas might be organized enough to make a stand, but I can't see it realistically living up to your expectations.

Beyond all that, do you ever use the local control you already have?

-Have you ever attended a city council meeting?
-Do you research your local candidates in any depth?
-Do you know the names of local politicians, state senators, state congressmen, local judges and/or city council members?

Anyway, I like the old Clinton quote that goes something like 'there is nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what is right with America'. For better or for worse, our country is 'our' country, and as long as it remains our country, we have the ability to change it. It's easy to feel down about our country, because we are getting our asses kicked by a very small, but wealthy and powerful segment of our population. If enough of us can figure this out, and are mad enough to do something about it, we win. It's a big if.

(hahaha, nice dick joke)

you really think that Hitchens has done all this? "His book on Kissinger has done far more to stop the outrageous actions and policies of the west than you ever could with a gun."

Absolutely. I don't think any one person could do more with a gun than Hitchens book has.

Honestly I don't think Hitchens has stopped anything. Nearly all the crimes he mentions in his book, I'm sure, have gone unpunished. Nearly all the criminals he shines a light on continue to walk free, with money in their pockets, and their bellies full.

And one man with a gun would've not only failed to stop those, it also would have failed to even bring those crimes to light. At the least Hitchens book has brought more attention to the crimes, even if it hasn't taken Kissinger's Nobel from him.


But as it is, it seems like the only people who know about him and who have read his stuff are extremely small in number, and few are close to political power greater than a city council chair.

I think you are looking to blame the general public there more than Hitchens, no?


Hitchens gets furious about people criticizing American or British troops

You missed the point. Lots of other talking heads might thump their chests with that cliche for no reason, but Hitchens is not. He is condemning those like the questioner who don't merely criticize, but go even further to BLAMING the soldiers for the security problems that exist. There is some justification to bringing up the contrast of blaming the people protecting you for causing your problems.


most of these soldiers he wants to celebrate are people who repeatedly vote against the ideologies of people like Hitchens, and few are for "women's rights" as Hitchens advocates for at the end of this video. They're not going to throw acid into a woman's face, but few think women are the intellectual equals of men, which makes me wonder if they even believe women should have the same number of votes as men.

Uh, so you don't think much of soldiers, that's your business. Don't go beyond expressing that opinion into inventing lies like the above to slander them as well, ok?


If so, how easy is it to convince foreigners that Americans are liberators, punishers of the wicked, and not colonizers, if large-scale war criminals (who often have fond opinions of colonialism) go unpunished in America itself?


Easy, 'foreigners' will treat Americans like they treat anybody else, by how they are acting at the time. You'll notice the Kurds and Iranian reformists have no trouble embracing the Americans at all, and America has a bad track record towards them in the past.

Finally, is democracy itself even a worthy ideology to pursue? ... even if a global democracy was established tomorrow, most Westerners would desire more power than their population numbers would deserve.

And your point is what? The rest of that paragraph you spent basically denigrating 'westerners' and declaring them all too greedy to really want democracy? Are you answering your own question about democracy being worthwhile then? Is the answer then 'yes' because it would teach those evil westerners to be more fair? Alright, I'm pretty sure your point was just to rag on the west in general. Good for you, I suppose. A few more years of study on what everyone else in the world has done that's as bad or worse and you'll be as universally cynical as Hitchens. Come back in ten years and re-read your post.

bcglorf, you really think that Hitchens has done all this? "His book on Kissinger has done far more to stop the outrageous actions and policies of the west than you ever could with a gun." Honestly I don't think Hitchens has stopped anything. Nearly all the crimes he mentions in his book, I'm sure, have gone unpunished. Nearly all the criminals he shines a light on continue to walk free, with money in their pockets, and their bellies full.

Perhaps if Hitchens' book had entered the public mind as much as, say, the latest Transformers film, I could agree with you. But as it is, it seems like the only people who know about him and who have read his stuff are extremely small in number, and few are close to political power greater than a city council chair.

Anyway, I thought the end of the video was a bit odd. Hitchens gets furious about people criticizing American or British troops, claiming that they "defend you while you sleep". These soldiers are the enforcers of government law and policies. The same laws that prevent Kissinger, Bush, and other American war criminals from being punished. They (armed agents of the government) were basically responsible with defending Kissinger as he slept, too. How does Hitchens do these two things at once? 1) Argue that Kissinger is a war criminal and must be punished, and suggest that 2) the US soldiers protecting him are heroes.

Is the priority to first wage this "war within Islam", then after it's over, refocus our efforts on getting American war criminals punished?

If so, how easy is it to convince foreigners that Americans are liberators, punishers of the wicked, and not colonizers, if large-scale war criminals (who often have fond opinions of colonialism) go unpunished in America itself?

Furthermore, most of these soldiers he wants to celebrate are people who repeatedly vote against the ideologies of people like Hitchens, and few are for "women's rights" as Hitchens advocates for at the end of this video. They're not going to throw acid into a woman's face, but few think women are the intellectual equals of men, which makes me wonder if they even believe women should have the same number of votes as men.

Finally, is democracy itself even a worthy ideology to pursue? It seems clear to me that most Westerners believe their own societies to be far superior to other societies (politically, physically, intellectually, economically, militaristically, etc.), and that even if a global democracy was established tomorrow, most Westerners would desire more power than their population numbers would deserve. One need only look at how frustrated white conservatives have become in the past few years, thanks to the high population growth of non-white people in the country, to see an example of how quickly democratic philosophies are thrown out the window in order to protect one's freedom/wealth. See the current Health care debate for more examples.

>> ^blankfist:It's a right to free movement. Ever heard of it?

You mean "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them." ? It has to do with crossing state lines, read you own link.

By restricting it to a licensed driver, you're effectively limiting that right.

By not giving you piles of money the government is limiting your right to own half the skyline of New York, they have not revoked the right, but it is limited.

This is more of that "vote if you want to change policy" rhetoric, isn't it?

Not necessarily, though that is one tactic. The asshat in the video could run for city council and push to have the speed limit changed on the road or roads in question. I personally know people who have successfully run for city/town council to further their agenda. Chances are most local officials are in it for their own causes.

If you don't buy my house there are plenty of other houses

And I can't use yours without your permission, or in ways we have not agreed to. The absence of an alternate road network is entirely irrelevant to the validity of the states property claim.

The DMV won't negotiate terms.

Yes they will, just not to anything you want. Want a boat license, semi, motorcycle? they will happily give you a license on different terms, but, just like any other person, business or organization, they will not just give you any random thing you want because you whine about it.

The state owns the roads, you can build your own roads and offer them for use on different terms, or you can take your share in the state and try to influence how the roads are managed. To imply you have the right to use somebody else's property in whatever way you want is not particularly cogent, unless you intend to argue that all property claims are invalid, but somehow I don't think that is your position.