>> ^Darkhand:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@Darkhand.
Did you even listen to Cenk's point?
A heavy adult male with a gun stalks an unarmed teen, then claim self-defense..
What logic are you using to conclude Zimmerman is somehow not guilt of murder?
What if Zimmerman had stalked a 17 year old white girl, then shot her dead after she fought back?
What you need to see more evidence then?

Someone stalking you, whether anyone likes it or not, is not a just cause for you to turn around and beat the crap out of them.
If Martin turned around and punched him and knocked him on his ass I think that would have been a justifiable amount of force. But continuing to beat on him as some people suggesting to "knock him out" you don't understand how the body works. You can't tell the difference between "Oh yeah I knocked him out" and "Awesome! Internal bleeding and his brain is swelling now I can get away".
Does everyone here really believe because Zimmerman was being over zealous they feel he deserves to get knocked down and have someone sit on top of him and continuously punch him in the head?


According to the SYG law, which they claim let's Zimmerman walk away with no charges. Yes Trayvon had the right to defend himself from a pursuer if he felt that he was in danger. The level of damage he could inflict was dependent on how much danger he thought he was in. The law defines everything as "reasonable" for the level it has to meet. If someone chased you down in a vehicle, you escaped him and he continued looking until he found you again. That to me is reasonable grounds to assume this person means you harm.

Plus, I still have trouble fathoming how Trayvon got within striking distance of Zimmerman in the first place. I find it entirely unlikely that he would approach his stalker. So I believe that Zimmerman cornered him or caught him in a hiding spot. It just never would have happened if Zimmerman would have 1) not followed him 2) not got out of his vehicle.

And I'll just throw this out, carrying a gun carries with it a certain expectation that you will use said gun otherwise carrying it will end up getting you shot if you draw and don't use it. I think Zimmerman felt confident due to his gun and his willingness to use it. Substitute any other rational adult and they would not hunt down a kid and approach him to within striking distance, it's too predatory to continue forward once you've gotten within speaking distance of someone who has tried to evade you once already. Keep in mind that Trayvon had not committed a crime to warrant the amount of attention Zimmerman was giving him, nor the need to approach him beyond the distance a loud speaking or even shouting voice would carry. I certainly would not approach a kid on public property who ran away from me initially. I may be more inclined to hunt them down if they were on my private property or in a dangerous area, but neither of those fit this scenario.

The act of pursuing someone who is trying to get away is by it's nature aggressive. Martin had the right to defend himself from a stranger demonstrating aggressive behavior. The language and frustration Zimmerman expressed on the phone call also suggests he was not pleased to have someone get away on his watch, and perhaps semi-racist in nature.

On the flip side. If Trayvon had chased Zimmerman and still ended up shot to death, would this conversation even be happening? Trayvon would have been provoking the encounter and even if he never laid a finger on Zimmerman, the law states you can use deadly force if you believe someone means to great bodily harm or commit a felony.

It's a joke that Zimmerman has the right to "defend himself" with deadly force, in an encounter he forced upon a teenager against all advice and all material that Zimmerman had presented at a neighborhood watch meeting. The presenter came forward and spoke about it. Under the law he has to meet criteria as the aggressor. I do not believe the police have released information showing he fulfilled those criteria, and his immunity under SYG should be forfeit.

The language on the call "coon", the lack of a tox screen, and the various other screw ups by police. PLUS not holding him until they at least interviewed everyone they could find within a block of the shooting. Now all of those people are potentially tainted by Zimmerman's presence, the media coverage, and the bias of the sources of this information. It's up to the second investigation to hopefully see that they screwed the pooch and see if it was because they are incompetent, racist, or covering up for Zimmerman.

I don't blame anyone for being outrageously pissed and concerned over this. It essentially means you can walk down the street, stalk any lone person, and shoot them dead if they have anything in their hand you can claim looked like a gun or say anything like "I'll kill you...........................if you come any closer." Just the last part won't make it out of their mouth if you have your gun good and ready to blow a hole in them.

@Stormsinger whatever system you're envisioning seems to me like a common fantasy of underestimating the complexities of society. I invite you to rethink your idea of a society with economic freedom, because it's definitely not Somalia, an uncivilized society ruled by criminals has no freedoms.

No state regulation doesn't mean less regulation. Instead of coming from above in the form of laws, regulation would come from the people and however they decide to organize themselves to deal with anything they perceive as abuses in the economy, without resorting to force. State only comes in to enforce contracts and respect for private property.

Yes, there would be failure, bankruptcy, loss, but that's what makes a system alive, adaptable and capable of evolving, as opposed to the static oligarchic power structures we have now. If you think people are stupid and don't care past the end of their noses, wait until they have to pay dearly for their bad decisions. Which doesn't mean I want to live in a cruel and abusive world, I want a society that can learn and react faster and more appropriately to whatever complex problems that may come up. Leaving that job to regulators and central economic planners is painfully inefficient, not to mention anti-capitalistic.

You know why you talk about a system where regulators, which would still have power, would be held responsible for their actions? Because you like responsability, and I like it too. No one should have power and not be held accountable for their actions.

So here's a thought: take the power away from regulators, let people have the power and the responsability: if they use it wisely, they succeed and profit, otherwise they crash and burn. No, I don't like to see people failing either, but forcibly removing failure from society is what leads society itself to fail.

@Drachen_Jager, that's quite a straw man you've bludgeoned there, not me. Extremism is relative. Free speech in the Middle Ages could be dismissed as extremist too.

I'm sorry for talking about freedom of speech yet again, but bear with me.

The reason I often make the analogy between freedom of speech and freedom of economy is that neither of them are supposed to be extreme, they both require minimal government participation, but the more the government gets in on them past this minimum threshold, the freedom itself is threatened.

None of us in the US would ever put up with government censorship like they have in China, because we know it hinders freedom of speech in general and establishes a bad precedent. If we have people using free speech to say terribly stupid things and deceiving millions with bad ideologies, it would suck, we could do something about it, raise awareness, expose and argue incessantly against those lies, etc. but we'd never blame freedom of speech itself for it, because, even though it's the freedom that allows such lies, we know that freedom of speech can take care of it. Censoring opinions would be the worst thing to do. We all believe that an environment where people have free speech is healthy, no matter what people say, because we are optimistic about freedom of speech in that, hopefully and eventually, society's opinions will evolve and lead most people closer to the truth, whatever that truth may be. That is why people debate all the time, they are seeking the truth, and it's in a free speech environment where people have the most access to information.

Truth isn't something one can just magically make everyone have access to by stating, "Every citizen has a right to the truth", and have government control the media, TV, newspapers, and the internet, to provide truth to society. I mean, it could work for a while, or on the surface, but I wouldn't trust government with providing the truth, they'd either be too incompetent or dishonest for the job. Besides, we know that no one has authority over truth, it would be too presumptuous for anyone to say they do!

Now what happens if we apply the same thinking to another kind of freedom?

If we had a free market, not everyone would be well behaved, not at all, and whenever someone would cross the line and commit fraud, break contracts or disrespect private property, we'd need government to step in. Other than that, well, it would suck, but we'd just have to let the free market take the hit, let people learn the lesson and evolve. As harsh as that seems, people would use their economic freedom to handle the problem, they would *have* to watch their own backs if they know they can't cry to government to "censor" every bad economic behavior. It wouldn't make any sense for them to blame this bad behavior on the free market itself, even though that's what liberals do in a heartbeat, and they want laws banning everything they perceive as abuses they portray as unsolvable by the economy, not understanding that these laws end up screwing over a healthy environment, making people complacent and irresponsible. These restrictions have hard to predict and usually counterproductive consequences that distort the market and lead it to misbehave even more. I am optimistic about freedom of economy in that, whatever people do, hopefully and eventually, society's business practices will evolve and lead most people to prosperity. That's why people trade all the time, they are seeking prosperity, and it's in a free market environment where people, poor or rich, have the most access to resources.

Education, healthcare, affordable houses, things an economy provides, isn't something one can just magically make everyone have access to by stating, "Every citizen has a right to free education, free healthcare and affordable houses", and have government control the economy to provide these things for society. I mean, it could work for a while, or on the surface, but I wouldn't trust government with that, they'd either be too incompetent or dishonest for the job. Besides, politicians and bureaucrats might consider themselves authorities over how to employ society's resources, but it's the same kind of presumptuouness of thinking one owns the truth: that they have better judgement than a whole lot of people coordinating their own resources in a complex economy.

People can always argue some contrived examples where socialism apparently worked, but to me it's like someone arguing in favor of censorship. Does it have any use in society? Well, it can be helpful to maintain a dictator in power. You can weed out bad ideologies or criticisms. Propaganda to help exterminate the jews. That sort of thing. I personally think it's something a supposedly evolved society like ours can do without.

Somalia is as @renatojj describes it. There are no private property rights and no rule of law.

Libertarians are not anarchists.

But seeing how @Drachen may believe that American corporations are the same as warlord-driven Somalian gangs, I hereby swear allegiance to the McDonald's' McMillitia.

'Egg McMuffin' is just a beautiful name for a boy. Or a girl.


>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^renatojj:
@Drachen_Jager, Uh... no? Somalia is very oppressed by criminal militias, that's a huge restriction to doing business, how do you suggest I secure private property and enforce contracts in that environment? A society that is not civilized, has no freedoms, including your precious freedom of speech.
You aren't taking this seriously, I'm a bit disappointed. Is this recession a joke to you?

His point stands, there is no central government doing the repressing. Somalia IS the utopia that the extremist libertarian/anarchistic minded folk are lobbying for. If you want to eliminate ALL taxation and ALL government rule, Somalia IS what results.

>> ^renatojj:

@Drachen_Jager, Uh... no? Somalia is very oppressed by criminal militias, that's a huge restriction to doing business, how do you suggest I secure private property and enforce contracts in that environment? A society that is not civilized, has no freedoms, including your precious freedom of speech.
You aren't taking this seriously, I'm a bit disappointed. Is this recession a joke to you?


You want someone to enforce contracts! But that's a restriction on business. So you DO think businesses should not be completely free to do as they please.

Those 'criminal gangs' as you call them are the paragons of free-market corporations. Give the same freedom to American corporations and they'll behave the same way.

I never promoted blanket freedom of speech either, even though you keep bringing it up. There is no total freedom of speech in any country, including the US.

All things in moderation. Extremism is the real danger, and believe me, you are as extremist as an Al Quaeda Imam in your own way.

>> ^renatojj:

@Drachen_Jager, Uh... no? Somalia is very oppressed by criminal militias, that's a huge restriction to doing business, how do you suggest I secure private property and enforce contracts in that environment? A society that is not civilized, has no freedoms, including your precious freedom of speech.
You aren't taking this seriously, I'm a bit disappointed. Is this recession a joke to you?


His point stands, there is no central government doing the repressing. Somalia IS the utopia that the extremist libertarian/anarchistic minded folk are lobbying for. If you want to eliminate ALL taxation and ALL government rule, Somalia IS what results.

@Drachen_Jager, Uh... no? Somalia is very oppressed by criminal militias, that's a huge restriction to doing business, how do you suggest I secure private property and enforce contracts in that environment? A society that is not civilized, has no freedoms, including your precious freedom of speech.

You aren't taking this seriously, I'm a bit disappointed. Is this recession a joke to you?

>> ^renatojj:

I think we're arguing semantics, what you consider rights of a woman is what I think libertarians would call an entitlement. Not all libertarians are pro-choice, e.g., Ron Paul. Abortion is not a clear-cut issue, there's the right to life involved too. When does life begin and right to life should protect the unborn? etc. Ron Paul doesn't think the federal government should legislate it because it's too controversial (and outside federal jurisdiction anyway).
If every state bans abortion, wouldn't that be the same as banning it at the federal level? I don't think you have an issue with states rights, but with the scenario where all 50 states approve legislation you don't want and it's a reasonable concern. However, wouldn't that be less likely to happen?

Given that libertarians are all about private property rights, what could be more private property than your own body? I get that some people don't like abortion. Fine, don't have one. But to say that "Not all libertarians are pro-choice"; isn't "pro-choice" (i.e. the freedom to make the decision yourself, not to have government interfere) a core libertarian principle?

As to the right to life of the unborn.... there's really no good answer here. An abortion is never a cause for celebration, it's always done as the lesser of two evils. I would say that the right to life of the mother trumps that of the unborn in all cases (i.e. where the mothers life is in danger) and that it should take place as early as possible.

>> ^renatojj:
Look at the NDAA that Obama signed for this year, everyone in America is subject to indefinite detention now. Great. If it were only approved in New York, a lot less people would be subject to this injustice and you could at least avoid it by just staying the hell out of there (besides, such law would likely be overruled for violating the 4th Amendment).

You get no argument from me here, the NDAA is a terrible law. I would actually use it to argue against the right of states to enact laws such as this, as the freedoms it violates should be universal (or constitutional I guess). To turn your argument around. why should only the people in New York have to suffer under it?

>> ^renatojj:
Ok, maybe you can be a christian and believe in evolution. Then I can argue Obama is probably not a very good christian, which doesn't bother me, but means he lacks integrity in his faith, right? He's probably religious for appearance's sake, because America would never vote for a non-christian President. Show me a bible that explains how man evolved from the apes and we're good

It's hard for me to defend this position as I'm an atheist too. All religious people, including Ron Paul, cherry-pick which parts of their holy book to adhere to in their day to day lives. I don't see Ron Paul arguing for the banning of pork or shellfish, yet they are clearly stated to be abominations in the bible. If he can work his way around that, why can't he accept evolution?


>> ^renatojj:
I agree businesses can do evil, but they're more directly accountable for their actions than elected representatives, they seem to have more to lose, and more direct incentives to do good. Besides, the power of businesses is purely financial, whereas governments have money and armies. Give governments less powers over the economy, and businesses will be less likely to lobby and seek leverage from government. That's libertarianism is a nutshell



>> ^renatojj:
The interviewer suggested Ron Paul reject the money to make a statement against the white supremacists, and Ron Paul said, (paraphrasing), "Yes, I disavow that organization and what they stand for, there's my statement". No tacit approval, I don't think he needs to give them money to make his point. Actually, if you think about it, it would be disingenuous of him to give them money after openly declaring that he disavows them, don't you agree?
I admire Ron Paul for his backbone and common sense on this issue, for not bending to social pressure, if he wants to make a statement, he opens his mouth and does it. Giving money back not only contradicts his statement, it's also weak to conform to other people's somewhat self-indulging and irrational expectations. I mean, who in their right mind would give money to white supremacists?

Fair enough.

>> ^renatojj:
I'd like to understand you not wanting to protect certain freedoms. Which one (or more) of these restrictions do you approve of:
a) a business open to the public can't ask someone to leave its property
b) a business open to the public can't select which customers to serve
c) a business open to the public can do both of the above, but not based on certain criteria

Easy C. I'm all for discrimination based on actions or abilities. I disagree with affirmative action (I feel it is patronising to minorities).

Now could this be used by a business to discriminate against an ethnic group on an individual basis? I guess so, but at least it makes it clear that the spirit of the law does not allow this.

>> ^renatojj:
Ron Paul sees the government and the Fed as major oppressors of our freedoms, based on their laws. Freedoms are usually taken away by force, and libertarians will argue that businesses can't take away our freedoms because they can't use force (unless they're criminals), we're not entitled to anything they can give us, and they can't break contracts. I think that's a major source of confusion in a society where, unfortunately, the lines between governments and corporations are blurred

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

5th amendment
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."


Fixed for you

5th amendment

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

>> ^curiousity:

@conan
Depends on the state. Most of the time you can get away with it because it is public property (and owned private property) and it is not recording any sound (avoids following under wiretapping laws.)


Same over here, audio has different "weight" than video.

>> ^kevingrr:

@conan
I'm no lawyer, but the camera is on his property and mostly for the security of his property. Cameras are everywhere on private property that have a view of public alleys and roadways.
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy here - the fedex guy is in public on a sidewalk. So there is no "invasion of privacy".
I am not familiar with German law at ALL, but if someone takes your photograph while you are in a public place is that a crime?
That is all secondary to the fact that his job is to safely deliver goods/packages.


Funny but 100% true: Yes, it is against German law to take a picture of a person in public space without their consent. You can however take pictures of "sceneries", i.e. without the main picture content being a single person. Say you take a picture of a roller coaster at Oktoberfest, there most probably will be several persons on that picture but that's perfectly okay. But if you take a picture of the good looking waitress you fancy, that's illegal. Yes that sounds strange and yes it is highly impractical but the law is the law.

And if you install a camera on your property to watch over your driveway it must not film the street or sidewalk. If it does (and anyone finds out) you'll be fined.

German law in this context does not focus on the surroundings (i.e. public / private) but on the privacy of persons. But anyhow: German privacy laws are extremely strict (therefore B2C telemarketing is illegal for example, i could name tons of other examples...).

I never dealt with US laws regarding privacy in detail, i only knew there nearly is no such thing as privacy outside your own home in the US. I just read up some details and the difference between these two countries is pretty stark.

@conan
Depends on the state. Most of the time you can get away with it because it is public property (and owned private property) and it is not recording any sound (avoids following under wiretapping laws.)

@conan


I'm no lawyer, but the camera is on his property and mostly for the security of his property. Cameras are everywhere on private property that have a view of public alleys and roadways.

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy here - the fedex guy is in public on a sidewalk. So there is no "invasion of privacy".

I am not familiar with German law at ALL, but if someone takes your photograph while you are in a public place is that a crime?

That is all secondary to the fact that his job is to safely deliver goods/packages.

i am loathe to respond in bullet form,maybe because i find it the weakest and laziest form of debate in a text format,but let me address a glaring misconception you seem to have concerning the occupy movement.you seem to be under the impression that its driving force is against rich folk.

now lets put that aside for a second and i shall not deal with just how utterly inaccurate that statement is because what REALLY intrigues me is this: how did you formulate that opinion when so much information is already out there revealing a totally different animal?how did you derive this conclusion and by what information did you base it on?
now THAT is a far more interesting conversation.

Its driving force is against the powers that be. "They". They say money runs the government, and they are right. Money is at the root of all evil. Who controls all the money? The "1 percent", although it's really more the ".001" percent. So it is essentially against the rich and powerful, the income divide they have engineered, and the entrenched power structure they orchaestrate.

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

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is an ongoing series of demonstrations initiated by the Canadian activist group Adbusters which began September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City's Wall Street financial district. The protests are against social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, as well as corruption, and the undue influence of corporations—particularly that of the financial services sector—on government. The protesters' slogan We are the 99% refers to the growing difference in wealth in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population.

you also put forth that your main premise was that the students were warned that they would be removed,by force if need be.
maybe i am misunderstanding your thinking but it appears that if there is an announcement then any use of force is justified.
yet in your previous paragraph you stated you understood the necessity to disobey then turn around and become an apologetic for police force.
these two premises are in conflict.

I was merely countering the assertion that they were sprayed without warning, which was a lie. I do believe police have the right to use force, however, I think they could have handled that situation a little better. I do believe we should disobey authority when it runs contrary to what God has commanded, but then and only then.

then in the next paragraph you continue with a verbal denigration of the people of occupy using tried and true tactics of any powerful institution.you literally have just regurgitated state propaganda and i dont think for a second you even realized that fact.do you even know what a marxist,anarchist or socialist actually is? i ask that sincerely not as a slight towards you,because it doesnt appear that you do.

I am not on the side of the state, I am on the side of God. Governments tend towards corruption and unless they adhere to biblical principles they will fall into decay and injustice will be the normative state of the land. So I do not prefer the state at all, but neither do I favor removing it, at least until Jesus returns. It is, as the founders believed, a necessary evil.

Yes, I know what they represent, and their positions are often interchangable. They were out in force waving their communist flags, talking about income redistribution and private property rights, distributing their anti-capitalist propaganda. Here is a quick portrait:

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2011/11/zuccotti-utopia-portraits-of-revolutionaries/comment-page-1/#comment-22376

They even had maoists:



again i find your premise in conflict.
on the one hand you agree and are aware of the corruption gnawing at our democracy and then turn around and dismiss those who are protesting that VERY corruption you just acknowledged as somehow being unworthy.
i even posted the playbook that powerful institutions use and you fell into lock step with that message.

then lastly you again use a perjorative to describe the occupy movement with obvious disdain and then chastise me for comparing occupy with the civil rights movement.
either you dont understand my point or didnt think it through.
i was not comparing them as being similar in intentions.i was comparing them to how the power of the people are the ONLY way to enact change.
and if you truly agree that this government is corrupt and has been purchased by corporations who use their immense wealth to further their own profit margin at the expense of the average american citizen then i do not understand why your premise is so diametrically opposed in thought and in reason.

your argument is a contradiction.

The fundemental disagreement is this. What I recognize is the corruption gnawing at all of mankind. Everyone is looking at this catastrophe called civilization and thinking "how can we rearrange this so a utopia emerges?" Some people think the inequitable distribution of resources is the source of eivl, and believe that if we just set up a system to share the resources equitably then all goodness will follow from that. Other people think that just having a system is the source of corruption and want to eliminate it altogether and live without any central authority. The issue is that these schemes are all predicated upon the assumption that human beings are generally good. The reality is, human beings are generally sinful and tend towards corruption and not goodness. It isn't the system, or lack thereof that is the problem, it is the human heart:

Jeremiah 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

If you wiped out everything and started with a blank slate, putting the population of the world into an instant utopia, it would only be a matter of time before the whole thing was rotten to the core. The problem isn't the system, it is us. The only solution to this problem is Jesus Christ. Humans are incapable of governing themselves equitably. The founders recognized this, which is why they instituted checks and balances into the constitution, to try to offset mans sinful nature. They knew no man could be trusted with power. In the same way, to switch systems we would simply just be trading one polished turd for another. When Jesus returns and sets up His kingdom, only then will there be peace upon this Earth.

one last thing and while i hope you know .i shall state openly here.
what i am about to ask i ask in all sincerity and humility.
where do you think jesus would be sitting on this issue?
would he be on capitol hill with the plutocrats and corporate lobbyists?
think about it.

What Jesus is interested in is our salvation. Neither the plutocrats or the protesters are doing anything to reach or to further His Kingdom. They both outside of His will and are following man-centered doctrines and philosophies which glorify themselves and give God no acknowledgement what-so-ever. Jesus wouldn't be happy with any of them.

Luke 11:28

But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Luke 18:8

I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

>> ^enoch:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Making a foray into politics?

so it appears and not a very impressive one.
@shinyblurry
i.