“Before our white brothers arrived to make us civilized men, we didn’t have any kind of prison.
Because of this, we had no delinquents.
Without a prison, there can be no delinquents.
We had no locks nor keys and therefore among us there were no thieves.
When someone was so poor that he couldn’t afford a horse, a tent or a blanket, he would, in that case, receive it all as a gift.
We were too uncivilized to give great importance to private property.
We didn’t know any kind of money and consequently, the value of a human being was not determined by his wealth.
We had no written laws laid down, no lawyers, no politicians, therefore we were not able to cheat and swindle one another.
We were really in bad shape before the white men arrived and I don’t know how to explain how we were able to manage without these fundamental things that (so they tell us) are so necessary for a civilized society.”
~John (Fire) Lame Deer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fire_Lame_Deer

Winstonfield, what you're saying about MLK's tactics is simply wrong. Read MLK's biography by Eric Dyson. MLK wanted to use non-violent "industrial sabotage" to clog up industries and highways in Washington DC, to bring things to a halt until democratic socialist reforms were put into place. He wanted to do this by clogging places up with people so that even "innocent bystanders," as you put it, would have no choice but take notice.

Also I believe MLK supported "sit ins" where black people came in and sat in white-only restaurants, filling them up with black customers. This drove away white customers from stores, and I'm sure owners were annoyed that they were losing so much business to this tactic. Plus, at the time, I'm pretty sure white owners had the legal right to only serve white customers, thus the private property rights of white owners were being violated by MLK's black supporters.

If you disagree with the Occupy Wall Street end goal, OK that's fine. But don't criticize the tactics in the belief that MLK Jr. was not a supporter of the tactics here, because he used them himself.

Well hey. Listen, its private property and they can do what they want. Who's business is it what they do on their land they stole from the indigenous peoples?

But for real, a hunting ranch called 'N-head'.

Yep, fascist assholes.

>> ^peggedbea:

most of the anarchists i know are vegan. and resent the concept of private property.


Your diet is a very important part of your political leaning.

most of the anarchists i know are vegan. and resent the concept of private property.

if you use an estimate for 2010 by the centrist to liberal Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, which pegs the share of all federal taxes for the top 1 percent at 22.7 percent.

One percent pays roughly one-fifth of taxes? Is that fair?

America was founded on principles by John Locke. Those principles were that land should not only be owned by the rich. According to wikipedia Locke implies "He just implies that government would function to moderate the conflict between the unlimited accumulation of property and a more nearly equal distribution of wealth and does not say which principles that government should apply to solve this problem"

It's quite the problem, as government can't capriciously deprive anyone of rights or private property without due process.

But actually I agree with you. If I tax the rich, they will buy fewer megayachts, (which would create jobs if U.S. regulation hadn't gutted the yacht-building industry here) and the government will just piss that tax money away on bombing Libya, or maybe homeland security irradiating pregnant women secret surface scan x-rays.

It's never explained by the left what this magic millionaire money will do that the spending addicts haven't already done. As for libyan/x-rays, the left wanted an all-powerful federal leviathan unable to be reigned in by the states...why act surprised when it does things you don't like?

Why do you think you're the standard for what I'm talking about? You're not running a business, are you? Because those people put in 80 hours a week easily, and are preyed on by the system far more than regular workers.

This isn't rocket science, peeps. If you shovel sh1t for 10 hours and the government takes half of what you make no matter how hard you work, are you going to work harder? I'm dealing with liberals so I've tried to type as slowly as possible.

Oh, and Genjkerk, I'll remove the splinter from mine eye when you remove the beam from yours.


>> ^HaricotVert:

Since I am salaried and thus taxed at a set rate determined by what tax bracket I fall into based on my income - completely independent of how many hours I actually work - what makes you think that I (or anyone else who works a set # of hours during the week) will work harder simply because the IRS takes less of it?
Even when I wasn't salaried and had a contract position, I was allotted 40 hours a week, and no more, per my contract. Those 40 hours a week were taxed all the same. I still had to show up and put in 8 hours a day.
I assure you, financial incentives are hardly the motivation for hard, productive, and creative work. In fact, monetary bonuses can actually decrease performance for tasks that require any sort of rudimentary cognitive skill.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Liberals are good at understanding "complexity"?
That must explain why they miss simple concepts like, "People work harder when allowed to keep more of what they earn" and "Private property rights are the foundation of freedom."
And when will Supergenius Barack Hussein Obama be releasing his kollij grades?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Liberals are good at understanding "complexity"?
That must explain why they miss simple concepts like, "People work harder when allowed to keep more of what they earn" and "Private property rights are the foundation of freedom."

Probably because the first statement is false. Proof can be found on another video: http://videosift.com/video/What-motivates-us

As for "Private property = Freedom", apparently you forgot that this was the chief argument in favor of slavery.

Since I am salaried and thus taxed at a set rate determined by what tax bracket I fall into based on my income - completely independent of how many hours I actually work - what makes you think that I (or anyone else who works a set # of hours during the week) will work harder simply because the IRS takes less of it?

Even when I wasn't salaried and had a contract position, I was allotted 40 hours a week, and no more, per my contract. Those 40 hours a week were taxed all the same. I still had to show up and put in 8 hours a day.

I assure you, financial incentives are hardly the motivation for hard, productive, and creative work. In fact, monetary bonuses can actually decrease performance for tasks that require any sort of rudimentary cognitive skill.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Liberals are good at understanding "complexity"?
That must explain why they miss simple concepts like, "People work harder when allowed to keep more of what they earn" and "Private property rights are the foundation of freedom."
And when will Supergenius Barack Hussein Obama be releasing his kollij grades?

Liberals are good at understanding "complexity"?

That must explain why they miss simple concepts like, "People work harder when allowed to keep more of what they earn" and "Private property rights are the foundation of freedom."

And when will Supergenius Barack Hussein Obama be releasing his kollij grades?

@dystopianfuturetoday, you know I'm in your camp, but that reads like a tea-party manifesto. It emphasizes deconstruction without worrying about our lack of agreement on the subsequent reconstruction. In some ways, I'm with @raverman. We need to sort out the ideological differences we've laid bare particularly over these past few years. That's why I think publicized presidential debates between Ron Paul and Barack Obama could be good for the country. IMO, you'd get some good, honest, civil discussion. It would give Paul the opportunity to bring Obama to task on some of the issues where he even loses the left; and it would give Obama an opportunity to talk to the rightwing frankly about the mapping between economics and reality.

Plus, I don't think Paul can win the general anyway. I'll concede that it would be disastrous if he did. Who could he take as a running mate?

Ultimately, I think the crux of the ideological issue is the absoluteness of private property "rights," and the mechanism of common ownership.

A. Obama isn't a socialist.

He sure as hell isn't a free market capitalist and is no supporter of individual rights. His answer to every problem is higher taxes (if he had the balls to confess it's his goal) more spending and MOAR government.

B. Socialism doesn't always fail.

Historically it's been around in one form or another and sooner or later always falls prey to human nature. Private property rights are the bane of socialists.

C. That's not the ultimate goal of socialism.

Not on paper, but that's what it ends up being. The State > Individual at all times. Rights that can be revoked by the State at any time due to not being natural born rights are a fraud.

D. You don't know what communism is. Hint: Your description of Socialism's ultimate goal is pretty close, except Communism doesn't intend to control all freedoms, just economic ones. That's still not Socialism, though. Socialists by definition aren't communists.

Semantics. When the State owns all property, they own you. When the State dictates who may or may not receive health care, they own you.

E. Japan, Hong Kong, and a slew of other countries must import food, too. Their economies are failures?! Your economic analysis is a sham.

Also answering Jigga----I made no claim of a full analysis with pie graphs---the point is this: Russia has far more natural resources than the United States, yet communism failed. Shitty state-made products (tech stolen from USA), long lines for basic staples like bread and gulags for critics.

F. If you're comparing the Soviet Union's economic system to what Democrats and Obama envision, go right ahead.

Most democrats don't envision an economy much different than what you have now. The rich paying 40% top marginal tax rate instead of 35% isn't Socialist. It's certainly more socialist, but if that's socialism, what was the US when the rich paid over 90% in income tax in the 1950s? You know, during that time when McCarthyism was looking for anyone and anything to accuse of being a Communist?

Social Security started as protection for a very small part of the populace and expanded to cover more and more year after year. The original architects of Medicare and Medicaid probably didn't imagine leviathan programs losing 60 billion dollars a year to fraud, waste and abuse. But here we are!

Why wouldn't I share the wonderful leftist vision of the future? Because the left measures social programs based on what they're supposed to do, not how well they do. The left also views life as rich versus poor instead of right versus wrong. This fugue is played every day 'round here. "The rich are evil because their gains are ill-gotten, the poor are innocent victims of exploitation."

You're fooling yourselves if you think taxing the evil rich at 90% tomorrow will change anything. This isn't 1950. The evil rich will simply transfer the bulk of their wealth, investing in other countries. Why would anyone have an incentive to start businesses or create jobs if the federal mafia is going to confiscate most of their profits?

And hero, your little dig at the end of your post indicates you don't have much faith in your answers.


Hey gang, you're skeptical about these candidates? I'm here to tell you I'm not buying what you're selling either. I don't trust the results of the left's good intentions or even that their intentions are good.

I agree with Pat Condell, even as I acknowledge that the people that helped cause the GFC should be more harshly punished.

But it's hardly conducive to a better society as a whole to cause immense amounts of infrastructure damage (do they think the money to fix this will fall from heaven?) and private businesse damage and theft (insurance goes up = prices go up for everyone) to compound the issues of the GFC... Never mind the private property damage and loss of life.

The people rioting and looting never think in these terms, they only care about their own personal benefit. We're not talking about legitimate protestors here...

eg. http://videosift.com/video/Interview-with-UK-Riot-Looters

These young guys go on about all the things the government should reinstate, after boasting about the things they ripped off. Yep, great thinking guys, the increased spending on policing and replacing destroyed infrastructure and property is GUARANTEED to leave plenty of tax dollars over to subsidise your university educations... /eyeroll

And Condell is absolutely right re: countries like Somalia... Growing up in a country with a social welfare system that might not cater to every need as much as they might like it to is miles away from living in a country where the ability to steadily supply your children with food is almost impossible.

The Canadians here and anyone else paying attention to the G20 riot in Toronto last year shudder at this. Deja vu all over again. Saturday, the cops let the "black bloc" (white kids trashing storefronts) do their thing.

Sunday, the cops responded with the savage beatings/kettling actions.

Seeing it once looks like an awful mistake. Seeing it a second time... troubling.

>> ^marbles:

Police were ordered to stand down as London burned:
...
According to eyewitnesses to the initial riots in Tottenham, police were seen “standing back and allowing rioters to cause havoc,” a trend that continued during subsequent nights before Prime Minister David Cameron ordered 10,000 extra police officers to patrol London last night.
This has now been confirmed by sources within Scotland Yard who said police were ordered to “stand and observe” even as brazen acts of violent crime were committed against both people and private property, a directive which prevented them from arresting any of the troublemakers.
...
The police’s inadequate response quickly led to calls for martial law, curfews and the use of water cannons on streets in England for the first time, a power that Prime Minister David Cameron has now authorized.
Britain’s most widely-read newspaper The Sun ran a poll today which found that two thirds of Brits support the use of rubber bullets to deal with rioters, while 33 per cent supported the use of live bullets.
“Curfews are backed by 82 per cent, using tear gas got 78 per cent support and Tasers 72 per cent,” states the report.

Police were ordered to stand down as London burned:
...
According to eyewitnesses to the initial riots in Tottenham, police were seen “standing back and allowing rioters to cause havoc,” a trend that continued during subsequent nights before Prime Minister David Cameron ordered 10,000 extra police officers to patrol London last night.

This has now been confirmed by sources within Scotland Yard who said police were ordered to “stand and observe” even as brazen acts of violent crime were committed against both people and private property, a directive which prevented them from arresting any of the troublemakers.
...
The police’s inadequate response quickly led to calls for martial law, curfews and the use of water cannons on streets in England for the first time, a power that Prime Minister David Cameron has now authorized.

Britain’s most widely-read newspaper The Sun ran a poll today which found that two thirds of Brits support the use of rubber bullets to deal with rioters, while 33 per cent supported the use of live bullets.

“Curfews are backed by 82 per cent, using tear gas got 78 per cent support and Tasers 72 per cent,” states the report.