It's irritating that you don't know a goddamn thing.. and that that doesn't bother you in the slightest.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberty

Who owns the planet? No one.
From what source do you derive all your private property? The fucking planet.

See how this works. No you don't.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Private property rights = liberty.
communism works if you're a member of a primitive hunter-gatherer tribe.
In every other form of society it fails.

Private property rights = liberty.

communism works if you're a member of a primitive hunter-gatherer tribe.

In every other form of society it fails.

I'm just gonna go ahead and call bullshit.

Saying private property is just an extension of existence and control over your own body is a flawed precept to base this argument on.

You understand why the cops were there right?

It wasn't to protect you or "silence" your thoughts.
>> ^notarobot:

"Why would this event be any different?"

Because YOU weren't there witnsess the event. Because YOU didn't have your shoulder dislocated by an officer in full riot armour. Because YOU did not have your prosthetic ripped from your leg. Because you were not arrested without any warrant or concern for your civil liberties.

There are a lot of good cops in this world, Pprt. I have a strong belief that the real good cop bad cop ratio is something to the tune of 99:1 but that "one" left over can sometimes give the other 99 an undeserved reputation and THAT is exactly what this ISN't about.
The truth is that when an officer is ordered to do something that makes him feel like he needs to take his name tag off to execute that order (and keep his job) then something is wrong. If there are plain clothes officers able to leap out of the crowd to protect, what? Why were there plain clothes officers among the crowd NOT preventing vandalism of private property and their own police vehicles?
Why?
We know that police are sometimes ordered to commit the very acts forbidden by law. We know that police have broken the law so to twist public perception of otherwise peaceful protests because THEY HAVE PUBLICLY ADMITTED doing so. It is also very likely that an inquiry could reveal similar tactics used during the G20.
What is wrong with this? A group of well trained, capable individuals, sworn to uphold the law and protect the people used against the very people they are trusted to protect. Orders passed down through subterfuge, obfuscated behind veils of lies.
And 99 of them know it's wrong.

...
http://videosift.com/video/Police-admit-they-went-undercover
-at-Montebello-protest
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19928
>> ^Pprt:
Next time you see cops blocking a crime scene or an accident.. go ahead and give them a hard time. Tell them how it's your right to walk right up to a dead body or a smashed car.
No? Why not?
Because you understand that sometimes the police are there for a reason and you respect that. Why would this event be any different?>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Pprt:
Bunch of unemployed losers determined to get into confrontations with cops and then get what they ask for... Outrageous!

Shut the fuck up you piece of shit. You don't say the same about people throwing Tea into the Boston Harbor do you?

"Why would this event be any different?"



This event is different because YOU weren't there witnsess it. Because YOU didn't have your shoulder dislocated by an officer in full riot armour. Because YOU did not have your prosthetic ripped from your leg. Because you were not arrested without any warrant or concern for your civil liberties.



There are a lot of good cops in this world, Pprt. I have a strong belief that the real good cop bad cop ratio is something to the tune of 99:1 but that "one" left over can sometimes give the other 99 an undeserved reputation and THAT is exactly what this ISN't about.

The truth is that when an officer is ordered to do something that makes him feel like he needs to take his name tag off to execute that order (and keep his job) then something is wrong. If there are plain clothes officers able to leap out of the crowd to protect, what? Why were there plain clothes officers among the crowd NOT preventing vandalism of private property and their own police vehicles?

Why?

We know that police are sometimes ordered to commit the very acts forbidden by law. We know that police have broken the law so to twist public perception of otherwise peaceful protests because THEY HAVE PUBLICLY ADMITTED doing so. It is also very likely that an inquiry could reveal similar tactics used during the G20.

What is wrong with this? A group of well trained, capable individuals, sworn to uphold the law and protect the people used against the very people they are trusted to protect is a breach of that trust. Orders were passed down through subterfuge, obfuscated behind veils of lies.

And 99 of them know it's wrong.



...
http://videosift.com/video/Police-admit-they-went-undercover-at-Montebello-protest

http://videosift.com/video/Provocateurs-stopped-at-SPP

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19928
>> ^Pprt:

Next time you see cops blocking a crime scene or an accident.. go ahead and give them a hard time. Tell them how it's your right to walk right up to a dead body or a smashed car.
No? Why not?
Because you understand that sometimes the police are there for a reason and you respect that. Why would this event be any different?>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Pprt:
Bunch of unemployed losers determined to get into confrontations with cops and then get what they ask for... Outrageous!

Shut the fuck up you piece of shit. You don't say the same about people throwing Tea into the Boston Harbor do you?

It's interesting that you hate government, yet love your political party, while I like government and hate my political party.

A misconception my friend, no doubt fueled by my own words at times. Limited government that protects rights (and private property, which is the cornerstone of liberty) is vital and necessary. I love guv when it works and stays in its playpen. We don't have to have daily gladiatorial combat for food and gasoline.

It's all the rest of guv that annoys me. To me the State will always be, "the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." The bigger the government the smaller the citizen.

Re this sift: there is a level of practicality involved in these events. It could just as easily been Ron Paul speaking, so it's not necessarily Hillary Clinton's fault. However, she saw the whole thing and said nothing, whereas Paul might have protested the treatment. Even Obama may have acted in a more practical manner than just ignoring it. It was just Hillary's "bad luck" she was talking about the right to peacefully protest as this poor fellow was roughly carted off for that very act.

As for political parties, I'm aligned with the one closest to my beliefs that also has a measurable impact. As much as I admire libertarianism, the Libertarian Party (LP) remains a barely-known, misunderstood micro-entity. There's a reason the Pauls are Republicans and not card-carrying LPers, and I salute them for it. Change in the major parties comes from within.

Up until FDR, both major parties understood the meaning and intent of the Constitution. You could argue that 25% unemployment was a national emergency in the 1930s and justify some of FDR's actions. But most of what he started is still with us today.

After FDR, only one party even "pretended" to follow the Constitution, the other abandoned it for rule by men (or popularity) instead of by law.

From my perch, you hate the 'Crats (??) because they're not left-wing enough. Am I correct?

What part of this predicts the future?.. When did farmers lose the right to vote? What about the banning of private property? Is it illegal to strike in America? I'll concede some politicians sound like a broken record.
Also isn't capitalism an 'ism?

The idiots at freedomain couldn't answer my questions and blocked me. I'm guest_14d3.

[20:20:52] Guest_14d3:
Had a question about anarchy. Any takers?
[20:21:42] Noesis to Guest_14d3:
I'm at least willing to listen.
[20:22:09] Guest_14d3:
How is an anarchy enacted or enforced?
[20:22:38] Guest_14d3:
What's to stop corporations from swooping in and taking control?
[20:22:41] aelephant:
Anarchy is enacted and enforced voluntarily.
[20:22:48] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
corporations
[20:22:51] Noesis to Guest_14d3:
So you haven't listened to Stefan's podcasts, or watched his videos, or read his books, then?
[20:22:54] aelephant:
De-centralization of authority.
[20:22:57] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
are legal fictions created and maintained by governments
[20:23:25] aelephant:
What's to stop you from punching me? I might punch you back.
[20:24:07] Guest_14d3:
Say a corporation comes and takes your property? Who is to stop them?
[20:24:23] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
who is to stop them now lol
[20:24:25] aelephant:
You could arm yourself and practice self-defense.
[20:24:34] Guest_14d3:
The state stops them now.
[20:24:39] aelephant:
You could hire out your self-defense to a protection agency.
[20:24:40] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
my property would be covered with land mines
[20:24:51] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
corporations are created by governments
[20:24:52] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
and preferably id like to have a gatling gun
[20:24:57] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
But who stops the government from taking your property?
[20:25:14] senorbuzco to aelephant:
IMMINENT DOMAIN
[20:25:22] Guest_14d3:
The corporation hires blackwater to demine your home and disable your weaponry. What do you do now?
[20:25:58] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
sooooo how is this different from right now?
[20:26:02] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
where is the cooperation getting fiunding for this?
[20:26:16] Guest_14d3:
The state protects private property. Are you unaware of this?
[20:26:19] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
Why is the corporation willing to pay Blackwater so much to demine my home and disable my weaponry (at considerable threat to their own life and limb)?
[20:26:45] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
The state has no duty to protect. Are you unaware of this?
[20:26:51] Guest_14d3:
Also, if your contention is that your system offers no benefit over the current one, then why are you pushing for it?
Sam left this room.
[20:27:03] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
you're basically saying "once you replace government with government, what happens?"
[20:27:15] Guest_14d3:
The state protects private property. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.
[20:27:28] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
That is not what the courts have ruled.
[20:27:33] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
ever heard of imminent domain
[20:27:35] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
or taxes
[20:27:42] Guest_14d3:
How is anarchy enforced. What is to stop the super rich from taking control?
[20:27:52] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
D.C.'s highest court [said] that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."
[20:27:55] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
the super rich USE THE STATE to take control
[20:27:57] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
because they'd go broke
[20:28:30] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html
[20:28:41] Guest_14d3:
True, the Rich use the state, but only because they are forced to. Without the state as a middle man, their power would be limitless.
[20:29:04] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
Not at all. The State makes the wealth of the rich much more powerful than it otherwise would be.
[20:29:28] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
whoa, i never thought of it like that before
[20:29:29] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
In an anarchic society $100,000 buys you $100,000 worth of goods
[20:29:35] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
i have to rethink this whole anarchy thing
[20:29:44] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
In a Statist society, $100,000 might buy you a politician
[20:29:48] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
you're making great points
[20:29:51] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
and all of the power that comes along with that
[20:30:43] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
read this brah: praxeology.net/invisible-hands-and-incantations.pdf
[20:30:59] Guest_14d3:
Not at all? You have no idea how things would play out in an anarchy?
[20:31:27] Guest_14d3:
So, say Capitalcorp takes your land by force. What do you do?
[20:31:49] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
whose paying capitalcorp money?
[20:31:56] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
who's*
[20:31:59] Guest_14d3:
Customers.
[20:32:03] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
why?
[20:32:10] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
Why would Capitalcorp take my land by force? I will kill any Capitalcorp agents who come onto my property with the intent of seizing it.
[20:32:36] Guest_14d3:
Capital corp has a private army and they murder you and your family and take your land. What happens then?
[20:32:46] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
game over
[20:32:51] Guest_14d3:
Exactly.
[20:32:56] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
they get to the final level
[20:33:16] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
they beat the world
[20:33:42] Guest_14d3:
They beat the world, indeed.
[20:33:55] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
why would Capitalcorps army be willing to put their life and limb on the line to take my property?
[20:34:25] Guest_14d3:
Because it sits atop some kind of valuable natural resource.
[20:34:38] Guest_14d3:
You are dancing around the question.
[20:34:58] Guest_14d3:
Who is to stop them from taking your land and killing your family?
[20:35:10] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
remeber when i said that corporations are created and maintained by governments, and then you ignored that forever
[20:35:23] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
cuz i do
[20:35:28] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
who's to stop me from taking your land right now and killing your family?
[20:35:37] Guest_14d3:
So, corporations would 'voluntarily' disband?
[20:35:43] Guest_14d3:
I don't get your point.
[20:35:55] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
WHY DO COPROATIONS EXSIST AND HAVE POWER
[20:35:56] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
when companies dont provide a service they go broke
[20:35:57] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
THE FUCKING STATE
[20:36:11] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
THE STATE THAT TAXES ME
[20:36:17] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
AND GIVE IT TO CORPORATIONS
[20:36:19] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
AND THEIR BEHEST
Guest_1746 joined the room.
[20:37:04] Guest_14d3:
You don't think a large business could sustain itself without a government?
[20:37:07] Guest_14d3:
Why is that?
[20:37:29] Guest_14d3:
As long as they turn a profit, they can do as they please.
[20:37:32] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
Do yu listen to the fdr podcasts?
Guest_69fa joined the room.
[20:37:37] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
you*
[20:38:36] Guest_14d3:
What leads you to believe big business is not self sufficient?
[20:38:46] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
subsidies
[20:38:47] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
lol
[20:38:55] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
TAXES
[20:39:11] Guest_1746:
that doesnt make sense
[20:39:19] Guest_14d3:
How so?
[20:39:31] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
Do you listen to the fdr podcasts?
[20:39:48] Guest_14d3:
Exxon Mobile makes billions. They have a product that we cannot live without. They don't need the government to survive.
[20:39:58] Guest_14d3:
Not interested in the podcasts.
Guest_0f56 left this room.
[20:40:15] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
In that case, I'm blockin ya
[20:40:20] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
Show ya how anarchy works
[20:40:21] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
Bye
[20:40:29] Guest_14d3:
put your fingers in your ears.
[20:40:47] Guest_14d3:
Wouldn't want to question your pre conceived notions.

>> ^Psychologic:

True enough, but if someone is determined to kill/injure others then I feel like they could do more damage with a vehicle than with a pistol and large clip.

I'm not so sure about that. You can hear a car coming, and get out of the way if you react fast enough. Getting inside a building pretty much immunizes you from random acts of vehicular homicide.

It's true that people intent on murder will not be deterred by laws, but it's also true that if you make them resort to lesser tools of killing, they will have a harder time doing the same amount of damage.

>> ^Psychologic:
I can see an argument for restriction of guns on public property (we already restrict who can drive on public property), but I'm not sure I want clip size restrictions for private property. Of course I don't live in a major city, so what I find "reasonable" could be a function of local population density.


I guess I have the reverse view after this Tuscon incident. Loughtner was stopped when he went to reload. He had a 31 round extended clip, and if he'd only had the 9 or 10 in a normal clip, he would have been able to get off only a third of the shots before he was made vulnerable by the need to reload.

As O'Donnell said on another night, eventually the police reports will give us the shot order, and allow us to do the grim accounting of finding out who would still be alive if Loughtner had been forced to settle for a 10-round clip instead of a 31-round one. At that point, we can debate about whether the freedom to have extended clips was really worth the lives of the people killed by the bottom twenty bullets Loughtner fired.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Psychologic:
I wonder how many people die from those two things each year.

If by "two things" you mean cars and alcohol, the answer I'd give is that those are both pretty regulated as it is, and neither one is a purpose-built weapon.


True enough, but if someone is determined to kill/injure others then I feel like they could do more damage with a vehicle than with a pistol and large clip.

I can see an argument for restriction of guns on public property (we already restrict who can drive on public property), but I'm not sure I want clip size restrictions for private property. Of course I don't live in a major city, so what I find "reasonable" could be a function of local population density.

Seriously?
I didn't say I had issues with being filmed.
I said I had issues with organizations that don't take precautions and proper procedures to protect the footage they gather. If you are going to go to the extent as to gather video footage of people going about their personal lives, at least have the respect to keep it protected!

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Sagemind, if you don't want the mall filming you, don't go to the mall. If you don't want the gas station filming you, don't get gas. It's their private property, they can do as they please.

Sagemind, if you don't want the mall filming you, don't go to the mall. If you don't want the gas station filming you, don't get gas. It's their private property, they can do as they please.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^rottenseed:

How the fuck did he just rise from the behind the reporter?


The reporter was on the bed of a truck (which was on the side of a road). The "fuck" guy then proceeded to attack the camera man and break his wrist. Somehow this makes him an Internet legend

>> ^rottenseed:

How the fuck did he just rise from the behind the reporter?


Did you mean "from behind the reporter" or "from the behind of the reporter"? Makes a difference.