Actually, 99% of human behavior is entirely anarchic. I make millions of large and small transactions with other humans on a daily basis which have absolutely zero government involvement, whatsoever. Billions of other people on the planet do the exact same thing. Daily. Government is a fiction by which some people live at the expense of everyone else.

Even Somalia, as you may have seen, grew and improved on almost all counts after the government collapsed, built more roads and infrastructure during its 20 years without government than it did with the government.

What we have now, with a centralized government, is (because people, let alone government, is far from omniscient) more of a "planned chaos," by which little to nothing is fully known as to the long term of effects of anything that the government imposes. At least, without government, we work within natural laws and an emergent order. Instead, what we have now is "positive laws" (imposed by governments) which regulate some people at the expense of the many, while benefiting a very few.

And I think you should learn your history before you suggest that "might-makes-right" argument has shaped the arc of civilization. One cannot make the honest case that government is not behind the worst, most egregious crimes against humanity known to man, with its ability to generate unlimited money to spend on mobilizing huge military empires so "the people's" proxy can drone foreigners to death, or lock them up in Guantanamo or anywhere else, or spy on all their communications, or make them all poor though inflation, or regulate their existence to the most minute detail, or provide them with bad healthcare or any number of other things that government can do.

Not me. I'm joining the billions of people throughout history (from the Puritans, to the American Revolutionaries, to the millions of emigrants via Ellis Island, to millions of refugees, to all those air lifted from Saigon, to all those Americans whose relatives fled from China, Korea, Vietnam, Iran, or anyplace where there's war, or famine, or economic devastation) who decided to opt out of government, and to voluntarily exit the charade.


"But, hey, if you like your government, you can keep it."

"Who is the judge of what is the right treatment?"

You're going to love this answer It is, of course.... the state, or more specifically the law.

I assume you believe that children are entitled to some protection under the law, regardless of what their parents believe? So really, we're not arguing over the principle... simply the extent.

Yes, at one point people thought slavery was fine and dandy, but eventually that was changed through legislation (it was kind of sad that some people were so ok with slavery they thought it was worth going to war for, but some people are idiots).

Now, there are issues today that I personally disagree with that may or may not be legal. Not providing your kids with medical treatment is a pretty easy one. Most people don't believe your rights as a parent extend to letting your child die because you thought Santa Claus would save them.

More difficult would be education. I am uncomfortable with the idea that parents can withhold information or outright lie to their children, but a lot of people seem fine with this.

On the more controversial end of the scale, I personally find it abhorrent that society tolerates the genital mutilation of infants in a weird combination of religion and misguided puritanism (btw this is not a slight on anyone circumcised, if you want to make that decision for yourself as an adult, go nuts).

Some of these things may change, some not. Some will come about through majority pressure, some through principled individuals making a moral argument that supercedes the tyranny of the majority.

But ultimately, yes, the community is the judge of what is acceptable practice when raising a child. It's not perfect, but it's a whole lot better than the alternative.

<grabs popcorn, waits for the self-righteous & puritanical to show up & comment>

well first off, I think to answer your first point. As with most things, there's a grain of truth to most scandals, but it's distorted, exaggerated and sensationalized.

But here's the thing, I freely acknowledge that I make no claim to understanding the whole topic and I call BS on most people who do. Because of the sorry state of our 4th estate. I assume there is some bias one way or the other in just about everything they report, especially when it's political. You don't trust gov't? I don't trust media. With gov't even people who are just ultimately seeking power, they're typically seeking power because they think they can wield it for good. even if they ultimately do bad things with it. No one wakes up and says "you know what? I'm going to totally use my power to fuck over some people, woo hoo!" Even the most crazed elected official deep down thinks they're trying to help out. or they honestly believe their ideas will ultimately benefit everyone.

meanwhile, with the media, it's just pure profit motive there. give me ratings, give me money.

as for your remaining arguments. I think the whole privacy issue is a bit hypocritical. Whenever you buy something with a credit card, that's a fingerprint that gets left behind that can track you. Whenever you use your smartphone GPS, that's something that can track you. Whenever you use the internet, there are a myriad of technologies all designed around tracking you. all for the sake of selling you something, to extract more money out of you.

..and we accept that, hell we demand it.

But when gov't does it, suddenly it's bad. But they're supposedly using that tracking to catch terrorists. So let's see, catching people who mean to do us harm, or ads and methods to extract money from you. I know which one I'd rather have. Sure, both types of surveillance could be abused, but one we tolerate, the other is not. I think that's rather hypocritical. either it's all bad, or it's not.

I also just tend to think our sense of privacy is exaggerated. (and no I felt this way even when Bush was in power). While I don't agree with the Patriot Act, I do think our fears of surveillance and are outdated and as I explained above, hypocritical. Just like virtually every tool, there are good positive uses for surveillance data, and the tool can be abused as well. That doesn't stop us from using it, we just try to put safeguards in place to try and reduce the incentive to use it for harm.

I think our sense of privacy comes from two things. Either we're doing something we shouldn't be doing..ie illegal or unethical, in that case tough shit. Or we're doing something that we consider embarrassing. In that case you're just being human and really shouldn't be embarrassed about it at all.

lets take two cases. First one: homosexuality. Lets say it was the 80s when most people were still quite firmly in the closet. and bam. because of no more privacy, everyone was instantly outed. no more hiding. Everyone knows. People would be forced to accept it. Even though they would be in the minority, there would be just too many people out to dismiss it anymore. You couldn't lock them up or ostracize them without committing holocaust-level atrocities.

Same thing with my 2nd case, marijuana. If it were suddenly possible to know each and every person who ever smoked. It would force the issue out in the open. You couldn't lock them all up as there would be too many. Even if you could, it would be a huge hit to our workforce and our families. We'd be forced to re-evaluate it and legalize it.

it would be impossible to commit physical abuse if there was no privacy.

In many ways, our views on sexuality and privacy are SO puritanical. In the long run things would be so better if we could just get it out there in the open and thus solve problems and help.

I get what you're saying about corruption and power. but historically speaking, ANY time there has been widespread corruption and abuse of power, it's always been stamped out in some way. It has to be. corruption and abuse of power are ultimately unsustainable and it eventually falls apart and gives way to something better that is sustainable. otherwise we wouldn't have survived this long.

If enough people are wronged, they WILL do something about it. If things were REALLY that bad here in America. There wouldn't be pundits talking about revolution and tyranny. There WOULD be revolution and tyranny.

Talk. is. cheap.

It's not that we are Puritanical. It is that the networks are afraid of losing market share.

It's all about the money.

I loved this show. I didn't really get Craigs warnings though. Is the USA really that puritanical?

Them damn puritans!

If the US wasn't so steeped in immature, hypocritical puritanism, the fact that two adults did sexy things in the WH would be a "thing" only between Bill, his wife and the intern (except if she was coerced/sexually assaulted, a different thing entirely). Instead, Bill felt he had to lie, and that's what most sensible people hold against him.

Hate to break this to you but @shatterdrose seems to have read his Marx while you seem to have watched too much FOX.

A 'Government' WILL ALWAYS EXIST in EVERY HUMAN SOCIETY and WILL CONSIST OF THE POWERFUL (in modern parlance read: WEALTHY). This is true of towns in deep Africa, or nations, or in the future- planets of billions.

The idea that government is, of itself, fundamentally corrupt, or has any other predefining characteristic is a point of PHILOSOPHY and NOT THE ONE YOU ARE PUSHING.

The government is REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNED NEGOTIATING WITH THE POWERFUL.

The elimination of private property is an extreme reaction predicted by Marx and others AS A RESPONSE TO THE EVER INCREASING SHARE GOING TO THE OFFSPRING OF THE WEALTHY.

In theory, chinless entitled inheritees push the situation so much the people turn to violence to reset the system. As a comic side note, this has happened regularly and bloodily in EVERY HUMAN SOCIETY WE HAVE A RECORD OF including the relatively comfortable European countries shortly before they gave birth to the US. (In fact the Puritans on the Mayflower executed the English King for corruption and briefly ruled but upon taking power banned parties, christmas presents, janet jacksons nipples etc and were rapidly kicked out with the monarchy reinstated..)

The modern social philosophers were contemplating how to avoid repeating history over and over. And by modern I mean the 195 year old man whose ideas you are publicly struggling with.

The size of government is IRRELEVANT. Its success or failure in negotiating on your behalf with THE POWERFUL WHO OWN YOU is all you should be concerned with.

Either you are a smart young Rockerfeller-Rothschild type playing clever PR, or the sort of loudmouth whose narcissism and stupidity has sold his family into neo-feudal servitude. Either way you should really shut up.

I find it unnecessary, in extremely bad taste, and trivialising, to make an "amusing" video about a subject which has had catastrophic consequences on so many children. I'm all for freedom of thought, speech, and expression. But what next, an amusing video on Hitler, and why he instigated the holocaust? I'm no puritan, but surely some subjects are not appropriate for comedy.

Seriously, both sexes like looking at beautiful woman. If you happen to not enjoy it, then I feel sorry for you. Sex sells, it will always sell -unless the puritans have their way. Ok, let's have fat ugly woman in tweed suits in adverts, that'll work..NOT. Incidentally, my daughter is a model. She enjoys it, makes plenty of money and knows it will not last (age, cellulite etc). Does she feel demeaned or exploited? Absolutely not.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Jinx:
I don't rly think Obama is as bad as Yogi thinks...

Cause you don't know anything.

Ur cute. :3
You might have an easier time making your argument if you didn't take/make everything quite so personal. Just a thought.

Yeah don't take the deaths of people you don't know so personally, it only matters when they're killing white people.


I respect your analysis and position Yogi but the fact is someone is going to be running the battle station. You have a binary choice here, do you think Romney will be BETTER at standing up to the Complex? Obamas probe droids are (from his POV at least) preferable to myopic & masochistic puritan invasions and total genocide.. imagine a standoff betwen nuclear fleets in the South China Sea.. who would you rather have calling the shots?

You make a fine point. I only wish we could be curious AND remove moral judgement about it all (so much of the gender classification talk falls into this trap it seems). Me? I'm more fascinated by how this guy thinks he's found the perfect mate....she/he could be a dolphin for all I care. I don't think I'm completely alone in that more singular fascination...it just somehow seems to be perverted by questions that don't really have any relevance to the subjects of such matters...the anatomy of his chosen partner is largely moot...to him it seems and to me. I was expressing a desire for it to become so for everyone else.

>> ^dag:

Unless we rewire our brains at a limbic level - I don't think we'll ever stop thinking and talking about this stuff - because it involves sexuality. That's what we're here for. We've evolved to find sex endlessly fascinating.>> ^bigbikeman:
shrug . Can't wait til nobody feels the need to figure it out. We're well past the point where prolific and abundant reproduction is a necessary part of our survival as a species...and....we have other problems.
They're happy with each other. Unless you want to drag some kind of puritanical/biblical morals into it, that's pretty much a wrap imho.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Unless we rewire our brains at a limbic level - I don't think we'll ever stop thinking and talking about this stuff - because it involves sexuality. That's what we're here for. We've evolved to find sex endlessly fascinating.>> ^bigbikeman:

shrug . Can't wait til nobody feels the need to figure it out. We're well past the point where prolific and abundant reproduction is a necessary part of our survival as a species...and....we have other problems.
They're happy with each other. Unless you want to drag some kind of puritanical/biblical morals into it, that's pretty much a wrap imho.

*shrug*. Can't wait til nobody feels the need to figure it out. We're well past the point where prolific and abundant reproduction is a necessary part of our survival as a species...and....we have other problems.

They're happy with each other. Unless you want to drag some kind of puritanical/biblical morals into it, that's pretty much a wrap imho.