well this devolved to a revolting state. I think I'll just go back to being speechless. might as well be at youtube with comments like this

let them revolt...It will just solidify everyone against racists like them. If they're dumb enough to attack then I've got no problem putting them down.

They've lost, they know it, so they know they're slowly going towards going out in a blaze of glory.

And yeah I'm ok with accelerating this timeframe.

Shiites and Alevites are not silent. Why do you think Sunnites hate them so much and take every opportunity to kill and oppress them?
But they are such a small minority, that they are simply silenced by the public in whatever way.

Look at the Arab Spring. All the Sunnis revolting was an act of democracy, freedom, etc, blah blah, but the revolts of Alevites and Shiites against Sunni monarchs, dictators (mostly installed and/or supported by the USA) were not mentioned much and quickly dealt with lots of violence. Even sport events were still held in those countries, after and WHILE they were slaying and oppressing their minorities that dont share their extreme views.

right. and what tries to stop corporations...or anything for that matter from encroaching on our civil liberties too much? Gov't.

What stops gov't from doing the same? People. People have a pretty good track record of stopping gov't that goes too far armed or not. Are people generally slow to react? sure...but they do eventually react to injustices. If gov't really did not rule by the consent of the governed, there would be heaps more unrest, There would be actual revolts happening on a semi frequent basis instead of just people threatening to revolt/secede for the sake of drama.

The problem is, we have a non-insignificant number of people who seem to honestly think corps should run everything, or at the very least, there should be little to no regulation. Like I said, right now, it's chaotic because we have far too many people who all want different things. Over time, we're going to see what works and what doesn't and things will generally settle down. bad ideas do eventually get thrown out and good ideas get implemented instead. Part of the problem is that we are in the middle of big technological changes that radically change how we live compared to even just 100 years ago. Again...chaos ensues when new things come up and it just takes time for people to figure it out, adapt, and accept change.

Honestly though, no one has yet to successfully explain how society without gov't...or amoral corporations works. who distinguishes between the amoral corps and the good ones? are there good corps in a non-statist view? if there are...then don't there have to be good gov'ts out there too? Or are we back to the viewpoint of all gov'ts are bad...but some corps are good...I don't see how you can objectively make that distinction. How do you prevent stuff from just devolving into "might makes right" no one seems to be able to answer that one. I think the human race as a whole has collectively decided that rule by force is not preferred. There are just too many people that would take advantage of and screw over other people. or are you honestly advocating a kill or be killed situation here? Again, I think people have decided as a whole that they don't want that.

There's just too much subjective viewpoints instead of objective ones.

I'm sorry, but you've got one heck of an uphill battle trying to convince people that gov't is inherently bad. Sure you've got a lot of loudmouths making a lot of noise about how they think gov't is corrupt, but that's a far cry from actually abandoning gov't. Lots of people bitch about gov't, but don't actually see a lot of people escaping it. We see it every election cycle "if so and so wins, I'm leaving the country" yet they never do.

regardless of what side of the aisle you sit on, for all the bluster and rhetoric most people would rather have gov't run by the party they don't like than have no gov't at all.

ok, so you have a peaceful revolt...




...then what?

saying you're pissed is easy. Saying there is a problem is easy.

But where is your solution to address these ills. How do you plan to stop it from happening again?

I find it interesting that you seem to imply that violence is a tool of a state. That's rather disingenuous, don't you think? As if the state is more predisposed to use violence than other groups? the state, like every organization, is made up of people. so if the state is violent, it's because people are violent and we really haven't solved that problem yet, have we. Violence is still part of the human condition and not an inherent part of the state...or playing video games, etc.

I would argue that many of the conflicts we are currently in are because of monied interests and their influence on gov't. remove that influence as I suggested and I'd wager that we've have a less violent gov't.

and I'm sorry, I must have missed something, but are you implying that Obama personally shut down Occupy Wall Street? gonna need you to provide a citation for that. Speaking for my city. The local occupy group was evicted from it's spot by our governor, a republican, but not that it matters because the whole Occupy movement was poorly thought out to begin with. very few people want to camp out 24/7 on with college hipsters and homeless people. It was just a badly implemented idea....period. It was one of the few times I genuinely agreed with our governor. While I might have agreed with Occupy's intentions, they were absolutely ineffective at conveying any meaningful message and an absolute nuisance to the area.

Bottom line, is that as that Japanese general alluded to, America is a sleeping giant. For all the rhetoric and for all these ills you have mentioned, the average American citizen is still largely insulated from it. American life has not fundamentally changed during the administration of Bush and/or Obama despite what the pundits on either side try to cry wolf about. Because we have an all-volunteer military, even the average american citizen is largely insulated from our wars as well.

When those things change, then maybe you'll see something happen.

And yes, I know my view is optimistic. But optimism works. Wasn't that long ago that many things we take for granted today was viewed as optimistic but niave or unrealistic.

"As I see it, there is a finite amount of money"

This is only true if cryptocurrencies like BitCoin have their way. According to the Fed, by contrast, an infinite amount of money is but just one click away...

Cronyism aside, this is not true at all:
"When one minimally productive person gets 50% of the capital in a project, it's impossible for anyone else to be compensated fairly."

No minimally productive person would get 50% in a free market. And "minimally productive" according to whom? Are you going by the Labor Theory of value? Because the Subjective Theory of Value posits otherwise. It shows that this could not happen (providing an absence of cronyism which, at the moment, is baked into the system). In other words, no one would voluntarily pay 50% of anything to someone they consider to be minimally productive. Would you?

Money is just a medium of exchange whose value is determined by the market. There are some scarce resources (as well as some non-scarce ones). Having limited money/medium of exchange makes prices go down. Wouldn't you want to pay less for gas, food, etc.? When the central banks inflate the currency (i.e., increase the money supply), there is potentially "unlimited" money to buy scarce goods. The market then makes prices rise as a result, making people effectively poorer.

"To say "much of the world is coming out of poverty" ignores reality. Perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty"

Flat wrong: Look at the statistics. Millions in India, China, Southeast Asia, and other places throughout the world have come out of poverty in the last couple of decades. This is a fact.

The ruling class is never among the poor so I don't know what you mean by, "perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty." What?

"This is usually not in spite of governments, but rather because of them."

Sure, it is mostly because of governments that such poverty takes so long to be eradicated. Corruption and stupid ideas like the "war on poverty," along with cronyism, currency inflation, commercial regulations, taxes, "intellectual property" laws, and more all contribute to this stupidity which keeps people poor. Throughout the history of civilization, only innovation and free commerce has brought people out of poverty on a larger scale.

I won't argue, however, against the idea that governments are always corrupt, since I completely agree. Nothing good comes out of government that could not come to us, more efficiently, more cheaply, and more effectively from private free commerce.

"Praxeology only shows what human behavior is like"

More or less, it shows the logic and the logical consequences of the fact that humans act.

"it is not an accurate predictor of behavior in an environmental hypothesis."

It depends on what you mean to predict. It is not prediction. It deals in apodictic certainties. Humans act and employ chosen means to achieve desired goals. These are certainties, not predictions. Other things are unknowns, like time preference, the means chosen, the goals desired, etc. and those you need to either predict (thymology) or wait and see (history).

"History is better, and when wealth inequality becomes so outrageous that the populace can't survive on what's left for them, they revolt."

So far yes, history would indicate this is a likely outcome or consequence, although you may need to look more closely at which sector of "the populace" has historically revolted or instigated revolt.

"I hope that this asshat (even if he's just pretending to be an asshat) is among the first ones hung, quartered, and force fed to his own family (like they did in France)"

What has he done to deserve being tortured and murdered? I am unclear about that. The revolution in France, of course, was a disaster that amounted to little good for all involved. But things like that have happened before, and could certainly happen again. Same with the Russian Revolution. Or the Nazi takeover of bankrupt Weimar Republic.

Human behavior cannot be predicted mathematically. Only econometricians seem to think so. Certainly not praxeologists! In fact, that's the basis of Misean praxeology: that you cannot predict human behavior and so economics differs from the natural sciences and requires a different method of analysis.

"that placates the Right Wing, right?"

I have no idea what would "placate the Right wing" or not. Let's not conflate right-wing statists with anarchists. Two completely different things. I also don't care what would "placate" the right wing.


If you really care about inequality, do what you can to oppose government policy, especially warmongering and central banking. They are the biggest contributors to the class divide, regardless of how you parse the data. (Of course, you may find that you can do very little.)

If you think you should be paid as much as the CEO of Apple, then by all means you should try applying to that job. I am not saying you are not worth it, but it's not me you have to convince...

It's funny you feel they are different things. As I see it, there is a finite amount of money, if one small group gets an unfair share (inequality) then the other groups MUST also get an unfair share. Equality (or to you, anti-inequality) means being paid in accordance with your production / productivity. When one minimally productive person gets 50% of the capital in a project, it's impossible for anyone else to be compensated fairly.
To say "much of the world is coming out of poverty" ignores reality. Perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty, but at the expense of the populace of MOST of the world which is falling deeper into it. This is usually not in spite of governments, but rather because of them. They have, in most part, become a heavy hand of the business world, bought and paid for with hundreds of millions in bribes (contributions) around the world. They then write laws, regulations, programs, and create loopholes that can only be advantageous to the rich and powerful while reducing the programs designed to fight poverty and force the payment of living wages.
Praxeology only shows what human behavior is like, it is not an accurate predictor of behavior in an environmental hypothesis. History is better, and when wealth inequality becomes so outrageous that the populace can't survive on what's left for them, they revolt. I hope that this asshat (even if he's just pretending to be an asshat) is among the first ones hung, quartered, and force fed to his own family (like they did in France) along with a large percentage of the unapologetic 1%, then the people can redistribute their wealth without government intervention, that placates the Right Wing, right?
FYI: Thymology is not a word in the dictionary...at least not yet. Praxeology is the study of human behavior. It is not yet at a point where it's an accurate predictor. Sorry, but I don't see a "Foundation" story starting here. (sifi where human behavior CAN be accurately predicted mathematically)

I'm no fan of Bush obviously, but the guy needs to tone down his hatred of Bush. It kinda undercuts his otherwise accurate message. He keeps talking about the contempt the rich has for the poor. Well...he's displaying that same contempt.

They keep referring to things like revolution and "coming storms" I don't think that's how change is going to occur. Back when people were ACTUAL slaves or maybe they were free but were starving to death. They pretty much had nothing to lose so I think it was actually easier for them to commit to change by violent means.

well...things are different now. We're not physical slaves, but you can argue that we're economic slaves. Even poor people usually aren't starving. food is cheap, at least shitty food is. It's a sort of gilded cage. So it's harder to get to that tipping point of committing to a "revolution"

I think he's wrong though, I think change will occur through democracy. It's just going to be extremely slow, extremely painful, and it's going to be a lot of setbacks along the way. I think there will be a lot of moments that will generate outrage. I just don't think there will ever be revolts as this guy describes unless the vote gets taken away and things get monumentally worse.

I just don't there will be any magic shortcuts to a fair and equitable society. Even if there was a revolt. what do the revolutionaries do to make things better? It's relatively easy to revolt, but if you win, then the real work begins. It's easy being an armchair general, but when you actually do have to make decisions that affect thousands, if not millions of people, It's not that easy.

I think the key thing is that there are just too many who don't actually agree with the founding fathers "that all men are created equal" If we actually believed in that idea. A lot of these injustices would not occur.

There is nothing positive about this video. And the high pitched squeals of excitement by the filmers is revolting.

Down vote if I could.

Revolution most certainly will not happen. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions worldwide, took to the streets to protest the activities of the economic rapists on Wall Street.

Net result? Rapists get their bonuses and carry on. Nothing changes.

So maybe we go all French Revolution, get the guillotines back out? Nope, the heavily militarised police forces and even the armed forces are owned by those paying the politicians. An armed revolt would be brutally shut down, because Terrorists.

Yep, we're fucked.

Basically @RFlagg I see it happening in one of two ways. If Republicans continue to lose elections, especially the white house, if the political fallout from the shutdown is large enough, the Republicans will lose congress as well. Republicans will either: 1) fade into history. or 2) Republicans will whip their low information voters into a frenzy, playing the tyranny card and eventually there *will* be an attempt at an armed revolt, but since it won't have any real popular support, it will fail relatively quickly but it will have the additional effect that Republicans will be blamed for any deaths caused by this revolt and there will be a huge exodus from the GOP and they will be ostracized from American society. They'll still exist of course, but they'll have the same relevance as the KKK, or the people who still think the world is flat and it's just a huge conspiracy.

2016 is going to be an important election, If Dems can still retain the white house for another 8 years, it's going to be another huge blow to the Republicans, especially when their last stated singular goal was to make Obama a 1 term president and failed.

and quite honestly, I'm not sure it will happen like I was sure Obama would get re-elected. Hilary just...shouldn't run IMO, her time is past. Elizabeth Warren would have a good shot at it. But I also think Dems need to find a new voice. Someone who, like Obama, who actually did embrace the internet and social media and used it very much to his advantage.

If you win the internet, you win the vote. They've got to keep the pressure up. Quite honestly, the 2008 and 2012 elections were easy, It was easy to get the left riled up when clueless Sarah Palin or Robot Romney were running. But I suspect the right will eventually learn from their mistake and run someone who actually is semi-relatable

I just think it's very likely Dems will get cocky and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again. So.....don't get cocky kid.

Revolting.

People should actively revolt against pigs

if there ever is a civil war or a revolution it won't be against the government or a race war or some other bullshit, it will be people finally having enough of this god complex law enforcement and the people will turn against them. Start lining pigs up and executing or tasing their ass in public and making them squeal like the pigs they are in mass across the country will be only way to change things

peaceful protest does nothing but get people beat by police in riot gear

Last 10 or so presidents...interchangeable parts of an erector set of nefarious design. Voting is ineffectual and folks are too exhausted or brain-dead to revolt. Act of nature or alien invasion, only 2 events that will turn the police-planet around...or a plague-Problem with a plague is that it would most-likely be engineered by the same assholes.

If his rights were being violated, why didn't he pull out his gun and defend them AS IT IS WRITTEN? That's where the 2nd amendment fails IMO...or at the very least, that's where people fail. We hear the hard liners whining non-stop that they think they live in a tyrannical gov't (despite being elected by the people) Where are the revolts then? Where are the 2nd Amendment remedies? In other words, put your money where your mouth is. Talk is cheap. Where is that willingness to kill and to die in order to preserve liberty? Or are you just talking the talk but when push comes to shove, even the hardliners accept that they don't know what actual tyranny is.

In all honesty though, the audio was so shitty I didn't hear the specific exchange that got the official so pissed off. It seemed like he was being kicked out simply because he was getting too loud or he mouthed back to the official. So yeah, I can agree that he probably didn't deserve to be kicked out. Was it an offense? yep. But it was a trivial offense and BOTH sides should have handled it better. It seemed awful petty of the official for that one thing to set him off. But hey, the activist should have been on his best behavior too. You're representing other people, so represent them well. You don't have to like the person in office, but respect the office nonetheless.

Just seemed like both sides were being childish. Yay two party system!