You are also one of those who appreciates the ravings of Cenk Uygur and The Young Turks. There have been many times I planned to submit a TYT clip only to find it already posted by the eminent Mr. Fisk. Well played, sir!

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Princess Mononoke - Journey to the West - Eminence Orchestra. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

>> ^imstellar28:
NetRunner: I do not believe you are altruistic because in the absence of government taxation, you have stated that you would not be motivated to give to charity because there would be no tax benefit in doing so. In order to get "some of the goods" you are, however, more than happy to force taxation upon others in order to reap a portion of what they sow (free healthcare, free education, etc.) I would not label that altruism.

I was trying to be honest about donations, frankly. If I were "free" of taxes, it wouldn't amount to that much more in my pocket, and I'd probably have to spend that "extra" money on services to take up the slack left by the FDA, the EPA, and I'd probably stop trusting banks without the FDIC (especially right now). That's kinda beside the point though, because your general idea is to encourage people to be more selfish, and to eschew altruism, and calling me out for not being altruistic seems like it undermines your argument.

I do think I'm altruistic, if perhaps a bit lazy about it. I'm not voting for Obama because I need a tax cut or government health care (though I'd be happy to have them), it's because I want more people to get good educations, because I want torture to stop, I want the environment protected, and I want to know that those less fortunate than me can get health care too.

I think government can address those things on a scale far larger than my own personal donation can, so I'm pushing for a change in government. If McCain wins, I probably will be selfish again, and use my money to leave the country rather than try to take up the slack directly.

If I am forced to leave the country or enter into a "voluntary contract" thats not really a voluntary contract is it? If I do not enter into the "voluntary contract" of a SSN, I cannot fly on planes, have a bank account, or many other services. These restrictions are put into place by force, and are an initiation of violence. If I own land, I cannot freely fish or hunt on it without entering into a "voluntary contract" with the government. If I do, I will be put in jail. These examples, and more, are all initiations of violence by other individuals. On what authority can one person force another to leave the country or sign a "voluntary contract"? Remember, the government is not a real entity, it is a collection of individuals.

Well, believe it or not, but the United States government is a real entity, no matter how much you plug your ears and say "I can't hear you" to the rest of the world. It owns all of the land that comprises the United States (eminent domain), though it does enforce a form of property rights for private ownership on the condition that these owners agree to obey their laws.

You get a say in what the laws are, via free speech and your single vote for representatives locally and nationally. If you don't want fishing licenses to exist, you're going to have to convince people that their concerns about over-fishing aren't valid. Denying that the government lacks the authority to establish a requirement for fishing licenses won't convince anyone, because it quite clearly does -- derived from their mandate from the people (in my mind), or their ownership of the territory (in yours).

As to what gives you the right to make you chose between a contract and no contract, that's kinda the whole libertarian version of freedom, isn't it? Will you compel others to offer you a different contract against their will?

It's the same as coming into a restaurant -- there's an implicit voluntary contract that if you stay you will order food, and then you will pay for it. No one forces you to stay and eat, you're free to go elsewhere. If you stay and don't order food, they'll kick you out or call the police to do it for them. You can't squat on their property.

If the United States forced you to stay, that would be different. But we don't. You can leave and renounce your citizenship at will. No one compels you to stay, but the contract is that have to pay taxes and obey laws if you do.

Educated people who preach total deregulation are being willfully ignorant of externalities, monopolies, contract enforcement, copyright/patent enforcement, eminent domain, ignorance of most consumers, how little success in competition has to do with the price/quality of the product in many cases (advertising FTW), and how food labels could lie and get away with it.

Between two competitors in the same fixed market, advertising is basically a zero-sum game that wastes revenue and increases the price to consumers.

Pharma companies spend half their revenue on advertising to convince people to buy drugs that most of them don't need. If all the money were spent on research instead, all the drugs could be a lot cheaper. The US economy already produces much more than enough to satisfy the real needs of most people, and the rest of the economy revolves around brainwashing people into thinking they need things that they don't need through advertising.

You don't make money by providing the best or cheapest product to your customers, you make money by making them THINK that whether or not it involves actually doing it. Someone has to call advertisers on their bullshit. A typical corporate executive's only imperative is this: make a profit by any means necessary, even if it means lying to shareholders, customers, etc.

Most of the great advances in basic science did NOT come from anybody working for a company. Immediate get-rich schemes do not involve trying to understand the universe for the sake of understanding the universe. Newton was a professor, Darwin was an unemployed med school dropout who went with a ship captain to keep him company, Galileo was on state patronage, Einstein worked for the patent office, etc.

But I digress. The crux of the argument is externalities. Taxing negative externalizes and subsidizing positive externalizes are essential, as you'll see in any modern economics textbook. Otherwise we'd all kill each other with pollution and toxic waste, while neglecting to eradicate polio. If you've studied game theory at all (i.e. the prisoner's dilemma or the pollution game), you'll see that individual self interest often leads to an equilibrium that is bad for everybody. Government can adjust the payoff matrix so that the optimal (utilitarian) outcome is also an equilibrium for self-interested agents.

The reason private companies aren't mass-producing solar and wind power without subsidies is because it's still more expensive than oil and coal. Without government regulation, oil and coal would remain cheaper until we deplete the world's supply of oil and coal. If we deplete the world's entire supply of oil and coal, we'll breathe soot while Miami is underwater. Clinton's statement that massive amounts of wind/solar power would be in the interest of corporations only applies when governments tax fossil fuels or subsidize alternatives. The moral justification for taxation of negative externalities is basically the same as the moral justification for the government punishing somebody for beating up somebody else.

Bob Barr on the issues:

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/spending-economy/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/entitlement-programs/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/energy-policy/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/privacy-surveillance/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/iraq-war/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/foreign-intervention-foreign-bases/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/veterans/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/health-care/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/education-home-schooling/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/property-rights-eminent-domain/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/second-amendment/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/taxes/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/border-security-immigration/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/racism-equality/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/marriage/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/monetary-policy/

In reply to this comment by kulpims:
*promote

Thanks

People who decry a 'liberal media' miss one critical fact--while many members of the media seem to have liberal sensibilities, many have very large paychecks, and will report in whatever way that will guarantee that paycheck does not decrease. More often than not, it's to pump up the drama. They NEED this to be a horse race. 2004, with the eminently qualified but uncharismatic Kerry, was a non-starter for them. They indulged the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth just because it made Kerry a little more interesting, to the detriment of the truth itself. Whenever you're watching the news, and you hear the response to a question that should then elicit a, "What did you just say?" moment, know that whoever asked the question knows that clarification is not the friend of good drama.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it - Upton Sinclair

The manner in which the Republicans have been targeting Clark recently is a good indication that they really want to discredit and disqualify him from the VP position. After all, the only issue McCain has consistently polled ahead of Obama in, has been national security. Having an eminent, respected General as a VP would certainly stymie the perceived contrast of the Democratic ticket on this issue.

When it comes to video game genres, I don't discriminate, as long as there is more enjoyment than frustration to be had out of it. Currently playing : Ninja Gaiden DS (best action game for the DS by FAR, kudos to Team Ninja for pulling it off and making it look easy), Advance Wars: Days of Ruin (the pre-eminent turn-based strategy series, non-PC-wise and also for the DS), and Smash Bros. Brawl. My PC is in desperate need of an upgrade or flat-out replacement so I've been missing out on nearly everything post-TF2 though I still occasionally dabble in WoW. As far as past games go, many have already been mentioned above; you guys are gamers after my own heart!

I have browsed FORA quite a bit because I like to hear intelligent debate on subjects instead of a one-sided news story. It gives me a little more information from both sides to help build a base for an semi-educated opinion.

One of my strong passions is for personal liberty. With personal liberty comes personal responsiblity and personal rights - it's a group package in my mind. Being American has no doubt subjected me to countless years of conditioning of the great dream is to own your own house and land. (Of course being more aware, I know this is not strictly an American dream.) Eminent domain is needed for public function, but I've seen it abused (and then justified by the Supreme Court) to not build public projects, but buildings for private profit. I think that is wrong.

It's akin to picking on the unpopular kid in grade school. It's akin to police using the Patriot Act to spy on regular criminals when the entire basis of it was to catch terrorists. It's used because it shortcuts personal liberties. It is supposed to be hard to convict someone. That what protects personal liberties. In my experience when I bring this up, people will question if I don't want the criminals caught. WTF? Any functioning society needs rules and 'punishments' for those who break the rules. In every society there will be criminals. Period. Not every society will value or protect personal liberties though. Which is more important? On which side shall we error?

Well, I seemed to go off on a mini rant there. Have good day!

In reply to this comment by marinara:
In reply to this comment by curiousity:
Glad you enjoyed it. It's an issue that seems to whimper through the night unless it is your property they are taking.



I never thought I would be interested in eminent domain, but the video was exciting, perhaps it was the personality of the debaters?

I have a housing forclosure crisis playlist here on videosift, and I like CSPAN type stuff.

So do you just browse through the FORA website to find stuff? or what focused you on the eminent domain issue?

In reply to this comment by curiousity:
Glad you enjoyed it. It's an issue that seems to whimper through the night unless it is your property they are taking.



I never thought I would be interested in eminent domain, but the video was exciting, perhaps it was the personality of the debaters?

I have a housing forclosure crisis playlist here on videosift, and I like CSPAN type stuff.

So do you just browse through the FORA website to find stuff? or what focused you on the eminent domain issue?

Glad you enjoyed it. It's an issue that seems to whimper through the night unless it is your property they are taking.

Are you looking for more on eminent domain or more like this style of debate?
If it is stories on eminent domain, my first comment in that sift has links to two other sifts on eminent domain. If it is the style of debate, I'll let you know when I come across more.

In reply to this comment by marinara:
finally got the time to watch Cato Institute Debate: Property Rights(21st Century America)

if you get anymore like this let me know

Why did McCain feel different? Because Somalia happened under a Democratic administration, whereas Iraq is a huge mess *created* by the Republicans and the neo-conservative agenda. He needs the right-wing behind him to get elected, so of course he's going to pretend they're totally different.

In Somalia, which we entered as part of the UN in an attempt to ensure humanitarian relief (before we got into the nation-building aspect), we lost 43 soldiers, 29 of them in combat. (Reference: http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/Somalia/Somalia.htm)

To date in Iraq we have lost 3983 troops, 3258 in combat (3844 since "mission accomplished"). A war we entered into under false pretense, all for nation building, resources, and further meddling in the affairs of people who only hate us MORE and more the longer we stay. 9/11 didn't happen because people "hate our freedom", it happened because we've been shitting all over the region and its people for a very, very long time. It's time to get the rest of the civilized world on our side again, worry about ourselves, and leave the Middle East to govern itself. If the worry is that they'll somehow gather strength in the future and present an eminent danger to us, then we should be able to prove that and be able to face the threat with overwhelming force and *with* the support of our allies.

We're not winning any hearts and minds with our current approach.

Two other sifts about eminent domain that might interest you:

https://videosift.com/video/ReasonTV-Redevelopment-A-Tale-Of-Two-Cities

ReasonTV's Drew Carey compares Los Angeles's heavy handed approach by using eminent domain to give private land to private developers and Anaheim efforts to work cooperatively with the property owners without the threat of land seizure.


http://www.videosift.com/video/ReasonTV-National-City-Eminent-Domain-Gone-Wild

ReasonTV's Drew Carey visits National City, California where the city council pushes to use eminent domain to take private property in order to give to private developers to build new luxury condos.

Two other sifts about eminent domain that might interest you:

http://www.videosift.com/video/ReasonTV-National-City-Eminent-Domain-Gone-Wild

ReasonTV's Drew Carey visits National City, California where the city council pushes to use eminent domain to take private property in order to give to private developers to build new luxury condos.



http://www.videosift.com/video/Cato-Instutite-Debate-Property-Rights21st-Century-America

An 86-minutes Cato Institute debate about the June 2005 Supreme Court decision essentially allowing eminent domain to be used to take land from private owners and give it to other private owners instead of solely for public use.