"as an anarchist i believe all systems of authority and power to be illegitimate until proven otherwise."

I have a different take, in my preferred anarchism. The only one I see as functional, all voluntary hierarchies and authorities are perfectly legitimate. I am free to submit or not to any authority I choose to for my benefit and that is my legitimate right. Also private property owners have a legitimate authority over their property. I can do whatever I want with my property (without violating anyone else's self-ownership and property rights). And under the same conditions, I can legitimately enter into any agreements I want with anyone I want. That would be legitimate private property anarchy.

As of now, the government makes what is naturally legitimate, into something arbitrarily illegitimate, based on the whims of legislators and bureaucrats.

"the burden is on those who profess authority."

I understand what you are saying. And don't think the burden is on anyone. Do not initiate violence on anyone's person of property. Simple. That's it. There's nothing else to prove or not. If anything it is the "burden" to prove you own what you own, in cases of ownership disputes. For that, there is legal precedent on who has the burden of ownership proof etc.

"because even as an anarchist i have to recognize that there needs to be a system which keeps the hands on the scales that keeps the playing field even and the kids playing nice."

The only thing that can interfere and wreck a private property anarchy is aggression, i.e., the initiation of violence against anyone's person and/or property. To prevent that you have legal enforcement and arbitration services (courts). Just like now. Except that there wouldn't be a state monopoly over these. A private law society can work just as well or better than having a monopoly of law enforcement and courts. Monopolies are always inefficient and costly. Always. For any and all goods and services. No exceptions.

"these systems are for the people,by the people and run by the people."

There is not such thing as "the people," in any practical sense. Show me "the people" and I'll show you an abstraction. There are only individuals. "The people" cannot run anything. Even you and I disagree. How are we "the people?" (Furthermore, to have a truly non-violent society, individuals would have the choice as to whether or not to engage in agreements with other individuals. Unlike now, where people are forced into agreements by which "majorities" -- whether actual or rigged -- impose their will upon the minorities. That's what you call "democracy.")

"BUT..you stop there. are you implying that we have a free market now?"

No, we don't have a free market now. We have pockets in which free markets function, however.

"did you actually infer that america begot its wealth and power purely through free market exchanges?"

Yes, mostly it did.

"have you even been paying attention?"

What the fuck does that mean?

"corporate america has been exploiting third world countries for over a century!"

No, some corporations with the help of the US and/or foreign governments have been exploiting some people in third world countries, enriching those corporations and government officials in the US and mostly in third world countries. But this is what made these corporations and government officials wealthy, not what made America as a whole a wealthy nation. America is no longer a wealthy nation as a whole (particular companies are not "America"), but an indebted nation, because of things like these, which go hand in hand with military expenditures too. The average person profits nothing from these corporations and politicians exploiting third world (or any) countries. So no, this does not make America wealthy.

The free market, however (which this exploitation is not), did make America a wealthy nation with rapid economic improvement for the average person (with the regrettable exceptions of African and Native Americans).

"and our government has been the fist that punched the:exploitation,ruination and demise of those countries.hell thats the reason WHY they are third world!"

If you are arguing that the government has been responsible for all this evil, then you are preaching to the choir. Although I take issue with the idea that it is "our government." I don't own it, nor would I want to.

"its shameful and if thats your idea of a free market.
well..you can fucking keep it."

I don't think you have been paying attention, @enoch. No, I don't think we have a free market and you cannot have a free market if there is a government interfering with it. So I don't know what your, "you can fucking keep it," bullshit is about.

"you only seem to address one part of the equation.
or are you oblivious to the harm that corporate america has wrought for the past century?"

Corporate American is a corporatist system, kind of fascist if you want to get technical. It is a mix of private business with government-granted privilege. That is not a free market. Let me say it again, in case you missed it, a truly free market cannot exist while a government monopoly grants privilege to some businesses. That is crony-corporatism, fascism. A free market can only exist as market anarchy. Corporations exploit because of government privilege, be it granted by the US government/state or third world governments/states.

"who or what will keep that behemoth in check?"

Private law based on the rights to contracts and the right of freedom from aggression to person and/or property, enforced by a private legal enforcement system.

The state has not and will not "keep that behemoth in check" as you call it. In fact, the state is the "behemoth." It is absurd to expect the state to police itself. It has not and it will not. That plan is a failure. But "good luck with that."

(btw, I you want to know the real reasons third world countries are third world, particularly Latin America, I suggest you read Alvaro Vargas Llosa's well researched book, "Liberty For Latin America," and see how 500 of state intervention/abuse has led to the current situation. If you want to lecture me about why Latin America is "third world," you'd better do some more research first and really know your stuff. I am quite familiar with the situation there.)

"what do you think will happen when you take regulation off the table?"

When you take government-granted privilege off the table, things get better and corporations and (more importantly) governments cannot abuse individuals, as some corporations and virtually all governments now do. And you replace those privileges (euphemistically called "regulations") with laws based on non-aggression and enforcement of rights to self-ownership and property.

All "exploitation" comes from aggression. All of it.

Aggression means initiating violence. Without government support, no one can initiate violence without becoming a criminal. And criminals shall be dealt with accordingly. But as long as governments/states grant aggression privileges, then you have legalized crime.

"do you understand what feudalism actually is?"

Perhaps you'd like to restate this in a non-condescending way. If you have something to say about feudalism, then say it. Explain whatever you want to explain...

"we are living in what is now being called a "neo-feudalism" state."

I don't care to have a state, so you can take this complaint to the statists. (Good luck with that.)

"you point to the government but not to the invisible hand that owns it.which is corporate america"

"Corporate America" could do little harm if any, if it weren't for some corporations' use of government. Government serves no purpose other than to allow those who control it take from those who don't. The only solution to this is to not have that tool/weapon available to whomever takes control of it. Corporations don't own it. They just use it as much as possible (just like unions do, just like all sorts of special interest groups do, just like voting blocks do, and mostly just like politicians and bureaucrats do, and even citizens who "game" the system in one way or another).

"then again.i am a pretty crappy capitalist."

That likely makes you a "pretty crappy anarchist" too.
No offense intended.
Libertarian socialist kind of contradicts itself, does it not?
Take what you want from this message or not.
Good luck.

*fire, euphemistic and for the 4th of july

"You know things are bad when someone on the terror watch list...." Please Xiaelao, spare us the insulting terminology, no such fucking thing as terror.

No, you know things are bad when you have such a completely bullshit phraseology as "Terror Watch List", "terror alert level (insert color here), "no fly list", etc. The term "gun control" is being replaced in the U.S. media with the psycho-cyberdine phraseology, "gun safety", because these cunts are helpless to conceal their own fuck-ups.

...a few more that have become entrenched in the lexicon of acceptable terminology for verbal camouflage, friendly fire, collateral damage, and other euphemistic language designed to conceal reality....
It killed Carlin to watch it-"Poor people used to live in slums, now the economically disadvantaged occupy sub-standard housing in the inner cities."

Wool + Eyes = Pull

>> ^NaMeCaF:

>> ^Payback:
Sorry, the kids in my highschool had no where near this level of courage or compassion. Mutants.

The thing is, this is so unrealistic and over the top that no kids in any highschool would do this.


Well, I'm pretty sure they're going for melodrama, not reality, but I still have real doubts you could get any highschool anywhere to show enough backbone to even euphemistically achieve this.

No offense taken. It's part of maintaining the site.

'Just thought you would want to see the video since I found a new embed.

In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
Damn, I am sorry. I will never declare a video dead again without first attempting to fix it. Thank you for your good humor about my faux pas.(euphemistic)

Again, I am sorry.
In reply to this comment by dotdude:
Dead video replaced.

In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
*dead

Damn, I am sorry. I will never declare a video dead again without first attempting to fix it. Thank you for your good humor about my faux pas.(euphemistic)

Again, I am sorry.
In reply to this comment by dotdude:
Dead video replaced.

In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
*dead

Have you been to or around any public schools lately?

Mainstream urban US public education is more the antithesis of what you describe. Antisocial behavior is rampant. Team building and problem solving...for some, for the most part,... walk and look around the cities,...workplaces for that matter. Incapability and disfunction are too well represented. Public schools are, too often, holding pens and clearing houses. I know and have talked to a number of educators. I have known a number of others, even a few that were functionally illiterate in highly rated schools.

Unbelievable horror stories. The seventh largest school district in the US and high school classrooms with 35 to 40 seats and 70-80 students sharing 30 odd books. That qualifies as teamwork and problem solving. I have known university graduates that could not spell much less write a sentence or a paragraph. Functionally illiterate from a major university with BBA's and such.

Is it proposed that exposure to every manner of behavioral expression, to put it euphemistically, is necessary to prepare one for the personal and interpersonal demands of life? Is it a given that those homeschooled live in a vacuum? Who should be the arbiter(s) of one's progeny's social, ideological, etc., etc., exposure and orientation? Personally, I would welcome that there were viable, wholesome, comprehensive, competent....

As to the characterizations that religious zealots comprises the preponderance of homeschool parents, it is over done. People that have the means, fiscally and personally, to devote their lives for the duration of a child's education period to provide the best, most solid and grounded framework for their progeny's foundation of knowledge in this difficult life are to be respected...revered. It is a remarkable and largely selfless sacrifice.
>> ^RedSky:

I mean more the sense of character it develops, ie resolving conflict, standing your own ground, working in teams, basically the kind of attitude that allows you to survive in a dog eat dog world. You could say that being home schooled still allows you to socialise and develop these same skills, but compared to the kids who spend 6 and a half hours, 5 days a week doing it at the least, they'll still be at a disadvantage.

Yes! Loved Dungeon Keeper.

@radx - Imp slapping sounds euphemistic.

I have no doubt faith can be and is a powerful thing. I have seen and experienced so.

That being said...

Christianity, not alone in this either, is a faith based religion. Practice based religions, e.g., Gnosticism, the various Buddhisms, Hinduism, etc., are more accepting if not celebratory of knowledge. Is there any doubt where a devout Christiam places those so lost and deceived as to "practice" those ....

Faith, to Christians, and others, trumps knowledge, every time. That was seen to in Genesis. The Fall Of Man was it not? Knowledge severed the cord resulting in original sin blah blah blah.

Is it any wonder, therefore, that seeking to reproach a Christian on any grounds, knowledge based that is, is met with anything but righteous indignation, euphemistically and figuratively speaking.

As to this being rare, for whom? All too common for children in many parts of this country, be afraid, very afraid. When this was legislated in a number of states ten years ago, give and take, people to whom I spoke of this refused to believe it.

I am told it all has its place. Very hard to remember sometimes.

>> ^blankfist:

"Work for us or we'll kill you" is pretty bad. Do we have conclusive evidence of any US corporations using those sweatshops with prior knowledge? If so, then that's terrible. I say we should launch a persuasive campaign against that.
That aside, private or public, I'm not sure either are devoid of expressing "tyranny". Either there's anarchy where there's a huge chance of individuals (what you euphemistically call private) where people rule themselves. Or there's statism where a government (proven to yield fascism over time) that rules the government, and then there's minarchism that believes in people ruling themselves yet sees that fundamental necessity of government. [this example excludes divine rights and monarchism]
All of those are capable of tyranny. There's no foolproof system. They're all flawed. Show me a better system. Testicle's in your court.


Well, we've talked about Foxconn, which Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo and Dell have all admitted to using. There are small pockets of outrage in the press and public, but in general, I think most Americans (and our government) are OK with this kind of exploitation as long as it's done far away and as long as we get all the benefit.

I've heard you mention minarchism before and it sounds nice in the hypothetical, but how do you get the powerful to honor it and not just do as they please? I don't see any mechanism in anarchy or minarchy for suppressing private tyranny.

"Work for us or we'll kill you" is pretty bad. Do we have conclusive evidence of any US corporations using those sweatshops with prior knowledge? If so, then that's terrible. I say we should launch a persuasive campaign against that.

That aside, private or public, I'm not sure either are devoid of expressing "tyranny". Either there's anarchy where there's a huge chance of individuals (what you euphemistically call private) where people rule themselves. Or there's statism where a government (proven to yield fascism over time) that rules the government, and then there's minarchism that believes in people ruling themselves yet sees that fundamental necessity of government. [this example excludes divine rights and monarchism]

All of those are capable of tyranny. There's no foolproof system. They're all flawed. Show me a better system. Testicle's in your court.

I can't write for shit when I'm half cocked with four margaritas in me.

"Sorry, we are unable to stream this video. Please check your Internet connection and try again."

I'm guessing this is the euphemistic spin the PR department at Hulu has given to region blocking?

*blocked

I'd argue phrasing it "serving the public good" is an euphemistic way of placing a noble label to presumed safety through political coercion. Rarely do I see human government's purpose being that of service, but rather that of control and authority. I suppose by your logic, the Patriot Act should be considered a service to the public good, as well, as it was intended to supply us all with presumed safety at the cost of our liberty.

I don't believe there's a higher moral purpose than allowing every individual his or her self-evident freedom to choose for themselves. Your hyperbolic example of a person choosing between bankruptcy and "life and limb" confuses morality with fear.

You can find plenty more examples where fear can be used to scare people into surrendering their personal liberties and those of their neighbors, but where will it stop? After we nationalize health care, what will be next that will require us to give up our essential liberties?

Should be ban sidewalks because they're too close to the roads? What about compulsory exercise regiments for anyone weighing over two hundred pounds? Most people have an irrational fear of crimes committed after dark, so maybe a mandatory curfew on every citizen once the sun goes down?

*Begorra !
(Irish) Interjection. A mild minced oath; a euphemistic alteration of "by God!"

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

^Back in my day they were called "Sugar Frosted Flakes" No euphemistic cereal titles needed for my generation.

*humph.