@ChaosEngine

i think you fell into the same trap that bc did i.e:only one flavor of anarchy and that simply is an untruth.

i also think you are aware that on some issues we are in total agreement.

what i find most interesting is that latter part of your comment actually makes an argument FOR an anarchal system.all the things you listed that you hate,well..im right there with ya and so is the majority of not just your and my respective countries,but globally!

anarchy has worked but usually on smaller scales and there are certain criteria that most people are unwilling to meet.
for anarchy to work there must be:
an informed citizenry.
and a citizenry that participates.

which is a tall order here in america.

another problem is that societies will build structures that will become institutions that will become sensitive to corruption.that governments will eventually become bloated beasts that seek to only perpetuate its own continued existence,at the cost of the people and the virtues they have tried to uphold.

this we see playing out all over america and europe.

the anarchist realizes that the TRUE power in a society is NOT the government but rather the very people in that society.if that government no longer serves the people then it must be dismantled,on morals grounds alone this is the right thing to do.

in an anarchal society the corporation could not and would not exist.they would go back to being temporary business alliances in order to complete an assigned project and then disbursed.

in an anarchal society the federal reserve would lose its charter.

in an anarchal society,if a company wanted to move its plant over-seas and would leave thousands un-employed,effectively destroying that community.they would first have to seek permission from that township and/or sell the plant to the town in order to change base of operations.

in an anarchal system,there would be no war on drugs.no criminalizing the poor.no war on terror or wars of aggression.

in an anarchal system there would be no surveillance state,nor system of controlled indoctrination because that would be anathema to the very goals of an anarchic system.

look,the argument is always,and i mean always:power vs powerlessness.

anarchy is about power to the people in its purest form.
and i hold zero illusions that it may be remotely perfect but if i have to choose..i will always choose YOU over some wealthy elite power broker.

water wouldn't be left behind if it started at top and worked down.. perpetual diarrhea.

Guards have the power to make it what they wish. Inmates do not. The guards choose to make it gross, dehumanizing, and worse. We should NOT feel sad or understanding for them, as they did it to themselves intentionally. Feel sad for the one's with 0 power to control the situation, less and less control over their own actions and surroundings, and the one's that are the victims of the system they didn't set up, not the one's perpetrating and perpetuating the one sided system set up to punish and control rather than correct and re-habilitate. Not the one's that lobby to create MORE prisoners for smaller and smaller crimes, including the crime of poverty.
BTW....boring is NOT more humane in most cases. Lack of stimulation leads to psychosis, behavior problems, and does absolutely nothing to re-habilitate. "Idle hands are the devil's tools..." and such. Just look at any study of what happens to those in solitary, a normal 'boring' type of imprisonment today. You don't get well adjusted citizens from that, you get angry, violent, paranoid, psychotic people out of that....and they go right back in. It's perfect for the prisons, but not for anyone else. I think private prisons should have to pay back part of their 'fees' if a prisoner re-offends. (EDIT: or better yet, they should have to re-imprison them for free, since they failed the first time and 'created' the re-offender by not re-habilitating them. Guaranteed, it would change overnight if that was the case.) It means they failed completely in re-habilitation, a large part of what they're paid for, and so they should not be paid in full.
'Would rather live out west'?....as opposed to living in prison? Um...yeah, I think most people would choose that.

I don't understand why she doesn't do what most women (and men) who don't want to be approached (be it by men, women, panhandlers, whomever!) while walking through a city do, and wear earbuds??? It's a very simple solution and provides an easy and practical way of ignoring most of these attempts (if not dissuading them altogether).

Also.. This.

And:
"Let's all stop and focus our attention on "catcalling" women. Let's forget the drone bombings of entire cities, the fact that the US has 900 military bases in over 153 countries, the fact that you are almost 9 times more likely to be killed by a police employee than a terrorist....let's take a break from that and focus on the fact that sometimes men are creepy to pretty women."


And:

"The path to empowering women is not by disempowering men.
While many feminist campaigns and viral videos are great at expressing the (superficial) problem, they're not helping to solve it. Prolonging the "battle of the sexes" and "blame game" mentality will never stop rape, harassment, or abuse. All that's being done is expressing pain and anger, which is fine, unless it's directed at another. Attacking men for attacking women isn't going to solve anything.
We need to go so much deeper than this. So much deeper.
We don't need to see more proof of "how fucked up society is"; this only propagates stereotypes that induce resentment and fear. We need to see the power of compassion, love, forgiveness, healing, empathy, and acceptance between both sexes. We need to learn why people hurt other people (hint: it's because they're hurting themselves) and how to heal it and empathize with it.
We need women to open up and love in the face of men approaching, not shut down and run away. We need men to open up and love in the face of rejection, rather than becoming bitter or forcing our will upon another.
Unabashedly, I do not support or promote campaigns that are based in pain, resentment, anger, or fear, no matter how noble the cause. I wish to lift up both sexes – nay, all people – without perpetuating the pain and conflict.
This darkness has been illuminated out in the world, now it's time to illuminate the darkness within ourselves and heal it. What we see out in our culture is a reflection of how so many of us are unable to resolve the conflicts, rejection, and hurt caused by the masculine and feminine inside of us. We can not fix this by signing new laws or going out and trying to control everybody; we do this by starting the forgiveness and healing process within ourselves and going out into the world shining love instead of hate."

The inequities of white privilege perpetuated via historical and cultural oppression are required to be corrected via political/legal means.

Hand-in-hand with that is the concept that white people today must also be made to feel guilty for these historical wrongdoings.

I think most people would get my point...

I can't remember who said it, but I've always liked this quote:

Capitalism is a great engine for innovation, but it's a shitty way to have a just and fair society. (after googling, it seems lots of people have said something to that effect)

Capitalism is great, but it needs to be controlled.

I will disagree though. Voters have the power to make some huge changes The corporate world may have a huge influence over Gov't, but it's dependent on the populace not giving a damn and looking the other way.

There will come a point where people are pushed to a tipping point, then things will happen. Hopefully in a peaceful fashion. One way or another it will happen, because as Hedges already pointed out. Truly unrestricted capitalism will destroy itself.

The oligarchy is trying to create a modernized system of serfdom and perpetual debt. Give people the illusion of freedom, but they're really not. Every major life decision in the modern world usually involves going into significant debt and spending decades digging yourself out.

Want a good education? Gonna have to go into massive debt. Even if you're successful, it will take a long time to get out.

Want to get married? society says you have to have an expensive ring and go into debt for probably 30 years to get a house for your family. And you wonder why more and more people are flipping the bird to the "traditional family unit"

Want a decent car just so you can get around? Even more debt

Hope you never get divorced, because that's still more debt.

Hope you're lucky enough to not have a major accident or illness either. Yep, more debt.

I know a lot of people are able to successfully navigate these things and still come out ahead, but they're quickly becoming the exception, and not the rule. And it's often a question of luck, not of skill or smarts or being chosen of your preferred deity. blind stupid luck. So those that make it have no cause to look down their nose at those who didn't make it.

There is a reason feudalism system got thrown out. It's just been repackaged to fool people. When enough people realize it, it will be thrown off again.

"I'm so upset by the relentless state mandated murder of black Americans, that I'm actually somehow more angry and personally hurt about the implication that I may actually be complicit in perpetuating racism and racist attitudes, than the actual problem!"

Racism is institutional first and foremost. Come back to me when white people have a history as being treated as slaves, come back to me when you are considered dirty on mass just for the colour of your skin, come back to me when you struggle to find a job just about anywhere, come back to me when the picture printed of you in a newspaper is one that depicts you as a victim at fault.
Come back to me after you've sat your arse down and listened to the lived experiences of people of colour.
Then you might realise that white people don't have all the answers, and we should shut the fuck up, sit the hell down and listen.

As someone who claims to be a police officer you do a fine job of perpetuating the idea that it is not in fact hyperbole.

@ChaosEngine wins the internet. He's exactly right, it's not about the orientation, it's about the overt, explicit nature. No one wants to hear about someone's sexual adventures in mixed company, straight or gay.

Hollywood, loves to fall back to a definite gay stereotype though.

Glee was actually guilty of this in the the first few seasons. Kurt, the gay character had a crush on Finn, the straight character, and not only that, they were step brothers. Kurt practically stalked Finn and was downright harassing at times. Yet Finn was portrayed as the jerk for not being "more accepting"

It's ironic, TV and movies had a large role in making America more accepting of homosexuality, but they also perpetuate some shitty stereotypes too. News flash, not all homosexuals are flaming interior decorators.

Oh and ACTUAL homophobes? You're not that good looking. Gays are actually able to restrain themselves from raping you in broad daylight. Shocking, I know.

That just made me realize that "provocative" is entirely the wrong word; and our vocabulary about women's appearance is a big part of what perpetuates the problem. Provocative implies you're being deliberately provoked to some kind of action. But you're really not.

As a mature and respectful man it's fine to think to yourself "wow, that is a sexy outfit", and keep walking. There's a time an place to say that, just as there's a time and place to get touchy feely, but it's never on the street with strangers. You can control yourself, easily. And if you genuinely can't, going outside is probably not the best idea; there be ladies about.

Oh man...I feel bad you just went on an angry tirade because you saw what you wanted to read and NOT what I wrote.

Derp...I didn't say let's forget the civilians. I said...that "nobody blames INNOCENT civilians so let's move past that" (i.e. let's not assume anyone is blaming civilians, or at least...Im certainly not).

Derp...I said that equivalency is irrelevant not that there IS equivalency. I said that the problem is that there IS an equation. When there is an equation there is an automatic need to balance it which equals more deaths down the road. THE PROBLEM is that people are dying and it needs to stop.

Why does that make you angry senor Caps and Bold? Why is the statement that death is bad and it needs to stop a problem?

Without reading and understanding what I wrote you automatically categorized me as a "hardliner." Then to further 'discredit' me you took a visual trait (my red P) and further categorized me in order to mock my statements and garner public support against my statements.

Its scary how easy and subconscious it is to create a reviled OTHER, which is Ironic considering the issue.

Anyway.... My only central point is and has been that Hamas and the Israeli elite directing the conflict are both to blame...they are both perpetuating the conflict throughout the decades in the best ways they can.

Why does saying that they are both to blame for the violence make me a hardliner? For who exactly? For people who understand that taking sides is stupid. Yes. And why does it spawn such vitriolic responses?

How can you not blame Hamas....How can you not blame Israeli elites?

Killing needs to stop. Humanitarian issues need to be fixed. Simple. Wooo such a hardliner.

I don't know enough about the situation in Palestine, or what kinds of laws are imposed from outside there, but just hypothetically, I wonder: what if they renounced all initiation of violence altogether, and just dropped the push to set up their own state? What if, instead they declared their territories to be "state-free" and "tax free havens?" Maybe they could open some casinos a la Native Americans; and provide some tax-free banking; let tech giants set up tax-free research centers there without all of the immigration restrictions that seem to impose so many unnecessary challenges.. And what if, instead of waging war or attacking Israel, they simply used any military capabilities they had to set up private security firms, and secure their banking system, maybe provide some safe gold depositories? In a generation or two, the Israelis would see that they are the ones living in a prison/tax farm, not the Palestinians. I wonder if they could get away with it...


It's interesting to me how some folks tend to (more or less) "take sides" in defense of states (or would-be states) in conflicts like this one. As if states somehow had "rights" or as if states somehow represented "the people" within each state. That is simply, prima facie, false: For one thing, I think armed conflict on any sort of large scale inflicts violence against innocent parties on both sides; who, in their own rights, have reason to see the other side's violent acts as aggression (or at least as material threats to their human rights).

So I certainly agree that Israelis have a right not to have rockets coming at them, but it also seems to me that individual Palestinians have a right not to be collateral damage in Israel's bombings. Surely the hundreds who've lost family in Gaza have reason to be angry at Hamas, but you could see why they too would want to defend themselves.

The logic of war often leads to a situation where if you can defend one side fighting, you have to see why the other side would fight as well. And so we can condemn both sides, or sympathize with the innocent victims of both sides, but I don't see any simple formulation that shows why people who happen to live on one side of an arbitrary line have more of a "right" to respond violently to attacks that threaten their lives than the other side has.

The United States commits many forms of aggression quite frequently. In revenge, terrorists murdered innocent Americans on 9/11. Those Americans had a right not to be attacked and as Americans, we have a right to defend ourselves. But if tactics our government employs hurt third parties, doesn't it seem that the logic of collective self defense could easily be used to justify perpetual war?

None of what I say relies on any assumption that Hamas is any less criminal than the Israeli state. Even if it's much more criminal than the Israeli state, it seems to me that collective defense = perpetual war, because of the innocents on both sides who seem to have no way of striking against belligerents without violence that itself puts innocent people in harm's way.

No, instead the perpetuate a state sponsored version of history that says the palestinians willingly left their homes when Israel was founded, ignoring the terror campaign instituted that made them want to leave their homes, ignoring the hundreds of thousands that were literally forced out at gun point. Instead they force their children to participate in a generations long campaign of ethnic cleansing. Instead they relocate their families to settlements, thereby implicating them in war crimes. No, they don't use suicide bombers, they just use bombers. That way they can go back over and over again.

I'm not saying the Palestinians make good neighbours. I am saying that Israel makes for a horrible neighbour.

Australia for arguments sake, but your assumption that my post was about one upping the US is incorrect.

I find the situation sad when so many people are so poorly treated by a system and yet still perpetuate that system. You mention not being able to play a game due to a lack of freedom, but how is that an issue compared to not getting medical or dental care for a child? Access to life saving drugs without mortgaging not only your own future, but the future of your kids. Oh woo-fucking-hoo, you can buy the handful of games our censors knocked on the head, but you can't feed your homeless or pay your retired police/firefighters pensions. You can't guarantee a living wage for huge swathes of the population so a few people can have even larger money vaults. Your security apparatus crawls through your vaunted rights at will, and convinces the populace that the guy shining a light on just how undermined US freedom really is, is a traitor...

If all I was concerned about is feeling superior, I could stop right there, mission accomplished.

But it's not. It's fucking sick that so many people eek out shitty existences for the protection and perpetuation of a tiny portion of the population. Feudalism at least was honest, you were born in the dirt and you died in the dirt.

American's are, from my experience, just people like everyone else. For the most part, wonderful people. I've met so many great people on my travels to the US. They deserve better, they fought and bled and worked for better. So how is it most never even get close?

It's not about who's better, or more fortunate, or who's national dick is collectively longer. It's about giving good people a fair chance rather than the so called 'representatives' conspiring to stack the game against them.

The results/consequences of the '03 invasion was predicted and understood from the get-go, but of course, "peace" was never an intended goal.. The "weapons of mass destruction" narrative that was sold to the American public, and the concomitant "unintended consequences" of a destabilized region is, in fact, a much-welcomed result by those who stand to benefit greatly from an entrenched perpetuation of a constant war and continued unrest: the crony contractors, the kleptocrats, the war profiteers, and the politicians whose very wealth is contingent upon the continued (mis)perception of power and control.

So long as there are citizens who remain convinced of the *lies and the impoverished 'patriots' who are willing to "die for a cause" (and have their deaths revered like martyrs: "NO THANKS for your service!"), there will always be a "market" for wasted "blood and treasure" which comes to the benefit of some and at the expense of everybody else.. .. for the foresseeable future and for many many generations to come... Amen.

EDIT: Wouldn't it be more efficient if Obama funded ISIS directly and cut out the middlemen? I guess doing so would require that the administration gives up its layer of plausible deniability.