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.

Who tells Enron or Blackwater they have to disburse? Who enforces this?

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.

Again, what's stopping them? In fact, what stops a company from cutting down a massive forest or polluting a river?

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

Maybe, but it would simply be replaced by something even worse.

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.

And that's why I believe in a representative democracy. To me there are only a few ways the world can work:
- there's what I would call historical anarchy, where there was nothing to stop groups of the powerful banding together to oppress the weak. This has been the default position for most of human history.
- there's small scale communal anarchy, where people live in small communities. It's possible for this to work, but some bright spark usually figures out that these people are easy pickings for oppression (see above). Even if that doesn't happen, it's incredibly limiting. All of our greatest achievements only happen with cooperation on a large scale. If we're ever to get off this rock and see what's out there, it's not going to happen with hippie communes.
- representative democracy. It's ugly, inefficient, susceptible to corruption, open to pointless "moral crusades" and can be heartless and bureaucratic. And it's still the best system we have....

Churchill really wasn't kidding when he said "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"

@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.

I used to think like this, but then I finished high school.

Seriously, anarchy is a lovely ideal. Everyone lives in peace and harmony and no-one is tramping anyone elses rights. When a job needs doing, we find someone willing to do it and compensate them (preferably with a barter system or something).

One minor problem though..

IT

DOESN'T

FUCKING

WORK.

We don't live in some kind of post-scarcity utopia. I wish we did, but that is simply not the reality of human society or history. Anarchists and libertarians seem to think that anyone who disagrees with them loves government and simply can't wait to pour their hard earned money in a military industrial complex.

I don't know anyone like that. I don't like my government, and I sure as hell don't like yours. I don't mind paying for hospitals and roads and welfare (and yeah, I don't even really give a fuck about "welfare queens" or "dole bludgers" or other mythical right wing beasties), but I fucking hate the idea that my money goes to fund the pointless "war on drugs" or on mass surveillance.

But I recognise that for all its ills, the system (for the most part) works. People today have a higher standard of living, live longer, and have more rights than at any other time in history. Some of that is down to science; some of it is because of private innovation and some of it is simply that we have changed the way our societies run through elections, etc.

What I do know is that when government becomes beholden to private interests (lobbyists in the USA) shit goes bad. But the solution to that is not to allow powerful people even more leeway to fuck over the weak.

I think you know that the police have fought to keep those numbers from being kept at all. There is no national database that has numbers on innocent people shot by cops. I saw a news story about that just last week.
Cops aren't doctors. If a cop does their job properly and conscientiously, people don't often still die as a result. The same can't be said for Doctors. Also, Doctors don't break into your home and force surgery on you....EVER! ;-)
What the numbers DO clearly and definitively say is, in a meeting between a cop and a citizen, the cop is more than 10 times more likely to kill the citizen than the citizen is to kill the cop. That's outrageous under any circumstance.

Bluffing=lying. Respectfully, since you are now an admitted liar, how can you be trusted about anything?

I wish police would consider that before 'bluffing' citizens out of their rights, often by pretending they don't have any and hoping the citizen will follow what SEEMS like a 'legal command', but is really carefully worded to be a 'forceful request' that only sounds like a command.
Once you've 'bluffed' once, you are untrustworthy for life. Because so many (if not all) police 'bluff' remorselessly, shamelessly, and consistently, most people rightly don't trust ANY of them about anything.

I would prefer to buy my grass at the weed store in full daylight, legally. Sadly, right wing insanity and left wing fecklessness continues to perpetrate the disastrous 'drug war', which is really a militarization of the police and a war on Americans, not a war on drugs...no drugs have been sentenced or fined, but many people are. It's because of this situation that the black market exists, and those in it must protect themselves, because they can't call the police for help. That puts us all in danger...for less than nothing in return.

Maher makes a good point. Liberals won't hesitate to shit all over Christianity but if you dare criticize Islam, you might as well be a Nazi, even though Islam is objectively more conservative than Christianity.

But then, hypocrisy is common amongst most liberals. They call for an end to the War on Drugs because of its lack of efficacy but then call for a War on Guns because apparently that would somehow be more effective..? Drugs, alcohol and tobacco cause far more death and suffering than guns but you'd be hard-pressed to find any liberal who would support banning them.

Where are the statistics that prove that gun control makes you safer? D.C. has very strict gun control and it has the highest crime rate in the country. Conversely, Vermont has very lax gun control and it has the lowest crime rate in the country. What this proves (at least in the U.S.) is that gun laws don't necessarily make any meaningful impact on crime rates. Even if guns were outright banned in every state, guns wouldn't magically disappear. Most gun-related crimes involve illegally-obtained guns anyway. If criminals can't obtain guns legally (which is already statistically unlikely), they'll just obtain them illegally.

In order for gun control to be effective, it would need to be rigidly enforced. The government would need to actively search for and confiscate/destroy every gun it could find and make sure that guns aren't smuggled into the country. The war on drugs has shown that such tactics are costly and ineffective.

If you want to reduce crime, reduce poverty. Unlike guns, poverty has a direct and irrefutable correlation with crime. A reduction in poverty is GUARANTEED to result in a reduction of crime.

so many components to this video. Trance's arguments may be worthless, but the video itself is great.

you have the class aspect. Here we are shown this nice upper class home of a hardworking man (which alone opens up the sub-argument of whether or not he really does work hard or does he just reap the benefits of his employees' work,) and we're supposed to feel bad because the police confiscated their house over something relatively trivial. Would you care if it was a lower class home? middle class? or would you just assume the lower class family are probably guilty and deserve it?

Then you got the whole war on drugs component, which is even more nuanced because heroin is a nasty drug which I would agree should remain illegal. But then weigh that against the idea that it was a trivial amount of heroin. Would you feel bad for the family if the son wasn't small time and had a couple grand worth in the house? how about a 100 grand? a million?

All completely separate from the police abuse and corruption issue that's already been discussed. This video is crazy dense with issues that need to be addressed

"Gun control" applies to those who abide by the law, not for those who enforce it. It never means disarming the state and its agents, or even the criminals who don't care about the law. "Gun control" simply means disarming law-abiding citizens, or minorities. In this way, "gun control" would be about as successful as the "war on drugs" (i.e., a poorly disguised anti-minority law). Alas, gun control advocates remain in the overwhelming minority in the U.S. and, if by some fluke, it were to pass at the Federal level, it would be the first regulation nullified by states, counties, and even local law enforcement agencies. Such is the futility of most legislative efforts of this kind.

Congratulations! Your video, This Is Your Home On The War On Drugs (Part 1), has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 10 Badge!

Your video, This Is Your Home On The War On Drugs (Part 2), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 18 Badge!

Your video, This Is Your Home On The War On Drugs (Part 1), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This Is Your Home On The War On Drugs (Part 2) has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims.

This Is Your Home On The War On Drugs (Part 1) has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims on that post.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/This-Is-Your-Home-On-The-War-On-Drugs-Part-2