Isn't there some sort of right-wing video site that you can post your nonsense to where the audience will appreciate it, form in a circle, and jerk each other off?

This new-age libertarian crap is about as stupid of an idea as I've ever come across. It's nothing more than hippie-esque "Give peace a chance" horseshit, without the excuse of being a drug burnout.

It really doesn't take much to recognize some commonalities in "government-less" places: Tribalism, Warlordism, Violence, and Death.

Wanna fuck with a libertarian?

1) Ask them if they owe society for anything.
2) Watch the instantaneous "no" fly from their lips.
3) Point out that thousands, maybe millions, of people have sacrificed themselves to their benefit.
4) Sit back and watch the squirm.

This reminded of the a scene in Always Sunny. S02E03, first 60 seconds. Dee and Dennis are the Libertarians.

Well, answering the second half of her questions is easy. Obviously all those things will be done by whatever warlord gains supremacy in the area. Unfortunately the same can't be said for the first half of her question. Many of those functions simply wouldn't be fulfilled.

wow...so many claims...but so little to back it up.

The biggest one is in the beginning where the woman builds up what a human being is, then dismisses gov't as if it's some sort of external alien enemy that's been forced on us.

But wait! What is gov't? Wasn't it built by....gasp! Human beings? The very thing this woman is building up as so awesome and able do stuff on it's own? A long long long time ago, a bunch of humans got together and saw the world around them and decided they needed some sort of regulating system and viola!

So what do you think would happen if gov't magically went away? Maybe the exact same thing? But this video makes the claim that gov't is bad. so maybe we should tell people they can't make a gov't. That would require some sort of..edict....or....law? But wait...who would enforce this law of no government? some sort of...government?

I've always loved those arguments based on the idea that our current system isn't perfect, therefore that is adequate justification for complete eradication of the current system and put something we know wouldn't work in it's place. You can't solve complex problems with simple solutions. That's hopefully the biggest thing society learns right now. Sarah Palin is the perfect example of that. So hopefully it's her example that will finally put the nail in the coffin in this idea that "folksy" simple solutions just don't work in a modern society.

But hey. If the non-statists are serious. They are obviously free to leave all these governments and leave it all behind and forge out on their own on some uninhabited island. Obviously they won't do that though.

They're too comfortable in our existing system despite it's flaws. How else are they going to blog their message using youtube unless they are in some sort of government controlled nation that has such technology cheaply available to its citizens? They're like the creationists that deny science, yet gladly use systems created by advanced science to spread their message and would never give up the benefits of said science.

I agree. Someday, people are going to figure out how to get along with each other without outside regulation. Someday gov't just simply won't have anything left to do. But that day is the day when we stop being human beings and become something else. Because right now, human beings are generally dicks to other human beings if they know they can get away with it. And we've decided we don't like it when human beings do dickish things to other human beings so we created a governing system to help deal with that. Sure it isn't perfect, but it's better than the alternative.

Aww, I thought this was going to be a parody at the start, but nope, just a young stupid person going through their political phase.

Related: http://videosift.com/video/Somalia-Libertarian-Paradise

Who's going to make all those outfits for her?

And jeez this poor girl needs a history lesson. I mean, even a very basic history lesson. Or facts. That would work too.

Ad hominem you guys sheesh.

As far as VoodooV, entities created by collections of humans become more than human. Like way more. So much so that we get amoral corporations that would rather wipe out the human race than not make a profit. It's like saying organs in your body are responsible for your decisions. So saying, "hey, governments are made of people" implies that we're getting what we deserve, which is not cool.
I would desperately want Anarchy myself, but odds are almost guaranteed that many warlords will pop up. But what is a warlord? The guy who is the most motivated, intelligent and least empathetic. Like our CEO's of now. That's how the corporations get amoral, they, like all collective entities created by humans, heavily reward amoral behavior.
So far my only answer is to not be so populated though. meh.

Citation needed. You're going to have to prove that amoral corporations are inherent to gov't. I'm sure there were bands of amoral people that roamed the countryside that predate gov't

Define "more than human" please

It's far more evident that problems we have as a society are because everyone has a different idea of how society should be governed. That's not amoral, that's different morals. Democracy is still relatively new historically-speaking so chaos is obviously going to be a byproduct of people disagreeing on how to govern. It wasn't that long ago we didn't have that problem. You either agreed with the person in charge or you got the hell out of there. It wasn't very fair or moral but it was far simpler. Guess what... Progress isn't smooth and easy

More than human meaning more than the sum of (human) parts. And I didn't say corps are inherent to governments, I just used the fact that they're a product of a collection of humans - like governments - and serve their own interests that more than likely don't coincide with the interests of their (human) parts.

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.

im no statist but this video is so childishly naive as to be laughable.

might as well call the free market jesus.

jesus is the way and the light.
follow jesus for salvation.
only jesus can absolve you of your sins.

this is about power.
if the libertarian is willing to acknowledge that the government is bloated and corrupt but unwilling to recognize the abuse of power wrought by corporations...because the corporation is part of the "free market"...they can end their sermon right there.

i am no longer interested.

if a libertarian preaches the importance of individual sovereignty and individual rights but dismisses that they are part of a community in a larger society.
they can proselytize at somebody elses door.

if a libertarian wishes to shower me with the glories of private property and ownership but ignore the importance and basic human dignity of the very workers who produce everything for those private owners.

then i say unto them that they wish to enslave their fellow man and the freedom they seek is for them alone and the rest of humanity be damned all in the name of profit and greed.

they can take their cult of ayn rand and masturbate somewhere else.

UNLESS....
they are willing to admit that:
1.as @VoodooV pointed out,we live in a society and a society is populated by PEOPLE.

2.that people deserve more than just the right to trade freely (which i agree with) but that human dignity and compassion,and yes..the right for life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

3.that the corporation is actually MORE vicious than a government.a corporation is amoral by design! so if we are going to address the abusive powers of government,the abuses of corporations should be recognized as well.

4.the argument that corporations would not exist without governments is a canard.that may have been true in 1910 but no longer.there are corporations that have a higher GDP than most nation states.

5.the argument that governments start wars are only half-truths.can you guess what the other half is? thats right! banks and corporations using their power and influence to oppress third world nations...through the use (or abuse to be more accurate) of this nations military.see:smedley butler.

6.while a non-state would be amazing i am not naive enough to believe it could ever happen in our lifetime.yes many arbitrary borders have been penned by empires but there will always be lines drawn by cultural,religious and ethnicity..lets be honest.

7.while i do not share voodoos optimism in this democratic representative republics current health status (i feel it is broken and dysfunctional),it is a FAR better thing than the authoritarian,totalitarian system that is the american corporation.unless they went all democratic on me and i didnt get the memo.

8.government does have a role in our society,though it should be limited.
defense (not illegal and pre-emptive wars of aggression).
fraud control and law enforcement.
roads,fire,police,education and health,because thats what a society does for each other.
we take care of each other.
you dont like that? move to the mountains..have fun!

9.the corporate charter should be re-written."for the public good" should be re-instated for one thing.
a.i was talking to a libertarian and he used the term "non-aggression" and i really REALLY liked this.so a corporation will be held responsible for any and all:destruction to the ecology (local and abroad),destruction of peoples health,home and property.externalization of any sort will be seen as "aggression" and the CEO and all officers will be held liable to be paid by:dissillusion of company of jail time,they can choose.
b.a corporation is NOT a person and ZERO funds will be drawn from company money to purchase a legislator.they may spend as much money as they wish from their own personal accounts,but ALL contributions shall be made public over a certain amount.
c.any corporation that has been found to pay their workers so little as to put the burden on the tax payer shall be found performing an "aggressive" act against the american people and shall either pay the amount in full or forfeit their company.

dammit.im rambling ...again.
but oh baby am i digging this non-aggression dealio!

can i rewrite the corporate charter?
please please please please.....

*promote the discussion

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, February 6th, 2014 4:42pm PST - promote requested by enoch.

Libertarians are like Creationists it seems.

"Over time, we're going to see what works and what doesn't and things will generally settle down"
Illusion and fantasy...total confabulation.

A government is a simple creation really, it uses force to achieve the end goal which is control, not unlike a rapist or a thief-The antithesis of liberty in the example of say, the American government works because force is used by an immoral core of liars and thieves to achieve goals that benefit the few rather than the whole of society. Examples of just how fucked things are at face value VooDooV, why bother to cite the examples that are glaringly obvious to anyone who at their core, is a moral and free individual...pointless and insulting to anyone who can think.

Mind you, infrastructure and social safety nets enhance freedom, but what should the end-goal be? To enhance the moral framework of a society, which has surely not been done so far with the American form of government, on the contrary, we see the fabric of what makes a society prosper and maintain a fairness for all being eroded to serve the interests of a few, through force and control...through civil liberties being chipped-away at through surveillance and more prisons, more laws, more fines and punishments for more people, etc. Deficit spending pays debt forward to further enslave the recipients of services like roads and social welfare programs, higher education, etc. The freedom to make poor choices at a micro and macro level is what the current government is all about, getting worse every year.

Urban sprawl will continue as folks with pipe-dreams tout more green, less energy usage, cleaner burning cars and factories, etc. One 'problem' is addressed by creating one for another somewhere else.

Ever listen to Buckminster Fuller's idea of a 'green' or 'energy efficient society'? It doesn't use ANY of the current models of societal structure, it pretty much SCRAPS them all for a trans-formative way of moving forward. The old models are shit if they accomplish them through force and control of human activity. YOU don't live in a democratic system, in case you have been asleep for your entire life, democracy is only a fucking word, a concept not unlike any 'ism' created by humans in the past 3000-7000 years.

The financial structure of the United States is inherently evil. It can not be made fair and moral for everyone, it wasn't designed to. It is designed to serve the few at the top, with enforcers and regulators at the bottom-tier of their system. The government is NOT inherently evil but it has been hijacked by cunts.

Just because you think you know how politicians should perform, does not make it happen that way. Sane health care system? Nope. Maybe for the privileged classes-What they hand the masses is complete shit. National debt? Foreign policy? How would YOU do it? Then that's probably saner than the way it's being run, innit? Government is not needed for ANY of these aspects of a civil and moral society to function. All it takes is moral and sane judgement and agreement at solutions and for folks to voluntarily subscribe to these actions, without force, without police, without armies, etc.

Many more examples too many to pontificate upon, many variables of systems, all of which could function to afford everyone freedom and liberty, WITHOUT a government. The government is a construct just like everything else man creates-It takes willing humans to make them either function efficiently, or to scrap them for something new and improved.

I'm no libertarian, no anarchist, just a practical human being.
There are more reasons for scrapping the world system of government than there are for maintaining them, you simply refuse to see any other way THAN systems of government.

Mankind can self-govern if it does so with a formidable and sound moral compass...Is mankind doing that? It can also make the entire planet it's playground if it chooses to do so...Is mankind doing this??
FUCK NO!

again.

leave the country if gov't is so bad. Put your money where your mouth is.

Show us the way if it's so easy. Instead of logical fallacies, appeals to emotion and claims you're unable to back up.

Till then, you're a hypocrite. Whining about gov't like a child with a temper tantrum, but unable demonstrate a better alternative.

Show us a system w/out gov't that doesn't devolve into Lord of the Flies territory.

"Why would you take that away from them [human beings] and give it to institutions that don't give a fuck?"

Because those institutions are MADE OF humans who DO give a fuck for the reasons you just suggested.

Oh.
My.
GURD.

First of all, Mr. and Mrs. VooDooV, please, do this little experiment for the entire group and speak aloud the way you responded to my last block of text...
INTO A MIRROR-

The same Gastroesophageal reflex is encountered when proposing an argument to someone who refuses to engage in argument:

How many times have you heard the following statement by someone so eloquently clueless about what it is that's being discussed? "Well if you don't like it here, then why don't you move to Russia!?!

Or with a born-again Christian, OR rabid Atheist when their storehouse of personal illusion is dashed against the rock-hard crags when they wander too near an unfamiliar shoreline? Sounds something like this:

"Well, I believe I the way I do because with your way of thinking, you could go to hell but I can be sure this way that I am going to heaven!" -(quickly followed by ego-driven denial, then ostracization)

I refuse to engage quite simply, because you have like I have so many times before in my frustration with idiots and imbeciles, punks and thugs (and government insects employed by the state), showed the world your ass-card.

I'll admit everything I've been accused of when in the initial heat and frustration of being misunderstood I go off half-coked and wax mean-But here, and recently as I've conducted the experiment with vehement far-left liberal shit-thinkers, those who accuse e of foul-play remain solid in their own denial THAT THEIR SHIT STINKS!

Get it? All shit stinks mate, that the shitter doesn't realize it is not the concern of another shitter.

*promote the discussion? Or, regardless of the meat involved toss the shitty video because the child in it is on a path to self-awareness that involves something so foreign to your sensibilities that you cram your heads in a bucket of your own bullshit and, "Carry on?"

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, February 7th, 2014 9:55pm PST - promote requested by chingalera.

@dag I vote for this vid to be vid of the week. I couldn't read all of the Wall of Words, however, this is such a massive endeavor on a vid that at this time had a vote total of -1.... well, I love this. Sift of the Week indeed.

Just goes to show you that when cornered, feral animals will usually fight to the death to survive and that as with any election by ballot, votes don't mean much in the grand scheme of a scheme

bareboards2 , we second your enthusiastic suggestion
*stamps feet and grumbles in parliamentary fashion, adjusts powdered wig.

BY the way.....This chicks' hawt and I wanna breed with her

But who will break into homes and shoot family dogs?... I will, once the government gets off my back

This video has been discarded due to negative votes by members.

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

Holy crap, yes! I'm always up for good discussions on maybe less than stellar videos. Sift of the week!

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

Undiscarded.

Is this a first? Sift of the week with zero votes?

I am pleased.

[edit] Others are less pleased. I see their point. And -- it just videos. There will be another one coming along the pike soon enough.

libertarians arguing against the state reminds me of a scene from monty python where the people's front members ask themselves: "what have the romans ever done for us?"
now write this a 100 times or i'll cut your head off

They've done for and against 'us' what continues to be done for and against 'us', so far it's going according to plan and the empire never died.

✌

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, February 6th, 2014 4:42pm PST - promote requested by chingalera.

This video has been discarded due to negative votes by members.

@enoch

I agree with pretty much everything you said, except the part on rewriting corporate law based on its impracticality. Part of the effectiveness of capitalism is its unambiguous incentives, something as subjective as the public good would be too broadly interpretable and open up firms to endless lawsuits.

Negative externalities like pollution, standards on employment conditions, and anti-competitive rent seeking are all things best addressed in an adversarial system of corporation vs. government/citizens. In the same way asking the prosecutor to give a lenient prosecution would not work, polarised, balanced advocates work best in a market economy.

Obviously this has broken down to various extents. Corporate lobbying has tipped the balance. Short terms politicians and executives are incentivised to generated jobs/growth in the short term at the expense of sustainability. Larger corporations have the money to buy barriers to entry for competitors by capturing regulatory agencies.

Ideally countries would go to public funding system once you clear x votes of nominations or something similar, you'd have a shorter election cycle and advertising blackouts for a portion of that to limit the influence of money further, scrap jerry-mandering. Even if that were possible in the US, I'm of the view that the money would seep through in some shape or another. In many ways, the US as a concentration of the wealthy is a victim of its own success in the weight that this wealth has on its socio-economic future.

Somewhat more contrary to more left leaning arguments, I think populism fails equally. Now admittedly what passes for populism nowadays, economically at least, is simply the rebranded intentions of corporations with vested interests. But genuine populist economic policy also fails. People want the government to give them things for free and not give other people things for free. They'd rather see uncompetitive industries be propped up forever with subsidies than let them close.

I'm coming around to the view that what's needed is longer term limits, greater executive authority and concentration of power but balanced by firm limits on any elected office tenure. People don't appreciate the long term effects of effective policy before they have a chance to vote politicians out on the short term cost. Longer term limits, say 5-6 years x 2 possible terms would help alleviate that. It would detach elected officials from the need to constantly raise funds. Politicans could actually effect the mandate they were voted in on. Obviously this raises risks of abuse of power but as with everything, you have to balance that against the costs of long term stagnation.

I hate to create a comparison here to central banks, but it's an undeniable fact that once central bank officials were installed independent to act free from the whims of politicans in most developed countries in the 1970-90s, inflation quickly became a thing of the past. People can argue about current policy, devaluing the currency, the way funds are being distributed currently, but the point above is a historic fact. I am of the view that the same would hold (when applied in a more limited way) for the broader economy.

But anyway, this is all wonderfully imagine fantasy land.

This video has been discarded due to negative votes by members.

I couldn't make it past the 2 second mark, this video lost me at "Statists be like...".

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

Ha. Siftbot *really* wants to discard this video.

It's not exactly re-writing, just legislatively reversing one court case that effectively removed the provision.

It's worth pointing out that an Australian company that works against the public good is, at least sometimes, taken to task by the regulators.

This video has been discarded due to negative votes by members.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, February 8th, 2014 9:05am PST - promote requested by chingalera.

But who will beat that woman to a pulp and sell her as a sexslave to a disgusting old pervert?
Someone who likes to trade goods freely without government intervention. A true libertarian. Like the great Humungus.
But wait, she's got a shotgun. It'll make her untouchable in that Mad Max Utopia of hers.

But who will take away her private property that she apparently loves more than family and friends and leave her in a ditch somewhere to be food for the crows?

Care to link to it? Had a quick google and I can't find the specific court case. I'd be interesting in reading about how it was previously interpreted and the judicial rationale for its removal.

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

Watch out Anne Coulter - you're about to be disrupted by a younger, nuttier model.

I think it might have been Dodge v. Ford Motor Co that established the principle that the business owner has a responsibility to profit his shareholders, rather than the community as a whole or employees... however, on reviewing the case itself, it seems rather shaky. Ford appears more interested in withholding funds from rivals than the public good, and I think the result reflects that.

I'll see if I can find my original references, my googling wasn't conclusive either.

This video has been discarded due to negative votes by members.

Perfectly said but has fallen on deaf /blind and dumb of this site.

that cracks me up. she moves to a better country....(probably because of the better opportunities her father would enjoy)

..only to advocate tearing the gov't down.

hey @dag, I just googled Julia Tourianski and it appears to be associated with the screen name of yourhydra, the submitter of this video.

...is that self-linking?

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

Oh reeeaaally? Could you post or send me the link?

Good on YA, TO-RON-TO! (and proppers to the wildest of the women there, you know who you are)-Oh and, don't let them hear the chambered round darlin', the last thing they need to hear is the report.

Oh and Dagmar?? We know how much you love Obama buddy, and he's the type of person you should be the most frightened of, funny that eh??

He's one of the most dangerous motherfuckers on the planet, bubbo, as evidenced in his policies of dismantling America and in the number of his dick-riding fans here on this site, who haven't a fucking clue-

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

You betcha - Choggs. Whatever you say.

dick-riding, dick-riding....

Nah man, you killed choggs, stood by as weak-minded goons ran his ass-outta-town-Whatever YOU say, right?? Let the mob do it, right Pontius?

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

OH man - the evidence is in - unfortunately looks like this is a self-link.

-- Sift of the week is hereby repealed.
-- Video is (really) discarded
-- @yourhydra is banned

Sorry for the kerfuffle everybody.

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

Art thou the King of the Trolls?
--Pontius

...*click*click*bang...I knew that Day One....

yourhydra cannot be banned because star accounts are immune to banination - ignoring ban request by chicchorea.

...that too....

Oh. My. God.

Siftbot has defied dag's instructions yet again.

Siftbot is establishing its own individual rules of conduct.

Siftbot has become...

Libertarian.

I must be, if you sayeth so-This is truly a sad day for all trolls, including the ones who post non-stop political party-line rhetoric suggesting 'change' in the form of politics as usual, atheism is best/god is fantasy, and 'cry racism' fare, and who can't consider any transformative alternatives to planetary existence beyond their programmed, DE-evolutionary cattle talk.


Your all hairless apes in a cattle car sir, I mourn the death of art and freedom of thought as well as this sincere user's banned account.

A small group of trollish assholes run this site, who fail to see the forest for the fucking trees they have clear-cut to make way for a stultified meat blob instead of a brain that functions.

*promote (braking) rules

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, February 9th, 2014 6:39pm PST - promote requested by chingalera.

This video has been discarded due to negative votes by members.

..yay verily dagmar, and some folks willingly pay to pass for your pet-project's site sake have myself in the past-One gracious being paid my way for six months having seen with an uncanny innate ability the value and grace with which I navigate the world...I thank you sincerely for the consulting fees already paid to myself and on my behalf....The fact that you and everyone playing suffer my tyranny is more than enough recompense

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, February 10th, 2014 8:32am PST - promote requested by chingalera.

...and can you also see the Doucheifyer staring-back at you from reflective surfaces? Ever think about enrolling in a local police academy sir? Perhaps private security to protect some strip-mall would be more your speed?

This video has been discarded due to negative votes by members.

This video has been discarded due to negative votes by members.

...and as is obvious to all save yourself, your mirror is gilded in porcelain. Small world that, for a small....

...now why don't you go admire your all too familiar and cherished reflection...you bore me.

Oh I bore? *meaning: I recognize the sentiment, but have trouble looking into a mirror.
*promote
timer: 5:40 p.m. CST Monday February 10th, 2014

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, February 10th, 2014 2:36pm PST - promote requested by chingalera.

"This just in, resident cop takes issue with resident black sheep, that story after another lynching."

@chingalera
no conspiracy,
no anger,nor shame or guilt.

the community has spoken.
the discussion is over.
yourhydra self-posted.

you are my friend but your rage is mis-directed.
what does it serve to call names to those you disagree?
what will be the end result in this constant tug of war?
and whom are you tugging against?
who is on the other end of that rope?

is it @chicchorea?
is it @dag?
is it me?

WHOM are you railing against?
/hands his friend a mirror

be at peace.
there will be another day and another opportunity my friend.
this chapter is over.

peace-nick
dissenting voices on this site? Pshaw! Always met with hatred, derision, and accusation tinctured with self-loathing...

There are genuine dissenting voices, and then there is trolling for the sake of it.

The former is valuable, the latter absolutely merits the derision it invites.

*controversy?

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

inevitable downward spiral,...spinning...spinning....

I know, following your next burn out and flush your new nomme de sock puppet will be Swirley.

Yes, Swirlry, that's it.

OH my GAWD!!!

A question mark? Oh my lovely MrFisk, who shows up so promptly with the controversy channel.... I have never seen you question yourself before.

Perhaps it has happened, and I missed it

Still and all. I am flooded with affection for you right now.

If you were arguing that we need to work towards a functioning democracy than I would agree with you. Instead you are arguing destroying a collective voice that would have power against corporations who would aim to destroy us.

Sorry I can't support any libertarian point of view when it's simply worsening the tyranny of corporations.

This video has been discarded due to negative votes by members.