@newtboy
told ya he was pissed.
i admire this mans passion.
in fact,i applaud it.

while i do not agree with his attack therapy tactics and do not subscribe to his over-all conclusions.i absolutely ADORE how he calls out the cognitive dissonance of the american voter.

because he is right.

how can you subscribe to a law that makes prostitution illegal,yet porn legal?
or the guy who deals crack or meth as being a criminal? yet opiates are,by far,the leading cause of death in regards to controlled substances.so who is the bigger criminal?

and what,exactly,IS a criminal?is it because the state says so?if you subscribe to that,then i am a criminal.

i found his condemnation of the christian church to be the most delicious.
jesus christ was an insurrectionist,a radical,a dissident and a dissenter.a zealot in the face of the powered elite.

so how can you fight a war of aggression in jesus christs name?
how can you state that god blesses america with over 2.4 million people incarcerated?or to categorize and demonize those who may be different i.e:gay,lesbian or atheist and yet still call yourself a christian?

i giggled with delight when he pointed out that the very same people who are championing those insurrectionists,dissidents and agitators of the past as somehow being representative of their morals and ethics,are the very same people they are demonizing today for breaking the rules.

this man is so pissed off and i love it.
he says things that will make conformists extremely uncomfortable,and we NEED to be a bit uncomfortable.if only to shake off the apathy and lethargy.

as for the taxes argument..meh..i dont subscribe to the "privatize everything" ,because some things should not be profit driven,but i also do not subscribe to the 'taxes pay for essential services",unless wars of aggression,corporate welfare and big-agribusiness subsidies are considered "essential".

our democracy is broken,our government dysfunctional and serves only to keep the balance of the status quo on top..and fuck the regular dude.

can you REALLY say your government represents you?
ok,go ahead and vote.here are your choices:chocolate or vanilla but both are made by hagen daaz.

you really should watch to the end..he just gets madder and madder.
truths can often be uncomfortable,but that never changes the fact that they are truths.

and goddamn i love your optimism! just cant share it on this issue,though if you could bottle it up i am betting you would make a fortune.

ill have three bottles of newt please...to go.

For those people who DO think that way, I fully agree. I take issue with everyone being lumped in with them, however. I vote, and I always vote for candidates that are anti-drug laws, anti-no victim crime, anti-war (except in defense, then I want an ogre who will smash...but targeted smashing of only the right people!), etc. It was disturbing to listen to him chastise me for trying to fix the system, and being called that which I vote to eradicate. I left off before most of the religious part, but I'm totally with him on most being hypocrites and not following their own teachings/laws.
I was actually thinking more like interstate highways, bridges, other large public works (most of which have not been funded for decades, admittedly).
Yes, I agree, it's broken. I think finance reform is the first step towards fixing it, but not the last by far.
My government represents itself and special interests mostly. Again, finance reform.
There's more than two flavors, I never vote on party lines either.
I get, and even applaud the anger. It's the lack of targeting that anger I had problems with.
Do you just want eyes, or liquefied body in those bottles?

@newtboy
we agree.
i think the difference lies in this:
1.you attempt to change the system by using the very system you acknowledge is corrupt.i find this extremely noble,and yes..optimistic (sincerely) ,but is about as effective as chewing bubble gum to solve an algebra equation.

2.i find the system to have made itself irrelevant by the very virtues it purports to uphold.
equal under the law? not even close.
for the people by the people? oh yeah? which people? certainly not you or i.
defense and security? if that means wars of aggression.
civil liberties? for whom? in this security and surveillance state?we are the most surveilled...the most propagandized..the most indoctrinated.

the system we have now is no longer representative of the original intent of our forefathers.who were looking to build an empire but as a republic,pretty inventive and ingenious.

i do not submit to this authority because they lost the right to that authority.
i know the real power is where it has always resided:the people.

the system is broken and it is time it is taken down.

but as you stated,some are under-educated and i'll add that some are over-educated and indoctrinated.either way,we find ourselves in a society of vapid consumerism,immense inequality and where we,shamefully,criminalize the poor.

so when is this revolution starting? i'll bring the beer.
cuz i aim to misbehave....

Well, I see the options as either working the system to make it better, complaining about it but doing nothing, or discarding it in hope you can make one that's better at a later time. I think it may be you who's more optimistic on this occasion. ;-)
I see the system as broken, but not irrevocably so. It may be likely that it won't be fixed, but it's only a certainty if no one tries to fix it.
I learned a lesson at 4 years old. My dad was drunk and told me to clean my room to be spotless in 5 min. I just said "NO!" and was punched across the room. The lesson was, no matter how wrong authority may be, simply defying it openly nearly always leads to you losing, not authority, and usually you lose far worse than you imagined you might. It's not 'right' or 'fair', but it is reality.

Thou shalt kneel before thine *religion of statism and follow thine Commandments, which include, but are not limited to:

1) Thou shalt kill and/or pay for the killing of anyone who the state deigns deserving of murder, regardless of their "crime" or innocence;
2) Thou shalt make enemies of thine friends, relatives, and neighbors so as to divide thine families and communities for the sake of vying for state-granted "privileges" at everyone else's expense;
3) Thou shalt work for the state and receive just enough "freedom" to sustain the illusion of being "free-range" chattel;
4) Thou shalt seek loopholes within the laws while aiming to restrict others within them;
5) Thou shalt only seek to create laws, but never repeal them;
6) Thou shalt vote for cronies who pursue their own self-interest (and those of their financial interests) while claiming to "represent" you;
7) Thou shalt only use fiat currency, which can be -- and frequently is -- arbitrarily inflated and devalued, at will, by those in the central bank known as thine Federal Reserve;
8. Thou shalt keep the idea of government holy, and never take the name of its offices in vain;
9) Thou shalt remember thine mafia-like extortions known as taxes, and always pay on time;
10) Thou shalt honor thine state-imposed educators and regulators and give up thine rights whenever police officers and other authorities deem it convenient for you to do so.

Thou shalt not think for oneself.

@newtboy
i know man and got respect for your position.
have many friends who feel exactly the way you do.
so im not hating.

i have sacrificed much to hold fast to my conviction.
i deal mostly in cash or barter.
i do not and will never have a credit card,nor a bank account.
i drive "illegally" ,though it is rare,because i refuse to subscribe to mandatory insurance.or any form of insurance for that matter,mandatory or not.
i treat opiate addicts for free and give them a place to stay because the clinics (state run and corporate) have a zero tolerance policy.they pee dirty ONCE,for anything and they get booted.so i take them in.

this one,in particular,gets me into some serious trouble with the authorities at the local addiction a.k.a methadone pill-mill.they turn me in at least once a year.the baliffs at the courthouse know me by name.

i get in trouble at tax time because i dont file.my business is not income driven but rather "donation" driven.so...suck it county clerk!

i do work at a friends restaurant as a bartender/waiter and thats on the books,but thats mostly for my child support.

all this has been hard on my family,well,my boys mainly.while they were growing up i didnt have a lot of extra resources,but they turned out pretty damn good.

simply put(me?simple?ha!)
my faith dictates my politics.

nice.

"anarchy simply means =without rulers,it does NOT mean no rules."

I keep hearing Anarchists railing against this. More frequently these days the same claims are being made by Libertarians.

I'm afraid I can't find the intellectual honesty in such claims though. The base argument is that there be no rulers, and also there for no men using force to ensure rules are followed.

If there is to be no system of enforcement for 'rules' then how is that any different than simply having no rules? Without any measure or means of enforcement of rules, for all intents and purposes there are no rules. If there is any enforcement of rules, then there is at some level a ruler and enforcers.

If you want your arguments taken seriously you need to first start by taking our own position seriously as well and at least making it logical consistent. To start from the contradiction of rules without rulers is empty.

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.

@bcglorf
this assumes there will be no consequences for breaking the rules or no structure in place to enforce those rules.this implies that if their WAS no enforcement,everybody would spend the entire day robbing,raping and causing mayhem.

so you are right,the base argument is indeed intellectually dishonest,but is also not an argument FOR a militarized police force.the real arguments is the laws themselves.

start with more humane and common sense laws and the need for a massive police force becomes irrelevant.

in an anarchal system it is the people who are the representatives who create legislation.
lets take the iraq war of 2003,where the american people were overwhelmingly against going into iraq..yet we still invaded.representative democracy? not a shot.
or in 2008 when the american people,in a massive majority,rejected the bailout and wished to see the perpetrators held accountable.well? what happened? i think you know.

anarchism is a varied and dynamic political view.its not just one simple flavor.do you see trance and i agreeing on much?my politics over-laps with trance but it does with @newtboy and @ChaosEngine as well.

the basic gist is individual liberty trumps everything and that the structures put in place should be temporary and be directed from the bottom up,not the top down.we realize that we live in a society populated by people and it should be the people who direct where that society should be going.we have no need or use for "leaders" or "rulers" and when the "representatives" have obviously jumped the shark to whore to their donors,it is time to question/criticize the system and not just replace the crack whore with a meth whore.

anarchy is simply a political philosophy,thats it.

so we would see:
zero wars of aggression
no more criminalized drug addicts or poor people
no more corporate welfare
and most likely the people would vote out the federal reserve and print its own currency.

anarchists prefer direct democracy but will accept representative if they are actually being represented.(though begrudgingly).

you should read up on some anarchy.you may find some very food ideas and while not a perfect political philosophy,the one thing it does offer that i find most appealing:if it aint working...vote it out.

Well, I disagree on a few points.
With no enforcement, enough people (it doesn't take that many) would spend the day robbing, raping, and causing mayhem that the rest of us would be relatively paralyzed, either by fear or by the requirement to constantly 'police' those bad actors.
Even with reasoned laws (which we no longer have) a relatively large force is required to enforce them, but much smaller and less dangerous a force than we have today.
As I recall, the country was split, but slightly a majority in favor of going to Iraq (or wherever they were told we should go) and a slight minority keeping quiet so they didn't seem 'anti American' or 'pro-terrorist'. Maybe that's wrong, but it's how I remember it.
The issue with anarchism is it means something different to nearly everyone. That means deciding what 'rules' are required for society to work will be near impossible, just setting up the system to decide goes against the plan.
I think with no government to stop them, we would see more wars of aggression (by warlords, it's happened in nearly every power vacuum), more abusive corporate power (although not welfare, true enough, but they'll get that money a different, worse way), and no voting to vote out the fed (although it would not exist in an anarchistic 'society' to be voted in or out). Currency would either go back to regional, or gold (not a bad idea).
Once again, I must say finance reform could go a long way towards having representation for the people.
Wait, in a true anarchistic system, no one votes, and there's no system to collect, count, and certainly not one to follow through with any 'votes', so how would individuals 'vote' anything 'in' or 'out'? It sounds like you really want representative government, not anarchy, you just want it to represent 'us' and not 'them' (them being special interests with deep pockets). If that's correct, I, and I think many others, are right there with you. We need to be organized to force reform, because the 'representatives' have no incentive to do it themselves.

@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.

@newtboy
getting warmer!

yes,if we view a representative as being a citizen and not a selected and voted on politician.YOU are not a politician,you are a citizen.

direct democracy my friend.messy and contentious but beautiful in its humanity.

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,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.

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.

you misunderstand,which may be my fault.
anarchy=no rulers
it does not mean=no government (for some anarchists it may mean that,but not all),nor does it mean=no police or military or public schools and i do not believe i stated anything of the sort.

i also stated that while the anarchist prefers direct democracy,he/she will be ok with representative,as long as they represent..which they dont.

so the anarchist sees this non-representative government and sees it for the vile,corrupted beast it is and states that it should be killed.preferably from orbit.

please understand i am not trying to sway you to my way of thinking or convince you of anything other than to point out that anarchy is not a single,one trick pony.

ok,consider this:you are walking down the street and an important text come in with a pdf attached.you are given information and told that in two days you will be expected to vote on the matter.

just an idea how direct democracy can work.

this discussion is really fascinating me.
i call out hard-liner libertarians for not even acknowledging the massive corrupt influence of the corporation,because it is an intellectually dishonest argument to NOT point out the destructive influences of the monied elite.

i find it just as intellectually dishonest to not address/criticize and question the government.

one does not preclude the other.
we can argue which one gave birth to the other but i dont think anybody can deny that what america has now is NOT a representative democracy but rather a plutocracy.

so just as i dont understand how a hardline libertarian can ignore the power and influence of a corporation and call it "capitalism" (hint:its not),i equally cannot understand the defense of a government that threw its citizens overboard 40 years ago.

i refuse to defend moral bankruptcy,on any level.
i refuse to buy into the "its not perfect but its the best we have"
no..it is not.we can do better and what we have now is far from the best.
best intentions maybe....but not the best..

newt brought up a big point that i was unaware.
this is my flavor of anarchy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

which to some anarchists makes me a "bad" anarchist,whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean.

@enoch,

I'm afraid you are the one misunderstanding. Hijacking and redefining anarchy to mean support for essentially a different flavour of grassroots democracy isn't clever or insightful. It's an abuse of the language. That is merely a semantic complaint though. The deeper problem is that it's an effort to build an argument atop a contradiction. Namely, anarchy with some form of overall governing structure. Starting from such a contradiction allows you defend or tie anything and everything back to your core statement. That's why I declared it intellectually dishonest.

You advocate your position as 'anarchy' but then proceed to describe a government of the people, by the people and for the people. You've described democracy, not anarchy. You advocate absolute freedom of the people from the tyranny of rulers. You declare no more wars of aggression, but who's rule is that except your own? I'm afraid that history shows that a large portion of your free people will most assuredly gather together and agree on waging a war of aggression, and the only stricture holding that back is the rule made by the ruler against it, in this case the ruler being yourself.

In short anarchy only fares as well as human nature can be trusted, which is not far at all. Redefining it as democracy light isn't honest, it's just rejecting the burden of defending the specific changes and improvements one would propose. It's an ancient trick used endlessly throughout history and one I refuse to accept.

Wow, what a condescending little shit this guy is.

Straw men and hyperbole set to pretty music is not the basis of a convincing argument.

@bcglorf
not the first to call me a bad anarchist.
i posted my flavor,which is only a link to basic definition.
it is the closest thing that even remotely comes close to my politics.

but i get your points and understand why my position may appear contradictory.a persons politics is rarely as simple as what can be conveyed on a comment thread.

always love your input bc!

@Spacedog79
i know right! this dude is sooo pissed off!
i would call his tone more condescending and scolding though.he has some issues.
gotta love his passion though!

Moving this video to enoch's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

Moving this video to enoch's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.