>> ^NetRunner:
Violating the speed limit is a crime. There's no victim.I don't think speeding is necessarily a victimless crime. But prostitution is. Gambling is. What’s your point?
>> ^NetRunner:
I'm a human, and I have a mind. I have no earthly idea what you think natural rights are, or why I should care about them.

I have my own reasons for what I believe, and how I approach the concept of rights, and it's clearly different from yours. How can that be possible, if "natural rights" are wired into us?We are biologically programed to seek life. A newborn naturally suckles a nipple and instinctively holds his breath under water. These are not learned behaviors. We are entitled to life. Property is an extension of life. It’s the representation of the inherent right to control the fruits of one's own labor. Surely a prehistoric man believed he was entitled to control an uninhabited cave he found, an animal he killed or captured, or anything he built or created.
>> ^NetRunner:

This is really the crux of the dispute in all your myriad conversations on this video. You seem to think anyone who asks you to think about what you're saying is just trying to trick you somehow.Ok, I’ll bite. If you deny 100% self-ownership (i.e. the philosophy of liberty as described in this video), then that leaves only 2 other options. Option 1: Universal and equal ownership of everyone else (i.e. Communism) Option 2: Partial Ownership of One Group by Another (e.g. Feudalism) Option 1 is unachievable and unsustainable. Option 2 is a system of rule by one class over another.
>> ^NetRunner:
The only thing we're trying to do is get you to broaden your perspective a little. We're being polite about the fact that you seem to think us evil (or perhaps just stupid) for believing what we believe, and we're trying to help you understand a little bit of why we think the way we do, and see that maybe we're not monsters after all...LOL@“We're being polite”

Why are you talking in “we” and not “I”? And if it makes you feel better by putting words in my mouth or thoughts in my head, then fine. But that's not why I dismissed your claim that this is only the “objectivist/libertarian definition of liberty”.
I think the crux of the problem is you like to label everything instead of just accepting it for what it is. Political issues and figures are full of delusions and deceptions. You do yourself a disservice by putting everything into one ideological box or another. I know plenty of “libertarians” that don’t have a problem with the patriot act and plenty of “progressives” that don’t have a problem with the cold-blooded murder of OBL. The political false dichotomy left/right survives because of people like you and, ironically, the guy warning about black and white thinking.

>>@bmacs27: marbles
Who flew planes into the WTC on 9/11? By the way, I read "Which Path to Persia".
Have you heard of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion?"



Haha, let me guess. You have a argument to make that the "Which Path to Persia" manual is fraudulent?

So is that 9/11 question troll bait or what? Who made all the abnormal amount of Wall Street put bets on American Airlines and United between Sept 6 and 7. And on American Sept 10 at the Chicago Board of Options Exchange. Better yet, who sent US government made anthrax with hand written notes saying "Allah is great" to Congress men who were likely to oppose the Patriot Act?

Oh the alleged hijackers (courtesy of Paul Joseph Watson/Infowars.com):
Every single shred of evidence concerning the alleged 9/11 hijackers points to the fact that they were patsies controlled by informants working for the US government.
The US Special Operations Command’s Able Danger program identified the hijackers and their accomplices long before 9/11, but when the head of the program, Colonel Anthony Shaffer, tried to pass the information on to the 9/11 Commission, he was gagged and slandered and the vital information his team had passed on was ignored and buried.
Curt Weldon, Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, documented how the US government tracked the hijackers’ movements before 9/11.
Louai al-Sakka, the man who trained six of the hijackers, was a CIA informant. A number of the other alleged hijackers were trained at US air bases. In the months prior to 9/11, alleged hijackers Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi were renting rooms in a house owned and lived in by an FBI informant.
In a 2002 article entitled The Hijackers We Let Escape, Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman documented how, “The CIA tracked two suspected terrorists to a Qaeda summit in Malaysia in January 2000, then looked on as they re-entered America and began preparations for September 11.”
The fact that there were numerous Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists involved in the pre-planning stages of 9/11 is unsurprising given former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds’ testimony that Bin Laden was working for the US right up until the day of 9/11.

On the very morning of 9/11, the money man behind the alleged hijackers, Pakistan’s ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad, was meeting with U.S. government and intelligence officials.
Indeed, even after 9/11, the so-called spiritual leader of the very hijackers who allegedly slammed Flight 77 into the Pentagon, Anwar al-Awlaki, was himself invited to dine with Pentagon top brass mere months after the attack.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Awwww..... FUCK that stupid "DING" sound. OMFG.


Agreed. It was *DING!* annoying, *DING!* pointless and *DING!* did I mention fucking annoying.

I like the concept of content producers agreeing to make more stuff in exchange for policy changes though. We could get another season of Firefly if they slash the military budget. Or Pink Floyd could reform if they repeal the patriot act. Or Simon Cowell could come back to American Idol if they get rid of the TSA... actually, fuck that. I'd rather be groped by a sweaty man at an airport than have more of that shit on tv.

i posted a sift talk about this after i attended a planned parenthood rally a while back. there are some who, as individuals, view the debate as life and death. i understand that. and i respect it. if i thought that was actually what the pro-life movement was about, i might be behind it. like sdxgundam, i also oppose abortion on moral grounds. but a pro-life movement must be 100% pro-life. at every stage of life. and i haven't seen evidence that it is.

it's not about that though. the movement as a whole and the powerful men in legislative positions or behind an alter that stoke the fires of the pro-life movement seek one thing, control. it's about controlling women and their sexuality. because history has been sooo very very threatened by female sexual power.

it's about distraction because if you can have one group yelling at the other group about something so passionately, that on the grand scale of global issues doesn't really even weigh in.. then you can keep them from yelling about the mass murder and theft that is committed every single day.

banning abortion does not save lives. it does not stop unwanted pregnancies. it does end rape or incest or poverty or unprotected sex or hormonal teenagers making impulsive decisions or desperation or suffering or medical emergencies or child abuse or spousal abuse. it doesn't even end abortion.

it pushes to back alley clinics and kitchen tables where unsanitary conditions threaten the lives of both mother and child. >> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^RFlagg:
And yet Republicans claim that it is the Democrats who want to control how people live their lives and that they are for freedom... despite the Republicans being the party to control who people can marry, want to control woman's rights, they are the party that want to keep the drug war going far more so than the other, they are the ones behind the Patriot Act... about the only right they seem to be ahead of the Democrats on is gun control.

While I most agree with this, nearly completely, those against abortion equate it to murder...something government is most assuredly involved in. I find the debate on abortion good, in a way. One side is valuing life, the other liberty...both of the things that make this union great. I kind of wish people would see it like that instead of each side as the devil.

@geesussfreak, I get that there are some who see abortion as murder. I respect that.

What bothers me is that they so desperately want to save the life of the unborn fetus while being for the death penalty and against welfare support for the child once it is born. They don't mind if a woman dies carrying a baby to term. They block sex education and contraception so that unwanted babies aren't created. They aren't so careful with the mental health of young girls and women who have been raped and empregnanted by their abusers.

It is the inconsistency that bothers me.

The world is a harsh place. Horrible things happen. All we can do is minimize the damage as best we can.

Forcing women and children into back alleys for abortions desperately desired is not a solution.



>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^RFlagg:
And yet Republicans claim that it is the Democrats who want to control how people live their lives and that they are for freedom... despite the Republicans being the party to control who people can marry, want to control woman's rights, they are the party that want to keep the drug war going far more so than the other, they are the ones behind the Patriot Act... about the only right they seem to be ahead of the Democrats on is gun control.

While I most agree with this, nearly completely, those against abortion equate it to murder...something government is most assuredly involved in. I find the debate on abortion good, in a way. One side is valuing life, the other liberty...both of the things that make this union great. I kind of wish people would see it like that instead of each side as the devil.

>> ^RFlagg:

And yet Republicans claim that it is the Democrats who want to control how people live their lives and that they are for freedom... despite the Republicans being the party to control who people can marry, want to control woman's rights, they are the party that want to keep the drug war going far more so than the other, they are the ones behind the Patriot Act... about the only right they seem to be ahead of the Democrats on is gun control.


While I most agree with this, nearly completely, those against abortion equate it to murder...something government is most assuredly involved in. I find the debate on abortion good, in a way. One side is valuing life, the other liberty...both of the things that make this union great. I kind of wish people would see it like that instead of each side as the devil.

And yet Republicans claim that it is the Democrats who want to control how people live their lives and that they are for freedom... despite the Republicans being the party to control who people can marry, want to control woman's rights, they are the party that want to keep the drug war going far more so than the other, they are the ones behind the Patriot Act... about the only right they seem to be ahead of the Democrats on is gun control.

Like I said, I haven't reviewed the law, but if it gives the government the power to set up free speech zones, then it's unconstitutional. "Non-public forum" is a contradiction of terms anyway. Ok, so some public property is really not public property, but government property. And to operate as a government, you specify these governments buildings and etc as non-public forums. I can live with that (as long as the government functions in question are constitutional). But at the Jefferson Memorial there is no government function to preserve. It's no different than going to a public park. Whether you're on the steps of the memorial or inside the interior, there's no difference. It's a public forum, ...except when it isn't. Government bureaucrats don't have that authority to pick and choose what is a public forum and what isn't.

I watched part of clip of the original dancers. I don't really remember them being all that loud. (Maybe I missed it) But it's irrelevant anyway. Whether or not they were loud, were demonstrating, or whatever, dancing is the issue. And that's not the protestors fault, the first cop that approached Kokesh made it explicitly clear: You can't dance here. Dance and you will be arrested. Nothing about demonstrating, protesting, or anything else. Dancing was/is the issue at hand.

I believe in The Law as described by Bastiat here. Laws are derived from the individual's natural rights, not by society's mindless whims. The Constitution is what establishes the government and defines it's responsibilities.

I don't believe it's a huge issue, but it's not trivial either. There's certainly bigger issues out there that we need to fight, but small battles count too. One thing these protests really expose is the role of the police force and how they have morphed into a paramilitary occupation force taking orders from the government, rather than a force of fellow citizens working for the welfare of the community and guided by the rule of law.

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
1. The law has stood up to multiple challenges as to its constitutionality (the law is about the government's right to declare a space "non-public forum"). It has been around for decades.

If it helps any, the government has tried to use this "non-public forum" legal concept/law and have been shot down by the courts. Apparently, they have tried to encompass ill-defined areas and control the activity when a reasonable person wouldn't recognize the area in question as a specific defined place. No, no, say the courts, and the government has lost those cases.

2. Have you looked at the link I provided from the original event from months ago, that led to this court case? The libertarians who showed up at midnight to celebrate his birthday?

The music was silent but the group was in a good mood and pretty loud in an echoey place. No harm was intended, but the area is posted "quiet please" and they weren't. So that is why the original dancers were removed.

3. The May and June dancers were demonstrating, which is not allowed in a non-public forum, so that is why they were asked to leave. Not because they were dancing. (Watch Kokesh's youtube video calling for folks to come dance in protest, if you don't think they were there to demonstrate.)

So 1) the law is constitutional and 2) defining dancing has nothing to do with it, it is about literally "disturbing the peace" or "demonstrating".

I am as pissed about the Patriot Act as anybody -- I just don't agree that this demonstration is an enfringement on my rights. The Patriot Act? Hell yes!!!!!!!!!


It gets back to whether you believe in laws or not. Does society empower the government to make laws in its name, using the Constitution as its guide?

If you don't think it does, then .... well. Nothing. You don't think it does. Fair enough.




In reply to this comment by marbles:
Thanks, I seen you post something to that effect the other day. I haven't had the time to look into the law, (it outlaws demonstrating right?) but I'm pretty sure my argument still applies. It's two-fold. 1. The law is unconstitutional. 2. You can't define what is and what isn't considered "dancing".

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
It isn't a new law, marbles. It is an old law, decades old, discussed and debated over many court cases.

Just wanted to toss that fact your way, if it makes any difference to your point of view.

>> ^Stormsinger:

Max, this time I can't agree at all. Trolling the cops because you got a ticket and want your 15 minutes on youtube does not equal fighting to prevent the Patriot Act. This is nothing but a group of trolls...and I feel for the cops who had to try and deal with people who didn't -want- to deal.


Trolling is when you do something purely to piss people off, and don't even care if what you are saying is true. If you are trying to get attention in order to further a cause, that is called demonstrating or protesting. And attention-seeking behavior is an important part.

So your assertion that these people are trolling is purely speculation. You are guessing by the video that they don't really care about the cause of liberty.

It is certainly possible, maybe even likely, to assume that some of these people crave attention for other reasons. But to assert that they don't care about the cause of liberty is baseless, especially when there is the very real possibility that they will be hurt and arrested.

>> ^MaxWilder:

One of the fascinating things about this thread is that you can see why this country is falling apart. There are people who really, truly think that giving up small freedoms will somehow make the world a better place. And we've spent years giving up one small freedom after another. Until the government feels quite safe taking away big freedoms (e.g. The unPatriot Act).
When you have principles, you fight for them or you lose them. Even if somebody defies your principles in a small, silly, quite understandable way, they are still defying them. You either fight, or give up.
Another way to look at it: if those cops had simply asked those dancers to leave that first night without arresting anybody, then these daytime noisy protests wouldn't happen. Peace begets peace, war begets war.


Max, this time I can't agree at all. Trolling the cops because you got a ticket and want your 15 minutes on youtube does not equal fighting to prevent the Patriot Act. This is nothing but a group of trolls...and I feel for the cops who had to try and deal with people who didn't -want- to deal.

To the lawmakers: Laws against dancing are silly, and not unlike the old fogies in Footloose.

To the protesters: Surely there are more important things to protest. (Iraq, Afghanistan, torture, foreign prisons, corporate domination of our political system, the 'Citizen's United' ruling, lack of accountability for Wall Street crime, subsidies of high fructose corn syrup during an obesity epidemic, the war on drugs, gutting of social services, the patriot act, tax givaways to corporations and the super rich during a recession, No Child Left Behind, lack of a decent health care system, the department of homeland security, indulgent military spending, gutting of consumer protections, gutting of rights for workers, the rape of the underclasses, etc.)

I'd be happy to forfeit my right to dance at national monuments in return for an end to any of the practices listed above.

Might as well throw my hat in the ring. First video was nuts. A few people doing nothing more harmful than moving in a slightly different way, not even technically dancing. Might as well arrest someone for fake limping through, skipping, or w/e. Then this thing, showing a group of people perhaps not being as brave as middle east protesters, but still doing something. This might not be big picture important, but as said before if you don't protest the small stuff, you won't be able to protest the big stuff. Not that we don't already have "big stuff" (patriot act *cough*). I wouldn't call these people brave earth shakers, they aren't hero's. Just regular people doing something small to protest an injustice. Just because people don't die over it or dedicate vast sums of time or money to it doesn't mean it's not important in some way.

All this aside, the venom being tossed around here on both sides is insane. It's a simple dance protest people. You agree with it or you don't, it doesn't make the other side a mentally deficient asshole of gigantic proportions. Chill. Out.

edit: Suppose I should add that there is a huge difference between a law that prevents you from disturbing the peace and defecating in public, to something that would prevent you from peacefully dancing in a public memorial. If those cops had wanted to make the same case against the people in this video who were making all this noise, it might have had a slightly better footing. Not that I would have agreed to that footing, but this at least could be called a disturbance. As opposed to some quiet dancing.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'TYT, MSNBC, Patriot Act, Hypocrisy, War On Terror, Rand Paul, Harry Reid' to 'TYT, MSNBC, Patriot Act, Hypocrisy, War On Terror, Rand Paul, Harry Reid, Cenk Uygur' - edited by xxovercastxx

HBO has done such a good job with this series, I've started reading the books.

On it's face, that doesn't sound like a big deal but you've got to understand, I loathe fantasy. As in: I never read it, ever. I'd sooner read a Scientology brochure. I'd sooner read an instruction manual. For a VCR. I'd sooner read the Patriot Act.

@blankfist upvoted. I'm not at all pleased about it.

In terms of the "my party is better than yours" contest, here are the vote tallies:

Senate Nays by party: 19 Democrats (I'm including Bernie Sanders in there), 4 Republicans.
House Nays by party: 122 Democrats, 31 Republicans.

I'd love to grow those numbers on both sides of the aisle.

Some notable names in both lists:

Pelosi: Nay
Weiner: Nay
Kucinich: Nay
Franken: Nay
Leahy: Nay (and filibustered with Rand, not that the press or CFL mentions that)
Brown: Nay

I want more Democrats in Congress like them, and fewer like Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, and Joe Manchin (all voted Aye).

Oh, and this came up in one of my google searches in trying to find those roll call lists: http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/05/28/tea-party-roll-call-may-2011-patriot-act/

Looks like the House Tea Party caucus voted overwhelmingly in favor of renewal.