I'm with you, but I must admit that the ONLY argument that gave me any pause was the one that goes "if he is practicing civil disobedience, he should WANT to get arrested and stand trial".

Real civil disobedience types like Martin Luther King Jr. and others intentionally broke laws (bullshit laws, but still laws) knowing full well that they would be arrested and go to jail. The point was to bring those terrible laws under public scrutiny and ideally ridicule. Point out how unfair they are. I think that people that take such actions are incredibly noble and selfless. To a certain degree, I think that the arguments that Snowden could or should follow that approach at least partially resonated with me.

But then, I considered some mitigating circumstances. IF Snowden had done that right out of the gate, he'd probably have been tossed in Gitmo for life without ever standing trial -- the administration has made it clear that they consider him an enemy of the state and that they are fine with the precedents of how such individuals are treated (ie., rights don't apply to you).

Basically, it boils down to respect. Dr. King Jr. hated some of the BS laws and social injustices in the South, but he respected the justice and good intentions of the US Government in general at the time. Snowden, on the other hand, had firsthand knowledge and proof that our government doesn't deserve such respect from us. They lie, they shit on the constitution, and they have the audacity to call him a criminal.

So, fuck them. They've pushed the line too goddamn far to expect civil disobedience; I think they clearly deserve every bit of blowback they get in the form of uncivil disobedience. Hell, I hope that Snowden has enough more dirt that he can turn the dial up to 11 and get into downright nasty disobedience if the government steps a single corrupt toe out of line in their attempts to extradite him back to their bullshit kangaroo courts.

You say; "Judicial punishment is not equal to revenge. It exists to appease the victim's feeling of injustice." Be quiet, you are an idiot to make such a statement. Try thinking about the nonsensical, statement you just made.

Judicial punishment is not equal to revenge. It exists to appease the victim's feeling of injustice, and to show the criminal that what he did was wrong and society will remove his individual freedom if he decides to act in this way.

If I didn't think about the victims as you say so, I would've said that criminals shouldn't have to pay at all. But that's not what I said was it?

Between the god awful american encarceration system (and the use of death penalty in some states), and letting prisoners go off with a warning, there is, I am pretty sure, a middle ground. And that middle ground doesn't involve dehumanizing people, treating them like animals, and letting them get ass raped everyday in the showers.

The whole thing seems juvenile to me. It's not like it's news that the US government has been spying on it's own people. What angers me is that they keep trying to hide it. I think Snowden reminded us of what they were doing. And I sure hope it works as a wake-up call that the rules of the game have changed.

It's near impossible to hide anything anymore in this age where you can chat around the world in a matter of seconds. And that can be used to disrupt violent activity that harms others as well as unite the world to fight injustice (also you can order pizza too, which is pretty amazing.)

I have serious issues with authority of any kind, especially uniformed thugs employed by cities or counties. The state of law enforcement in America is absurd-I do not believe you can remain a cop with noble ethics or morality; YOU WILL compromise any noble intentions you had to"protect and serve" eventually.
I never give police factual information when I do not absolutely have to. I will of necessity or impulse, reaction or response, engage injustice when I see it, regardless of personal safety or violation of statutes.

I don't know you, don't strike a woman in my presence: I don't care if she hit you first and don't need any "whys", I won't stop pummeling you until you are unconscious.

I have met about 5 fair cops in the hundreds I have ever had to engage.

Sorry porky, you chose a douchbag profession. Sorry Velocity5, I suppose I simply don't have my "life" together enough to appreciate Mr. Badgy. I do however get wood when I consider the noble fireman or EMT. Used to hang out at the firehouse with my son once a week in Durango. You can't "hang out" at a police station....If you did, some dickhead would start asking questions and probably arrest you for loitering. Fuck the PO-Leece.

Your video, Zero Punctuation: Injustice: Gods Among Us, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I understand your point about the distribution of power. I also agree that congress needs more like Warren.
..but in addition to that, the country needs a Leader who has the guts to say what's right - someone to change things not by passing laws, but by drawing bold paths on the map, and helping the populace decide if those are the right routes to follow.
In order for Congress to act in the best interests of the people, it needs pressure from the people. It takes a strong leader to encourage the people to fight injustice.
..as you say, unfortunately, such a leader may not be electable as president. I thought for a second that Obama could do it.. oh well, at least he is inspiring while he is campaigning...

@enoch I'm not hostile towards those who disagree with me, but towards those who intentionally misrepresent me. I'm guessing you once met some fundamentalist hard-headed fox news republican whatever, and you think I'm that guy. I'm not. So, please stop misrepresenting me, it's really annoying.

You suggest letting government/society burn? Sure, maybe that's what we're headed to anyways. I don't treat politics as discussing "what should we do", that's irrelevant if you and I can't agree on what's actually wrong. To me, it's more about understanding the problem.

@dag The problem I see in how you're using examples outside of America is that what you suggest as a solution in another country can just as much be an example of another country's success despite what you're pointing out as the solution.

"we tax the rich a lot in Australia and everything is better over here". Ok. What if Australia would be better off if you didn't tax the rich so much? Then you'd be just proposing we do what's not helping Australia to help America, all the while overlooking whatever is actually working in Australia.

It does seem somewhat obvious that taxing the rich would forcefully reduce wealth inequality, but then we wouldn't be looking at what's causing the inequality, just trying to punch it out of existence with taxes, and possibly establishing more social injustice in the process. To me, it seems quite unfair to tax someone more just for being richer, a moral hazard even (punishing productivity?), but moral concerns are passé and don't seem to bother anyone these days.

@shatterdrose I treat a smaller government solution as something like a paradigm shift. You see government doing things right in country X, Y or Z, and I see them as, most likely, taking credit for what they're not fucking up. I mean, seriously, don't you know governments do that all the time?

There are plenty of people who unfairly benefit from government, but government is mostly not a net benefit to society, and those people will lie through their goddamned teeth about how much good they do, usually taking credit for anything working in society. There sure are plenty of suckers who believe them.

Wanting less government is not snap judgement, it's not dogma, it's quite often what no one ever considers.

Wanting more government is the convenient way out, governments are the agents of every social planner's wet dreams. In their minds, governments always have "unlimited" resources, they're always above any law, they're never morally wrong, and they're always run by honest uncorruptible people.

I love your "get involved" answer to criticizing government. What you don't seem to realize is that I'm criticizing how much government IS involved. That can hardly be changed from the inside. People who run for government always want a bigger piece of the pie, they're not likely to win on a "we want less pie" platform.

@cosmovitelli he can't have understood Marx if he can't tell the difference between Communism and Socialism, and he shouldn't bother either since Marx rarely makes any goddamned sense. He's better off learning socialism from anybody else.

You make statements loudly, but you don't make a point. Yes, we need governments, but like you said, they're not agents of the people, they're corrupt and selfish power hungry institutions. I agree with you. If that's the case, doesn't it logically follow that having LESS government is the way to reduce the amount of damage the "powerful" can do to us?

@aaronfr I won't argue whether you were pandering, just that the points you made were awfully cheap, had nothing to do with libertarianism, but with the obvious and laziest misinterpretation one can make of it. Starting your reply with "Libertarian nonsense" is the easiest way to get upvotes from the videosift scum of mindless socialists that can't be bothered to read a full post worth of innacurate statements.

@dag it makes me even sadder that you seem to believe government has your best interests at heart. The government is the agent of that very wealth inequality that makes you so angry. I see limiting government as the way to limit that blatant social injustice, the very institution that tricks suckers into thinking it is "redistributing wealth", when in fact it's been acting as an inverse Robin Hood all this time, taking from everybody, and wasting or giving to the disgustingly rich 1%. Don't dehumanize me, don't dismiss me as some shill for the wealthy, as a brainwashed second-handed thinker. Can't you seriously consider the possibility that government is not part of the solution, but part of the problem? Is that too unbelievable for you?

@shatterdrose the 1% pushed government "aside"... what does that even mean? Are you fantasizing that the economy has been largely unregulated all this time, and that's why the 1% get their way?

Wouldn't it make more sense for you to make the connection that our government is FREAKISHLY HUGE and indebted, and that the terrible injustices in our economy result from massive government intervention in almost every aspect of it, bogging it down, wasting precious resources, destroying the value of our money, promoting wealth inequality... and not the other way around?

People don't hate the 1% just because they're rich, but because they're getting rich unfairly, with the help of government. *Government* is a big part of that equation.

You are so mistaken about the concepts you're trying to explain to me, it's hilarious!

Communism is not about means of production being owned by the state, the utopian concept itself is about a stateless society that is somehow reached through Socialism (Communism doesn't exist outside of theory, so don't worry your pretty little head about it). In Socialism, the State owns the means of production, it owns almost everything, mostly because the State doesn't recognize private property. You can say it "belongs to the people" all you want, but without private property, it belongs to whoever has a say into what should happen with it, i.e., the State. Democracy hasn't the faintest connection with any of this, because voting doesn't make you part of government.

OK so they want attention. Now they've got my attention.
What is their message?
No Seriously, What exactly is their message. I would hate to think they are just making a noise for noise sake. They must have some sort of manifesto detailing what their actions hope to gain.

Simply stating female equality isn't good enough. That kind of message falls on dead ears. I'm pro equality as much as the next woman or person, so i am not their target audience. So who is?

What are the tangent demands they are hoping to parade around. Without specific talking points, they are doing an injustice to themselves and women. I like nude woman, an art-form in my mind, but that's just their hook to get noticed. What is the message exactly?

SORRY friends, Please, The man in this video is suffering an injustice in Argentina. The contents i about this: Raul Belmont and William Chaplain, in an interview on Channel 7 of Salta, Argentina. The report shocked all the marginal people and popular Lerma Valley. Belmont, host of Words and Facts visibly impacted had to interrupt the meeting to embrace his guest sharing the excitement. His audience could see for the first time "The Caravan of the Poor in support of Chaplain William" from which they had participated. The Caravan of the Poor People. ever widespread censorship by a decade ago, is now known. A high ranking retired police handed the video to Chaplain who made the presentation pompadour but had not seen it in its entirety. When this happened in the studios of Channel 7, the interviewee burst into tears and visibly shocked driver stopped to embrace his program interviewed.

If that's your characterization of American policy, then at least be balanced in your contempt for injustice, cruelty and criminal behavior. By that same measure, the Taliban and their kindred Islamic Jihadists are systematic murderers of women and children and anyone that is not themselves an Islamic Jihadist as well. Most noteworthy to this discussion, they regularly and deliberately plan and execute school shootings and bombings far worse than the recent American one and against student's in Pakistan.

Paint America in the worst light if you must and your conscience requires a higher standard, but at least have the decency to maintain that standard when discussing even more violent and cruel entities.

@bareboards2 you make a good point, the villification of labor is very bad, I would also add that it's as bad as the villification of profit.

What really should be villified is government stepping in to solve issues with laws.

In a truly free market, unions, cartels, consumer groups, certification services (and many other kinds of associations and corporations I couldn't even begin to imagine) would each fight freely for their own special interests, as long as they didn't recourse to laws and force, which often lead to more problems and injustice. That's the real issue here.

There's a difference between being against unions, and being against unions that use government to get their way with one-sided laws, because the latter is what locks down the labor market imposing all kinds of hidden costs on society.