The article linked above mentions Röpke and Eucken as champions of free market capitalism, so to speak. Ironically, Bernie Sanders is quite in line with many of Walter Eucken's core ideas. For instance, Eucken declared legal responsibility to be an absolute necessity for competition within a market economy. Meaning that under Eucken's notion of capitalism, US prisons would be filled to the brim with white collar criminals from Wall Street and just about every multinational corporation, including Volkswagen.

Ludwig Erhard, credited by many to be the main figure behind the German "Wirtschaftswunder" (nothing wonderous about it), postulated real wage growth in line with productivity and target inflation as an imperative for a working social market economy. Again, very much in line with Bernie Sanders. Maybe even to the left of Sanders. A 5% increase in productivity and a target inflation of 2% requires a wage increase of 7%, otherwise your economy will starve itself of the demand it requires to absorb its increased production. You can steal it from foreign countries, like Germany's been doing for more than a decade now, but that kind of parasitic behaviour is generally frowned upon. Minimum wage in the US according to Erhard would be what now, $25-$30? So much for Sanders' $15...

Sennholz further mentions the CDU as a counterweight to the SPD. Well, the CDU's "Ahlener Programm" in 1947 declared that both marxism and capitalism failed the German people. In fact, it put significant blame for Germany's descent into fascism at the feet of the capitalistic system and called for a complete restart with focus NOT on the pursuit of profit and power, but the well-being of the people. They called for socialism with Christian responsibility, later watered down and known as social market economy or Rhine capitalism.

As for the economic policies conducted by the occupation forces: German industry, and large corporations in particular, were shackled for the role they played during the war. If you work tens of thousands of slaves to their death, you lose your right to... well, anything. If they had stripped IG Farben, Krupp and the likes down to the very bone, nobody could have complained. No economic liberties for the suppliers behind a genocide.

Next in line, the comparison with Germany's European neighbours. Sennholz wrote that piece in '55, so you can't really blame him for it. Italy had more growth from '58 onwards, France had more growth than its devastated neighbour from '62 onwards. The third Axis power, Japan, had significantly more growth from '58 onwards.

Why did some European and Asian countries grew much more rapidly than the US? Fair Deal? Nope, Bretton-Woods. Semi-fixed exchange rates caused the Deutsche Mark and the Yen to be ridiculously undervalued compared to the Dollar, thus increasing German and Japanese competitiveness at the cost of the US. Stable trade relations created by the semi-fixed exchange rates plus the highly expansive monetary policy in the US – that's what boosted Germany's economy most of all. Sort of like China over the last two decades, except we were needed as a bulwark against the evil, evil Commies, so the US kept going full throttle.

Our glorious policians tried the same policies (Adenauer/Erhard) in East Germany after reunification, even though global conditions were vastly different, and the result is the mess we now have over there. The entire industry was burned to the ground when they set the exchange rate too high, thus completely destroying what little competitiveness remained. Two trillion DM later, still no improvement. A job well done, truly.

Anyway, if anything, Bernie Sanders' program is closer to post-war German social market economic principles than to the East-German bastard of socialism, state capitalism and planned economy imposed by an autocratic system. However, even that messed up system produced significantly less poverty, both in quality and quantity, than the current US corporatocracy. No homelessness, no starvation, proper healthcare for everyone – reality in the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). And despite the fact that they were used as cheap labour for western corporations, no less. My first Ikea shelf was produced by our oppressed brothers and sisters in the East. The Wall "protected" the West from cheap labour while letting goods pass right through – splendid membrane, that one.

PS: Since that article was written in '55, I have to mention one of my city's most famous citizens: Otto Brenner. He was elected head of the IG Metal, this country's most influential trade union, in 1956 after having shared the office since 1952. The policies he fought for, and pushed through, during his 16 years in charge of the union are very much in line with what Sanders is campaigning for.

Unless you have data supporting your claims, blanket assigning attributes to "the right" isn't good.

From an outside view (I'm not American) the issue isn't guns. It's that Americans see using guns as a solution to problems that they probably shouldn't be a solution for.

This partly stems from historical and cultural factors but also high poverty rates, a mediocre health care system, a mediocre mental health care system, etc.

FYI, there is evidence that IUDs stop the implantation of the blastocyst - just a google search away.

Side note: there are some things America gets so right. Like various freedoms enshrined in your constitution. And how the country tends to self-correct towards liberty (over the long run).

I feel like I've seen videos on here of this same guy before, or someone incredibly similar who goes around filming buildings of police type organizations.

He's always well within his rights and well versed in them, but I do feel he's doing it specifically to cause trouble and film it. I applaud his interest in civil liberties, but I'm not sure doing this advances the overall cause or awareness much.

She's a kinky one that Liberty.

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

It's a very old story so I'm sure they'll take liberties to modernise.

@newtboy

I don't think I'm much in danger of contradiction in suggesting that you yourself have yet to crack a book of feminist theory or engage with a feminist activist making no more extravagant sex/gender claims that the one you quote from that unimpeachable source, dictionary.com (and when did dictionaries move from being an aid to understanding obscure words to the ultimate arbiters of political thought?).

There is no separating the movement from the ideology; this is an ancient truism. Without the movement, the idea dies. Without the idea, the movement doesn't exist. My unfollowable second paragraph comprises only examples of actual, nasty feminist doctrine which I have encountered in the real world, and could probably even document with a few google searches. I can hardly be blamed that this group is so dissolute, so indiscriminately inclusive of maniacs and criminal fanatics that no single representative feminist can be found, no central text can answer for the whole.

But for the sake of increasingly and inexplicably divisive argument, let's attempt to isolate just that 'small-f' feminism in the definition you give: "feminism: noun: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men", which I will unconditionally repudiate and abjure, for the following reasons.

i) Let's be boring and start with the name. A name that has rightly attracted much criticism, and which Virginia Woolf - not a feminist, merely a devastatingly intelligent and talented woman - called "a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete".* Anyone can see the defect here, an implicitly sexist term that apparently calls for the advancement of one sex at the expense of - whom? Well, whom do you think? A special politics for women only and exclusionary of those other incidental members of the human species, once allies and comrades and now relegated to the other side of what has become a literally unending antagonism.

You may say, "it's only a name", but how little else your dictionary leaves me to examine. No, were there no other social or intellectual harm in feminism, I would reject it on the ground of its name alone.

ii, sailor) Would that there were a known equivalent for the term 'racialism' that could relate to the cultural fiction of gender. The demand for women's rights necessarily requires that such a category 'women' exists, and is in need of special protection. Well what virtue is there in any woman that exists in no man? What mannish fault that finds no womanly echo? Then how is this distinction maintained except through supernatural thinking?

There are no women; and if there are no women, then there is nothing for feminism to accomplish. You may sign me up at any time for the doctrine of 'anti-sexism' or of 'individualism', but I will spit on anyone who advocates for 'women's rights'.

iii) This has been touched on before, and praise satan for that time saving mercy, but I reject the implicit assumption that there is a natural societal opposition to the principle of sex equality and that those who fail to declare for this, again, historically very recent dogma fall by default into that opposing force.



*The quote is worth taking in its fuller context, written in a time when the word 'feminist' was a slur on those heroes whose suffering and idealism has been so ghoulishly plundered for the tawdry use of @bareboards2 and her cohort:

"What more fitting than to destroy an old word, a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete? The word ‘feminist’ is the word indicated. That word, according to the dictionary, means ‘one who champions the rights of women’. Since the only right, the right to earn a living, has been won, the word no longer has a meaning. And a word without a meaning is a dead word, a corrupt word. Let us therefore celebrate this occasion by cremating the corpse. Let us write that word in large black letters on a sheet of foolscap; then solemnly apply a match to the paper. Look, how it burns! What a light dances over the world! Now let us bray the ashes in a mortar with a goose-feather pen, and declare in unison singing together that anyone who uses that word in future is a ring-the-bell-and-run-away-man, a mischief maker, a groper among old bones, the proof of whose defilement is written in a smudge of dirty water upon his face. The smoke has died down; the word is destroyed. Observe, Sir, what has happened as the result of our celebration. The word ‘feminist’ is destroyed; the air is cleared; and in that clearer air what do we see? Men and women working together for the same cause. The cloud has lifted from the past too. What were they working for in the nineteenth century — those queer dead women in their poke bonnets and shawls? The very same cause for which we are working now. ‘Our claim was no claim of women’s rights only;’— it is Josephine Butler who speaks —‘it was larger and deeper; it was a claim for the rights of all — all men and women — to the respect in their persons of the great principles of Justice and Equality and Liberty.’"

Yes, they are in a unique situation.

I agree that availability in the USA is a major factor but I think it is the availability to people who intend to use them criminally that is the problem (as I believe you alluded to near the end).

The police force is an interesting suggestion. But remember the USA is so very unalike Australia. Historically, you take care of yourself - that's the price of liberty. That's how many Americans want it kept. I don't blame them, every inch you give in to restrictions is almost never given back. Australia is the perfect example of that. In Australia one doesn't ask themselves "is this illegal", you take the default position of everything being illegal and ask "is this legal" - because it's probably not.

Banning particular types of firearms really doesn't work. As above, NZ is a really good example of how Australia's laws aren't making the difference that some politicians suggest they are (which is backed up by the majority of studies that have examined the situation).

I don't think they're a rarity with the ownership rates we have in Australia. It's a very popular hobby.

All weapons can be used for assaulting another person. Do you mean semi-automatic rifles similar to AR15s? If so, the NZ example shows you don't need that. They are not the problem.

Many sports require high capacity magazines. In fact the overwhelming amount of bullets fired from firearms everyday is for sport. Why restrict these sports for security theatre? I write security theatre because a magazine change takes less than a second and you're shooting again. It's not going to change the outcome of an active (criminal) shooter who simply pockets multiple magazines. Plus once again the successful story of NZ who passed sensible laws - and didn't restrict semi-automatic rifles or high capacity magazines, yet have crime statistics that are enviable even from an Australian perspective.

I have my doubts as to whether any new laws would change anything in the USA. I don't actually think it's a good solution for them. And constitutionally speaking, more laws are never a good solution (since they restrict liberty).

I think the USA needs a long term societal change, involving fixing many aspects of their society to gradually make things better.

Y'all are jus' persecution' her for her Religius Liberty, or somefin. I'm sure she has no bad feeling for them children (they all will face their consequences when comes the time for judgement).

Ah ha A man who knows his geography!

I missed the Caribbean, and having played pirates I have no defence.

So about half the problems are due to changes since the film was made, and half were taking liberties to get it to rhyme.

There was an interesting article on the BBC News web site about what constitutes a country... I'll have a quick look and send you the link if I find it.

p.s. Got it http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20131212-bribery-and-brandy-in-a-country-that-doesnt-exist

Transnistria not quite the subject I remembered, but that was the article I was thinking of.

i find it amusing in an ironically,twisted way that the very same people who will shout about "freedoms" and "liberty" are the very same people who will tacitly accept an ever-increasing authoritarian police force.

i mean,what could possibly be an end result of the continuous pleas "just sit down,and do what you are told and nothing bad will happen".
sit down.
shut up.
obey..and for god's sakes do not provoke anything resembling authority because then you get what you deserve.

does that sound like anything resembling "freedom"?
or liberty?
sounds like fear to me.

I didn't think I 'switched back' to anything. It's been my position all along that the only one in the wrong was the cop, and that his behavior of not talking, while rude in normal society, is prudent, proper behavior when dealing with law enforcement, and the advice given by numerous high priced lawyers.

Part of living in a 'free' society is we must accept the restraints it puts on law enforcement, and the loss of some ability to keep us 'safe'. The founding fathers understood that clearly, and made sure it was clear they intended it to be that way. To paraphrase Franklin, 'those that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary 'safety' deserve neither'. In a free country, in the contest between a citizen's rights and law enforcement's ability to do their job, the citizen should always come out on top, even though that's more dangerous.

Is he really on the 'watch list'? Would that be just because he's an activist? If so, that kind of inclusion is exactly what's made the 'watch list' a bad joke rather than a real tool against terrorism.

Without people putting their freedom in jeopardy to do this kind of 'audit', an audit the cops unsurprisingly failed miserably, the right to not self incriminate (and many others) would be gone...these officers believed it already WAS gone because apparently no one had ever stood up to them before. The camera was necessary because without the proof of the entire interaction, he would NEVER have been released without charges. It sucks ass that we need people to do this, but obviously we do. If we didn't need this kind of public 'testing' (because the cops act properly), this video would be pretty boring and uninteresting.
That's why I don't see him or his behavior as being a 'tool'. Others make cops 'nervous' all the time, people without the resources and knowledge to come out of the situation on top who end up in jail for not breaking any law, but just making cops nervous just because of how they look, or because of their personality, or other factors beyond their control. Hopefully this public 'shaming' will stop others from being accosted over nothing.

Ah Asmo, this is humorous. Not in a way that has me thinking less of you, but due to the fact that even the smartest people make the most indefensible arguments. Stewart always has a joke when Republicans (and sometimes Democrats) do the same thing Chaos just did and which you defended--which is to ignore the "implied" in a statement. Usually Republicans use hate speech or such, but they just don't say the hate literally (Often when Obama's policies were compared to Nazi Germany's policies, for example.)

I.e, "Hey, I'm not saying Obama is like Hitler, but look at the smoke stacks coming from the White House?! They look like Jew smoke to you?!"

Another, but this one in more relation to our conversation.

I.e., Hey Lawdeedaw, when you have dick in your mouth does it taste good? WOAH, I DIDN'T SAY YOU SUCK DICK! YOU IMPLIED THAT! I just asked, you know, when dick is in your mouth...

See how utterly indefensible that above statement is? Or why Stewart gets so pissed, rightly so, when people make that argument? People can hide behind the most obvious statements and it's bullshit. Or people can be ignorant of the statements you make, and it's just as bullshit.

If you can't see the sense that makes, don't respond to this post please. I don't argue with ideology that blinds people to clear points and I have agreed with my fair share of points over the years when I have been wrong...so I expect it returned in kind.

Second, you do have a point about me being judgmental. I am jaded because every marriage I observed growing up was toxic. "Dad can't divorce mom, even tho she abuses us kids." Was a wonderful house I lived in. My wife was beaten for years by her husband, until she took poverty and destitution over that, and then met me. The list goes on and on, yada yada, no more need to explain my own life history because it isn't necessarily what happens in all of America. So I look at the worst aspects of marriage. Aspects that are as universal as the fact that we eat, breathe, shit and die.

Of course I also use history and stats to back up my judgment. So; marriage is a civil contract based on liberty and property (At least the part of marriage that matters to the government insofar as the rights they give you.) If the world's population of homosexuals is around 2.5% or so, depending on the estimates, then cheating (seeking out more than one relationship at a time) is much more naturally inherent to humans than sexual orientation by far. This is also natural in regards to the homosexual relationships as well. Cheating causes so much grief, repercussions, and yet it is only one bad aspect of being tied into a contract that many societies make difficult to break either through legal means or cultural taboos. Furthermore, abuse, divorce, long-term separation for business matters, much of these things kind of lend credence to the fact that marriage is created by society and has nothing to do with the "apparent" definitions we apply to it.

And Asmo, naughty naughty Asmo, you implied something...I am in no way shape or form telling other people what "their relationship is about." Just because I say something is inconvenient for damn near everyone (For some it is not) doesn't really mean much of anything. Shoes are inconvenient because you have to tie their laces. Is that me telling you how to shoe? No. How about kids? Kids are a hell of an inconvenience, but if you said I was degrading parenthood, especially my own, I would tell you to fuck yourself with that bold-faced lie.

If you are focused on the "property" aspect of that comment, well, you have an issue with my definition of the government's hand in marriage.

At some point, yes. But for the time being, increases in productivity (automation) are less of a job killer than your everyday policies and ideologies.

Speaking of my own country, the amount of work not being done is enormous, and the aggregate of work not having been done over the last decades is absolutely staggering. The current economic system not only unloaded a great number of burdens onto society, it also never found a way to come up with a way to integrate the aforementioned work. No one is willing to pay for it, so it doesn't get done, period. The most prominent examples would be infrastructure works of all kinds (energy, most of all), ecological restauration and care for the elderly. Our national railroad alone could hire 100,000 people and still be understaffed.

You can have full employment next year, but not if you expect the private sector to provide the jobs within the current system. The public sector could create them, if you use a sovereign, free-floating currency, but ideology doesn't allow for it.

As long as we focus on finding people for a given job, there'll be mass unemployment, no matter what. Reverse the process, create/find jobs for a given people and we might make some headway.

Again, ideology doesn't allow for it. And that's also what made me stop advocating for an unconditional basic income (UBI). The financial details of it can be a nightmare, yes, and it would be a break with a social welfare system that survived two world wars. But the deal breaker for me was politics.

A UBI would mean taking the boot of the peasants' necks. Liberty and (some) equality made real. Love it.
But look at how vicious the Greeks are attacked these days, not just by the elite, but by our fellow worker bees. They're not just burying the last bit of European solidarity in Greece, they're unloading all their frustrations onto the schmucks who had very little to begin with. It's despicable. And it indicates to me that any attempt to introduce a system that would take from people the need to work would unleash unimaginable hatred from the usual suspects. And significant portions of the public would go along with it, given how easy it already is to channel their frustrations towards "welfare queens" and "moochers".

So yeah, a UBI would be lovely. Finally some liberty, finally more negotiating power for the worker (can decline any job offer without repression). But the shit would need to hit the fan hard before there can be any room within the political sphere for it.

I'm actually very liberal. So much so that I consider Democrats too conservative.

When the right wingers talk about 'the civil war not being about slavery', that's part of the rhetoric that 'the south was not racist'.

I'm not making that statement.





I am saying that :

- Both the south /and/ the north were racist.

- Neither cared about the fate of black people.

- The war started over secession (to which slavery was only a contributing factor, among many much more important [to the people in authority] factors).

- After the war was on, the north used the subject of slavery to their benefit.
A) Freeing slaves in only the rebelling states, in order to incite slave revolts and use that to military advantage. (if the northern authority wins, then the emancipation becomes southern law. If the confederate authority wins, then the emancipation is meaningless. So confederate slaves were given a personal incentive to help the northern authority win)
B) Paint the south internationally as 1 dimensional caricatures of evil (war propaganda), to cut off the south's supply of foreign made arms (because they didn't make their own).

- After the war was over, most of the slave owning states had been emancipated, and the north had claimed to be champions of liberty, so in order to save face they had to emancipate slaves in the remainder of the south (plus it was no skin off of their back, so it was easy to do).

(The southern states that had been allowed to keep their slaves could not then protest their emancipation, for they were few and weak - and would get no help from the other southern states that they themselves hadn't helped during the civil war (resentment/reciprocity)).

- When writing schoolbooks at that time, the rhetoric/propaganda was repeated, and generations of people grew up repeating it, perpetuating it for future generations (like religion).

-scheherazade