This was also not the only man involved, and not the only concern that applied. This quote is his, not that of half a nation.

While I agree that the south had racist and white supremacist behaviors, I simply point out that the north was little better.

Both were plenty racist, and both cared a lot more about their money/power than they did about slaves. Rich white people in charge today don't give 2 shits about poor black people, I find it very unlikely that the rich white people in charge way back then cared any more.

Let me illustrate the 'champion of liberty' spin with an unrelated example :
Take the ww2 pacific theater for example. Japan teaches WW2 as a war to free Asia from western colonialism. U.S. teaches WW2 (pacific) as a war to free Asia from imperial expansion and oppression by Japan. Both are telling the truth, and both are full of crap. For neither was altruistic in their motivations, but both spin themselves as champions of liberty. For you will always have people on your side if you tell them you are standing up for liberty. (A concept well illustrated in The Prince - one of the earlier 'game theory' (from before it was called that) studies of governance.)

On a side note,

Keep in mind that slaves from Africa were usually purchased from black slavers.

And just a few generations ago, my own great grandparent's era, they and their peers were white peasant property of local white counts.

Things are not really all that 'black and white' (no pun intended).

-scheherazade

Erm, I'm a fucking Australian and even I remember...

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Thomas Jefferson

And for all those people saying "He shouldn't have done that because it's not safe", you do comprehend that you're proving the case these guys are trying to make right? You're openly admitting that the black guy was in grave danger as soon as he walked out in the open with that gun hanging off him, just because he was black.

Not a single comment expressing concern for the safety of the white guy for doing the exact same thing because you all assume that he's a lot safer doing it, right? \= |

If the social experiment of actually taking the gun out and seeing how the cops react isn't legitimate enough, the reaction of posters confirms the results emphatically.

Yeah @bobknight33 you did say walk a mile...typical conservative rhetoric. Says something loud but can't back it up...like the Bucs football team. I really want to love conservatives but recently they piss on the flag, God, country and veterans. They shit on liberty they percieve as "others" despite crying like little babies.

Well, there's no need to click this link unless you're prepared for something very disturbing (albeit just another example of the psychopathy inherent in the police force). I wonder how many more of these "isolated incidents" involving "one bad apple" must we endure before it becomes obvious to everyone that the problem is clearly systemic and completely out of control?

I had no idea they have a statue of liberty in Tokyo!

Pretty, but it has nothing on SF fog, and we beat SF most of the time in thickness of fog, we just have nothing but 350' tall trees sticking above it here on the far North Coast (of California). We're so foggy (normally) that I've been told our airport was built as a training facility to teach instrument flying for WW2, it was the foggiest place in the US, so they put an airport here!

don't suppose that a *findthumb can improve that?...

if not, i took the liberty of making a screencap at 4:32
for you to manually replace it with, if you like.

It always seemed to me that, if 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' are 'guarantees' in America, health care should be free, otherwise only those with money get the former, while those without money may lose all 3 because of their uncared for health issues. That never seemed to be the intent of our system to me, and also does not seem moral or humane, and certainly isn't 'Christian'. It's not even financially sound, it's cheaper by far to take care of everyone properly rather than the system we have now under the ACA, which is better than before ACA.

There's quite a wait time for elective surgery in America too, I can't fathom why that's an issue for some people about single payer systems...if you count the time it takes to get pre-authorization from your insurance company, Canada is probably faster than America even on elective surgeries, and certainly far cheaper.

He totally screwed up the part were River gained or had her "powers" naturally (she was only naturally/gifted mentally, that is, she was a genius or prodigy). That came from the experimenting FROM the Alliance... Same with her fighting abilities, that was also an Alliance "gift" (to use her as a "psychic weapon"). But I think Joss already made the point IN the show that Mal was indeed a very shady person, if you didn't get that you are an idiot!

You were supposed to know that the Alliance brought a lot of great things with them, but they also stole your freedom...essentially (in exchange for a world with lots of rules).

But, what the Alliance was up to "behind the scenes" is what was really everyone's main concern--which they covered in Serenity a bit... In Serenity we found out that they had been up to a LOT more terrible things than just taking individuals like River--they were in the business of thinking they knew how to make all people "better" people...and one day they would try to institute it in force, en masse...

It seemed like the show was more a story about the civil war had the wrong side won--to some degree; I think you could make an argument for both. But it was obvious from watching that "Mal's side" was the "Confederacy", but they didn't stand for the same things, it was just that the history of things were playing out the same in many ways...and that was the point.

If The Union had been lying about a huge amount of things and started to institute policies that you went into action then they'd seem so very much like the Alliance in the show (BUT, some actions are exactly like what The Union did to Confederate "states" after the war; which DID leave them in states of welfare were citizens were left to fend for the most basic of necessities on their own--the Wild Wild West didn't just appear from comic books... Even the citizens had to fight off Indian attacks here and there and most of these attacks were born from the legacy of military campaigns and other actions via The Union (or before the States went to war--but, it's easy to see what the "Reavers" were based on, at least I assume that is what he had in mind).

Ironically, right now in our government it's doing the things that Mal was so concerned over that many that HAD lived in the Alliance regions hadn't been as worried about: slowly eroding our civil liberties, our regular freedoms are being taken away or one-by-one being hamstrung, and regulation is being destroyed allowing the corrupt to make this circle all that much worse (of course one day this cycle will just feedback on itself and create a revolution--as it always has). That is what The Alliance was doing, especially to the planets that didn't join immediately...so it does have a lot in common with our history. As The Union did do some pretty annoying and considering all of the people that needed help and were not getting anything, they actually directly killed a large amount of completely innocent people...just to punish some wealthy land owners and other people that had something to do with the Civil War. They should have taken the matter directly into their hands, but there is a lot on that as well (just like the show...why the Alliance never intervenes in the outer planets...).

God how I miss that show. I can only imagine what Joss could have accomplished in 7 or 8 seasons (maybe more). He could have made a show that could easily be written about in a college setting, about the civil war and the topics related to it. How grand the adventure could have been, except for one dickhead producer at Fox...

(*I take no responsibility for the parts of my comment I messed up on...* )


*nerd rant*

What a catchy jingle for all of you who love tyranny and/or communism over liberty! Maybe this could be the new anthem for Police State USSA!
Not only do cops not feel bad about all the people they kill, they celebrate it. This is the direct result of having centrally planned theft and violence based on systems of control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cO2BLmc6yQ

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/not-war-its-12-year-old-boy-crowd-erupts-when-cop-beats-handcuffed-boy-video

One more example today why we DON'T think more cops is helpful, it's just more abusive. Proper use of force is no longer the norm.

America! America! God mend thine ev'ry flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!

@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.

@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....

"There is nothing that states can do that needs to be done that markets cannot do better. The current technology trajectory is proving the point, many times over. The result is political instability. A paradigm shift. Obsolescence of the public sector. The growing irrelevance of power. Ever less dependent on, and hence loyalty to, the coercive power structure and ever more cultural, economic, and social reliance on the structures that society creates for itself." via.

An example of this technology is Bitcoin which is now where the internet was in 1995. Back then, the confused mainstream didn't get it, but will soon find out why (the likes of) Federal Reserve Notes are to (the likes of) Bitcoin what the radio is to the internet.

Your entire comment was plagiarized from here:

http://tucker.liberty.me/2014/08/22/the-death-of-minarchism/

Next time, get an original thought in your head.

http://i.imgur.com/KvBpAPs.jpg