If you are interested in private sector brutality, Best Buy is probably a blind alley. I'd recommend instead looking into private mercenary firms like Blackwater, Dyncorp and Wackenhutt.

Pfft. Never heard the saying "don't bring a knife/sword to a gun fight"? Fucking ninjas and samurais don't belong with mercenaries and special forces! Playstation can keep their crappy Metal Gear shite.

Military Industrial Complex requires something to spend the budget on or the economy suffers.

having said that...

if you want to be the hippy that says it's ok to let a ruthless dictator outsource foreign mercenaries to basically genocide whole towns of men women and children and then cheer over the victory... go... right... ahead...

>> ^entr0py:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
This is more a problem of big government than big business though, right, or did I miss something?

To me it seems like these are examples of reckless attempts to make government smaller by outsourcing basic services to contractors. Jails and public schools are not extravagant, they are absolutely essential services that citizens expect of any developed nation.
Sometimes privatization does produce a savings for the government. But usually at the expense of less accountability, lower quality of service, and the creation of fewer good jobs. Other times it costs taxpayers more, and only serves to line the pockets politicians and contractors. I'd say the US hiring of mercenary outfits to fight in our wars falls in that later category.


I would agree mostly, but only because government doesn't have a "market place" like we do. They make monolithic decisions mired in layers of politics instead of personal expectations, taste, and past experience (and don't forget price!). If you, I, or my town makes a bad decision, we reap the results and are in a better position to rectify than some people thousands of miles away ( I don't think the people in New Orleans will ever let the funding for the levies dry up again, even if some federal bill doesn't pass ). To me, this video highlights a real danger, and that is increased governmental responsibility leads the the creation of mega corporations to manage the affairs of large government responsibility. A self reinforcing problem that is very dangerous indeed. This is the problem that many have seen from the start of this country, and Eisenhower reminded us of only 50(god I'm getting old) 60 years ago, the industrial military complex. This issue is part and parcel with large, federal, central banking as well...it's a dance that we haven't seen the end of yet.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

This is more a problem of big government than big business though, right, or did I miss something?


To me it seems like these are examples of reckless attempts to make government smaller by outsourcing basic services to contractors. Jails and public schools are not extravagant, they are absolutely essential services that citizens expect of any developed nation.

Sometimes privatization does produce a savings for the government. But usually at the expense of less accountability, lower quality of service, and the creation of fewer good jobs. Other times it costs taxpayers more, and only serves to line the pockets politicians and contractors. I'd say the US hiring of mercenary outfits to fight in our wars falls in that later category.

How is it that people cannot defend themselves right now? We can still purchase a wide variety of weapons, including firearms. Do you need an RPG to protect your apartment?

I'm trying real hard to understand your moral vs. immoral approach to crimes. You seem to be claiming that it is immoral for the government (representatives of the collective public) to throw a person in prison for breaking the law. Tell me if I'm wrong, because I don't know how else to interpret that weird "stabbing you with a knife to quit smoking" example.

Incentivize people using fear and violence? What does that even mean? Fear is a good thing. Fear of consequences. Whether there is a government around or not, there will be consequences for actions. Either from a neutral party (like police and the courts) or from vigilantes (the family and friends of the victim). From my point of view, there's more violence in your proposed world.

Your entire argument is beginning to sound like "I can't smoke what I want where I want so let's burn this whole mutherfuker down!" and "I can't buy a guy without a three day waiting period so let's burn this whole mutherfuker down!"

You have no clue what would even happen if you got your way, and you act like we are crazy for defending a system that at least functions a little bit. We're not crazy, we have a pretty good idea how fucked up the world gets when there is no functioning government. It's like those African countries where they don't have any roads but they've all got AK-47's. Where entire villages get wiped out by roving mercenary gangs. Where hundred or thousands of women get raped and nobody does a damn thing about it. I don't want to live there, and I don't think you do either. It's fucking hell on earth, and you think everybody is suddenly going to start being nice to each other? Because there is no government to "incentivize violence"?

I'm trying real hard not to start throwing insults, so please tell me why you think I am wrong. Aside from allowing you to buy more weed and guns, how would a lack of government be better?


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^MaxWilder:
I think we're stuck on the word "prevent". Nothing can prevent crime, only discourage it and punish people who are caught committing crimes.
So the real question is: would your system do a better job discouraging people from harming one another? And when someone inevitably does, what happens when they are caught?
Currently, we have courts and police to discourage crime and attempt to punish those who commit crimes.
I see no alternative, other than vigilante justice, which in my humble opinion would suck balls. Please explain how it would be better!

Yes, "prevent" was the word dystopianfuturetoday scrawled above as some sort of ham-fisted challenge as if there's any proof the current system prevented anything. No law (no matter the number or the severity of the draconian punishment) will prevent a crime. If it did, then today we'd have no murder, no rape, theft, etc.
Would a voluntary society discourage crime? Maybe. Who knows. If you mean discouraging the more egregious crimes like murder and rape and theft, I feel confident it would help to allow people the right to self defense by allowing them to arm themselves if they chose to do so. I can guarantee a voluntary society would not have that horrible '3 strikes' rule we have here in California where receiving the third felony nets you a mandatory life sentence. Has it been successful in preventing or discouraging crime? I don't know, but people are still committing felonies.
The real difference is in having a moral vs. immoral approach to crimes. For instance, if you wanted to stop smoking I could come to your house and threaten you with a butcher knife. If I find you smoking then I stab you. Would that prevent you from smoking? Would that discourage you from smoking? And would that be moral even if I did in fact effectively stopped you from smoking?
Voluntary societies would morally deal with drug addicts, jaywalkers, etc. As long as people are not hurting others, then they won't be harmed. That's the motto. We don't want to incentivize people using fear and violence. We want to do it voluntarily.

>> ^entr0py:

Here's the cable in question: http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/06/09KABUL1651.html (paragraphs 1,4,5 and 6)
Here's the change.org story that caught TYT's attention: http://humantrafficking.cha
nge.org/blog/view/wikileaks_reveals_us_tax_dollars_fund_child_sex_slavery_in_afghanistan

Also, I've got to mention my contempt for Cenk over the following statement "look, they're fighting over in Afganistan, I'm not going to nitpick weather they had hookers" (1:17). We can guess that being sold for sex by rich foreign mercenaries to corrupt local police is a hellish experience. But suddenly if they are young women rather than young boys, it's no big woop. Certainly nothing to quibble over. They're fighting in Afghanistan for profit after all, surely that should come with some fringe benefits. Isn't that right Cenk? I have a hard time believing he's naive enough to think that the women there are safe and empowered sex workers, and not victims of human trafficking or sex slavery.
At least he did help bring attention to this story, so I'll upvote for that.


I watch his show pretty regularly and have gotten fairly familiar with his mindset, I'd definitely say that he doesn't consider traffiking of females as not being a big deal compared to young males.

What he means here is that he doesn't consider it as bad if they were just 'going to the pros' with taxpayer money. They still shouldn't be doing that, given that it's public money, but he doesn't think that prostitution per-se should necessarily be illegal (Obviously, providing that it's concensual on the part of the prositute).

Here's the cable in question: http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/06/09KABUL1651.html (paragraphs 1,4,5 and 6)

Here's the change.org story that caught TYT's attention: http://humantrafficking.change.org/blog/view/wikileaks_reveals_us_tax_dollars_fund_child_sex_slavery_in_afghanistan


Also, I've got to mention my contempt for Cenk over the following statement "look, they're fighting over in Afganistan, I'm not going to nitpick weather they had hookers" (1:17). We can guess that being sold for sex by rich foreign mercenaries to corrupt local police is a hellish experience. But suddenly if they are young women rather than young boys, it's no big woop. Certainly nothing to quibble over. They're fighting in Afghanistan for profit after all, surely that should come with some fringe benefits. Isn't that right Cenk? I have a hard time believing he's naive enough to think that the women there are safe and empowered sex workers, and not victims of human trafficking or sex slavery.

At least he did help bring attention to this story, so I'll upvote for that.

@NordlichReiter, I posted this because if we're going to have a debate about a military draft, I wanted to elevate it to a higher level.

Going into watching this the first time, I had a pretty solid belief that a volunteer military service was the best way to go.

I came away from it thinking that maybe the old system (compulsory conscription that you could hire someone else to fulfill) is more just.

I think that you, like me, have some difficulty separating your feelings about war from feelings about the draft. I don't want there to be wars, period, and I definitely don't want military service foisted on me. But a country without a military doesn't stay a country for long, and we need some sort of system for deciding who in our society must fight.

On paper, I like the volunteer system. But the thing is, you don't volunteer to fight in a particular theater of war, for a duration of your own choosing, with freedom to only participate in conduct suiting your morals. You basically get a choice to sign your life over to the military for a fixed period of years, or go find something else to do. That's indentured servitude, period.

I'd say that if you follow consistent right- or left-wing ideology, the "volunteer" system is ultimately immoral. For the right, you should prefer a completely mercenary army -- a true volunteer army. For the left, you should prefer a system that spreads the duty around in a more egalitarian fashion, and ensures that rich Harvard students would be as likely to get called upon for service as members of a poverty-stricken community.

To me, I like the idea of requiring all military-aged members of politicians' families being conscripted, if they support beginning, or continuing a war. But then, that's more about my feelings about war, than about the draft...

I do hear what you are saying.
I guess it's a matter of you hearing what I mean and not what I say

To try to be more articulate in what I am trying to say...

I use the term rent-a-cop as a term of disrespect for those who assume the role of authority when in fact they have none, do not have the appropriate training or overstep their ground for their personal ego inflation.

I use the term Security guard as a term of respect for those who are actually there for the public good or who work at a professional level. And don't worry, I do have respect for a person who operates within the boundaries of professionalism. And I do give authority benefit of doubt. I respect the profession as I would any other uniformed profession...

I do not, though, give blind respect just because some douche is given a uniform and it goes to their head - because in my mind, that's not professional. I also do not give respect to anyone in uniform that is being paid solely for the sake of corporate interest.

They need to stand up, have some balls, and rethink who the bad guys are (hint - it's not the reporters). And, yes, I do understand they are doing their best, under extreme circumstances, to bring home a paycheck and feed their families. But they are still rent-a-cops in this example of "Security Guard." In fact, they aren't in a security role at the moment, they are mercenaries at best. (That's my uninformed opinion).

Cheers!
(No disrespect to the professional Security Guard - or to you, my friend!)

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

So, security works with local law enforcement? Hrm, that is a broad accusation, considering most do not. Trust me, I know a few security---one retired wanted to bust all the crack heads and make the parks safe for kids again, and the other hated cops because of how cops treated him with such disrespect. But then there were the many others who had no dealings with police entirely. They worked for the companies they worked for---much like bouncers---and that was that.

Yay, thanks for the *quality!

In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
My charter recently ran out and now need to renew. As a result, my power points have decreased by half. I can sypmathize with these mercenaries. *quality

My charter recently ran out and now need to renew. As a result, my power points have decreased by half. I can sypmathize with these mercenaries. *quality

>> ^shuac:

No, I don't need it explained. I stand by my comment. The rules she's imposing are arbitrary.


Wow you're thick.
First, an arbitrary set of rules e.g.

1. Does the film show a women in a green shirt?
2. Are at least to women on unicycles?
3. Is at least one of the women a robotic mercenary who hunts hammer head sharks?

Those rules are arbitrary because they ask about women in films..
but they don't reveal any information about the frequency or quality of female characters in films.

Which is the whole point of the test and video. So standing by your comment just makes you sound like a bigot via ignorance.

Because it sounds as if you find it perfectly acceptable to treat 51% of the humans as if they're not as interesting/important enough to accurately acknowledge in a highly influential media such as films, tv, etc.

just sayin'..

I was thinking the exact same thing.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

This idiot should have probably brushed up on Nicaraguan history before cozying up with the same movement that sent death squads to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Nicaraguan citizens. Google Iran-Contra. On second thought, considering his sociopathic demeanor, susceptibility to propaganda and military status, maybe this guy was a deathsquad mercenary in his youth.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

This idiot should have probably brushed up on Nicaraguan history before cozying up with the same movement that sent death squads to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Nicaraguan citizens. Google Iran-Contra. On second thought, considering his sociopathic demeanor, susceptibility to propaganda and military status, maybe this guy was a deathsquad mercenary in his youth.


Don't Google Iran-Contra...I don't suggest that as a good way of studying anything. There's plenty of books on the subject, you have to really look for the good ones though.