Freedom from? ... By: Ryan O'Doud. on 27 May 12, 05:26:10 Freedom from? control, Freedom to self-determination. You seem like you have been in your society so long that you seem to think freedom is something given to you from on high rather than something you know is yours and is to be executed as you see fit.
This may make no ... By: Ryan O'Doud. on 27 May 12, 05:24:27 This may make no sense to you, but the practical side of it is up to the free individual himself.? How you will put into action your vision and your desire, your goals for your life is completely up to you. YOU HAVE THE CONTROL. It's living revolution. That is as practical as freedom gets. Don't try to tell me "practicality" involves submitting your ideas to the government for approval (who will tax you whether or not they "allow" you to do what you desire in your heart)
There is no non- ... By: Ryan O'Doud. on 27 May 12, 05:15:09 There is no non-self appointed government that has ever existed. "No self-appointed person is telling you what to do".. I see. Banks control teh government, they are run by the folks who give millions to the campaigns of all parties. "third parties" are laughed and automatically considered void. any non-mainstream idea is mocked. You don't think the government is self-appointed? you are extremely naive. "Social? democracy" Is paying off the poor so they don't investigate war and oppression.
Freedom does not " ... By: Ryan O'Doud. on 27 May 12, 05:10:03 Freedom does not "have to" do anything. So it can not be freedom. That's orwellian bs. Freedom allows people to define their own life within the framework of consent. As long as you are a consenting adult, you can do what you want over yourself. There is no such thing as the Freedom "OVER" something. That is a completely misnomer. Control does not equal freedom. A free society can have socialists living how they like, they? just do it voluntarily. Why advocate for a system which requires force?
Ok, the video on ... By: gulbirk. on 16 May 12, 14:32:36 Ok, the video on North Korea is up? now.
ill see what ? I ... By: gulbirk. on 16 May 12, 09:30:36 ill see what ? I can put together.
*I forgot to? say + ... By: charli0hihi. on 14 May 12, 21:33:27 *I forgot to? say + human rights.
It's? a powerpoint- ... By: charli0hihi. on 14 May 12, 21:32:48 It's? a powerpoint-presentation. I guess I have to base my opinions on my facts, and no, I don't have a strict teacher. Please include some of these as just keywords; communism, propaganda, dictator and maybe something about political history. Thank you! :D
I can make a video ... By: gulbirk. on 14 May 12, 10:26:36 I can make a video about North Korea. But im not sure if I count as a valid source of information. With a strict teacher, im not nearly? objective enough to be a valid source of information I would gues. But I could do a video on it for sure. But exactly what kind of information should I include in it?
Can you make a ... By: charli0hihi. on 14 May 12, 08:31:38 Can you make a video about North-Korea? I know this is the second favour I ask you, but I have? a school project, and I want you as my source.
I agree with that. ... By: gulbirk. on 02 May 12, 19:53:16 I agree with that. But voting for him directly contributes to the two party system. The way I see it, people wont start voting for someone else until they see that other people do the same. So my idea and my practices is that I vote for those I support. If I start voting for the lesser of two evils, im afraid those two evils will be easy to? corrupt and pointless to vote for. To be honest, I dont see much of a difference between the practical policies of democrats and republicans.
I don't see how not ... By: unassumption. on 02 May 12, 19:31:15 I don't see how not voting for him will change the 2 party system, and I can see a lot of ways it could hurt the average person (which is what i really care about). We have to work at giving people a voice but I don't see how not participating will do that. If the democrats get no votes, history shows republican rule won't sour people to the right? wing it will make people poor and desperate and easier to manipulate by the powerful. The best way to achieve change is from within (primaries?)
I agree. But I also ... By: gulbirk. on 02 May 12, 18:39:26 I agree. But I also agree with Justin when he says that you are doing what they want if you participate in this system. When we have managed to establish a two party system its easy for corporations to simply take controll. So though I would agree that Obama is better then Romney I couldnt get myself to vote him in. They can keep that going for as long as? they want and nothing will change until someone else is voted in.
But acting like the ... By: unassumption. on 02 May 12, 18:32:00 But acting like the far left actually has a chance of getting into power now, is like thinking ron paul could win in 2012. I judge things by? what effects they're likely to have not the intended effect, which is why I see left and right anarchy so similar, and left voting unelectable candidates the same as right voting unelectable candidates (or worse! because those left votes would otherwise have gone to a ...less right wing candidate....so it splits the 'less right wing' vote)
Oops! I didn't ... By: unassumption. on 02 May 12, 18:30:06 Oops! I didn't complete the sentence. I meant to say "insisting obama is part of the power eliets so we should vote communist." Voting communist will in practice have the same effect in practice as voting Paul, they might be the best option in a perfect world but voting for them (given how voting in the US seems to work) won't change anything? while voting Obama will produce miniscule positive change (better than nothing). I guess something needs to be done to improve what candidates are viable.
So true. And I ... By: gulbirk. on 02 May 12, 18:15:37 So true. And I agree. Left winged anarchy is very likely to end up the same way right winged anarchy would. This is probably because you cant really create and maintain a left? winged anarchy society without any sort of controll. Who is to say the capitalists wont just continue to be and act like capitalists.
Im not sure if I got your first statement. I dont think Justin supports Obama.
There are many ... By: unassumption. on 02 May 12, 15:25:23 There are many definitions of freedom which have different levels of value in different situations and it's just one factor,? but people simplify it to "freedom!!!!"
Justin cares about ... By: unassumption. on 02 May 12, 15:22:54 Justin cares about reality as much as the average Paultard, even if it's for the right reasons, insisting Obama.
I've found it impossible to get libertarians to admit that other definitions of freedom exist, or that 'freedom to' is freedom. We need to take back the word. Fuck freedom though, I want what works and that isn't always freedom. The freedom from is only from the state (people)? not the companies.
In practice, anarchy will lead to what the RWR want, so I say left anarchy = RWR
To me capitalism ... By: sewbuttns. on 20 Apr 12, 00:22:36 To me capitalism seems radical. When the state of human affairs is as fucked up as it is currently I dont think anyone? can call it the moderate or the safe position, but I know people still do that all the time and they hardly ever get put right.
I agree. Though I ... By: gulbirk. on 19 Apr 12, 19:58:13 I agree. Though I certainly see technical problems with what the Zeitgeist movement proposes.? Im generall, I tend to be skeptical towards political groups who speak about aboloshing all kinds of governence, because it can cause a different anarchy then they want.
It is possible if ... By: James Burns. on 19 Apr 12, 19:46:12 It is possible if everyone works together for it when conditions gets tougher however this will be very? difficult as you say lol. One of the main problems is people associate it with the communism of USSR, North Korea, etc and are scared. In reality it is the only solution for all of the world's problems. People just don't understand it and blame others which is why politics is becoming more polarised and hostile.
I compleatly agree, ... By: gulbirk. on 19 Apr 12, 19:42:32 I compleatly agree, though I forgot to mention it in the vide. Radical change is hardly ever good, and I certainly wouldnt advocate for an "over night" change of society. But speaking about the position itself, I find it to be an? invalid argument when someone rejects a "goal" society because they think that society has too radical policies.
I have indeed ... By: gulbirk. on 19 Apr 12, 19:39:09 I have indeed watched some of it. I dont consider it to radical but maybe a bit naive. The Venus project seems to be impossible, at least from my point of view. But Zeitgeist: Moving forward does indeed make some good points, but im more unsure about the sollutions they offer. Espesially the abolishment of money. What concerns me the most is mainly the idea that we can do this hardly without any governence. That we will create a self governing system.?
Hey Gulbirk what do ... By: James Burns. on 18 Apr 12, 19:45:29 Hey Gulbirk what do you think about Zeitgeist movies, if you've seen them? It is probably too radical for a lot of people? but when you think logically about it's proposals, after watching them, it all makes sense. Do you think it's world views are too radical? You should make a video about them after watching lol.
Being radical may ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 17:15:59 Being radical may be a marker of a bad policy even if it doesn't make it bad by itself. Ideologies that focus on one factor in a complex system to the exclusion of others may be labeled radical, but are wrong because they oversimplify. Policies that can't be defended with evidence will try moral grounds, and be labeled radical because they're not using the same 'language' to defend? themselves we've agreed on for all else - being radical doesn't make them bad, but the reason they're radical does.
Humans aren't ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 17:04:00 Humans aren't rational, and that's part of reality. To get stuff done, you need to satisfy the audience with good propaganda. Weather tending to moderate sounding ideas is socially caused or part of human nature, doesn't matter, it's a fact in this political climate we have to deal with to get our ideas in practice. The problem is the only people willing to do things in a practical manner, are people who don't care about? lying to get what they want - who don't tend to care about reality =/
People who label ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 16:58:31 People who label themselves as part of an extreme group can get very defensive and tribal. I used to make radical statements, now I hide my radical ideas because people get attacked and their other ideas get less credibility because of it, it's BS that ideas get ignored because they're "radical" but it's the practical reality we live in (practicality is something people in extreme groups tend to ignore). What you call yourself can make the same idea 'radical' or 'moderate' XD?
I believe several ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 16:54:33 I believe several things, which are also believed by mostly nutbars, so I can't jump from 'most libertarians are nutbars' to their ideas have no truth like i used to, though any emotional (or as they say, philosophical) argument can be rejected out of hand, going with mainstream economics is usually? better (because there's more evidence for what most experts accept).
I totally agree we shouldn't label the status quo as 'moderate,' but there are reasons to not make radical change.
As I started ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 16:51:14 As I started radical I've been pushed toward the center on realizing how little I know of economics, though I see the obvious insanity in supporters of libertarianism (and communism) some more nuanced position? seems needed. What's moderate depends on the place you're in; moderate in your nation is very left of moderates in the US, what the 'extremes' are in your nation differ from extremes in other cultures or subcultures. Moderate wins out in an election system with limited candidates too sadly
Big rapid changes ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 16:46:22 Big rapid changes from the status quo are big risks. What's a radical change depends on what nation you're in. If it's been done in other nations or the country is small and people are free to leave the risk of experimenting is less. I prefer slow step-by-step change, but some things can only happen by? radical departures. Most policies aren't well planned out, they're just actions that happen when their time comes, so it's a bit moot. However radical change doesn't have a good track record.
Elections in Afghanistan:
http://en.wikiped ia.org/wiki/Afghan_p arliamentary_electio n,_1988
The Mujahideen:
http://en.wikiped ia.org/wiki/Mujahedd in
Maybe, though the ... By: gulbirk. on 18 Apr 12, 08:56:48 Maybe, though the profit in Afghanistan is way less then that of other countries. But Afghanistan has always been of geo-political interest for all super powers it seems. Fighting islamic extremism also seems to be somewhat of a half decent excuse some times. I mean islamic extremism is found in many places we would never dare to attack. ANd some times? I would say we go (and have gone) as far as supporting Islamic extremism to overthrow disliked regimes.
I find it strange ... By: James Burns. on 17 Apr 12, 18:54:44 I find it strange that since the Afghanistan invasion of 2001 opium production, from poppys, has increased. At the moment Afghanistan is a disaster. You can't get stability from burning the Koran, urinating on dead bodies and murdering? innocent civilians. I am not one of those conspiracy nutcases but I believe fighting terrorism and stability is not the only reason for staying in Afghanistan. I believe profit for corporate interests is involved.
I can see how its ... By: gulbirk. on 12 Apr 12, 20:04:55 I can see how its more reasonable to try dialouge, though its hard to get into dialouge with groups that have many violent people in them. Yeah, I know red as a party isnt supporting the Taliban, though you have had people like? Aslak Sira Myhra whom vocally supported the Mujahideen.
Thank you for? ... By: charli0hihi. on 11 Apr 12, 15:44:27 Thank you for? making this :D ! It really gave me information without making me want to sleep.
btw, I am not directly involved in red. It's just the best party in my opinion, and my only choice. What they want to do is to go into dialouge with Taliban and not bomb them and they support Malalai Joya.
Mustang`s position:: Leave everyone by themselfes and remove all governmental systems and people will only do whats rational. But if ten people who accept collectivism find a gold mine, they will kill each other.
Nope the most ... By: Eopyk. on 14 Apr 12, 02:16:10 Nope the most radical anarcho-capitalists. The idea that just living it to the free market and all will solve itself. That is? radical
It seems to be that ... By: edmund184. on 14 Apr 12, 01:53:17 It seems to be that modern Norway is? utopionism?
Oh, I forgot to ... By: gulbirk. on 11 Apr 12, 09:36:19 Oh, I forgot to tell you yesterday. The video on Afghanistan is? up now.
Sure. ill try ... By: gulbirk. on 09 Apr 12, 08:27:08 Sure. ill try having it up on? wednesday, probably before if I can find the time to make it.
Can you make a ... By: charli0hihi. on 08 Apr 12, 19:12:45 Can you make a video about your opinion? of the Afghanistan and Taliban war?
Irrational? Yes. ... By: gulbirk. on 02 Apr 12, 09:39:54 Irrational? Yes. Utopianism? Doubt it. I dont quite see how a belief that people kill each other if they accept collectivism is? utopianistic thinking. Utopianism tends to be more of a belief in that everything will be good.
Irational argument? ... By: Eopyk. on 01 Apr 12, 21:48:45 Irational argument? without any consistent mind.
Typical utopianism. Typical radical idealogy.
Ha ha.Don´t you ... By: zsylvana. on 01 Apr 12, 12:00:49 Ha ha.Don´t you think it is funny they don´t understand their collectivistic activity all over internet,shows that cooperation works!Red Army had use of such engaged bunch during Revolution!Ha ha i read about mongolic tribe of seal huntners from north ice sea,The most engaged fighters in whole war.A agitator told them that Lenin was the greatest seal hunter that ever lived!Tell them Einar Gerhardsen fra Asker,was the greatest Austrian economist and they fight for Arbeiderpartiet :)!Ha det gott!?
Yes, spot on. Some ... By: gulbirk. on 01 Apr 12, 11:28:27 Yes, spot on. Some of the biggest collectivists (collectivists in the sense that they literally put people into physical groups and classes) I have ever met are the right winged libertarians and anarcho capitalists. Though they claim to? care about individual freedom and individuality it is an ideology that leads to a collectivistic view on people. The upper and the lower class.
Good video gulbirk! ... By: zsylvana. on 01 Apr 12, 11:23:50 Good video gulbirk!Good arguments.But they? always use the emotional arguments
like "don´t you like freedom?"etc.I never seen them answer? the question-"freedom for who?" If they can´t separete freedom for an employee and a corporation they are simply dummies.The strange is that same freedom-lovers almost never talk about individual freedom at a workplace.They advocate almost factory-fascism,-including "hierarchy","use of force" etc.If one don´t accept it one have the "freedom" to starve!
It sounds like ... By: SuperPacJack. on 31 Mar 12, 04:08:33 It sounds like Mustang? has been watching too much of the TV show "Survivor."
Exactly! ? By: njanovic1980. on 30 Mar 12, 17:55:00 Exactly! ?
lol. The freedom to ... By: gulbirk. on 30 Mar 12, 17:46:49 lol. The freedom to buy a shotgun and ask the other? people kindly the voluntarily help you mine some gold.
Actually I think it ... By: njanovic1980. on 30 Mar 12, 16:48:36 Actually I think it would be more likely the hardcore free marketer will kill 5 of the ten and then force the other four to? mine the gold out for him. :-)
To understand the impossibility of the kind of economy that exists in places like Singapoore, all one have to do is imagine how it could possibly work if it wasnt for the fact that there are nations leading other policies.
Its a minumum wage, ... By: gulbirk. on 30 Mar 12, 14:45:58 Its a minumum wage, but corporations still have ways to get around it and trick with loopholes in the laws. I would really reccomend John Pilgers documentary called ""The new rulers of the world"", its actually here on youtube,? so its free. He takes a better look at the Indonesia and show how pointless many of the laws are, and how they avoid them and threat people as shit.
My refrigerator ... By: njanovic1980. on 30 Mar 12, 14:45:07 My refrigerator passed away sometime during the night. I discovered it this morning. I'm waiting on the new one to? arrive. Fortunately I hadn't done the weeks grocery shopping yet.
What? I wasn't ... By: njanovic1980. on 30 Mar 12, 14:44:02 What? I wasn't aware they were now being so mean to Indonesian industry by? forcing a minimum wage on them. Poor guys...we should start a charity to help out these poor mistreated corporations.
True, the same goes ... By: gulbirk. on 30 Mar 12, 14:39:29 True, the same goes for? Indonesia. Introduction of minumum wage decreased the amounts of "lack of resource deaths"".
Its because the ... By: gulbirk. on 30 Mar 12, 14:33:45 Its because the camera is slighly above me, and the refrigerator? is low :P
I also find it ... By: njanovic1980. on 29 Mar 12, 02:54:00 I also find it funny that most of these people make no mention of the unrest, demonstrations and protests by HK's? low wage earners. Or that it has led to the creation of a minimum wage in Hong Kong for some sectors of the economy.
you look? ... By: MalakiaRat. on 28 Mar 12, 21:06:57 you look? unbelievably tall in this video.
I gues you could ... By: gulbirk. on 28 Mar 12, 17:22:49 I gues you could put it that way. Though I wouldnt call it a free? market "flaw", because it isnt really a mistake, its simply how the market operates naturally. Production will always be placed where the production costs are lowest.
Basically Hong Kong ... By: russellprophet. on 28 Mar 12, 17:09:09 Basically Hong Kong and Singapore's success are products of our free market's flaws, not their? free market's virtues.
And for those who argue that greed is the same as self interest, thats wrong. Its in my (and indeed in everyone elses who is rational) self interest not to be greedy, as it doesnt benefit anyone.
Agreed? By: SpicyHam. on 02 May 12, 17:01:44 Agreed?
I doubt it. If? ... By: gulbirk. on 23 Apr 12, 08:20:34 I doubt it. If? that was the case the individualistic society would have never developed. Gread is an actually problem that cant be stopped by removing government.
The only scenario ... By: leirgauk. on 21 Apr 12, 19:33:22 The only scenario the 1/10 would want to claim 100% for himself is the one where there is an all-powerful 3d party (gov) who indoctrinates everybody into thinking that materialistic richness is a good and cool thing (and the ONLY way to show and boast your benevolence in society: "See all this stuff? Imagine how much I've given back to society if this is only 50% of my earnings!").
In a free society, the 1/10 would be overwhelmed with pleasure? of sharing and increased social status.
I know, I'm just ... By: njanovic1980. on 21 Mar 12, 13:33:20 I know, I'm just being difficult. :-) All land here is either owned by someone or is public land. The the laws regarding property that has been abandoned vary from state to state. It's not relevant to? your example, as I said I'm just being difficult, in that same way as a kid who ask "Why" over and over. :-)
Yeah, but that ... By: gulbirk. on 21 Mar 12, 13:20:10 Yeah, but that would require that he owned it to begin with, which would? be somewhat of an unfair example when I presented the two "models" of economy.
Actually, thinking ... By: njanovic1980. on 21 Mar 12, 13:01:31 Actually, thinking about this...at least here in the US in most areas, whoever happens to own the property that this abandoned gold mine is located on could have you all arrested for trespasing and keep? all for himself.
Lol, good point. I ... By: gulbirk. on 19 Apr 12, 19:51:25 Lol, good point. I believe in "leaders" but not in a right winged way. I believe the person in "charge" of one of these public stores should be a? representative for the workers, rather then a "ruler". Its not really that they have to be FAR apart, but that the problems with waste wouldnt really go away if we just replaced all current stores with public stores. I think the reason why many people have a bad attitute towards monopolies is because todays monpolies are run in an extremely unfair way.
I've never? really ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 19:58:45 I've never? really seen the point in "Leaders." Why does there need to be an 'executive' - what can they do, that couldn't be done either automatically or by groups of people below them? To put it another way, what can Obama do that the congress couldn't in theory?
you argue for a ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 19:55:04 you argue for a system where fewer workers are needed... the biggest problem with our current economic argument is that having lots of workers needed to do the same amount of work is seen as a good? thing!
you don't need the ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 19:47:09 you don't need the stores? to be far apart (think of wasted fuel traveling there) if the store has a number of goods proportional to the need in the area it serves
monopoly isn't bad, ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 19:45:35 monopoly isn't bad, if it's controlled by the democratic vote. people? forget the benefits of economy of scale.
Think of? the ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 19:43:11 Think of? the nutrients going to waste by throwing all this food out - this is how phosphate gets flushed into the sea and lost.
Profits from state ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 19:42:14 Profits from state owned? stores could go to supplement other state owned areas.
Competition is wasteful in ecology - by analogy, wouldn't it be wasteful in economy?
I have no interest? ... By: AthenasConquest. on 11 Apr 12, 20:36:31 I have no interest? in recycling. I save my food scraps use them to feed the chickens
Yeah it ended up? a ... By: gulbirk. on 07 Mar 12, 09:48:37 Yeah it ended up? a bit too long, I realised that when I uploaded in on my PC.
a bit too long- ... By: dwype. on 07 Mar 12, 04:06:44 a bit too long-winded for my tastes.? i agree with what you say though.
A continuation of my video on insurence companies. To those who wish to disprove my claims or prove your own case I offer only one challenge. The points you make cant be ideological and must be economical.
Well banks may not ... By: gulbirk. on 19 Apr 12, 19:53:08 Well banks may not be the most radical things.? But I certainly believe that one would be called radical if you propose to socialise the stores. Many moderates would probably agree with allot of what I say in many of these videos, hence why I always try to make the point that people shouldnt be afraid of a sollution just because the sollution isnt to do it the exact same way we do it today :)
Odd, I consider ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 20:04:49 Odd, I consider myself moderate but agree? with these positions you say are more radical.
If? we let them ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 20:00:52 If? we let them fail we'd have to do it slowly and in a controlled way, to make sure the customers don't suffer.
That wouldnt ... By: gulbirk. on 05 Mar 12, 14:51:22 That wouldnt surprise me. Not long ago, it came out (in Norway) information about? how corporations and companies that receive government money dont use them to cover important expenses. That is, expenses that are essential for the companies survival. Thats what pisses me of about this bank thing. The people who controll the banks and who make several of the problems, will never have to face the problems themselfe. Thats why I dont want them to have any power at all.
It's not that I ... By: njanovic1980. on 05 Mar 12, 14:34:25 It's not that I would have said to let them fail but I'd rather they had been nationalized, at least for a time. What got me was that they let them grow even bigger and then when news came out that some used bailout? money to pay executive bonuses.
Its a really bad ... By: gulbirk. on 05 Mar 12, 14:30:34 Its a really bad idea. Bailing out the banks is this diffucult question that has no simple answer. It bothers? me when people go ""Let them fail", because it wont hit those responseble. It wont hit them at all, it will hit average people who didnt do anything wrong. In Norway, a right leaning government actually socialised Norways biggest bank, lol.
Here in the US? ... By: njanovic1980. on 05 Mar 12, 14:24:25 Here in the US? during the bank bailouts they screamed they were too big to let them fail, that the results would be devastating. So what did they allow them to do? Merge! Big banks accquired failed banks, which were also large banks. So they said they were too be big to let them fail, bailed them out and then let them get even bigger. Lunacy reigns supreme it seems....
To those who challenge the idea of a public insurence company, I give the simple challenge: Make a counter video (non-ideological, economical) illustrating what makes a private insurence company cheaper.
All attempts will be accepted.
Its a pre concived ... By: gulbirk. on 19 Apr 12, 19:47:15 Its a pre concived notion that public institutions are slower, more expensive and less effective I believe. The way I see it, many of the most succesfull things we have ever had in our western society have been state operated. Not to? mention the fact that when something isnt state owned the government (choosen by the people of course) actually have a say in how things will be run.
I thought the ' ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 19:03:42 I thought the 'purpose' of capitalism WAS to pay people less, so their pay = the 'value' of the job to society,? so fewer people would do the job if the job was less valuable. Or something.
Wasn't the internet ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 19:02:16 Wasn't the internet created by the? state :I
De facto, people ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 18:59:32 De facto, people have to sign under it, even if de jure there is no force. Fuck words on paper reality is all. Should individuals who are in more 'at risk' groups (young, male, poor, etc) for car crashes pay more - and if so should people more at risk of disease pay more for health-care? Everyone has to (in practice) get insurance, even if it sucks, to get loans to buy cars and houses which? you need for work.
Manifestos even the ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 18:55:02 Manifestos even the Labour party in the UK just say "public companies are less efficient" never saying why. I don't know enough about economics to say if it's wrong
The problems that apply to health insurance in the US? apply to car insurance everywhere. "pre-existing conditions" raise the rate people pay for their insurance, which may make insurance more profitable, BUT if a less profitable but more equitable insurance can be subsidied by profits from elsewhere via tax, it could help the society
You stole Glenn ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 18:52:07 You stole Glenn Beck's whiteboard!
Why we can't expand? state owned old age or health insurance to other forms of insurance I don't know, given how successful they've been in health insurance. This is the left wing position I'm most in favor of, given right wingers have said it 'sarcastically' in response to proponents of state health insurance and I can't see how it's wrong!
Thanks. Yeah, I ... By: gulbirk. on 27 Feb 12, 14:20:38 Thanks. Yeah, I considered doing some of these videos without the board, but quickly realised that was a? really bad idea, :P
Thank you so much. ... By: PumpkinPixie1978. on 27 Feb 12, 14:06:48 Thank you so much. Love the white board, it helps me better by seeing what you? are talking about. I learn that way. Great topic to.
Given how many ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 18:41:23 Given how many problems like smallpox we've wiped out in the past few centuries, I'm still fairly 'utopian,' though try to be pragmatic with it. I don't like when people say 'we can't know' or 'can't do that' because of what we've achieved - that's like rejecting it as too radical. Sometimes problems have died out relatively overnight. We just have to not bank? on the problem going away totally, unless of course we can achieve that. I don't trust people enough to not be authoritarian though.
You can make people ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 18:36:19 You can make people believe and accept almost anything and make? it 'sustainable' sadly ._.
Ideological ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 18:34:10 Ideological arguments are either too simplified, too removed from reality, or not evidence based. They're rarely arguments, more just memes - but? have a lot of power to spread words.
Thanks. Have a ... By: gulbirk. on 26 Feb 12, 03:04:21 Thanks. Have a couple of them ready on my computer already, probably going to upload the first one? in the next few days.
looking forward to ... By: HannibaltheVictor13. on 26 Feb 12, 02:49:27 looking forward to your videos? on these subjects
Numerous reasons. ... By: gulbirk. on 26 Feb 12, 02:25:53 Numerous reasons. One is the danger of kids and? espesially teenagers getting in touch with it without knowing what it is and what the danger of it is. The negative effects of this can last for years (I know this from personal experience, having a brother that started doing drugs after high school). These drugs happen to be extremely dangerous compeared to things like weed.
What is your ... By: MalakiaRat. on 25 Feb 12, 22:27:23 What is your reasoning for the continued prohibition of drugs such? as LSD, shrooms, and DMT?
I might have missed something, but I think I heard you saying those must be kept illegal.
I watched them both ... By: njanovic1980. on 25 Feb 12, 19:07:06 I watched them both, very good points!? Now, where do I pick up my medal at? :-)
Its not really a ... By: gulbirk. on 19 May 12, 22:30:16 Its not really a contradiction. I consider my views radical too, but many people will reject my ideas in advance if I present them with the label radical. So I? tend to just present my ideas and views the way I see it, and leave it up to other people to decide wether they think its radical or not.
Love how you are ... By: mojosideburns. on 19 May 12, 18:08:15 Love how you are able to be introspective enough to let your beliefs evolve as you come into contact with new information. we may disagree on a few things, but I appreciate the methodology you use to? come to your conclusions. Personally, I embrace the extremist/radical label, I just temper it with rational, i.e. I'm a rational extremist. May sound like a contrradiction in terms but I feel it fits my views best. Peace.
Well, no, it ... By: Nomiss9. on 19 May 12, 10:51:00 Well, no, it probably wouldn't do much, especially since most people who use a drug regularly probably are aware of the risks, but at least they could get some information out there as opposed to no information. I think more people would be less willing to? give LSD a try if they knew about HPPD for example.
True, though I ... By: gulbirk. on 19 May 12, 10:43:56 True, though I doubt that most people will be turned of by a warning sticker, lol. They do indeed already sell alcohol to alcoholics, but I believe thats because alcohol is more accepted in our culture, but it is of course? equally sad.
Yeah, it wouldn't ... By: Nomiss9. on 19 May 12, 10:35:34 Yeah, it wouldn't be perfect and it wouldn't? magically remove all the harm caused by drugs, but I think it would be much better than what it's like now (and the government already allows alcohol to be sold to alcoholics). At least it would get rid of the drug dealers, help pay for the problems caused by drugs, make it easier for people to get help, and the government could slap warning stickers all over it.
Yeah its the same ... By: gulbirk. on 19 May 12, 10:21:51 Yeah its the same shit here. Its actually a really bad tactic from the schools side. Because when people try drugs and notice that it doesnt make die they might believe that there arent any actuall consequenses of taking drugs. Drug controll would be a good thing, but there would be a very difficult moral question there. Should the government sell drugs to people? who are ruining their lifes using drugs and who only use it because they are addicted?
Those "pushers" ... By: Nomiss9. on 19 May 12, 10:16:54 Those "pushers" wouldn't exist if it was taxed and controlled by the government though, and then people would also know exactly what they're getting (instead of mixtures of random hallucinogenic and non-hallucinogenic chemicals imported from China). However, I think we? need more education about the specific long term effects of different drugs. When I was in school, we only got to see a video about the side effects of heroin, other than that it was just a bunch of "drugs are bad mmkay".
I have a brother ... By: gulbirk. on 19 May 12, 09:58:01 I have a brother who has been a drug user for years, so I have a close experience with that drugs can do to those who arent capable of controlling their usage. He has to switch phones every three months because "pushers" are still trying to get him to buy more. Though many consider it a? personal and voluntary thing to do, ive seen how much force and delusion is involved in trying to push it on other people.
Why are you against ... By: Nomiss9. on 18 May 12, 20:35:39 Why are you against legalizing LSD? ;P I've personally tried one psychedelic (not LSD but still pretty? potent, and ironically, I haven't even tried cannabis), and while I was mostly just waiting for it to go away during the experience, it's not physically dangerous.
I've been very ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 18:26:34 I've been very wrong when I've had radical ideas in the past, which is why I'm worried about being 'radical' - afraid of being wrong as there's so much I don't know. But I know more than a lot of people and I'll never know everything so have to pin my position down? at some points.
The success of the ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 18:23:32 The success of the state in healthcare, combined with right wingers sarcastic "what next, will you do this to housing" make me wonder "why not nationalize housing and other fields?" But then I realize how little I know about economics and how well the market seems? to have done historically (compared to nationalization). Revolution historically doesn't work. I've always been wary of democracy (the free market of ideas) based on it's performance, but dictatorial authoritarianism fails.
Almost all videos ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 18:15:56 Almost all videos are preaching to the choir, I've found it's my own mind that gets changed by putting things into words and making videos. My views on race and gender changed more by thinking them through on camera, than? communicating. I'm a pragmatic social democrat I think, i've fell toward it because it seems to work more. If you can ban smoking, it being dangerous is a good reason to ban it. I'm more into nationalizing prostitution and opium (wait LSD is hardcore?) XD
The less I know ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 18:10:45 The less I know about an topic the more I jump around from extreme to extreme,? and talk about it, hell the more certain I feel about it. I see we both jumped from caring about philosophy to reality, though it took a while before I cared about the parties. I've never left radical statism. Economics has started recently moving me toward the right, or to care more about the right, as real economics seems a little more right wing. My nature tends toward authoritarianism, weather it's right or not :(
Libertarianism ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 18:04:02 Libertarianism seemed attractive because it was so unusual (south park exposed me originally!) but when I saw how common it was in another culture, America, and subculture? in the UK (the Thatcher-ites) that glow disappeared. I'm glad it became more popular, because it led to counter arguments. Kropotkin was fun, but it's the socialist reasons for anti-punishment views not the liberal reasons that make it right. We should be more exposed to the ideas, so they lose the 'forbidden fruit' appeal.
WIkipedia showed me ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 18:00:15 WIkipedia showed me the various political and religious concepts quick enough? for a young attention span to read them, definitely catalyzing change for better or worse. Reading a wiki article on drug legalization was the closest I came to libertarian, but in those areas libertarians and sociaists overlap it's the 'left wing' reasons that make those things good. The HC debate happening at the same time stopped me expanding into libertarian land!
Interacting with ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 17:56:39 Interacting with people from other nations (mostly Americans) on-line definitely 'woke me up,' especially since the healthcare debate was ongoing; I come from a very right wing family who has never had a problem with the NHS, so seeing the NHS called socialist was a big shock and caused a rethink! This was also after I thought I'd "changed" again highlighting that it's an ongoing process? (for me at lest not sure about you) even if at any one time I feel like the 'revolution' has finished.
Interesting your ... By: unassumption. on 18 Apr 12, 17:53:42 Interesting your nation gets you politically conscious young. I was into political 'philosophy' but didn't get into real politics (parties, histories, does it work!) until later. Converting my mindset led to political and philosophical conversion, though I've always been a? 'statist' so it's not much of a leap. I thought I'd finished converting but over the last year I've changed in many ways (no longer a race realist for one) so thinking 'the change is over' may be a bit premature!
amazing? By: MalakiaRat. on 25 Feb 12, 21:47:09 amazing?
Link to Hannibal`s channel SUB HIM
http://www.youtub e.com/user/Hannibalt heVictor13
Link to his lates videos on prostitution
Part 1: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=AUJtSSnwG 38&feature=channel
Part 2:http://www.youtube .com/watch?v=W1o0PQf ThB4&feature=channel
Part 3:http://www.youtube .com/watch?v=kbUTHG7 2C50&feature=channel
Yeah, its a much ... By: gulbirk. on 05 Mar 12, 14:07:43 Yeah, its a much better alternative then the pimp of? course.
The term I'd use is ... By: AussieGriffin. on 05 Mar 12, 14:05:47 The term I'd use is "Co-operative" rather than company. These have been, where legal, the most successful of all the tried set-ups as far as? the standard of living of the employees goes.
A.G.
Takes one to know ... By: kimdpetersen. on 24 Feb 12, 09:06:23 Takes one to know one? ;)
As for projecting - i seem to see you project plenty here. By assuming that i think that jobs are equal, that "attraction" is needed for sex, that rape is what we're talking about (strawman alot?), that we're talking about woman with Johns (why? lots (if not most of those) would be in the category of coerced - see my stance on that), that anecdotal stories? are generalizable etc. etc.
Try again.
"you are in denial ... By: IndifferentSky. on 24 Feb 12, 07:27:16 "you are in denial that anyone would choose prostitution as a job" why are you projecting this on to me? Likely because you're an asshole. Tell me what my position is, go ahead, (hint, it's not that). You saying that you don't erase anyone does not make it magically so. Your projection onto me isn't even consistent. If I said you are erasing a segment, then clearly I'm acknowledging you are? focusing on another segment. Where is your study showing more choice over coercion? PM it.
I didn't say you ... By: njanovic1980. on 24 Feb 12, 07:24:48 I didn't say you were projecting anything about male prostitution. I asked why? the sole concentration on female prostitution, that men also prostitute themselves. Believe it or not there are some women (usually older) who will pay for sex, then more prevalent gay prostitution.
Sorry but in many ... By: IndifferentSky. on 24 Feb 12, 07:23:40 Sorry but in many places, Canada and the UK being two that immediately come to mind, the act of just exchanging sex for money is not illegal. Local areas have nuisance laws about where these things can take place, the ideology there being that people have a right not to walk outside and see oral sex being performed. Usually these laws are misdemeanor fines. So sometimes to inject the ideological into arguments? is fail. No zoning with full decrim?
2/2 I've seen many ... By: njanovic1980. on 24 Feb 12, 07:21:54 2/2 I've seen many interviews with women who work in porn who claim? to love what they do. I'll take their word for it. It's not how I'd want or hope my kid ended up making their living, but each to his own. And why is the concentration only on women? Their are males who prostitute themselves and males who perform in porn.
My first response ... By: IndifferentSky. on 24 Feb 12, 07:20:16 My first response to you if you get it, I mistook this video for another one I'm? commenting on right now. Sorry. I don't know what you think I'm "projecting" about male prostitution, so I cannot answer you. I have done extensive research on legal/decrim models, If you take people on YT who have done the most on this, I would either be equal with them, or rank right up there. If you have a specific claim, make it.
1/2 I said nothing ... By: njanovic1980. on 24 Feb 12, 07:19:36 1/2 I said nothing about Jim Crow. Your comment mentioned it was unlikely that prostitution had anything to with one's own sexuality, unless you've interviewed every prostitution you wouldn't know. Also you didn't address my question regarding male prostitution. There's a? vast difference from the US where the extreme economic disparity may drive some to prostitution & the Netherlands, where that disparity doesn't exist.
Do some research ... By: njanovic1980. on 24 Feb 12, 07:08:12 Do some research into some countries where prostitution is legalized and regulated, such as the Netherlands. There are some who choose it as a long term "profession" and others for the short term. Also listen to what those in prostitution say? on the issue. There are also males who prostitute themselves, they seem to be ignored in this whole debate. Do you project the same views on them as well?
Actually i was ... By: kimdpetersen. on 23 Feb 12, 03:14:20 Actually i was reacting to the stereotyping. BJ's in an alley is everything that prostitutes do?
Personally i think there is a huge spread of people in prostitution. And those who do BJ's in a backalley, are with a high likelihood coerced there, be it economic necessity or force by others.
Do note that my? stance on coercion here is very simple: It is *bad*!
But if you want to give a BJ in an alley - then that choice is yours. to make (do note the "want" in that sentence).
Sorry, i conflated ... By: kimdpetersen. on 23 Feb 12, 03:10:36 Sorry, i conflated you with IndifferentSky. My bad!?
My comment was the ... By: shirehorse91. on 23 Feb 12, 02:52:01 My comment was the exact opposite of what you suggest. I said listen to what prostitutes have to say and? stop projecting your own agenda on them.
Your attitude about ... By: shirehorse91. on 23 Feb 12, 02:51:02 Your attitude about BJ's in an alley is very casual.? So, you suggest that all young high school students take up prostitution instead of working in a low paying job. Really?
Actually i'd say ... By: kimdpetersen. on 23 Feb 12, 02:49:36 Actually i'd say that you are in denial. You deny that anyone would chose prostitution as a job.
And you are doing exactly what the problem in this debate is: You conflate coercion? with choice. Coercion is *always* wrong.... *always* ... no exceptions.
I live in a country (Denmark) where economic *necessity* is very very low on the scale of reasons that people get into prostitution. [the main exception being drug addicts].
And we're not "erasing" anyone ...
Whats the pay- ... By: kimdpetersen. on 23 Feb 12, 02:45:10 Whats the pay-difference between the BJ and working at McD? Is there a possibility of getting a room?
I'm sorry - but you are stereotyping, and putting everyone in one box. Neither prostitutes nor? anyone else are that simple.
Some do actually chose that job, despite your rejection that such is the case.
No, it is not like ... By: kimdpetersen. on 22 Feb 12, 21:51:49 No, it is not like cleaning a toilet, and neither is it like working in a coal-mine and getting? pneumoconiosis, or "black lung."
Sorry, but it really is a service, and it is one that has *always* had demand, and where there is demand, supply will appear. The trouble is with attitude towards it.
In Denmark, certain nurses do such services for the elderly and disabled *because* it is a human need.
Not everyone should do it, but if you want, you should be able to! It is your body
Here's the simple ... By: DiwataMan. on 22 Feb 12, 21:27:36 Here's the simple answer, if you want to help someone out of their situation that they don't want to be in? then have at it brother, no one is stopping you, except for maybe the Jewish and Russian mafia or pimps so be careful out there.
Prostitution is not ... By: shirehorse91. on 22 Feb 12, 20:58:18 Prostitution is not like any other job. That includes cleaning bathrooms or working a MacDonald's. These people need to listen to what prostitutes say and stop putting words in their mouths to fuel their own agenda. If HB13 was given the choice of working at Mc's or giving a repulsive, disgusting slob a BJ in an alley we all know what his choice would be.?
People turn into ... By: IndifferentSky. on 22 Feb 12, 20:21:44 People turn into libertarians on this topic because they want to appear open minded. That's how the stigma works in favor of the libs on this issue. Also, the suggestion that prostitution is an expression of someone's sexuality other than the John's is wholly ignorant or a lie. survivorsconnect.wordpressDOTcom/2012/02/15/trapped-indoors-important-survivor-interview/?
People on this ... By: IndifferentSky. on 22 Feb 12, 20:15:25 People on this issue just deny. Deny, deny, deny. Having sex with multiple strangers in a DAY is like cleaning a toilet and it "needs" to be done, wtf? That's crazy. People are not even thinking about what multiple sex partners one is not attracted to day in and day out does to a person's sexuality, body mind etc. If people were honest when discussing this, they would not erase the women who hate? the johns can call it paid rape, the ones who say they are "survivors". And decrim empowers pimps.
sex and being ... By: IndifferentSky. on 22 Feb 12, 20:10:57 sex and being penetrated is not like cleaning a toilet. and the job does not "need" to be done, it's not some noble public service. Many of the John's are married, view it as a hobby and? don't like to see the same woman twice. Here is how one worker feels about getting reviewed, and it shows the intimate nature of the job. secretdiaryofadublincallgirl.wordpressDOTcom/2012/02/17/how-it-feels-to-get-reviewed/
@gulbirk (cont.) ... By: kimdpetersen. on 22 Feb 12, 18:27:43 @gulbirk (cont.) But i will agree with HannibalBarca that if you remove the? poverty issue, as is the case in Scandinavia, it removes the worst forms of "i have to do it to get food" kinds - which (also in my opinion) are wrong.
But to refocus:
A) Poverty (seperate issue, generic)
B) Coercion (seperate *specific* issue)
C) "Choice of job" (seperate very generic issue)
A+C are intertwined but completely seperate issues from B, which is the specific issue we're speaking about.
#1 is coercion. #2 ... By: kimdpetersen. on 22 Feb 12, 18:20:17 #1 is coercion. #2 is not. Confusing those two isn't helping. Not being in a "job of choice" is a generic issue - coercion is a specific issue.
As for being "intimate" - when was the last time you changed the diapers, or washed someone who couldn't do it themselves? Cleaned out the vomit from a room?? etc etc.
Your definition of "initimacy" is intricically intertwined with a concept of love, which is different. Depends on the eye of the beholder.
Very true! You got ... By: EducateAmericaNow. on 12 Feb 12, 01:51:52 Very true! You got it! If anyone denies that they are an idiot XD Large corporations tend to hoard their profits, especially if they don't have to compete and have politicians backing them. In this case the dividends are paid out to stock holders and them rest of the profits just sit in a bank account. In the case of other companies, especially small ones, they have to? reinvest that money into their company to scale up.
Thanks. Yes, saying ... By: gulbirk. on 12 Feb 12, 00:27:48 Thanks. Yes, saying that it doesnt matter how high it is was probably somewhat of an over statement. Espesially in the case on small businesses (which both? my mothers side of the family and my fathers side actually run) profit can be used to additional investments. The issue is that if you take that argument in the favour of big companies, one will simply leave them with a profit that goes to stockholders.
5:15 to 7:20 you ... By: EducateAmericaNow. on 11 Feb 12, 23:54:14 5:15 to 7:20 you hit it head on; however, 7:25 to 7:40 when you say "it doesn't matter how much" it does because extra profits are typically used for additional investment allowing for the company? to grow and scale up. Response video coming soon . . . :)
Thumbs up on the video though! You understand how industry works and how income taxes effect expenses.
A simply clarification: There is no such thing as right winged reactionary policy. What I meant is the policy supported by those who ARE right winged reactionaries.
@njanovic1980 FLSA ... By: sklanger. on 04 Mar 12, 15:34:39 @njanovic1980 FLSA exempts 65 categories of employees comprising 40% of the workforce. At? least 20% of the remaining 60% work in excess of 40 hours per week. So 52% of all employees either exceed a 40-hour workweek or are excluded from FLSA. Thus FLSA did not create a 40-hour workweek for most employees, let alone "across the board." But like I said, you can deny reality and believe what you want, including nonsense. :)
Nice fantasy. But ... By: sklanger. on 04 Mar 12, 15:24:36 Nice fantasy. But PBS doesn't actually support what you say. Here's what the source cited by PBS actually says: "[on] the forces responsible for the decline in length of the American workweek in the period before the Great Depression. The consensus here is that economic growth and increased wages were mainly responsible." Whaples, Where Is There Consensus Among American Economic Historians?,? 55 J. Econ. Hist. 139, 150 (1995). Historians have rejected your fairy tale.
@njanovic1980 Note ... By: sklanger. on 04 Mar 12, 15:19:03 @njanovic1980 Note that between 1900 and 1935, the average weekly working hours of manufacturing and nonagricultural wage workers dropped from 55 and 58.5 hours per week respectively to 36.4 and 41.7 hours per? week respectively. See Kniesner, The Full-Time Workweek in the United States, 1900-1970, 30 Ind. & Lab. Rel. Rev. 3, 4 (1976). FLSA was enacted in 1938. By then market forces had driven most of the improvement and shorter working hours had become the norm nationwide.
You have down ... By: sklanger. on 04 Mar 12, 15:15:55 You have down syndrome. You said it wasn't untrue that FLSA banned 12-hour work days and required 8-hour work days when you? claimed that it wasn't a lie (meaning you thought FLSA did so). Do not now pretend that you were talking about incentives instead of a mandatory limit on weekly hours. Nor does back peddling make your statement any less dumb: incentives encourage but don't establish outcomes "across the board" by definition -- your statement is still false.
Here's some history ... By: njanovic1980. on 03 Mar 12, 20:08:01 Here's some history as to how the magic fairy of the free market changed things by sprinkling that pixie dust on wall street (you'll have to remove the spaces of course).
w w w (dot)? pbs(dot) org/ livelyhood/ workday/ weekend/ 8hourday (dot) html
Yawn. I think you ... By: njanovic1980. on 03 Mar 12, 20:02:27 Yawn. I think you are retarded as you can't comprehend what I said. That by requiring overtime after 40 hours it creates a situation where employers have an incentive to limit weekly hrs to 40 b/c most employers don't want to pay that extra $ for OT, in fact most if they have that much work available will higher additional people, rather than paying out more $ via OT. As for the rest of your nonsense, yes it? was the magic free market fairy sprinkling pixie dust on Wall Street....
Are you retarded? ... By: sklanger. on 02 Mar 12, 20:30:16 Are you retarded? Requiring that employees may not work for more than 40 hours without compensatory pay means that employees may work in excess of 40 hours so? long as they are compensated. That's what I said in one of my first replies to you. And the department has promulgated regulations to that effect: "there is no absolute limitation . . . he may work as many hours a week as he and his employer see fit." 29 C.F.R. § 778.102. DOL is agreeing with me. Not you.
Here's a source ... By: sklanger. on 02 Mar 12, 20:25:31 Here's a source even non-lawyers should be able to understand: "FLSA does not establish . . . a ceiling. Nor does it prohibit mandatory overtime. Thus, American workers who refuse overtime have no protection from job loss, demotion, or other repercussions. About a? third of overtime workers in the US work compulsory overtime." Negrey, Work Time: Conflict, Control and Change 138 (2012). So FLSA does not forbid what you say it forbids. The revisionist is you.
Okay. Believe? what ... By: sklanger. on 02 Mar 12, 20:22:20 Okay. Believe? what you want.
No. You are not ... By: sklanger. on 02 Mar 12, 20:19:51 No. You are not getting the fact that setting an overtime threshold of 40 hours is not the same thing as creating a 40-hour workweek. FLSA is an overtime compensation scheme -- not a limit on? working hours. Try suing your employer based on your harebrained theory that you can't work more than 40 hours. See what happens. :)
Thinking it over I ... By: njanovic1980. on 02 Mar 12, 18:40:53 Thinking it over I think what you are not getting is the fact that the FLSA act requires overtime after 40 hours, that created the 40 hour week as the standard working week. Most? employers are loath to pay overtime.
You site one or two ... By: njanovic1980. on 02 Mar 12, 18:27:28 You site one or two industries here and there that made some improvements, the point is that there were no improvements across all industry, across the board, across the nation? until people demanded them and finally there was legislation. The one or two cases you cite is not representative of the majority of industry during that time. Pretty simple concept to understand. I guess you think the FLSA was passed for shits and giggles.
BTW I've got your ... By: njanovic1980. on 02 Mar 12, 18:24:53 BTW I've got your number. You're another of those revisionist so dertermined to propagate the law that nothing was acheived either by legislation or by workers demanding change. You would like to have every one believe it? was the free market fairy who sprinkled some pixie dust and made it happen by magic or from the benevolence of those oh so kind titans of industry.
You must not have ... By: njanovic1980. on 02 Mar 12, 18:21:32 You must not have gone to the DOL site. From the DOL: " The Act requires that employees must receive at least the minimum wage and may not be employed for more than 40 hours in a week without receiving at least one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for the overtime? hours. The amount employees should receive cannot be determined without knowing the number of hours worked."
False. See Kim, ... By: sklanger. on 02 Mar 12, 16:31:34 False. See Kim, Work Law: Cases and Materials 772 (2010) ("The policy behind the FLSA's overtime provision is not, then, to establish a? limit on hours worked per week."). Moreover, FLSA does not establish anything "across the board." Millions are not covered under FLSA's exemption provisions. See 29 U.S.C. § 213. I repeat: FLSA neither required the 8-hour work day as you? falsely claimed nor did it create a 40-hour workweek. Any more dumb statements from you?
He lied. You lie. ... By: sklanger. on 02 Mar 12, 16:27:23 He lied. You lie. The DOL compliance guide states: "the FLSA does not limit the number of hours in a day or days in a week an employee may be required or scheduled to work, including overtime hours." FLSA did not create nor mandate the adoption of a 40-hour workweek, and the courts have so held. See Landreth v. Ford, Bacon & Davis, 147 F.2d 446, 448? (8th Cir. 1945) ("the Fair Labor Standards Act does not necessarily include the adoption of a forty hour workweek.").
No. Next I'll be ... By: sklanger. on 02 Mar 12, 16:22:04 No. Next I'll be telling you that claims that women's rights did not spread before 1920 are false. Just as your claim that? improvements did not spread before FLSA is false and ahistorical. The very logic posed by your question contradicts your argument that there was improvements did not spread before federal intervention. Keep contradicting yourself. It's funny.
One other thing, ... By: njanovic1980. on 02 Mar 12, 11:16:37 One other thing, next you'll be telling me that the women's movement and the constitutional amendment passed in 1920 preventing any state from denying the right to vote based on gender had nothing to do with getting women the right to vote since a few states allowed women to vote prior to the? passage of that amendment (despite that most states did not). That's how your logic works right?
He didn't lie. You ... By: njanovic1980. on 02 Mar 12, 10:55:49 He didn't lie. You are intentionally misrepresenting the law. You can't be forced to work those extra hours and if you do and are an hourly employee then you must be paid time and a half for those extra hours. Before they could work you for however many hours they wanted for as little as they wanted. The point is the law prohibited them from forcing you to? work more than 40 hours a week.
It's called sarcasm ... By: njanovic1980. on 02 Mar 12, 10:53:27 It's called sarcasm, look it up in the dictionary. Ford was one company. I said "across the board". Look up the meaning of that phrase as well. BTW I just went to the dept of labor's site to do a bit of reading on the FSLA, just in case I had forgotten something. Guess what? It did indeed create the 40 hour work week? & minimum wage. What you are talking about is overtime. Work over 40 hours if you are an hourly employee then you must be paid time and a half for those hours.
Now you're being ... By: sklanger. on 01 Mar 12, 14:13:49 Now you're being obtuse and dishonest. Anyone can look up the state labor department's FAQ page and see? for himself: "There are no limits on[] the number of work hours per day." I bring this up because you claimed falsely and repeatedly that 12-hour days have been banned and that NY required 8-hour days. Your statements were clearly untrue. Instead of owning up and admitting your mistakes, you obfuscate them. I'm essentially shaming you because you lied.
Funny. I stated you ... By: sklanger. on 01 Mar 12, 14:09:54 Funny. I stated you were wrong and you're pretending that I agreed with you. Delusional much? Again: the FLSA neither required the 8-hour work day as you falsely claimed nor did it create a 40-hour workweek -- it expressly permits employers to strike their own bargains with employees for however many hours they wish, provided they were compensated for those hours. Ford had 40-hour workweeks in 1913 -- contrary to your claim that improvements did not spread before? FLSA.
It mentions hours ... By: sklanger. on 01 Mar 12, 14:05:27 It mentions hours because it requires employee notification. It says so right on the page: "a notice which states the employer's policy." Not because a 12-hour day is unacceptable -- nowhere is such a thing stated as you? imply. Your ignorance on Indonesia has been refuted: "compliance with minimum wage legislation has increased over time." Scorse at 63. Moreover, "minimum wages quadrupled in nominal terms and doubled in real terms." Id. at 46. There was no race to the bottom. You lose.
Yep, thanks the 40 ... By: njanovic1980. on 01 Mar 12, 10:11:00 Yep, thanks the 40 hour work week created by the fair labor act under FDR there is now a standard across the board. Theodore Roosevelt also wanted legislation providing at least 1 day a week off. I guess poor? 'ole Teddy was just imagining it when looked around and saw the shit and misery of working conditions during his time.
""In? some ... By: gulbirk. on 01 Mar 12, 09:46:45 ""In? some industries and occupations, an employee must receive 24 hours of rest in each calendar week""
And why do you even bring this up, you are essentially making arguments against yourself here, showing that these standards are poorer then in countries in which unions have more power.
Any political opinion/ideology that is not based on functioning for the majority of a population (at least the majority) is just as usefull as a sword without an edge. You can practice it all day, and tell everyone how sharp and usefull it is, but in the end it wont work.
In most cases the ... By: unassumption. on 28 Jan 12, 18:24:07 In most cases the rich weren't killed in the few revolutions that happend in Europe. In most cases the rich managed to crush revolutions it was only when other rich people wanted to fuck with them? they succeeded. From what I've seen the French was the first where peasants rose up to kill their king, and even then it was very controversial among the revolutionaries.
As the power of the ... By: unassumption. on 28 Jan 12, 18:21:47 As the power of the church shows, ideology can oppress large swathes of the population with the power? of ideology ....as long as you keep them down well enough.
Unless you had a ... By: unassumption. on 28 Jan 12, 18:18:48 Unless you had a very powerful night watchman state maintaining it, you wouldn't be able to keep it existing! like genes acting in their self interest form cells and cells in their self interest make bodies, humans acting in their individual self interest would make welfare states with regulations? and taxes.
A minority can ' ... By: unassumption. on 28 Jan 12, 18:15:39 A minority can 'hook' onto a revolution to take power i.e. USSR. Revolutions rarely DON'T get 'led' by a minority who take power. If one group has? the power to keep the poor uninformed or oppressed, it'd work. The church kept people down for 1000s of years as did the Lords and Kings. People are pretty easy to manipulate by heirarchies and loyalty and stuff. We could make a libertarian north korea if we wanted to =/
Just finished ... By: unassumption. on 28 Jan 12, 18:12:50 Just finished selfish gene for the first time (for shame i haven't read it before) Dawkins pissed all over their "peaceful strategies are always best" bastardization of game theory. RWR ideology is not an "evolutionary stable strategy" as it can be invaded by 'cheats' who use violence or group together. Even if it is the best system for everyone, it wouldn't last. Same goes for many forms of socialism IMO. You can make a lot of plans for how to run a cool society but if you? can't get there why?
Hobbes would ... By: unassumption. on 28 Jan 12, 18:09:54 Hobbes would approve this video ;)
I like self interest myself - though like most humans my desires (interest) include the good of my friends / family but thats beside the point - I see the majority will use violence to? get what's in their interest, and it's best for everyone that violence is regulated in the form of the state rather than uncontrolled mob violence. Why shouldn't the poor use their fists to get what's in their own interest? When I ask this they bastardize game theory or economic
Of course people ... By: unassumption. on 28 Jan 12, 18:06:04 Of course people aren't 100% self interested so even if they got robots to do the labor for them and could wipe the workers out the rich wouldn't.
Markets are as much "majority rule" as democracy - the price of goods that are unpopular is much higher than the price of those that are, hell unpopular enough and it won't be sold!
The rights? of the majority > the rights of the majority. each person is equal, so more people > less people.
Wait wait wait, the ... By: unassumption. on 28 Jan 12, 18:03:45 Wait wait wait, the "i'd watch a child starve and call it justice" thing didn't clue you in that he was a psychopath? Like all christians think they'll avoid hell, all RWR think they'll be the rich - when they'd be the ones "the robots" come and kill. BTW I think automation will take all menial? jobs sooner rather than later (when it takes the rest) - hopefully we'll adapt our system to that before a small minority owns the capital that is also the labor and has no need for us!
Like any religion,? ... By: unassumption. on 28 Jan 12, 17:58:54 Like any religion,? RWR leads people to say absurd evil things (like they'd let orphans starve because feeding them requires tax) that no sane human ever should.
Why would you argue with a maniac like that, I don't think I could speak to anyone like that!
Sparta managed to keep slaves for 100s of years though, it is possible for the minority to rule as for a pretty long time even if it's not indefinite, and if the power balance isn't too large who knows maybe they could hang on forever?
And you dont even ... By: gulbirk. on 26 Jan 12, 10:14:04 And you dont even have to go that far back. Remember what happen to the leader of Romania when the people were fed up with? him? They killed both him and his wife, and it was send on Tv live. So the rules change when people are pissed.
I will look it up. ... By: thatsnotagoodidea. on 26 Jan 12, 02:29:55 I will look it up. It? sounds intriguing.
Sorry,? that film ... By: njanovic1980. on 26 Jan 12, 02:17:50 Sorry,? that film is call The Appeared.
I like those types ... By: njanovic1980. on 26 Jan 12, 02:15:12 I like those types of moveis as well, which why often find that most of the "canned" stuff that comes out of Hollywood these days just don't suit my taste. A great fim I'd reccomend is "The Disapeared" about the disapeared, murdered and tortured during Argentina's military dictatorship. It's sort of modern day ghost story that makes a? very profound statement.
I? like movies that ... By: thatsnotagoodidea. on 26 Jan 12, 02:10:31 I? like movies that at least try to make a social commentary on society. This tends to lead me to B movies lol.
I haven't seen? ... By: njanovic1980. on 26 Jan 12, 01:57:44 I haven't seen? Robocop. I have of course heard of it but I haven't seen it. I guess I'm something of a film snob lol. I find myself drawn mostly to independent and foreign films these days.
Have you seen? the ... By: thatsnotagoodidea. on 26 Jan 12, 01:47:26 Have you seen? the Robocop movies? What you describe is exactly what happens. Blackwater was a military contractor not a policing company, but I see your point.
I always think of ... By: njanovic1980. on 26 Jan 12, 01:29:28 I always think of Blackwater, motivated to kill solely for profit rather than serving the ideal of justice. Any organization made up of humans isn't perfect, as humans are not perfect, but I'll? take public security services such as public police departments over private security forces which would likely be absolutely corrupted in the name of maximizing profit.
Very good video. ... By: njanovic1980. on 26 Jan 12, 01:27:12 Very good video. What I always tell them is to look what happened? to Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette at the hands of a disenfrancised majority. The French Revolution essentially began as a food riot when the peasants could no longer afford to feed themselves. Then of course there was the peasant's revolt in medieval England in which the Archbishop of Canterbury and several other state officials were killed.
Every time I hear ... By: thatsnotagoodidea. on 25 Jan 12, 21:43:46 Every time I hear the argument that private companies will take care of security in a voluntary society I think of the Robocop movies. ?
Veldig veldig mange ... By: charli0hihi. on 18 Mar 12, 20:20:18 Veldig veldig mange tenker det samme som deg om Rødt, jeg skal fortsatt stemme det. Bedre å stemme? ingenting.
Du treffer spikeren ... By: M0rganKane. on 24 Feb 12, 16:41:54 Du treffer spikeren på hodet, kamerat? :) Din analyse av dagens politiske situasjon er fantastisk. Du har klart å koke ned det meste av problemet i én youtube-kommentar.
Har lenge tenkt ... By: gulbirk. on 24 Feb 12, 10:10:48 Har lenge tenkt akkurat samme tanken. Dagens "sosialist" partier appellerer til en veldig liten akademisk elite. Tror litt av problemet er at sosialisme faktisk praktisk talt er tatt av dagsorden. Det handler for det meste om klima (som selvølgelig er viktig), kultur og samt en del små politiske spørsmål som vanlige folk synes er ganske? uviktige. De viktigste sakene blir liksom lagt i skuffen på en måte.
SV under Audun ... By: M0rganKane. on 24 Feb 12, 01:02:06 SV under Audun Lysbakken vil bli interessant. Venstresiden må bygge et sosialistisk folkeparti som appellerer? til hele folket (og da særlig og selvsagt arbeiderne).
Definitivt verdt å ... By: gulbirk. on 07 Feb 12, 16:25:32 Definitivt verdt å lese/høre. Jeg er ikke enig i alt han? sier, men han har en del gode poenger om miljøet som gjorde FrP`s sukksess mulig.
Jeg fant den på ... By: TheHolySTD. on 07 Feb 12, 08:49:06 Jeg fant den på NLB.no så jeg skal lytte på så snart jeg? får tid, takke for anbefalingen.
Det vil jeg tro de ... By: gulbirk. on 07 Feb 12, 08:25:45 Det vil jeg tro de har. Jeg ville prøvd biblioteket først siden boken ikke er? veldig kjent.
"Jeg tror ikke det ... By: TheHolySTD. on 06 Feb 12, 19:12:09 "Jeg tror ikke det er helt sant."
jeg er forsåvidt enig med deg, man ser en stor interesse (men ikke nødvendigvis forståelse) rundt dette nor disse spørsmålene direkte påvirker dem, man jeg tror mange har vanskelig å koble disse tingene samen med en større økonomisk ideologi og grunnleggende verdier. Angående boken, kan man finne den som lydbok? har vanskelig å komme meg? gjennom noe lengre en en avis artikkel grunnet dysleksi.
"""velgeren ikke er ... By: gulbirk. on 06 Feb 12, 18:54:56 """velgeren ikke er interesserte i disse spørsmålene"""? Jeg tror ikke det er helt sant. Jeg vil anbefale å lese "Frp-Koden" av Magnus E. Marsdal.
"Store/viktige ... By: TheHolySTD. on 06 Feb 12, 18:27:16 "Store/viktige økonomiske spørsmål? har vel aldri vært? så aktuelt som i dagens samfunn?"
så må man da stille seg selv spørsmålet hvorfor blir det ikke diskutert, i vårt tilfelle så har vi hvert meget skjermet fra de økonomiske problemene verden opplever fordi vi har en god velferdsstat og god regulering av banker og bedrifter, så det at vi allerede har disse tingene på plass gjør det mindre aktuelt at vi diskuterer verdien av å ha disse tingene.
"Det er bevisst fra ... By: TheHolySTD. on 06 Feb 12, 18:14:46 "Det er bevisst fra deres side" "eller i det minste ned prioritert"
vi må finne ut hva som ligger til grunns for at dette er situasjonen får? å starte å finne en løsning, en av grunnene til at de kan slippe unna med dette er at velgeren ikke er interesserte i disse spørsmålene, dette gjør at det er lite å hente får et parti i å prøve å svare på disse spørsmålene og det kan ligge andre mere lugubre motiver bak dette, som du hintet til, folk ikke vil like svarene de komet fram til
Teknist sett er det ... By: gulbirk. on 06 Feb 12, 17:29:35 Teknist sett er det ingen? som stopper politkerne fra å ta opp denne debatten. Det er bevisst fra deres side at det ikke blir snakket om, eller i det minste ned prioritert (å snakke om). Hvis de ønsket å snakke om det så kunne de enkelt startet debatt rundt det. Store/viktige økonomiske spørsmål har vel aldri vært så aktuelt som i dagens samfunn?
"Det er partiene ... By: TheHolySTD. on 06 Feb 12, 17:22:26 "Det er partiene selv som velger hva som skal fokuseres på og snakkes om."
jeg snakke om hvorfor denne debatten ikke blir holt i? det offentlige rom, å det er det som gjør det mulig for partiene å slippe unna med å ikke snakke om deres standpunkt på disse sakene og tillater et stille kryp i mot høyre. velgere må vare interessert i en sak før vi kan starte å se sprike mellom hva velgeren står for og tror partiet står for å det partiene faktisk står for.
""Når det kommer ... By: gulbirk. on 06 Feb 12, 09:16:30 ""Når det kommer til økonomisk ideologi så må men finne ut hvorfor denne debatten ikke forekommer""
Det er partiene selv som velger hva som skal fokuseres på og snakkes om. Både Ap og Sv har for lengst bestemt seg for en økonomisk politikk som er langt fra den kjente arbeiderparti politikere snakket om (som Håkon? Lie og Einar Gerhardsen). Jeg tror nok heller at faktum er at begge disse partiene fører en annen økonomisk politikk en det mange ville ønske.
-->andre tenker ... By: TheHolySTD. on 05 Feb 12, 11:14:06 -->andre tenker vell (som? jeg gjorde) at denne debatten var vunnet å det ikke er noe vits i å fortsette fordi de ser ikke det stadige krype mot høyre siden venstre erklærte seier.
til spørsmålet du ... By: TheHolySTD. on 05 Feb 12, 11:02:27 til spørsmålet du stilte i videoen, Ap er ikke så ille at det er umulig å stemme på for nå, et bedre spørsmål? er hvordan kan man få Ap eller SV tilbake på rett kurs? Når det kommer til økonomisk ideologi så må men finne ut hvorfor denne debatten ikke forekommer, jeg tror det er en del grunder, den er tildels teknisk, inkluderer en rekke grunnlegende verdi spørsmål, altså mye tenkning, å mange har vanskelig får å se hvordan dette påvirker dem å ser det ikke bryet hvert.-->
Morsomt er det ikke ... By: TheHolySTD. on 05 Feb 12, 10:32:44 Morsomt er det ikke, når staten har lagt veiene, bygd bygningen? å trent de ansatte da er det på tide å privatisere.
"hadde det ikke ... By: TheHolySTD. on 05 Feb 12, 10:12:37 "hadde det ikke hvert for at de er meget utav kontakt med vanlige folk."
Jeg må nesten spørre deg om å utdype dette lit mere, er det det at de ikke er i stand til å kommunisere sine ider på en måte som får folk til å bry seg, eller er det det at de har mistet fokus på? det som gjelder?
Sant nok. Men jeg ... By: gulbirk. on 25 Jan 12, 09:23:40 Sant nok. Men jeg føler at det er en viss fare for at Ap bare glir lengre og lengre til høyre, selv om de ikke nødvendigvis blir presset den vegen av noen.
Jeg skulle gjerne stemt Sv hadde det ikke hvert for at? de er meget utav kontakt med vanlige folk.
Det blir et ... By: daniel98003. on 25 Jan 12, 09:05:24 Det blir et vanskelig? valg. Men jeg for min del skal stemme på Ap.
Ap har som du sier foranderet politikken sin, men de er da ennå for en sterk velferd stat, og det er for meg godt nok.
oops, correction on ... By: gulbirk. on 24 Jan 12, 21:07:31 oops, correction on myself? at 06:00 The labor party is NOT for a flat tax. The progress party is for a flat tax.
You have no idea ... By: gulbirk. on 24 Jan 12, 10:02:26 You have no idea how true that is XD. Because Norway has such an extremely small population spread over such a huge area, cities,? towns and so on werent really build in a stratigic way. On top of that, every single person in Norway demands that there is a road to there house, almost independent on where they live. Thus there are roads far out in all corners of the land. I live in Torvastad, the nearest city is Haugesund.
The labor party ... By: gulbirk. on 24 Jan 12, 10:00:14 The labor party definitly has become more? right winged. But I wouldnt mind that if there was a better alternative, but there just isnt one at the time.
You have? got me ... By: skeptictom818. on 24 Jan 12, 00:09:02 You have? got me interested in Norwegian politics from watching your videos. I have looked at your road from afar on Google maps and it just seems like a lot of them weave and turn and they aren't really placed very strategically . Also it seems like most city/towns are place right around your Capital Oslo. Also just curious what town do you live in?(if you don't mind me asking)
Yeah i have been ... By: whedonfreak976. on 23 Jan 12, 20:30:58 Yeah i have been hearing that the Labor party? has become more right wing. Yeesh, also look at what happened in New Zealand, and Chilie back in the 70's Argentina in the late 70's and early 80's, look at Bolivia in the 80's and Poland in the 90's. This type of free market economy does not work, corporations make damn sure of that, but there is just a fundamental flaw with that type of so called free market. Great job :D
A chat room for debate and discussion
http://www.voxli. com/gulbirk
The Age of Concent Article (IMPORTANT TO READ THIS BEFORE WATCHING THE VIDEO)
http://www.libert arian.co.uk/lapubs/p olin/polin010.pdf
Good point, lol.? By: gulbirk. on 12 Jan 12, 08:39:49 Good point, lol.?
why read the ... By: unassumption. on 12 Jan 12, 05:30:57 why read the article when you can just watch frank read it ;) for lazy people like myself? :U
I think the issues ... By: unassumption. on 12 Jan 12, 05:24:20 I think the issues of? teenagers and pre-pubescent kids having sex with older people are totally different. The age of consent in most developed nations seems higher than the age most people start having sex with each other (~16?) so seems more concerned with the power in large age gaps than the issue that article frank read discussed which may cause physical harm though still has power involved. I think we need to be more sensible about both issues but need to do something.
Of course they can ... By: SatanRobot. on 11 Jan 12, 18:18:07 Of course they can have sex, and many do, many kids start puberty at this age you know. I finally read the article, it was rubbish, no one should be having sex with children under the age of consent let alone posting pics of it. To this day, in most indigenous tribes in Africa and South America, having sex with a pre pubescent child is the death? penalty. It's un-natural.
A CEO of a company? ... By: gulbirk. on 11 Jan 12, 18:01:12 A CEO of a company? Seriously, LOL.?
12 year olds can ... By: gulbirk. on 11 Jan 12, 18:00:49 12 year olds can have sex? Well, the law about when to have sex is of course something that makes sense. And to be honest, if to 16 year? olds (that are ready to have sex) have sex, I dont think thats such a big problem. But I see that as quite different from a 52 year old fucking a 10 year old and uploading the pictures on a website in the name of "freedom" and "liberty"
thanx? By: SatanRobot. on 11 Jan 12, 16:48:57 thanx?
Frank has the link? ... By: xexixk. on 11 Jan 12, 16:46:12 Frank has the link? in his video. I'll PM it to you.
I have not read the ... By: SatanRobot. on 11 Jan 12, 16:41:19 I have not read the article? because did not link it, so I'm going on very little, and I went to the chat and no one was there..lol
The thing is the ... By: xexixk. on 11 Jan 12, 14:53:01 The thing is the guy who wrote this article wasn't simply speaking about post prebuscent adolescents but pre prebuscent children. I think the most idiotic thing in it I read was something to the? effect that if an adult can give a child pleasure by giving them candy or a toy then why can't they give them sexual pleasure as well. It was quite a disturbing read.
Thank you for the ... By: franks2732. on 11 Jan 12, 14:36:50 Thank you for the response. I am not opposed to violence and if I ever met the writer of the article I would exact it. Getting to the point about "selling oneself into slavery". Max More the writer of this article sells cryogenics. He? is President and CEO of a company that sells the snake oil? claim they can reanimate you after you die. He has links with Han's Hoppe one of the leading lights of the Mises In who just loves attending "white nationalist" radio stations and publishing in their mags
Pedophilia is a ... By: SatanRobot. on 11 Jan 12, 14:28:08 Pedophilia is a mental illness, but it is like Homosexuality and bisexuality in that, the person cannot choose who they are sexually attracted to. As to, children and consent, the law recognizes that child re CAN consent to sex,? and subserviently, depending on the age of the child, if they are below the age of consent, normally 16 in the States, it can result in a lesser charge.For instance, in my state,if a child gives consent down to 12, its not statutory rape, its simply sex with a minor.
Yeah, TR, the ... By: xexixk. on 11 Jan 12, 09:21:39 Yeah, TR, the president who during a miner's strike threatened the owners of a large coal mine when they refused to negotiate with labor that he would send federal troops to seize the mine and place it under federal operation in order to advert a coal shortage was? a "corporatist". A corporatist indeed. What a joke. Most previous presidents would have sent troops to break the strike and force the miners back to work - now that's some serious "corporatism".
I'm quite aware ... By: xexixk. on 11 Jan 12, 09:18:53 I'm quite aware that Morgan had enemies. What? powerful business person doesn't have enemies? That does not mean those enemies where in some sort of secret conspiracy w/ the gov to break up his monopoly. Most of congress was opposed to TR's doing so. You're just a revisionist who turns history up on it's head so it fits into your ideological box.
@xexixk
I am ... By: blackacidlizzard. on 11 Jan 12, 08:04:50 @xexixk
I am dumbstruck. I sit here with the realization that a person who believes the? narrative that the masses brought forth a state which first benefited them, but later turned on them can not apply that same basic idea to an alternate narrative. Wow.
And you don't even realize that Morgan had powerful enemies. Double wow.
I'm done. Kindergarten is dismissed.
Industry did not ... By: xexixk. on 11 Jan 12, 07:48:28 Industry did not agitate for all regulations. Do you think the patent medicine industry agitated for the Pure Food & Drug act that put them out of business? Did appliance manufacturers agitate for the Refrigerator Safety Act of 1956 that? forced them to change the design of household refrigerators? They actually faught that bit of legislation. Odd that Morgan so aggresively faught TR's break up of his trust if anti trust laws only "protected" big business.
@xexixk
If the ... By: blackacidlizzard. on 11 Jan 12, 06:40:03 @xexixk
If the regulations were needed to protect consumers against producers, why? was it producers who agitated for their installation?
"Anti-trust" laws were used to protect dominant market players. A good example is "predatory pricing" in the railroad business. Companies were defying their cartel arrangement by offering "secret rebates" and the cartel acted to stop this. The state gave a cock-and-bull story about a practice which has NEVER been successful, and the rubes believed it
TR wanted a level ... By: xexixk. on 11 Jan 12, 06:08:03 TR wanted a level playing field for both labor and business. Comsumer protections came about b/c their was a need for them (unless you think the horrors of the patent medicine era, for example,? were a good thing). Anti-trust laws only "destroyed" what they were intended to destroy: monoplies. Now if you are trying to argue that in our modern era over the last few decades corporate money has been used to either get regs that favor them or to get lax enforcement of regs then yes.
@xexixk
I spend so ... By: blackacidlizzard. on 11 Jan 12, 03:37:55 @xexixk
I spend so much time arguing with anarchists that I often forget they're quite politically astute compared to the general population.
Very few economic situations are zero-sum-games. The capitalists, the labor leaders, and the union members all benefited from the agreements reached under TR.
"consumer protection" was pushed by capitalists to block competition.
"anti-trust" laws were used to destroy businesses without political clout.
Again, read? Kolko.
LOL Theodore ... By: xexixk. on 11 Jan 12, 02:57:42 LOL Theodore Rooselvelt a coporatist? The first president to take the side of striking workers, a man who opposed corrupt money being spent for political purposes, who opposed corporate political campaign donations, a man who supported regulations to protect consumers, a president who enforced anti trust laws to break up monopolies, who supported labor protections and labor rights was a corporatist?? Talk about turning history up on its head.
@xexixk
Yes, it ... By: blackacidlizzard. on 11 Jan 12, 02:23:24 @xexixk
Yes, it would allow for big business to have immense power. Government PAYS for? big business to have immense power. Halliburton officially contributed fewer than ten million dollars to politicians - in return they were paid billions for a project that cost taxpayers trillions (the current wars)
Theodore Roosevelt was a PRIME example of the corporatist politician. The progressive era was corporatism sold to the idiot masses as social justice. Read Gabriel Kolko.
A free market as ... By: xexixk. on 11 Jan 12, 01:54:57 A free market as imgained by libertarianism would still allow for corporations, big business & big money to have imense power, as that libertarian free market removes all gov regulations & labor protections. I would consider myself of? the same mind of Theodore Roosevelt who said a century ago that the prime problem of the day was collusion between corrupt business & corrupt gov. As such he beleived in regulations & protections as well as prohibiting political spending by corps.
@xexixk
If you ... By: blackacidlizzard. on 11 Jan 12, 01:31:36 @xexixk
If you understood the difference between "free markets" and "corporatism" you would understand that expanding the government while increasing the amount of wealth forcibly transferred to big business is not "impure libertarianism" it is anti-libertarian to the core. Neo-liberals have consistently moved society in a LESS libertarian direction.
Do you believe in evolution?? That's in the same class as Smith's "hand." It is a PROCESS, not an entity.
I've yet to see you ... By: xexixk. on 11 Jan 12, 01:14:59 I've yet to see you provide any real arguments at all. Just childish name calling and baseless assumptions. I know quite well what you mean by a "free market" - you're speaking of that utopian free market that's only and will only exist on paper that is controled by an "invisible hand" (I don't believe in invisible guys in the sky controling? things nor do I believe in invisible hands controling things either). And I know the difference between corporatism/militarism.
@xexixk
I realize ... By: blackacidlizzard. on 09 Jan 12, 01:49:00 @xexixk
I realize that there are Regeanite/Limbaughists who call themselves libertarians. Unlike them,? and unlike you, I know the difference between free markets and state corporatism/militarism. Find a Glenn Beck fan page, that's where you'll find rivals who are working at your level.
Ah yes you are a ... By: xexixk. on 09 Jan 12, 01:39:00 Ah yes you are a good libertarian who dismisses any examples that go counter to what you claim as being? not true libertarianism.
@xexixk
Yes, I ... By: blackacidlizzard. on 08 Jan 12, 12:33:15 @xexixk
Yes, I said the left hates freedom and I did not mention the right's relation to freedom.
You said that libertarianism causes poverty, and did not mention communism. By your own reasoning, this means that you do not believe communism causes poverty.
What are pointed to as libertarian reforms are most often pro-plutocrat interventions, even Chomsky sees this.
I too used to believe you could tell alot about a person with a small dataset. Then I grew? up.
BTW your fondness ... By: xexixk. on 08 Jan 12, 03:50:26 BTW your fondness for cheap insults just illustrates you have no real knowledge or argument? to make. Like the dogmatic fanatic you are when your dogma is challenged you just reach into your bag of insults.
Thanks for ... By: xexixk. on 08 Jan 12, 03:49:13 Thanks for continuing to prove exactly what type of person you are. When did I ever say I supported communism, totalitarianism or theocracy? You made yourself quite clear when you said said the left hates freedom. If only the world were as simple as you seem to believe it is. Libertarian policies have been tried in many countries, libertarian market reforms coupled w/ gutting of social safety nets. It's always led to increases in poverty.?
It could be like ... By: unassumption. on 06 Jan 12, 19:16:43 It could be like infecting a kid with cowpox so they don't get smallpox - they get sick from ron paul's policies (if he gets in his policies will fail, that' why he's such a danger) and move to the left. Looking at history - when a right wing president fucks up the country poor desperate people? get frightened and move more to the right though :(
The only way ron paul failing would be good is if he failed to get stuff passed congress - given his record that's likely.
Yeah, Im no big fan ... By: gulbirk. on 06 Jan 12, 11:52:04 Yeah, Im no big fan of him myself, in fact I think he is awfull. But compeared to the other republican candidates he is the best option. However, the best option? amoung a group of republicans still means he is a bad option.
I would like to see his policies fail too, but practical politics isnt a game. Any decision made will effect people allot.
You are clearly a ... By: ZuccottiPark. on 05 Jan 12, 21:24:19 You are clearly a great person. I'm glad we? had this talk.
@ZuccottiPark
Yes, ... By: blackacidlizzard. on 05 Jan 12, 19:17:11 @ZuccottiPark
Yes, I understood the joke.
I also understand what paradigm is required for the joke? to be anything but an irrelevant failure.
It was a joke.? By: ZuccottiPark. on 05 Jan 12, 18:45:00 It was a joke.?
@xexixk
You ... By: blackacidlizzard. on 05 Jan 12, 16:25:00 @xexixk
You yourself said that libertarianism causes poverty, but you didn't say the same about communism, totalitarianism or theocracy, therefore you ignore the economic problems caused by these systems.
God you're fucking retarded.
History is full? of state interventions that are pointed to as "the free market." Even some socialists have talked about this at length.
Yes, Milton was a hypocritical central planner who spoke about "freedom." That's not news to me, dickbag.
You said it ... By: xexixk. on 05 Jan 12, 14:25:15 You said it yourself that the left hates freedom but made no such statement about the right. You still haven't defined "freedom" either. History - both more recent and distant - clearly show what happens when many of the things "libertarians" advocate for are introduced. Just shoulting words like? "freedom" & "liberty" is meaningless. Pinochet used those words (funny that Friedman who claimed to love "liberty" went to Chile to advise the murderous dictator Pinochet).
@ZuccottiPark
I ... By: blackacidlizzard. on 05 Jan 12, 06:03:38 @ZuccottiPark
I used to think that people who got into libertarian thought would be less likely to resort to thinking in vapid "with us/against us" dichotomies. But that was a few years ago.?
![\"That`s too radical\" a pointless argument](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OMFUmPuCZc0/2.jpg "\\"That`s too radical\\" a pointless argument")
![My political \"conversion\" (PART 2)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vFiZGLiOzuQ/2.jpg "My political \\"conversion\\" (PART 2)")
![My political \"conversion\" (PART 1)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Y2M0VvKjLJ0/2.jpg "My political \\"conversion\\" (PART 1)")
Latest comments made on this video:
By: Ryan O'Doud. on 27 May 12, 05:26:10
Freedom from? control, Freedom to self-determination. You seem like you have been in your society so long that you seem to think freedom is something given to you from on high rather than something you know is yours and is to be executed as you see fit.
By: Ryan O'Doud. on 27 May 12, 05:24:27
This may make no sense to you, but the practical side of it is up to the free individual himself.? How you will put into action your vision and your desire, your goals for your life is completely up to you. YOU HAVE THE CONTROL. It's living revolution. That is as practical as freedom gets. Don't try to tell me "practicality" involves submitting your ideas to the government for approval (who will tax you whether or not they "allow" you to do what you desire in your heart)
By: Ryan O'Doud. on 27 May 12, 05:15:09
There is no non-self appointed government that has ever existed. "No self-appointed person is telling you what to do".. I see. Banks control teh government, they are run by the folks who give millions to the campaigns of all parties. "third parties" are laughed and automatically considered void. any non-mainstream idea is mocked. You don't think the government is self-appointed? you are extremely naive. "Social? democracy" Is paying off the poor so they don't investigate war and oppression.
By: Ryan O'Doud. on 27 May 12, 05:10:03
Freedom does not "have to" do anything. So it can not be freedom. That's orwellian bs. Freedom allows people to define their own life within the framework of consent. As long as you are a consenting adult, you can do what you want over yourself. There is no such thing as the Freedom "OVER" something. That is a completely misnomer. Control does not equal freedom. A free society can have socialists living how they like, they? just do it voluntarily. Why advocate for a system which requires force?
By: gulbirk. on 16 May 12, 14:32:36
Ok, the video on North Korea is up? now.
By: gulbirk. on 16 May 12, 09:30:36
ill see what ? I can put together.
By: charli0hihi. on 14 May 12, 21:33:27
*I forgot to? say + human rights.
By: charli0hihi. on 14 May 12, 21:32:48
It's? a powerpoint-presentation. I guess I have to base my opinions on my facts, and no, I don't have a strict teacher. Please include some of these as just keywords; communism, propaganda, dictator and maybe something about political history. Thank you! :D
By: gulbirk. on 14 May 12, 10:26:36
I can make a video about North Korea. But im not sure if I count as a valid source of information. With a strict teacher, im not nearly? objective enough to be a valid source of information I would gues. But I could do a video on it for sure. But exactly what kind of information should I include in it?
By: charli0hihi. on 14 May 12, 08:31:38
Can you make a video about North-Korea? I know this is the second favour I ask you, but I have? a school project, and I want you as my source.
By: gulbirk. on 02 May 12, 19:53:16
I agree with that. But voting for him directly contributes to the two party system. The way I see it, people wont start voting for someone else until they see that other people do the same. So my idea and my practices is that I vote for those I support. If I start voting for the lesser of two evils, im afraid those two evils will be easy to? corrupt and pointless to vote for. To be honest, I dont see much of a difference between the practical policies of democrats and republicans.
By: unassumption. on 02 May 12, 19:31:15
I don't see how not voting for him will change the 2 party system, and I can see a lot of ways it could hurt the average person (which is what i really care about). We have to work at giving people a voice but I don't see how not participating will do that. If the democrats get no votes, history shows republican rule won't sour people to the right? wing it will make people poor and desperate and easier to manipulate by the powerful. The best way to achieve change is from within (primaries?)
By: gulbirk. on 02 May 12, 18:39:26
I agree. But I also agree with Justin when he says that you are doing what they want if you participate in this system. When we have managed to establish a two party system its easy for corporations to simply take controll. So though I would agree that Obama is better then Romney I couldnt get myself to vote him in. They can keep that going for as long as? they want and nothing will change until someone else is voted in.
By: unassumption. on 02 May 12, 18:32:00
But acting like the far left actually has a chance of getting into power now, is like thinking ron paul could win in 2012. I judge things by? what effects they're likely to have not the intended effect, which is why I see left and right anarchy so similar, and left voting unelectable candidates the same as right voting unelectable candidates (or worse! because those left votes would otherwise have gone to a ...less right wing candidate....so it splits the 'less right wing' vote)
By: unassumption. on 02 May 12, 18:30:06
Oops! I didn't complete the sentence. I meant to say "insisting obama is part of the power eliets so we should vote communist." Voting communist will in practice have the same effect in practice as voting Paul, they might be the best option in a perfect world but voting for them (given how voting in the US seems to work) won't change anything? while voting Obama will produce miniscule positive change (better than nothing). I guess something needs to be done to improve what candidates are viable.
By: gulbirk. on 02 May 12, 18:15:37
So true. And I agree. Left winged anarchy is very likely to end up the same way right winged anarchy would. This is probably because you cant really create and maintain a left? winged anarchy society without any sort of controll. Who is to say the capitalists wont just continue to be and act like capitalists. Im not sure if I got your first statement. I dont think Justin supports Obama.
By: unassumption. on 02 May 12, 15:25:23
There are many definitions of freedom which have different levels of value in different situations and it's just one factor,? but people simplify it to "freedom!!!!"
By: unassumption. on 02 May 12, 15:22:54
Justin cares about reality as much as the average Paultard, even if it's for the right reasons, insisting Obama. I've found it impossible to get libertarians to admit that other definitions of freedom exist, or that 'freedom to' is freedom. We need to take back the word. Fuck freedom though, I want what works and that isn't always freedom. The freedom from is only from the state (people)? not the companies. In practice, anarchy will lead to what the RWR want, so I say left anarchy = RWR