Finding Hope in Small-Scale Change - Peter Sellars

[alexmigda]

FUCKIN A!

[MiranUT]

variablast,

If more people engaged in dialogue, the way truthadvocate is trying to do and you are dismissing, we probably wouldn't have the huge, wasteful gov that has pretty much hoarded all the wealth for the elite while penalizing small business and entrepreneurship in the US. They've even bankrupted most of the state govs,

[gasttheplast]

He almost got it !

Very good 4 1/2 stars.

[deathByStupid]

The problem is sometimes the message is nice but it comes from somebody who is hard to take seriously.

He talks about people protesting in there millions. Yet the leaders of the countries who went to Iraq where voted back into power.

Only now 5 years later has there been any substantial objection from the electorate.

So when this guy is talking about people protesting maybe he means people with crazy hair and colourful shirts. Cos the electorate didnt protest at the time.

[datachip]

This guy's not advocating anarchy. He's just drawing our attention into the foreground of our lives if we want to do good. It's the most immediate way to offer your compassion. It for the lack of this that we need Red Cross and HUD.

[truthadvocate]

I'm trying to have a rational conversation, and you resort to melodramatic satire.

Why do you think we spend so much time waiting at red lights when nobody's around? Slamming on our breaks or the accelerator at yellow lights? No turning right on red signs: are they really necessary? Why do traffic jams occur every single week day? Is it just because we haven't passed enough laws yet? Passing laws caused these problems. Has it occurred to you that there might be a better way?

[truthadvocate]

A common answer to most problems is to pass a law. That is why government is out of control & our freedoms are limited more each day.

Waiting at red lights when nobody is around is a common problem that could easily be fixed by a free market. The problem is that most roads are managed by a coercive monopoly. So there is no competitive incentive to solve simple problems.

Why are roads controlled by a coercive monopoly? Because someone passed a law.

[lduve1010]

california must have alot of people in prison to cause it to go bankrupt.

[blackiron60]

His story is touching, but its rests on false hope. The re-habilitation network of a black ex-con is not going to magically be taken up by a bunch of mostly white elitist bunch of so-called "representatives" in ten years time. The protests against the Iraq War failed because they were too meek. If the governments of the world knew that they would be overthrown in a revolution if they defied the people, the war would never have happened. No real change comes without collective struggle.

[truthadvocate]

Unlikely. What would that legislation look like? The Health Care bill? Thousands of pages written by politicians overestimating their own intelligence, packed with subsidies for special interest groups at the expense of everyone else & tons of hidden taxes, handed off to a massive bureaucratic coercive monopoly called the Dept. of Transportation? I have a better idea. Give companies complete freedom to create a way to get people home faster & safer. Then sit back & watch them compete.

[AmericaToDeath]

peter has an amazing sofa

[AVTPro]

Applause.

[MiranUT]

This is why big gov/bureaucracy doesn't work for you and me - but only for the oligarchy.

Go local. Local gov should be the strongest. That's where people have a stronger voice. That's where the money should be. The US gov has gotten top heavy. It can't last forever.

[truthadvocate]

Follow that logic to it's rational conclusion. If a national government serves individuals worse than a state government, which serves individuals worse than a town government. What government serves individuals the best? The most local government of all. The individual. Only individuals know what they value. They know themselves far better than anyone else. Let them exchange their work & possessions voluntarily with others to acquire the things they value most. Government just stands in the way

[MiranUT]

Totally agree, truthadvocate. But gov is useful for some, not many, basic services such as fire, police (although not like what the US has now), and garbage collection. As responsible as you and I might be, there will always be the few people in society who don't/won't cooperate. If you've ever headed any type of organization (especially volunteer groups) you know that different people "perform" at different levels. Some form of gov is useful for basic "community" services.

[truthadvocate]

Why do those services have to be handled by a coercive monopoly? We know competition improves quality & lowers cost.

Police can't stop someone from murdering you. They chase criminals after-the-fact. We'd be safer without them cause then we could carry our own gear.

If people had to pay for garbage disposal directly, imagine how less wasteful they'd be.

Without a state, irresponsible people must live with consequences of their actions. A state allows them to pass consequences onto others.

[MiranUT]

Interesting points. Agreed: private sector usually provides cheaper /efficient services, but still think we need some form of gov. Look at how "well" the world functions in its anarchistic system. A justice system deters crime. A gov-free system would have crime too, but what would the deterrent be?

I'd rather hire police with taxes than let the people with the most money and the biggest guns rule the neighborhood.

[MiranUT]

(Cont) In some places people do pay directly to the city for garbage disposal. It reduces waste.

Unfortunately, even in anarchistic society, I'd have to live with the consequences of the irresponsible.

Just because we have a bunch of ill-run, huge govs, doesn't mean that a well-managed one couldn't exist. IMO, that means a small local gov that has a few community services that are needed/voted in by the people who live in there. Trick's how to limit the power of a central or federal gov.

[truthadvocate]

"A justice system deters crime" I disagree.

Is robbery a crime? The IRS commits robbery on a much larger scale than any private criminal. The "justice" system throws people in prison for the rest of their lives if they choose to defend their private property.

Is counterfeiting money a crime? The Federal Reserve prints money out of thin air, forces everyone to use it, then steals wealth from everyone by printing tons more.

Are physical assault, kidnapping, extortion & Ponzi schemes crimes?

[MiranUT]

I wrote "deters" not prevents. Again, not all governments work the same. Look at Japan, where I live: The murder rate is extremely low - at least compared with the US.

I'm sure there are many people who have thought about murdering someone and didn't for fear of getting caught.

Are you trying to say that in an anarchist system crime wouldn't exist? With the focus on small local gov, much of the white collar crime you mention above would not exist.

[truthadvocate]

If people share values & voluntarily choose to live under certain rules, that's fine. That's anarchy which simply means "no rulers."

But as soon as people start voting themselves money at the expense of others without their consent, & use mercenaries & a justice system to force people to pay, that's government.

I'm not saying crime wouldn't exist. But a justice system would be more likely to provide justice if it had competition.

What makes you think you can limit the size of government?

[truthadvocate]

In a free market anarchy, there would be a justice system, but it would have free competition. The most fair courts, the most fair judges, the most reasonable laws are naturally selected by the market just like anything else.

Deterrant for crimes:

1. people are free to defend themselves, unlike today.

2. If you commit a crime & refuse to honor a final court decision, it will go on your credit score. Businesses won't do business with you. Courts won't protect you. Grocery stores won't feed you.

[MiranUT]

What do you mean "courts won't protect you"? Who's ganna organize the it/determine what the "final court decision" would be? I'm not familiar w/ free market justice systems. Has one ever existed - outside mafia organizations?

In a free system, there'll always be a market to "feed" and do business with criminals - like there is in the current system or even more authoritarian ones.

I'm all for a free market. But that's a separate issue from no gov, which is where you enter this conversation.

[truthadvocate]

The deterrents I proposed are just ideas. (poorly explained by me) Nobody can say for sure what methods of dispute resolution will emerge in a free market anarchy. All we know is that where there is a need, the market finds a way.

Languages, units of measurement, means of exchange, customs, rules, all these things develop without a central planner & tend to be consistent within communities, because people have incentive to cooperate, communicate, and interact productively.

[truthadvocate]

Examples of free market justice systems include medieval Iceland prior to the fourteenth century, medieval Ireland surety system which lasted for over 1000 years prior to British invasion, medieval Mercantile law, Anglo Saxon tithing system in England before Norman conquest, Kapauku Papuans of West New Guinea.

For current examples, look up "Alternative Dispute Resolution" "private arbitration" or "mediators".

For a thorough explanation of Customary law check out the Mises Institute.

[MiranUT]

Now money and power are centered in DC creating an oligarchy that is removed from the ordinary person. We could keep gov small by keeping it local - where the major stockholders are.

Your free market justice system sounds intriguing, but people would still need codes to operate by, and again, as much as I believe in the good-heartedness of most people, there are always bad apples. To deal with this, I believe an egalitarian, nonprofit justice system is needed.

[truthadvocate]

An egalitarian justice system imposed by government is a self-contradiction. When you give people in government coercive monopolistic control over justice, you create two unequal classes, a privileged class consisting of those in government or those with political connections that initiate force against others & exist above the law, & an underprivileged class that includes the rest of us. It's an oligarchy.

There always are bad apples. Many work in government where they generate the most damage

[MiranUT]

cont

France had "competing"justice systems before the Revolution, and it was unfair to most of the population. Who decides which system has jurisdiction? Look at the US privatization of the prison system. Granted some tax dollars are keeping it going, as well as insane drug laws, but it is profit-driven (as are the police who now get funds via drug money confiscation) and the US has the biggest prison population in the world.

[truthadvocate]

Profit is never a bad thing. It simply means that people are acquiring things they value more then the things they give in exchange.

Privatization is not an example of the free market. It usually is a government monopoly handing over control to another coercive monopoly. Often in exchange for political donations. I don't support that.

[MiranUT]

I'm all for making a profit, but there are cases where profit'd be morally reprehensible, hired assassins, prisons, firefighters...

The profit-driven healthcare system in the US is an example of private enterprise out of control.

Privatizations can be taking a monopoly and breaking it up. Look at the phone co in the 70's. What happens today, though, is the gov "contracts" out work to for-profit business (another example of "bad profits").

Question: How would you keep your society free?

[truthadvocate]

If you can make a profit saving people from fire & disease, why is that morally reprehensible? Everyone benefits. If you could somehow remove profit, there would be much less incentive to save lives, & more people would die. Your hatred toward profit is completely irrational.

Do you think firefighters that work for the state don't make a profit? They don't just do it because they're nice. They exchange their services for a salary they value more. That's a profit.

[MiranUT]

Read carefully. I didn't write that I hate profit - only that there are cases in which it's immoral & not everyone benefits. True, firefighters make a sustainable living, but if organizations (which's what's needed to put out most fires) were profit-driven, prices could go up until it was unaffordable - much like health care is today for 1/6 of Americans. For parents whose child was denied coverage b/c it wasn't profitable for the insurance co, "profit" is not good.

[MiranUT]

Again, how would you keep your society free? Even in a society where people freely associate wit each other, power imbalances would occur and some people would not be free, but "slaves" to that system.

I think many Americans are disillusioned about freedom. Once you enter into a social contract with another individual, you are not exactly free. There is a tendency for humans to organize themselves and make rules, exclude or include others.

[truthadvocate]

So if someone else doesn't pay for your child's healthcare, they're immoral? You don't think people have a right to choose their customers? You don't think people have a right to choose how to spend their own money? You think you have a right to force others to pay for your child?

When someone raises prices to increase profit, they invite competition which drives prices back down. You can't just raise a price without loosing business, UNLESS, government regulation prevents or limits competition

[MiranUT]

I personally believe people should be able to choose what services they use or not. My point is there are some services that benefit more people when they are nonprofit and organized by the collective. The care I receive here is better than the US - my opinion and as ranked by WHO. It is 1/3 the cost the US. And I don't have to be slave to my employer because I have a kid want to keep insured.

[truthadvocate]

Health insurance was never tied to employment until the US government put limits on salaries. Employers were forced to attract the best employees in other ways, one of which was insurance plans. Then the government encouraged this further by giving tax breaks to employers for providing insurance. Being dependent on a US employer for insurance is a direct result of government intervention. That practice inhibits people's ability to switch providers, thus limiting competition, & increasing prices.

[MiranUT]

I'm not familiar with the US gov putting limits on salaries except for gov employees. When did this happen in the private sector? It's PRIVATE hospitals and PRIVATE insurance companies that are increasing costs and profits - and not keeping people healthy. Anyway, you know from my political philosophy that I don't support a federal gov tinkering with the economy.

Again, how would you keep an anarchy free???

[truthadvocate]

"US gov putting limits on salaries - When did this happen in the private sector?"

In World War II under Roosevelt, the War Production Board, Office of War Mobilization, & Office of Price Administration took over industries for military use & controlled wages & prices. In the Korean War under Truman, the Office of Price Stabilization controlled wages. Nixon ordered wage & price controls.

You blame the PRIVATE sector, yet all hospitals & insurance companies are protected & regulated by government

[MiranUT]

Hard to believe a 90-day price & wage freeze for large corps only under Nixon "forced employers" to offer health insurance.

Agreed: the US healthcare system & gov intervention sucks. My example above is of one that works.

How will you keep your anarchy free??? Knowing how people act in voluntary situations, some people will be more free than others. As you know, anarchy doesn't promote egalitarianism. If you wanna see how monopolies form in free systems, check out the Japanese mafia.

[truthadvocate]

You questioned if government has limited private salaries. Nixon was just one example to prove it has.

How convenient of you to focus on the short term wage controls of Nixon and ignore the wage controls of Roosevelt & Truman. You do remember those two presidents don't you? Roosevelt, the guy who forced 120,000 Japanese Americans into internment camps & Truman, the guy who ordered atomic bombs to be dropped on Hiroshima & Nagasaki. You can thank Roosevelt for employer-provided health insurance

[MiranUT]

Got it. Thanks for the primer. Again, I'm fortunate enough to not have to rely on US employer-provided healthcare.

[truthadvocate]

How will I keep my anarchy free? I answered that question below.

I'm familiar enough with mafia history to know that the mafia uses government to gain power. The government passes laws to limit the supply of gambling, drugs, etc. This is what gives the mafia the power to make tons of money off illegal activities. And the mafia always pays off the police & the justice system who protect them. Furthermore, there is no difference between the mafia & the state. They both are extortion rackets.

[MiranUT]

I can't find your ideas on this thread about keeping a system free. Why do you think voluntary corporations (or co-ops) will act any differently than governments or mafia?

[truthadvocate]

1 of 6

We've been looking at comments in a different order. When I get a comment in my InBox, I use the "see all comments" link below it, while you must be returning to the video viewing page. One lists comments in a hierarchy. The other lists comments in a chronological order. Confusing.

Quick clarification: a corporation is a legal entity created & protected from risk by government. In anarchy, corporations dont exist.

[truthadvocate]

2 of 6

But you raise a good question. Why won't businesses in anarchy behave like government or mafias? Whats the difference? Answer: Government & mafias benefit from abusing the people, while businesses in anarchy dont.

Why do Governments benefit?

Government & mafias have successfully centralized all power over weapons & money. As a result the people are powerless to resist or defend themselves when they are abused. Government easily acquired this centralized power because

[truthadvocate]

3 of 6

1. People were used to being ruled when our governments formed. 2. As economists learned that government was obsolete, government prevented the public from arriving at the same conclusion by indoctrinating them. Governments heavily regulated media & funneled every child through a public education monopoly. Thats why we think a central government is necessary.

[truthadvocate]

4 of 6

Why is anarchy any different? In anarchy there is no government control over media & education so indoctrination of entire populations is unlikely. Individuals have complete freedom to publicly criticize groups that abuse people. Thus, any abuse would ruin the reputation of the abuser. There is no central control over guns & money, so individuals are far more powerful. They are free to carry defensive weapons & pool resources for defense. It would be much more risky to abuse anyone.

[truthadvocate]

5 of 6

With no central government, there is no single target you can attack to conquer a region. You would have to conquer & maintain control over every individual, each of which is capable of defending himself. The cost of such an invasion would be astronomical. If a business abuses employees or customers, it attracts competition, reducing its market share & power. It pays a price because there is no government to hide behind, no way to rule a population or avoid natural consequences.

[truthadvocate]

6 of 6

I suppose it's possible for a mad man to seize control over an anarchy by threatening it with an arsenal of nuclear bombs. Of course the same threat exists today under government. To clarify, I don't believe an anarchy is perfect or indestructible. I simply believe it has the potential to be a tremendous improvement over our current systems of centralized government rule.

[MiranUT]

I'm in total agreement with you on the corruption & inefficiency of a central gov. Only problem I see with anarchy is man's desire to have a pecking order. W/ total freedom, there is no equality & that breeds power struggles. If I have a resource & refuse to sell it to b/c I want to use it, what's to stop him from using force? Anarchy could easily evolve into "might is right." With a local gov, there's consensus among stakeholders & some basic equality - if that's what the stake holders want.

[truthadvocate]

Power struggle is a fact of life. No system will prevent it. Resources are limited, so people need to defend their property from others.

If someone steals your property you take them to court. In a market anarchy, you still have courts, laws & justice. Under a central government these services are provided by a coercive monopoly. In an anarchy these services are provided by the free market. This idea shocks people. But it works quite well. search "mises customary law" in google to learn more.

[MiranUT]

truthadvocate, what government services do you use everyday that make your life easier?

I pay for my public health insurance - separately from my other (low) taxes. It's $400/month (for 3 people). Do you have "private" insurance? If you do, other people are paying for you & you are paying for them.

Again, how would you keep your anarchist society free??? It's not as easy as you think. Instead of clinging to your ideology, why don't you try to answer this question.

[MiranUT]

Seemingly contradictory, there is also a freedom to a group organizing itself to distribute the workload/payment structure. Ex.

I have very affordable public health insurance in Japan. My husband and I were able to work part time for the first two years of my child's life. We would be irresponsible if we'd done that in the states, b/c we'd no longer have health insurance. We have a well-balanced child who received quality care in the formative years. That benefits society.

[MiranUT]

You won't believe it from the example above, but I am a libertarian. One of the things that makes the public health insurance program work in Japan is that it's administered at the local level - in my case, at my ward office.

You still not have convinced me that I would be protected or able to effectively seek retribution in an anarchy. I'm all for free association and free markets, but I don't necessarily have the time/money to get all the services I need. That's where a gov can be useful.

[doutonight]

I love this guy's haircut and shirt

[truthadvocate]

This shows that it's not legislation that solves problems. It's individuals cooperating with each other, each for his or her own rational self interest. One of these days, human intelligence will evolve enough to realize this. Only voluntary exchanges result in win win scenarios. That's why people voluntarily participate. Legislation doesn't allow this. It picks winners and losers. It forces people to act or not act against their self interest, thus resulting in their unhappiness.

[HiAdrian]

I'm reminded of the slogan of the Buddhist Society of West Australia: "Towards a voluntary society". Love that one.

[greenelf12]

Buddhist's rock

[anikinippon]

Although from a human solidarity aspect, a woman coming out of prison and making it is a fantastic thing. However, I don't agree that a women's only shelter is the best idea, there are plenty of men that can't do the same things she isn't allowed to by laws. On the Iraq question, I have no pity for a merciless dictator in which we freed the Kurdish people and Iraqis alike. In which they held their first ever open election where they had a voice. I could go on but I'll let others speak.

[MiranUT]

anikinipon, "We freed the Kurdish people and Iraqis"

Who sold Saddam the bio-weapons he used on Kurds? Who propped him up until he went a little too far?

How were Iraqi elections pre-Shock & Awe any different from US elections now? Ask any Iraqi mother who's lost her child about "freedom". Americans vote for the lesser of two evils; from where I stand on the political spectrum, dems/reps are the same party - a one party system. Only difference with old Iraq is the power corps have in the US.

[anikinippon]

Keep telling yourself that

[MiranUT]

Learn some history.

[anikinippon]

"How were Iraqi elections pre-Shock & Awe any different from US elections now?" I would tell you the same, to compare the free elections of Iraq now and in the past is like comparing US elections to North Korean elections, they are quite different. And your right, we should have waited until they used apocalyptic weaponry to use against us. Just know that the blood and sacrifice of our service members is what keeps you speaking on YouTube right now.

[MiranUT]

Apocalyptic weaponry? You still believe that? No such thing was found in Iraq.

What has happened there will come back to haunt. Basically, US policy has been to let the fundamentalist Shi'a massacre the Sunni. Just wait till they team up with their fellow believers in Iran. Are you ready for the draft?

I won't go into the numerous war crimes committed by US servicemen and women, but if you'd like to read about it, google Chris Hedge's article for the Nation, The Other War, July 9, 2007.

[anikinippon]

I already served, I have no problem doing it again so the draft? Sure I'm ready, I have no problem going against Iran either. You talk about "war crimes" but you realistically thing that no mistakes are going to be made in a war? Or no deaths? That would be unrealistic. What else is unrealistic is comparing the Ba'ath Party to our service members. The Ba'ath party raped, killed, and tortured people on a regular basis for minor offenses. Executing people for having a cell phone ect.

[MiranUT]

Nowhere did I compare US troops w/the Ba'ath Party. It's you who made the comparison of rape, murder & torture -- all of which Americans have done. Iraqi's were rounded up nightly by US troops & incarcerated only because they were men between 14 & 60. Mistakes I understand; deliberate target practice, I don't. There've been so many offenses of the rules of engagement they can't be investigated. Do I blame all soldiers - no. If you were in the service, you know how it is -- even in peacetime.

[anikinippon]

While you get to make the choice of weather or not you can text or speak on a cellphone while driving, remember how much the US is oppressing you. How dare you compare our military forces the Baath Party under Saddam's control. Go ahead, defend the real murderers and rapists while condemning people that actually help you sleep at night.

[MiranUT]

Just stating facts.

[anikinippon]

That's ok, while you protest the war, there are people that are actually on the ground that helped find the mass graves, digging wells for the community, making markets for the local people, disarm the militant groups that still want more blood, put out the fires of the largest ecological disaster registered by the UN (burning oil fields set by Saddam) and you can spit in those peoples faces while you stay seated and do nothing to make their society better, I rest my case.