Peter Schiff at Occupy Wall Street: "Walmart Doesn't Hold a Gun to Your Head!"

"Did a corporation end slavery, or did the government end slavery?!?!"

That's the sort of question investment guru and radio show host Peter Schiff fielded as he debated Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protesters last week in New York's Zuccotti Park.

Schiff is no ordinary observer. As the prinicipal of the financial firm Euro Pacific Capital, he's a full-fledged and unapologetic member of "the 1 Percent." As an outspoken radio show host (listen online here) and commentator, he not only predicted the housing crash and financial crisis, he railed bank and auto-sector bailouts as they were happening. Schiff believes that capitalism offers is the only hope for young, frustrated people to have a vibrant and prosperous future (get information on his latest book, How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes, here). So he went to Occupy Wall Street to engage and debate the protesters.

Touring the Occupy Wall Street scene in New York with a sign that read "I Am the 1%, Let's Talk," Schiff spent more than three hours on the scene, explaining the difference between cronyism and capitalism, bailouts and balance sheets, and more.

"The regulation we want is the market," said Schiff. "That's what works."

Schiff describes himself as "sympathetic" to the plight of the OWS protesters, but thinks their anger is misdirected at legitimate business interests and should be better at the White House, Congress, the Federal Reserve, and the crony capitalists they've bailed out.

If you dig this exchange, make sure to watch the full 20-minute-long video in which Schiff spars with an eclectic mix of protesters and gets at least some of them to reassess where the blame for financial crisis really lies. Click below to watch:

Produced by Anthony L. Fisher. Camera by Nathan Chaffetz.

Runs about 18 minutes. Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions of our videos and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel for automatic notification when new material goes live online.

For Reason's coverage of the Occupy movement in New York, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and elsewhere, go here.

Here's a playlist of Reason.tv's always expanding video coverage of the Occupy movement.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Supreme Generalissimo Fluffy||

    Since the government created slavery, only the government could end it.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/l.....MSYIL9xSDL

    More hilarity from OWS:

    Apparently the protestors want the poor people who are showing up and joining the protest just to get something to eat to go away.

    The volunteer cooks say they feel exploited by all the people showing up and expecting free food.

    "Hello! We are people with no ability to perceive irony! Watch us and be amused!"

  • WTF||

    Yeah, the obvious answer to the question "Did a corporation end slavery, or did the government end slavery?!?!" is of course
    "Did a corporation make slavery legal in the first place, or did the government make slavery legal in the first place?!?!"
    And watch the wheels grind...

  • ||

    That's what Peter Schiff was trying to get across but the meathead kleptocrat wannabee got busy shouting about some other phony issue before Mr. Schiff could finish his answer.

    Even had Mr. Schiff given the pinko meathead your snappier version of the answer, the pinko motormouth would have been talking over Mr. Schiff's answer in order to sling another piece of unfocused nonsense at him. Leftists can't stand still and listen even for a moment, the danger that even the smallest particle of truth might penetrate their spew of word-fog and enter the cavities where their brains once were is just too great.

    Zombies, the pinkos are just zombies.

  • ||

    Leftists can't stand still and listen even for a moment

    I think it has more to do with the motor mouth's age and not his politics.

    Oh to be 22 again.

  • Wealth Desparity||

    Funny how capitalist make the claim that "a rising tide lifts all boats."

    Then, when the promise turns out not true, we're not supposed to remember capitalist apologists' promise.

    But we do remember.

  • Sam Grove||

    Expensive government lowers the economic tide.

  • Cheap govt = animated corpse||

    Got Zombie?

    Keep trying to conjure up the government you want. It should be as entertaining as any buffoon trying to conjure up the undead.

    Contradictions are not possible.

  • sevo||

    "Funny how capitalist make the claim that "a rising tide lifts all boats.""

    What's funny about the truth?

  • lying sevo is lying||

    • 1% floating higher
    • 99% boats sinking or swamped

    that's the truth, sevo

    As the income of the top 1 percent skyrocketed from 9 percent of all income in 1974 to 24 percent in 2007, the share of income going to the middle 60 percent of Americans fell from 52 percent to 47 percent. From 2001 to 2007, incomes of the top 1 percent increased by 60 percent after adjusting for inflation, while the median income fell.

    The Legitimate Gripes of the Other 99 Percent
    Amid the Cacophony of Protest Emerges a Coherent Set of Valid Complaints
    www.americanprogress.org/issue.....ripes.html

  • sevo||

    /food,
    /vermin shit.
    So, vermin shit, you get no food.

  • whining sevo is whining||

    no likey spanky?

  • sevo||

    Hint:
    /food,
    /vermin shit.
    Easy.

  • devo||

    Mint:
    /mood
    /mervin wit
    Wheezy.

    Whip it good.

  • Liberty||

    This is due to inflation created by govt. Those with political connections who get the contract bids, bail-outs and regulatory advantages get the advantage of spending the newly created money at higher purchasing power, but as it filters through the economy the inflationary pressures set in and the middle and lower class feel the pain the most as the nominal value of the govt connected 1%ers increase.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Thanks, I'm borrowing this.

  • Dave Anthony||

    Very convenient year you picked, 2007. What are you, Paul Krugman?

  • Alex Scipio||

    Basically none of that is real and the CBO already has been called-out on the totally biased calculations and flat-out lies required to come up with that info. So you have a choice: believe what you want or believe the facts. Now here is a truism for you: adults & conservatives operate this way: "I'll believe it when I see it." Progs & little children operate differently: "I'll see it when I believe it." Which are you? Here's the link for you: http://americanexperiment.org/.....inequality

  • Realist||

    The question is why would Peter waste his time with some of the dumbest fucks on earth? Peter is very intelligent and has better things to do.

  • wareagle||

    because sometimes stupidity has to be put on display so people can see it in its unshackled form. It's one thing to read opinions about the cluelessness of OWS; it's quite another to hear it in the participants' own words.

  • anon||

    Never miss an opportunity to show people just how fucking stupid they are.

  • Realist||

    But they rarely change.

  • anon||

    It's not just them you're arguing against obviously. Even if the direct object of your derision does not change, you can change the minds of several others that are either present or in Schiff's case view the video.

    Simply letting idiots off the hook does less than no good; it lends their ideas credence as people neglect to question the premise of their ideas.

  • ||

    generally speaking (this is the way penal codes etc. works) govt. doesn't generally MAKE something legal

    something IS legal unless and until the govt. declares it illegal

    that may sound like a quibble, but it's kind of a fundamental concept.

    assuming there is no law against X, X is legal.

    generally speaking

  • anon||

    Government MAKES something legal by enforcing contracts that blatantly violate the constitution. Nuf said.

  • Some Guy||

    Generally speaking. However, the concept that developed under English common law (and that heavily influenced a lot of American thought) was that slavery was *the* exception to this.

    Because slavery was seen as so contrary to natural law that it could only exist where it was expressly authorized by positive law.

    In other words, slavery is illegal by default and can be made legal only by government action.

  • ||

    The "free market" created slavery.

    Government ENDED it...

  • Joe M||

    The OWS people are denying it.

  • Hank||

    The Post piece has quotes from cooks. The Atlantic is only quotes from "organizers". I'm inclined to believe the Post, but I won't deny that I'd prefer that, just for the lols.

  • ||

    "No, no, no, we just need a chance to get organized," said food committee member Megan Hayes, when asked about the Thursday story.

    I thought this was a leaderless movement with no organization.
    Oh wait, that is the Tea Party Poopers.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    I don't really find that much fault with the OWS guys for having leaders per se, but the way they have "committees" really creeps me out. Its like they read about Robespierre and decided to use it as a manual instead of learning from it.

  • ||

    But they're an autonomous collective.

  • Mainer||

    Some watery tart handin' out swords is no basis for supreme executive authority.

  • ||

    There is some lovely filth down 'ere though.

  • "Filthy" Rich...1%?||

  • k2000k||

    Your talking about people that needed to have a committe to discuss how they were going to secure their food supply.

    HINT OWS, its called posting guards, should solve that theft problem.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    A liberal friend once listed all the terrible things that our gov't put a stop to (slavery, Jim Crow, etc.), and I pointed out that our gov't started them in the first place. He became silent.

    Congrats on your promotion.

  • Matt||

    Even better: think about how the government "ended" slavery. Hint: it involved slavery the draft.

    So the government said "Slavery is bad mmmkay. I'm going to enslave a bunch of people and with my new slaves I'm going to free the slaves in the south."

  • o2||

    there were volunteers also & some were blacks. were they slaves as well? didnt know slaves got promotions, awards, liberty, & medical for serving the country.

  • dennis||

    The draft is enslavement. It might not be as bad as chattel slavery (then again it might be worse if you are maimed or killed) but slavery it is.

  • k2000k||

    There are a few, very few, instances were a draft is warranted. At the very least with a draft you can be a concientous objector. Slaves never got that option.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "At the very least with a draft you can be a concientous objector."

    Which will mean a lot to you on those lonely nights in either prison or whichever country you had to leave your friends, family and property behind to flee to.

  • ||

    Perhaps you don't know what the term "conscientious objector" means...? (Having said that, I'm not sure the concept of a conscientious objector was recognized in Civil War times.)

  • Lottery#255||

    To be a conscientious objector you had to be granted "conscientious objector status" by the Government. It was not easy to get. Just ask Muhammad Ali.

  • Trespassers W||

    There were volunteer workers on the plantations and some were white. Where they slaves as well? I didn't know slaves earned wages and got to go home at the end of the day.

  • DLM||

    You never heard of slave wages?

  • HermanLame||

    o2 hits the nail on the head as far as the liberal mindset goes: Slavery is okay as long as its the government and they take care of you.

  • Right, Left both city-Statists||

    Even libertarians are slavers. They inadequately whitewash the aggression necessary to their fantastical system.

    I uncover it.

  • Voluntary Slavery FTW!||

    Capitalism is BDSM, and it's always voluntary, because we say so.

    Slave-master Rafe would never shell out the cold cash if, after he paid, I could haul him into court on assault and battery charges when he whipped me. Then, without this financial arrangement...

    Voluntary Slave Contracts
    by Walter Block
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block134.html

    Banksta Paradise!

  • sevo||

    Hint:
    /food,
    /vermin shit.
    Easy.

  • devo||

    Whip it good.

  • ||

    No, the "free market" created slavery.

    Government ended it...

  • GILMORE||

    The volunteer cooks say they feel exploited by all the people showing up and expecting free food

    I recall a line from some strange, radical book I once read =

    It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner...

    But it was written by some old dead white european guy, and has no relevance to the modern world..

  • free2booze||

    I know! I laughed my ass off after reading that article:

    The Occupy Wall Street volunteer kitchen staff launched a “counter” revolution yesterday -- because they’re angry about working 18-hour days to provide food for “professional homeless” people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters.
    For three days beginning tomorrow, the cooks will serve only brown rice and other spartan grub instead of the usual menu of organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep’s-milk-cheese salad.
    They will also provide directions to local soup kitchens for the vagrants, criminals and other freeloaders who have been descending on Zuccotti Park in increasing numbers every day.

    And there's more!

    Unhappiness with their unwelcome guests was apparent throughout the day.
    “We need to limit the amount of food we’re putting out” to curb the influx of derelicts, said Rafael Moreno, a kitchen volunteer.
    A security volunteer added that the cooks felt “overworked and underappreciated.”
    Many of those being fed “are professional homeless people. They know what they’re doing,” said the guard at the food-storage area.
    Today, a limited menu of sandwiches, chips and some hot food will be doled out -- so legitimate protesters will have a day to make arrangements for more upscale weekend meals.
    Protesters got their first taste of the revolt within the revolt yesterday when the kitchen staff served only peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and chips after their staff meeting.
    Organizers took other steps to police the squatters, who they said were lured in from other parks with the promise of free meals.

    B-b-b-but WEALTH DISPERITY... Teh POOOOOR!!!!

  • Woodstock generation||

    Sounds about right.

  • JD the elder||

    Ha! These people would fit in great in North Korea. "Workers! Parasites and counterrevolutionary elements are exploiting our strength! Let's all eat cold gruel to show our strength to the imperialists!"

    ...the guard at the food-storage area.
    Today, a limited menu of sandwiches, chips and some hot food will be doled out -- so legitimate [emphasis mine] protesters will have a day to make arrangements for more upscale weekend meals.

    Or no, maybe they would fit in better in Animal Farm...

  • k2000k||

    So I guess only the 1% of OWS is going to get a sandwhich. Hey I know a way they can solve their vagrant problem, charge money for the food, a wait....the only thing seperating OWS from vagrants is momma and poppa's wallet.

  • CE||

    If only there were some way to divvy up the food and the food-making duties taking into account everyone's individual preferences and the scarcity of the ingredients that would motivate people to want to produce what people wanted to consume, without forcing anyone to participate.....

  • Mensan||

    I see what you did there. Well done.

  • GILMORE||

    CE|10.27.11 @ 4:49PM|#

    Duh! Form a committee

  • Dave Anthony||

    Winner.

  • Anacreon||

    "professional homeless people." I thought the OWS were the types of folks that believed there was no such thing, that the street folk were people just like you and I who sadly had missed a paycheck.

  • Mercurus||

    Eventually every Marxist "revolution" consumes itself...too many consumers, not enough producers.

  • We Need Property to Survive!||

    We need property to survive.

    Rand says it. Rothbard says it. All libertarian authors say it.

    So riddle me this:

    • How do the 1% need 40% of the wealth to survive?

    • And how do the 10% need 85% of the wealth to survive?

    Are the rich just that goddam needy?

  • ||

    They don't need 40% of the wealth to survive, but their wealth was generated by helping others survive (by providing food, clothing, shelter, water, technology, education, or by providing entertainment which is the reason we all WANT to survive).

    If you take away their wealth or take away their incentive to make more wealth, then you lose their contribution to others survival.

  • 1% stole 40% of the wealth ||

    but their wealth was generated by helping others survive

    That's the bullshit story.

    How does Wall Street transferring 25% of America's value in 401K's to the banksters via financial chicanery count as helping people survive?

    The real story is this:

    Concentration of Wealth and Power for the sake of Wealth and Power, i.e., Greed.

    As a secular psychological concept, greed is an inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs or deserves.

  • sevo||

    NAL,
    If you feed vermin, you get vermin shit.
    You just replied to vermin shit.

  • ||

    Nope, you're the vermin shit... :)

  • wareagle||

    Are the rich just that goddam needy?
    ---------------------
    that's not a riddle; it's a straw man argument. The rich EARNED their wealth, at least those not named Kennedy, Rockefeller, and Kerry. They built businesses, took risks, employed a lot of people, paid a lot of taxes, and quite likely, also lost a lot of money on the way. Better question is: why do you think you are entitled to what they earned?

  • The rich EARNED their wealth||

    LOLOLOLOLOL

    Fair and square, right?

    You are full of birdshit, wareagle.

    To recap, this is what happened:

    • Citigroup put together a CDO (a debt obligation) in which it selected "assets" to put into the transaction specifically for their crappiness. That is, they chose assets that they expected would decline in value.

    • The company then shorted the instrument it created, a position that would lose money if the CDO performed as expected and marketed to investors. They could only make money if the investor lost their shirt.

    • They did not disclose either their selection of the assets in the CDO or that they took the short to the people who were buying it!

    As expected and designed the CDO blew up. The "investors" took a 100% loss; what they bought was valueless as it was a levered instrument and the valuation loss of the underlying assets was sufficient to wipe out their investment. Citigroup made a lot of money. The instrument performed exactly as Citigroup intended but they did not tell the people who were buying this thing that they expected they would lose every penny they put in up front. In fact they intentionally concealed their role in selecting the assets and that they had taken a short position against them!

    Now the SEC steps in and they agree to "settle" this case with what amounts to a fine.

    An Example Of What Should Lead To Handcuffs
    The Market Ticker ® - Commentary on The Capital Markets
    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-.....st=2758910

  • Alex Scipio||

    Kennedy wealth: illegal bootlegging. FDR wealth: father-in-laws illegal china opium trade. Kerry wealth: marry the widow of a rich Republican businessman.

    Conservative wealth: legally earned. This is why the Left HATES it. They EARNED IT.

  • Prescott Bush||

    Lord knows I made my fortune legitimately , never mind those trading with the enemy charges.

  • ||

    Typical enabler.

    The rich got them selves gestated in the correct womb -- that's how 99% of them "earned" their wealth!

    Get a clue, moran...

  • ||

    90 percent of millionaires in the united states were not born that way .

  • Joe M||

    I can't wait to watch this when I get home today. Schiff is the man. Whoa, wait, he literally is The Man.

  • TV Tropes||

  • Mensan||

    Am I the only one who suspects that is a link to gay porn?

  • Warty||

    "I have learned never to argue with a fool, and you are a fool! Now, let me continue arguing with you."

  • ||

    Ah the ad hominem argument. Truly there is no clearer signal that you've run out of intelligent things to say than to insult your debate opponent personally.

  • ||

    Constantly evading the topic at hand by throwing up one unrelated thing after another is the second clearest signal.

    Motormouth black OWSie loses.

  • skr||

    angry black man is ANGRY

  • Dave Anthony||

    Not to mention sassy...

  • poetry||

    Schiff is terrific.

    Last night I talked about OWS with my "Comparative Studies" PhD candidate friend ("Comparative Studies" obviously being code for all kinds of leftist academics, and I don't mean all of them are bad, just very radical).

    Really, we have a terminology problem. When Schiff says "capitalism," he's referring to an Austrian, purely-free-market (non-)system. When my PhD friend says "capitalism," he is signifying the fascist clusterfuck we currently enjoy.

    In short, I'm advocating the disuse of the unqualified term "capitalism" when evangelizing. "Free exchange" was the term my PhD friend associated with what I consider "pure, unadulterated, true capitalism," so we continued our conversation carefully using that term, and I was impressed with his sympathy for such a system. Just so long as I didn't call it "capitalism."

  • chris||

    Can't help you there. I'm not the one with the problem with the proper use of definitions. It's not 'an Austrian, purely-free-market (non-)system' at all. We use the word with the same meaning as Marx, and your communist friend is not being honest with you. He understands the correct meaning of the word too. He's handing you a hand full of happy pappy crap. Given socialism from Comte to Marx to Lenin to Mussolini to Hitler to Galbraith, and on to the modern variations have always opposed free markets and found the only alternative models that could function were variation of crony syndicalism, I really don't find your friend to be believable, at all. It is just another manifestation of their deep rooted need to control the language as well as everything else about human interactions.

  • poetry||

    Nope you're wrong.

    I was the one sitting next to him for two hours. I am the one who has been best friends with him for years and years (even if the term "best friends" seems a little juvenile, fuck it, that's the way it is). I am the one who has more or less carried him home after he vomited all over himself on his 28th birthday party. I am the one who spent part of my honeymoon with his parents in the UK.

    The guy is sincere, and wants to understand. He is interested in liberty, but his understanding of it is not yet coherent. He is not a communist. There are more like him.

    My OP merely describes the current state of dialogue on this topic in these peoples' minds. Sure, some of them are mindless communists (as you appear to be a mindless libertarian). But some of them are complicated people who recognize tensions within their own belief systems, and want to sort them out.

    Your history lesson notwithstanding, fuck off. Word usage changes, deal with it.

  • chris||

    So, neither of you are honest, is that what you are really saying?

    'Fuck off', and 'deal with it' at the same time?!? Wow. You are hopelessly confused.

  • chris||

    Oh, and the meaning of the word is not going to change because two reality challenged jerks are singing Kumbaya. Unfortunately for you, the world operates on an even more cynical foundation than I do. If the meaning of the word changes it will only be through a malfeasance of means and purposes.

  • poetry||

    Interesting you should mention reality, as I happen to live there.

    In reality, there are a lot of liberal-leaning twenty-somethings who ignorantly use the word "capitalism" to mean our current system, and are rightfully disgusted with it.

    The above statement is a fact. There are two responses:

    1) Yours. Call them "communists" and "jerks" and insist they are ignorant. This approach contains a good deal of truth. It is also tonedeaf and tactless.

    2) Mine. Simply use another word for what-used-to-be-called-Capitalism, and have a fruitful conversation in which the validity of liberty has a chance to dawn upon them.

    Anybody with me?

  • o2||

    our society is post-capitalist

  • mikey||

    Yeah. My own breakthrough was when I realized that the folks who run large businesses were, for the most part, not Capitalists. They'd, of course, claim they were, and then turn on the rent seeking. Use another name or add an adjective if it helps get the concept of freedom across. Fascism is the "ism" description of what we've got now, but it's too loaded, so most people lock up when we use it.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    I'm with you poetry.

    "Capitalism" was made up in the first place as an attack word on freedom, wasn't it?

    Any time use of a word requires a taxonomical pre-debate before it can be used , I try to avoid it. There is enough other shit to argue about.

  • ||

    "Any time use of a word requires a taxonomical pre-debate before it can be used , I try to avoid it. There is enough other shit to argue about."

    +1. Hell, I don't even the language writ large... English, Spanish, what matters is the concepts. Why do some people make it their religion to worship consonant-vowel combinations?

  • Joe M||

    I think you could be onto something. I've considered condensing the term crony capitalism into crapitalism to distinguish it from the good stuff.

  • Capitalism = Zombie||

    Capitalists sound like communists. We've never seen perfect capitalism/communism!!!

    Yeah, we've never seen animated corpses either.

    Keep trying to conjure up the contradictory.

  • ||

    Most people I know have a fucking computer/rolodex/phone/digital camera/video camera/voice recorder/GPS/e-book in their pockets.

    Capitalism, motherfucker.

  • Hank Tuttle||

    Crony capitalism = crapitalism. I love it.

  • ||

    Psychologically, the central issue is the person's emotional reaction to another person's meritorous success (offer up Steve Jobs as an example). If it is envy, in the end they will hate capitalism (by any name); if it is admiration, in the end they will love capitalism.

  • Envy is the root of Capitalism||

    Exactly wrong, dwall.

    Envy as the Foundation of Capitalism
    Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. | 8/17/2010
    www.globalpolitician.com/26564.....narcissism

  • Joe M||

    If it is envy, in the end they will hate capitalism (by any name); if it is admiration, in the end they will love capitalism.

    That would be interesting to do some kind of survey on.

  • George V||

    I'm with you poetry. It is amazing what my closest, ultra-liberal friend says when he and I sit and talk together. The thing we have to teach them is when we subsidize poor outcomes we get more poor outcomes. We have to solve the causes of the poor outcomes.

  • Joe M||

    You get more of what you reward and less of what you punish.

  • DLM||

    Anybody with me?

    Well, words and their common definitions evolve and change all the time. Why not? I like "free enterprise". Words often get in the way of communication.

  • GILMORE||

    Your history lesson notwithstanding, fuck off. Word usage changes, deal with it.

    Whereas self-excusing relativism always stays the same.

    I'm glad complicated people finally recognize the tensions within their own belief systems. In my day, me being an old timer who remembers looking things up in the dictionary, we just called those people, "confused", if not "fucking idiots".

    I think the core idea being communicated here is, "being deluded does not necessarily make you a bad person".

    Sure. Its only when the delusions remain propped up by willful ignorance, topped by actual steadfast denial of certain obvious facts, and evolve into outright conscious dissimulation, that the nice people become certified assholes.

  • poetry||

    I'm not really sure what you're saying, here. That my friend is a "fucking idiot" for not having a rigidly dogmatic political belief system? That his "delusions remain propped up by willful ignorance, etc."?

    I'm sitting in a bar with a pissed-off guy open to new ideas who already has a predetermined lexicon. Am I a "self-excusing [relativist]" for modifying my vocabulary to fit his understanding?

    Are you a "fucking idiot" because you don't know the difference between "its" and "it's"?

    Help me out, man!

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Are you a "fucking idiot" because you don't know the difference between "its" and "it's"?"

    And why, exactly, are we expected to take grammar lessons who thinks that word definitions and uses should be entirely subjective?

  • GILMORE||

    Are you a "fucking idiot" because you don't know the difference between "its" and "it's"?

    No. I'm a lazy typer on teh intertubes. I admit it, and its a fault. But I will likely persist in it because Im(!) not sure it really fucking matters.

    What would qualify me as a proper 'fucking idiot' would be if I asserted my individual right to use language in any way I see fit, because like, your idea about "right" and "wrong" are just like artificial and arbitrary structures, and in order to appreciate the diversity that makes our community strong, you have to abandon these antiquated notions of structuralism and accept that communication is relative. Why, you might even suggest that me texing, "yo, shits mad wack up in hizzy" is innappropriate, when in fact your presumption is implicitly *racist* in how you are denying minorities in this culture an equal place in the discourse, and I would continue by vaguely alluding to Derrida and Saussure and Lacan, implying that I'd read and understood Deconstructionism, while completely misconstruing everything about it, because the truth is I never read that shit anyway, heard someone else talk about it, thought it "sounded smart", and would prove useful in the future should anyone try to tell me I was using grammar incorrectly.

    Hope the distinction is clearer.

    No, my point above wasn't meant to suggest you or your pal were in any way idiots =

    just that there's a difference between

    a) principled disagreements on matters by people who clearly understand both sides of a particular issue/political theory/worldview.... and

    ii) people too fucking dumb to either fully understand the obvious implications of their own half-conceived political ideas, or possibly even grapple with trying to understand others, because like, "theyre the fuckin enemy", and are basically partisan nitwits who repeat slogans and promote ideas that dont make any real sense even *on their own terms*

    Im sure your mate is among the former. a, "complicated person who recognizes tensions within their own belief systems"....

    Perhaps the reason for people's lack of 'coherence', or 'tension within their belief systems' is because they tend to start with their Beliefs, then try and strap on whatever ideas they can find to validate them.

    Bass-ackwards.

    Discourse, tensions, belief systems, etc., BTW = mumbo jumbo indicating someone really isn't 100% sure what the fuck their saying. Don't blame yourself = blame your college. They did it to you all.

    And FYI, criticising the OWS characters does not require anyone to be a Rigidly Dogmatic Libertarian... or even mildly dogmatic, or even own a dog. They are, in fact, eminently mockable completely independent of anyone's particular political viewpoint.

  • juris imprudent||

    [golf claps]

  • GILMORE||

    what the fuck their saying.

    See? Lazy typer. BAD BAD typer. Somehow despite my frequent grammar crimes and malaprops (sp?), I seem to still manage to communicate. Amazing how it works.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "I was the one sitting next to him for two hours. I am the one who has been best friends with him for years and years (even if the term "best friends" seems a little juvenile, fuck it, that's the way it is). I am the one who has more or less carried him home after he vomited all over himself on his 28th birthday party. I am the one who spent part of my honeymoon with his parents in the UK."

    I hear everybody who knew John Wayne Gacey thought him a swell guy, and an upstanding member of the community.

    Just sayin'.

    "Word usage changes, deal with it."

    DoublePlusUngood.

  • ||

    "Word usage changes, deal with it."

    No Liberals and Progressive Liberals especially over time morph words into new things so they can confuse the "usefull idiots" among us to carry the torch for them.

  • ||

    Chris, this iis nothing new. I had the same conversation with the friend, 20 years ago, who turned me on to libertarianism to begin with. Even back then, some people recognized the corruption and rent-seeking within the system and how it tarnished the idea of capitalism.

    His suggestion was to use "free enterprise." I prefer "free-markets."

  • Overt||

    Capitalism literally means that the people owning capital get to decide upon how that capital will be used in production.

    To that extent, it is probably too limited a term to explain the beauty of a free market and free exchange, which is why many people are shifting to "Free Enterprise".

    The reason I say the term "capitalism" is too limited is that it is only focused on the control of capital. While capitalism by necessity exists in a place of free exchange, many people on the left would argue this point and insist that capitalism naturally leads to the crony capitalism we have today- which is where people begin to argue.

    To that end, I agree with the shift towards Free Enterprise. It explains our ideal state, with capitalism as a seed, but the environment of free exchange and liberty as our ultimate goal.

    Capitalism is not the ends, it is the means.

  • chris||

    Are you saying that using 'free markets' instead was a necessary conditional for you to accept capitalism? On some level that cannot be correct because you both recognize the meaning separate from the qualifiers.

    If this is not correct than you are presented with a problem down the road. The meaning of the word changes, qualifiers are not recognized, and when students are learning about Marx they would get the absurd impression he was much like Adam Smith, railing against the corporatism of his day, mercantilist nationalism, instead of capital structure.

    If you don't maintain the integrity of the language you create more problems than you solve.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    I feel compelled to point this out: Language is NOT communication. Our language, that you seem unwilling to fully accept, evolves constantly. I understand your frustration with this but reality dictates that it will continue to change. This is not necessarily bad. Just think, a mere 100 years ago we were all liberals. The important aspect to remember is language is a tool of communication but communication is the actual goal.

  • Apatheist||

    What he said. Chris you are being a total dick and completely clueless about the history of language.

  • chris||

    I'm not the dick playing word games and moving post to suit my preferred position. You all understand what capitalism means, but are not willing to embrace that. Rejecting the word 'capitalism' because of connotations it may have that originate from propaganda against capitalism is a really bad idea.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Are you a liberal?

  • chris||

    Funny you should ask because that is another word we lost to the Goddamn communist. Now half the people on a board devoted to libertarianism are willing to give up a word just as important that previous generations of libertarians whole heartedly defended. You people would make Rand, Hayek, Rothbard, Friedman, and Mises very proud.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Is your goal to communicate your ideas? To change minds and get people to join you point of view and promote freedom? Or is your goal to be a "back in my day" hypocrit. You see, language evolves just like industry, technology, science, and any other number of things. You would be unlikely to communicate your positions to the founding fathers with any degree of efficiency due to your current usage of english. Again, what is your goal? Change minds and hearts or be a stalwart against changes in the market of language?

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Is your goal to communicate your ideas? To change minds and get people to join you point of view and promote freedom? Or is your goal to be a "back in my day" hypocrit."

    You're not coming off nearly as clever as you insist you are.

    There is a huge difference between the 'natural' evolution of words, and the deliberate changing of meanings designed to conflate, confuse and control.

    You and poetry would do well to pick yourselves up some Orwell.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    I understand this principle. But you either deal with people in a way they can understand or you don't. Disingenuous assholes will always be distorting things. You can us the tactic of "now here is the commonly accepted definition" or the tactic of " lets use a different word that we both agree on" or a combination. But when getting your point across becomes a debate about symantics then you have lost the battle. I also make it a point to not waste time debating disingenuous assholes. Ultimately it boils down to what you are trying to do, if you are trying to defend the Oxford English Dictionary, then by all means argue not about politics but words. However, if you want to take an open minded person and communicate with them then use words they are comfortable with. The ideas are what matter, and getting them across is important. The words used to describe them are tools. Imperfect tools. Like I said above, I understand the concept of deception. But that is not about communicating the idea rather it is about eschewing the idea. Fight fire with fire I say.

  • Zeb||

    Yes, you are being a dick and clueless about how language changes. Yes, we all know what "capitalism" is supposed to mean. But that doesn't mean we get to control how other people use the word. You need to use words that communicate the meaning you are trying to get across to the people you are talking to. It doesn't matter what you think a word means if the people you are talking to don't agree.

  • Overt||

    Chris-

    Capitalism is not Free Enterprise as a foundation is not a house. That doesn't mean they are not inextricably linked. My point is that too often we end up talking about and defending Capitalism when we should be talking about the virtues of free enterprise. Talk about the house and the foundation gets included for free. Keep arguing about the foundation, and the house never gets built.

  • chris||

    When you are actively avoiding the use of capitalism to describe a market that relies on a capital structure for its sustained function, people notice. Sure, there are those who will overlook that if your message is tight enough or if they are sympathetic enough in the first place, but it is really hard to avoid the bark that did not occur in a climate as ours where capitalism is under a constant media critique.

    It's better to take the approach of confronting that misinformation head on. Your audience will respect you for it. Tell them definitively speaking, Marx wasn't wrong in the description of capital structure; it was in the prediction of what that inevitably lead to that he entirely missed the mark.

  • DLM||

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
    There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism...

    There are several types of capitalism listed.

  • yonemoto||

    poetry is correct. Inherent in the Marxist and capitalist idea of "capital-ism" is the idea that the holders of capital are the most qualified to disburse it. Real free marketers understand that the holders of capital are probably only marginally better and correctly allocating it, still quite likely to fuck it up, and that the reason for advocating free markets and property possession are not on the short-term utilitarian grounds of societal efficiency but rather on the long-term grounds of having consistent chains of posession and non-coercive material transfer of limited resources.

  • Paul||

    This.

    I love me some Schiff. That guys awesome. For the 1% who haven't seen it, here's Schiff's almost eerie prediction of the housing/economic great recession: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0YTY5TWtmU

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Awesome. Thanks for sharing. I'd love to see follow up interviews with all those who denounced Schiff.

  • Paul||

    I wanted to post the two part debate he did on stage way back in...2006, I think. He blows the doors off the room, but I couldn't find it right away.

    It's a long set of videos, I think the whole thing lasts an hour or so. But he goes into great detail on why he thought at the time there was going to be a crash in the housing bubble. What's so eerie about it is you have to keep reminding yourself that this was before the housing market dumped, and almost no one knew (or believed) it was coming.

    He also gives some great simplified economic allegories. One of my favorites: (to the best of my memory)

    Three guys on a desert island, the Indian is paid to catch fish. A man from China is paid to grow crops, and the American is paid to eat what the Indian and Chinese man produce.

    At some point the Indian and the Chinese man are going to figure out that they can just consume what they produce and cut the American out of the deal.

  • Smoove||

  • Bill C||

    The viral version that's getting almost 2 million hits: www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

  • Paul||

    Here's Peter Schiff at the... wait for it... "Western Regional Mortgage Bankers Conference in Las Vegas" in 2006 where he delivers the very unsavory prediction that they're all fucked.

    This is actually the video I was looking for. 1 hr 12 min.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj8rMwdQf6k

  • Bingo||

    This is a big problem. I've seen a lot of articles defending "capitalism" by defending the current system... which isn't capitalism.

    Here's an interesting analysis of the 1% from what I assume is a liberal-leaning source. Tl;dr: the bottom half of the 1% are mostly doctors, lawyers, and small business owners. The top half of the 1% are people that benefit from political connections. So... is the problem that people have a lot of money or is the problem that people use the government as their sugar daddy?

    I don't think any true libertarian (drink!) should be defending the status quo. Companies using laws to either transfer tax money to themselves or distort the market place in their favor is NOT a free market.

  • Haunted Taint||

    You're correct, but unfortunately some libertarians are more interested in sticking it to the hippies than consistently defending free markets.

  • cynical||

    Decentralized property-mediated reciprocal altruism? The more complex the language, the more of a hit it's sure to be with these pomo fucks.

  • ||

    When my PhD friend says "capitalism," he is signifying the fascist clusterfuck we currently enjoy.

    We're creeping closer to mercantilism with our current system than capitalism.

  • Teaching Student||

    I would argue that we are already living in a Mercantilist Society, precursor to the semi-socialist Fascism.

    All-in-all, what we call it does not matter. A rose by any other name is still beautiful. The system we've evolved into is and always has been corrupt. It is a road to tyranny and destruction. Capitalism, no matter what we actually call it is the solution.

  • Capitalist/Communist Zombie||

    Capitalism, like Communism, is as contradictory as an animated corpse.

    No religio-economic religion works. Mass society doesn't work. No []-ism trying to reform mass society works.

    It's all because of a human neurobiological limit known as Dunbar's Number.

  • DLM||

    At wikipedia, mercantilism is defined as one type of capitalism. You may disagree with this, but I suspect the fact this is on wikipedia might imply there are a significant number of people that identify one with the other.

  • Capitalism the Austrian Zombie||

    When Schiff says "capitalism," he's referring to an Austrian, purely-free-market (non-)system.

    Correct.

    And about as realistic as an animated corpse.

    Austrian capitalism is a Zombie.

    Fun to talk about. Makes for great science fiction novels. Wonderful fantasy material.

    Never have seen it.

    Never will see it.

    But keep trying to conjure it up if you believe in religio-economic magic.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Austrian capitalism is a Zombie.
    Fun to talk about. Makes for great science fiction novels. Wonderful fantasy material.
    Never have seen it.
    Never will see it.
    But keep trying to conjure it up if you believe in religio-economic magic."

    You're confusing "Capitalism" with "Socialism".

    Y'know, that unrealistic utopian fantasy that suggests everybody can be forced into equality by being made equally worthless by a centralized government, the same dogma which has killed over 100 million people in the last century while worsening poverty and oppression wherever it touches, the same one whose ardent supporters insist will work it we try it "just one more time".

  • Capitalist/Communist Zombie||

    They're all zombies, dipshit.

    None of the Mass Society -isms work. Capitalism doesn't work. Socialism doesn't work. Communism doesn't work. Free-marketism doesn't work. Fascism doesn't work.

    It's because of a human neurobiological limit called Dunbar's Number.

  • Ray Pew||

    It's because of a human neurobiological limit called Dunbar's Number.

    Looky!!! Some dipshit took a theoretical number that deals with "personal" interactions and extrapolated it over a population.

    Dunbar's number is suggested to be a theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships.

  • Ray Pew is Two?||

  • sevo||

    Feed vermin, get vermin shit. Not a good idea.

  • Soviet political officer sevo||

    ...enforcing political orthodoxy. Not a pretty sight.

  • ||

    "Liberty exchange" would be better since there is no such thing as "free"

  • Gojira||

    To be fair, a Wal-Mart greeter did once kidnap me at gunpoint and force me to shop in his store.

    But I was satisfied with the purchase and so never filed a report.

  • Mainer||

    Were you on the way to a tractor pull ?

  • ||

    You're telling us you were unable to disarm a 90-year-old man?

  • JMW||

    Hey them 90-year-olds are tougher than you think!

  • sevo||

    That's FUNNY!

  • Sudden||

    There's a slight peppering of some reasonable people within that movement, but the primary ingredient is teh stoopid.

  • DLM||

    There's a slight peppering of some reasonable people within that movement, but the primary ingredient is teh stoopid.

    And the reasonable people have to act a little stupid so they don't get kicked out.

  • chris||

    Give a big round of applause for our youth generation, folks!

    They'll be here all century.

    Fuck me.

  • ||

    Excuse me, but they do not represent this millenial.

  • chris||

    There was a variety of ages represented there. The lady who was clearly lying about being in the 1% to boost the authoritativeness of her drivel was likely in her forties and she may have been the biggest idiot of all.

    However, during the past year, my two twin nieces who were raised correctly, went to a good private high school have expressed the desire to work for non profits next year when they graduate from college because corporations are, 'not for me', and 'evil'.

    If they could be turned, we are facing an epidemic of commie zombies.

  • ||

    we're usually blind to those nearest to us. I do blame easy work for creating idle minds.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    I teach my daughter that we DON'T share our toys. I am such an asshole, I make myself proud.

    (caveat:when confronted with community toys we are instructed to wait for the parasites then play with whatever it is until we are happy, never give up that community toy until you are done with it)

  • ||

    A word, please?

  • COMMIE ZOMBIE||

    REDISTRIBUTE THE BRAINZZZZZ

  • Zuo||

    Next you'll be surprised that "good girls who went to Catholic school" turned into sluts.

    Your neices are female (upwards of 90% of libertarians are male), and you'll find that if you do a breakdown, most females who support TEAM RED do so because they love its perceived anti-drug/police-state/theocrat-moralism aspects. However, TEAM BLUE, with its welfare state policies has long garnered around 60% of the female vote.

    B) They came from exactly the kind of bubble environment that leaves them weak minded and unexposed to the enemies' arguments. The same parents who "raise their kids right", with a reverence for their educators, especially ones with collegiate prestige, are SO easily suckered into leftism by said professors. The state loves nothing so much as blind obedience.

    All the good libertarians I know learned that teachers A) weren't nearly as smart as they wanted you to think. B) freeley engage in cop-like abuse of their authority over their charges.

  • chris||

    I don't disagree. The 'status' careers are in the non-profits now as bizarre as that would seem to anyone a generation ago, and seeking status in instinctual with women.

  • ||

    Just tell them "non-profits" are just corporations that keep all their shareholders money for the leaders and see if their brains explode.

  • chris||

    Not only is that a good idea, but the non-profit one of twins is looking at would make the perfect example of that just from what I've heard (a public television film production company). I really need to give it a hard look and how far I should take it. Even a private dick may not be unreasonable if called for to really check it out given this is a family matter.

  • OWS are not Lazy Bums||

    You sound like a Soviet political officer calling anybody complaining about the State of Capitalism a "hooligan."

  • chris||

    One correction I should add. I'm not asking them to become libertarians. I'm asking them to embrace the productive side of the workforce that improves all of our livelihoods. If only libertarians are doing that these days this nation is shit out of luck.

  • OWS are not Lazy Bums||

    embrace the productive side of the workforce that improves all of our livelihoods

    They Did.

    It's not working.

    Go ahead, spout your religio-economic slogans like a Soviet political officer.

    Capitalism has failed for the same reason that Communism failed: a defining characteristic of civilization, i.e., intense concentration of wealth.

    Orthodox political slogans aren't bringing it back.

  • wareagle||

    They Did.
    --------------------
    really? How? Other than waiter, how many of these protesters have actually held jobs and paid their own way through life? They have embraced nothing beyond the cliched lessons of the professoriat which has always hated those who make things that people want. The only correlation between communism and capitalism is the involvement of govt - the former is testament to the stupidity of central planning and the latter is making a good effort to replicate it.

  • wearethe99percent.tumblr||

    War Eagle, you are an ignoramus. Go ahead, keep up your arrogant "let them eat cake" schtick. You're gonna find out how that works out...soon...

    Read these:
    http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/

    • We left our home state of Michigan in 07 for a teaching job. My husband was laid off by Lowes. His boss, Dave, laid him off over the phone while we were in the ER with our son who was having an asthma attack..."

    • Our son needed emergency surgery two hours after he was born, which saved his life and cost us just over $22,000 — our entire savings. We were lucky to have had that savings account. Now we live paycheck to paycheck and worry about “unexpected expenses” every month.

    • My mom is a teacher, dad is a doctor. they both work harder than anyone i know. i wake up fearful every day that the stress will kill them - so far…just close calls. i hope they make it til im out of college so i take care of them; IF I CAN GET A JOB. i am the 99% occupywallst.org

    • I an a 28 year old married father of 2. My wife works 2nd shift and I work 1st to save on child care. I work 60-70 hours a week, 7 DAYS A WEEK! Even with the overtime, I cannot afford health or dental insurance (It would cost me 60 dollars a week for myself, 90 a week to cover my children). My wife and children have insurance through her employer. I have not had a day off or seen my wife in a month and a half (Just found out today, probably another 3 weeks before I might get a day off for Thanksgiving). But we get our bills paid. We are lucky. My teeth are rotting out. I have not seen a doctor in 4 years. WE ARE THE 99%. P.S. We do not live beyond our means. My car is 13 years old, and my wifes is 12. We live in a 2 bedroom trailer. Our kids dont starve. Like I said, we are lucky.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    War Eagle, you are an ignoramus. Go ahead, keep up your arrogant "let them eat cake" schtick. You're gonna find out how that works out...soon...

    LOL at this chest-puffing goonery. You really think the right-wingers aren't waiting for you parasites to chimp out so they have the excuse to finally do some score-settling?

  • k2000k||

    I'd say it's nothing more than the niavette of youth. I have a lot of friends who thought like that, then they actually got into that line of work. Saw how thin there wallets were and how many non-profits simply suckle upon the goverment teat and soon they were change. The other alternative is you find them a nice strong man who knows how to work hard, perferably with a beard or a mustache, if his last name is swanson then you got the green light.

  • Sparky||

    Nice to see the standard protestor idiocy of asking questions and never letting a person answer is still going strong. They obviously don't want to run the risk of an answer shattering their whole view so they just keep spewing their garbage until the other person gives up.

    Although it was nice to hear other people telling that guy to shut up.

  • PantsFan||

    I actually heard this comment on the radio this morning:
    "How can someone making $10.25 an hour working 40 hours a week have enough money to petition government to raise the minimum wage?"

  • ||

    Wiskey Tango Foxtrot

  • JMW||

    "How can someone making $10.25 an hour working 40 hours a week have enough money to petition government to raise the minimum wage?"

    "We have this new-fangled thing here that'll solve ALL your problems. It's called the internet."

  • ||

  • Simon||

    He's switched to veggies.
    Cookies are a sometimes treat.

  • WTF||

    I really hope you're joking.

  • ||

    He's not, sadly.

  • Joe M||

  • Tman||

    It's sad but true. The PC folks neutered Cookie and Oscar too.

    He eats fucking broccoli now. It's a traveshamockery.

  • West Texas||

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Fuck that PBS shit. I get to watch Charlie Brown tonight with my 6 year old daughter. So glad Schultz made his magic before PC took over.

  • Kristen||

    Great Pumpkin is on tonight?!?! I was wondering when it would air.

    H&R is good for something other than wasting time after all!

  • WTF||

    Jesus, we really are doomed.

  • White Indian||

    Just the agricultural city-State (civilization) is doomed.

    Collapse will increase quality of life (except for the hierarchical elite riding on the backs of the oppressed.)

  • NoVAHockey||

    There also are plans to introduce a "food insecure" Muppet.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Followed by a bulemic muppet? The puppetteer will use the litle stick to maker her stick her little puppet fingers down her felt "throat" and then puffs of lint will shoot out.

  • k2000k||

    Just wait till they introduce my "uncle bearnie touched me in my no no" muppet...

  • Nibbles the Muppet||

    I'm not hungry now, but later I could be!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • *||

    Two weeks ago that woman in the day-glow orange jacket, standing in the middle of the video frame, was, I shit you not, leading a chant-dialog warning about the dangers of emotional fatigue from prolonged protesting, then announced that she was offering hugs. A couple people took her up on it.

  • ||

    I wonder what services she'd offer if I said I was really, really fatigued. Like down-to-the-bone fatigued.

  • jtuf||

    "Everyone wants low prices," say Schiff.

    "No we don't!" insist the OWS protesters who are gathering in a free park for a month instead of paying to rent a convention hall.

  • bama farmers||

    we want low labor prices !

  • bama farmer||

    ro' tide ro'

  • Warty||

    New York accents are all horrible. How can anyone stand to live there?

  • Joe M||

    Only two sentences. Try throwing in some fucks next time. It's a quick and easy way to add fiber substance to any comment.

  • Warty||

    Oh, for fuck's sake.

  • chris||

    Need smelling salts? In the future, I'll take your delicate sensibilities into account, Scarlet.

  • PantsFan||

  • Warty||

    Metalcore? I've never been so hurt.

    Here's something honest.

  • Joe M||

    Even though it took three of you to create substance, this is clearly proof that the system works.

  • Warty||

    It created a Buried at Sea link, so it must be a good system.

  • chris||

    You're a good sport, Joe. Showing substance is like showing your hand in a game of cards. Hence, the reluctance.

  • WTF||

    Because when you live around here it's other people who have the accent.

  • ||

    I don't mind a New York accent as long as that New Yorker isn't saying "stand on line." It's stand in line, you putzes.

  • George Plimpton||

    Do tell. I also find the New York accent deplorable, especially when they're talking.

  • chris||

    Your niece is hilarious. A fine comic actress. I know you can't hear me being dead and all, but who knows how far these intertubes go, right?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    This is part of my intense dislike for New York as a whole. The only redeeming part of NYC is the multitude of food options, especially REAL pizza.

  • Kristen||

    MMmmm....NY pizzaaaaaaaaaaa....

  • David Emami||

    Real Pizza comes from Chicago.

  • mad neopolitan guy||

    Um...,

  • Trespassers W||

    In my experience, NYC also has some pretty terrible restaurants. Does it really have an exceptionally-high number of good restaurants per capita?

  • ||

    Yes, my city is full of commie chowderheads; but in addition to the great pizza, we also have Peter Schiff, for instance.

  • I love NYShitty...||

    ...right the hell where it is. I wouldn't have NYC up my ass if I had room for Texas.

    When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe. ~Thomas Jefferson

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    New York accents are all horrible.

    Truth.

  • Ska||

    Fuck off. It's Long Island accents that are horrible. And southern accents. And mid-western accents. And whatever the fuck you call the Minnesota-Wisconsin accent. And New Englanders.

    I think that about covers it.

  • k2000k||

    Yeah the only good accents are west coast accents brah!

  • ||

    And whatever the fuck you call the Minnesota-Wisconsin accent.

    ...

    mid-western

  • o2||

    "The regulation we want is the market," said Schiff. "That's what works."
    _
    except when the market wants illegal immigrants

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Are you suggesting the minimum wage is too high? Monster!

  • Jordan||

    How is that an example of "not working?"

  • pmains||

    Remember: market failure == the market is doing something I don't like.

  • Apatheist||

    I seriously doubt Schiff is a closed borders type. I seriously hate responding to you but these OWS posts always bring in some liberals and we don't need them seeing your lieing bullshit.

  • o2||

    so the bama farmers DONT want illegal immigrants?

  • Jordan||

    The answer to that is completely irrelevant to this discussion. God you are a retard.

  • o2||

    "The regulation we want is the market," said Schiff. "That's what works."
    _
    and, per schiff, the market wants illegal immigrants.

  • k2000k||

    No the market wants laborers for a price they are willing to pay. The minimum wage is the problem.

  • Minimal Wage is the Problem||

    "The free market means that those without money to buy what they need do not have the right to live."
    - John McMurtry

  • Jordan||

    and, per schiff, the market wants illegal immigrants.

    And?? How fucking stupid are you?

  • Apatheist||

    Is Schiff an alabama farmer you piece of garbage?

  • o2||

    take it up w schiff who said "The regulation we want is the market," said Schiff. "That's what works."
    _
    that would include illegal immigrants for field labor. try harder fool

  • Marxist Hypocrisy 101||

    "try harder fool"

    Maybe if you state your non-point 100 more times, it will come true!

  • ||

    As much as I want to watch the videos, I'm afraid that the Galactus-sized imbecility on display from the squatters will overwhelm any rational idea from Schiff and just piss me off even more.

  • Bingo||

    I'm 1:30 in and the first guy has already put forth an appeal to emotion and isn't letting Schiff respond by spouting further appeals to emotion. This is painful to watch.

  • ||

    I weep for our nation. The Schiffs and Pauls and Johnsons have been overrun by idiot kings claiming to speak for us all.

    I just hope I can get away before the collapse comes, and it is coming. It's going to make a Soylant Green riot scoop look like a fucking picnic.

  • ||

    I don't know. What's that line again...?

    "The Americans usually do the right thing...after they've exhausted all other possibilities"

  • ||

    I don't recall the US entertaining the possibility of an 'agreement' with Hitler, much less exhausting it. Was that the kind of thing he referred to?

  • k2000k||

    He was referring about us trying to let them just beat themelves bloody. Though it had less to do with doing the right thing and more of just swooping in and picking up the pieces. The lend lease act is a great example of that.

    FDR: "Hey Winston, so you guys are having a hard time with ol 'Hitler huh?"

    Winston: Yes, our nation is hard pressed to field the materials we need."

    FDR: "Welly golly ol' Whinny I can give ya some of my rifles, tanks, and planes if ya like"

    Winston: "That would be most kind of you"

    FDR: "Ok, I'll just need you to sign this document handing over the majority of your naval bases in the Atlantic."

    Winston: "What! that is intolerable"

    FDR: "Well, here is how I see it. You need them tanks, and I want them bases. You can give me them bases for them tanks or I can simply take them after Hitler has rogered ya good and hard."

    Winston "Where do I sign?"

  • ||

    I award you 1 internetz for the general humor of your post, and a bonus internetz for the mental image of FDR saying "rogered ya good and hard."

  • DLM||

    Sounds like FDR engaging in some old-fashioned capitalist trading, using a situation to his own advantage. How unfair!

  • Alex Scipio||

    That is the Funniest comment I have read anywhere in days!!! Thanks!

  • ||

    You can almost see the trembling pleasure the leftists involved in Days of Rage II: Electric Boogaloo are exhibiting.

    None of them have been this excited since Bill Ayers taught for a day during their "Hermeneutics of Social Pathology 302: America is Evil" class.

  • ||

    The only thing the OWS trash want is for others to pay their fair share so they can get their free share. They have plenty of time to camp out in the streets but apparently not enough time to look for work.

  • o2||

    what work? oh yea, u mean all those {JOBZ] the wealthy created?

  • Concerned Citizen||

    You're free to start a business and hire some people.

  • o2||

    im not in the wealthy income bracket who enjoy boosch tax rate reduction which the gop sez would create JOBZ...another obvious lie like illegals taking JOBZ americans want.

  • ||

    im not in the wealthy income bracket who enjoy boosch tax rate reduction..

    So you're in the 47% who pay nothing in income taxes? Or the bottom 50% of income tax payers who pay 2% of total taxes?

  • k2000k||

    No I think he's in the 99%. You know, the 99% that live in 3rd world conditions and don't have the miracle of modern technology like the internet...oh wait.

  • MarylandMike||

    Way to embody the American spirit! I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth, so I'm just going to sit back and bitch while hoping others decide to allow me to succeed. It's like Ayn Rand said, "The question isn't who's going to let me, but who's going to stop me."

  • Am I free to gambol about?||

    You're free to start a business and hire some people.

    Yeah, prisoners are free to [insert what the agricultural city-State's warden allows.]

    But am I free to gambol about forest and plain, in a Non-State sociopolitical typology lifeway?

  • o2||

    will ur gambol create {JOBZ}? no. another obvious lie.

  • Why Work?||

    Who wants a fucking job anyway, ya servile bootlicker.

    "We Don't Want Full Employment, We Want Full Lives!"
    http://www.whywork.org/

  • Ray Pew||

    BAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Fucking imbeciles.

  • o2||

    yea. non state and state societies. i read it to. i dont think typology means wat u think it means.

  • Why Work?||

    Only you are ignorant, 02. Deliberately, it appears.

    typology

    Sociopolitical typology refers to four types, or levels, of a political organization: “band,” “tribe,” “chiefdom,” and “state” created by the anthropologist Elman Service.
    https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Sociopolitical_typology

    NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES
    [adapted from Elman R. Service (1975), Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution. New York: Norton.]
    http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper.....ieties.pdf

  • JMW||

    "And it's neck and neck at the Stupidity Stakes! White Indian's in front, but only by a nose, and Urine isn't going to give him any more ground as they pound for home. This is gonna be a close one folks!"

  • ||

    To be fair, I remember reading (here I believe) that a pretty decent majority of the protesters are gainfully employed. I could be wrong about that though.

  • cynical||

    "Did a corporation end slavery, or did the government end slavery?"

    Neither, since the draft is still the law of the land, and since the 13th amendment still allows slavery as a criminal punishment.

  • chris||

    Yeah, I'd like to have seen Schiff respond with, 'did you register when you turned eighteen?' that fella was, er, feisty.

  • Jimmy Carter||

    Have you signed up for Selective Service?

  • Joe Durnavich||

    In a sense, corporations ended slavery because by the 1860s the industrial North finally had the resources to handily defeat the South.

  • Colin||

    I love the guy calling Schiff a fool because he wants to disband the "Board of Education."

    I guess Gump was right, stupid is what stupid does.

  • Bingo||

    Honestly Schiff did a pretty bad job here, his language is too confrontational. I think Adam Kokesh has done a much better job connecting with the protestors and at least planting a few ideas.

  • Jingles||

    I like Schiff, but he needs to work on his arguing-with-leftists skills. A lot of these people are lost causes, but he could at least explain himself sooner and more clearly. To a non-libertarian, he might look pretty dogmatic in some parts of this video.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    I thought he did pretty well. He didn't pull any punches, and didn't get emotional. I'm surprised he didn't get assaulted.

  • GILMORE||

    Jingles|10.27.11 @ 2:09PM|#

    I like Schiff, but he needs to work on his arguing-with-leftists skill

    That's a "skill"?

    I prefer to shoot them from the balcony of my mansion with bullets made of compressed money.*

    (*ht: sugarfree)

  • k2000k||

    I think his problem is that his style is very well suited towards the dinner style debates where people pay to see two individuals hash their ideas out in an academic setting. When dealing with half education man children you need to be able to beat their emotion arguments with even more emotional arguments.

    Example:

    Idiot: "Guns are bad and kill people, just look at (insert tragedy) besides you don't need them for protection that is what the police is for. If your in trouble you can call them.

    Me: Play audio of a woman on the phone with police dispatch being murdered.

  • White Lab Coat Indian||

    Idiot: "Health care isn't a right."

    Me: Visit a children's hospital to see victims of the rapidly rising rate of birth defects caused by pollution from Koch Industries refineries and other crapitalist "production."

  • Marxist Hypocrisy 101||

    "Me: Visit a children's hospital to see victims of the rapidly rising rate of birth defects caused by pollution from Koch Industries refineries and other crapitalist "production.""

    So you think shrieking about the Boogeyman is a valid form of argument?

  • Rising Pollution Birth Defects||

    Documented empirical data isn't a Boogeyman.

  • Such as||

    empirical data? Source

  • ||

    That production was done under your "Governments" eys though

  • Ray Pew||

    Honestly Schiff did a pretty bad job here, his language is too confrontational. I think Adam Kokesh has done a much better job connecting with the protestors and at least planting a few ideas.

    It's my contention that Schiff had no intention of trying to change the minds of the Occutards. He was using them to demonstrate their ignorance and elaborate on capitalism to the larger populace; hence the camera.

  • ||

    Perhaps, we should go back to teaching economics and history in public schools.

  • GILMORE||

    pppt. why start now?

  • PantsFan||

    And take precious time away from teaching the snowflakes about how precious each and everyone of them is?

  • k2000k||

    Don't forget earth day and the oreo gummy worm pudding.

  • Britt||

    To be fair, Oreo gummy worm pudding is fucking awesome.

  • Matrix||

    I guess ol' Kruggy can write the text books.

  • ||

    Chapter 1: Why Cats Rule

  • Matrix||

    Chapter 2: How Breaking Windows Will Fix the Economy

  • Agriculture = Broken Window||

  • ||

    Chapter 3: War is good for the economy.

  • War is good for Capitalism||

  • Ray Pew||

    War is the Health of the State.

  • Capitalism is another Statism||

    So that's true.

  • GILMORE||

    Chapter 4 = The Merits of Digging Holes and Filling Them Back In

  • The Merits of Desertification||

    Did you know that the land of Iraq was once a Cedar forest so thick that light barely reached the ground? That is, until the agricultural city-State (civilization) came along.

    Now that's progress!

  • DLM||

    That is, until the agricultural city-State (civilization) came along.

    Oh. You mean *people*.

  • ||

    ...but those classes oer boring.....lets learn how to weave baskets....and dance to pagen songs.

  • Post-Coital Rat||

    Is anyone else skeptical that the woman at about 16:12 is part of the 1%? She stated she only pays 10% in taxes. If she's referring to income taxes, how is that possible? Am I missing something here?

  • ||

    Possible but unlikely. Inherited wealth. If you don't work you aren't paying payroll taxes, and her income could be coming in the form of residuals from a trust fund or other separate entity. I don't see how 10% could include sales tax though unless she lives in NV/NH or one of the other states without it. God I hate California.

  • cynical||

    Probably was referring to wealth. Everyone on both sides of the issue mixes up wealth and income interchangeably, but only one of two is taxed directly.

  • Ray Pew||

    Is anyone else skeptical that the woman at about 16:12 is part of the 1%? She stated she only pays 10% in taxes. If she's referring to income taxes, how is that possible? Am I missing something here?

    Nope, you're not missing anything. Likely she has no clue what she pays in taxes. She probably has an accountant do all of her taxes and she never sees anything.

    It was expected that she completely dodged Schiff's question concerning her just writing out a check to the government.

  • ||

    LOL

    "I've seen so many Ron Paul supporters here...you sound like a libertarian yourself."

    Did you cut out the part where Schiff points out that he was Paul's economic advisor for the 2008 campaign?

  • littleJ||

    What the problem is? 1% or 99% Cast your vote here http://octorama.com/desktop/display-1771

  • BoscoH||

    Fucking Boards of Education. How do they work?

  • Mr. Mark||

    Why is anybody sympathetic to OWS?

    Why?

    OWS is a rally for losers. It's a Loser Pride Parade. These people aren't event trying to get ahead. These are losers by choice.

    Let the Democrats attach themselves to this filth - it's their creation anyway. But there is no reason for responsible, competent people to even communicate with these twits. Don't react to childish antics seeking attention - it only reinforces the behavior.

  • Nick||

    Why do you consider someone a 'loser' because they don't want to take part in the exploitation of other people's labor for profit? Or, they don't want to be exploited and have their labor used for another's profit?

  • David Emami||

    Care to give us an objective definition of "exploited" that doesn't just boil down to "exchange that I don't approve of"?

  • exploit||

    ex·ploit n. To make use of selfishly or unethically.

    Then again, selfish exploitation of other people is a virtue to some.

    Especially those with traits like:
    • Antisocial behavior without apparent compunction.
    • Pathological egocentricity and incapacity to love.
    • Unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relations.
    (Hervery M. Cleckley, M.D. (1941) The Mask of Sanity)

  • Nick||

    Yes, people are forced from birth (there is no ability to avoid this, it is called biopolitics, (if you don't work you are thrown in jail or tear gassed by the police, see: Oakland) to work for companies that gain their profit through the undervaluation of another's labor. That is how profit is created.

    For example, Apple gains their profit that they can give to their investors. It is so enormous because they pay chinese peasants absolutely nothing.

    This situation wasn't ordained by god or another metaphysical development such as the invisible hand. It is apart the historical conditions of neocolonialism that has spread capital throughout the world through International Corporations. These corporations have no sovereignity, are not under the hands of any people, and are totalitarian by nature.

    The start of this history is, of course, the genocide of native americans, but no one ever mentions that when they talk to 'property rights'. If people at reason really believed in 'property rights' they would be for the rights of the indigenous to have control of the land. Nor, do they mention slavery's role in the creation and control of property today.

    So in short, the whole fantasy of 'free market' is built on a complete ignorance of historical forces of oppression. Today, society is totally consumed in this oppression, where people are expected to work (14 hours a day) simply to subsist.

  • ^^Bravo Nick!^^||

  • ||

    You make a valid point with the American Indians; however the Indian population before Europe settlers is not one homogenous group. There were many tribes with different customers and rules. What point in time would you use as the cutoff for what American tribe in what land area in America. Also Indians were hunter/gathers and did next have the west idea of property. Could you please give me examples or links of Indian society before European settlers explaining what was there culture and history and what was there idea of property ownership.

  • Ray Pew||

    Yes, people are forced from birth (there is no ability to avoid this, it is called biopolitics, (if you don't work you are thrown in jail or tear gassed by the police, see: Oakland) to work for companies that gain their profit through the undervaluation of another's labor. That is how profit is created.

    Ehhh....that is the definition of profit as elaborated by the logically refuted Labor Theory of Value.

    For example, Apple gains their profit that they can give to their investors. It is so enormous because they pay chinese peasants absolutely nothing.

    No. They earn this profit because they risked future gain all while paying out present day capital. As for the international differences in wages, this is to be expected. Just as we have significant wage differences regionally, this effect exists internationally.

    This situation wasn't ordained by god or another metaphysical development such as the invisible hand. It is apart the historical conditions of neocolonialism that has spread capital throughout the world through International Corporations. These corporations have no sovereignity, are not under the hands of any people, and are totalitarian by nature.

    Gibberish. Corporations are autonomous entities without human influence? The very physical buildings have sentience?

    The start of this history is, of course, the genocide of native americans, but no one ever mentions that when they talk to 'property rights'. If people at reason really believed in 'property rights' they would be for the rights of the indigenous to have control of the land. Nor, do they mention slavery's role in the creation and control of property today.

    Sorry, but that is a fantasy. The theft of native Indian land was a crime, but one would have to engage in a near infinite regression to determine what previous peoples took what from whom. The crimes were committed, they cannot be undone. Their descendants were not the victims, so restitution cannot be granted them. We can only go forward from the present.

    So in short, the whole fantasy of 'free market' is built on a complete ignorance of historical forces of oppression. Today, society is totally consumed in this oppression, where people are expected to work (14 hours a day) simply to subsist.

    BAHAHAHAHA!!! How can anyone really claim we simply "subsist"? Do people live paycheck to paycheck? Of course. Do they worry over paying bills or losing their homes or cars? Of course. But we are conversing by computers, by smart phones, and tablets. The vast majority have personal transportation, homes that are the envy of billions in the world, college education, etc. Claiming that we barely survive is a great way to lose credibility.

  • Refuting Abstract Property ||

    "We need property to survive!"

    Rand says it. As well as Rothbard and most other libertarian authors.

    So, riddle me this:

    • How do the 1% need 40% of the wealth to survive?

    • How do the 10% need 85% of the wealth to survive?

    Are the rich just that goddam needy? LOL!!!

    The only legitimate property in this world is that which one needs to survive.

  • Ray Pew||

    The only legitimate property in this world is that which one needs to survive.

    Sweeet!!! You've just argued for the exploitation of the worker. All production can be confiscated, so long as he is left with mere subsistance levels.

  • Refuting Abstract Property ||

    You've just argued...

    You mean Rand, Rothbard, etal? They're the ones who say property is what is needed to survive.

    Check your premises.

  • Ray Pew||

    You mean Rand, Rothbard, etal? They're the ones who say property is what is needed to survive.

    Check your premises.

    Keep lying to yourself, dipshit. I don't care.

  • Refuting Excessive Property||

    Stay in denial if you must, Ray Pew.

    ...if he must use and transform material natural objects in order to survive, then he has the right to own [property]... ~Rothbard

    [Property] Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. ~Rand

    I ask again:

    • How do the 1% need 40% of the wealth to survive?

    • How do the 10% need 85% of the wealth to survive?

  • Ray Pew||

    ...if he must use and transform material natural objects in order to survive, then he has the right to own [property]... ~Rothbard

    Yep. This is the logical foundation of property or ownership. The Lockean conception of property.

    [Property] Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. ~Rand

    And since I know this quote, I see that you intentionally added "property", which is not in the quote and was not the focus of the context, but merely a latter example.

    Keep trying, slapnuts.

  • Lockean property isn't Logical||

    ...unless you think monotheism is logical.

    To date, however, no philosopher has ever successfully divorced Lockesian property rights from monotheism.

    ~Jason Godesky
    The Right to Property
    http://rewild.info/anthropik/2.....-property/

  • Nick||

    No. They earn this profit because they risked future gain all while paying out present day capital.

    How did they, in the first place, gain the ability to risk future investment?

    As for the international differences in wages, this is to be expected. Just as we have significant wage differences regionally, this effect exists internationally.

    A system that expects people to work 16 hours in a prison style complex that causes massive depression among the 'workers' (see foxconn) merely to subsist is not a just system.

    Gibberish. Corporations are autonomous entities without human influence? The very physical buildings have sentience?

    Capitalism has definitely changed the way humans interact with each other. In order to work in a Corporation you have to be indoctrinated in a certain set of knowledge principles that I consider pathological . Profit becomes the sole goal and those that do not have that goal as a number one priority are removed very quickly from the organization. You can see the destruction of worker's rights as a clear example of this phenomenon.

    In terms of sovereignity, Corporations extend beyond forms of democratic control by having incredible influence OVER these institutions. The most obvious example is the WTO, but the American Military is in essence another arm of the Corporate Agenda. Citizens United is symbolic of Corporatism controlling the legal system agenda. Considering the far reach of the logic of capitalism into healhcare, education, judiciary, etc. humans are being formed to subscribe to these norms. Google Search "biopower, control society, bare life' for more info on the complete lack of autonomy in capitalism...

    "Sorry, but that is a fantasy. The theft of native Indian land was a crime, but one would have to engage in a near infinite regression to determine what previous peoples took what from whom. The crimes were committed, they cannot be undone. Their descendants were not the victims, so restitution cannot be granted them. We can only go forward from the present".

    No, we don't have to dig our heads into the sand. The fact that private property has a genocidal origin is a problem that cannot simply be 'ignored' out of convenience for those who benefited. If you were interested in Justice at all you would understand that, and the number of ways Native Americans are still oppressed. History doesn't just LEAVE.

    Can anyone really claim we simply "subsist"? Do people live paycheck to paycheck? Of course. Do they worry over paying bills or losing their homes or cars? Of course. But we are conversing by computers, by smart phones, and tablets. The vast majority have personal transportation, homes that are the envy of billions in the world, college education, etc. Claiming that we barely survive is a great way to lose credibility.

    If by 'We' you mean YOU then no, probably not. Try finding out about the bigger issues. There are millions in America and BILLIONS across the planet who have no access to adequate health care, education, food, water, transportation, a clean environment or housing. It is inexcusable, it is because of the vast income inequality and wealth distribution, and harping on a 'free market' that would only increase the immediate suffering of all these people is absurd.

  • Let them eat cake...||

    ...or just die.

  • Anacreon||

    Nick, I'm guessing you are maybe in your second or third year of college?

  • DLM||

    undervaluation of another's labor

    Let me guess. Your solution is to form a committee with the goal of determining the value of each person's labor. Any employer of that person would then be required to pay wages equal to that pre-determined value.

  • Alex Scipio||

    "genocide of native Americans..."

    Couple questions for you:

    1. Tobacco was introduced to the rest of the world by the indigenous people of north America. Millions more have been killed by that than the numbers of indigenous peoples. Do you blame them for those deaths?
    2. Syphilis was introduced into the Old World by indigenous peoples. Millions have died from that. This OK with you?
    3. If earth were invaded and conquered by Martians and they decided to call us "native Martians," would you be OK with that? Are you aware many Indians prefer that term? I've even stayed in hotels with printed materials from the local Indian tribes stating flat-out that they hate "native American" as an appellation. It's pretty paternalistic, y'know.
    4. When a modern, science-based, post-Enlightenment culture meets a Stone-Age culture, do you propose leaving them in starvation, infant mortality, constant warfare ignorance, or introducing them to modernity, educating them, introducing modern medicine and bringing them out of the Stone Age?

    Or do believe there is some 3rd alternative?

  • Trespassers W||

    Let me help you out here.

    When he says "the exploitation of other people's labor for profit", that's coded language for "job". The exchange they don't approve of is called "earning a living".

  • Do you approve of aggression?||

    The exchange they don't approve

    Capitalism is based on aggression, as Nick points out.

    Lots of people don't approve of aggression.

    Libertarians say they don't, but whitewash the aggression necessary to enforce the capitalist system, just like communists whitewash the aggression to keep their system going.

    It's not really an "exchange" when aggression enforces it.

  • St. V||

    Do please elaborate.

  • Officer, am I free to gambol..||

    ...about plain and forest in a Non-State sociopolitical typology lifeway?

    No?

    That proves that regulating the surface of the earth with a big government land enTitlement program to restrict the free movement of people is based on aggression.

    Libertarians will deny it takes aggression, yet they'll say "We need government to protect privation property rights." We know government is aggression, thus they contradict themselves.

  • Alex Scipio||

    Nope. Capitalism was encouraged as a way to STOP the near-constant European wars. It is a way to END aggression, not to start it.

    If you read a bit of history, you'd know this. Feel free to start with the book, "The Mind and the Market," Muller.

    Of course, if you read a bit of history, you wouldn't be a liberal. So your choice: read and be an adult, or go with your ignorant ahistorical ideology devoid of fact and continue being a Prog.

  • Ray Pew||

    Why do you consider someone a 'loser' because they don't want to take part in the exploitation of other people's labor for profit? Or, they don't want to be exploited and have their labor used for another's profit?

    Zombie Labor Theory of Value will never die.

    Tell us, Nick: Do you wish to wait to get paid after the final goods are sold or get paid today?

  • Zombie theory of Property||

    Fantasy: We earned it with our sweat!

    Reality: We took it with a gun to their heads. Trail of Tears.

  • cynical||

    Um, OWS wants to exploit everyone else's labor to their own unearned profit.

    Investors, on the other hand, do something to earn a share of profit -- namely, sacrifice money that they could be spending on themselves in order to give people with skills, time, and willingness to work a shot at earning their keep.

  • exploit||

    These people aren't event trying to get ahead. These are losers by choice.

    Comfort yourself with bald-faced lies if you must.

  • Nicholas Adams||

    I like the part where Schiff claims he pays over 50% of his income to taxes. Either he's a moron, has a really shitty accountant, or he's lying.

  • chris||

    Lol at your naïveté. Check the income tax rate for his state of residence, then get back with us on that.

  • Saro||

    Federal income tax.
    State income tax.
    State sales tax.
    Property tax.
    Gasoline tax.
    Etc.

    And I'm sure his figures don't include inflation, which is just a hidden tax that no one talks about.

  • matt||

    Saro you are right. I sure wish our politicians and talking heads would bother pointing this out when spewing propoganda about "50% of American's Don't Pay Any Taxes" (I'm not sure if Sean Hannity actually knows any other words!). Medicare, Social Security, sales tax, gas tax, sin taxes, property taxes, state income tax, fees for government services, vehicle registration fees, tollways, phone bill taxes, hotel fees, you name it there's a tax. And it's probably a regressive tax.

    Also the 50% that don't pay income tax include plenty of teenagers, part-timers, elderly, disabled etc. So a huge % of the population is naturally not going to pay federal income taxes- Sally Mae making $7.25 an hour working 20 hours a week after school at the local McDonald's should not pay federal income tax. But yes she still is paying a bunch of other taxes.

  • Trespassers W||

    Jesus, you're like the fallacy of equivocation made flesh.

  • Trespassers W||

    Jesus, that was directed at Injun. Damn squirrels.

  • Objectivist Jesus||

    You're an incompetent parasite. ~Objectivist Jesus

  • k2000k||

    Yes Sally Mae working for $ 7.25 should pay federal income taxes. It gives her a stake in the game and will make her pay more attention to what spending is proposed. A lot less of this progressive nonesense would fly if people actually had to pay for the programs they want.

  • The City-State's Progress||

    progressive nonsense

    Has the agricultural city-State (civilization) been an instrument of human progress?

    I bet you're a progressive at heart.

  • DLM||

    I like the part where Schiff claims he pays over 50% of his income to taxes.

    I can't watch the video here. However, from your statement (if you haven't misstated it), he does not claim 50% only in federal income taxes (or even federal + state). It's presumably total taxes of all kinds.

  • ||

    Call these leftists stupid or hysterical, but you have to give them respect for the astounding rhetorical gymnastics involved in calling businessmen greedy while simultaneously demanding most of their income...and they get away with it.

  • Dan||

    If the OWS just focused on the connection (crony capitalism) between the government and large corporations who get handouts all the time from the politicians.

  • Cronyism = Capitalism||

    Cronyism = Capitalism
    Cronyism = Communism

    Both political flavors of the agricultural city-State accumulate wealth and power to a few until the system collapses.

    Both political flavors of the agricultural city-State insist that the land be locked down against Non-State society.

    [Communist] Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest?

    [Capitalist] Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest?

    The answer is an emphatic NO! with both systems.

    While there are small distinctions, there is no significant difference. Both are lock-down political power structures that put the food under lock and key. (Quinn)

    And why do they put food under lock and key with agriculture?

    To make people work. Because if they don't work for the controllers of society, they'll starve to death if they're disallowed from natural Non-State lifeways.

  • Trespassers W||

    Hi-ya-wunga hi-ya-wunga!

  • k2000k||

    Hows using the magic picture box W.I?

  • White Indian||

    My God, it's full of stars!

  • matt||

    I think the problem, and the concern of the OWS people (I'm not one of them), is that cronyism seems to be the natural result of unbridled capitalism. Citizens United is touted as a 'free speech' decision but it enables cronyism.

    Schiff is right- OWS should be in Washington DC.

    But the "Walmart doesn't hold a gun" mantra is misleading. Walmart negotiats sweetheart tax deals that enable them to crush local competitors. The big telco/ISPs have exclusivity deals in most areas of the USA- I simply don't have a choice: either I deal with Huge Company A, or I deal with Huge Company B, or I just don't get internet/phone/TV service. These companies have no incentive to compete and in fact aggressively work not to. I even think in some areas competition is legally prohibited.

    The point is our current system of 'capitalism' is astoundingly and unquestionably NOT 'free market.' It is a system that trades political $$ for monopoly rent bills. It is a system that takes land from Joe Schmoe and gives it to Rich Guy With Connections because the redevelopment plan he has will, on paper, bring in more tax revenue. It is a system that privatizes gains and socializes losses. It is a system that gives exceptions and exemptions to those with means. It's a system that incarcerates people and influences public policy regarding incarceration for a profit on the stock exchange. It's a system that imposes mandatory $250,000 fines and felony jail time for infringing on a government-granted monopoly on an idea. It is a system that lets companies own basic English words like "Face" and "Apple". It's a system that allows monopolies on gene sequences and things that occur in nature like crop seeds. SO MUCH of our government and our economy is 100% dedicated to PREVENTING free market competition to the benefit of the big imcumbent players.

  • ||

    "Walmart negotiats sweetheart tax deals that enable them to crush local competitors."

    With whom did Walmart negotiate sweetheart tax deals? Govts.

    That is exactly what Schiff means, govt uses its power to play favoritism. It takes two to tango. If Walmart is bad, how about the govts that negotiated with Walmart? Shouldn't the govt be as "guilty" as Walmart? If Wall Street corporations are bad, they control the govt with their money, how about the politicians who extort money from them? Why aren't the politicians held accountable? If you dangle your money as a bribe, you need a corrupt politician to take your bribe. If you want to hold Wall Street fat cats accountable, you need to hold politicians who fatten these cats accountable, no?

    Btw, who put these politicians in office to fatten the fat cats?

  • ||

    Please enlighten us as to how CU enables cronyism? It didn't change campaign contribution laws. What it did do is say that if Target wants to spend money on a shit ton of ads and a three picture deal to support Romney, they are more than welcome to do that. Are you saying that the American public are a bunch of sheep that will follow whatever advertisers and hollywood tell us to?

  • romulus augustus||

    Yep, all things that Libertarian Party candidates have campaigned against...and won single digits at the election. People are too stupid, distracted, or interested in scarfing up their share to want to do anything about it.

  • the market has spoken...||

    ...against Libertarianism.

    Got a few dogcatchers?

  • sevo||

    Hint:
    /food,
    /vermin shit.
    Easy.

  • All your elected dogcatcher...||

    ...are belong to us.

  • JMW||

    The big telco/ISPs have exclusivity deals in most areas of the USA- I simply don't have a choice: either I deal with Huge Company A, or I deal with Huge Company B, or I just don't get internet/phone/TV service. These companies have no incentive to compete and in fact aggressively work not to. I even think in some areas competition is legally prohibited.

    Good thing I live in Canada, then, where I can get a small, local company [Execulink] to supply me with internet and phone, instead of a big, national one [Rogers]—and I get more than double the bandwidth [125gb vs. 60gb highspeed] at a much better price, too.

  • Liberty||

    This is a great article.

    It shows the fantastic intellectual vapidity of libertarianism. Consider: Chait takes three pages (where, admittedly, one would've been enough) to casually go through the incredible victimhood/mendacity of Paul Ryan and co.

    Esteemed Reason magazine responds by... doing a word search of the article, saying one word wasn't in there, and then saying this "has gotten too catty."

    ... ladies and gentlemen, libertarians. Let's hear it for 'em.

  • Trespassers W||

    Wrong post, genius.

  • White Indian||

    fantastic intellectual vapidity of libertarianism

    That's why I'm no longer one.

    Libertarianism basically boils down to government for me, but not for thee.

  • Paul||

    Again, at worst, libertarianism is government for thee, but not for me.

  • White Indian||

    Libertarian: WE NEED GOVERNMENT to protect my [whatever] rights!

    Yes, they do indeed desire government.

  • soonerliberty||

    You don't distinguish between liberarians as myself that are anarcho-capitalists and the minarchists. Your criticism of them is well-founded. However, your criticism does not apply to anarcho-capitalists, as they would mostly agree with you, or at least that you have the right to live in the wilderness. Gov't protecting property rights is like an arsonist running a fire department.

  • An-Caps = animated corpse||

    "Anarcho-capitalism" is as contradictory as an animated corpse.

    Let me know when you've conjured up your religio-economic zombie, and we'll study it.

    A contradiction cannot exist. ~John Galt

  • sevo||

    Hint:
    /food,
    /vermin shit.
    Easy.

  • busybody Zampolit is busy||

  • soonerliberty||

    If there are no property rights, then nothing was stolen from Indians. Good job, you've just justified mass murder and theft!

  • there are no property rights?||

    Who said that? You?

    Find the phrase The tribal institution of “Ownership by use" by attorney-at-law Jeff Vail (presently practicing law in Colorado) in the following article:

    The Right to Property
    http://rewild.info/anthropik/2.....-property/

    Get back to me when you have demonstrated the slightest bit of reading comprehension and know the difference between

    • Legitimate property that humans have recognized for tens of thousands of years.

    • Illegitimate, abstract claims of property that cause privation to other humans (what I call privation property.)

  • Alex Scipio||

    You can call it whatever you want, but may I ask if the device on which you are typing is "privation property," and if so why are you using it, and if it's not "privation property," why is anything else one owns & uses?

  • ||

    To prevent having to use personal violence when protecting themselves from the likes of you....

  • Walmart held a gun to my head||

    ...when all I did was ask:

    Am I free to gambol about?

    Privation property is robbery.

  • k2000k||

    Nope, using someone elses property without permittion is robbery. I mean your welcome to try, but if I catch you growing shit on my property your probably going to get an ass cheek full of birdshot.

  • Privation Property is Robbery||

    You idiotic libertarians would be just fine if you were the owner of the whole surface of the earth, and every other human being in the world had to pay you rent.

    And you'd say you got "your property" fair and square.

  • Trespassers W||

    That's a killer thought experiment, Injun. Interestingly, you've omitted how this hypothetical state of affairs could have arisen. Most people would believe that to be relevant to establishing its justice or injustice.

  • Privation Property is Robbery||

    you've omitted how this hypothetical state of affairs could have arisen

    Same way you got your private property. There was a Trail of Tears before it. It took aggression and fraud and every other sin in the book.

  • Ray Pew||

    Same way you got your private property. There was a Trail of Tears before it. It took aggression and fraud and every other sin in the book.

    So the "First People's", whatever the fuck this means, should have retained this land? Is that correct?

  • Privation Property is Robbery||

    It took initiation of force for western Civilization to invade and occupy Turtle Island.

    It takes constant government aggression to keep it.

    You tell me.

    Officer, am I free to gambol about forest and plain, (hunting and gathering like people did for 1000s of years in a Non-State sociopolitical typology?)

  • Alex Scipio||

    Sure: go gambol all you want, but if you break your leg don't come whining to Western Civ to help you out or save your life. It'd be inconsistent with your ideology. And when half your kids die before 5, and half your wives die in childbirth, that's the hunter-gatherer way, so don't come crying to us. You know how to hunt? Skin and dress game? Build a shelter against weather? Protect yourself - without Industriak Age tools - from nature? No? Bummer. Btw? That's why Indians lost their wars with the West. Of course they destroyed each other all the time, taking their land, women & kids, and killed (or tried to) everyone encroaching on THEIR private property; they called that property "hunting grounds."

    Are you for real or are you only pretending to be this dumb for fun? I mean no one REALLY is as ignorant as you, are they?

  • sevo||

    Ray,
    Promise: WI (or whatever handle momentarily is chosen) has been logically debunked many times to no effect.
    WI (or whatever handle is momentarily chosen) is here only for the attention. We're dealing with an adolescent personality.
    Once WI is denied that attention, WI will go elsewhere for that attention.
    So:
    No food for vermin means no vermin shit. It's not hard; you just have to understand that logical argument gets no one anything other than attention for vermin shit.
    Please don't feed.

  • White Indian has been debunked||

    ...as many times as magicians have conjured a real animated corpse.

    Which happens to be exactly the same amount of times that libertarians have conjured their religio-economic fantasies.

    In other words:

    • Many, many times in make-believe land.
    • Zero times in reality.

    I don't believe in libertarian Zombies.

  • Alex Scipio||

    Hey, Injun, you know how the Apache got their hunting grounds? They killed the Anasazi. You know what the Apache, Souix, Crow, Blackfoot and Nez Perce INDIAN TRIBES did to trespassers on what they considered THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY, their HUNTING GROUNDS? They KILLED them or tried to.

    But you really believe that the Stone Age cultures living on this continent had no idea of "private property"? See how AMAZINGLY DUMB Progs are?

  • ||

    "Privation property"

    What the heck is that?

    Oh, that cold hearted Steve Jobs quit college instead of robbed his parents their life savings or saddled himself with student loans.

  • PRIVation PRIVate PRIVilege||

    Same root.

    Free etymological lessons in Latin today.

    Privation property in land is gained by aggression, that is, killing off or driving off the First Families, and keeping anybody else from living in a Non-State sociopolitical typology lifeway.

    Privation property is a Trail of Tears.

  • sevo||

    elkh1,
    Promise: WI (or whatever handle momentarily is chosen) has been logically debunked many times to no effect.
    WI (or whatever handle is momentarily chosen) is here only for the attention. We're dealing with an adolescent personality.
    Once WI is denied that attention, WI will go elsewhere for that attention.
    So:
    No food for vermin means no vermin shit. It's not hard; you just have to understand that logical argument gets no one anything other than attention for vermin shit.
    Please don't feed.

  • White Indian has been debunked||

    ...as many times as magicians have conjured a real animated corpse.

    Which happens to be exactly the same amount of times that libertarians have conjured their religio-economic fantasies.

    In other words:

    • Many, many times in make-believe land, novels, books, powerpoints.
    • Zero times in reality.

    I don't believe in libertarian Zombies.

  • sevo||

    Hint:
    /food,
    /vermin shit.
    Easy.

  • busy Zampolit is busy||

  • DLM||

    If there were no private property, there could be no theft. That would make crime statistics go way down. Excellent solution!

  • ||

    Funny, a fool makes tons of money while a wise guy is unemployed.

  • DLM||

    a wise guy is unemployed

    Too busy staring at his navel?

  • No||

    "DID CORPORATIONS END SLAVERY OR DID THE GOVERNMENT DO IT?!?!?!"

    Ooops, government was who installed it. Tee hee.

  • Alex Scipio||

    Well, slavery has been around as long as man. Those slaves brought to America were captured by other Africans and sold to Muslims who sold them to Portugese who then sold them to Americans. Muslims still practice chattel slavery today. Progressives call this "multiculturalism," and insist it is the equal of Western Civ.

    Who ENDED slavery in the West? Those two groups Progs most hate: Western Civ & Christians.

  • Libertarian Poetry||

    Government for me,
    Whitewashed as free,
    But none for thee,
    You little commie.

  • Carma||

    Peter Schiff was correct about the government. I disagree about corporations though. The government should not be granting incorporation. That is not free market and it causes a concentration of wealth. In the free market we would have family businesses.

  • cynical||

    How much did the Kochs pay you to write that comment, Koch-bribe-taker?

  • Carma||

    The Koch's aren't mom and pop business owners.

  • All your oil...||

  • Jackanape||

    You know at least there's some kind of discussion. The health of democracy can be measured pretty well, IMO, by the amount of people who care enough to voice their ideas, no matter how valid or loopy.

    Mock their motives and education all you want, goodness knows I'm tempted to myself. But at least the OCCUPY folks care about the course of the country enough to protest and Schiff cares enough to debate them. Now, I don't think they're going to really get anyone's attention since they're not trying hard enough to inconvenience the people they wish to bother, but they are out there.

    I'll know for sure the USA is toast the day our government saps our liberties, and wallets, and no one bothers to get upset, whatever their reasons and purported solutions. Our democracy will die out of silence and inaction.

  • ||

    They want handouts. Saying that the OWS is an indicator of a healthy democracy is like saying Rome's bread and circuses was an indicator of same. Every culture has beggars.

  • ||

    never argue economics with angry, black men.

  • Blacks are an Aggressive Color||

    Founder of Libertarianism told me so.

    In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors. ~Murray Rothbard

  • romulus augustus||

    What is the date of this Rothbard quote? After he threw in with paleos?

  • Blacks are an Aggressive Color||

    December 1994 holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/07/murray-rothbard-lew-rockwell-and.html

  • sevo||

    romulus augustus,
    Promise: WI (or whatever handle momentarily is chosen) has been logically debunked many times to no effect.
    WI (or whatever handle is momentarily chosen) is here only for the attention. We're dealing with an adolescent personality.
    Once WI is denied that attention, WI will go elsewhere for that attention.
    So:
    No food for vermin means no vermin shit. It's not hard; you just have to understand that logical argument gets no one anything other than attention for vermin shit.
    Please don't feed.

  • sevo hates truth, loves censor||

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You add absolutely nothing to the conversations you hijack, White Idiot.

    I suspect you're also "Cobra", our current race-baiting prickface rebel without a clue. Can't prove it, but you have similar MOs.

  • angry Zampolits are angry||

  • sevo||

    Mr. FIFY,
    Hint:
    /food,
    /vermin shit.
    Easy.
    Don't feed.

  • All your FIFY...||

    ...are belong to us.

  • Murray in Context||

    BUT AFTER ALL, SO WHAT?

    There are many wonderful things that paleos, conservatives and libertarians, can celebrate about this new revolutionary cultural turn on race. First and foremost, and despite the common smears against paleos as theocrats and inveterate opponents of free speech, paleos are the most fervent and genuine advocates of freedom of speech and of inquiry in this country. The end of the blackout and of the smears against truth-seekers in the area of race and intelligence is a wonderful thing for its own sake. And second, of course, the egalitarian myth has been the major ideological groundwork for the welfare state, and, in its racial aspect, for the entire vast, ever expanding civil rights-affirmative action-setaside-quota aspect of the welfare state. The recognition of inheritance and natural inequalities among races as well as among individuals knocks the props out from under the welfare state system.

    But, when all is said and done, the truth about race and IQ means a lot more to liberals and to neocons than it does to paleos. For the liberals and neocons, being statist to the core, are obliged to seize control of resources and to allocate them somehow among the various groups of the population. Liberals-neocons are "sorters," they aim to sort people out, to subsidize here, to control and restrict there. So, to the neocon or liberal power elite, ethnic or racial science is a big thing because it tells these sorters who exactly they should subsidize, who they should control, who they should restrict and limit. Should they use taxpayer funds to subsidize the "disadvantaged" or geniuses? Which is more socially productive, which dysgenic? I remember the only time I ever met neocon Godfather Irving Kristol; it was many years ago, at a conference critical of egalitarianism in Switzerland. It did not take long before the two of us got into a bitter argument because Kristol wanted geniuses declared a "national resource"; I hotly commented that such a declaration implied (a) that taxpayers should be forced to subsidize geniuses as "national resources"; and (b) that it followed that these subsidized would then be subject to government control. Kristol, as I remember, never denied such implications.

    But while neocons and liberals want the planners and national statists to sort, subsidize, and control, for which they need scientific data such as intelligence as guides, paleos are very different. Paleos believe in Liberty; paleos believe in the rights of person and property; paleos want no government subsidizers or controllers. Paleos want Big Government off all of our backs, be we smart or dumb, black, brown or white.

    It is truly fascinating that, while liberals and neocons have been deriding paleos for years as notorious "racists," "fascists," "sexists," and all the rest, that actually we, as libertarians, are the last group who deserve such a label: that, in fact, liberals and neocons, as people who all stand with the power elite over the ordinary Americans, are far more deserving of the statist-racist-fascist label.

    SO: WHY TALK ABOUT RACE AT ALL?

    If, then, the Race Question is really a problem for statists and not for paleos, why should we talk about the race matter at all? Why should it be a political concern for us; why not leave the issue entirely to the scientists?

    Two reasons we have already mentioned; to celebrate the victory of freedom of inquiry and of truth for its own sake; and a bullet through the heart of the egalitarian-socialist project. But there is a third reason as well: as a powerful defense of the results of the free market. If and when we as populists and libertarians abolish the welfare state in all of its aspects, and property rights and the free market shall be triumphant once more, many individuals and groups will predictably not like the end result. In that case, those ethnic and other groups who might be concentrated in lower-income or less prestigious occupations, guided by their socialistic mentors, will predictably raise the cry that free-market capitalism is evil and "discriminatory" and that therefore collectivism is needed to redress the balance. In that case, the intelligence argument will become useful to defend the market economy and the free society from ignorant or self-serving attacks. In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors.

    In any case, there is cause for jubilation these days, for it looks as if the left-egalitarian blackout-and-smear gang has been dealt a truly lethal blow.

    Quite a bit more nuanced than a white injun can comprehend.

  • Libertarian Fundamentalists||

    Just like a bible-thumping (or Rothbard-thumper) fundamentalist to shout...

    CONTEXT!!!!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o

    I didn't take anything out of context. The reference I provided also goes into how libertarians try to obscure the plain meaning of Rothbard's "racialist science."

  • sevo||

    Hint:
    /food,
    /vermin shit.
    Simple.

  • schoolmarm sevo: SHUT UP!||

  • sevo||

    Hint:
    /food,
    /vermin shit.
    Simple.

  • strict Zampolit is strict||

  • Officer Murray||

    Libertarian Fundamentalists|10.27.11 @ 8:05PM|#

    Just like a bible-thumping (or Rothbard-thumper) fundamentalist to shout...

    CONTEXT!!!!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o

    I didn't take anything out of context. The reference I provided also goes into how libertarians try to obscure the plain meaning of Rothbard's "racialist science.

    You are going to have to slow down, and try to catch your breath because you are talking incoherently. Can you identify the man who butt raped you? Do you know why he did this to you? Were you dressed provocatively? Was it your fault?

  • sevo||

    Hint:
    /food,
    /vermin shit.
    Easy.

  • Officer Murray||

    I don't think the guy is coming back. He is busy on another thread several post up. Have at him boys!

  • Guess who's back...||

    ...back again,
    Shady's back,
    Tell a friend.

    ~Eminem

  • Trespassers W||

    Well, I guess quote mining doesn't harm the land.

  • GILMORE||

    "IMAGINE how many jobs could be *created* if you [gave 1/2 your rich-ass money to the government]..."

    Uhm. Imagining....

    [sees army of MTA workers lounging around still shitty subway platforms]

    I think I'll keep the $100m.

  • GILMORE||

    "You need to open up your mind..!!"

    translated = You need to stop thinking and repeat after me...

  • Libertarian Fundamentalists||

    Read Rothbard!

    http://fuckyeahmurrayrothbard.tumblr.com/

    LOL

    A nut in every tree. ~Squirrelert Hoover

  • GILMORE||

    -"I am not a ramp so you can do an ollie in front of your camera..."

    translation = Stop asking me to be logical, it hurts

    -"It makes sense that a ....popularity meme*.... would be popular"

    translation = ....derp. {drool}

    (* I have myself misused the term “meme”, and think it’s a widely shared sin… but I had no idea how bloody awful it had actually gotten. Dawkins… damn you, you’ve made them all dumber)

    - "if the market grows too fast.... it will crash!" (smiles triumphantly)

    translation = I've never heard of Alan Greenspan and cheap money, or Barney Frank artificially creating a housing bubble... I think it was something to do with like, profits... that we need to give to the government committee on something or other...yeah

    - "....but you're in the 1%.... and we're in the 99% percent!!"

    translation = four legs good!! Two legs bad!! Bahhhhhhhhh.

    Style note = "Screaming! The best substitute for reason yet developed!! TRY IT TODAY!!"

    - (Schiff )= "…And a lot of the shareholders are elderly people trying to live on retirement..."

    - (99%) = "noooo noooo nahhhhh uuhhhhhhh nah nooo!!"

    translation = Everyone Knows Social Security is Magic and Retirement is a Right... no one actually *saves money*... what insanity is that?! You seem to think that insurance companies, mutual funds, retirement planning... have actual social merit!??! Dear god, don't you know they *profit* off of people trying to retire!? TEH HORRORS!!

    - Sorta gay-seeming guy uses word "synecdoche"

    translation = I spent my $100,000+ studying theatre, poetry, or literary criticism... and all I got were a few fancy words I don't fully understand


    Seriously, that was @(#*$()* hard to bear. Schiff clearly has an idiot fetish. My impression of the OWS participants has not been improved at all. It was mostly validating everything I’ve assumed to date.

  • White Indian has Idiot Fetish||

    But he can out-argue idiots, which is why he comes here.

    Come, let us Reason together, saith the gamboler, though your sins* are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.

    ____________
    * Kelly Thomas died for your sins.

    For the love of money [property values] is the root of all evil [police brutality.]

    There, [updated.]

    Can't have any fuckin' Jesus-lookin' bums around ruining the neighborhood.

    The POLICe protect and serve
    the POLIS' privation property.

    Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment...unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums [like Kelly Thomas] and vagrants [like Kelly Thomas]. Where will they go? Who cares? ~Murray Rothbard

  • sevo||

    Hint:
    /food,
    /vermin shit.
    Easy.

  • political officer sevo: NYET!||

  • anon||

    Out of context quotes are so fun!

    Also: White Idiot has never won an argument. Ever.

  • Nick||

    Yes, we can see you are the genius for analyzing a video exactly the director intended you to without any thought that, hey, a libertarian editor might make a complete strawman out of protestors by cutting them off, showing only snippet's of their argument, and not allowing them to have a serious discussion.

    I am sure your business degree really helps you with those analytic skills...

  • Libertarian Fairness Officers||

    ...checked all the editing work for being fair and balance.

  • sevo||

    Hint:
    /food,
    /vermin shit.
    Easy.

  • All your fair and balanced...||

    ...are belong to us.

  • ||

    "four legs good!! Two legs bad!! Bahhhhhhhhh."

    Apt reference, OWS is very reminiscent of Animal Farm.

  • Joe M||

    Runs about 3.20 minutes...

    Are those metric minutes?

  • Joe M||

    Okay, finally watching this at home. It's agonizing. I don't know if I'm gonna make it.

  • ||

    I never thought the protesters were protesting capitalism, did you? Who said they were? I think they're protesting things like corporate welfare, undue influence of large amounts of corporate money on legislation, you know, that sort of crap.

  • Dat sort of crap = crapitalism||

  • sevo||

    /food,
    /no vermin shit.
    Not hard.

  • soviet political officer SEVO||

  • sevo||

    "I never thought the protesters were protesting capitalism, did you? Who said they were?"
    Pretty sure it was on this site; O(X)ers carrying a sign saying "End Capitalism". It's hard to tell how many support that view, but no one was trying to take the sign down, nor have I seen any signs like "Capitalism is Good".

    "I think they're protesting things like corporate welfare, undue influence of large amounts of corporate money on legislation, you know, that sort of crap."
    I think some are, but most put the cart before the horse, claiming capitalism distorts government rather than the other way 'round.

  • ||

    "Don't argue with fools": the classic response from an idiot once the realization sets in that he has truly lost an argument.

  • Joe M||

    Wow this isn't even a contest. The second black gentleman in the black shirt seems relatively intelligent/receptive though. It kinda dissolved into chaos towards the end, but great finish with that guy.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Eat the Rich
    Eat the Rich
    Don't ya know. Life is a bitch.

  • bunner||

    "Wal Mart doesn't hold a gun to your head!"

    Tr0o, dat.

    Wall St., mortgage speculators, corporate whores fellating China and cocksuckers like you who shill for them do.

    You arrogant bag of pickled pig meat.

  • Lin Rua||

    Reading the most up to date stats, 3 out 10 Americans share your viewpoint on how the world works. Whereas only 1 in 200 Chinese have similar anti-corporate animosities.

    Conclusion: 21st Century is China's century. Put a fork in America. She done.

  • JMW||

    Schiff used Logic.

    It's not very effective.

  • ||

    Then why would you bother at all with a magazine called "Reason"?

    Keep faith, man. Ignorance is different from unwillingness to think, and you know it. When we abandon our faith in another person to think and to show good will toward others-- in that moment, we become the tyrant.

    Willingness to engage in the debate, no matter how difficult or pointless it may seem at times, displays great courage and faith in our fundamental freedoms.

    Schiff is my new hero.

  • ||

    Yes-- Schiff IS a hero for this. Viva Peter Schiff!

  • JMW||

    Um. I'm not sure what you're trying to accuse me of here?

    I was supportive of Schiff trying to educate people, not the protesters who gish galloped all over him.

  • tadcf||

    Schiff makes it sound like he pulled himself up by his bootstraps--starting his business out of his garage (a very popular conservative theme these days). In reality, he comes from an old, moneyed family of politician and business people in Connecticut (also a very popular theme in the conservative Horatio Alger story).

  • anon||

    And your point is...?

  • ||

    Yeah, what IS your point?

    Schiff's father is a legendary tax-protestor who's gone to jail for his beliefs (LONG before the Tea Party made it acceptable).

    Peter Schiff's most remarkable inheritance is his intelligence, righteousness, and courage.

    Eff you for trying to diminish him by suggesting that he's some kind of lazy rich kid.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    He's Irwin Schiff's son? I heard him speak once in Cincinnati an an LP Ohio convention. He was awesome. So is his son.

  • ||

    I only realized that Irwin's his pa after googling Peter yesterday. It gave me a good laugh because one of Irwin's books once inspired me to make a grand (if doomed) F-U gesture to the IRS (-back when I was in my impressionable early 20's. I remember addressing my IRS correspondence, "Dear Public Servant so-and-so", to give just an idea.)

    All hail the Schiff dynasty!

  • RockLibertryWarrior||

    Wow! I actually had sympathy for these people, until I watched the video. What a bunch of idiots just spewing leftist talking points and completely contradicting themselves. Turned my opinion around really quick, I highly doubt that woman was part of the "1%" like she said she was. But you got to remember liberals are experts at making the fantasy world in their head a reality i.e. lies.

  • ||

    These people are a sorry bunch of imbeciles.

  • Alex Scipio||

    Sorry to bring reality to the discussion, but, no, the government did not end slavery. Slavery was ended by DuPont gunpowder and private-sector arms manufacturing corporations. Whatever were the mid-19th Century equivalents of Winchester, Remington, Smith & Wesson and Colt. The Civil War was won by the side that had better manufacturing, ie a stronger private sector. Absent arms manufacturers manufacturing rifles, cannon, powder and shot, the South more than likely would have won. Certainly the Copperheads (northern Democrats who wanted to split the Union rather than continue fighting once the War got hard - some things NEVER change) wanted not to fight. But the Civil War, like WW2, was won by the side with the stronger private-sector economy.

    Why is the Left never bothered by their appalling education and their total lack of critical thinking skills? Just askin.

  • ||

    This idiot talked about people in sweatshop conditions who don't get enough hours. Sweatshop workers get enough hours, by definition. Indeed the complaint is they get too much. Unless he was listing types of people who Walmart "exploits", in which case too much hours not enough, make up your mind!

  • ||

    This idiot talked about people in sweatshop conditions who don't get enough hours. Sweatshop workers get enough hours, by definition. Indeed the complaint is they get too much. Unless he was listing types of people who Walmart "exploits", in which case too much hours not enough, make up your mind!

  • ||

    It's always amusing to spend a little time reading libertarian drivel...

    But, it's time to return to the real world...

    Bye, bye!

  • ||

    Hej Peter, call from Sweden, great work your doing,Checking your vidio with wall street protesters, leaves me with a hell of a lot of lets say as a european with the modern missunderstanding concept of neo c as against Keynes, There using Keynes outdated. I can agree with that. So I get the feeling that you Americans are shadow boxing all over this total missinterpretation. What i have great difficulties in understanding is how far does the borderline go to keep a concensus in taxation,and at the same time hold a free market economy with western european standards this has always functoned on a mass scale when production required larger amounts of labor which always gave the required taxation base for the wellfare state, as we no longer have this hub to go on.. ex china makes everything.. so we westerners can no longer fill this income gap.. so we are left rusty old tools which are O K with a rusty old T Ford. Keep upp the good work from Wiliam.

  • Duncan||

    Why of course socialism is such a compassionate model and Mao and Stalin were both a couple of real compassionate fucks. I'll bet this nimrod is a graduate of NUYK. nuyk nuyk nuyk

  • Duncan||

    Why of course socialism is such a compassionate model and Mao and Stalin were both a couple of real compassionate fucks. I'll bet this nimrod is a graduate of NUYK. nuyk nuyk nuyk

  • ||

    Here is what we have , first of all you are completely incapabable of commenting the written word, who the hell said anything about socialism its about what do with our taxation revenues, such as a comunity,Ex,,,education, hospitals, public service, with more, so here´s what we do,, just privatize all state enterprizes exept of coarse for the military, which is already reaching the hot point. so what is it you want ?? you dont really know thanks anyway for your comment bye..

  • jim ||

  • jim ||

    Peter schiff of http://www.europac claims to be a guru of finance, my question is if he was a Guru of finance why would be sued by an elderly client for fraud?

    Below i have attach a FINRA report on Peter David schiffs fraud..
    REGULATORY -Final
    This section provides information regarding a final, regulatory action that was reported to CRD by the induividual broker, a member firm, and/or a securities regulator. The event may include a final, formal proceeding initiated by a regulatory authority(e.g. a state securities agency, self-regulatory organization, a federal regulator such as SEC or the commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), or a foreign regulatory body) for a violation of investment related rules or regulations.this section may also include a suspension of a broker authority to act as an attorney, accountant or a federal contractor.

    Disclosure 1 of 1
    Reporting Source : Regulator
    Regulatory Action Initiated: National Futures Association
    Sanctions Sought : other
    Date Initiated : 03/07/1990
    Docket/Case Number: NFA CASE NO: 90bcc00004
    Employing firm when activity
    occurred which led to the regulatory action: INTERNATIONAL FUTURES STRATEGISTS INC
    PRODUCT TYPE; UNKNOWN
    Allegations: +03/21/2001+NATIONAL FUTURES ASSOCIATION, CASE NO. 90BCC00004 DATED MAY 15 1990, DISCLOSES: ON MARCH 7 1990 THE CANTRAL REGIONAL BUSINESS CONDUCT COMMITTEE(CENTRAL COMMITTEE") ISSUED A COMPLAINT TO PETER DAVID SCHIFF ("SCHIFF") THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT SCHIFF VIOLATED NFA COMPLIANCE RULES 2-2A [ CHEAT,FRAUD,DECEIVE CUSTOMERS] 2-29(A)(1) FRAUDULENT COMM. TO PUBLIC PROHIB.] 2-29(b)(1) USE OF DECEPTIVE PROMO MATERIAL.]AND 2-29 (B)(2) MISSTATEMENT/OMISION OF FACT PROMP.]BY USING DECEPTIVE AND MISLEADING SALES SOLICITATIONS. THAT SCHIFF VIOLATED NFA COMPLIANCE RULE 2-29(B)(3) [BALANCED DISCUSSION RE PROFIT/RISK] BY USING PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL WHICH MENTIONED THE POSSIBILITY OF PROFIT WITHOUT BEING ACCOMPANIED BY AN EQUALLY PROMINENT STATEMENT OF RISK OF LOSS.

    Current Status: Final
    Resolution: Decision
    Resolution date: 05/15/1990
    On May 15 1990, THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE ISSUED A DECISION IN WHICH IT ACCEPTED SCHIFF'S SETTLEMENT OFFER. THE DECISION REQUIRED THAT IF SCHIFF APPLIES FOR NFA MEMBERSHIP OR REGISTRATION AS AN NFA ASSOCIATE AT ANY TIME WITHIN NINE MONTHS AFTER ISSUANCE OF THE DECISION,THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE MAY BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE RECORD IN ANY NFA MEMBERSHIP PROCEEDING INSTITUTED AGAINST HIM AND, IN SUCH EVENT,HE SHALL NEITHER DISPUTE NOR SUBMIT EVIDENCE TO REFUTE OR OTHERWISE REBUT THE INFORMATION, ALLEGATIONS,OR CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED IN THE COMPLAINT.DURING THE AFOREMENTIONED NINE MONTHS PERIOD, IF IT DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE,DENY SCHIFF'S APPLICATION FOR NFA MEMBERSHIP OR ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE MATTERS RAISED IN THE COMPLAINT.

    Product Type: Futures - commodity
    Allegations: DECEPTIVE SALES PRESENTATION
    CURRENT STATUS : FINAL
    RESOLUTION: DECISION & ORDER OF OFFER OF SETTLEMENT
    RESOLUTION DATE: 05/15/1990

    NEW COMPLAINT FILED 06/17/2010
    REPORTING SOURCE: BROKER
    EMPLOYING FIRM when activities occured which led
    to complaint: EURO PACIFIC CAPITAL INC.
    Allegations: Poor Performance/POOR ADVICE
    Product type: Money Fund
    other EQUITIES: FOREIGN

    ALLEGED DAMAGES AMOUNT EXPLANATION: A SPECIFIC DOLLAR AMOUNT WAS NOT ALLEGED. THE CUSTOMER ALLEGED THAT HER ACCOUNT WAS DOWN BETWEEN 40% AND 50%. THE FIRM BELIEVES THE ACCOUNT DOWN TO TO MARKET CONDITION.
    WRITTEN COMPLAINT: YES
    STATUS; SETTLED
    SETTLEMENT AMOUNT : $25,000

    PETER DAVID SCHIFF AND EURO PACIFIC HAVE COMMITTED FRAUD..
    http://www.europac

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement