Economics

Apocalyptic Overnight Thread

|

Markets crash. England burns. Discuss.

NEXT: Obama Gets a Blank Check for Endless War

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.

  1. Yeah, its the end of the world as we know it, but I feel fiiiinnnne

    1. Wait. Are we supposed to be burning and looting?

      1. I was accused of being a baby-eater and orphan-burner today given that I made 16% on the market from a double-leveraged inverse ETF.

        1. *orphanage-burner.

          1. Pfft – a real libertarian would have held out for orphan-burner.

            1. They’re tastier raw.

    2. Well, I suppose I couldn’t expect the “It’s-okay-I-did-the-same-thing-when-I-was-a-boy” speech.

    3. Markets crash, British riot, libertarians crack jokes, defend “anarchy,” try to define it, fail, call people names, sleep it off, start over again Tuesday.

      1. Wow, you’re like, so insightful and funny! How can I be more like you when I grow up?

        1. You can’t. Your too lame.

  2. Winter is coming.

    1. If winter could hurry up and get to Texas that would be swell. I’d take a few white walkers to get below 105.

      1. Just keep some obsidian around in case they get frisky.

      2. Tell me about it. I just came in from jogging and it’s still like 95 in Plano. Guess that just adds to the workout.

        1. I normally run Midway rd. between Park and Parker in the evenings, but the heat combined with the horrible air quality is just too much for me.

          1. I’m over by Spring Creek & Alma. I have to wait until like 10:30 at least for the heat to dissipate a little bit.

            1. ah. I’m in west plano. I don’t mind the heat so much as I mind breathing the fumes along the roads during the summer. There’s a few nice parks to run around here, but the heat in the evenings has been keeping me indoors for the past few weeks. My favorite spot to run is up parker to spring creek and over to DNT.

              1. I’m supposed to be in disc golf heaven here in Austin, but I haven’t been to a course in weeks because it’s just way too hot to play comfortably.

                AND I DEMAND THE RIGHT TO COMFORT!

    2. Is that a spoiler?

      1. The crappy thing is by the end of the 2nd book all the Starks are dead and as it turns out it was the Starks that kept the Wall from melting and it was the Walls magic that fucked up the weather of Westeros….so Winter never actually comes.

        1. Traditionally, decent human beings start such posts with [SPOILER ALERT].

        2. Traditionally, decent human beings start such posts with [SPOILER ALERT].

        3. The 2nd Book bored the living hell out of me. Glad to see I made the right decision when I quit halfway through.

  3. Ia! Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

    The stars are right.

  4. … and there’s still four more years where those came from, if you play your cards right!

  5. It’s the end of the dePRIVate agriCULTural city-stATE system, right?

    1. Warty is sad. He can’t see the birds from his office.

    2. +1, Warty

    3. How ya doin’?

    4. Plusgood, Warty. Doubleplusgood.

  6. Markets crash, England burns…and Leon’s getting laaaarrrger…

    1. I chose a bad day to stop sniffing glue.

    2. Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines.

    3. It’s a big building with patients, but that’s not important right now.

    4. There’s a sale at Penney’s!

      1. Surely you can’t be serious.

        1. I am serious. And stop calling me Shirley.

          Fucking amateurs. ALWAYS end with Nielson quote, no matter how far in the shitter you are.

        2. Stop calling me Shirley!

          1. Those are very good! I’ve never heard them. More!

  7. London burning and the faraway towns
    Now that war is declared-and city burnt down
    London burning to the underworld

    1. [::whispering, a single tear moving slowly down one cheek::] It’s… it’s a new Golden Age, isn’t it…?

    2. Didn’t even need to change the words, the Clash did that one too…

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn_8CKu9toc

      1. Thank you. I mean, this should be common knowledge. ;P

  8. Quite a good blog post from the Economist.

    http://www.economist.com/blogs…..s-london-0

    The meat:

    First, don’t expect any hoody-hugging from Mr Cameron. The softness he projected in his early days as Conservative leader was never really him, and his political instincts are good enough to sense that the country is in no mood for blandly ameliorative, blame-on-all-sides waffle. I suspect there is a silent, livid and faintly frightened majority out there waiting to find out if their prime minister “gets it”. He will strive to show that he does, in the short term by condemning these riots unambiguously, and perhaps, in the longer term, by making his proposed reforms of the police and welfare bigger parts of the government’s strategic message.

    Second, policing will become a much hotter topic of political discourse. It is curious that it is not already. The theology of academic selection and university funding obsesses the political and media classes but the polling evidence is clear: crime is a bigger worry for voters than education. So expect much tardy reflection among politicians about the police. They will grapple, in particular, with the question of whether successive, well-intentioned efforts to check and soften the Met (such as the Scarman report in the 1980s, the McPherson report in the 1990s, the rebranding of the force as a “service”, the proliferation of “community support officers” and the like) have resulted in an unduly tentative approach to policing the streets. Whatever the answer, the debate will no longer take place at the margins of politics.

    Finally, the prediction that I am least sure of, but which, if prescient, would be the most profound. Could there be a general hardening of public opinion towards not only crime (where public opinion cannot get much harder) but also welfare and other social issues? Already, some are arguing that the Los Angeles riots of 1992 helped to create the climate for welfare reform four years later, and that the riots that broke out in French ghettoes in 2005 worked in favour of the generally conservative Nicolas Sarkozy in the presidential election in 2007. The government’s proposal to cap how much can be claimed in housing benefit, which critics say will push many poor people out of London, could serve as a test of this. If I am right, then the policy will have an easier time gathering support (though it already enjoys a certain quiet popularity among voters). If I am wrong, it will be seen as exactly the kind of socially divisive measure that stokes urban disorder.

    1. Is there any talk about gun control in Britain? I’m sure there are a lot of store owners in London today who envy the Koreans in LA in 1992.

      1. My buddy and I were joking about needing more Koreans here tonight, but that’s as much as I’ve heard.

        I’ve got my cricket bat.

        1. I thought you were in NZ. You’re in London?

          Stay safe. Remember: break the dude’s arms first, then beat him about the head and neck until he stops moving.

          1. Yeah, but I’m safe and sound in Bloomsbury. Thanks for the tip, will practice my pull shot. 😉

            1. I don’t know what actual correct bat-fighting technique looks like, but these videos seem plausible. I think “hit him a lot” is as good a strategy as any.

            2. Shit, db, I didn’t know you were in London. Stay safe.

              Also, I’d advise against a sweep – I don’t think the rioters will be tossing any spin.

            3. Will you please ask the next looters you come across to loot a Games Workshop store and ship me some damned Dark Elf models? It’s wretched expensive over here to get your products shipped across the pond.

              1. Last week we had Pathfinder talk, this week Warhammer? Man, it’s good to know libertarians are up on their RPGs and tabletop games.

                1. What would you expeect from a pack of chaots?

          2. Remember: break the dude’s arms first, then beat him about the head and neck until he stops moving.

            I am surprised Londoners are not more prepared.

            I mean haven’t there been 20 or so zombie movies set in London?

        2. I can just see the future Wikipedia entry.

          The cricket bat ban in England dates to 2011, when Nigel Binsworth, a 17 year old unemployed school dropout from the Bigglesdale housing estate was struck with a bat by a New Zealander who claimed self defense.

          The New Zealander received a fifteen year sentence for his part in the vicious altercation, and after serving his sentence returned to New Zealand finacially ruined by the award made to Mr Binsworth for his suffering. In his ruling on the award Mr Justice Goodheart said that this should stand as a stern message to people like Cooper who might think they have the right to take defensive action when faced with trivial matters like robbery and attempted murder.

          The bat ban passed easily, in the face of outrage at the vicious attack on a poor boy from a deprived background. Appeals from various sporting groups as to the hardship this would place on England’s cricket team fell on deaf ears since no one could remember when England had any kind of leadership in international cricket competition anyway.

            1. +1

              Top work Isaac!

              1. It pleases me that my meager efforts are appreciated.

                Thank you.

          1. Missing is the part where British retailers start selling cricket-bat-proof clothing to protect their children.

            1. No, no more than British retailers sell bullet-proof clothing.

              The absolutely endearing thing about the British mentality is that they believe that banned things will simply disappear. This is, of course, the quality of banners everywhere, but it does seem more pronounced in Old Blighty.

    2. Some of this is clearly no more than criminality, but it also appears that some of these actions have been caused by anger towards the police. Has there been much discussion about why people are angry with the British police? I heard a bit on the BBC, and it sounds like British cops are almost as fun to be around as the American cops frequently profiled at The Agitator. According to witnesses quoted on the Beeb, the riots appear to be well planned and closely coordinated.

      1. It would be an interesting question if the rioters were burning police stations and not other people’s private property.

        1. It’s still interesting if the hardcore rioters represent a conscious resistance to the police. No one can control the opportunistic bastards in such circumstances … well, not in a country where citizens aren’t allowed to defend themselves.

      2. The rioters were protesting the police killing a young man in a firefight.

    3. I suspect that the majority is somewhat more than “faintly frightened” by these events.

    4. “Hoody hugging”

      God I love the Brits. Give those chavs whatfor, Min’ster!

  9. At this point, I just feel bad for him.

    (Reuters) – President Barack Obama said on Monday he inherited many of the country’s problems with high debt and deficits when he entered the White House, sounding a theme likely to dominate his 2012 re-election campaign.

    “Vote for Obama: He tried his best!” Pitiful.

    1. “The buck stops…..over there!”

      1. Let me be clear on this, there is no buck.

        1. The buck was spent here.

    2. Non-SFed link.

      At this point, I just feel bad.

      1. Fuck your bourgeois convention of working links. They make me feel bad at this point.

    3. Considering his slogans of ‘Despair and Continuity’, I don’t see how he can be blamed. He has certainly followed through on both of those.

    4. “Despair and malaise.” I like it.

      1. “Ruination and decrepitude”

      2. Aw crap, BP. “Despondence and stagnation.” That’s better.

        1. Futility and corrosion.

          1. Obama and Biden.

            1. You suck.

          2. It’s sad that he is just fucking everything he campaigned against, and worse, because so many bought it.

            Of course, I voted for Bob Barr, who most recently was trying to get Duvalier back the money he ass-raped from Haiti, so I’m not feeling much better.

            1. Better the powerless buffoon than the powerful buffoon.

              1. Pretty much what I think. The whole “wasted vote” argument is about the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.

                “Oh you voted for Ludvig Kass? He didn’t have a chance of winning…”

            2. and worse, because so many bought it.

              Worse yet, they still believe.

              I swear to Zod, he could be wearing a necklace of dead babies and space docking every old lady he sees and these TEAMBLUE buffoons would still think he’s the Glorious Leader that they voted for in ’08.

              1. buffoon

                Fuck. I originally had nincompoops.

                1. Buffoon is uncomfortably close to baboon, you fucking racist.

                  1. I learned it from you, Dad!

              2. What I hear is that it’s all Republican/Tea Party/racist sabotage, and if only it hadn’t been for Bush and Reagan and Murdoch protecting billionaires and destroying the Earth and preventing the stimulus from being bigger, all would be peachy.

              3. Hey! Don’t you know the rethuglicans are worse?

            3. Of course, I voted for Bob Barr, who most recently was trying to get Duvalier back the money he ass-raped from Haiti, so I’m not feeling much better.

              that’s why I stuck to principle and wrote in Ron Paul. If only I hadn’t deleted my facebook account and could rub it in all my liberal ‘friend’s faces!

        2. yep, that’s good.

    5. “We ain’t got no jobs, no money … We heard that other people were getting things for free, so why not us?”

      World, this is your 21st century.

      1. What? You mean we can’t all of us be thieves and beggars? Hmph, fancy that!

      2. scary but oh so true.

    6. All of America is feeling bad we have this piece of shit in office.

      Obama has done more damage to American then Osama could have hoped to do. If there are any SEAL teams left, they might want to consider that.

      1. Hey! Only we are allowed to suggest killing political opponents!

      2. Seconded. Fuck this piece of crap, much of what’s going on is by design.

    7. “Did I do that?”

    8. he inherited many of the country’s problems with high debt and deficits when he entered the White House

      He felt so bad about it he borrowed 4.5 Trillion in 2 years 6 months out doing Bush who borrowed 4.4 trillion, taking 8 years to do it.

  10. The good news: Economists at Goldman Sachs peg the chances of another recession at one in three, most likely in the next six to nine months.

    The bad news: If it ain’t a recession, it’s a depression.

    The good news: It is Goldman Sachs.

    The bad news: It is Goldman Sachs.

    1. If only another bailout to G&S will save the economy, I’m going long on bullets, adderall, and surplus MREs.

  11. OBAMA/BIDEN ’12: “I’m Still Black, and He’s Still a Retard!”

    1. Now that’s change we can believe in!

    2. Actually, it’s… I’m still half black, and he’s still a complete retard.

  12. Does this Newsweek cover make me look crazy?

    1. No, your resume does

      1. So long as it’s not another four-year helldate with the raging incompetent we have now, on the other hand…

        1. God Bless future-President Michele Bachmann. She’ll break the scrap Ship of State until we’re all raptured.

          1. Ahhhhhhhh. So long as there are still enough of you poor, doomed dolts out there, ready and willing to fall for the old “OMG! TEH PALIN!!!” ruse again, come 2012: my dark master shall hold dread dominion over all for yet another four long, ruinous turns of the seasons.

            My god, but you’re easy.

            1. Never depend on people doing what you want them to.

              1. Why not? They did in ’08.

                “Hope!” “Change!” “Roll over!” “Beg!

                1. Now, that’s what I’m talkin ’bout!

    2. no it’s your fucking eyes. gouge them out with a spoon, please!

  13. None of this would be happening if we’d just raised taxes a few years ago.

    1. Has anyone seen real Tony in a while?

      Maybe he has so many spoofers doing his bidding, he’s no longer needed.

      1. No I’m still here…..anybody want chat about my views on social policy….oh and fellatio. Anybody want to chat about that?

        1. my views on social policy….oh and fellatio.

          There’s a difference…?

          1. Yes! My knees don’t hurt as much after discussing social policy.

      2. There is no Tony. He is us.

        1. There is no Chupacabra….

      3. He’s been hanging out with me in my secret lair.

  14. I would just like to say, my sister-in-law and niece are in Clapham right now, and I sure hope the fucking Brits get their shit together soon.

    1. The cops need to up their game alright. They’ll be less worried about cuts to their numbers now though …

      1. As several have pointed out, if they allowed self-defense in the UK, much of it wouldn’t be necessary. There were a lot of Korean shops in LA that didn’t get looted in ’92.

        And I’m really happy they spent all that money on CCTV. What a wonderful investment. They’ve managed to create an Orwellian society without even the internal peace. Fucking brilliant.

        1. What do you think SCORPION STARE is for? If this isn’t CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN, I don’t know what is.

          1. And here I am without a Hand of Glory.

          2. In his house in Scunthorpe, dead Cthulhu lies dreaming…

            1. Ask White Indian about Scunthorpe sometime.

  15. The British people have spoken, and it has become obvious that the British government no longer represents the people of the UK. We must invade and assist these rebels in overthrowing the British government.

    Why shouldn’t we use the same excuse as Libya to invade Britain?

    1. Powell Doctrine! WOO-HOO!!!

      1. lol !
        You realist muthafucker!

    2. You might be closer to the truth than you know. According to witness reports on the BBC, the rioting appears to be well-coordinated, and much of it appears to be directed against authority figures.

      1. REMEMBER 1649!

  16. Many of the looters … said they felt alienated from society.

    Oh. Carry on, then.

    1. Many of the looters … said they felt alienated from society.

      A plucky handful of them could even spell it.

      1. +1 for “plucky.”

  17. Markets crash. England burns.

    World stinks.
    Hendrick’s hot.

    1. I approve this message.

    2. That pic is on my blog somewhere(2 or 3 times in different resolutions) without the mag cover background.

    3. Old Mex I can palm a basketball! I’m up for the Hendricks challenge!

    4. Ms. Hendricks’ assets are of the highest quality. We award her a rating of DD.

    5. I am intrigued by your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    6. She is not going to be in the next season of game thrones.

      Give it up.

    7. Oh yes. So hot.

  18. Bernanke’s hearing the stall warning horn again and getting ready to pull back on the yoke EVEN HARDER.

    1. + 1 Bernoulli.

  19. Don’t you see? It’s a brilliant plan! We’re going to put Americans to work rebuilding England! The Brits’ treasure will refill our coffers!

    BWAHAHAHAA!!!

    1. Let me be clear, I like the cut of your jib.

  20. Markets crash. England burns. Discuss.

    1. “… then: my work here is all but done — !!!”

  21. All the liberal eggs come home to roost this night, in the true spirit of the liberal version of ‘Globalization.’

    YES WE CAN!

  22. Fortunately, I have something interesting to do for a few days so I won’t be around here much, if at all.

    1. Me, too.

  23. Please tell me at least one of the rioters is wearing a Fawkes costume.

  24. Bush inherited all his problems from Clinton.

    1. And I inherited all mine from Bush’s father! Fucking Bushes!

      1. It’s turtles all the way down.

      2. Use something a bit more than your cigar next time.

  25. Kratos! Dominus!

    1. Huh? Someone call me…?

      1. We had to invoke it to see what was in it.

  26. OT: This White Indian character may just be the best troll we’ve had in a long time.

    1. He is the mere projection of my unconscious mind. Ooh look a Wren!

  27. After the S & P downgrade last Friday, I ploughed the 401K back into SLV, iShares Silver Trust to be specific. Had bailed on it when it was going down through $39 after buying in August at $18. Figure I’ll ride the herd out to $50 by end of next week. Then figure where to go from there.

    You can make money in any market, at least if you’re not a Democrat!

    1. On Thursday I got out of stocks, bought into EPV (ultra short Europe ETF). I felt a little creepy cheering on the drop. There is money to be made.

    2. On Thursday I got out of stocks, bought into EPV (ultra short Europe ETF). I felt a little creepy cheering on the drop. There is money to be made.

      1. I felt a little creepy cheering on the drop. There is money to be made.

        Let it get to $48 and sell. The morons and programs will kick in at $50.

      2. I’ve been sitting on MZZ. Tomorrow I feel a jump up but after that I’m going balls out on SMDD.

  28. I totally missed the White Indian thing. I only read a couple of comments and none of y’all’s responses but I have a good guess as to who it is.

    1. He’s delicious. If he’s a regular, it’s a magnificent job.

      1. I suspect an editor.

        1. Nick’s read enough crazy shit with his fancy-pantsy humanities PhD to be able to pull it off, but I have a hard time imagining him deigning to play with the groundlings for this much time. No, I think we’re dealing with Dave Weigel here.

          1. I’m gonna guess pancakes/waffles as the culprit. There were several aborted attempts at trolling that started off well. It’s been a while, so I think he/she has been researching the SUPERtroll of the citySTATE(agriculture)CIVilization.

            1. Wasn’t it him who was pretending to be the 14 year old Mexican girl? That was pretty good.

              1. I don’t know about the 14 year old mexican girl, but there was that brief Feministing or Jezebel persona that went well for a few days.

                1. Here

                  It was quality work, but apparently not waffles.

                  1. The tearjerk factor was spectacular. That is a lesson for all trolls. Too bad it only really works once or twice every few years.

                2. 14 year old Mexican girls are fun. Oops…

                  1. Please sign me up for a subscription to your newsletter.

    2. Hint? Please ….

    3. I’m 50% sure it’s David Matthews from last year. The tone is similar, the subject matter related, and the crazy grammatical oddities seem like they could come from one person.

      1. Warty doesn’t have intelligence enough to determine if it is me in the guise of another.

        Look at that beautiful Mallard.

  29. It’s just the animal spirits

  30. At least they’re not zombie looters. That would really suck.

    1. That would really suckbite.

      1. No, no. “Suck” is perfectly correct, actually.

        1. They like to suck your brains – gives new meaning to the phrase head job.

          1. No one ever says “head job”…

            they say head.

            A head job is a someone who is stupid or insane or holds violent beliefs.

            1. Oh, someone like Joshua corning? I see.

  31. For fun, why not read a response I garndered from a self-described socialist on a Newsvine thread about the Londong riots. He said it shows what happens when 1% controls 70% of the wealth, leaving the masses to riot in hunger. I responded curtly that it doesn’t entitle him to steal other people’s wealth. His response:

    “You say that no one is entitled to anyone else’s wealth. Here is something for you!

    The wealth of the earth is for the people of earth.

    As such, the earth’s resources are the social heritage of all. They are owned socially and are developed locally and democratically.

    That the wealth of the earth is for the people of earth acknowledges the right of all to access the earth’s resources and work so that (s)he may eat.

    The problem arises when some decide that the resources of the earth are not the social heritage of all, but that a few have the divine right (I’m being facetious there) to act as vice-regents of Almighty God, to decide who may work and have bread, and on what terms they may do so.

    That constitutes theft of the common social heritage of all people. In the name of private property, humanity is barred from the earth’s wealth necessary for life. Separated from what is rightfully and necessarily theirs, the masses are invited to present themselves to enrich the incompetent and idle few. There is a reason that capitalism always brings misery, always brings death, always brings social disruption, always brings war.

    So — since the resources of the earth are for the people of earth, on what basis do you claim said resources for the aristocracy? What makes that claim so? Why exactly are others obligated to believe that? Remember — since no one is entitled to anyone else’s wealth, you cannot logically separate anyone from the earth’s resources, including by extension, the means of production and distribution. People must work to live. So they must have the right and freedom to work. So I ask you …

    Do you believe your own premise?”

    1. My friend obviously remembers with fondness how I eliminated misery, death, social destruction, and war.

    2. Well, I’m dumber for having read that.

      1. Matt Damon would be dumber for having read that.

        1. Not a single citation of the intrinsically paternalistic nature of the oligarchy.

          1. Plus: hardly any cartoons, even.

    3. Capitalism = aristocracy, apparently.

      1) Why do you engage these people?
      2) Needs more ranDOM capITALIzation.

      1. “Needs more ranDOM capITALIzation.”

        Oh please don’t invoke him. The last thread is over 640 comments now.

    4. Funny, I thought these started because of the heavy-handed tactics of an anti-gun goon-squad from the constabulary that resulted in the death of a 26 year old father.

    5. That was a bunch o’ stoopid.

    6. It sure feels good to be called the aristocracy. His premise is flawed – the wealth of the world has inarguably increased immensely over the last 200 years. How has this come to pass? Free enterprise between free people.

      Free people are born into this world owning only themselves. We are able to trade our labor for existing wealth in mutually beneficial transactions, thus wealth is created.

    7. Ask him if he believes his own premise. His computer is wealth. His labor is wealth. So if you and I insist that he uses them to write non-stupid positive things about property rights instead of stupid positive things about socialism, then he’s outvoted and our rights to his property and labor outweigh his, no?

  32. I was just watching Thomas Hartman on RT, and he says the riots in England are due to austerity measures (youth centers have been closed!) and we can expect more of the same here in the colonies if the evil republicans cut spending.

    Jesus. This guy makes Rachel Maddow appear right of Rush Limbaugh.

    1. So, can we assume that he also takes the side of the Copley Township shooter as well? From the latest I read, he was also angry about not getting some share of wealth that AFAIK he did nothing to deserve, and felt the need to take it out an innocents and then, in something of a miscalculation, on cops.

    2. What kind of youths actually go to er, youth centers?

      1. Probably not the same who queued up to loot the stores.

  33. Jesse posted this on the twitterbox. It draws historical parallels between the riots of Brixton & Toxteth (seriously, how the fuck can we speak the same language if they name their towns like this?) of 30 years ago.

    1. Toxteth sounds like an Aztec god, which is kinda cool.

      1. Toxteth is the Aztec god of clocks and punishment.

      2. but then again, all Aztec gods consider punishment to be their job.

      3. Y’know what else sounds like an Aztec god?

  34. “UK Police: 3 rioters in London arrested on suspicion of attempted murder of an officer – AP” no link because it’s off my twitterbox.

    1. Wait, are we taking the side of the looters or the pigs here?

      1. They are the result of bobbies shooting some dude in an anti-gun operation, so I’m a teeny bit sympathetic to the rioters. I’d be 100% behind anyone who rioted for Jose Guerena or Thomas Kelly.

        1. They are the result of bobbies shooting some dude in an anti-gun operation, so I’m a teeny bit sympathetic to the rioters. I’d be 100% behind anyone who rioted for Jose Guerena or Thomas Kelly.

          Why random riots when they can use a mixture of ammonium nitrate and hydrocarbons?

          1. Cuz if you blow it all up, there’s nothing left to loot or steal.

        2. I wouldn’t. Attacking cops, that’s at least understandable. Collective guilt can be appropriate when dealing with a voluntary, well-organized collective that knowingly stands with its guilty members. But if they attack any innocents, they’re no better than the people they’re protesting.

        3. Doubtless much is opportunistic, but reports suggest that at least some of it is political, and especially anti-police.

          I’m wondering when this will happen in the USA. The Arab Spring continues.

        4. Good ol’ libertarians: the pigs shoot a gangster (who probably shot at them first by the way) so let’s burn down a city and loot all its private enterprise, which we also support. No hypocrisy or contradictions there by the way. Seriously do you idiots ever listen to yourselves?

          1. Is that a rhetorical question?
            Of course we don’t.

          2. Yes, because everyone supports the destruction of private property if we are protesting teh guvernmints!

            Fucking retard.

          3. The shooting is just the tip of the iceberg. There was a teacher on the BBC that mentioned that her students (from the affected area) could not even ride their bicycle to school without being stopped by the police, and having their bicycle confiscated if they couldn’t prove on the spot that it was really their bike. Besides this, young people report being harassed daily by the police and being subjected to searches every time they leave the house. Naturally that causes some resentment.

            1. Yes, well, at least they proved to society that all that suspicion was justified.

  35. You know it’s shitty when people run to safety in US treasuries after they are downgraded and the yield still sucks. Or when there’s so much cash banks start charging for holdings over 50m. Or when the VIX look like the first half of bottle rockets trajectories. Or when gold just keeps going up and the Goldman 1860 w/in a year prediction looks like it might come true this week. Or when Soros’ fund is 70% plus in cash. Or when Warran “bailout” Buffet is buying, lol S&P wrong, quadrupla A rating, who has 12.5% ownership of Moody’s oh ya Warren…

    1. Ya, I dont understand how the fuck tbills went up today. That is fucking retarded.

      1. Even the dollar looks good next to the euro dumpster fire.

        1. I’m stealing this

      2. Is it possible other national banks are buying them in an attempt to make them look solid?

  36. Time to buy more guns and ammo.

    Remember to shoot the zombies in the head in case any of the government union types are wearing body armor.

  37. Hey, more fun fascist talk from progressives (unsigned editorial, natch). We should really save these up to throw them back in their faces in the next TEAMRED administration. I mean, assuming there is one.

    Golden quote:
    “Yes, it’s all of that messiness that goes into maintaining a democratic society, all of that give and take of having three co-equal branches of government, of having to win a majority of votes in two houses of the Congress, of a system of government whereby elected representatives vote the way they have promised constituents they will vote.

    There’s the real problem.”

    1. But they end with this:
      “The nation will indeed survive this credit downgrade. The question is can it survive another four years of Obama in the White House?”

      1. You know, you make a good point. I think I may have missed a satirical tone there, having re-read it. I don’t think it’s entirely my fault, given the sort of hyperbolic rhetoric we’ve been treated to lately.

        1. Also, it is apparently a right-leaning mag, so more evidence of fail on my part.

  38. What does an “appropriate police response” look like?

    Can cops be anything but pussies or tyrants?

  39. Does this guy have a case?

    Or is that what you get for hanging around?

  40. From a BBC report

    Acting Met Police Commissioner Tim Godwin has said the force will be publishing photos and CCTV footage of those involved.

    (and Simon Cowell will invite them onto Britain’s Next Top Rioter.)

  41. Also: this never would have happened if everyone had a strict Rothbardian understanding of property rights…

    1. Libertarianism will work once everyone agrees with it…

      1. This just in: the only moral doctrine that assures its own success is ‘might makes right’.

      2. Is there something wrong with having a philosophy which requires some level common agreement to work, so long as past a critical mass agreement is incentivized? That’s not just a characteristic of “property rights are good”, it’s also a characteristic of “everyone should drive on the same side of the road” and “the internet is often useful”.

        Plus, libertarianism requires much *less* common agreement than communitarian philosophies. Try to start a commune within a larger libertarian society, and you’re free to (even to the extent of being assisted in contract enforcement!). Try to start a libertarian enclave within a socialist society, and they’re still eventually going to take your stuff, usually without even the self-awareness to wonder whether it’s more than a wacky coincidence that you produced more stuff for the taking.

  42. England burns. Discuss.

    So – is it too early to start stringing up the Enlightened Cosmopolitans?, who have managed to thoroughly fuck up every western nation they’ve gotten their grubby meathooks on, from the nearest lamp post yet?

    Yeah, yeah – I know…. of course it’s not the “yoots” fault. It’s those damn nativists! Always the goddamn nativists!

    1. Yeah, Britain started going downhill as soon as they let the darkies off the boat huh?

      1. Ian Stuart, hero of the white race, warned them!

    2. Wouldn’t it be easier to get a bunch of them into a remote, yet contained area (say, an island) and just hunt them down with guns?

      1. I think it would be more just to simply confine them to areas like Tottenham, and let nature take it’s course. While I’m not exactly a libertarian, I still have a soft spot for letting people enjoy the fruits of their labor….

        1. Apparently libertarians are so powerful they can cause riots in countries where there aren’t any libertarians.

          The closest thing to a libertarian in the UK is Dame Thatcher. Are you accusing the Thatch of causing the Tottenham riots?

    3. What’s the deal with A3P’s association with MacDonald? I’ve surfed the website several times and it seems to be basically VDare with activism. But MacDonald is a kook even within HBD circles, so why does A3P associate with him? Are you more anti-Semitic than nativist/white nationalist?

      1. I didn’t know STEVE SMITH was a party chairman. Does he only rape white hikers to keep himself pure, or does he only rape non-white hikers to teach them a lesson?

        1. Are you trying to make a point?

      2. AFAIK, the A3P has no official position on Jews one way or the other. MacDonald’s personal opinions are his own affair. I expect he’s associated with the A3P for pretty much the same reasons Bob Barr is associated with the Libertarian Party. It’s a mutually beneficial relationship of convenience.

        I’m not a white nationalist (a position probably even more futile than being a libertarian), but if organizations like La Raza and the NAACP can have a chapter on the campus of every major university and it’s no big deal, I don’t see why white people shouldn’t have organizations to represent their interests as well. Let the fur fly!

        1. I see A3P has conveniently changed their mission statement. I’ll admit, it reads a little better than the old one.

        2. MacDonald is a Director. That seems a prestigious position for someone who’s only known for conspiratorial views of American Jewry.

          I agree with you that gentile whites should have groups to represent their interest. But I only support as a political tool to show the absurdity of other racialist organizations. I can’t really figure out which racially conscious organizations (including A3P) are in my camp as opposed to the distinctly WN camp (AmRen).

          1. I’m not going to go out of my way to defend the white nationalists, who, like the libertarians, are pretty much political Johnny-one-notes whose understandings of how people and societies actually work is too simplistic and too primitive ever to be a useful governing philosophy. The point is that they have useful insights into specific aspects of society that are valuable contributions to a broader political dialog. They’re threads in a tapestry. They aren’t the whole tapestry.

            1. “I’m not going to go out of my way to defend the white nationalists…”

              Of course not. You’ll let A3P do that for you.

            2. I agree with literally all of that. What I still don’t understand is why you, who seems reasonable, associate with A3P. Any organization that has MacDonald as one of the top 6 members is explicitly anti-Semitic IMO b/c his entire shtick is conspiratorial anti-Semitism. What does a fringe organization have to gain by associating with him if not promoting/attracting anti-Semitism?

              1. I should point out that I don’t crave, like most here, ideological purity. I read all sorts of horrible people on the progressive left and reactionary right. But MacDonald is such a one note anti-Semite that I don’t see how one can see an alliance and not assume there’s some there there.

              2. Because they’re the only tool available. There’s a lot of their program I don’t agree with. Their economic agenda is protectionist and interventionist, mine is generally free-market. There are a lot of people associated with the movement obsessed with genetics and miscegenation. In my case, “white” is largely a proxy for “civilized”, I don’t really care about miscegenation. To each his own. I’m less interested in European genetics then I am in European civilization. I’m cool with anyone who can adapt to that. My concern is that there are obviously those that cannot or will not.

                They A3P have one use to me only: they promote the idea that white people, as whites, have legitimate political interests, and it’s entirely legitimate for them to pursue those interests. The rest of their agenda is largely background noise.

                1. In my case, “white” is largely a proxy for “civilized”

                  Come again?

                  1. The Klan has finally crawled out of their egg-sacs to figure out the Internet, Art. I wonder if he posts while wearing the hood.

      3. Don’t let Slappy bullshit you SF. A3P is and organization that promotes racial purity and fascism.

    4. What is a “yoot”?

  43. Seriously: what should cops do in these situations? Where they protect but don’t abuse? What would you do?

  44. Remember, where the young can use social media to organize riots, their elders can use social media to counter them.

  45. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-girl.html
    Did rock-throwing teenage girl’s ‘beating’ by police spark London riots?

    Pictures that show how Tottenham turned into a war zone

    Violence breaks out in Enfield with around 200 youths smashing windows and attacking cars

    Twenty-six police officers hurt in Tottenham clashes, with eight treated in hospital

    IPCC says ‘non-police’ firearm found at scene of Mark Duggan’s death

    Number of arrests rises to 55, 51 last night and four today

    Tottenham MP David Lammy appeals for calm and warns that there may be fatalities

    Mob of 500 people protest about death of father-of-four Mark Duggan who was shot by officers

    Fears that violence was fanned by Twitter as picture of burning police car was re-tweeted more than 100 times

    Shop looted and youths storm McDonald’s and start cooking their own food

    Mail on Sunday photographers beaten and mugged by masked thugs

    I know the dailymail is pretty sensationalist, tabloidy even, but that cracks me up

  46. I don’t know how insane this will drive people reading here, but maybe these riots might serve as a warning that there really is a place for a police force and that a marketplace of force/anarchy is not a pretty sight in practice and never has been.

    And see how those capitalist enterprises in Tottenham stand up next to the anarchists? The two can live next to each other in harmony right? No. One burns down the other.

    1. I’m pretty certain that you are too stupid to even debate this point because you obviously don’t have a clue about what the term “anarchy” means. Please list the ways that London, in which government has disarmed its citizens and is full of government owned surveillance equipment, resembles an anarchist society.

      Hint: anarchy means “no government” not “angry mobs”

      Oh and PS: Your beloved government is certainly doing a splendid job of protecting those capitalist enterprises as it is.

      1. Hint: anarchy means “no government” not “angry mobs”

        Are you sure?

        1. The problem is how does one control angry mobs without a government? Do we just expect the thugs like those we’ve seen in Tottenham to throw down their swords? Or thuggery?

          That’s what gets me about anarchy: the childlike naivety, the idea that we can all live in a harmonious society without the need for force, the idea that the thugs will not overwhelm us when we’re disarmed and the idea that all you need for a capitalist society to function is armed shopkeepers. It’s like a bad joke.

          1. So you’re saying that if we didn’t have a government to take our money, no one would pay for security?

            1. I’m saying that it takes more than money to provide security. It takes a single agreed upon objectively defined framework of laws that we all agree are moral and proper. Can you imagine what a competitive legal system would look like in practice? Ayn Rand discussed this in one of her characteristically brilliant essays. I can’t remember the exact name of the article but it provides the following hypothetical situation:

              You have a disagreement with your neighbour so you call the security agency that you’re paying to protect you. Your neighbour does likewise. When your security agencies meet face to face it turns out they don’t agree upon the legal minutiae and what your neighbour is doing is not illegal in the eyes of his security agency. How would such a system work out in practice?

              Sure taxes are a bitch and the government often oversteps its bounds, but that’s not what I’m talking about. This riot has proved (again) that a marketplace of force doesn’t work and if I had to guess why it’s happened now it’s because we have a leaderless police force because of that ridiculous “hacker” scandal. Look around the world. Ever time a state loses it’s police force for 5 minutes this happens. From Canada to Iraq to the United Kingdom. Anarchy. Doesn’t. Work.

            2. “suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’s house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then?”

              -Ayn Rand

              And more:

              http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html

              1. We bite the Rand that feeds us.

                1. This is in response to Na na, whataver

                  http://mises.org/daily/4094

                  1. You mean an answer to Ayn Rand (I wasn’t quoting myself there) and an answer to reality.

                  2. I think as usual the best debater is the lady called reality: just look at what happened thanks to a leaderless police force coupled with thugs realizing that they can loot and riot without fear of reprisal. Look at all cases of anarchy from the Dark Ages to Somalia. The results are always the same.

                    In short don’t argue with me or Ayn Rand argue with reality. You will lose.

                    1. ” just look at what happened thanks to a leaderless police force coupled with thugs realizing that they can loot and riot without fear of reprisal.”

                      Why do you assume that in a free society there would be no fear of reprisal?

                      By the way Somalia is not “anarchy” by any stretch of the imagination. They have political leaders called warloards.

                      How much do you know about the history of Iceland?
                      http://mises.org/daily/1121

              2. Well, either these governments, like every other colocated government in history have a series of treaties and protocols worked out for such a situation or they have an incident that either escalates to war or allows the governors of both nations to see the need for above protocols. What the fuck is so difficult about this? Like crime never happens across borders in real life?

                1. What’s so difficult about it is that the occasion for war arises, in such a circumstance, every time a petty property crime or personal crime is committed.

                  If the only way a particular property right can be enforced is if your patron organization is willing to go to war with a competing organization, your property rights aren’t very secure.

                  Game theory would say that your patron organization would be virtually compelled to trade your property right away for peace, or in order to advance the property rights of its other members (which are worth more to the patron organization in the aggregate than your individual right).

                  If you need to convene the Congress of Vienna every time someone steals your car radio, get used to not having a car radio.

                  1. “If you need to convene the Congress of Vienna every time someone steals your car radio, get used to not having a car radio.”

                    Fluffy, what happens today if someone steals my car radio and smuggles it into Canada?

                  2. Thanks fluffy, you’ve made my case. Everybody here seems to be under the delusion that as soon as we abandon government we will become morally perfect overnight and there will be no need for force, or that if a monopoly on force controlled by an objectively defined framework of laws (a nation state government) is a bad thing then a group of competing warlords a la Somalia/Afghanistan will be a good thing so long as they put themselves forward as private companies.

                    1. “verybody here seems to be under the delusion that as soon as we abandon government we will become morally perfect overnight and there will be no need for force,”

                      Noone has claimed that. Do you believe that we now have a perfect society? Why or why not?

                    2. Well Western society is the best that mankind has ever created because it’s based upon a system of individual rights in which a single institution has a privilege of using force only to protect those rights.

                      Just look at any other social system that humans have tried at any other point in recorded history. Things are far from perfect, and if people strive for perfection overnight they always create hell, but things are the best they have ever been and like or lump it we need a functioning government to allow that.

                      And I might as well point out that true anarchy is always impossible in practice because if we find ourselves in a lawless society people will run to the most powerful thug to create the equivalent of a primitive government to provide security for us. Is that what you want? We’ve been working for thousands of years to create a rights-protecting state that allows our spoiled feather-bedded lives of whining to strangers across the other side of the world possible and you’d sacrifice it to that? Seriously, wake up.

                    3. “Well Western society is the best that mankind has ever created because it’s based upon a system of individual rights in which a single institution has a privilege of using force only to protect those rights.”

                      And I have not spoken a word against Western Civilization or rights.

                      ” We’ve been working for thousands of years to create a rights-protecting state that allows our spoiled feather-bedded lives of whining to strangers across the other side of the world possible and you’d sacrifice it to that? Seriously, wake up.”

                      Sacrifice it to your straw-men? No. You have “anarchy” in your choice of computer do you not? You have “anarchy” in your choice of automobile. Why not permit yourself the same level of choice in other areas of life.

                    4. Are you trying to get me to face-smash my desk to smithereens? Please, please, please learn to understand the difference between productive activity in a free market and the role of force in constraining and containing criminals and aggressors and securing our rights. Why don’t you understand the necessity for a single institution having a monopoly on the privilege of using force for that purpose? Why do you believe a free for all of competing force users would be better? WHY?

                      Your raping of the definition of the word anarchy is so moronic that I really wish I didn’t have to respond to it. Private corporations that manufacture computers, cars, etc do so because they know for a fact they can keep (most) of what they earn. We need a clearly defined system of rights and a single institution backing that up at the point of a gun and without mercy or exception to allow that to work. Competing governments with different sets of laws will not allow that to work. What happens when Intel sues the semiconductor company down the road for industrial espionage only to find out that the company is being protected by OpenSource Security Incorporated? What happens then? Do the two security forces fight to the death over who wins the case? And I’m not being facetious, what happens in real life when cases like this (the kind of case Ayn Rand imagined) arises, as they inevitably will?

                      Can you imagine the life of a subsistence farmer under a system of medieval anarchy with no police to arrest thieves, no system of laws that said all he grew belonged to him? Can you really imagine Intel existing under the same kind of social system in which a savage or a primitive farmer struggles to exist? Can you please just wake up.

                      What part of what I’m saying is not getting through to you?

                      Also how would a private military work? Will we have private ICBMs and private nukes? Private tanks and private aircraft carriers? Do you know some way to allow this while preventing civil war from breaking out?

                    5. “What happens when Intel sues the semiconductor company down the road for industrial espionage only to find out that the company is being protected by OpenSource Security Incorporated?”

                      What happens today if a French Company sues an American company? How is this different? They have different laws regarding these matters. Do you not understand that what we have today are “competing governments?”

                      Also how would a government-run military work? Will we have government-owned ICBMs and government nukes? Government tanks and government aircraft carriers? Do you know some way to allow this while preventing civil war from breaking out?

                    6. It’s not true, by the way, that western governments have the exclusive privilege of using force to protect individual rights – individuals retain their right to self defence to greater or lesser degrees. It is true that government is the final arbiter of which rights will be protected. It’s always going to be the case that there’s a final arbiter for these things, and that final arbiter is always going to be the most powerful party involved. Anarchists want the most powerful party involved to be one that doesn’t maintain a monopoly on force or use taxation to fund itself – that is one that actually respects the rights of individuals.

                    7. Or at least that’s what some anarchists want. I’m sure there are some who really do want competing legislators in the market. I myself think that’s stupid.

                    8. Very much a lesser extent; if a burglar breaks into your home you can restrain or even kill him if he’s armed. Fine. But can you imagine a system of thugs versus armed shopkeepers in which nobody knew for sure what their rights where? What a government means today is understanding what one’s rights are and that usually comes down to production. Security throughout the ages has typically been based upon what one owns (especially food) and whether it can be stolen by anybody at a moment’s notice. I’m against the idea of a free for all of violence like that which seems to have been praised in several comments (everything would be a-okay if those shopkeepers had guns.) Well no, it wouldn’t. Everything would have been a-okay if the riots had never been allowed to start. And I’ll say it once again: a disorganized or non-functioning police force always leads to this kind of situation. Maybe Bill Bratton can save us? (Sorry if I give anybody a heart attack saying that.)

                    9. I agree with most of what you’ve said here – but you do realise, don’t you, that neither taxation nor a monopoly on violence are necessary for what you’ve described. Yes, there are some anarchists who want competing legislatures. I think they’re wrong too. But it doesn’t follow that the dominant legislature I want – the one that protects individual rights – should be allowed to loot to pay for itself or to disarm people.

                    10. But in terms of what we should actually do, yeah, Bill Bratton seems alright.

                    11. “But can you imagine a system of thugs versus armed shopkeepers in which nobody knew for sure what their rights where?”

                      No, and who is advocating such a system Anyone? How many more straw-men do you have?

                    12. “No, and who is advocating such a system Anyone? How many more straw-men do you have?”

                      The person in the comment right below this one:

                      “Maybe if the store owners could have owned weapons and hired a private security firm then they wouldn’t have to deal with the incompetence of the monopolistic state protection agency in protecting them from a bunch of state-educated, state-raised “yoots” completely reliant on the state for everything from shelter to moral values.”

                    13. The shop-owner certainly knows his rights in this scenario. Or do you believe that rights are derived from government?

                    14. Does he really know? Say the thug has a stick and the shop owner has a gun. Say the shop owner pulls the gun, the thug runs, the owner kills the thug while the thug was running from the store. Was that within his rights? Who decides?

                    15. “Does he really know? Say the thug has a stick and the shop owner has a gun. Say the shop owner pulls the gun, the thug runs, the owner kills the thug while the thug was running from the store. Was that within his rights? Who decides?”

                      The person whose rights were being violated by attempted aggression are the store owner, not the wannabe thief. If the store owner shoots the guy in the back on the way out he is helping to protect other store owners.

                    16. Are not Australia and New Zealand in a state of “anarchy” vis-a-vis one another?

                    17. Everybody here seems to be under the delusion that as soon as we abandon government we will become morally perfect overnight and there will be no need for force

                      It only seems that was to you because you’re really very stupid.

                    18. If you’re going to try and win an argument by calling me names at least do it outside of the quote section so as not to make it look I’m the prick doing the name calling. Kay?

                    19. That’s fair. I’m just really fed up (as I’m sure most ancaps are) of having my position misrepresented. Nobody here believes what you said they do, and I think you know that, so you were just lying. Or you’re very stupid.

    2. Maybe if the store owners could have owned weapons and hired a private security firm then they wouldn’t have to deal with the incompetence of the monopolistic state protection agency in protecting them from a bunch of state-educated, state-raised “yoots” completely reliant on the state for everything from shelter to moral values.

      But that would be anarchy! That’s crazy talk.

      1. Could the looters hire security firms too?

        1. I’m not getting into hypothetical, pedantic bullshit arguments about this.

          I am not some expert planner who is going to plan out the ways that all the actors in your game will play. The state system isn’t exactly a rousing success, but you seem convinced that putting people into a one-size-fits-all system is the best solution to the problem. I advocate for a “free market” of solutions instead of having one forced on everyone. You seem to think otherwise.

          In short, fuck off slaver.

          1. “Fuck off”. Characteristic eloquence there. So you’re saying a free for all of violence would be even prettier. Gotcha.

            And because of this ridiculous “hacker” scandal (nothing to do with Wikileaks/Lulsecs or however the fuck you spell it – they’re the good hackers) we have a leaderless police for, err excuse me “service” right now. Maybe this might be a wake up call to switch to a force again? Apparently some big bad yank “supercop” might be up for the job. Somebody who feels that to keep order we need police constables not community organizers. When half the country and its businesses have been burned down I’m sure a few people may be willing to give it a try.

            1. Na na, whataver|8.9.11 @ 4:45AM|#
              “Fuck off”. Characteristic eloquence there

              Stick around. That’s nothing!

          2. What I’m saying is that if the police were doing their job properly there would be no need for this free for all of violence, this marketplace of violence in which young thugs face off against armed businessmen that gets libertarians so wet. Businessmen could just focus on business without always having to be afraid of thugs ripping down the city. Why does nobody here understand such a simple concept? It’s called division of labour. And force is one area in which division of labour is particularly important.

            1. “Hot Fuzz” was a quality film.

              1. “Original industrialized nation burns itself to the ground, nobody will be serious”. Great stuff.

              2. philLISTine…

          3. “I am not some expert planner who is going to plan out the ways that all the actors in your game will play. The state system isn’t exactly a rousing success, but you seem convinced that putting people into a one-size-fits-all system is the best solution to the problem. I advocate for a “free market” of solutions instead of having one forced on everyone. You seem to think otherwise.”

            When did I say any of this? I’m asking you to explain your position. Is that stressful?

            1. In a free market for security, does it not follow that criminals could buy muscle as well? That’s all I’m asking.

              “Fuck off, slaver”

              Well I’m convinced!

              1. That’s the intellectual muscle of a typical anarchist: you’re asking me to think ten minutes into the future? What my theory would mean in practice? Err… fuck off! Revolllluuuushhuuuuuun! Wooooooh! *Throws Molotov cocktail at private property that a person has worked years to own and runs off to computer that his parents have paid for to brag about it.*

                1. Na na, whataver,

                  Here is a hint for you. If someone is rioting over too LITTLE government, that person is not an anarchist by any meaningful definition.

              2. In a free market for security, does it not follow that criminals could buy muscle as well?

                Yes. What is it about government that means that criminals never have access to muscle?
                Oh, wait.

                1. We’re not talking about the hideous nightmare that statists of all stripes from the furthest left to the furthest right have turned all Western governments into we’re talking of the concept of a rights-enforcing nation state versus a free for all of violence.

                  It drives me out my mind when people use the term “anarcho-capatlist”; implying that the developed world of today could exist under the social system of the Middle Ages. Honestly people is this just a black in-joke or libertarian meme that I’m not in on? Confound you Poe’s Law!

                  1. “implying that the developed world of today could exist under the social system of the Middle Ages.”

                    Interesting use of the term “social system”. Do you believe that the United States of today could live under the social system of 1787? Well, that depends upon your meaning. If you are simply referring to the U.S. Constitution this has one meaning. If you also include the taboos and the relationships between men and women and other customs that has quite a different meaning.

                    What I advocate is a free market, no more, no less.

                    1. “What I advocate is a free market, no more, no less.”

                      Then you’re terrifically naive. How will this free market work when you know that a) there is a sociopathic thug living half a mile down the road, b) he feels the best way to go in life is to steal whatever others create and c) nobody will stop him if he tries. How productive would you be, how productive would any human be under such a system?

                      Socialism itself is such a system. The UK witnessed one of the most horrible consequences of socialism that Ayn Rand foresaw and even (accidentally) named: a brain drain. All productive people knew for a fact that everything they produced would be stole (in this case by a government not protecting people’s rights) so they fled. The greatest brains of the medical profession fled first. You can hear her lecture on the subject here:

                      http://www.aynrand.org/site/Pa….._shrugging

                      What I’m saying (again) is that a free market means a free market of production not of force and that force will always be necessary and must always be put under objective control not thrown out in every direction by every person. That’s the role of a government doing it’s job properly. Granted when a government abuses the privilege that makes capitalism and freedom possible the result is a nightmare, but that doesn’t excuse anarchy or magically make it work.

                    2. Also I’m not a statist and I support freedom, I just know full well that this can’t work under a system of anarchy.

                    3. “Also I’m not a statist and I support freedom, I just know full well that this can’t work under a system of anarchy.”

                      You know it cannot work under any of your preconceived notions about what you think anarcho-capitalism would be like.

                    4. “c) nobody will stop him if he tries.”

                      You must be out of straw by now. You have made so many straw men. The reason I hire a lawn service is to treat my lawn. The government does not do this for me.

                      BTW, I used to be an Objectivist. I have read her books and listened to her lectures. She helped push me along my path to being an anarcho-capitalist.

                    5. If you have no valid argument to use against a person then you accuse them of “astroturfuing” today. Accusing them of attacking a “strawman” (or in this case a person who added a comment a few lines down) is soooooo yesterday.

                    6. Na Na Na Na Na Na Na,

                      Do you know what the word strawman means? You have invented in your own definition of what “anarcho-capitalism” means to you and attacked that. It is much easier than attacking the actual concept.

    3. 1) The British government has strong restrictions on weapons of all types.
      2) The British government has fostered an atmosphere where self defense is criminal.
      3) The British government imported hordes of 3rd world immigrants.
      4) The British government gave those immigrants cradle to grave welfare.

      Sounds like this is a problem caused by the government distorting the markets.

      1. Inconcievable!

      2. What Cheeseburger misses is the huge number of white youths involved in this.

        The vastly biggest part of the embedded welfare dependent culture is white and native.

        Immigrants have for the most part gone into business, to the extent of having become the major segment of the shop owning population.

        The white yob populace resents these shopowners. There nativist racist feelings against wogs, pakis and nignogs combines with their socialist envy against anybody who has property to create a truly toxic mix.

        So, Cheezy and Slappy would appear to be mostly full of shit.

        1. So, Cheezy and Slappy would appear to be mostly full of shit.

          Tell that to the cameras.

          1. Who are you going to believe: my smug, tired rhetoric, or your lying eyes…?

            1. There’s some awfully paleskinned nignogs in those crowds. maybe your your eyes are lying. It’s widely recocognized that prejudice can affect perception.

              Likewise, it a shame all those hardworking immigrants are haven’t there businesses destroyed by a bunch of worthless layabouts, whatever race race they are.

              As I say below, you advocates for the superiority of the white race don’t have an anything resembling a good example with the white native British lowerclass welfare layabout.

              I don’t know if I should be honored or hurt to be spoofed.

        2. “The white yob populace resents these shopowners. There[sic] nativist racist feelings against… wogs, pakis and nignogs”

          Err guys, I think he’s taking the piss here.

          1. Do you dispute this characterization of the English dole-collecting yob?

            There/their – I always have trouble with those. But you can tell the corect one from the context.

            1. Besides it’s the internets. Spelling is optional, I refuse to be bound by such bourgouis conventions.

                1. The New UK Youth Ethos: straight out of a Gerald Kersh novel. Lovely.

  47. The Premeirship starts next week. That should either distract most of the looters or else organize the riots into a sceduled whirlwind tour of destruction and mayhem based on where ever the biggest matches are being played.

    1. I vote the latter. OT: How many people WOULD the hooligans have to kill before the EPL cancelled a match?

      1. I’d think if it were one of the bigger derbies it would have to break a hundred.

    2. No such luck:

      http://uk.news.yahoo.com/battl…..16026.html

    3. Tomorrow’s England game is in London (now canceled).

  48. This is what happens when you tell people from birth that they have a “right” to a job and a “right” to social security.

    Let’s face it, if you’ve been made to believe from infancy that these things are human rights, the only thing you can realize now, is that the government and the market is violating your human rights. Then the violence commences.

    This is what happens when the ‘left’ redistributes from the rich to the poor, and the ‘right’ redistributes from the poor to the rich, by bailing out the scumbags that should be bankrupt right now.

    This is socialism, and socialism eventually leads to violence.

    1. rioting (as a national past time) certainly seems to be more popular in Europe – sure, we’ve had our fair share of ’em in the states – but the Euros easily convulse into riot-mode.

      Is this part of the European model that our progressive friends want to import?

  49. The funniest defense is from left wingers who blame this on inequality/capitalism. So all those decades after WW2 when Britain was implementing its social democracy did not occur ???

    1. Like the US stimulus, it just wasn’t enough! Krugman warned us about it in 1945, while still in his father’s diseased nutsack.

      1. I eagerly await Krugabe’s take on this. I think it will be almost as good as the platitudes and mixed metaphors that Friedman will use.

        1. Friedman will probably try some sort of “The last time I was in The Tube, this girl told me that” story that will sound suspiciously like the plot of An American Werewolf In London, but the Werewolf is austerity or something

      2. Would I make a great name for a punk metal band, or what…?

    2. Didn’t you get the memo?

      Maggie “milk snatcher” Thatcher stole it all back.

      Just like Ronnie Reagan cancelled the New Deal.

  50. Now here’s a headline you just have to love –

    Parliament recalled to tackle riots

    I want a front row seat to that!

    1. Derp!

    2. Just heard this on the radio. Hopefully they are issued cricket bats.

  51. Well, DAX down 3-4%, Hang Seng down 5-6% and the S&P futures slightly up. Lets hope the people buying in on the way down can soften what will most likely be another shitty day. And we get to see how our first round of treasury auctions goes post downgrade. What fun!!

  52. I’m a little amused by all the commentary out there blaming the London riots on social services cuts.

    Even post-cuts, British social services are absurdly generous by US standards.

    Apparently, young people in London have lost hope because university now costs 5 quid instead of a handful of belly button lint.

    So now we can safely conclude that even if we had universal free health care, a generous dole, and dirt cheap higher education opportunities, fuckers would still riot because of the dire hopelessness of it all.

    That means that when any American recommends any of the above social programs as an antidote to the “hopelessness” of urban youth, they’re full of shit.

    1. I think the lesson here is that the only winning move is not to play the social services game at all, since the minute you cut anything fuckers will riot.

      1. +1 to that. While the well-meaning “We need to give da poor yoots more social services and benefits!” sounds helpful, in the long run it just teaches people that sitting around and whining is more expected and more profitable than working.

      2. Most educated liberals understand, better than the proles, that indiscriminately feeding wild animals can actually lead to disrupted ecosystems, overpopulation, dependence on artificial food sources, disease, and greater starvation later.

        Most liberals understand, better than the average conservative, that humans are animals, not divine special snowflakes.

        I think the problem is that most liberals can’t complete a syllogism when cognitive dissonance is in the way.

      3. No, I think the lesson here is to repeatedly implement small scale social programs, then cut them, then bring the hammer down on those that riot. That way, you get to identify and deal with the bad apples before there are too many to really do anything about it.

    2. The whole university thing is hilarious.

      The yobs that got trotted out for those protests couldn’t get admitted to a university if there lives depended on it.

      Anyone trying to prove a case for the superiority of the white races would do well to not show any samples of the English welfare classes.

    3. Even post-cuts, British social services are absurdly generous by US standards.

      Were these really cuts, or just reductions in the rate of growth?

  53. I’m a little pissed off that oil fell to almost 75 over night but then bounced back to 81.

    Fuck you, oil longs! DIAF!

    I’ve never delighted more in a market decline where I wasn’t personally short.

    1. Wait for the bounce this week and then go in short. Their salty tears are so yummy.

  54. If America survived Richard Nixon, America can survive Barack Obama.

    1. Let me be clear: this sounds like a bet. You’re on!

    2. Unfortunately, the damage Nixon did is still earning interest. Obama is just doubling down on his failed policies.

  55. BTW:

    Is there some reason that Philly minority flash mobs can riot once a week with absolutely NO national media coverage, but the same media can decide this London shit is a big deal?

    1. Is a portion of their population made up of horses?

      1. SILENCE!

    2. Is there some reason that Philly minority flash mobs can riot once a week with absolutely NO national media coverage

      It be raciss.

      1. You’ve got an interesting country over there: since when did horses stage flash mobs?

  56. Thats like the coolest thing I have ever heard dude. WOw.

    http://www.anon-web.it.tc

  57. Folks, it could always get worse. To the point of sexual assault and homicide. We haven’t seen how bad Britain can get yet.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.