Robert Taylor They're not effective at their intended goal, but they are effective at what I mentioned in the article: keeping an eye on us, their source of revenue. That is the point of the program. If the us gov really wanted to fight terrorism, it'd stop participating in it first and foremost
Robert Taylor Nope. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/12/nsa-surveillance-data-terror-attack You ever notice that anytime our wise overlords are exposed violating our rights and the Constitution, they use fear to justify it? I'm sorry you bought the propaganda. But given how frequently this has happened -- and how it will likely continue -- you are running out of excuses.
Robert Taylor Manning didn't put a single soldier in harms way, the us government did and does by fighting aggressive wars and putting them in situations that break them. Manning DID try to go up the chain of command with the war crimes he saw, and they said shut up and keep quiet. Nyt, wapo ignored him, so he went to wiki leaks. I honor anyone who puts their lives on the line, but soldiers are not killing and dying for us but for political and corporate interests that also harm our liberty and prosperity. The usg should be put against the wall and shot, not manning
Robert Taylor My last comment was responding to Dave Hein but it could go for you too Mike. If you would like to see Manning caged so badly, would you actually do it yourself? I mean literally and physically. You call for violence, force, and chains for someone not convicted of a crime and in my opinion a HERO, do you think you have a right to deny him his natural rights to innocent before guilty, fair trial, etc? If not, what gives the state, made up of people just like you, the right to do that? It's sad that Manning and Snowden did what they did for you and all Americans, yet too many wonder why he hasn't been disappeared by the lawless government you love and prefer to transparency and liberty.
Robert Taylor Seriously? I am highly suspicious of government claims that the NSA program thwarted two terrorist attacks. First of all, virtually every single "foiled attack" has been a sting operation by the FBI, and even if it were the case, does that justify essentially suspending the 4th Amendment? A camera in every house might stop child/spousal abuse as well. Terrorism is also a reflection and consequence of our interventionist foreign policy. Stopping terrorism here requires us to stop committing terrorism overseas. Traitor is someone who "aids the enemy," and in this case you are right. Snowden aided the American people and liberty-lovers everywhere in their fight against secrecy and militarism. Manning too.
Robert Taylor Karen, I was a little shocked when I saw that post on LRC. Plagiarism? Well I wanted to do this piece because I saw an interview with Brown from the TMC on copblock.org and this Reason.com piece http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/09/spontaneous-order-experiments-take-hold which lead to me the DBC. I gave a couple good friends from Detroit who sent me links/examples of how this is working there, none of them yours. I can see how you think I plagiarized, but why would I? I've written over 100 articles for PM without doing that. I'm not going to disagree that this piece is horrid trash, but it's my own sloppy trash.
Robert Taylor Great point, Mike. Governments are entities that claim a monopoly on the use of violence in a geographic region, so long as these guys don't ban competitors then they are not governments. I defend the market as providing the most checks and balances, decentralization against another government taking over and providing the strongest possible incentives against it. Not that it wouldn't happen of course, but the incentive structure makes it less likely. What I do know for sure that is that the only answer to that question that doesn't make sense is...setting up a government! It's like, how do we know a new cancer won't take over after? Well, we don't, but that doesn't mean we can't fight like hell to remove that cancer now.
Robert Taylor Thanks for that great point Swathi. I only used the comparison to SF MUNI for a bit of hyperbole and as an example between the differences of government and the market. I hope the DBC continues to grow and can provide more access and service!
Robert Taylor I can't disagree with the premise at all. But I think it is a mistake to say that millenials are just cynical and frustrated with Obama, it's Republicans too. You mention Obamacare, but what about the coercive government healthcare that the Republicans passed back in 2003? Also, Romney's campaign was "repeal and replace." Republicare, Obamacare, what's the difference? Obama's policies have failed, but they are not his per se. Central banking, monetizing debt, fractional-reserve banking, stimulus, corporatism; these are established economic policies that are bipartisan. Former Congressman Ron Paul had HUGE millenial support, but perhaps it's because he represents the antithesis to what your party stands for is why the GOP never seems to grasp the answer on what millenials want. The problem is philosophical: what the role of government is and sould be in a free society; neither party has any clue where to begin to answer that question that is consistent with millenial, or American values
Robert Taylor HAHA I didn't forget about Clinton's terrorism, just for the sake of brevity I only listed U.S. aggression for the last ten years or so. If we want to play this game, it is sad that people forget thta for ten years prior to 9/11, the U.S. stationed troops and bases in Mecca and Media and blockaded and bombed Iraq every three days, resulting in the deaths of 500,000 CHILDREN. 9/11 was a predictable blowback from this. The U.S. used to be seen very positively by Muslims since we were the first country to kick out the British Empire; now we're the Empire, propping up their dictators, initiating coups, sanctions and war. I don't ignore any "Caliphate," I oppose root and branch the "Caliphate" of U.S. hegemony. You sound like the guys who wrote the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but in this case it's Islam. There is an entire industry in this country dedicated to spreading fear over Muslims. I am sorry you have fallen for it.
Robert Taylor Yes the U.S. does target civilians, that is part of any and all war. I mentioned sanctions in the article which are deliberately meant to affect civilians to achieve political ends, the definition of terrorism. Also, I should have mentioned the U.S. policy of drone "double-taps" where after a strike, the U.S. will bomb the first responders or a wedding/funeral deliberately killing civilians to achieve political ends. Again, terrorism. http://www.policymic.com/articles/21070/predator-drone-double-taps-highlight-possible-war-crimes-by-obama
Robert Taylor Yes, the U.S. does target civilians, that is part of any war. Other than the aforementioned sanctions I mentioned in the article -- a policy meant to deliberately destroy civilian life to achieve political ends -- there is the drone policy of "double-taps" where first responders and funerals/weddings are attacked http://www.policymic.com/articles/21070/predator-drone-double-taps-highlight-possible-war-crimes-by-obama
Robert Taylor I criticize the US government because I do not feel it is a sane foreign policy to fund, arm, and train opposition groups around the world, especially crazy jihadis in Syria. What about the governments the US supports that stifle opposition and committ war crimes? And the US didn't "make mistakes," it was the intentional policy to support strongmen. I don't take issue with stopping a leader from killing his own people, but the US government is the last tool to use in this goal. You think the violence will stop when the Marines show up?? I am concerned with stopping the terrorism, war crimes, torture and other horrible things done by the US. It's easy to critcize other governments, it's like criticizing crimes from the 18th century. And if "Killing its own people" is grounds for intervention, Waco, Ruby Ridge and many other incidents of violence committed by the US against Americans deserve foreign intervention no?
Robert Taylor I'm noticing a lot of comments that Manning is a "traitor" and personal attacks on him. What about the politicians, who take an oath to the Constitution, that lie us into war and pass laws that violate it? Also, treason is the only crime mentioned in the Constitution, defining it as waging war against the states, giving the enemy aid and comfort, and that no one can be convicted without two witnesses. I don't think the definition fits. Also, great people throughout history have been labeled "traitors" and "enemies of the state." The Americans were British traitors, the abolitionists, MLK, etc. As Augustine said, an unjust law is no law at all! It is so frustrating that many would rather shoot the messenger than deal with the reality that their government kills, sponsors torture, commits war crimes, lies to them and knows that millions will defend it when a mirror is held up to it. Sad, truly sad.
Robert Taylor I am not arguing that we don't need security, only that the TSA should not be in charge. Like hotels, armored trucks carrying cash deposits, and other private businesses, let the market handle security. In this case, the airlines themselves. To make the argument that the TSA is there because of 9/11 is reversing cause and effect. Notice how the government attempts to implement these measures AFTER the attack. And as I argued in the article, our "terrorism" problem is a direct result/blacklash of our foreign policy of intervention and empire. Stop the wars, drones, subsidization of police states, sanctions, and other acts of aggression (and terrorism!), and the need for the TSA vanishes.
Robert Taylor I do deplore it! And you are right, Wal-Mart hasn't supported its increase in years, but can you see why they would in the first place? It is a non-market way to cut competitors off at the knees. They might not be vocally supporting a $9 min. wage, but if it was passed, they would restructure a tiny bit and move on and take a bigger share of the market. They can absorb the costs of regulation, paperwork, mandates; most other companies can't. Wal-Mart, like any other business, is always looking to cut costs and increase profitability. In a freed market, this means innovating. In our corporatist, this means looking to the state and institutions like ALEC. It's a shame they exist. Also, I am sure you have heard of "eminent domain" being used to kick private citizens out and put big corporations in? The justification is always "tax revenue." It happened in the small town I grew up in. Shameful.
Robert Taylor Good points, Susan. But I don't think it's an either/or thing. Wal-Mart HAS publicly supported the state increasing the "minimum wage" for obvious reasons as well as used ALEC to gain favorable policies where they go. Both are forms of corporatism that I, or anyone that supports a free economy and the rule of law, should oppose. I think it's a distinction without a difference.
Robert Taylor Great points Frank. I am very aware the state will not stop regulating marriage anytime soon, so while we're stuck with gay couples should receive the same rights immediately. But I think you overstate how difficult it would be without state control for marriage to function; contract law is very workable without the state. Besides, contracts are voluntary and consensual while the state uses the threat of force, it seems illogical that such an institution should be in charge of regulating contracts.