3: Xeno's understanding of what an "equilibrium" is is fundamentally flawed.

Closed-Spam

After reviewing the matter with other moderators, I'm going to rescind my stance and allow the discussion due to extenuating circumstances within the thread.  That being said, I'm going to clean up the debate about the debate here, because the issue's been discussed and dealt with then.  (Although I'm leaving one of xeno's posts because the associated links seem to be on-topic and useful in advancing the actual discussion at hand).

Carry on!

[EDIT: Rules discussion, mentioned below]

Checked to verify RareUK was correct

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2vGYLC87gU

Like this?

Perhaps she's actually praying to Santa Clause.

Consider this a warning, Arby.

If it was the will of the players, why would you need or even want moderators to force the action on those who may possibly not have the same will which "the players" have?

Back on topic, there is a good reason why, in the context of our discussion, it's not sufficient to simply say "the system is broken."  Whether you ask me, Flint, Undeath, Noam Chomsky, or you, most all of us will have some parts of the economy, politics, or cultural aspect of the society which we find deficient.  However, the extent of the "deficiency" determines how "broke" the system is.  If my problem, for example, is that the banking sector is not properly regulated, that isn't indicative of an "insane" system.  If I'm right, it simply means better policy is needed because the change can be exacted while keeping the large portion of that society intact.  In contrast, a radical Marxist may place the blame fundamentally on the nature of capitalism.  If that stance were true, the system would be "insane."

THAT should be the fundamental difference of this debate.  Just saying "there are problems in the world" is insufficient, particularly if all we are left with is an innocuous method of determining exactly what those problems are.  The real debate should be on the extent of those problems, and whether we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

Actually, looking back, I will apologize for the comment, simply because, given the context, the comment upon which my interpretation stood could be interpreted two different ways.

Absent a subject in the first sentence, that sentence could be interpreted one of two ways.  It could be you comparing your stance to Kemp's stance.  Alternatively, it could be your comparison of what you believed to be the linked video's opinion to Kemp's opinion.  Either way, the result is a simple misunderstanding.

That being said, I'd suggest we both make efforts to ensure it is undeniably clear what we are talking about in our posts.  About 60% of this thread has become parties misinterpreting on another.  At this rate, it won't matter if the system's insane because we'll all be driven insane independent of that system. 

Case in point 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JFfN5pKzFU

1: You did not disavow yourself from their approach until AFTER I corrected you. Until then, you interpreted what they said as equal to your opinion, and attempted to CORRECT me in my interpretation of their solution!  Evidenced from the above quote.  So yes, you're full of triceratops shit on this.

2: They outright REJECT much of your thesis.  The particular problems they are citing with "the system" aren't near the problems you are citing with "the system."  Even if you have the same enemy, their allies are ALSO your enemies.  Just because they say something is wrong with parts of "the system," their statements are simultaneously fundamental rejections of your thesis of larger problems in the society.  You have to answer those before you can claim your sanity.

Moreover, you just can't pick and separate problem diagnosis and solution.  They reject parts of the status quo specifically due to their ideological backgrounds.  Absent ideology, no frame of reference exists from which to identify problems.  In this case, their problem is "the system is diverting away from free market capitalism."  So identification of "the problem" in

3: Stop wasting our damn time.  I watched an hour and a half long video there under YOUR recommendation when I should have been sleeping, then spent my time posting here and going through your replies because YOU were unclear about parts of the video you were affirming and parts you were disavowing.  If you're going to post a link, make an argument, etc., please specify what you're agreeing with and what you aren't at the time you post the video.  You're the only one who knows what's going on in that brain whose sanity is being questioned as we speak, so you have to tell us what said brain is thinking for this to be remotely useful.  Otherwise, I have every right to respond by posting 100 links to basically whatever.  "Oh, sorry, I was agreeing with the word 'the.'"

4: Your links from Fresco don't actually say shit about what he's actually proposing.  I saw a bunch of two-sentence snippets, and citation of bad things like war and prisons.