On June 28 2010 08:41 Draconicfire wrote: Probally the best picture from the protest.
LOL???!!? It's so random it's funny! omg I LOL'd Can't wait to see the G20's bill after this.
It won't change much? The government already said a while back that they weren't going to provide coverage for any loss of business or destruction of property caused by the summit.
werid as that should be part of the 1 billion, to cover any collateral damage causing during the summit, else i can't see why a mayor of any city would allow it to be hosted there.
Shit like this always brings protesters and some call rioting protesting.
It's amazing that the government spending something like 1.2 billion and they're not even covering for damages done to property. There's just no real good explanation for why this is costing so much money. The current Canadian government is pretty much the worst that's been in the 9 years I've lived here.
Also, my cousin is currently kettled in by riot police, rofl. He texted me a little while ago telling me that he and some other protesters have been caged by a perimeter of police for some hours.
On June 28 2010 09:31 Biff The Understudy wrote: I don't want to be mean, but I don't think economist are the best people to talk about capitalism as a whole. It seems contradictory, but my point is that economic sciences work, from what I know, in the capitalist coordinates.
I would rather refer to philosophers if you really want to discuss if capitalism is a good thing or a pathological system.
Oh, also, about Yurebis. Saying that "taxation is stolen property" or that "state aka force" is so fucking gross that I don't really know what to say about it. It was supposed to be a serious discussion.
Obligatory libertarian comment, and it's true. Can one not pay taxes? Economics is the science of human choice. Of course economists who are private property advocates can vouch it as the best means of x (production, peace, making burgers, whatever ends. except maybe, violating private property. that would be contradictory.)
Sorry but economics is the science which treats of wealth production and distribution in the capitalist society, period.
There is no science of human choice. You have 2500 years of philosophers discussing if there is such thing as a choice at all, and believe me, with a bit more insight that this obscure reasonment about private property.
Replace "choice" with "picking that which one finds best at a certain point in time". Can one choose capitalism over socialism? If so, then socialism can also be economically evaluated. Not through a price system of course, but as long as man can see two things and pick the best one to his ends, then there can be economics in that there's always going to be different things he can do.
Replace"picking that which one finds best at a certain point in time" by "self interest". And then you start to see that you have quite a fucking huge philosophical problem at the very root of capitalism.
Socialism cannot be evaluated economically for two reasons which go together: 1- Because it doesn't make any sense to evaluate a system with tool designed by and advocating naturally another system. 2- Because socialism is built on the whole idea that there are more important things than the wealth you produce (like justice and equality for example).
This is precisely why Marx created Political Economy.
I would advise you to read Lenin to understand about that problem, and the reason why Trotsky was against the concept of "Socialism in one country" (which leads to economical confrontation which has to be in te detriment of socialism).
Now, I don't advocate socialism and especially not in the autoritarian form it has taken in the XXth century. The fact is, socialism as it has been experienced is the exact opposite of the stateless communist society that Marx was aiming for.
It doesn't matter the ends (self-interest or outside of oneself), I said whatever ends you wish. They can be economically evaluated. And for those ends, you can evaluate what means are better. Those ends could be "justice, equality". Is there something that is so important to man yet so abstract that he cannot evaluate or consider? How do you choose socialism over capitalism then? Is that not a performative contradiction? "You cannot choose socialism over capitalism but I choose socialism over capitalism"? Oh sorry, I read that you *did* prefer socialism.
Sorry but I just fail to understand what you are saying.
You seem to mix up the plain question of judgement (what you call evaluating) with economics which makes no sense at all.
The reason why I chose a system over another is a philosophical question which has certainly nothing to do with economics as a science. Unless you want to make economics a science of judgement? Doesn't make any sense neither.
And you read badly. If I had to define myself, I would rather stick to the word communist in its original meaning than socialism.
On June 28 2010 09:31 Biff The Understudy wrote: I don't want to be mean, but I don't think economist are the best people to talk about capitalism as a whole. It seems contradictory, but my point is that economic sciences work, from what I know, in the capitalist coordinates.
I would rather refer to philosophers if you really want to discuss if capitalism is a good thing or a pathological system.
Oh, also, about Yurebis. Saying that "taxation is stolen property" or that "state aka force" is so fucking gross that I don't really know what to say about it. It was supposed to be a serious discussion.
Obligatory libertarian comment, and it's true. Can one not pay taxes? Economics is the science of human choice. Of course economists who are private property advocates can vouch it as the best means of x (production, peace, making burgers, whatever ends. except maybe, violating private property. that would be contradictory.)
Sorry but economics is the science which treats of wealth production and distribution in the capitalist society, period.
There is no science of human choice. You have 2500 years of philosophers discussing if there is such thing as a choice at all, and believe me, with a bit more insight that this obscure reasonment about private property.
Replace "choice" with "picking that which one finds best at a certain point in time". Can one choose capitalism over socialism? If so, then socialism can also be economically evaluated. Not through a price system of course, but as long as man can see two things and pick the best one to his ends, then there can be economics in that there's always going to be different things he can do.
Replace"picking that which one finds best at a certain point in time" by "self interest". And then you start to see that you have quite a fucking huge philosophical problem at the very root of capitalism.
Socialism cannot be evaluated economically for two reasons which go together: 1- Because it doesn't make any sense to evaluate a system with tool designed by and advocating naturally another system. 2- Because socialism is built on the whole idea that there are more important things than the wealth you produce (like justice and equality for example).
This is precisely why Marx created Political Economy.
I would advise you to read Lenin to understand about that problem, and the reason why Trotsky was against the concept of "Socialism in one country" (which leads to economical confrontation which has to be in te detriment of socialism).
Now, I don't advocate socialism and especially not in the autoritarian form it has taken in the XXth century. The fact is, socialism as it has been experienced is the exact opposite of the stateless communist society that Marx was aiming for.
It doesn't matter the ends (self-interest or outside of oneself), I said whatever ends you wish. They can be economically evaluated. And for those ends, you can evaluate what means are better. Those ends could be "justice, equality". Is there something that is so important to man yet so abstract that he cannot evaluate or consider? How do you choose socialism over capitalism then? Is that not a performative contradiction? "You cannot choose socialism over capitalism but I choose socialism over capitalism"? Oh sorry, I read that you *did* prefer socialism.
Sorry but I just fail to understand what you are saying.
You seem to mix up the plain question of judgement (what you call evaluating) with economics which makes no sense at all.
The reason why I chose a system over another is a philosophical question which has certainly nothing to do with economics as a science. Unless you want to make economics a science of judgement? Doesn't make any sense neither.
And you read badly. If I had to define myself, I would rather stick to the word communist in its original meaning than socialism.
It's called praxeology. I'm sorry for confusing you, but it is the basis of Austrian economics. Have you not chosen communism over capitalism because you value communism more than capitalism for your chosen ends? It's not an economical question in the common sense, in that there's no money or barter involved. But it's still a choice over two courses of action. Not that unlike choosing an HDTV. With that, I'll stop pestering you. I'll open a thread someday.
On June 28 2010 09:31 Biff The Understudy wrote: I don't want to be mean, but I don't think economist are the best people to talk about capitalism as a whole. It seems contradictory, but my point is that economic sciences work, from what I know, in the capitalist coordinates.
I would rather refer to philosophers if you really want to discuss if capitalism is a good thing or a pathological system.
Oh, also, about Yurebis. Saying that "taxation is stolen property" or that "state aka force" is so fucking gross that I don't really know what to say about it. It was supposed to be a serious discussion.
Obligatory libertarian comment, and it's true. Can one not pay taxes? Economics is the science of human choice. Of course economists who are private property advocates can vouch it as the best means of x (production, peace, making burgers, whatever ends. except maybe, violating private property. that would be contradictory.)
Sorry but economics is the science which treats of wealth production and distribution in the capitalist society, period.
There is no science of human choice. You have 2500 years of philosophers discussing if there is such thing as a choice at all, and believe me, with a bit more insight that this obscure reasonment about private property.
Replace "choice" with "picking that which one finds best at a certain point in time". Can one choose capitalism over socialism? If so, then socialism can also be economically evaluated. Not through a price system of course, but as long as man can see two things and pick the best one to his ends, then there can be economics in that there's always going to be different things he can do.
Replace"picking that which one finds best at a certain point in time" by "self interest". And then you start to see that you have quite a fucking huge philosophical problem at the very root of capitalism.
Socialism cannot be evaluated economically for two reasons which go together: 1- Because it doesn't make any sense to evaluate a system with tool designed by and advocating naturally another system. 2- Because socialism is built on the whole idea that there are more important things than the wealth you produce (like justice and equality for example).
This is precisely why Marx created Political Economy.
I would advise you to read Lenin to understand about that problem, and the reason why Trotsky was against the concept of "Socialism in one country" (which leads to economical confrontation which has to be in te detriment of socialism).
Now, I don't advocate socialism and especially not in the autoritarian form it has taken in the XXth century. The fact is, socialism as it has been experienced is the exact opposite of the stateless communist society that Marx was aiming for.
It doesn't matter the ends (self-interest or outside of oneself), I said whatever ends you wish. They can be economically evaluated. And for those ends, you can evaluate what means are better. Those ends could be "justice, equality". Is there something that is so important to man yet so abstract that he cannot evaluate or consider? How do you choose socialism over capitalism then? Is that not a performative contradiction? "You cannot choose socialism over capitalism but I choose socialism over capitalism"? Oh sorry, I read that you *did* prefer socialism.
Sorry but I just fail to understand what you are saying.
You seem to mix up the plain question of judgement (what you call evaluating) with economics which makes no sense at all.
The reason why I chose a system over another is a philosophical question which has certainly nothing to do with economics as a science. Unless you want to make economics a science of judgement? Doesn't make any sense neither.
And you read badly. If I had to define myself, I would rather stick to the word communist in its original meaning than socialism.
It's called praxeology. I'm sorry for confusing you, but it is the basis of Austrian economics. Have you not chosen communism over capitalism because you value communism more than capitalism for your chosen ends? It's not an economical question in the common sense, in that there's no money or barter involved. But it's still a choice over two courses of action. Not that unlike choosing an HDTV. With that, I'll stop pestering you. I'll open a thread someday.
That seems interesting for the least. I need to read about it sometimes although I don't particularly like Economics generally.
Open a thread when you have time, I will definitly have a look.
Update: Here's what I'm understanding so far from the current situation in downtown Toronto. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
A couple hours ago there was a small scale protest around Queen and Spadina Ave. Witnesses say there were only about 30 or so protesters though right now it's hard to say. Among them were about 100+(?) or so people following the protest and taking pictures and stuff, and 300 to 600+(?) locals, pedestrians, and random people passing by. The police told the media (like, a handful of reporters) that they were going to blockade the area from all sides and close in on the intersection. There was even mention of using teargas and pellet/rubber bullet guns (though this didn't happen).
Within a couple minutes the police blocked all exits and began marching from the North, West and East. They gave the people there a minute notice to get out (which was impossible since they blocked all the exits) and then started arresting people. The protesters were taken away within the first 30 minutes but the police continued to handcuff (using plastic tie handcuffs) everyone in sight and march them into a corral.
Note: all this time there has been a severe storm warning for the Greater Toronto Area. There was a thunderstorm in the afternoon for a while.
People were lined up to be "processed" and were marched onto buses to be sent to the eastern detention center. There weren't many buses going through the area, so many people ended up being stranded out in the rain for hours on end. (at the time I'm writing this people have been there for over 5 and a half hours). Almost all of the pedestrians were not prepared for the rain, so we had guys in shorts and t-shirts and girls in skirts, sleeveless, and tank tops getting drenched in the pouring rain, freezing. (CP24 news channel got many shots of people shivering in the cold)
The victims would get frisked, all their belongings removed from them to be checked (then placed in a plastic bag they weren't allowed to open) and released. This process would take anywhere from a couple minutes to hours depending on how lucky you were (?).
There was also an interview of a woman who got detained from yesterday's protest. She said that she was detained for 22 hours. The environment they were kept was described as "cages". Metal fencing bolted to a concrete floor. Cages were sorted by level of threat. The people detained were mostly young woman. All the cage guards were male police officers who laughed at and taunted them as "rats in cages". Most of the women were not given water, food, nor medical attention. The interviewed woman got 3 styrofoam cups of dirty water and 2 small sandwiches. There is only one toilet per cage which is exposed to everyone. The women had to form a semicircle around the toilet to prevent male officers from watching them pee. No one was told why they were arrested and how long they would have to stay. When the interviewee was released, an officer simply said "don't protest anymore". There was also mention of "boxes" where prisoners that resisted would be placed inside coffin sized wooden boxes (labelled A1, A2, A3,... and so on).
Just now, about 15 minutes ago, the 150 or so people trapped at Queen and Spadina were allowed to be released due to overflow at the detention center (plus the obvious reason that none of them were causing any trouble). Also, locals watching the news live were coming over to the exit of the detention center and handing out tetrapack juiceboxes and snacks to the dazed people coming out.
(Again, this is off the top of my head so it might not be entirely accurate)
edit: There was also mention of people walking their dogs and the dogs being left in the rain without their owners, and random 12 year old and 14 year old kids passing by getting caught as well.
The tactical change Sunday saw protesters, pedestrians and even journalists searched at the whim of police, especially those dressed in black.
"I was in a cell with joggers who were jogging by and arrested, and they spent 16 hours in there," said Matthew Beatty, an observer who was arrested Saturday night outside a Toronto hotel.
On June 28 2010 01:08 travis wrote: I know I am a few pages too late due to going to bed, but if it's been proven that the police go undercover to try to incite riot in the midst of peaceful protestors - doesn't that suggest conspiracy of a high caliber?
The orders to do that must come from high up, right? What would the police theirselves stand to lose by letting the protesters protest?
Maybe what I am saying is obvious. I am just surprised more people aren't outraged / incredibly disgusted by it.
Not enough people even know that they do it. They find people who are willing to do some damage, egg them on (and sometimes even contribute), then they're the strange random few who get "arrested" first (to protect them without blowing their cover) before the main forces move in to arrest a ton of people.
On June 28 2010 11:44 kaisen wrote: canadian riot police needs a lesson or two from korean riot guards.
Turn an area of the capital into a fortress and commit petty brutality? If Canada's police turn into how the Koreans are then they take a huge step backwards.
My heart goes out to all my recently made friends in toronto. 2 weeks ago we were having the time of our lives at bonnaroo, and now you're going through hell. I hope everyone there is okay.
Jesus christ, is anyone else watching the news? CBC is trying to make it seem like all the protesters are violent anarchists that are trying to break down the Canadian society and are painting the leaders taking part in the summit as courageous heroes and the police as victims.
\o/
Canada - taking lessons from our neighbours in the south.
On June 28 2010 08:41 Draconicfire wrote: Probally the best picture from the protest.
LOL???!!? It's so random it's funny! omg I LOL'd Can't wait to see the G20's bill after this.
It won't change much? The government already said a while back that they weren't going to provide coverage for any loss of business or destruction of property caused by the summit.
werid as that should be part of the 1 billion, to cover any collateral damage causing during the summit, else i can't see why a mayor of any city would allow it to be hosted there.
Shit like this always brings protesters and some call rioting protesting.
It's amazing that the government spending something like 1.2 billion and they're not even covering for damages done to property. There's just no real good explanation for why this is costing so much money. The current Canadian government is pretty much the worst that's been in the 9 years I've lived here.
Also, my cousin is currently kettled in by riot police, rofl. He texted me a little while ago telling me that he and some other protesters have been caged by a perimeter of police for some hours.
You have to stop looking at this 1.2 billion. It's not like Canada has to pay this much for every summit. The meeting changes places and different country foot the bills. If you divide up the 1.2 billion to how many times you have the summit, it's nothing!
Besides the reason for the high cost of security is due to these anarchy idiots. If summit is always peaceful with little protest, I doubt the cost will be this high. They also want to show to the general public about the meeting, not hosting in some remote military bases or island, that will just make people thinks what is these countries cooking up, and delivery the wrong message.
On June 28 2010 08:41 Draconicfire wrote: Probally the best picture from the protest.
LOL???!!? It's so random it's funny! omg I LOL'd Can't wait to see the G20's bill after this.
It won't change much? The government already said a while back that they weren't going to provide coverage for any loss of business or destruction of property caused by the summit.
werid as that should be part of the 1 billion, to cover any collateral damage causing during the summit, else i can't see why a mayor of any city would allow it to be hosted there.
Shit like this always brings protesters and some call rioting protesting.
It's amazing that the government spending something like 1.2 billion and they're not even covering for damages done to property. There's just no real good explanation for why this is costing so much money. The current Canadian government is pretty much the worst that's been in the 9 years I've lived here.
Also, my cousin is currently kettled in by riot police, rofl. He texted me a little while ago telling me that he and some other protesters have been caged by a perimeter of police for some hours.
You have to stop looking at this 1.2 billion. It's not like Canada has to pay this much for every summit. The meeting changes places and different country foot the bills. If you divide up the 1.2 billion to how many times you have the summit, it's nothing!
Besides the reason for the high cost of security is due to these anarchy idiots. If summit is always peaceful with little protest, I doubt the cost will be this high. They also want to show to the general public about the meeting, not hosting in some remote military bases or island, that will just make people thinks what is these countries cooking up, and delivery the wrong message.
Then why not have it broadcasted while taking place on an island or something.. Not in the middle of of one Canada's biggest cities.. wtf :< They wouldn't have had to pay as much for security ..
On June 28 2010 08:41 Draconicfire wrote: Probally the best picture from the protest.
LOL???!!? It's so random it's funny! omg I LOL'd Can't wait to see the G20's bill after this.
It won't change much? The government already said a while back that they weren't going to provide coverage for any loss of business or destruction of property caused by the summit.
werid as that should be part of the 1 billion, to cover any collateral damage causing during the summit, else i can't see why a mayor of any city would allow it to be hosted there.
Shit like this always brings protesters and some call rioting protesting.
It's amazing that the government spending something like 1.2 billion and they're not even covering for damages done to property. There's just no real good explanation for why this is costing so much money. The current Canadian government is pretty much the worst that's been in the 9 years I've lived here.
Also, my cousin is currently kettled in by riot police, rofl. He texted me a little while ago telling me that he and some other protesters have been caged by a perimeter of police for some hours.
You have to stop looking at this 1.2 billion. It's not like Canada has to pay this much for every summit. The meeting changes places and different country foot the bills. If you divide up the 1.2 billion to how many times you have the summit, it's nothing!
Besides the reason for the high cost of security is due to these anarchy idiots. If summit is always peaceful with little protest, I doubt the cost will be this high. They also want to show to the general public about the meeting, not hosting in some remote military bases or island, that will just make people thinks what is these countries cooking up, and delivery the wrong message.
Prior summits also had these "anarchy idiots" and the security costs were nowhere near the same. There is seriously no way for the government to rationalize the expenses. It is completely senseless. Delegates from other nations have been saying that the security spending is completely overboard. Even the spending outside of the security has been completely frivolous in some areas. The politicians deserve to burn for this.
wtf is this... People sitting down and police running over, hitting people with their sticks and spraying them... Is this a prison or Canada...?? Also video above was...wow..^^
EPT![[image loading]](http://torontoist.com/attachments/toronto_david/515pm-20100627-drost-062710-BAYRICHMOND_515p2.jpg)
Not liking these new tactics.
