You absolutely CAN compare meat to fracking. Both are legitmate business practices (regardless if you condone fracking or not it is not illegal) and therefore deserving of the same protections under the law. So, Ms. Vera and her sick, twisted, vile activities can and should go elsewhere.

As for your assertion that constitutional rights be protected, so I am guessing that if you are rich you have essentially traded your constitutional rights for all that wealth? The idea that rich automatically = evil is one twisted world view IMHO.

Fracking has no more adverse health effects than any other risky industry. In fact out of most of the current ways we get our energy it is one of the more safe ways of extracting energy products and the technique has actually been in use since the 1940s. With disingenuos claims made by films like Gasland (remember that flamable tap water stunt which is a naturally occring phenomenon that happens even in the absence of fracking) make wild innacurate and blatantly false claims the hysteria is getting out of control and the loony wing of environmentalism won't be happy until we are back to the stone ages. Hell, even then they won't want us burning wood for heat and light as many places around the US are even considering wood burning bans for that very same reason.

Fracking has the risk of environmental damage so why can't we develop cleaner and renewable sources instead? I don't know what loony enviromentalists you are talking about. But to maintain our current standard of living, we need to be as sustainable as possible. That doesn't mean restricting the economy, it means tapping into the creative side of capitalism which allowed the industrial revolution innovation possible. 

Also, the rich aren't necessarily evil they are just more careless than the rest of us. There wealth has just disconnected them from the rest of us. 

Finally, nothing wrong with burning wood to keep warm. Just remember to plant a new tree to replace you chopped down. 

It simply is not true that fracking is somehow overtly damaging to the environment. No more so than mining for the precious metals used to build all our precious electronic devices or cars or homes ironicly all of which need power whioch is produced by fracking and natural gas and oil and coal and even solar and wind solutions need mined materials that are extracted from the earth.

This idea of sustainable is so over used and misconstrued to mean that we will never extract resources from the earth and that we'll build wind and solar devices that will power us forever and well all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

We are finding new sources of natural gas and shale oil all the time. Besides the energy produced form fracking is even cleaner than straight up oil or coal.

The loons I talk about are people like Ms. Vera. Or the countless others who would have us ban, cutting down trees, coal mining, nuclear energy, the internal combustion engine for electric cars (even though those electric cars need a source of energy most likely derived from coal, oil or nuclear sources), oil drilling, diggin holes, stealing peoples property for endangered frogs or insects (seriously how can insects be endangered), protest eating of meat while protesting GMO produce (which could lead to less eating of meat) etc. etc. etc.

The circular logic of these people is astoundingly neurotic and shouldn't be taken serious by any rational human being.

And to cap it off woth your final point, the bans have nothing to do with thge cutting down of trees it is for the sake of air quality and the EPA has even recently expanded bans on more types of woodburning stoves. In some localities in the Puget Sound (Western WA state) and I think in San Fransisco you can be fined for using your fire place! It's getting stupid really.

1. What's the point in elections then? Might as well be a one party state like China then

2. No wonder, people don't generally bother with politics like they used to, especially in western countries. You make it sound like a con artists game.

3. Obviously that want to make money but government surely would rip people off less than a private company as they are in theory supposed to be more accountable.

At least in Bolivia, the government ain't full of greedy parasites. Look up Evo Morales.

Also, i don't get the blame on the poor. It's the rich who avoid tax and get away with it. It's the rich who outsource decent industrial jobs to Asia currently. And yet the poor and vulnerable are blamed for everything despite having no influence in the system. It's laughable and yet people believe it.

The US welfare system doesn't compare to any European ones at all. Where's the universal health service or free university education? The US system is minimal. In Europe, it is far fairer and you get more value for more money. Also, how hasn't the welfare state moved people of poverty? Of course, you need decent jobs to help reduce poverty as well but welfare gives people a chance especially in times like this where there are clearly not enough jobs out there (of any kind). The trickle down effect seems like a myth in a developed economy.

Democracy does have value. It is the best way to make power accountable to the people without resorting to armed revolution. But it also doesn't scale well and is as prone to corruption as any other system.

This "democracy" has to be more representative to stop dissatisfaction

It is a con man's game.

So because they are supposed to be more accountable that makes them more accountable? Circular reasoning much?

If only money wasn't involved!

I will never cease to be amazed at the capacity of western leftists to romanticize Third World dictators and swallow their propaganda without even the slightest gag. For as much disdain as you have for your country and mine, you are praising a country that is far more corrupt.

Corruption is one thing but Bolivia isn't a dictatorship. It's like anyone who wins 60% of the popular vote is seen as a dictator. 

I don't recall blaming the poor. The only mention I made of the poor was to say that many of them are rubes, which of course they are. If they weren't they likely wouldn't be poor. But all in all I don't suppose they are any more to blame for the situation than anyone else in that they'll vote for what they see as their own interest. They are simply a cheaper date than most.

I'm not sure where you think I compared the stupid US system to differently stupid European ones, but never mind. How does a system of giving people money for nothing (and which frequently disincentivizes working at all by giving them less the more money they earn) move them out of poverty? It entices them to stay exactly where they are in life. Even if it raises the standard of living of the poor for today, they always remain one budgetary cut away from ruination, or so we are incessantly told.

Shouldn't we get something back for paying taxes in? Also, the actual reason people are disincentised to work is not because they are lazy. No, it's because most jobs pay so badly that you are better off on benefits. Sad but true. Unless pay increases and more decent jobs are put into the economy then things will stay the same. Minimum wage simply isn't high enough

That's a bit like being the tallest midget. If social democracy is so swell why are the Scandinavians moving away from it so hurriedly?

Proof?

It is a bit more complex than the existence of a welfare state, of course. I think Spengler's explanation is a pretty good one, and welfare state is more of a symptom of effeteness than the cause of it (though it does in turn help to perpetuate it).

That the west is declining because people got tired of being colonized by it is pretty funny. It's just simplistic enough to be kind of adorable. Civilizations fall apart from within, not from such minor externalities.

Ok convince me of your claims on fracking. Sources please. 

Even if thats what you think sustainable is, you got to admit we waste far too much (especially food, roughly a 1/3 of food production is wasted). We probably already produce enough food to fed everything and let millions starve. I actually have no idea where you conception of sustainability comes from. It's actually quite funny. But you are certainly misguided, sustainability is about using resources in a way that means they are allowed to replenish. This ain't possible with fossil fuels. Susaintability means reducing the waste our society uses or even making use of our waste.  The main problem with fossil fuels is they are running out. We don't know how much of them is left and currently we have no plan for what happens after they eventually run out. This ain't good and fortunately some long term thinking wouldn't hurt us would it? It also don't hurt to diversify our energy sources either incase one of them becomes unreliable, rare or too expensive. 

Maybe those loonies don't think about things but most environmentalists aren't like that. 

I mean we obviously need to and should use the environments goods to aid us but not be so reckless we deplete it to nothingness. Just look at what happened to the fish stocks due to reckless overfishing with trawlers. We just need to think about our actions and try to make sure we leave something for future generations to survive off. It's a complicated issue which is still overlooked. 

Finally, that is stupid. Burning wood is not polluting like coal is!

free speech does not mean you are free to speak where ever you want, it means you are free to say what you want. You can support freedom of speech, and protection of property rights with out issue. Its not a choice between the two, like redistribution of wealth (socailism) and property rights are, as to have  one you must sacrifice the other.

Aren't politicians supposed to give voters what they want? In a democracy they are supposed to represent us, the voting public. 

The bigger problem is the 2 party system, especially when they are essentially the same thing. 

Anyway, while there are still people that are poor a welfare state is of total necessary. It's there to balance the field and give people essential services which everyone pays into. Only the state can do this, as they are the least likely to follow a profit motive above anything. Nothing wrong with making profits, but there is a problem when the system is cheated for greed like it is now. But yeah, i don't see how a welfare state can interfere with say property rights. No private property would be taken. But just remember not everyone is lucky enough to afford a house, so it's the state responsibility to give them houses or flats as the market won't help them.