Comedy timing > Arbitrary contemporisation


The moment of static (esp the hiss sound) creates a naturalistic feeling pause/reset between each unrelated snippet of humour. A "comedy beat" if you will.

If this video was edited with the smooth silent transition one gets with modern digital broadcast it would detract significantly from the overall effect i.e. beat, reset, beat, reset, beat etc.....

Analogue static does this job beautifully and despite being dated is still almost universally understood/recognised by viewers. Perhaps another less anachronistic technique might have worked (with "boop" noises or something) but the fact remains that this whole static thing does the job wonderfully (for most of us anyway).

It's not "dumbass" when it works this well and the last 70-80 years of visual media didn't just disappear from the cultural memory when digital came along.

If you think you can do better then be my guest, maybe you might find a way that's even funnier and changes peoples attitude. Until then the artistic choices of others stand on their own merits and personally I can't think of an editing technique that would fit this style of vid better.


In summary, it's comedy not a documentary and out of place anachronism is a well practised and successful comedy technique (i.e. the very fact its so out of place is part of the reason its so funny). Why does that bother you so much???

@Shepppard
ah...my young friend.
come over by the fire,your buddy enoch has some things to speak to you about.
are you comfy?
need a drink? beer? coffee?

then let us begin.

1.why do YOU care what another makes an hour?is it YOUR business?

but i understand the basic gist of your point:unskilled labor.

ok.thats a fair point.
but why is 15$ an hr too high?
what arbitrary scale are you comparing their hourly worth to?
walmart workers?

here is a facts that may give you some perspective:
a.if we take the minimum wage from 1978 and factor in inflation and worker productivity todays minimum should average 22$ an hour (yes...you read that right).
b.the workers in these unskilled jobs are in the high percentages in goverment subsidies.to the tune of 7 BILLION a year.so basically we ALL are subsidizing mcdonalds and walmart to pay their workers like shit.

so are you still against them getting a living wage? when you and i are subsidizing their income. the companies they work for get to pocket those profits,you and i get to help pay for their housing and food stamps.

walmart even helps ttheir employees sign up for food stamps! now isnt that adorable.

dont you think it a better idea that these companies pay their help at least enough where they dont need government susbizies? you know.like actually PAY them and not force us to?

2.if these corporations paid a minimum of 15$ an hr the projected hike in product prices will be......./drum roll.....
...........15 cents per item.........

3.how come it appears to be taboo to point to a CEO of a company who is making billions in bonuses while his/her workers are having to receive food stamps?
when did obscene gluttony and greed become something cool? even praiseworthy? while ridiculing those trying to survive and demanding a little bit of dignity as something to be chastised and cajoled for even having the impertinence to ask for a living wage.

the cognitive dissonance on display is on an epic scale.

who do YOU think you have more in common with?
the dude working at your local burger king?
or jamie dimon?

and dont even get me started on that condescending argument "get an education to get a better job".

i have been seeing many posts of late that reflect the very same flavor of yours @Shepppard and the one thing they all have in common is this judgemental value system that they just pulled out of their ass but in reality was given to them by the very people fucking them,and their children in the ass.

there will come a day when these people will realize they are slaves.
debt slaves.
wage slaves.
and while they were bickering the banksters and the corporate elite cleaned their clock.....
and they didnt notice until it was too late.

those elite fuckers.
they have a small club and you aint in it.
they dont like you.
they will never like you.
me?
im on your side man.

I love F1, and love the quotes, but in the [arbitrary] post-Schumacher era, where safetly rightly rules, there's only one quote that I noticed, and that's Villeneuve.

The game has changed.

They're no longer pitting their lives against one another; they're now battling with engineers and focus. No mean feat, and I judge neither above the other, but it's not the same game.

The narrowness of your definition of intelligence depresses me and is ironically not very intelligent

You talk about improving the gene pool yet you appear to lack a basic understanding of the fundamental importance of genetic diversity.

Even if we accept the premise that risk takers are idiots (which is so demonstrably not true I can barely be bothered to try but feel free to go read up on the Nobel laureates, plenty of "idiots" in there!) they are still essential to a healthy and diverse gene pool.

Mountain climbers, Motor racers, American Football players, Alligator wrestlers etc. etc. This is the same gene pool that brings us Astronauts, Fire-fighters, Soldiers etc.

Some of them may simply be "showing off" but
A. this is what they feel the need to do in order to feel stimulated and alive (they are wired up differently to others, they require higher levels of risk in order to feel the same level of stimulation you you might watching TV)

B. Watching such individuals perform or simply appreciating their existence is a source of untold pleasure for many of the rest of us (you dislike all dangerous sports? They are just as "pointless" by comparison)

But most of all

C. They all die in the end, just like EVERY HUMAN THAT HAS EVER LIVED. Putting all your emphasis in life on just staying alive and un-injured seems a little foolish in the grand scheme of things don't you think? The result is the same whether you spend your life racing powerboats or knitting jumpers in a padded room. You still die thus rendering any choices you made about how to spend your life entirely arbitrary and temporary (unless your religious but even then I'm not aware of anyone believing that risk taking alone sends anyone to hell or otherwise).

"Better to live an hour as a tiger, than a whole lifetime as a worm"
-The cat (red dwarf)


Also do you have a better way of getting an alligator out of a pool for a reasonable cost? The only alternative I can think of would be to tranquillise it but that would A. shift the risk of death and injury to the animal and B. be very hard to administer underwater. Nets and ropes seem like they would be prohibitively expensive and horribly impractical here also.

Hoisting the alligator above his head actually strikes me as potentially one of the safest way to carry the thing away, out of the water with no feet on the ground etc. but then I'm not an expert in dealing with Gators......crucially however neither are you and if i was going to take advice on how to get rid of one I'd be much more inclined to listen to people who have clearly spent their whole lives doing it than some random person who bases advanced genetic theories on a comedy film (for the record a very enjoyable one which was clearly not intended to be realistic).

The problem is that stores promote this nonsense. Instead of making it a chaotic free-for-all, why not require people to reserve what they want to buy and then pick it up at their leisure? You could still give people the satisfaction of believing that they got great deals while avoiding unnecessary violence and destruction.

Then we have the issue of holidays existing solely to promote excessive spending, all because arbitrary dates on a calendar say you should give people gifts and expect to receive them in part.

As an American living in Thailand, I've adjusted pretty well to metric units for most things (to the point that I'd prefer them for MOST things).

Celsius has more sensible set points (1 and 100 being freeze and boil of water), but I still prefer to think in Fahrenheit for temperatures. For some reason it is harder for me to overcome the inertia of ~25 years of using Fahrenheit than it was to get used to metric distances.

One other thing I noticed about this video is that you could easily make similar arguments about our system of time being backwards or primitive. For some reason we have days of 24 hours, which are sometimes divided into 12 AM and 12 PM hours. Each hour has an arbitrary 60 minutes. Each minute has 60 seconds. Sometimes we divide seconds into hundredths (1/100) or milliseconds (1/1000). We have 12 months, each containing somewhere between 28 and 31 days. One year has 365.242199 days, so we call it 365 and then add one more on leap years, or occasionally skip a leap year since that fraction isn't a perfect 1/4.

That is all very messy and based on local, non-universal phenomena -- just like all those silly antiquated imperial units. Maybe at some point we'll shift to metric time based on radioactive isotope decay rates or something.

People hear that the flicker fusion threshold is about 16hz, and that movies play at 24hz so they assume that there must be no benefit to higher framerates. Ofc, movies have a lot of motion blur to make the movement appear more smooth and quite often a TV will have sophisticated tech to make the lower framerates on TV shows appear smoother than they actually are. Computer monitors, for the most part, show sharp images and we sit closer to them so low frame rates are much more noticeable. The rods and cones in our eyes might have a "fresh rate" of 16hz (I think rods actually respond much faster, but w.e) but they aren't synchronised like a camera. Our eyes will detect light, or any changes in it pretty much instantaneously. You don't have to wait for the next refresh. At what point our brain, or the variance in latency of the optic nerve, become the limiting factors I don't know. I'd like to think we wouldn't have evolved such advanced optical receptors only to be bottle necked by our brains. In short: 120hz ftw.

My absolute greatest peeve with console ports is mouse settings though. The number of times I've had to delve into the .ini to disable mouse acceleration or set my sensitivity to something sensible. Sometimes even the .ini doesn't have the answer. I fucking hate it when you get a sensitivity slider with 10 arbitrary notches. "Don't worry gamers, I'm sure you'll find a setting you like. As long as your preference is for a mm of mouse movement to spin you between 360 and 720 degrees. Ps. you do have a gamepad rite?"

As you say, "Fuck you" indeed.

@bcglorf
1.can you provide evidence that bin laden was responsible for 9/11?

and is it your contention that if the taliban had found bin laden guilty in the 90's 9/11 would have never happened?

im not being confrontational.i am trying to follow your logic.
maybe i am missing something.

2.is it your position that the causation of the current situation cannot be rectified?so therefore we must deal with it.

i have offered no course of action.
so whatever you have taken from my commentary is assumed on your part.

i do not understand your logic.
and i mean that in the most sincerest and human way.

so our country imposes sanctions that starve millions.
lets ignore that.
our country deposes and sometimes assasinates democratically elected leaders to impose depsots and tyrants who kill,maim and murder tens of thousands.
but thats not up for discussion.
our country fabricates evidence to go to war.
millions are the death toll.
but lets not examine that.

lets examine the thousands that are killed in a country that is a fight within their own borders.

and even those borders were an arbitrary drawing by the west (england in this case),which only serves to destabilize a region that was rich in culture and a far more moderate religious state than you find it today.

it is WE who radicalized THEM.
and we did it for our corporations.for profit.
to exploit regions illfit to defend themselves.
WE are the bully.
WE are the empire in star wars.

WE have lost the right to say anything in a moral argument in regards to a countries right to self determine.
because WE have shown ourselves to be,by far,the worst perpetrator of violence,murder,covert assasinations,political manipulation and brought untold suffering to countries across the globe.

WE are the greater of those two evils.
and it is about time WE shut the fuck up and leave other sovereign countries alone.
that is a course of action.
because to do otherwise the bile of hypocrisy would drown out any sense of true morality.

ok, this game gets a lot of love from me for several reasons.

1. Batman! (yes, I am one of those annoying batman fanbois... don't care)
2. Arkham games have been seriously high quality games. Steam tells me I have spent literally hundreds of hours on the previous two and I don't expect this will be any different.

3. See that last screen? 25th october. worldwide. No bullshit arbitrary delay between the US and the rest of the world.
And also, here's the price on the US steam store and here's the price on the Australia / NZ store. They're the same... as it fucking should be. normally non-valve games are US$20-30 more expensive in the same currency

So yeah, this gets a big ol' *quality from me.

Looking forward to striking some terror....

How am I supposed to continue to interact intelligently when you keep twisting my words to imply things I have repeatedly stated I was not saying?

I deliberately chose my words to make it clear that I was not saying the driver MUST have done anything but only that he MIGHT. Simple reading comprehension; trying to twist my words for emotive effect is not going to work on me. (apart from getting a rise which it totally did)

You only seem willing to entertain a single perspective assessment of the situation and appear completely closed off to any other interpretation/speculation I have attempted to present.

The fact you have repeatedly ignored the core argument I have been making (that there is no such thing as one perspective and morality is a relativistic concept) suggests that either A you don't understand what I'm trying to say (in which case I'm happy to explain further) or B. don't want to understand (in which case I can't do shit for you sorry)

Let me put it another way. Do you think we understand Hitler and the Nazi's better by A. calling them racist fags and blindly denouncing their actions as "evil". or B. attempting to understand the mindset and motivations for what they did with a minimum of emotional compromise?

When you take the care to examine life's little unpleasantries like Nazi's or bike gangs or whatever from a less emotive position, you realise that they were/are not just some abhorrent alien force in society. Any one of us has the same capacity to behave like this, they aren't fundamentally different creatures and the belief that they are is exactly what allows people to justify doing this kind of thing in the 1st place. (If you asked one of the bike gangers to describe you and I you'd likely find they used the same kind of derogatory and dehumanising terms and categories, we're just slipping into the reciprocal tribal mindset)

Do I think bike gangs (and for that matter large groups of people in general) generally represent humanity at its worst? Yes totally, they are to my sensibilities 1st class arseholes. That's why I've agreed with you repeatedly on this (from post 1 onwards in fact!) I just like to come at things from more than one perspective because ultimately perspective is all that really exists to us, in this case I shared some measure of perspective with the bikers as I can see how thing thing could have escalated from that POV and how they might well have justified their actions to themselves.

Ethics/morals are little more than deep aesthetic preferences, they have no observable basis of authority in the natural world, only our own minds. While it's an illusion were arguably better off with, it does rather get in the way of objectivity.

All I really take exception to is having my words and meaning distorted and my core argument ignored. It's called a straw-man (reciting a deliberately distorted and weak version of your opponents argument to then tear it down) that shit wouldn't even fly in a high-school debating club and it certainly wont work with me here. Its fine that you disagree but at least get what your disagreeing with right please.

It's not about "good and "bad" "right" and "wrong" but rather "why" and "how". In short it's more complicated than "bike curious fags" and reducing matters only to that does nothing to help the situation other than to illustrate ones deep aesthetic distaste (which in itself is totally valid and I've not contradicted at any stage). I have somewhat more split "deeply held aesthetic preferences" here which is what I originality began talking about, perhaps that's why I'm finding it easier to at least relate to the bikers side of things even if I don't agree or condone.

"....and also disagree that anything excuses...."

^ This phrase beautifully demonstrates the folly of rigid non-perspective based morality. By embracing any arbitrary absolute truth or principle such as this one renders objectivity and transcendence impossible. Justification is a personal thing, what I'm interested in is provocation and explanation, we can argue what's justified until the cows come home because its not an objective concept it's a subjective preference.

This, when all semantics are stripped away is the core of why we are disagreeing I think. You think Ethics/morals are actual things that matter in their own right, I think they are no more than strong preferences who's usefulness is directly proportional to ones ability to understand and sympathise with those of others. Everything else has really been a play around that (by both of us) in less direct terms I fear....

ok.
i am reading your response.
and trying to follow your logic..
it is..confusing.
i do not mean that in a critical way.it literally is confusing.

so let me understand this.
you think that because people pointing out the hypocrisy on american foreign policy somehow translates to a moral relativism in regards to assad?
that one is more evil than the other?
and to point to one means to ignore the other?

ok.
which one is MORE evil:
1.the assad regime which has been brutal on its own citizens.beheadings,executions in the street.the people are in a constant state of fear.
this is a common tactic for brutal dictators.fear and intimidation and when then start getting out of control? killings and maimings.of the public kind.
assad has been on the human rights watch for decades.
he is a monster.
or.
2.america and britain have been sending weapons and training a weak rebel force (for the past few years btw).after the outbreak of violence of the arab spring and assads decending hammer of escalating violence the rebels find their ranks being filled by alqeada,muslim brotherhood and other radical muslim factions.
which has the culminative effect of not only creating the civil war but prolonging it.
death tolls of innocents rising.
displaced syrians in the millions.

which of these two are "more" evil?
both caused death.
both caused suffering.
or do you think training and arming rebel factions which only serves to prolong the conflict less evil?

while evil is an arbitrary and subjective word the answer is BOTH are evil.
on a basic and human level BOTH bear responsibility.

let us continue.

now america has had a non-interventionism policy so far.just supplying training and weapons and prolonging the civil war and henceforth:the violence,death,maiming and suffering.

then two things quietly happened.
syria russia and china (iran as well) began talks to drop the petrodollar AND assad refusing a natural gas pipeline through syria (probably in order to not piss off russia).

when you realize that americas currency is almost solely propped up by the petrodollar,the current white house rhetoric starts to make more sense.

this is why evidence on who is responsible for the chemical attacks is important because the united states government used THAT as its reason for NOT entering the conflict (even though it already was involved,but not directly).the united states didnt want to get directly involved.
until the pipeline and petrodollar talks started to surface.

and then as if by magic.
a chemical attack is executed.
now assads army was winning,on all fronts.
why would he risk international intervention if he was winning?
now i am not saying that dictators and tyrants dont do dumb things,but that is dumb on an epic level.
doesnt make sense.
doesnt add up.

so the whole drumbeats for war now.
which were non-existent a month ago...
are all about "humanitarian" and "human rights" and a new "axis of evil".

bullshit.plain and simple.

this is about oil.
about the petrodollar.
this is about big business.

bryzenscki called this 20 yrs ago in his book "the grand chessboard"

and that is my counter argument.
and by your last post on my page i think you agree in some fashion.

now,
let us discuss your "final solution".
oh my friend.you accused so many of being naive.
reading your conclusion i can only shake my head.
not that i dont appreciate your time or that i dont see maybe why you feel that way.
i just dont think you grasp the enormity of it and have listened to one too many of the uber-rights "paper tiger" argument.

if we choose the path you think is the best to put assad on his heels.
america launches a limited strike on assad forces.
and lets say those strategic targets are 100% incapacitated (unlikely,but this is hypothetical).
what then?
have you considered what the reaction of russia,china,iran,saudi arabia, might be?
because according to international LAW,without a united nations concensus.russia and china AND iran would have the right to step in,set up shop and tell you to go fuck yourself.they would dare you to cross that line.
and what then?
do you cross it? and under what grounds?
you have (and when i say YOU i mean america) already disregarded every single policy put forth in regards to international law.the irony is the you (america) were vital in the creation of those very laws.(we rocked that WW2 shit son).

so pop quiz jack.what do you do?
do you really think you can ignore russia and china?ignore the international community?
do you really think the american government gives two shits about people dying in another country?
(checks long list of historical precedent)
not..one..bit.

here are the simple facts.
YOU are a compassionate human being who is outraged over the suffering and execution of innocent people.
YOU.
and i and pretty much everybody with a soul and a heart.
but YOUR argument is coming from that outrage.and man do i wish i was your age again.
god i admire you for this alone.
but the simple,hard and ugly fact is:
this country is about its own business of empire.
they could not give a fuck who is dying or being oppressed,tortured or enslaved.
i will be happy to provide the links but please dont ask...i dont wish to see your heart break anymore than it already has.
you and i live under the banner of an empire.this is fact.
this empire only cares about its own interests.

so let us talk about the very thing that is the emotional heart of the matter shall we?
the syrian people.
how do we alleviate their suffering?
how do we quell the tidal wave of dying?

a limited strike on strategic targets would help the innocents how exactly?
by bombing them?this is your logic?
or is "collateral damage" acceptable? and if so..how much?
do you realize that there are no actual 'strategic targets".assads troops are embedded just as much as the rebels are.
so..where do you hit for maximum effect?
and how many innocent deaths are acceptable?
and if the goal is to weaken assads forces,to level the playing field,wouldnt this translate to an even MORE prolonged conflict?
and wouldnt that equal even MORE innocent people dying?

this scenario is WITHOUT russia,china or iran intervening!

you are killing more and more people that i thought you wanted to save!
what are you doing man? are you crazy!

so i ask you.
what are your goals?
is it revenge?
is it regime change?
do you wish to punish assad?

then assasination is your only true option that will get the results you want and save innocent lives.

in my opinion anyways.

this is why i choose the non-intervention or the negotiation route.
yes..there will still be violence but only to a point.
when negotiations begin there is always a cease fire.
in that single move we stopped the violence.
this will also have the effect of bringing other international players to the table and much needed food,supplies and medical for the syrian people.

all kinds of goodies for the syrian people who are in such desperate need of help.
wanna go with me? ill volunteer with ya!

so which path is better for the syrian people?
a limited strike which at the very least will prolong this vicious civil war.
or negotiations which will bring a cease fire,food,water,medical help,blankets,clothes and smiles and hugs for everyone!

are ya starting to get the picture?

i have lived on three continents.
met and lived with so many interesting and amazing people.
learned about so much and was graced and touched in ways that are still incredible for me to explain.
and you have got to be the most stubborn mule i have ever met...ever.

but kid.you got some serious heart.
so you stay awesome.
namaste.

*edit-it appears assad may be the culprit.syria just accepted russias offer to impound the chemical weapons.so we know they have them.lets see what the US does.
i still think you are going to get your wish for military action.so dont be getting all depressed on me now.

Oops! I posted to the wrong profile. Sorry about that! Glad we were able to continue our dialogue.

My comments/responses interspersed:

> "economics has never been my strong suit."

I know, my friend, I know. As soon as I hear some defense of "socialism," I know.

> "but i AM quite literate in history and government and of
> course politics."

Yes, my dear friend, but history is tied to economics, and these days, unfortunately, politics too.

> "while you are correct that a socialist state can become a
> fascist one,so too can a democracy."

Again, we agree! Yes, in fact, fascism is the offspring of democracy. And while not strictly a fascist, was not Hitler elected?
Is there here some assumption that I regard "Democracy" as some sort of "holy cow?" On the contrary, "democracy" is a type of "soft" socialism.
At least as practiced and typically defined.
Not market democracy, however, which is the same as the free market, and not problematic. But pandering political democracy is something else.

> "it is really the forces of ideology"

Yes, in fact the book I am now reading makes this point throughout. So did Mises. But I will say that Mises was not altogether correct in dismissing Marx' assertion that systems and structures influence ideology and not the other way around. Mises was mostly correct, ideology creates systems and structures and institutions, but Marx was a little bit correct, there is also some influence in the other direction.

> "i do apologize for my oftentimes rambling.maybe because i
> am a little out of my comfort zone when it comes to
> economics"

Do not worry my friend, this is the case with most people who have strong political/economic opinions. It has been called afterall the "dismal science." If people knew about economics, we'd have a totally different system of government or no government at all.

> "your last post really cleared so many misconceptions i was
> having during this conversation."

Glad to hear. Some of my other "debaters" get very little out of our debate so it is a refreshing situation.

> "i knew we were more in agreement than disagreement.
> and we are."

I think most people are actually in agreement about goals, they just disagree about means, mostly because of lack of economic education. But once that is cleared, the agreements become more evident.

> "the banks need to held accountable."

1. yes banks need to be held accountable for fraud, like any other business or person.

> "which by inference means the governments role should be
> as fraud detector and protector of the consumer."

2. if you still want a government, meaning you still want a monopolist to do this. But a monopoly is inefficient (this is one of those "economics" laws, but one I think is almost self-evident). So asking a monopoly run by kleptocrats to do this is like asking the wolves to look over the sheep.

> "you didnt mention it but i hope you agree the corporate
> charter needs to be rewritten in a way where they are NOT a
> person and therefore shall be removed from the political
> landscape."

3. Since I don't think government (monopolist) are necessary, I don't think it should be inventing legal entities and forcing those on everyone else. Corporations are the creation of the state. Without a state monopoly, they would look much different than they do at present. In actuality, regardless of legal definitions, a corporation is a group of persons, like a union or social club or a partnership.

> "this will (or should) re-balance our political system (which is
> diseased at the moment)."

4. Corporations are a symptom, not the cause of all our social ills. Lack of economic calculation is much more problematic on all levels. In short, government is not a solution, but the major contributor to the problem. And we still have not gone into the whole issue of how the government is not "we" or "the people" in any meaningful way and how having coercive rulers is a problem.

> "which will return this country to a more level playing field and
> equate to=more liberty."

5. I don't know that we agree here. Corporations are not the cause of lack of liberties. Government is. Corporations won't throw you in jail for not obeying the rulers; government will. Corporations will not garnish your wages. Government will.

> "this will open innovation,progress and advancements in ALL
> fields AND due to competitive forces ,will lower prices."

6. Things like getting rid of IP laws will do so. So will getting rid of most/all taxation and arbitrary regulation.

> "how am i doing so far?"

Doing great!

> "what is governments role"?

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
I don't want government to do anything for me, and I don't want it to force me at gunpoint to do anything at all.
A monopoly cannot do anything good that a free competitive market cannot do better.

> "the anarchist finds it perfectly acceptable to tear down that
> government to build a new one."

If you want someone to rule over you by force, you are not an anarchist. What kind of government would you consider "anarchy?"

> "if something aint working the way it was meant to,get rid of
> it and try another."

What if I don't want you or anyone else imposing rulers on me? What if I believe I have a right to self-ownership and voluntary interactions and property?
What if I don't want your form of "government?' Then what? You still want to impose it on me?
I thought you were my friend.

> "well in an unrestricted market and pesky government out of
> the way what do YOU think is going to happen to a system
> driven by self interest and profit?"

Everything will improve. But government had to be totally out of the way. btw, where do you get that government is not driven itself by self-interest and profit?

> "and i am ok with that."

Well, the difference between what you want and what I want is that what I want is not to be imposed on you but what you want is to be forcefully imposed on me, violently too, if I don't comply.

> "illegal to have an employee owned business."

Like I said, government is a problem.

> "i dont know why it was illegal in this area and i dont see how
> employee owned companies would threaten a free market."

In a free market anyone can own any business they want or else it is not a free market.

> "but as you figured out.
> economics is not my strong suit."

Just because there is a law prohibiting co-op ownership of a bar, it does not mean that it is there for some reason that makes economic sense. It actually makes no economic sense so it must be there for some political reason or because someone somewhere profits from this restriction, as is always the case with regulations.

> "and my man,cant tell ya how grateful i am to have had this
> conversation with you.i learned tons,about you and your
> views and even some about free markets."

Remember, a free market means free, not "semi" free. Not privilege for some, like regulations tend to do.
Always a pleasure.

I'm sorry to hear about your difficulties, @eric3579. The U.S. most certainly has one of the most fucked up healthcare industries in the industrialized world.

But instead of socialism, why not give a free market a chance, instead? What we have now, is anything but a free market. Intellectual Property, regulations, and a lack of any real accurate economic calculations sets the stage for some wide fluctuations in health care (in terms of access, cost, and quality of care). Sadly, while @Yogi is correct in saying that fraud is not unique to socialism, socialism is burdened with a lack of any real economic calculation (as to what things are supposed to cost). Thus, you have the kinds of costs you're describing.

Interestingly, the article stated, "he discovered that health care costs are largely arbitrary, inflated, and unfair. “The health care market is not a market at all. It’s a crapshoot,” he concluded. “Everyone fares differently based on circumstances they can neither control nor predict.”

This isn't surprising. Without a free market, we have no real prices. We don't need socialism. We need economic calculation.

The article goes on to say, "health care costs are largely arbitrary, inflated, and unfair. “The health care market is not a market at all"

I couldn't have said it better. “The health care market is not a market at all."

Or as Hayek says in the "rap battle" music video (floating on the sift somewhere), "We need stable rules and real market prices, so prosperity emerges and cuts short the crisis."

Schedule 7 seems horrendously ambiguous. They can hold you for nine hours without a reasonable suspicion that you are involved in any criminal activity...but it must not be used arbitarily and is solely for determining if somebody is a witch. err I mean if somebody is involved in terrorism.

I'm not really sure how you can detain somebody without suspicion and simultaneously demonstrate that it wasn't arbitrary or unconnected to terrorism. Where exactly is the accountability here. Oh. There isnt any. Hearing the Home Office dismiss this whole affair by saying that it is up to the Police to decide how they use (misuse?) their powers is quite frightening. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Yeah. While I suppose there has to be some sort of limit on what can be deemed acceptable, it is also a very slippery slope. After all, should fantasy really be criminalized? Moral sickness is perhaps the most arbitrary concept imaginable, and history is rife with examples of just how dangerous it is to criminalize supposed moral dissolution.