"it just sounds like a return to feudalism."

How so specifically? An agrarian culture based on farmland ownership?

It sounds to me that your imagination is getting the best of you. Creative, but not at all what I am describing. Somalia is a failed state, and a socialist failed state at that. However, as you know, things from medical services to life expectancy to infrastructure to child mortality to crime all dropped in the 20 years in which Somalia had no functioning government. Things got better not worse. Why do you think that is?

Saying a free market would be like Somalia is like saying that a government-regulated market would be like North Korea. There are other issues to consider.

Libertarianism does not posit that a free market automatically means a perfect or even a great society. But it does posit that a free market system will ease poverty, increase wealth, and ensure peace at a faster pace than a statist one. At whatever level a culture/society starts at, they will improve and be better off in a free market rather than under state rule. Somalia started off in a mess, caused by its failed state circumstances. You cannot seriously expect to go from one day to the next, eliminate the state, and expect that overnight all that damage will sort itself out just because now -- a day later -- there's no state. You have to rebuild and accumulate wealth over time. And Somalia did remarkably well considering the mess it started from.

A society like the US, which is much better off (for the time-being!), would improve even more, rather than deteriorate, with less or even no government. But of course, if a meteorite wipes out DC overnight, that does not mean overnight improvement. After all, the government has wiped out many private institutions that would need to be in place to take over from the government in providing the services they put out of business.

On the other hand, the road towards more state control (which you, strangely continue to support and defend) leads to more deterioration of the society/culture. The US is doing better because of all the capital it accumulated during the century in which it functioned under little government intervention with regards to its economic matters. That wealth has been badly squandered, and now Americans are living off what remains, slowly but surely bankrupting the country though more government interventions, currency inflations, needless war, bailouts, surveillance, ad infinitum.

But make no mistake: whatever wealth the US as a nation has came about though free exchange in commerce, and was not the result of government regulation. The more government interferes, the slower the growth, until now it has reached the point where there is no growth, only debt. (The Treasury should be renamed the Department of Debt, because it has no money, only debt -- just like a majority of Americans.)

In sum: Somalis are improving. Americans are not. Whoever you are, I assure you, you started off in a much better place than the average Somali did. But look at their rate of change!


EDIT: Somalia also did not have a "free market" when it came to warlord gangs. Unless people had a choice as to which warlord to hire for protection or not, then that is not a free market when it comes to protection services. If allegiance to a particular warlord was voluntary, then you could more honestly make the claim that they had a "free market." Still, the situation is improving. And I think it would have improved faster had there not been the (UN-fueled) expectation of a future centralized government, had the UN not been financing groups towards this end, and had they not been incentivizing gangs to fight each other for position in a future "government."

There is nothing "free market" about forced conscription. I don't know why you would even say that.

Excellent... that was exactly what you should have asked.

Journal of Medical Ethics

Historically the maternal mortality rate was 1%. These days it's closer to 0.01%

There's some evidence that suggests that planned home births come close to hospital births for favourable outcomes when the easy access to hospital is available (i.e. if the mother can be transported to a hospital in an emergency), but I just don't see why you'd take the risk, not to mention the added stress on the mother of trying to transport her when things have already gone wrong.

Why would you go to a hospital?

I dunno, maybe it's because the infant mortality rate triples for home births?

funny bit apart from that.....

the impending disaster is overpopulation and it's byproducts - CO2 emissions, waste, and resource depletion.

Infant mortality efforts need to be a package deal with contraceptive efforts.

This breakdown was quite useful. I had no idea the complexity of the techniques used.

I thought Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat button-combos were hard, I'll never attempt an MMA videogame

First off, are Power Rangers really saluting under a swastika?

And second, the Charlie Brown theme song to the Mortal Kombat guys was perfect!

Violence is touched on in the 90's at 43:00 but the focus is on the innovation of Street Fighter 2 and Doom and again it 47:45 with Mortal Kombat, Night Trap and the US Senate Hearings that led to the ESRB rating system. The pace of the narrative is still compelling as this was an important leap forward where game graphics could be represented by photographic imagery. Let's face it, the violence controversy formed a major part of the evolution of video games.

If you can't stand to hear about Columbine again, skip 52:00 to 54:00. Glen Beck chimes in on GTA at 1:11:00, but he doesn't steal the spotlight.

When it comes down to a fair fight, Batman loses against anyone that doesn't just fight hand to hand and/or has a healing factor / super strength. But that's not what Batman's true power is. These idiot fanboys and their value system based on Street Fighter / Mortal Kombat bullshit. 3, 2, 1 -- Fight!

No, no, no, humans: His true strength delves into something which can only be whittled down via the collapse of Earth itself: Economic superiority. But even then, he's the Ritchie Rich of superheoes and would likely be able to rebuild his wealth on another planet.

All Batman needs to do is acquire an object of immense power and then employ it against whoever it is he's up against. He doesn't even need to fight but chooses to fight. If he's fighting Superman, obtain kryptonite -- or hell, gain access to the Siege Perilous and then just destroy the mind of whatever passes through it. He's friggin' Bruce Wayne and has a vast web of connections, bolstered by his income, which can get him ANYTHING.

Anyway. There are cosmic entities which have a greater pull of resources than Batman so let's match Batman's economic superiority (he's basically an army) against an actual threat backed by near infinite resources, such as the Negative Zone's Annihilus, Titan's Thanos, a time traveler like Kang the Conqueror, or the hive mind of the Phalanx.

Hell, I'd love to see Batman hack Galactus' base of operations and then invade and divert cosmic consonance.

But this pussy footing Batman VERSUS Deadpool is moot. Batman VERSUS anyone in a normal match up is stupid. Elevate your understanding.

Intentional pun, though now I think I had in mind a gargoyle of the wingless variety, the ones that sit on the edge of humanity, mouths agape, and channel the liquid down the side of a building...I dunno, fit the rhyme-schemata better.
Gorgons actually have powers to destroy mortals, Piers Poorman has no such innate talent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgon

I used Shapiro's effortless semantics, he speaks on such a level as to make it appear so, and am always ready to see someone tell Piers to fuck the fuck off in such a proper manner without stooping to his non-host level.

My dream however, is to have all those vapid hag-babbling cunts on The View to have a collective nervous-breakdown on-air, and for THAT show to be forever cancelled.

So intelligent people never take risks or choose riskier lifestyles according to their own balance of self preservation and stimulation?

By that logic a truly smart person would only ever choose to live in a virtual bubble. There's basically no need to go outdoors for many people any more, so why would you risk it if you didn't have to?

What about all the idiots that drive cars!? Don't they know car's are dangerous? (waaaaaaaaaay more dangerous than an Alligator!)


Life is risky, in fact last time I checked it had a 100% mortality rate. Each of us has a (probably genetic) pre disposition towards a particular balance of risk and preservation. The diversity of this mix is VERY important to maintaining a healthy gene pool and social structure.

We need risk takers, they are the ones that forge ahead into new territory, test new & dangerous technologies and thrive performing essential tasks that the rest of us are too chicken shit to do like rescue people from burning buildings (or more trivially removing alligators from pools lol)


I would also like to point out that many a dumbass couple has produced genius children, just as many genius parents have produced dumbass children. Genetics are only half the story & intelligence in particular does not appear rigidly linked to your genetic history.

The nightmare Idiocracy scenario you are so worried about has a lot more to do with education than genealogy

May we suggest the most glaring (common sense with a view trumping the most gracious of mortality odds) 'security flaw' inherent in ANY similar device (including off-brand/hype models) with functionality requiring two thumbs, a pair of eyes, and a challenge to their users of navigating the useless shit whilst performing mundane tasks such as saaay, crossing a street, waiting in line for groceries, operating a motor vehicle much less, operating your legs while not looking at the GROUND? Who needs any of this engineered obsolescence garbage anyway?...The cunts who want you under their thumbs, that's who and if they are LUCKY(all indications point to this a inevitable)-you or someone you just texted die crossing a street using some ineffectual device, car wreck while the manufacturer staffs lobbyists while crunching quarterly loss numbers.

Incorporating distraction into large populations who can afford these ancillary toys is KEY to these cunts who compete to make available these consumer grey-matter-killers and it has been the goal of providing you with the convenience of your own self-importance and slow death from the OUTSET.

Use less of the shit (civil and economic disobedience), stop fawning-over it and selling it without compensation to your friends (because after all, you have nothing else to communicate about of substance or meaning since yer skills have fallen-off a bit after the in-crowd hi-jack feeds on trashing or band-wagoning the latest devices every week..(gotta have one gotgaotta have the best)) HINT: THEY ALL HOBBLE YOUR MIND, THEY ALL SUCK-

EVERYONE do the experiment collectively (don't use their services for a month and threaten to drop service altogether) and YO, maybe develop some lasting relationships along the way....remember "eye contact!?"

Watch how miraculously interesting, stress-free and simply satisfying your unnecessarily complicated, dull-fucking life changes overnight and adds 10 more quality years to it when you numb or otherwise mitigate your use of this and all tech connected by satellite or cable. Ssuddenly, the emperor has no billy-club, a birthday suit, and the obvious becomes clear:..He's a FUCK THAT CONTROLS YOU WHO SHOULD BE ON AN INTERNATIONAL SEX-OFFENDERS DATABASE.

It needs Mortal Kombat sounds and voices! "Finish her!"

*asia *sports

You know what really annoys me? So-called theists that trample over the idea that "we don't know what happens when we die", as if it were something never before considered in western philosophy. Shadows on a wall. That's all any human can know. Oh, but the voices (or "feeling" of a holy/unholy spirit) of "god" in your head confirmed that they're real because they said so..!? K...

Does anyone else not see the inherent security risk here? How does a god truly interface with a human mind and authenticate its validity beyond all shadows of doubt? Oh, you just know right? As if you're the expert on human perception. If the concept of demons or Satan be real, perhaps there is only that. Have you considered? Of course not, devout theist, the clause exists for a reason -- do not tempt. Never question. Does this sound like freedom... or tyranny at work?

Maybe the voice of "good" is in reality bad. Perhaps all voices from other realms (should you wish to believe such a concept) are the voices and feelings from another world bent on conquering our own. You don't know and you're better off ignoring ALL of this bullshit. One man's god is another man's demon and thus it's safe to just assume they're all demons, should you even fucking ignorantly consider believing this nonsense.

It's the only rational conclusion that I can imagine which takes into account the inherent security risks between potential "linked" worlds, and in which relinquishes fearful self interest and acquisition of "treasures" in the after life (afterlife class war much?). It's like clicking on an insane URL in an email from Sender: "God" h__p:/godisreal.com/eternity?reward=/script%3E%123.45.69%mansion%in%the%sky/script%3E!YOURMINDSASLAVENOW. Would you seriously do that? You have no idea and you didn't even consider that belief could lead to damnation. It's just too easy. And what do we say about things that are too easy? I know what that means in this life, thank you very much.

Now you're hacked. Idiot. And you call unbelievers stupid and sad. For fuck's sake you can't even control your own mind's will to sync with the known patterns of security that we use for survival in this world. You think you're going to be safe in the next? You're ensnared and if you have an eternal soul, I HAVE PITY FOR YOU.

All we really know is that we don't know. It's not a revolutionary idea and in my honest opinion, if there is a life after death, then facing the ultimate fear of your own mortality is a challenge for true fulfillment of an undeserving eternity.

To believe in an after life without question is not to admit ones mortality. Admitting your mortality is a sobering and freeing concept. Again, I continue to feel pity for those whose minds are not free to process this.

Yet poverty and literacy rates continue to improve globally.

Infant mortality, life expectancy, access to clean water and food. All improve. Perfect? No.

But those are just facts.

There are no magic wands to fix the problems around us. It takes time and concerted effort.

The information in this video is deceptively incomplete. Modern major-release movies are enormously expensive to make and a big part of their profit calculation includes the worldwide market. In fact, country-specific versions of these films are often released in overseas markets, sometimes with new characters/scenes added just for them.

So while it's perhaps culturally interesting to see whether a particular flick was popular with Americans, the economic side of the movie business cares not.

It's almost quaint that someone would report only U.S. box office totals today - particularly when using that data to call a film a bomb. Here's the real bottom line for these "bombs" (total worldwide grosses as of 9/2013 - and counting):

After Earth $243m ($130m budget)
The Lone Ranger $243m ($215m budget)
Elysium $213m ($115m budget)
Turbo $157m ($135m budget)
Red 2 $120m ($ 84m budget)
White House Down $153m ($150m budget)

Heck, even Mortal Instruments ($66.6m, $60m budget) and The Internship ($83m, $58m budget) have made millions.

These movies are almost all profitmakers - often enormously so. Just, you know, not as much as we were hyped to believe in the States.

(That said - R.I.P.D. was actually a bomb! The only real one here, I'd say. But I think the film companies will survive.)