Based on the book The Rebel: The Outlaw Josie Wales, written under a pseudonym by Asa Earl Carter, a White supremacist. There was a This American Life (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/527/transcript) which goes into AEC and The Education of Little Tree. It's interesting how, based on that, AEC's pecular point of view comes across quite clearly in this clip--the distrust of Blue Coats, the disdain for government, and even viewing the Native American as a "Noble Savage".

People have deluded themselves into thinking guns are good and needed, when they're not. The 2nd amendment will likely never get removed, because the majority of Americans are stubborn and scared.

The problem with gun control is again a practical one, because even if the liberal dream happened and guns were outright outlawed tomorrow, then the problem would obviously still exist, because they've been legal for so long. So there's no other way than to gradually step them down and make it slightly harder to get a hold of until eventually you land at an acceptable level of gun ownership.

Your "refutations" are, for the most part, self-defeating, so I will allow others to do their own research and come to their own conclusions rather than addressing each one. Suffice it to say that gun-control, in the U.S. at least, starts as an anti-minority measure (not unlike the "war on drugs" and the "war on poverty") and spurs on a "dark economy" (or "underground economy"), not unlike what (eventually) felled the Soviet Union. It's not dissimilar to what's going on in Puerto Rico and, to some extent, the Bay Area (except NorCal doesn't have the feds all over them like Puerto Rico does, so violent crime is high in PR and low in Mendocino).

Is it purely a "coincidence" that Puerto Rico has a higher murder rate than almost anywhere else in the U.S, while citing as many as 50%+ of the people on "public assistance," is an epicenter on the "war on drugs" and has about the strictest gun control laws of anywhere in the U.S.?

But don't worry! Here's some good news!
"They found that a country like Luxembourg, which bans all guns has a murder rate that is 9 times higher than Germany, where there are 30,000 guns per 100,000 people. They also cited a study by the U.S.National Academy of Sciences, which studied 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and it failed to find one gun control initiative that worked. . . . The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, conceded that the results they found in their report was not what they expected to find."

I guess they didn't account for the fact that outlaws don't really care about laws! The nerve of some people...

From YT, for more info:

Automan, Manimal, The Wizard, Wizards and Warriors, Misfits of Science, Shadow Chasers, The Phoenix, Powers of Matthew Star, Starman, Outlaws, The Highwayman

You have it backwards...ignoring and denying climate change is all about money... climate saving is about surviving. It's the rare climate scientist who's fortune is tied directly to their theories...just about 3% I would guess.

'bio-fuel' is only an ecological 'neutral' if it's made from waste material, certainly not if other, more ecologically necessary things (like trees) are destroyed to create it. Everyone is NOT hacking down forests to make bio-fuel, most places have outlawed that, and many climate scientists decried it at the outset as neutral at best and terrible at it's worst.

Facts are facts, not manipulateable at all. Interpretation of the facts is easily manipulated, if one is not able to understand the facts enough to interpret them for one's self, but not if one is able to interpret them. For instance, the political right would have you believe that solar is an expensive wasteful fools errand, the political left would have you believe it's an expensive but ecologically sound and needed energy alternative...the facts are it's both relatively ecologically sound AND financially sound as a long term investment...mine has paid for itself in under 8 years with at least another 12 years of free electricity to come and I haven't been subjected to repeated blackouts like my neighbors...double win. The point being that if you allow politicos with agendas (on either side of the fence) to interpret the facts for you, as you seem to do, you'll only hear what THEY want you to hear. I interpret data for myself, and often come to different conclusions than those I hear publicly supported.

Religion is based on faith, not facts. Faith is believing something without proof or factual evidence and ignoring any factual evidence to the contrary. Science is thinking a certain thing until/unless the facts prove otherwise. Religious people often don't understand the difference, I'm a scientist. Show me full data sets and facts that disprove my current theory, I'll happily modify my theory. Show me an interpretation that attempts to disprove my theory without facts and/or data (or with cherry picked data and facts), I'll poke it full of holes and sink it in the briny deep. Put your life vest on now.

I hate to tell you, but I'm far more intelligent according to repeated testing than the average person, contrary to your insulting implication. 138 aint bad buddy, and my science degree helps too.

Those that attempt to say +-97% of climate scientists (along with near 100% of other scientists that peer review their work) are in cahoots to defraud the public in order to secure some phantom money (the implication being that they wouldn't possibly be able to make money if they didn't lie about science for some reason), and only the <3% that are paid by oil and gas companies to come up with theories that consistently benefit their benefactors are honest are simply insane or dishonest. Period.
Your analogy is false, because in it you speak of 'scientists' from a time before the scientific method was even a thing, people who based their 'theories' often on scripture, while the real scientists 'swam against the current' to support modifiable theories based on facts and data...just like climate scientists have done so successfully over the last 40+ years that they have now convinced nearly 100% of the planet that they are correct. Deniers are still floating down stream while the rest of us are swimming against their slowing current, spawning and trying to continue the species.

No hypocrisy by NGT, only your complete misunderstanding and/or misstating of the facts. Sorry.

Would be difficult to swing that because F1 didn't have the type of organized pit stops we see today until much much later. Refueling during a race was first done in a properly calculated way in 1982 by Brabham, before that they only did it in emergency situations (barring Fangio's German Grand Prix win in 1957, where he just decided to do it mid race, but would probably have won even without it). It was again outlawed by 1984, and came back in 1994, then went away in 2010 again, so the only times in history that proper pit stops with fueling etc. have been in common use in F1 are between 1982-1984 and 1994-2009. Likewise stopping for new tyres pretty much came in with the fuel stops in 1982, because naturally they realized they could run softer tyre compounds if they only had to last half a race.

In the 50s, 60s and 70s you'd basically only see the F1 drivers pitting in if there were problems with the car, for the most part they really really wanted to avoid coming into the pits if at all possible. Exception being races like the Indy 500 which was simply too long to complete in one go.

I've got a tip, outlaw tipping!

depends on how you define "maximum nasty" @enoch

There was a time where I thought for sure we were heading towards another civil war. My assumption was that the gun nuts and other right wing lunatics would eventually take up arms against their country but ultimately lose.

But as I think about it more, for all their bluster and rhetoric. Chickenhawks are ultimately cowards and even gun-nuts really don't want to sacrifice their lives for their interpretation of the 2nd amendment. When it comes right down to it, most people don't want to fight and kill their fellow countrymen despite how much they want to try and demonize the "other"

The core issue as I see it that is preventing our political system from being more effective is private money in our politics and I don't think that's going to be fixed without a constitutional amendment prohibiting it. Thanks to the internet age, elections should be 100 percent publicly funded and lobbying and donations should be outlawed, because anyone can e-mail/blog and thus influence their elected officials without bribes or gifts or perks being involved. Money is not free speech

income inequality is going to get worse and worse until it reaches a tipping point that galvanizes the 99 percent but we're just not there yet. While I'm sure there will be some bloodshed during this process, I think on a national level it will be relatively bloodless and relatively peaceful.

as always, it's just going to be painful and it's going to take time. One of the problems with change is that you usually have to wait for people with bad ideas to die of old age before better ideas are implemented.

Had to share this one on FB: "...even the so called "rabid atheists" (Dawkins et al) of the present day simply aren't comparable. The lunatic fringe of religion is well documented (WBC, al Qaeda, etc) as is the harm caused by even mainstream religion (ban on condoms, hiding pedophiles).

There simply isn't anything comparable from even the most evangelical of the new atheists. Even dickheads like Pat Condell are small potatoes compared to the other side.

The reason why atheism is unique over other belief systems is because it isn't one. There is no atheist tract or creed that must be upheld. There are simply people who reject attempts by others to force them to comply with their particular belief set.

Now, if an atheist terror group appears tomorrow and starts bombing churches or even if an atheist political party* demanded the outlawing of religion, I would condemn them, but that hasn't happened.

Put simply, I've never had an atheist knock on my door and say "have you heard the word of Dawkins?"

*what would that even look like, given that atheism has no political affiliation?" ...because I enjoyed it that much. Thanks C.

It's not so much that dangerous fundamentalist atheism is impossible. As you said, Stalin and Mao proved otherwise, although an argument could be made that their zealotry was politically based, but I digress.

It's more that even the so called "rabid atheists" (Dawkins et al) of the present day simply aren't comparable. The lunatic fringe of religion is well documented (WBC, al Qaeda, etc) as is the harm caused by even mainstream religion (ban on condoms, hiding pedophiles).

There simply isn't anything comparable from even the most evangelical of the new atheists. Even dickheads like Pat Condell are small potatoes compared to the other side.

The reason why atheism is unique over other belief systems is because it isn't one. There is no atheist tract or creed that must be upheld. There are simply people who reject attempts by others to force them to comply with their particular belief set.

Now, if an atheist terror group appears tomorrow and starts bombing churches or even if an atheist political party* demanded the outlawing of religion, I would condemn them, but that hasn't happened.

Put simply, I've never had an atheist knock on my door and say "have you heard the word of Dawkins?"

*what would that even look like, given that atheism has no political affiliation?

They have outlawed homelessness in Lynnwood WA as well.
http://hpn.asu.edu/archives/2001-May/003730.html
I complained to a friend about the law and was told some Seattle suburbs do far worse

@enoch, thanks for your comments. I thought it better to respond directly to your profile than on the video, about which we're no longer discussing directly. Sorry for the length of this reply, but for such a complex topic as this one, a thorough and plainly-stated response is needed.

You wrote: "the REAL question is "what is the purpose of a health care system"? NOT "which market system should we implement for health care"?"

The free market works best for any and all goods and services, regardless of their aim or purpose. Healthcare is no different from any other good or service in this respect.

(And besides, tell me why there's no money in preventative care? Do nutritionists, physical trainers/therapists, psychologists, herbalists, homeopaths, and any other manner of non-allopathic doctors not get paid and make profit in the marketplace? Would not a longer life not lead to a longer-term 'consumer' anyway? And would preventative medicine obliterate the need for all manner of medical treatment, or would there not still remain a need to diagnose, treat, and cure diseases, even in the presence of a robust preventative medical market?)

I realize that my argument is not the "popular" one (and there are certainly many reasons for this, up to and including a lot of disinformation about what constitutes a "free market" health care system). But the way to approach such things is not heuristically, but rationally, as one would approach any other economic issue.

You write "see where i am going with this? It's not so easy to answer and impose your model of the "free market" at the same time."

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. The purpose of the healthcare system is to provide the most advanced medical service and care possible in the most efficient and affordable way possible. Only a free competitive market can do this with the necessary economic calculations in place to support its progress. No matter how you slice it, a socialized approach to healthcare invariably distorts the market (with its IP fees, undue regulations, and a lack of any accurate metrics on both the supply-side and on the demand-side which helps to determine availability, efficacy, and cost).

"you cannot have "for-profit" and "health-care" work in conjunction with any REAL health care."

Sorry, but this is just absurd. What else can I say?

"but if we use your "free market" model against a more "socialized model".which model would better serve the public?"

The free market model.

"if we take your "free market" model,which would be under the auspices of capitalism."

Redundant: "free market under the auspices of free market."

"disease is where the money is at,THAT is where the profit lies,not in preventive medicine."

Only Krugman-style Keynesians would say that illness is more profitable than health (or war more profitable than peace, or that alien invasions and broken windows are good for the economy). They, like you, aren't taking into account the One Lesson in Economics: look at how it affects every group, not just one group; look at the long term effects, not just short term ones. You're just seeing that, in the short-run, health will be less profitable for medical practitioners (or some pharmaceuticals) that are currently working in the treatment of illness. But look at every group outside that small group and at the long run and you can see that health is more profitable than illness overall. The market that profits more from illness will have to adapt, in ways that only the market knows for sure.

Do you realize that the money you put into socialized medicine (Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.) is money you deplete from prevention entrepreneurship?

(As an aside, I wonder, why do so many people assume that the socialized central planners have some kind of special knowledge or wisdom that entrepreneurs do not? And why is there the belief that unlike entrepreneurs, socialist central planners are not selfishly motivated but always act in the interest of the "common good?" Could this be part of the propagandized and indoctrinated fear that's implicit in living in a socialized environment? Why do serfs (and I'm sure that, at some level, people know that's what they are) love the socialist central planners more than they love themselves? Complex questions about self-esteem and captive minds.)

If fewer people get sick, the market will then demand more practitioners to move from treating illness into other areas like prevention, being a prevention doctor or whatever. You're actually making the argument for free market here, not against it. Socialized bureaucratically dictated medicine will not adapt to the changing needs as efficiently or rapidly as a free market can and would. If more people are getting sick, then we'll need more doctors to treat them. If fewer people are getting sick because preventive medicine takes off, then we'll have more of that type of service. If a socialized healthcare is mandated, then we will invariably have a glut of allopathic doctors, with little need for their services (and we then have the kinds of problems we see amongst doctors who are coerced -- by the threat of losing their license -- to take medicaid and then lie on their reports in order to recoup their costs, e.g., see the article linked here.)

Meanwhile, there has been and will remain huge profits to be made in prevention, as the vitamin, supplements, alternative medicine, naturopathy, exercise and many other industries attest to. What are you talking about, that there's no profit in preventing illness? (In a manner of speaking, that's actually my bread and butter!) If you have a way to prevent illness, you will have more than enough people buying from you, people who don't want to get sick. (And other services for the people who do.) Open a gym. Become a naturopath. Teach stress management, meditation, yoga, zumba, whatever! And there are always those who need treatment, who are sick, and the free market will then have an accurate measure of how to allocate the right resources and number of such practitioners. This is something that the central planners (under socialized services) simply cannot possibly do (except, of course, for the omniscient ones that socialists insist exist).

You wrote "cancer,anxiety,obesity,drug addiction.
all are huge profit generators and all could be dealt with so much more productively and successfully with preventive care,diet and exercise and early diagnosis."

But they won't as long as you have centrally planned (socialized) medicine. The free market forces practitioners to respond to the market's demands. Socialized medicine does not. Entrepreneurs will (as they already have) exploit openings for profit in prevention (without the advantage of regulations which distort the markets) and take the business away from treatment doctors. If anything, doctors prevent preventative medicine from getting more widespread by using government regulations to limit what the preventive practitioners do. In fact, preventive medicine is so profitable that it has many in the medical profession lobbying to curtail it. They are losing much business to alternative/preventive practitioners. They lobby to, for example, prevent herb providers from stating the medical/preventive benefits of their herbs. They even prevent strawberry farmers to tout the health benefits of strawberries! It is the state that is slowing down preventive medicine, not the free market! In Puerto Rico, for example, once the Medical Association lost a bit to prohibit naturopathy, they effectively outlawed acupuncture by successfully getting a law passed that requires all acupuncturists to be medical doctors. Insanity.

If you think there is no profit in preventative care or exercise, think GNC and Richard Simmons, and Pilates, and bodywork, and my own practice of psychotherapy. Many of the successful corporations (I'm thinking of Google and Pixar and SalesForce and Oracle, etc.) see the profit and value in preventative care, which is why they have these "stay healthy" programs for their employees. There's more money in health than illness. No doubt.

Or how about the health food/nutrition business? Or organic farming, or whole foods! The free market could maybe call for fewer oncologists and for more Whole Foods or even better natural food stores. Of course, we don't know the specifics, but that's actually the point. Only the free market knows (and the omniscient socialist central planners) what needs to happen and how.

Imagination! We need to get people to use it more.

You wrote: "but when we consider that the 4th and 5th largest lobbyists are the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry is it any wonder that america has the most fucked up,backwards health care system on the planet."

You're actually making my point here. In a free market, pharmaceutical companies cannot monopolize what "drugs" people can or cannot take, sell or not sell, and cannot prevent natural alternatives from being promoted. Only with state intervention (by way of IP regulations, and so forth) can they do so.

Free market is not corporatism. Free market is not crony capitalism. (More disinformation that needs to be lifted.)

So you're not countering my free market position, you're countering the crony capitalist position. This is a straw man argument, even if in this case you might not have understood my position in the first place. You, like so many others, equate "capitalism" with cronyism or corporatism. Many cannot conceive of a free market that is free from regulation. So folks then argue against their own interests, either for or against "fascist" vs. "socialist" medicine. The free market is, in fact, outside these two positions.

You wrote: "IF we made medicare available to ALL american citizens we would see a shift from latter stage care to a more aggressive preventive care and early diagnosis. the savings in money (and lives) would be staggering."

I won't go into medicare right now (It is a disaster, and so is the current non-free-market insurance industry. See the article linked in my comment above.)

You wrote "this would create a huge paradigm shift here in america and we would see results almost instantly but more so in the coming decades."

I don't want to be a naysayer but, socialism is nothing new. It has been tried (and failed) many times before. The USSR had socialized medicine. So does Cuba (but then you may believe the Michael Moore fairytale about medicine in Cuba). It's probably better to go see in person how Cubans live and how they have no access to the places that Moore visited.

You wrote: "i feel very strongly that health should be a communal effort.a civilized society should take care of each other."

Really, then why try to force me (or anyone) into your idea of "good" medicine? The free market is a communal effort. In fact, it is nothing else (and nothing else is as communal as the free market). Central planning, socialized, top-down decision-making, is not. Never has been. Never will be.

Voluntary interactions is "taking care of each other." Coercion is not. Socialism is coercion. It cannot "work" any other way. A free market is voluntary cooperation.

Economic calculation is necessary to avoid chaos, whatever the purpose of a service. This is economic law. Unless the purpose is to create chaos, you need real prices and efficiency that only the free market can provide.

I hope this helps to clarify (and not confuse) what I wrote on @eric3579's profile.

Hate to say it kids, but these quad-rotors are gonna be outlawed for civvies in short-order. All I see is an anonymous weapons platform waiting to happen. Better play with'em with yer kids before some new brand of terrorist mods one....

If i'm mistaken, The two in power have made it so that there is no possibility to have a third party in the USA. Unless majority of people is behind this third party, it will not gain those privileges that are granted in almost every other democratic country to all parties. As it is now, you are forced to campaign without any visibility and you are not allowed to enter debates.

IMHO, it is not democratic if you have only two options. Yea, it beats the dreaded one-option million-to-one but it's still just one step towards democratia. Without a third option what you see in the USA is exactly what was to be expected.

With three or more parties, the changes of reaching optimal solutions increase and the changes of corruption decreases. With two, it seems that corruption is as high as it would be with one-party systems.

Solutions: make campaigns funded from the public funds and outlaw any kind of private funding. Make this option available to ALL parties and give all of them equal chances. Dismantle "lobbyism" and stop revolving door completely.

It's sadder to me that they apparently don't understand (or worse, intentionally obfuscate the fact) that the outlawing of a substance makes it MORE available to children, always. Black markets have no scruples and sell to anyone. If you people want to limit the availability to your children and are really worried about it being a gateway drug, it needs to be REGULATED, not outlawed. (I have no children, so I'm not one of you).