They could charge more per ticket. But people would object to that even more than they object to the snacks.

This stuff is why I mostly just watch on-demand movies from my throne. Often, $3.00 ones on sale. And often with company!

I think a lot less people are going to movies in general now, though. There's SO much more access to movies via on-demand pay-per-view type programming, internet streaming, and even piracy. While that article is certainly informative and better than it is formatted (:)), I'm not convinced theaters can do anything about it.

In any event, we certainly learned nothing about such barbaric oppression as the thread is about. And thank Jeebus for that.

I don't think it needs to be a polling option. It's just a fact.

hehehehe he said "anti-trust" when he meant trust. He has no idea what he's talking about.

He's just spamming us what he read in some communist handbook. He doesn't understand anything anyone's saying.

That's why he hasn't even attempted to answer a single, obvious question.

Keep overlooking the fact that wealth disparity has absolutely no impact on the standard of living of the poor.

Well, other than the fact that it increases the standard of living of the poor, because those who can offer them better products/services for less cost are rewarded with wealth.

You just focus on wealth disparity because you're greedy and jealous. It has nothing to do with freedom or justice.

Your "nation of fear" claim is baseless.

The US has less fear. I'm safer because of the .45 under my arm. Everyone's safer because would-be criminals don't know who's carrying like me and who isn't.

All evidence concurs with this. Areas in the USA with stricter gun laws have more crime. Nations all over the globe (ie Australia, UK) experience increases in crime rates when they ban guns.

Why aren't you permitted to defend yourself? Because your nation is a nation of fear.

"Rights? What rights? Always this whining about 'rights' in the US. In the end you'll find perhaps a handfull of radicals to rise for their 'rights'."

We didn't have WWI on this side of the pond. Or WWII and the Holocaust. Our mass murderers are apolitical whack-jobs. Yours are politically motivated whack-jobs.

At least here you're honest about your anti-gun stance: You believe people are slaves to their states, to their political overlords. The rights and freedoms which are morally necessary and responsible for the greatest advances in standard of living in the history of mankind mean nothing to you. Any claim that man has inalienable rights you meet with derision, regardless of the philosophy behind it and undeniable real-world results.

I love all this talk as if mankind has intellectually progressed so much in the past half-century that firearms ownership is obviously unnecessary and harmful. People thought the exact same thing a hundred years ago. It was the modern age! Everyone was so enlightened--more than ever before! Horror and atrocities were things of the past. People were obviously too smart to ever repeat them!

And then they did. Worse than ever before in the history of mankind.

The notion that humanity itself shares some sort of intellectual heritage is a fraud. If you're not a science fiction writer looking for an easy device to supposedly explain irrational culture, please stop taking it seriously. The idea that human beings are magically different now than they were when democratic processes resulted in Hitler with dictatorial powers is baseless and ignorant.

The same thugs exist today. The same ignorant sheeple who give them votes do as well.

I had sex with the captain of a high school girls' volleyball team.

In his defense, watching them play just isn't that satisfying anymore.

If you don't plan to have any mutant kids it'd be pretty damn hard for you to get caught.

If you have mutant kids with a relative, well, as libertarian as I am, I could give a damn less what laws you might be prosecuted for.

The federal government shouldn't be involved in marriage.

There's no reason those suffering from psychological disorders (homosexuality) should be getting tax benefits which I don't get because I choose to have 3 wives (can't legally marry them).

It's immoral because it judges and discriminates (in favor of those who cannot, by form, procreate and create families, no less), and it's unconstitutional in the USA under the Fourteenth Amendment.

"The current economic paradigm is one in which the economies of the world serve the interests of the producer rather than the consumer....

You meant the current government paradigm. Words have meaning. Use the right ones. You have no idea what the current economic paradigm is nor how it operates. You are therefore unable to render any judgement on the matter with any truth to it whatsoever.

"It is not about business or profit.  It is about CAPITALISM driven by mutually beneficial transactions that are inherently unquantifiable.  It replaces the fiat monetary system."

It's not capitalism if it's not diven by free people and free businesses seeking profit via selling goods/services to free consumers.

It's not capitalism if transactions are "inherently unquantifiable," and to propose such a system without outlining ANYthing about it is just stupid. Why would people work? How would they be motivated to work harder? How would they be motivated to innovate? How would they be rewarded for harder work and smarter thinking?

You're just giving us meaningless platitudes. And you're redefining words so both your criticisms and vague nonsense alternative proposals (with no substance) are meaningless nonsense. We take away absolutely nothing from your posts. You're not saying ANYthing.

"Everyone is determining the rightness of each others' acts, and the social stigma associated with unrightful acts is sufficient deterent.   "

What's your basis for this assumption? Because I don't give a darn what you think.

"By whom?  Tyranny by a central government?  No where in this have I expressed any notion of a central authority."

Nor have you ever said what power would forcibly steal wealth as you propose. Without a central authority redistributing, areas could and would obviously choose not to. And rich people would migrate to these areas.

These aren't hostile questions. Yet you refuse to give any substance whatsoever to what you propose or answer simple, obvious, respectful questions.

Wealth should be redistributed. But not by any authority empowered to do so.

Markets should be free. Unless someone is successful. Then most of their earnings should be taken for redistribution. By an unspecified power.

Looks like you're trolling.

"You claim without providing evidence that your markets are free.  I've shown with factual evidence how they are not free.  Your response is "Yes they are."  How can there be any discussion with you?"

Red herring. Irrelevant to the fact that we're discussing whether or not they harm people in Rwanda.

Food and fuel prices inflate Rwanda's cost of living. They don't force it to inflate its currency. If they're too dumb to live within their means and not depend on foreign foods and fuels they can't afford, that's nobody else's fault.

You can cry about Rwanda all you want. You're not making a case that it's anybody else's fault.

"The point is, Kemp, your claim is that the markets are free.  I have disproven this adequately."

I've merely pointed out that many free market forces are still at work. You conceded this point shortly before crying so much that they closed the forum.

You disproved that many free market forces are still at work how? When? Was this before or after you got high on hallucinogens today?

"How could you not see that national economies are interconnected, and that national governments trade polcies effect market prices?"

If people are too dumb to elect governments that are part of the problem and not the solution, nothing can help them. You can't save people from themselves in democratic nations without oppressing their right to representation.

"You don't dispute the root problems, but rather my proposed solution, which you don't understand because you don't want to understand it.  There's no point discussing it with you anymore."

You haven't proposed a solution. That's why we're making jokes and laughing at you. You've proposed absolutely nothing to discuss. We keep asking you for what you're proposing here, but you keep refusing to say. All you're doing is posting a bunch of vague platitudes which mean nothing. You haven't discussed anything with anyone.

"Economic theories you posted links to are not scientific; they are theories portrayed as science; theories, which if you haven't noticed, don't work in the real world."

And they've all been studied academically, you're just afraid to learn anything about them.

"How is calling for the resurrection of the clearly usurped free market communistic?  If anything it is anti-communistic."

That's not what you call for. You're a liar.

"I would agree, but it would result in more corporate cronyism."

LESS government would result in MORE corporate cronyism. You provide no explanation.

"It is a sad fact behemoth government is necessary to keep behemoth corporations in check."

Laws and law enforcement aren't enough? You provide no explanation.

More government money and more government agencies effectively run by established businesses--in order to raise the price of entry into the market and minimize competition--result in less cronyism, you propose. You, again, provide no explanation or argument for this obtuse statement.

"This Robinhood tax repairs some of the damage:"

How? Who decides how to dole out the money? Who deserves to get it?

"the rich suffered less financial losses per capita than did the poor and middle class."

That's just false. Why bother correcting someone who's making up facts: They already know they're wrong.

"If government decreased taxes on the poor and middle class respectively, such a tax then would restore wealth inequality levels to what they were pre-2007."

Again, false. Baseless conjecture. Why bother correcting someone who's making up facts: They already know they're wrong.