Mercer

Mercerdamus prediction: Nobody is beating this one, with or without homemade bread.

Personally think the Chicago Dog is far superior to NYC glizzies, especially the carts where they boil them. For me they need char from either a grill, open flame camp fire, frying pan, baking them, or them germ infested rollers in 7eleven. Boiled means you have to cover up the taste & texture with extra mustard, sauerkraut, and other shit. I haven't had one i na minute but used to pan fry at home, or grill only, and made fake Chicago dogs with my own made up ingredient list, never bothered to check the official ingredients for a Chicago Dog.

I'm more worried about what government is putting into food, as opposed to keeping out of it. fWBI1G-bYi8R6BCa.mp4

Never had the balls to do fill ins on a highway spot like that in broad daylight myself. Props, and hope they're under 18.

It's hard to answer this without a wall of text so here goes. The first thing to understand here is people define capitalism in different ways. To be fair, my definition is different than most of the people with opposing viewpoints. Furthermore, Marx & Engles (the original proponents of Socialism/Communism) coined the term capitalism, so technically my definition can arguably be defined as incorrect. I just don't have a better word for it but unlike Communist/Socialists I do have a very concise definition for capitalism. People from the modern schools of economics have redefined the term capitalism to fit their own economic perspectives after abandoning the "Labor theory of value." A core principal of Marxism, and proto-marxists like Adam Smith, Ricardo, etc. As someone who shares the perspectives of the Austrian School of Economics, who's founder espoused "subjective value theory" and in line with the Chicago School, Keynesians, etc. definition of capitalism. We define it as "the voluntary exchange of private property for mutual benefit." The subjectivity of value is key to this concept like "Labor theory of value" is the foundational principal of Marixism. For example, I might value a hamburger more than the $20 that I'm spending on it, so I choose freely to purchase at that price. A hamburger vendor values the $20 more than he does his hamburger so they freely accept the $20 in exchange. The value of the hamburger, and the value of the $20 is subjective, and the difference in said value between the two that allows for an exchange is known as the margin. Likewise, there's no set price that applies universally to anything. Others may only value a Hamburger at $5 so there's no exchange with that vendor who values his at $20. Likewise a Vendor may value their hamburger at $50, and go out of business waiting on a customer who values it more than their $50. Under my definition, "voluntary exchange of private property for mutual benefit" the only people truly free of capitalism are people living in small tribal communities without any private property. In fact, the vast majority of humans that have ever lived on this planet lived this way for hundreds of thousands of years. This is what we're hardwired for, sharing, and rejecting the concept of just one person owning something, and needing their consent to share with another. To most people, that's simply greed because as I've said that's how we're hardwired. If you lived in a small tribe and owned something others wanted/needed without freely sharing, you probably wouldn't make. Capitalism (as I define it) came about, and began to prosper as a system because it incentivizes human effort in combating the scarcity of resources. It's counterintuitive to our hardwiring, but allowing a person to own an entire piece of land creates an incentive for that person to sow the land with crops. Why would they if anyone else could just come along and harvest whatever they needed? It also incentivizes voluntary mutual cooperation, which is also a very unintuitive. You don't have to force people to work together by threatening them, someone can offer another person some of their own private property in exchange for their labor (employment). So to answer your question from my perspective, there are people not living under capitalism. Even in urban places in America. Likewise, belonging to a small trib void of much technology one can still operate under the idea of capitalism. In fact, there are many in tribal communities that do excercize private property rights, usually tribes where people engaged in animal husbandry/herding will fall into this category, because they do trade their private property with others voluntarily for mutual benefit. An example of people that aren't participants of capitalism even in urban areas are children. They do not need to barter, buy, or trade anything to meet their basic wants & needs, their parents do so for them. My wife has everything she needs, and most of what she wants provided for her without the need to exchange anything at all for it including her body, which under my philosophy also falls under the very definition of private property, granting the owner absolute rights over their own body. Their informed consent is required to exchange their own body, and the labor it can produce for anything, and if not it's slavery. This concept of "informed consent" is complex, but central to my philosophy, and brings me back to the topic at hand: the food system. If a provider of food along any part of the process adds something to the food without either admitting there's a secret ingredient, or sharing what's been added, the exchange process is not conducted under informed consent. It's fraud. If the additives are listed with the information is made publicly available, and the purchaser still chooses to exchange for it, that is no longer fraud, and it's a valid informed consensual exchange for mutual benefit. People with the same beliefs I have (Vouluntaryists, the symbol my avatar represents) base everything on this concept of informed consent, and want all human interactions to be voluntary, non-forcible. For example, we think people should be allowed to do anything they want with their own bodies, including eating toxic food, as long as there's informed consent. The informed part of the "informed consent" excludes children, or adults unable to understand basic information about the exchange from the ability to provide informed consent. You can tell a retard there's arsenic in the food and expect them to understand. So technically selling chemically altered food to children, or someone who's knowingly unable to read and understand the ingredients is a violation of informed consent. On the flip side, this does allow for drug dealing, prostitution, assisted suicide etc. We believe the laws of biology can't superseded physics, and the laws of man cannot supersede the laws of biology, specifically the concept of absolute self ownership of your own body. We think any attempt to supersede the concept of full self ownership causes more harm, than it's intended to fix. We simply believe in allowing people to be free to make their own choices regarding their own bodies. For example, we don't believe in the forcible, carceral implementation of the drug war, and think trying to circumvent self ownership is the reason drugs will win this war, and they're always going to available for purchase, even in maximum security prisons. Our laws cannot possibly stop people from doing whatever they want with their own bodies. So from my perspective, if an adult wise enough to understand the health risks associated with slurping down a cup of edible glitter and various shit chemicals, who am I to say they can't. If someone enjoys living on the chunky side of life, and woofing down an entire bag of Doritos, or a full sleeve of fig newtons, that's up to them, and my judgement of them is invalid. It's not my place to forcibly change their diet/exercise for them, or have the government forcibly make someone else adhere to my values. I don't want men with guns and badges threatening the gas station for selling Doritos with arrest/fines, etc. It violates the principal of Voluntaryism. This concept extends to people who are perfectly content being opioid addicts. They can put anything they want into their own private property, AKA their own bodies if they're not harming someone else. The only effective route to helping drug addict is to provide ways to help out those willing to change themselves, and doing so without judgement or punishment.

They used to some things we're just now catching on to dialed in back in the day.

I eat great, whole natural foods almost exclusively outside of the rare break, and probably spend less money on food than the vast majority of people suffering from poor diets in the U.S. It's not the capitalism, it's stupidity.

Agreed, I'd say Vietnam is in my top 5 places for great food. Thing is, Vietnam's food is good because of their cultural capitol that's been built up continuously over thousands of years, much like Mexico's and the Mediterranean's. T The reality of the matter is this, their economy has been reformed to allow for capitalism and more free market activity now, which allows for enough food to be produced. After Communism took over up until 1993, every bad harvest under their centrally planned "non-capitalist" economy resulted in a famine, AKA not enough food, and people literally going food insecure. Before the free market reforms there, opening up their economy to investors, western tourists, etc. they regularly relied on UN’s "World Food Programme" due to famine, and they needed financial assistance from the Soviet Union, and other Eastern Bloc countries. As late as 1993, 79.7 percent of the Vietnamese population was living in poverty. he only thing less Facts. I'm not trying to make a "loaded question", I'm trying to make a point. You'll never catch me getting emotional over this shit, or intentionally insulting any of you. I'm just pointing out my perspective as respectfully as possible even though it doesn't align with the anti-government, and anti-capitalist perspectives everyone else is sharing. My point was, there's good food under capitalism, and that loaded question proved my point.

What non-capitalist places do you guys know of with better food?

I like for the grand finally he loses both the cars, and that ass in the shot. Also that's drag racing, involves a totally different meth lifestyle. 0NSaUsGBxsW4fZ3_.mp4

RxxrMp9Q8lVqTzAf.mp4

DeM19ZZu4er1oBN3.mp4

The other day I stopped scrolling and rewatched a video of a latin chick in the thicc thread and right after @misteravensent me a DM personally suggesting a specific brand of beans & rice. Shit's weird.

The fucking around part is buying a fucking Kia.

zhuMPz8V9lhBZpW2.mp4 That's gotta hurt.

Little women that had that back door blown out so heavy it sounds like air brakes on an 18 wheeler?

C-oVKoXa6nsTrk71.mp4

You ever had an itch on Uranus that a fart satisfied for you. This guys got weeks of satisfying flatulence ahead of him. Living the dream.

LPhmAs3cdbEJgBZO.mp4

I think the greatest evidence is the American supermarkets. You've got Produce, some dairy, and meats. the other 70% of the store is processed foods. Even the bakery isle isn't fresh bread baked on site chemical free, it's shipped in by the truckload full of preservatives. In Asian food markets, or when you travel to other places that's not the case. For example, my parents bought processed mashed potatoes in a box. That shit is gross, and they'd complain about real mashed potatoes being "lumpy". When I first moved out on my own I'd eat shit like Hamburger helper, hot pockets, Mac N' Fake Cheese, Ramen noodles (with no fresh ingredients added on top) etc. because it took slightly less effort to prepare. The notion of starting every meal with a knife, whole ingredients, and a chop board seemed foreign, ancient, and retarded. It wasn't until I married my first wife from Japan that I realized just how backwards this shit was here. Till this day I still prefer fake peanut butter over real, and still prefer jellied cranberry sauce over the real shit but that's about it. My tastes have completely flipped other wise, and I could never go back. I really miss my Grandmother's trad American cooking/baking now. Also, one of the reasons I couldn't take American women seriously when I started dating after I got divorced. Foreign only unless it's just to smash. Very few places on this planet outside of the U.S. were robbed of these essential culinary skills. Americans women are clueless about preparing food for the most part. Sometimes from the inside looking out as an American, it's hard to notice just how profound this discrepancy with Americans is. Like yea, you may notice obesity a little but you think it's due to food abundance or some shit. Not that I like women's potential being automatically wasted on homemaking alone, but ever since feminism took of mid/late 20th century, and made knowing how to cook/bake go out of style food took a dive and never recovered. Food prep is now done in factories, with chemicals, because that's what people here buy. Not just that, but our food prep is being done by people who give zero fucks about us, just waiting to clock out. Food should be prepared by yourself, or someone else who loves and respects you & your health, and occasionally a culinary artist you pay well, not some factory, or fast food assembly line workers.

Weird thing I've noticed lately. I used to think tattoos on women were kinda hot back in the day when they weren't so commonplace. Not so much any more. To me it obscures what I appreciate the most, like a painting on a great sculpture. Don't get me wrong, it's still smashville, but these days I don't want to see shit, unless it's electrical tape.

C6lhbu3prftc4btT.mp4

Word is the homies took him to Taco Bell right after. So he's got that going for him. Which is nice.