If What Goes on in People' Bedroom is None of My Business...

[Phatscotty]

thats ridiculous. I strongly encourage safe sex.

So you are ok with state funded contraceptives (aka subsidies etc).

I don't follow how encouraging safe sex automatically goes to encouraging state funded contraceptives.

Read the post above, I meant it as a question, apologies/

I don't think we need the government to do things for people that could and should be doing for themselves.

It really is no wonder how society keeps discovering all kinds of new problems when we remove our need to be responsible for our actions and live more and more carefree lives and don't have to worry about making the wrong decisions anymore, therefore not knowing why the decision was wrong nor learning a lesson on why not to make the incorrect choice again, and that has an impact on the next generation as well. Just a general rant

[BigBallinStalin]

It really is no wonder how society keeps discovering all kinds of new problems when we remove our need to be responsible for our actions and live more and more carefree lives and don't have to worry about making the wrong decisions anymore, therefore not knowing why the decision was wrong nor learning a lesson on why not to make the incorrect choice again, and that has an impact on the next generation as well. Just a general rant

That's a rant I strongly agree with.


Many well-intended public policies prevent the trial-and-error process which enables individuals to learn from their mistakes or from the mistakes of others. Those policies also subsidize the costs of making poor decisions. (If you want more of something, then subsidize it...).

Besides, these policies tend to create more problems which enable politicians and rent-seekers more opportunities to intervene, thus enriching themselves under the guise of acting for the "common" good. Many people lose sight of the ultimate cause which contributes to this ongoing chain of problems. That original cause was state intervention, to which many people unfortunately appeal.

[Lootifer]

It really is no wonder how society keeps discovering all kinds of new problems when we remove our need to be responsible for our actions and live more and more carefree lives and don't have to worry about making the wrong decisions anymore, therefore not knowing why the decision was wrong nor learning a lesson on why not to make the incorrect choice again, and that has an impact on the next generation as well. Just a general rant

That's a rant I strongly agree with.


Many well-intended public policies prevent the trial-and-error process which enables individuals to learn from their mistakes or from the mistakes of others. Those policies also subsidize the costs of making poor decisions. (If you want more of something, then subsidize it...).

Besides, these policies tend to create more problems which enable politicians and rent-seekers more opportunities to intervene, thus enriching themselves under the guise of acting for the "common" good. Many people lose sight of the ultimate cause which contributes to this ongoing chain of problems. That original cause was state intervention, to which many people unfortunately appeal.

I just deleted a massive rant. Why? Because you're probably right. Let them suffer in the short term; let them make stupid decisions and pay for it; let your crony capitalism that has a foothold, power and desire to remain carry on unfetted as you push for more free markets against those who compound social returns at a much higher rate than mere finacial returns, thus perpetuating status quo; Good day sir.

[Symmetry]

It really is no wonder how society keeps discovering all kinds of new problems when we remove our need to be responsible for our actions and live more and more carefree lives and don't have to worry about making the wrong decisions anymore, therefore not knowing why the decision was wrong nor learning a lesson on why not to make the incorrect choice again, and that has an impact on the next generation as well. Just a general rant

That's a rant I strongly agree with.


Many well-intended public policies prevent the trial-and-error process which enables individuals to learn from their mistakes or from the mistakes of others. Those policies also subsidize the costs of making poor decisions. (If you want more of something, then subsidize it...).

Besides, these policies tend to create more problems which enable politicians and rent-seekers more opportunities to intervene, thus enriching themselves under the guise of acting for the "common" good. Many people lose sight of the ultimate cause which contributes to this ongoing chain of problems. That original cause was state intervention, to which many people unfortunately appeal.

An interesting argument, that government should be in the business of allowing people to make as many mistakes and poor decisions as possible so that they learn from them. Kind of a paternalistic view of the state, no? Where citizens are not adult members of the community, but children who need to be taught a lesson by the patrician elites?

Of course, they will be taught the error of their ways, even if it means a bit more homelessness, undernourishment, higher rates of infant fatality, poverty... eventually, hopefully before they die young, they will be thankful that you're helping them understand their poor decisions.

At least it will shift the horrific burden the middle class has been shouldering for far to long. The long nightmare of helping others might finally be over.

[Night Strike]

It really is no wonder how society keeps discovering all kinds of new problems when we remove our need to be responsible for our actions and live more and more carefree lives and don't have to worry about making the wrong decisions anymore, therefore not knowing why the decision was wrong nor learning a lesson on why not to make the incorrect choice again, and that has an impact on the next generation as well. Just a general rant

That's a rant I strongly agree with.


Many well-intended public policies prevent the trial-and-error process which enables individuals to learn from their mistakes or from the mistakes of others. Those policies also subsidize the costs of making poor decisions. (If you want more of something, then subsidize it...).

Besides, these policies tend to create more problems which enable politicians and rent-seekers more opportunities to intervene, thus enriching themselves under the guise of acting for the "common" good. Many people lose sight of the ultimate cause which contributes to this ongoing chain of problems. That original cause was state intervention, to which many people unfortunately appeal.

I just deleted a massive rant. Why? Because you're probably right. Let them suffer in the short term; let them make stupid decisions and pay for it; let your crony capitalism that has a foothold, power and desire to remain carry on unfetted as you push for more free markets against those who compound social returns at a much higher rate than mere finacial returns, thus perpetuating status quo; Good day sir.

Crony capitalism only exists because of how big the government is. If the government weren't picking winners and losers in the marketplace and constantly changing the rules of how to do business, you could see the free market work as it was intended. Crony capitalism is one of the exact problems that is rooted in big government yet people want the government to come in and "fix".

[Symmetry]

It really is no wonder how society keeps discovering all kinds of new problems when we remove our need to be responsible for our actions and live more and more carefree lives and don't have to worry about making the wrong decisions anymore, therefore not knowing why the decision was wrong nor learning a lesson on why not to make the incorrect choice again, and that has an impact on the next generation as well. Just a general rant

That's a rant I strongly agree with.


Many well-intended public policies prevent the trial-and-error process which enables individuals to learn from their mistakes or from the mistakes of others. Those policies also subsidize the costs of making poor decisions. (If you want more of something, then subsidize it...).

Besides, these policies tend to create more problems which enable politicians and rent-seekers more opportunities to intervene, thus enriching themselves under the guise of acting for the "common" good. Many people lose sight of the ultimate cause which contributes to this ongoing chain of problems. That original cause was state intervention, to which many people unfortunately appeal.

I just deleted a massive rant. Why? Because you're probably right. Let them suffer in the short term; let them make stupid decisions and pay for it; let your crony capitalism that has a foothold, power and desire to remain carry on unfetted as you push for more free markets against those who compound social returns at a much higher rate than mere finacial returns, thus perpetuating status quo; Good day sir.

Crony capitalism only exists because of how big the government is. If the government weren't picking winners and losers in the marketplace and constantly changing the rules of how to do business, you could see the free market work as it was intended. Crony capitalism is one of the exact problems that is rooted in big government yet people want the government to come in and "fix".

I've seen the same argument for communism too many times to buy into that line of thinking. Basically, you're saying free markets would work if nobody took advantage of the system, and politics didn't exist.

[Night Strike]

I've seen the same argument for communism too many times to buy into that line of thinking. Basically, you're saying it would work if nobody took advantage of the system.

No, you use the government to actually punish the people who break laws (ponzi schemes, embezzlement, dangerous workplaces, violate patents, etc.). You do NOT use the government to pick which industries succeed and which ones fail. You do NOT use the government to pass massive, arbitrary regulations that benefit the large companies while artificially pricing the small ones out of the marketplace.

[Symmetry]

I've seen the same argument for communism too many times to buy into that line of thinking. Basically, you're saying it would work if nobody took advantage of the system.

No, you use the government to actually punish the people who break laws (ponzi schemes, embezzlement, dangerous workplaces, violate patents, etc.). You do NOT use the government to pick which industries succeed and which ones fail. You do NOT use the government to pass massive, arbitrary regulations that benefit the large companies while artificially pricing the small ones out of the marketplace.

And how would this fantasy scheme actually be implemented? A single Free Market party, with a delegate list of ideological purity from which citizens can cast their vote? Crony Capitalist delegates disallowed?

Sounds like communism, again.

You're arguing for a system that goes against human nature, and yet you seem to have absolute faith will work, as long as everybody acts according to plan.

[Night Strike]

I've seen the same argument for communism too many times to buy into that line of thinking. Basically, you're saying it would work if nobody took advantage of the system.

No, you use the government to actually punish the people who break laws (ponzi schemes, embezzlement, dangerous workplaces, violate patents, etc.). You do NOT use the government to pick which industries succeed and which ones fail. You do NOT use the government to pass massive, arbitrary regulations that benefit the large companies while artificially pricing the small ones out of the marketplace.

And how would this fantasy scheme actually be implemented? A single Free Market party, with a delegate list of ideological purity from which citizens can cast their vote? Crony Capitalist delegates disallowed?

Sounds like communism, again.

That's why the citizenry is responsible for electing moral and upright individuals who will follow the Constitution. And even moreso, they need to quickly replace anyone who goes against the Constitution.

[BigBallinStalin]

That's a rant I strongly agree with.


Many well-intended public policies prevent the trial-and-error process which enables individuals to learn from their mistakes or from the mistakes of others. Those policies also subsidize the costs of making poor decisions. (If you want more of something, then subsidize it...).

Besides, these policies tend to create more problems which enable politicians and rent-seekers more opportunities to intervene, thus enriching themselves under the guise of acting for the "common" good. Many people lose sight of the ultimate cause which contributes to this ongoing chain of problems. That original cause was state intervention, to which many people unfortunately appeal.

I just deleted a massive rant. Why? Because you're probably right. Let them suffer in the short term; let them make stupid decisions and pay for it; let your crony capitalism that has a foothold, power and desire to remain carry on unfetted as you push for more free markets against those who compound social returns at a much higher rate than mere finacial returns, thus perpetuating status quo; Good day sir.

I'm glad you deleted that section, but to be clear, PS and I's stance would lead to the reduction of crony capitalism. Since the crony capitalists use the state as the means to restrict competition (among other actions), then the logical conclusion is to reduce the state's scope of authority.

I'd argue that very many well-intended public policies tend to cause and prolong the suffering which we see today.

[Symmetry]

I've seen the same argument for communism too many times to buy into that line of thinking. Basically, you're saying it would work if nobody took advantage of the system.

No, you use the government to actually punish the people who break laws (ponzi schemes, embezzlement, dangerous workplaces, violate patents, etc.). You do NOT use the government to pick which industries succeed and which ones fail. You do NOT use the government to pass massive, arbitrary regulations that benefit the large companies while artificially pricing the small ones out of the marketplace.

And how would this fantasy scheme actually be implemented? A single Free Market party, with a delegate list of ideological purity from which citizens can cast their vote? Crony Capitalist delegates disallowed?

Sounds like communism, again.

That's why the citizenry is responsible for electing moral and upright individuals who will follow the Constitution. And even moreso, they need to quickly replace anyone who goes against the Constitution.

Sounds much like the talk of early Communist revolutionaries. The citizens will decide! Only true comrades, moral and upright will be chosen by the will of the people. Those who are not moral and upright will be... "replaced".

Be wary NS, the first victims of the free market revolution will be... ah I think you get the point.

[Lootifer]

Oh that's right, the Free Market removes barriers to entry as well, how silly of me (directed at both NS and BBS).

[BigBallinStalin]

It really is no wonder how society keeps discovering all kinds of new problems when we remove our need to be responsible for our actions and live more and more carefree lives and don't have to worry about making the wrong decisions anymore, therefore not knowing why the decision was wrong nor learning a lesson on why not to make the incorrect choice again, and that has an impact on the next generation as well. Just a general rant

That's a rant I strongly agree with.


Many well-intended public policies prevent the trial-and-error process which enables individuals to learn from their mistakes or from the mistakes of others. Those policies also subsidize the costs of making poor decisions. (If you want more of something, then subsidize it...).

Besides, these policies tend to create more problems which enable politicians and rent-seekers more opportunities to intervene, thus enriching themselves under the guise of acting for the "common" good. Many people lose sight of the ultimate cause which contributes to this ongoing chain of problems. That original cause was state intervention, to which many people unfortunately appeal.

An interesting argument, that government should be in the business of allowing people to make as many mistakes and poor decisions as possible so that they learn from them. Kind of a paternalistic view of the state, no? Where citizens are not adult members of the community, but children who need to be taught a lesson by the patrician elites?

Paternalism is the idea of dictating how people should live. It doesn't allow; it directs.

My stance advocates that the "patrician elite" be removed from their state-granted authority to direct human action. How is that paternalistic? It isn't.

To be clear, I don't claim to know how people should live their lives; therefore, I won't be in the business of appealing to the state so that it can decide how adults should behave. These decisions should be left to the decision-makers in their particular circumstance of time and place. The institutions and individuals will guide themselves without the perceived "necessity" of state intervention.

Of course, they will be taught the error of their ways, even if it means a bit more homelessness, undernourishment, higher rates of infant fatality, poverty... eventually, hopefully before they die young, they will be thankful that you're helping them understand their poor decisions.

At least it will shift the horrific burden the middle class has been shouldering for far to long. The long nightmare of helping others might finally be over.

That's an interesting story, but you've limited it to a small portion of possible outcomes and have overlooked the long-run.

My stance does not deny the fact that you can still choose to be paternalistic help others. My stance is leveled at the state. The state and an individual's freedom to help others are two different things. If you see someone suffering, you can voluntary dedicate your own resources to the problem. Let your morals be expressed by your own actions, but certainly not through the appeal to the state.

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh that's right, the Free Market removes barriers to entry as well, how silly of me (directed at both NS and BBS).

What do you mean?

[BigBallinStalin]

I've seen the same argument for communism too many times to buy into that line of thinking. Basically, you're saying it would work if nobody took advantage of the system.

No, you use the government to actually punish the people who break laws (ponzi schemes, embezzlement, dangerous workplaces, violate patents, etc.). You do NOT use the government to pick which industries succeed and which ones fail. You do NOT use the government to pass massive, arbitrary regulations that benefit the large companies while artificially pricing the small ones out of the marketplace.

And how would this fantasy scheme actually be implemented? A single Free Market party, with a delegate list of ideological purity from which citizens can cast their vote? Crony Capitalist delegates disallowed?

Sounds like communism, again.

That's why the citizenry is responsible for electing moral and upright individuals who will follow the Constitution. And even moreso, they need to quickly replace anyone who goes against the Constitution.

Sounds much like the talk of early Communist revolutionaries. The citizens will decide! Only true comrades, moral and upright will be chosen by the will of the people. Those who are not moral and upright will be... "replaced".

Be wary NS, the first victims of the free market revolution will be... ah I think you get the point.

I'm not sure what NS is, but libertarianism rejects the means which Communists use in order to achieve their political goals.

[Symmetry]

I didn't mention libertarianism, but then again, libertarianism is pretty diverse, almost to the point of not really being a political philosophy at all, just an opposition movement. So it's possible I caught some part of it. Anyway, I made a new thread.

[BigBallinStalin]

@Sym

re: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=164675&start=210#p3639504

Are you sincerely interested in debate, or are you here to goof around?

[Night Strike]

I've seen the same argument for communism too many times to buy into that line of thinking. Basically, you're saying it would work if nobody took advantage of the system.

No, you use the government to actually punish the people who break laws (ponzi schemes, embezzlement, dangerous workplaces, violate patents, etc.). You do NOT use the government to pick which industries succeed and which ones fail. You do NOT use the government to pass massive, arbitrary regulations that benefit the large companies while artificially pricing the small ones out of the marketplace.

And how would this fantasy scheme actually be implemented? A single Free Market party, with a delegate list of ideological purity from which citizens can cast their vote? Crony Capitalist delegates disallowed?

Sounds like communism, again.

That's why the citizenry is responsible for electing moral and upright individuals who will follow the Constitution. And even moreso, they need to quickly replace anyone who goes against the Constitution.

Sounds much like the talk of early Communist revolutionaries. The citizens will decide! Only true comrades, moral and upright will be chosen by the will of the people. Those who are not moral and upright will be... "replaced".

Be wary NS, the first victims of the free market revolution will be... ah I think you get the point.

So now following our Constitution is a gateway to communism. Impressive leap of logic right there.

And you should take some time to read actual documents from the Founding Fathers, as they mention the term "moral and upright citizen" many times. We know communists aren't moral and upright because all they want to do is take money from the rich and redistribute it to those who do little to nothing. There's nothing moral and upright about that.

[john9blue]

So now following our Constitution is a gateway to communism. Impressive leap of logic right there.

And you should take some time to read actual documents from the Founding Fathers, as they mention the term "moral and upright citizen" many times. We know communists aren't moral and upright because all they want to do is take money from the rich and redistribute it to those who do little to nothing. There's nothing moral and upright about that.

do you really think all communists are immoral?

there's a difference between an "immoral person" and a "person who condones immoral acts". they are not the same thing.

btw almost everyone makes this mistake, you are not the only one.

[PLAYER57832]

yes, birth control pills are now "medical care" and "women issues". Heck, they even had some political plant get in front of a phony congressional hearing and say "I know a girl who died because she couldn't get birth control"

This is about the left making the 2012 election about social issues, and we are already seeing just how far they are willing to bend perception in an attempt to make it reality. Except that phat f*ck keeps showing people how they cram the rabbit into the hat backstage, foiling the elitists plans!

Birth control pills are regularly prescribed for medical issues other than as contraceptives. And, incidentally, are covered by most insurance, including insurance plans provided by religious instituions.

WHICH IS WHY THIS IS A MOOT ISSUE!

EXCEPT, this is the requirement that the Roman Catholic Church wants to change!!!!

So, it is exactly the issue.

And.. regardless of your personal opinion, when you declare that the Roman Catholic church and other employers have the right to dictate whether their employees get this insurance coverage or not, then you ARE siding with them... the same Roman Catholic Church that has come out even opposed to abortions that would save a mother's live...and allow her to have children in the future.

[thegreekdog]

I didn't mention libertarianism, but then again, libertarianism is pretty diverse, almost to the point of not really being a political philosophy at all, just an opposition movement. So it's possible I caught some part of it. Anyway, I made a new thread.

Would you agree that conservativism or liberalism are also very diverse? Are they opposition movements?

I feel like I've had this discussion before. Some people (or a person) were saying that Libertarianism is a non-starter because of the "radical" views espoused by Libertarians. I suggested that Libertarianism in the US is a non-starter because of the entrenched political parties. I'm pretty sure I was arguing with Player. I'll have to find that thread, provide the link here, and then you can read it Symm.

[PLAYER57832]

And this issue has exactly NOTHING to do with medical care. As the liberals are quick to point out, approximately 98% of people use or have used some form of contraception. This means there is NOT a lack of access to contraception.

Well, right now, insurance is mandated to cover this, plus states cover it. Even so, while a high percentage of women use it at some time in their life, you neglect the part where women get estrogen for many, many reasons. I took it for several years because of essessive pain and bleeding, though I was not sexual active at the time. Later, I had to take progesterone, which has at some points also been considered "birth control", so that I would not miscarry my sons. Older women commonly have to take such supplements during pregnancies.

And while I have cited my own personal history because I am not legally allowed to cite other people's medical histories, i assure you I am very far from alone.

So, again.... GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT before voicing and opinion on this!

Oh look, legitimate medical issues for needing prescriptions that could otherwise be used as contraceptives. Oh look also, they're already covered under insurance. Oh yeah, this has NOTHING to do with the current debate of providing prescriptions for free for the sole use of contraception. It's a distraction to get the dumb masses on your side by lumping in things that are currently covered with things that are not. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!

Nope. the Roman Catholic church wants to REMOVE this coverage. They don't consider most medical uses to be legitimate, including use of contraceptives to prevent a potentially deadly pregnancy, and many other medical uses too many to name here.

Furthermore, if the prescription is being used for actual medical issues, that IS covered by insurance. Even insurance provided by religious organizations. In light of those facts, it becomes clear that this issue is only an assault on religious freedoms in order to give the government the power to unconstitutionally prohibit the free exercise of religion.

NO, this is poppycock. You have made this claim, but it is not the truth. The truth is that it will be up to women to justify to insurance companies that they need this.. and, because there is no longer a mandate for coverage, many plain won't get it.

Maybe if MORE medicines and treatments were justified as to why they were needed and if they're the cheapest option in the market that will still do the job, we wouldn't see the constant increases in insurance costs that we do now. But that would be a free market principle, which we can't have any of in our move to big-government control of health care and every other market.
[/quote]
This has nothing at all to do with the Roman Catholic Church declaring they should not have to cover this particular kind of medical care because they dislike it. AND, the reasoon it is required is precisely because employers don't have the right to decide what medical care is and is not appropriate. That decision belongs to the patient and doctor.

You are arguing against employer provided health insurance, something I agree should be eliminated. Except, I say it needs to be universal because its NOT a free market issue. We disagree, but that is another debate entirely than the one here.

By the way, since this is a fact so I know you will dismiss or distort it, but if the government did not mandate contraceptive coverage, how did 95-98% of the population have access to contraceptives?

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Right now, the government DOES mandate that all insurance companies cover women's health and provide direct access to gynecologists without having to go through a "gatekeeper" physician. That is because pregnancy and other issues require immediate care and delays injure women and children.

How will that change if this new mandate is NOT put in place? Under your logic, women will suddenly lose all contraceptive coverage, whether it's used for birth control or medical issues. If this is not the case before the mandate was written, why would it be the case after the mandate is rescinded? My guess would be because this has absolutely nothing to do with women's health and everything to do with more governmental power and infringement on our rights.

The Roman Catholic Church has sued to get this coverage excluded entirely from their policies. Obama suggested a compromised, which they rejected. (not that I think the compromise was much, but that is the state of things).

Also, hormones are one of those drugs that cannot always be substituted in generic version because even very, very tiny differences can matter a lot. Now insurance covers it all, but they won't any longer.

See above. But if they're covering it before the mandate, why would it suddenly disappear? Of course, that's liberal logic for you.

No, its the logic of the Roman Catholic Church. But, nice try at labeling anything you don't like some kind of liberal plot.

[PLAYER57832]

I didn't mention libertarianism, but then again, libertarianism is pretty diverse, almost to the point of not really being a political philosophy at all, just an opposition movement. So it's possible I caught some part of it. Anyway, I made a new thread.

Would you agree that conservativism or liberalism are also very diverse? Are they opposition movements?

I feel like I've had this discussion before. Some people (or a person) were saying that Libertarianism is a non-starter because of the "radical" views espoused by Libertarians. I suggested that Libertarianism in the US is a non-starter because of the entrenched political parties. I'm pretty sure I was arguing with Player. I'll have to find that thread, provide the link here, and then you can read it Symm.

Are you sure those are really 2 seperate views? Many consider not allowing corporations to have full and complete control over everything that happens to their companies, employees, etc.. with only minor exceptions for the really big stuff.. (and occasionally not even that) to be some kind of radical idea. But, yeah, it was in the other thread.

However, the thing about liberaterianism is that right now, a lot of ideas about reducing the size of the government get lumped into that view. Everyone seems to have their own idea of the "exceptions"... a lot of Tea Partiers, for example are quite happy to have the government control private matters. Most big power brokers are happy to have the government restrain individuals from suing corporations with "frivolous" lawsuits ( things like complaining when their wells are contaminated, etc.) I am opposed because I believe that education MUST be universal and provided free, plus because a lot of the "unweildly regulations" that "get in the way of commerce" are about protecting our environment.

[PLAYER57832]

It really is no wonder how society keeps discovering all kinds of new problems when we remove our need to be responsible for our actions and live more and more carefree lives and don't have to worry about making the wrong decisions anymore, therefore not knowing why the decision was wrong nor learning a lesson on why not to make the incorrect choice again, and that has an impact on the next generation as well. Just a general rant

That's a rant I strongly agree with.


Many well-intended public policies prevent the trial-and-error process which enables individuals to learn from their mistakes or from the mistakes of others. Those policies also subsidize the costs of making poor decisions. (If you want more of something, then subsidize it...).

Besides, these policies tend to create more problems which enable politicians and rent-seekers more opportunities to intervene, thus enriching themselves under the guise of acting for the "common" good. Many people lose sight of the ultimate cause which contributes to this ongoing chain of problems. That original cause was state intervention, to which many people unfortunately appeal.

I agree with this, but the Roman Catholic Church claiming that they have the right to decide this for people who are not church members, who just work in a hospital that happens to be affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church is in opposition to that.

Subsidies need to be tied to direct economic impacts. They are particularly needed to control externalities (subsidies and taxes). BUT, unless they are carefully controlled, they can readily get out of hand. Our political system encouraged individuals and corporations to ignore real overall impacts and look just strictly at their immediate gain.

[PLAYER57832]

Crony capitalism only exists because of how big the government is. If the government weren't picking winners and losers in the marketplace and constantly changing the rules of how to do business, you could see the free market work as it was intended. Crony capitalism is one of the exact problems that is rooted in big government yet people want the government to come in and "fix".

This is diametrically opposed to reality. The government should not pick winners and loser in economics, but it MUST pick safety, control externalities that impact society negatively and provide for the general health and welfar of the population.. no matter how much the banks and corporations claim they "cannot afford that...".