Universal Healthcare= Slavery (Libertarians Are Trolling Us)

[BigBallinStalin]

With the state police, it's a different ball park. The services, which they render, do not have to equate with the payment they recieve because their payment is actually money unvoluntarily taken from the people themselves. Therefore, there's no cost-profit incentives involved, so there's much less incentives for them to improve their performance. Also, ever tried bringing a police officer to court? It's extremely difficult, no matter how wrong or corrupt they are. State police at times are above the law, which is another problem.
It goes on and on. The main problem is that an organization/business like the state police can not efficiently and effectively serve their customers as well as an security/police organization that runs on profit-loss incentives. Also, a government-run organization is usually above the law, which prevents justice from being properly served.

While I agree with you that state police seem to be tending toward being above the law, I don't believe at all that would change under a profit-loss police system. The mercenarial system has proven that.

What has the "mercenarial system" proven, and how so?

[thegreekdog]

Citizens would police themselves? In other words: mob rule, lynchings... no, there's just too many assholes for that kind of society to ever work in practice.

It depends. What if the society was a group of Amish, as an example. They don't have any problems governing themselves without a government (although I suppose the Amish elders would be an example).

Something a lot of anarchists often don't seem to understand is that a government is not something external to the people.

Really? I have argued and will continue to argue (and you have argued) that the government of the United States is external to the people. It does not do what the people want; it does what the big corporations and special interest groups want.

Regulating trade... You mean like, making sure that businesses don't do immoral things, like cheat their customers, oppress their employees, that kind of thing?

No, I mean making sure New York doesn't kill trade with New Jersey... trade among the states, not trade in the states. That's what the commerce clause is there for.

Actually, seeing how corrupt the US government seems to be, it might not be a half bad thing to let all the states run themselves as they like. Instead of one huge country that everyone is constantly pissed at, you could have 50 small countries. A small country is less likely to run around the world doing absurd & immoral military ops.

Correct. I support the idea that the United States should be split into smaller, regional republics with a common "federal" government that merely exists to ensure fair trade amongst the republics and to provide for the common defense, if needed. I also think this would stop the United States imperialism. Statists on both the Republican and Demoract side don't want this (it's called secession), so they call secessionists racists because the last time there was considerable secession talk it was over the issue of slavery. Anyway, I digress.

Yes, having a government does not guarantee that you don't have slavery. However, not having a government guarantees that you do.

Not having a government guarantees that you have slavery? That doesn't make sense. Can you point out an instance where a society without a government held slaves?

Ok. What problems are those?

There are many. Here are some more important ones:

(1) Foreign wars and general imperialism
(2) Corporations, special interest groups, and unions have a disproportionate influence on the members of federal government.
(3) Education
(4) Taxation
(5) Over-regulation and under-regulation
(6) Inflation

I said big corporations, because big corporations obviously have more money to slip in the pockets of corrupt politicians.

Big corporations are not the only ones with the money to slip in the pockets of politicians. I removed the word "corrupt" because it is not illegal for entities to bribe, I mean pay for the campaigns of, politicians.

[Woodruff]

With the state police, it's a different ball park. The services, which they render, do not have to equate with the payment they recieve because their payment is actually money unvoluntarily taken from the people themselves. Therefore, there's no cost-profit incentives involved, so there's much less incentives for them to improve their performance. Also, ever tried bringing a police officer to court? It's extremely difficult, no matter how wrong or corrupt they are. State police at times are above the law, which is another problem.
It goes on and on. The main problem is that an organization/business like the state police can not efficiently and effectively serve their customers as well as an security/police organization that runs on profit-loss incentives. Also, a government-run organization is usually above the law, which prevents justice from being properly served.

While I agree with you that state police seem to be tending toward being above the law, I don't believe at all that would change under a profit-loss police system. The mercenarial system has proven that.

What has the "mercenarial system" proven, and how so?

That they operate above the law. By doing so. For instance, repossessors, whether auto or home. They operate above the law, with only those who have the personal wealth available to fight them...otherwise, they simply operate at will.

[BigBallinStalin]

With the state police, it's a different ball park. The services, which they render, do not have to equate with the payment they recieve because their payment is actually money unvoluntarily taken from the people themselves. Therefore, there's no cost-profit incentives involved, so there's much less incentives for them to improve their performance. Also, ever tried bringing a police officer to court? It's extremely difficult, no matter how wrong or corrupt they are. State police at times are above the law, which is another problem.
It goes on and on. The main problem is that an organization/business like the state police can not efficiently and effectively serve their customers as well as an security/police organization that runs on profit-loss incentives. Also, a government-run organization is usually above the law, which prevents justice from being properly served.

While I agree with you that state police seem to be tending toward being above the law, I don't believe at all that would change under a profit-loss police system. The mercenarial system has proven that.

What has the "mercenarial system" proven, and how so?

That they operate above the law. By doing so. For instance, repossessors, whether auto or home. They operate above the law, with only those who have the personal wealth available to fight them...otherwise, they simply operate at will.

So repossessors are mercenaries? ... Define "mercenarial system" before you go on.

[natty dread]

It depends. What if the society was a group of Amish, as an example. They don't have any problems governing themselves without a government (although I suppose the Amish elders would be an example).

Ok, fair enough. Change the whole society into Amish and it can function without a government.

Really? I have argued and will continue to argue (and you have argued) that the government of the United States is external to the people. It does not do what the people want; it does what the big corporations and special interest groups want.

Sure. What I'm saying is that a government is not inherently external to the people. It can be if it's too detached from the needs of the people. But that's a whole another issue, and it's not an inherent flaw in the concept of government itself.

No, I mean making sure New York doesn't kill trade with New Jersey... trade among the states, not trade in the states. That's what the commerce clause is there for.

Ok. So who would make sure that businesses don't do immoral things, then?

Please don't say "market forces".

Correct. I support the idea that the United States should be split into smaller, regional republics with a common "federal" government that merely exists to ensure fair trade amongst the republics and to provide for the common defense, if needed. I also think this would stop the United States imperialism. Statists on both the Republican and Demoract side don't want this (it's called secession), so they call secessionists racists because the last time there was considerable secession talk it was over the issue of slavery. Anyway, I digress.

It might not be a bad idea. I'm not sure. On one hand, it would be nice to have a stop to all the imperialism, like you said. On the other hand... I'm a bit worried, that it could make things worse - if corporations are able to influence the current US government, wouldn't it be easier for them to influence a smaller government of a smaller republic?

Not having a government guarantees that you have slavery? That doesn't make sense. Can you point out an instance where a society without a government held slaves?

Can you point out a society without a government? We have to go back in time somewhat to find one... anyway, since we're on the topic of USA, how about native american tribes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_am ... ted_States

There are many. Here are some more important ones:

(1) Foreign wars and general imperialism
(2) Corporations, special interest groups, and unions have a disproportionate influence on the members of federal government.
(3) Education
(4) Taxation
(5) Over-regulation and under-regulation
(6) Inflation

I can't argue with #1... #2 may be so, but is it necessarily a flaw in a big government itself? Couldn't corporations have too much influence on smaller governments just as well?

#3: How would a smaller government improve education?
#4: I don't really know how your taxes work, but I've heard you complain many times that you don't want to be taxed the same way really rich people get taxed... is this also caused by large government? Why can't a large government implement more progressive taxes?
#5: Both are certainly legitimate problems
#6: not sure about this one either... can you elaborate?

Big corporations are not the only ones with the money to slip in the pockets of politicians. I removed the word "corrupt" because it is not illegal for entities to bribe, I mean pay for the campaigns of, politicians.

Of course not, but big corporations have more money than small ones, right? And the one with more money gets to speak first...

[PLAYER57832]

Citizens would police themselves? In other words: mob rule, lynchings... no, there's just too many assholes for that kind of society to ever work in practice.

It depends. What if the society was a group of Amish, as an example. They don't have any problems governing themselves without a government (although I suppose the Amish elders would be an example).

The Amish have far more restrictive rules... they also boot anyone out who doesn't wish to comply 100%. Is that what you want?

[Baron Von PWN]

There don't need to be police as the society's citizens would police themselves. There also wouldn't be any laws. And no, I don't want to have that kind of society or an anarchy; I'm pointing out theoretical concepts.

Citizens would police themselves? In other words: mob rule, lynchings... no, there's just too many assholes for that kind of society to ever work in practice.

Something a lot of anarchists often don't seem to understand is that a government is not something external to the people. If you take away the government, the society would be in anarchy for a while... but eventually, unless everyone just ends up killing each other, a government would form to run the daily lives of people. That's how they were formed in the fist place.

Here's the argument on the common goods problem of policing:

Already, there are plenty of private security companies that offer the essential services that the police offer--however, the private agencies provide a service which is directly paid for. If the service rendered is not sufficient, then word-of-mouth spreads the bad reputation behind the company, which no one will hire. If there's a dispute over services rendered, and contracts were arranged, then the dispute can be settled in court.


With the state police, it's a different ball park. The services, which they render, do not have to equate with the payment they recieve because their payment is actually money unvoluntarily taken from the people themselves. Therefore, there's no cost-profit incentives involved, so there's much less incentives for them to improve their performance. Also, ever tried bringing a police officer to court? It's extremely difficult, no matter how wrong or corrupt they are. State police at times are above the law, which is another problem.

It goes on and on. The main problem is that an organization/business like the state police can not efficiently and effectively serve their customers as well as an security/police organization that runs on profit-loss incentives. Also, a government-run organization is usually above the law, which prevents justice from being properly served.


tl;dr

Privatization of police services is counter-intuitive until one gets to understand the full range of the benefits and costs involved. The main block is that people feel that the only the government can provide certain goods, and they feel that the private sector would fail at it.

You are forgetting the key purpose of police as a part of the state's monopoly on force. Privatize police forces and who's left to do the state's bidding? Sure the state could just hire a police force, but what if they refuse? What if there's a higher bidder? woops! looks like we have to hire a competing police force to deal with them. Would a privately run police force enforce laws against its clients?

You said disputes can be settled in court, what if this private police force decides "you know what? f*ck the court we've got the guns!" . Privately run police is an awefull idea.

[Phatscotty]

Universal healthcare, in America!, infringes on MY rights.

I'm curious as to which of your rights is being infringed by universal healthcare (be careful...I AM setting you up). Care to explain?

The right to oppress those less fortunate than you? Or what rights are you talking about again?

I guess we are talking about the right to tell me how and where and on whom my earnings are going to be spent...

Oh good, you answered it already. Ok, so you believe that this universal healthcare infringes on how your earnings are going to be spent, so you oppose this because it infringes on your rights. And yet...at the VERY SAME TIME, you SUPPORT another measure that does precisely the same thing to other people (drug testing of welfare recipients). So all you REALLY care about is that "you get yours", you don't actually care about the concept of rights or how it should be applied on a universal level.

Minimal government is best if a people want to be free.

Such as, for instance, drug testing of welfare recipients? That kind of minimal government?

Wrong. I am for putting my foot down on any new infringements. However I have no choice but to accept the current infringements as I was born into them, and try to fight for those rights as well. The reality of how hard it is to reclaim lost freedoms is what drives me even harder to hold on to the ones we still have. Do you understand this at all?

I understand that your claims of fiscal responsibility and minimal government only apply to things that you want them to apply to.

if you are referencing the drug tests for welfare, that is designed to make the program, and gov't, smaller.

[natty dread]

Phatscotty, were you dropped on your head when you were a wee toddler?

[Phatscotty]

Phatscotty, were you dropped on your head when you were a wee toddler?

No

[InkL0sed]

Phatscotty, were you dropped on your head when you were a wee toddler?

No

You're just saying that because you were dropped on your head when you were a wee toddler

[Phatscotty]

Phatscotty, were you dropped on your head when you were a wee toddler?

No

You're just saying that because you were dropped on your head when you were a wee toddler

No

[InkL0sed]

Phatscotty, were you dropped on your head when you were a wee toddler?

No

You're just saying that because you were dropped on your head when you were a wee toddler

No

You're just saying that because you weren't dropped on your head when you were a wee toddler

[Phatscotty]

Phatscotty, were you dropped on your head when you were a wee toddler?

No

You're just saying that because you were dropped on your head when you were a wee toddler

No

You're just saying that because you weren't dropped on your head when you were a wee toddler

I don't remember

[Mr_Adams]

Ok, I'm sick of reading this thread, so I will start with this:

tl;dr


@ Everybody.

Now, the libertarian arguement, as expressed by Ron Paul, the older, more wisend version of the man in the OP's video, likens the development in technology to the development of other technology. So, here it goes (in my own words):


Why is it that the prices of the average quality products in every technological field falls with the development of technology except one? Computers are becoming cheaper by the day, cell phones are now a dime a dozen, and cars are cheaper and more affordable than when these technologies first became mainstream? The answer is simple: Th free market works. The free market has caused accelerated development of technology with less government interference in all aspects of life, all along competition has kept prices falling, so that you can now get the top of the line iPhone or Android for $100. WONDERFUL! So, what the heck is up with the medical industry? Well, we see two things happening here. First, the medical field has been rot with government interference for decades. The government demands that this be done that way, and that this way. The arbitrary whims of the government (as defined by the special interests buying the politicians) have been served over the client's rights for decades. As a result, technological development is slowed, and prices remain high. (source: "Liberty defined", Ron Paul)

But you say OH, BUT THE MEDICAL FIELD IS DIFFERENT! The government needs to be involved, AND ECONOMIC THEORY PROVES IT!

Let me ask you something. Who educated you? Were you educated by the public school system after the 1930's? In ANY COUNTRY? Because I will tell you what happened.

The government is a living entity, with a living desire to grow. In the 1930's, a man by the name Jacob Maynard Keynes introduce Keynesian theory, which supported the desire of the government to grow in power, embraced fiat currency, and objected to the concept of property rights. Now, at the time, there was a man by the name of Ludwig von Mises. He was a founding member of the Austrian school of economics. He routinely tore holes in Keynes economic theories. However, it was to late. the power seeking monsters called government had heard what they wanted, and ignore Mises and his colleagues, now claiming that they had academic "proof" that their interference was necessary in the development and maintenance of a stable economy. It didn't change the actions and directions of government, merely justified them in their own minds. Now, those of you with longer attention spans are now wondering what this has to do with the education I mentioned earlier. Well, the government, who ignores opposition to the theory it has embraced, no matter how sound the logic it presents, is controlling education from a very VERY young and impressionable age, in most countries; making you think that they are right is easy.

@ Sir Sebstar

I read the first 5 pages, and never saw an adequate response to this jack-assery you pulled.

........... I have a right to life, liberty, and happiness!

Your right to life depends on my willingness to let you keep it, so not a right.
Your liberty depends on my willingless to allow you to remain free, so not a right
your happyness depends on me activly providing you happyness, but i'd rather spread unhappyness, so no?

did i follow the argument good enough, or is it all depending on not interfearing with other people's rights/ or maybe just if nobody else did anything to impact you, then you would have those?
I am thinking an island, that would be just great. Nobody to pester you, nobody to tax you for healthcare for others. You can be perfectly happy all by yourself.

As arguments go, its not even that badly flawed (well a bit anyways)

I really don't understand how you can come up with such a nonsequitar argument. It is really quite simple. Your rights end at the EXACT point where MY RIGHTS begin. One of the few responsibilities of government is to defend MY rights, and if you kill me, you have violated my rights, therefore the government has a responsibility to step in and right the problem to the best of their abilities. My right to life does NOT depend on your willingness to let me keep it, as my life is not yours to give. Your argument is based on the concept that your will to allow somebody to maintain their rights is a right in and of itself, yet you provide no logical context wherein this might be true.

On the supreme act of idiocy which is your third "point", if we will call it that, first, nobody is guaranteed the right to happiness, as you say, but the right to the PURSUIT. "of happiness" is a mere adverb described that which you have the right to pursue. But if you want to continue to believe that you have the right to happiness, then I offer you this: your RIGHT to have something does not imply anybody elses' response to provide it for you. it only implies that we won't stop you going out and busting your ass to get it. Got it? Good.

[BigBallinStalin]

The government is a living entity, with a living desire to grow. In the 1930's, a man by the name Jacob Maynard Keynes introduce Keynesian theory, which supported the desire of the government to grow in power, embraced fiat currency, and objected to the concept of property rights. Now, at the time, there was a man by the name of Ludwig von Mises. He was a founding member of the Austrian school of economics. He routinely tore holes in Keynes economic theories. However, it was to late. the power seeking monsters called government had heard what they wanted, and ignore Mises and his colleagues, now claiming that they had academic "proof" that their interference was necessary in the development and maintenance of a stable economy. It didn't change the actions and directions of government, merely justified them in their own minds. Now, those of you with longer attention spans are now wondering what this has to do with the education I mentioned earlier. Well, the government, who ignores opposition to the theory it has embraced, no matter how sound the logic it presents, is controlling education from a very VERY young and impressionable age, in most countries; making you think that they are right is easy.

How sensational of you.

[Mr_Adams]

Do you ever add anything meaningful to these conversations?

[Woodruff]

Wrong. I am for putting my foot down on any new infringements. However I have no choice but to accept the current infringements as I was born into them, and try to fight for those rights as well. The reality of how hard it is to reclaim lost freedoms is what drives me even harder to hold on to the ones we still have. Do you understand this at all?

I understand that your claims of fiscal responsibility and minimal government only apply to things that you want them to apply to.

if you are referencing the drug tests for welfare, that is designed to make the program, and gov't, smaller.

Increasing the program's manpower, administrative overhead, regulations and cost is designed to make the program smaller?

[SirSebstar]

@ mr. Adams, thanks. Loved to read it...

.................
But you say OH, BUT THE MEDICAL FIELD IS DIFFERENT! The government needs to be involved, AND ECONOMIC THEORY PROVES IT!

the medical field is different. Or tather it is no different at all, but ill get to that later. It is however not a free market. There is no way you can survive without medical treatment and the supply market is not free (neither by the lack of pesons capable to supply demand aka the amount of doctors, nor by regulations, but also not because it takes years and years to get any good at all)

The government is a living entity, with a living desire to grow.

I concur in that the individualts in a goverment prosper more from having a greater department and more tasks/powers and therefor more people and more power. This may be against the best interests of the state AND the individual but in the short terms it is hugely rewarded.

I read the first 5 pages, and never saw an adequate response to this jack-assery you pulled....
..It is really quite simple. Your rights end at the EXACT point where MY RIGHTS begin. ...

Thanks for taking the time. Much appreciated. I actually believe what you are telling is how it should be. But for arguments sake, you are wrong. In a totally free market you have no rights unless you can afford them. Think about the feudal time. There was no central government to speak of, so for entrepreneurs this should have been the best of times, if i follow your argument. However, this is not the case. I don't like communism, but lets instead adopt the roman type system where possession (of something) is equated with ownership, unless the owner can prove his claim..
From a point of society, this means you are a robber baron and you stake out your claim (aka take/steal it), then make a government and that has to protect my property's rights? I concur that property rights protection is a taks for the modern government, but it does not preclude that some 'mistakes' from the past have to be corrected. A social contract between society and the people and government is needed to share morals that go beyond laizzer faire. The idea that you can have a government that protects you at the one hand, but does not restrict you at the other is nonsensical. Just by vitue of having such power with a government restrict you in more then one way.

well i could ramble on on various other points, but i dont see the point.

My right to life does NOT depend on your willingness to let me keep it, as my life is not yours to give. Your argument is based on the concept that your will to allow somebody to maintain their rights is a right in and of itself, yet you provide no logical context wherein this might be true.

Your life is mine to take. The ability of destruction is often equated with being powerful. Rights are things you can call into other powers apparently bend on taking that away. therefor rights are subject to.. revisal, but a stronger party. Me, the state another.. Rights are subjective, and not absolute, they are not like gravity.

I like to close again with stating i firmly believe that a modern state should be of the people by the people and for the people. It should protect the rights of individuals. I firmly believe accountability to be key to such a society. Accountability of a politician would not mean he gts voted out of office, but it means he is personally responsiable for a deficit or a lack in government or the results (or failure thereof) of a particular policy.
A few examples: A minister who allows banks to make millions of dollars in taxes by risking, well everything , even after being warned should pay for the resulting and enevitable bailoutcosts + prisontime.
A minister who calls out for segragation and theyby creating an uncontrolable surge of violence and devision should be help accountable as the instigator and punished with a prison sentance 1/3 of those who actually commited the crimes.
A manager at an car compagny allowing a cheaper fueltank to remain in the car after being warned it would lead to more deaths, but considering the litigation costs and potential damages vs the increase in cost of each car and this marketshare, and makes the call not to implement even the option of installing such safety should be help accountable for damages and deaths his desision caused.
These can be leveled on the compagny, but instead i'd like to level them on the individuals who purpretraded or allowed suchs acts. This can mean that the compagny will get fined, because they willingly allowed said manager to do such things, but its an individual who makes the call, never a nameless nobody.

accountability is key, respect for rights is nice, but when you dump your waste on the comming generations, you have exceeded your rights, and again rights are not absolutes

. Got it? Good.

[natty dread]

^ what he said

[PLAYER57832]

Well, we see two things happening here. First, the medical field has been rot with government interference for decades. The government demands that this be done that way, and that this way. The arbitrary whims of the government (as defined by the special interests buying the politicians) have been served over the client's rights for decades. As a result, technological development is slowed, and prices remain high. (source: "Liberty defined", Ron Paul)
.

This is an "interesting", but not accurate idea of why the cost of medicine has gone up.

The primary reason that medical care costs have gone up is that so much more is done now than in the past. You comparison of refrigerators, etc is just not applicable because medical technology now is so fundamentally different than it was. It would be like comparing the cost of an old style ice box (the ones that used blocks of ice, that is) with modern refridgerator freezers and icemakers, but even that is not a valid comparison, because in medicine we have seem MANY increases in not just one particular invention or idea, but everywhere. We now have hundreds (if not thousands) of diseases, that were not even identified just a few decades ago -- many of which we can now cure outright. Plus, we can fix things that would have killed even just 2 decades -- well, in some cases, even a decade ago.

AND, contrary to your assertion, MOST of that research has been funded by the US government. Of course, you won't see that by looking at patents, because the NIH is obligated by law to give (not sell, but GIVE) away the patents to the company selling the most similar type of product. Also, the NIH is expressly forbidden from lobbying or advertising in any way, so you have to dig to get most real information. Many legislators are not truly aware of what all the NIH truly does or has done.

Second, while it is true that the industry market is not for the ultimate consumer, your idea that it is to please the government is not based on evidence. The truth is that the primary designer of our system right now is the for profit health insurance industry, particularly the biggest companies, of which Blue Cross/Blue Shield is by far the largest. It is designed first for the health insurers and second for employers in large companies. The customer for the insurance industry is not the individual, it is the large employers. They get low cost insurance that, for a time, kept increasing coverage, but now is getting poorer and poorer with very few exceptions.

The whole idea of employers providing insurance makes no real sense. We came into that system by almost a fluke. Employers first began offering insurance at a time when they were forbidden by law from increasing wages. Then, tax breaks ensured many employers would contineu to offer it becuase it was more cost-effective for them to give better insurance than to increase wages. Now, with the economy down, wages sliding and the cost of health insurance going through the roof (note that the cost of insurance is going up MORE than the cost of basic health care), employers are simply offering the cheapest and poorest policies they can. In our area, that means policies with 1500 individual IN NETWORK deductables, plus all kinds of exclusions so complicated its almost worst than our tax system.


Those are just the 2 biggest points, but you could also look at just about any other nation on earth and find that people are getting BETTER CARE more cheaply than we are here.... Or you could continue to believe the insurance company bought rhetoric. (just don't mistake it for truth).

[Mr_Adams]

My right to life does NOT depend on your willingness to let me keep it, as my life is not yours to give. Your argument is based on the concept that your will to allow somebody to maintain their rights is a right in and of itself, yet you provide no logical context wherein this might be true.

Your life is mine to take. The ability of destruction is often equated with being powerful. Rights are things you can call into other powers apparently bend on taking that away. therefor rights are subject to.. revisal, but a stronger party. Me, the state another.. Rights are subjective, and not absolute, they are not like gravity.

That is the part you don't get. rights AREN'T subjective. that is the purpose of government in the ideal society- to protect the rights of individuals, however, it has become that rights are not subject to the wealthy and powerful, as in the feudal times you sited, but that rights are subject to the government. The US federal government is FAR to large. If it were cut back to appropriate size, it would fix all sorts of problems. For example, the money that everybody complains about going to politicians from special interest groups for special favors: Here's a grand idea- if there is nothing worth buying (As in the government doesn't have the power over our lives which the special interests wish to gain), they won't bother buying the politicians! All in all, the government needs a good pruning. We'll all be better for it.

[PLAYER57832]

My right to life does NOT depend on your willingness to let me keep it, as my life is not yours to give. Your argument is based on the concept that your will to allow somebody to maintain their rights is a right in and of itself, yet you provide no logical context wherein this might be true.

Your life is mine to take. The ability of destruction is often equated with being powerful. Rights are things you can call into other powers apparently bend on taking that away. therefor rights are subject to.. revisal, but a stronger party. Me, the state another.. Rights are subjective, and not absolute, they are not like gravity.

That is the part you don't get. rights AREN'T subjective. that is the purpose of government in the ideal society- to protect the rights of individuals, however, it has become that rights are not subject to the wealthy and powerful, as in the feudal times you sited, but that rights are subject to the government.

The US government, unlike fuedal socieites, does respond to citizens when we vote.

However, there is absolutely nothing in the constitution to prevent people from handing over power to large corporations because they feel those corporations will provide jobs, listen to their advertisements and decide not to think critically. That is what has happened.

The US federal government is FAR to large.

Too large by what measure? Is it really too large or just ineffective?

Did Massy Energy get to allow hazardous conditions in its mine because government was too large? Did Halliburton get to screw up the Gulf of Mexico because government was too large? Did the banking industry get to package bad mortgages, call them "securitized" and then sell them with high ratings becuase government was too large? Are we seeing recall after recall of drugs that have injured or killed people because government is too large?

OR, is it that companies have gotten upset that government is sometimes effective, sometimes DOES operate to protect people over the interests of profit and therefore has decided to go on an all out long-standing campaign to convince people that the government, not they are "the enemy"

Seems like you are believing exactly what they are telling you. Sadly, you don't seem to know enough to even question them.


If it were cut back to appropriate size, it would fix all sorts of problems. For example, the money that everybody complains about going to politicians from special interest groups for special favors: Here's a grand idea- if there is nothing worth buying (As in the government doesn't have the power over our lives which the special interests wish to gain), they won't bother buying the politicians! All in all, the government needs a good pruning. We'll all be better for it.[/quote]

[Timminz]

First, the medical field has been rot with government interference for decades.

The word you were looking for is, "wrought". Also,

Do you ever add anything meaningful to these conversations?

LOL. I'm a big fan of irony.

[pimpdave]

First, the medical field has been rot with government interference for decades.

The word you were looking for is, "wrought". Also,

Do you ever add anything meaningful to these conversations?

LOL. I'm a big fan of irony.

Hm. Who decides what's meaningful and what's not? Isn't satire meaningful? Or is it only meaningful when your side does it?