Fair enough. Then I'll just ask you: What do you think the criteria should be for government spending on a program?
I'll be perfectly honest and say I do not know. I don't know if it's easy to have one rule to fit all circumstances. Which is why I disagreed, or rather, i suppose, challenged the generic if it can not be done privately. Because in theory, anything CAN be done privately, it's just a determination of which would be more successful.
The flipside of the question would be "is there any limit to what government should do?" And I think the answer is there is very little the government should do. So little you can enumerate those things, in fairly good detail, on about 4 pages. How much government should we have? As little as possible, but as much as is needed. My history books tell me there were two populist revolutions in the late 1700s - ours and the French. Ours was not a socialist kind of revolution, but a capitalist one. The French had the socialist one (liberte, egalite, fraterinte). Ours led to the most prosperous nation on the face of the earth with a radical kind of freedom not found in other forms of government. Theirs led to the reign of terror (guillotine) and dictatorship (napolean). So why do we want to be france?
Not sure what "history" books you have read, but that's a total misrepresentation of the French Revolution and of the American Revolution. Neither was influenced much at all by the ideas of capitalism nor socialism. Their birth came from the Age of Enlightenment which had to do with equal rights, using science rather than superstition as a basis for decisions, and promoting education of the masses. The governments established after the revolutions were then both exploited and perverted by those in power over the centuries to become what we now have.
A good illustration of how the masses were deceived and their government exploited. The Pursuit of Property was changed at the last minute to the Pursuit of Happiness for 2 reasons. Reason #1 being it sounded better and who in their right mind would be opposed to the idea? Reason #2 being that Jefferson and the rest of the 1%ers were already having reservations about letting just anyone and everyone come into competition with them for the riches of America which were at that time held by a select few.
I enjoy your big, flaming ball of irony. Every one of your posts is about a big conspiracy about the people being decieved and exploited. Yet you continue to vote for more government power. Continue on.
compared to voting for a libertarian, so do you do you think republicans are the answer, or is there a better idea available?
There you go making random claims again. You have absolutely no idea who I've voted for. I'll give you a hint for 2008 though... his name ryhmes with Jon Gaul.
I'm voting for Johnson, too. I had to write in Paul last time. And they wouldn't let me do that during early voting.
man he has no chance, but this throwing away your vote thing is just complete fucking brainwashing vote for who you want to win, or else you really ARE throwing your vote away someday, 51 percent of america will throw their vote away and wont that be a hoot
I love it. You want to put every non-Obama supporter in the "Romney lover" box, and then you criticize people if they aren't actually going to vote for Romney.
If one thinks Obama is as much of a disaster as they lead on, they aren't going to get him out of office by voting for Gary Johnson. Thats not a criticism, thats reality.
