Would MLK Be Proud?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]BabyBuster wrote:

Equating poverty with laziness is nothing more than a cop out to justify to yourself why you aren’t obligated to do anything about it. It allows you to dehumanize those who live in poverty so you don’t have to feel bad when saying you have no obligation to them, and not just because they are your countrymen, but because they are humans just like you and deserve some simply amount of basic dignity.[/quote]

Now I do realize that some people end up in a shithole without to much personal responsibility.

Now how many of them are there and does it justify a huge government and government officials to “help” them?

You do realize that if you gave everyone
of them a check each year “poverty” would be gone at a fraction of the cost of our current welfare system.

Would be easier too…

But then, what would all those parasites that live of off people that produce do?

And no, I do not mean poor people, I mean
government officials who make their living “helping” poor people and “bettering” society".

[quote]
If you honestly believe that all poverty is the result of laziness then you have your eyes closed and your hands over your ears. Look at the thousands of veterans and children that live in poverty - are you saying their poverty is a result of laziness?[/quote]

Mostly answered above I think.

Concerning children I am a bit less hardcore. Cut every child an education and medical check and let the market work its magic.

That should take government spending from 10% to 13% GDP.

I could still live with that.

It allways was armed robbery and monarchs immediately got into trouble for raising taxes (American revolution).

These comparisons are in no way outlandish, in fact they were common knowledge, until Democracy blurred the lines between the government and those governed and enabled collectivism new fad, socialism, to be installed via the tyranny of the majority.

[quote]
Further, you haven’t made a single point as to why government intervention has created poverty. You’re just asserting it as fat and expecting us to believe it. Just because you say it doesn’t make it true.[/quote]

Well, because if government does provide something with stolen money that is socialism.

Socialism does not work, for a lot of reasons, f.E the inability to set a prize without a market, less than perfect resource allocation, lack of personal responsibility and so on.

If the abundant historic examples will not convince you, nothing will.

Plus it robs you of your economic freedom which is 90% of all the freedom you have.

If you do not believe that the US is in part a socialistic system, why does your government spend 50 cents of every dollar?

The last paragraph is probably wrong anyway, including public debt and interest on public debt you are more of a 75% socialist countryy, you just havn`t realized yet.

62

[quote]hedo wrote:

Do you believe poverty is caused by inequities built into the system or by choices the individual makes?

Is it more important to guarantee opportunity or outcome when creating wealth and prosperity?

[/quote]

And if I may add a question:

Does anyone realize that “poverty” looks much different in the US than in, f.E, most of Africa and that that is mostly because of capitalist accumulation of capital and not because of socialist re-distribution of capital.

63

[quote]hedo wrote:

Do you believe poverty is caused by inequities built into the system or by choices the individual makes?

Is it more important to guarantee opportunity or outcome when creating wealth and prosperity?

[/quote]

To be perfectly honest, I believe that poverty is caused by both reasons. However, I only think that one is a justifiable reason for intervention. If someone is in poverty becasue they have chosen not to work, to do drugs, etc, then they aren’t entitled to help from anyone who doesn’t want to give it.

However, I believe that everything possible should be done to provide an equal starting point for everyone. Claiming that people get what they have based on their choices and hard work is flawed, because many people have their choices severely limited at the start.

So to answer your question bluntly, if we have equality of opportunity, then equality of outcomes should follow. I believe that people should be rewarded for their choices and effort, but they should have the same opportunity to make the most of their hard work as everyone else.

64

[quote]orion wrote:

Now I do realize that some people end up in a shithole without to much personal responsibility.

Now how many of them are there and does it justify a huge government and government officials to “help” them?

You do realize that if you gave everyone
of them a check each year “poverty” would be gone at a fraction of the cost of our current welfare system. [/quote]

Yes, but we’re not trying to get them out of our hair, we’re trying to help them. The services provided are intended to make them productive members of society. Job placement, drug rehabilitation, medical coverage, food stamps… A great deal of those in poverty wouldn’t think to spend this money on such things themselves, and since we’re providing it to them we get to decide where the money goes.

[quote]Would be easier too…

But then, what would all those parasites that live of off people that produce do?

And no, I do not mean poor people, I mean
government officials who make their living “helping” poor people and “bettering” society".

Concerning children I am a bit less hardcore. Cut every child an education and medical check and let the market work its magic. [/quote]

You can’t possibly believe this, can you? Cutting children a check to spend on education and medical coverage? Yeah, I’m sure that’s what the money would go to.

[quote]And since when is taxation “armed robbery”? Every government ever has had to tax its citizens to run the country, so let’s not make outlandish comparisons to illustrate a point.

It allways was armed robbery and monarchs immediately got into trouble for raising taxes (American revolution).

These comparisons are in no way outlandish, in fact they were common knowledge, until Democracy blurred the lines between the government and those governed and enabled collectivism new fad, socialism, to be installed via the tyranny of the majority. [/quote]

That’s an interesting historical point, but your not adressing a major issue. Those past instances could be considered robbery because it was a ruler arbitrarily taking from others without given authority. However, as you pointed out, since this is a democracy, the authority is given - hence it is the government’s consitutional right to tax us. Not the same thing as stealing. But I do understand what you are saying, nonetheless.

[quote]Further, you haven’t made a single point as to why government intervention has created poverty. You’re just asserting it as fat and expecting us to believe it. Just because you say it doesn’t make it true.

Well, because if government does provide something with stolen money that is socialism. [/quote]

No, governments supplying any type of social welfare is essentially socialism, and I think you’d be hard pressed to find an modern republic or democracy that doesn’t provide some sort of welfare programs, and it doesn’t seen like they are all falling apart. Regardless, it’s got nothing to do with stealing money.

[quote]Socialism does not work, for a lot of reasons, f.E the inability to set a prize without a market, less than perfect resource allocation, lack of personal responsibility and so on.

If the abundant historic examples will not convince you, nothing will.

Plus it robs you of your economic freedom which is 90% of all the freedom you have. [/quote]

You are generalizing any social programs with socialism, and they are not the same. I understand that history has proven that socialism doesn’t work. I’m not advocating pure socialism. However, I think a country can maintain a great deal of economic freedom while still pursuing goals of providing basic social services to those citizens in need.

[quote]If you do not believe that the US is in part a socialistic system, why does your government spend 50 cents of every dollar?

The last paragraph is probably wrong anyway, including public debt and interest on public debt you are more of a 75% socialist countryy, you just havn`t realized yet.
[/quote]

You’re right, it is in part socialistic, and has been since before the New Deal. For 70 + years we’ve been doing OK in a mix of capitalism and socialism. You’re throwing around big numbers without much meaning. Most of that money is being used to support a war effort, not social programs.

65

[quote]BabyBuster wrote:

Yes but we’re not trying to get them out of our hair, we’re trying to help them. The services provided are intended to make them productive members of society. Job placement, drug rehabilitation, medical coverage, food stamps… A great deal of those in poverty wouldn’t think to spend this money on themselves, and since we’reproviding it to them we get to decide where the money goes.

You’re right, it is in part socialistic, and has been since before the New Deal. for 70 + years we’ve been doing OK in a mix of capitalism and socialism. You’re throwin around big numbers without much meaning. Most of that money is being used to support a war effort, not social programs.
[/quote]

Yes, you are doing ok.

Had you had Chinese growth numbers however, you capital per worker ratio would be so enormous that the average blue collar could live like a king compared to an average worker after 70 years of semi-socialism.

Instead you spend it on bombs and people that shuffle money around between the middle classes and warsonwhateverpromisestocreatefederalgovernmentjobs…

The biggest problem with socialism is exactly that it prevents capital accumulation from happening, so you would have to compare the situation that is with the situation that could be…

Imagine what could have been, business, science, medic and education wise and weep…

66

[quote]BabyBuster wrote:

That’s an interesting historical point, but your not adressing a major issue. Those past instances could be considered robbery because it was a ruler arbitrarily taking from others without given authority. However, as you pointed out, since this is a democracy, the authority is given - hence it is the government’s consitutional right to tax us. Not the same thing as stealing. But I do understand what you are saying, nonetheless.

[/quote]

This past instances were not considered “robbery” because a kings authority was seen as legitimate AS LONG as he respected and upheld his subjects rights.

Therefore he taxed mildly AND because he would not endanger a process of capital accumulation that basically made his tax base grow.

The idea nowadays that a “majority” can take your money was not even seen as legitimate when Democracies started, it is as “legitimate” as a monarchs right to tax you and like all historical fads it will end…

67

[quote]orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Seriously. We live in a SOCIETY. It is so short-sighted to demand no drain on personal resources that would improve our lot as a nation. I would just love to see what the world would look like with no taxes and zero programs at all.

Me too!

You are just forgetting that the need of others do not justify armed robbery, no, not even if elected officials do it, that redisdribution of wealth and government regulations destroy such enormous wealth that the “needy” could be feed and clothed 100 times over and that all the US states spending amounted to 2% of the GNP just 100 years ago, which is why it became the economic powerhouse that it is, without society breaking down.

So, since poverty is a result of government intervention, and of individual lazyness, you argue for more government intervention to reward individual lazyness by taxing the shit out of us in the process?

See, that kind of thinking is exactly why re-distribution does not work.
[/quote]

But redistribution such that would be fundamentally wrong. Silly. The government has no right to take all of my money so that all the needy can be fed an clothed. But taxes to facilitate traing and aid programs are fine. Redistribution that creates dependency and a welfare state where indigents are indefinitely supported and no requirement is ever made on them to work does little to combat poverty. And it does foster laziness and a drain on resources. That’s not what I’m talking about, and that’s not the system we currently have.

68

[quote]orion wrote:
BabyBuster wrote:

Yes but we’re not trying to get them out of our hair, we’re trying to help them. The services provided are intended to make them productive members of society. Job placement, drug rehabilitation, medical coverage, food stamps… A great deal of those in poverty wouldn’t think to spend this money on themselves, and since we’reproviding it to them we get to decide where the money goes.

Ah, we are trying to morally better them.

Good luck with that!

You are re-inforcing their behaviour instead of letting them hit rock bottom.

Suddenly it seems as if you are arguing as if most of them are responsible for their situation…

Mmmmhhh…

You’re right, it is in part socialistic, and has been since before the New Deal. for 70 + years we’ve been doing OK in a mix of capitalism and socialism. You’re throwin around big numbers without much meaning. Most of that money is being used to support a war effort, not social programs.

Yes, you are doing ok.

Had you had Chinese growth numbers however, you capital per worker ratio would be so enormous that the average blue collar could live like a king compared to an average worker after 70 years of semi-socialism.

Instead you spend it on bombs and people that shuffle money around between the middle classes and warsonwhateverpromisestocreatefederalgovernmentjobs…

The biggest problem with socialism is exactly that it prevents capital accumulation from happening, so you would have to compare the situation that is with the situation that could be…

Imagine what could have been, business, science, medic and education wise and weep…[/quote]

Because fascist countries are doing so well, and the quality of life of their average citizen is so high. Of course.

69

[quote]hedo wrote:
BabyBuster wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Seriously. We live in a SOCIETY. It is so short-sighted to demand no drain on personal resources that would improve our lot as a nation. I would just love to see what the world would look like with no taxes and zero programs at all.

Me too!

You are just forgetting that the need of others do not justify armed robbery, no, not even if elected officials do it, that redisdribution of wealth and government regulations destroy such enormous wealth that the “needy” could be feed and clothed 100 times over and that all the US states spending amounted to 2% of the GNP just 100 years ago, which is why it became the economic powerhouse that it is, without society breaking down.

So, since poverty is a result of government intervention, and of individual lazyness, you argue for more government intervention to reward individual lazyness by taxing the shit out of us in the process?

See, that kind of thinking is exactly why re-distribution does not work.

Equating poverty with laziness is nothing more than a cop out to justify to yourself why you aren’t obligated to do anything about it. It allows you to dehumanize those who live in poverty so you don’t have to feel bad when saying you have no obligation to them, and not just because they are your countrymen, but because they are humans just like you and deserve some simply amount of basic dignity.

If you honestly believe that all poverty is the result of laziness then you have your eyes closed and your hands over your ears. Look at the thousands of veterans and children that live in poverty - are you saying their poverty is a result of laziness?

And since when is taxation “armed robbery”? Every government ever has had to tax its citizens to run the country, so let’s not make outlandish comparisons to illustrate a point.

Further, you haven’t made a single point as to why government intervention has created poverty. You’re just asserting it as fat and expecting us to believe it. Just because you say it doesn’t make it true.

Do you believe poverty is caused by inequities built into the system or by choices the individual makes?

Is it more important to guarantee opportunity or outcome when creating wealth and prosperity?

[/quote]

Poverty is caused both by poor indiviual choices and inequities built into the system. It’s more improtant to guarantee opportunity. I believe trying to guaranteeing outcome in trying to creating wealth and prosperity is impossible, not too mention fundamentally wrong. Some people are simply smarter and willing to work harder than others. They rightfully should be able to earn more and go further. Our current system allows this. There is a progressive income tax. It’s not like there’s a cap on the income an individual can make and all surplus beyond this is given to others. That would be a guarantee of outcome and unfair and inefficient as well. One of the fatal flaws of communism. No one is going to work hard when their are preset limits on what they’re able to achieve. I also believe that it’s human and humane to provide a bare subsistence level for fellow citizens. And inhuman and inhumane to allow them to live in absolute squalor and face starvation. Starvation is not a real possibility in America because we simply do not allow it too happen.

70

[quote]orion wrote:
BabyBuster wrote:

Ah, we are trying to morally better them.

Good luck with that!

You are re-inforcing their behaviour instead of letting them hit rock bottom. [/quote]

Yes, because having all of the poverty stricken members of society hit rock bottom would be such a great thing. I’m sure that crime rates would plummet and they would be much less of a burden to us then.

You’re right, I did come off as kind of a pompous ass there. However, since we don’t judge who is going to get these benefits based on how they became impoverished, we have to set rules for how we’re going to give this money to them.

And we get to, since we provide it to them. And since we get to, we can spend that money in a way which will hopefully better them (and i don’t think that’s such a bad thing). And while I freely admit that some probably would benefit more from just a check, others need a kick in the ass, or at least a nudge in the right direction. And we have the obligation to give it to them.

[quote]Yes, you are doing ok.

Had you had Chinese growth numbers however, you capital per worker ratio would be so enormous that the average blue collar could live like a king compared to an average worker after 70 years of semi-socialism. [/quote]

That seems like an irrelevant comaprison to make. Since we had neither the numbers or the prior lack of industrialization that China had, it would be very difficult to match those numbers.

[quote]Instead you spend it on bombs and people that shuffle money around between the middle classes and warsonwhateverpromisestocreatefederalgovernmentjobs…

The biggest problem with socialism is exactly that it prevents capital accumulation from happening, so you would have to compare the situation that is with the situation that could be…[/quote]

Actually, quite a bit of that money was historically spent on education and initiatives to make us an economic leader. Do you really think that America would have been the technological leader it was previous administrations hadn’t spent money on education and science intiatives? Would we have the some of the best healthcare in the world (from a quality standpoint, not affordability) if we hadn’t spent money on medical intitiatives? Just because the money isn’t going directly to the people doesn’t mean it still isn’t socialist spending.

I would say that America has historically been pretty damn good at wealth accumulation - and not in spite of, but rather because of, government spending.

Also, if we are going to place blame on America’s recent economic decline and lack of wealth accumulation, I say it has more to do on how the citizens spend their money than the government. We have become so accepting of a debt mentality that it seems natural to everyone to spend everything they make and then some, rather than save and accumulate that wealth.

71

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

Because fascist countries are doing so well, and the quality of life of their average citizen is so high. Of course. [/quote]

Compared to communist countries they do quite well.

Compare Chile to Cuba, Portugal and Spain to Roumania and Bulgaria…

Also, fascist dictators kill much less people than socialist ones…

And yes, I believe that the Nazis were socialists first and fascists second and that their destructive power was caused by their socialist ideas…

You see, fascists usually only want power…

Bow to them and you?re ok…

Collectivists however, be they socialist, racist or religious will never leave you the fuck alone until they have created their utopia or are put against the next wall…

72

[quote]orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Seriously. We live in a SOCIETY. It is so short-sighted to demand no drain on personal resources that would improve our lot as a nation. I would just love to see what the world would look like with no taxes and zero programs at all.

Me too!

You are just forgetting that the need of others do not justify armed robbery, no, not even if elected officials do it, that redisdribution of wealth and government regulations destroy such enormous wealth that the “needy” could be feed and clothed 100 times over and that all the US states spending amounted to 2% of the GNP just 100 years ago, which is why it became the economic powerhouse that it is, without society breaking down.

So, since poverty is a result of government intervention, and of individual lazyness, you argue for more government intervention to reward individual lazyness by taxing the shit out of us in the process?

See, that kind of thinking is exactly why re-distribution does not work.
[/quote]

Libs would never go for that — they’d rather opt for governmental extortion.

I often gaze in wonder at the immensity of the evil that is consuming the world. I think it all boils down to trying to get away with living, to live through others. Libs want to ‘get away with’ living; we want to live. We seek to produce; they seek to drain. With a gun in one hand and the keys to a jail cell in another, they prattle on about brother-love and compassion, as if those things could come about through the violence they threaten us with.

Ayn Rand nailed it: Altruism (which is NOT the same as benevolence) is the root of most evil in this world — the desire to live through others, and to use morality as a weapon against those who produce.

Its a barbaric world, because of the moral code they relish.

73

[quote]BabyBuster wrote:
Equating poverty with laziness is nothing more than a cop out to justify to yourself why you aren’t obligated to do anything about it. It allows you to dehumanize those who live in poverty so you don’t have to feel bad when saying you have no obligation to them, and not just because they are your countrymen, but because they are humans just like you and deserve some simply amount of basic dignity.

[/quote]

At whose expense? Why does someone else’s need form a claim on me? Am I the slave of someone whose mother chose to be a crack addict or whose father gambled away their food money?

I don’t mind helping others, but this whole notion of establishing a peaceful, happy society by using brute force and government extortion is just laughable. Don’t you gents see how perfectly illogical that is?

74

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Libs would never go for that — they’d rather opt for governmental extortion.

I often gaze in wonder at the immensity of the evil that is consuming the world. I think it all boils down to trying to get away with living, to live through others. Libs want to ‘get away with’ living; we want to live. We seek to produce; they seek to drain. With a gun in one hand and the keys to a jail cell in another, they prattle on about brother-love and compassion, as if those things could come about through the violence they threaten us with.

Ayn Rand nailed it: Altruism (which is NOT the same as benevolence) is the root of most evil in this world — the desire to live through others, and to use morality as a weapon against those who produce.

Its a barbaric world, because of the moral code they relish.

[/quote]

What took me a long time to get is that what you call “liberals” actually only try to implement moral rules that work in a small setting (family, friends, maybe village) in the society as a whole which is a catastrophic idea on so many levels…

Most of them are actually very decent human beings that mean incredibly well, however their economic illiteracy and their impulse to go with their gut feeling makes it easy to manipulate them…

That probably explains why people become more conservative as adults…

And of course there are slime ball “intellectuals” who use the rhetoric of altruism to further their aims, after all it is todays secular religion…

75

[quote]orion wrote:

The biggest problem with socialism is exactly that it prevents capital accumulation from happening, so you would have to compare the situation that is with the situation that could be…

Imagine what could have been, business, science, medic and education wise and weep…[/quote]

Word. It is one of the greatest tragedies in human history. Without all the waste from wars and government stifling of capitalism, I doubt that poverty would even exist at all. We’d look at it like we look at the people living in 1000 AD, wondering how the hell people could live like that.

76

[quote]orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Because fascist countries are doing so well, and the quality of life of their average citizen is so high. Of course.

Compared to communist countries they do quite well.

Compare Chile to Cuba, Portugal and Spain to Roumania and Bulgaria…

Also, fascist dictators kill much less people than socialist ones…

And yes, I believe that the Nazis were socialists first and fascists second and that their destructive power was caused by their socialist ideas…

You see, fascists usually only want power…

Bow to them and you?re ok…

Collectivists however, be they socialist, racist or religious will never leave you the fuck alone until they have created their utopia or are put against the next wall…[/quote]

You and headhunter are both living in a dreamland. No one in politics in this country is espousing communist, collectivist, utopian ideals.

77

And, as a gift to headhunter, Bastiat`s “La Loi”:

The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!
L.1

If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.

…

But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.
L.16

How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?
L.17

The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy. Let us speak of the first.

…

Socialism Is Legal Plunder

Mr. de Montalembert has been accused of desiring to fight socialism by the use of brute force. He ought to be exonerated from this accusation, for he has plainly said: “The war that we must fight against socialism must be in harmony with law, honor, and justice.”
L.70

But why does not Mr. de Montalembert see that he has placed himself in a vicious circle? You would use the law to oppose socialism? But it is upon the law that socialism itself relies. Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists, like all other monopolists, desire to make the law their own weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used against socialism? For when plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for help.
L.71

To prevent this, you would exclude socialism from entering into the making of laws? You would prevent socialists from entering the Legislative Palace? You shall not succeed, I predict, so long as legal plunder continues to be the main business of the legislature. It is illogical?in fact, absurd?to assume otherwise.

Here is all of it:

http://www.econlib.org/library/bastiat/basEss2a.html

78

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Because fascist countries are doing so well, and the quality of life of their average citizen is so high. Of course.

Compared to communist countries they do quite well.

Compare Chile to Cuba, Portugal and Spain to Roumania and Bulgaria…

Also, fascist dictators kill much less people than socialist ones…

And yes, I believe that the Nazis were socialists first and fascists second and that their destructive power was caused by their socialist ideas…

You see, fascists usually only want power…

Bow to them and you?re ok…

Collectivists however, be they socialist, racist or religious will never leave you the fuck alone until they have created their utopia or are put against the next wall…

You and headhunter are both living in a dreamland. No one in politics in this country is espousing communist, collectivist, utopian ideals.[/quote]

On the contrary, allmost everybody is…

You do not see it as clearly as you see yesterdays insanities because you have no way to take a step back…

Or at least you haven`t taken that sto yet…

The slogan " to no immantesize the echaton" when used against socialist ideas is so clever, because it uses the language of yesterdays religion critizising todays.

A few examples: Public health care, public education, war on drugs, war on poverty, a large part of the environmentalist movement, the Christian right, the “spread liberty with bombs” crowd…

Anti-supplement, anti-steroids, laws that prohibit some sexual acts in your own bedroom…

And then, government spends half of the money…

looks collectivist to me…

79

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
BabyBuster wrote:
Equating poverty with laziness is nothing more than a cop out to justify to yourself why you aren’t obligated to do anything about it. It allows you to dehumanize those who live in poverty so you don’t have to feel bad when saying you have no obligation to them, and not just because they are your countrymen, but because they are humans just like you and deserve some simply amount of basic dignity.

At whose expense? Why does someone else’s need form a claim on me? Am I the slave of someone whose mother chose to be a crack addict or whose father gambled away their food money?

[/quote]

Why do you insist and repeating your questions? It’s already been answered - because you live in a society. If you don’t like the answer, that’s fine, but bring something new to the table.

They have a claim on you because you received beneficial government support when you were starting out, where they received garbage. Your school probably provided you with the basis you’ll need for a successful education. Don’t you think they deserve that same chance? If the American dream is to be given a chance, doesn’t everyone need to have some basic starting point?

80

[quote]orion wrote:

A few examples: Public health care, public education, war on drugs, war on poverty, a large part of the environmentalist movement, the Christian right, the “spread liberty with bombs” crowd… [/quote]

You’re not going to convince me that public healthcare and education are the “communist evils” that you seem to believe they are. Wanting some basic services to ensure that everyone is given a chance to succeed isn’t as terrible as you think it is.

And these horrible public initiatives are what prepare us to be competetive in a capitalist economy. Without a good education, what would we have to sell other than our labor?

Yeah, well I’ll agree with you that people who want to regulate private behavior suck.

[quote]And then, government spends half of the money…

looks collectivist to me…
[/quote]

So answer me this: who’s going to provide an infrastructure if not the government? Who’s going to build roads? Who’s going to provide police and firefighters? Who’s going to raise an army? Every society is at some level collectivist, otherwise it would be anarchy.