I just straight disagree with you, whether or not they request it or it's required for another reason is a moot point, it's still healthcare.
Healthcare should be a right, as it is required to live, as is shelter and food, these things should all be rights, as the extension of the guaranteed life.
Also there's all sorts of collective rights, which over impose over individual rights. Where do you think the idea of imminent domain comes from?
In my opinion, health care shouldn't be a right for a very simple reason:
The people who eat nothing but fast food and take no responsibility upon themselves to eat healthy, but still expect to live as long as people who actually give a ***about their health, end up using more of the monetary aid than the trying-to-be-healthy people.
So reduce taxes and let people take on some accountability. The people who eat nothing but processed foods can die earlier and the people who actually make an effort to eat fresh foods live longer.
Just wanted to note that a matter of being, or rather, eating healthy is a heavy conflict for those of lower monetary class. Our food provisioners on mass level rely on heavily processed and chemically enhanced (thus unhealthy) foods to meet the massive demands of our country while maintaining optimal shelf life. Such processes also allow for optimal pricing, which many rely on simply so they have something in their stomachs at the end of the night.
We have livestock being fed things they weren't meant to eat to grow or develop while simultaneously injected with growth hormone steroids to give optimal amounts of food per unit, which then become ingested by consumers. We also have genetically altered seeds that build immunity to various pesticides and chemicals, all while maintaining a sweeping domination of patient and law so nobody else can use any other types of seeds. This market of heavily processed food downright monopolizes the industry in terms of price and mass production, so competition of healthier foods tend to get elevated prices which I am sure many would be unable to afford, even at a relatively middle class level.
So we have this perpetuating cycle of unhealthy food being ingested by a vast majority of Americans, while the options to eat healthy tend to be limited to those with the privilege of being able to afford it. Ironically, all this cheap food is only cheap in short term, while being ultimately more expensive when health complications arise over time, as opposed to those that can initially dish out the money to eat healthy and not remotely suffer as much from the bodily consequences of overly processed and preserved foods.
So don't misunderstand people not eating healthy as a "choice"; because often times it's the only option for their means. Therefore we have this sort of clash of maintaining principal within our healthcare system, while simultaneously perpetuating this rich vs poor scenario.
I don't agree - unless you're at the point where you're so poor you can't afford something to cook your food.
Fresh foods aren't that expensive. If you're poor, you're likely getting food stamps, which can afford you fresh vegetables, some fruits, and occasional decent quality meat.
You won't be eating organic beef, but even a fresh pack of hormone-filled chicken is miles beyond healthier for you than most fast food and canned goods.
The problem is, I've seen way too many people buy multiple bags of Lays and multiple packs of soda with their foodstamps. I can't even afford to buy Lays myself right now, but I can certainly buy a huge *** bag of kale for less than a single bag of Lays. Kale also happens to be one of the most healthy greens there are. And instead of soda, buy some tea(insanely cheap AND healthier comparably to soda) or just drink water.
If you don't believe me, I'll videotape the grocery store in my home town so you can see for yourself what massive wastes that some people will spend on food while using food stamps.
So, yes, it is a choice to eat healthy and still be eating cheaply.
While the whole affordability of things will forever be up for debate; I would certainly blame at least some of the irresponsibility of consumers (especially those on EBT) is a general lack of education. Luckily the First Lady has done a rather good job of helping reach out and offering alternatives and solutions to getting out of the junk food rut. Unfortunately, where price isn't going to conflict, there's always the lack of education in combination with the poor practice of policies which fund said irresponsibility. There's many variables and points that need to be tackled to help shape up the eating habits of America. Price and food sources are just few of the many.
I simply cannot understand this mindset. "I live in an area where fresh food are available and am able to afford them. Therefore, everyone is in the same situation as I and anyone who eats bad deserves all the blame."
How exactly would you guys propose making airline travel safe without infringing on the rights of citizens?
1) Lockable pilot cabin -- already standard, doesn't infringe any rights
2) Marshals -- already have them randomly scattered through various flights, doesn't infringe any rights, and probably provides most of the 'real' security
3) Restrict excessive weaponry -- before 9/11, I carried my pocketknife with me all the time. It was fine as long as the blade wasn't longer than 4 inches. Guns and ammo are likewise declared and restricted. I'd say that's about the limit of what airline security should be concerned about. Only the most mild infringing of rights, that can be bypassed by checking any more dangerous weapons with your luggage.
4) X-ray checked luggage (doesn't interfere with boarding, doesn't infringe as long as the baggage handlers aren't stealing your stuff); can x-ray carry-on luggage as long as it's no more of a hindrance than a turnstile in a subway.
5) Proper security monitoring the TSA itself, as well as airport employees.
Everything beyond that is superfluous and should be removed.
The first three items, plus an aware public that will actually fight back instead of just doing what the hijackers say (as was recommended pre-9/11), means that it's pretty much impossible to hijack a plane today. 90% of what we have today doesn't do jack except line some contractor's pockets. The 5th item is where the actual real risks are, but it gets the "out of sight, out of mind" response most of the time.
The only likely incident today is a strict 'terrorism' incident -- of attempting to blow up the plane, or poison everyone on board, or something of that nature -- rather than the old-style hijacking, and frankly you could kill a lot more people just standing in the security line than you could by actually getting on the plane itself (the 'coffee filter' argument is a red herring). As such, the only real risk that's being fought against is the monetary cost of the airplane itself, and the liability suits.
The liability suits are the real problem, not the terrorists. Given the financial state of the airlines today, it would only take a single incident plus a greedy lawyer to completely destroy one of them. All that security theater isn't there to protect *you*, it's there so that the airlines have as thick a shield as possible for the inevitable lawsuit.
And that's where the disconnect is. People view airport security as strictly about terrorists vs civil rights, when it's actually almost entirely about potential lawsuits. And the people concerned about the lawsuits don't care about your civil rights; they care about minimizing the chance of being sued and losing. You're not giving up your civil rights for safety, you're giving them up for a lawyer's paycheck.
And the worst part is that -because- the security theater is based on protecting against lawsuits, once any new light show is implemented, it's impossible to remove. By removing it, even if it can be proven to be 99% ineffective and 1% redundant, you're leaving an opening for a prosecuting lawyer to get his case through due to 'negligence'. So each time a little more of your civil rights are scraped away, you're never getting them back.
It's kind of a paradox really. You can have government control and regulate everything, and thus either: *** things up, auction off said powers to the highest bidder, corrupt policies in favor of lobbyists, etc. Or you can unregulate corporations and leave them to their devices and just hope the well being of American citizens as well as their consumers is a priority to their agenda aside from status quo, bottom line, profits, etc. Protip: It isn't.
You're much better off in the latter for the simple reason that "the well being of American citizens" and therefore a satisfied customer almost always leads to higher profits. The world will never exist without corruptible politicians.
Not really. Have to remember that we all are not only consumers but employees as well.
Would be kinda nice if EBT worked a lot like WIC, but sadly it would cause mass frustration for store clerks and confusion among the beneficiaries of the program. As a checker at a supermarket, it really does grind my gears to see so many people on EBT irresponsibly purchase things like crab legs and sushi (the most expensive stuff you can get), while dishing out their own cash for junk food and vodka. /sigh
But alas, I'm merely ranting and reflecting upon my own wishful thinking.
How exactly would you guys propose making airline travel safe without infringing on the rights of citizens?
1) Lockable pilot cabin -- already standard, doesn't infringe any rights
2) Marshals -- already have them randomly scattered through various flights, doesn't infringe any rights, and probably provides most of the 'real' security
3) Restrict excessive weaponry -- before 9/11, I carried my pocketknife with me all the time. It was fine as long as the blade wasn't longer than 4 inches. Guns and ammo are likewise declared and restricted. I'd say that's about the limit of what airline security should be concerned about. Only the most mild infringing of rights, that can be bypassed by checking any more dangerous weapons with your luggage.
4) X-ray checked luggage (doesn't interfere with boarding, doesn't infringe as long as the baggage handlers aren't stealing your stuff); can x-ray carry-on luggage as long as it's no more of a hindrance than a turnstile in a subway.
5) Proper security monitoring the TSA itself, as well as airport employees.
Everything beyond that is superfluous and should be removed.
The first three items, plus an aware public that will actually fight back instead of just doing what the hijackers say (as was recommended pre-9/11), means that it's pretty much impossible to hijack a plane today. 90% of what we have today doesn't do jack except line some contractor's pockets. The 5th item is where the actual real risks are, but it gets the "out of sight, out of mind" response most of the time.
The only likely incident today is a strict 'terrorism' incident -- of attempting to blow up the plane, or poison everyone on board, or something of that nature -- rather than the old-style hijacking, and frankly you could kill a lot more people just standing in the security line than you could by actually getting on the plane itself (the 'coffee filter' argument is a red herring). As such, the only real risk that's being fought against is the monetary cost of the airplane itself, and the liability suits.
The liability suits are the real problem, not the terrorists. Given the financial state of the airlines today, it would only take a single incident plus a greedy lawyer to completely destroy one of them. All that security theater isn't there to protect *you*, it's there so that the airlines have as thick a shield as possible for the inevitable lawsuit.
And that's where the disconnect is. People view airport security as strictly about terrorists vs civil rights, when it's actually almost entirely about potential lawsuits. And the people concerned about the lawsuits don't care about your civil rights; they care about minimizing the chance of being sued and losing. You're not giving up your civil rights for safety, you're giving them up for a lawyer's paycheck.
And the worst part is that -because- the security theater is based on protecting against lawsuits, once any new light show is implemented, it's impossible to remove. By removing it, even if it can be proven to be 99% ineffective and 1% redundant, you're leaving an opening for a prosecuting lawyer to get his case through due to 'negligence'. So each time a little more of your civil rights are scraped away, you're never getting them back.
Your plan falls apart @ point 5.
No matter how many levels of supervision you have, as soon as one level stops caring it crumbles.
It's kind of a paradox really. You can have government control and regulate everything, and thus either: *** things up, auction off said powers to the highest bidder, corrupt policies in favor of lobbyists, etc. Or you can unregulate corporations and leave them to their devices and just hope the well being of American citizens as well as their consumers is a priority to their agenda aside from status quo, bottom line, profits, etc. Protip: It isn't.
I'd like to think there's a step between the two massive extremes you stated. Primarily one that's further on the side of less regulation than more.
Aye, something to keep the pot from boiling over so to speak.
Anything to prevent corporate buyouts like we had to go through in 2008. I died a little inside on that day; even more so when it was passed by my own political party.
Perhaps we should emphasize on more incentives like tax discounts for those that don't resort heavily to outsourcing or cap their carbon footprints, etc.
no, its allowed by giving too much control to the government. if they didnt have all this power to auction off, the corporations wouldnt be able to cheat. you cant expect to get uncorrupt politicians.
I already tried to tell him to come back to planet earth, he's not interested.
neither of you apparently ever lived on it if you think a 100% free market is the way to go.
yet you continue to drop cop-outs and fallacies and have no other solution at all, let alone a better one. how can you try to tell people what's wrong if you dont even have a concrete belief on what's right? when did i ever even say i want a 100% free market? i said earlier that we need to get rid of a lot of regulations and replace others
no I don't, but that's what some others are using, and I already offered my solution.
no, its allowed by giving too much control to the government. if they didnt have all this power to auction off, the corporations wouldnt be able to cheat. you cant expect to get uncorrupt politicians.
I already tried to tell him to come back to planet earth, he's not interested.
neither of you apparently ever lived on it if you think a 100% free market is the way to go.
100% Capitalism would be just as bad as 100% Socialism.
That's not even debatable.
I stated that very thing earlier, both are hurt by the same flaws: greed.
Would be kinda nice if EBT worked a lot like WIC, but sadly it would cause mass frustration for store clerks and confusion among the beneficiaries of the program. As a checker at a supermarket, it really does grind my gears to see so many people on EBT irresponsibly purchase things like crab legs and sushi (the most expensive stuff you can get), while dishing out their own cash for junk food and vodka. /sigh
But alas, I'm merely ranting and reflecting upon my own wishful thinking.
there would be an easy way to change it so the different funds would be in different categories, but a lot of the issue is verifone contracts, and the inability for a store to integrate the food stamp system into their own computer system.
It's kind of a paradox really. You can have government control and regulate everything, and thus either: *** things up, auction off said powers to the highest bidder, corrupt policies in favor of lobbyists, etc. Or you can unregulate corporations and leave them to their devices and just hope the well being of American citizens as well as their consumers is a priority to their agenda aside from status quo, bottom line, profits, etc. Protip: It isn't.
You're much better off in the latter for the simple reason that "the well being of American citizens" and therefore a satisfied customer almost always leads to higher profits. The world will never exist without corruptible politicians.
Not really. Have to remember that we all are not only consumers but employees as well.
The system functions MUCH better when 7 billion individuals are looking out for their own interests instead of a selected group of 5000/5,000,000 law/policy makers looking out for them.
I just straight disagree with you, whether or not they request it or it's required for another reason is a moot point, it's still healthcare.
Healthcare should be a right, as it is required to live, as is shelter and food, these things should all be rights, as the extension of the guaranteed life.
Also there's all sorts of collective rights, which over impose over individual rights. Where do you think the idea of imminent domain comes from?
In my opinion, health care shouldn't be a right for a very simple reason:
The people who eat nothing but fast food and take no responsibility upon themselves to eat healthy, but still expect to live as long as people who actually give a ***about their health, end up using more of the monetary aid than the trying-to-be-healthy people.
So reduce taxes and let people take on some accountability. The people who eat nothing but processed foods can die earlier and the people who actually make an effort to eat fresh foods live longer.
Just wanted to note that a matter of being, or rather, eating healthy is a heavy conflict for those of lower monetary class. Our food provisioners on mass level rely on heavily processed and chemically enhanced (thus unhealthy) foods to meet the massive demands of our country while maintaining optimal shelf life. Such processes also allow for optimal pricing, which many rely on simply so they have something in their stomachs at the end of the night.
We have livestock being fed things they weren't meant to eat to grow or develop while simultaneously injected with growth hormone steroids to give optimal amounts of food per unit, which then become ingested by consumers. We also have genetically altered seeds that build immunity to various pesticides and chemicals, all while maintaining a sweeping domination of patient and law so nobody else can use any other types of seeds. This market of heavily processed food downright monopolizes the industry in terms of price and mass production, so competition of healthier foods tend to get elevated prices which I am sure many would be unable to afford, even at a relatively middle class level.
So we have this perpetuating cycle of unhealthy food being ingested by a vast majority of Americans, while the options to eat healthy tend to be limited to those with the privilege of being able to afford it. Ironically, all this cheap food is only cheap in short term, while being ultimately more expensive when health complications arise over time, as opposed to those that can initially dish out the money to eat healthy and not remotely suffer as much from the bodily consequences of overly processed and preserved foods.
So don't misunderstand people not eating healthy as a "choice"; because often times it's the only option for their means. Therefore we have this sort of clash of maintaining principal within our healthcare system, while simultaneously perpetuating this rich vs poor scenario.
I don't agree - unless you're at the point where you're so poor you can't afford something to cook your food.
Fresh foods aren't that expensive. If you're poor, you're likely getting food stamps, which can afford you fresh vegetables, some fruits, and occasional decent quality meat.
You won't be eating organic beef, but even a fresh pack of hormone-filled chicken is miles beyond healthier for you than most fast food and canned goods.
The problem is, I've seen way too many people buy multiple bags of Lays and multiple packs of soda with their foodstamps. I can't even afford to buy Lays myself right now, but I can certainly buy a huge *** bag of kale for less than a single bag of Lays. Kale also happens to be one of the most healthy greens there are. And instead of soda, buy some tea(insanely cheap AND healthier comparably to soda) or just drink water.
If you don't believe me, I'll videotape the grocery store in my home town so you can see for yourself what massive wastes that some people will spend on food while using food stamps.
So, yes, it is a choice to eat healthy and still be eating cheaply.
While the whole affordability of things will forever be up for debate; I would certainly blame at least some of the irresponsibility of consumers (especially those on EBT) is a general lack of education. Luckily the First Lady has done a rather good job of helping reach out and offering alternatives and solutions to getting out of the junk food rut. Unfortunately, where price isn't going to conflict, there's always the lack of education in combination with the poor practice of policies which fund said irresponsibility. There's many variables and points that need to be tackled to help shape up the eating habits of America. Price and food sources are just few of the many.
Are you trying to absolve irresponsible people of the choices they make on the grounds that they don't have enough education?
If so, how much education does one need to realize that eating bags of chips and soda isn't a good decision for your health and weight? Give me a break.
It's kind of a paradox really. You can have government control and regulate everything, and thus either: *** things up, auction off said powers to the highest bidder, corrupt policies in favor of lobbyists, etc. Or you can unregulate corporations and leave them to their devices and just hope the well being of American citizens as well as their consumers is a priority to their agenda aside from status quo, bottom line, profits, etc. Protip: It isn't.
I'd like to think there's a step between the two massive extremes you stated. Primarily one that's further on the side of less regulation than more.
Aye, something to keep the pot from boiling over so to speak.
Anything to prevent corporate buyouts like we had to go through in 2008. I died a little inside on that day; even more so when it was passed by my own political party.
Perhaps we should emphasize on more incentives like tax discounts for those that don't resort heavily to outsourcing or cap their carbon footprints, etc.
capitalism with regulations in the right places would bring the longest lasting stable economy.
prevent things like corporate greed, monopolies, children in mines, labor camps, etc, while providing a lot of room to grow.
The major issue I had with the bailouts is they gave the money to companies that had already screwed up instead of trying to employ the people directly, they would have had a more impact on the unemployment rate, and could have paid out less in unemployment and collected more back in taxes...
Are you trying to absolve irresponsible people of the choices they make on the grounds that they don't have enough education?
If so, how much education does one need to realize that eating bags of chips and soda isn't a good decision for your health and weight? Give me a break.
Try not to mistaken ignorance for stupidity.
One is simply not knowing better, and the other is knowing better but doing it anyways. What may seem like common sense to us, isn't always the case for many people; especially those too poor to have a means to said education.
It's kind of a paradox really. You can have government control and regulate everything, and thus either: *** things up, auction off said powers to the highest bidder, corrupt policies in favor of lobbyists, etc. Or you can unregulate corporations and leave them to their devices and just hope the well being of American citizens as well as their consumers is a priority to their agenda aside from status quo, bottom line, profits, etc. Protip: It isn't.
You're much better off in the latter for the simple reason that "the well being of American citizens" and therefore a satisfied customer almost always leads to higher profits. The world will never exist without corruptible politicians.
Not really. Have to remember that we all are not only consumers but employees as well.
The system functions MUCH better when 7 billion individuals are looking out for their own interests instead of a selected group of 5000/5,000,000 law/policy makers looking out for them.
Thats anarchy what you are describing.
The only difference in a full free market and full governmental control is that instead of law makers ruling over you the head of a few mega corps that choked out all competition will rule over you.
The system functions MUCH better when 7 billion individuals are looking out for their own interests instead of a selected group of 5000/5,000,000 law/policy makers looking out for them.
I won't disagree with you in that case scenario, but having business and consumerism revolve around predatory, greedy, and selfish motives doesn't seem like a viable solution either.
Are you trying to absolve irresponsible people of the choices they make on the grounds that they don't have enough education?
If so, how much education does one need to realize that eating bags of chips and soda isn't a good decision for your health and weight? Give me a break.
Try not to mistaken ignorance for stupidity.
One is simply not knowing better, and the other is knowing better but doing it anyways. What may seem like common sense to us, isn't always the case for many people; especially those too poor to have a means to said education.
So because I' m ignorant I am not responsible? You know I try that every time I get pulled over. No matter how many times I tell the cop I didn't know what the posted speed limit is he always responds with "Ignorance is not an excuse".
Are you trying to absolve irresponsible people of the choices they make on the grounds that they don't have enough education?
If so, how much education does one need to realize that eating bags of chips and soda isn't a good decision for your health and weight? Give me a break.
Basic nutrition education is completely lacking in the public education system. Michelle Obama is doing a really good job at bringing these issues that many people are unaware of to light.
But obviously we should just write these people off.
It's kind of a paradox really. You can have government control and regulate everything, and thus either: *** things up, auction off said powers to the highest bidder, corrupt policies in favor of lobbyists, etc. Or you can unregulate corporations and leave them to their devices and just hope the well being of American citizens as well as their consumers is a priority to their agenda aside from status quo, bottom line, profits, etc. Protip: It isn't.
You're much better off in the latter for the simple reason that "the well being of American citizens" and therefore a satisfied customer almost always leads to higher profits. The world will never exist without corruptible politicians.
Not really. Have to remember that we all are not only consumers but employees as well.
The system functions MUCH better when 7 billion individuals are looking out for their own interests instead of a selected group of 5000/5,000,000 law/policy makers looking out for them.
Thats anarchy what you are describing.
The only difference in a full free market and full governmental control is that instead of law makers ruling over you the head of a few mega corps that choked out all competition will rule over you.
I dont see much of a difference.
Capitalism brings us things like the IPAD, products that are ONLY made in the search for profits, we are all better off from that search. Government brings us things like the post office, loosing millions of dollars a day.
Poor people are hungry and need assistance. - "We should give them supplemental assistance for foods." EBT/Foodstamps created. (Noble goal, practical, and justifiable)
These poor people don't know how to buy nutritional foods. - "We should build public schools to teach." Public schools created. (Noble goal, short-sighted, but justifiable)
These poor people need extensive health care regardless of not eating properly or being proactive with education that was provided for them. (Noble goal, but insane and completely unjustifiable)
Are you trying to absolve irresponsible people of the choices they make on the grounds that they don't have enough education?
If so, how much education does one need to realize that eating bags of chips and soda isn't a good decision for your health and weight? Give me a break.
Try not to mistaken ignorance for stupidity.
One is simply not knowing better, and the other is knowing better but doing it anyways. What may seem like common sense to us, isn't always the case for many people; especially those too poor to have a means to said education.
So because I' m ignorant I am not responsible? You know I try that every time I get pulled over. No matter how many times I tell the cop I didn't know what the posted speed limit is he always responds with "Ignorance is not an excuse".
I'm not trying to pass it as an excuse or a means to justify one's behavior, just merely noting that it is a factor in gravity of our situation and can be alleviated with efforts put into educating people. But again, that's just one of the many factors.
Capitalism brings us things like the IPAD, products that are ONLY made in the search for profits, we are all better off from that search. Government brings us things like the post office, loosing millions of dollars a day.
Greed/self interest is GOOD.
If monetary gain is the only incentive for the actions of our citizens, thus dictating the course or direction our country takes, then I fear for what will become of our doctors, lawyers, engineers, farmers, teachers, social workers, etc.
It's kind of a paradox really. You can have government control and regulate everything, and thus either: *** things up, auction off said powers to the highest bidder, corrupt policies in favor of lobbyists, etc. Or you can unregulate corporations and leave them to their devices and just hope the well being of American citizens as well as their consumers is a priority to their agenda aside from status quo, bottom line, profits, etc. Protip: It isn't.
You're much better off in the latter for the simple reason that "the well being of American citizens" and therefore a satisfied customer almost always leads to higher profits. The world will never exist without corruptible politicians.
Not really. Have to remember that we all are not only consumers but employees as well.
The system functions MUCH better when 7 billion individuals are looking out for their own interests instead of a selected group of 5000/5,000,000 law/policy makers looking out for them.
Thats anarchy what you are describing.
The only difference in a full free market and full governmental control is that instead of law makers ruling over you the head of a few mega corps that choked out all competition will rule over you.
I dont see much of a difference.
Capitalism brings us things like the IPAD, products that are ONLY made in the search for profits, we are all better off from that search. Government brings us things like the post office, loosing millions of dollars a day.
Greed/self interest is GOOD.
Strictly regulated capitalism brings advancement.
Unregulated capitalism brings about monopolies, which in turn would bring about the end of the free market.
Capitalism left to its own devices would just as quickly cannibalize itself. Leaving what would essentially be a socialist system.
Poor people are hungry and need assistance. - "We should give them supplemental assistance for foods." EBT/Foodstamps created. (Noble goal, practical, and justifiable)
These poor people don't know how to buy nutritional foods. - "We should build public schools to teach." Public schools created. (Noble goal, short-sighted, but justifiable)
These poor people need extensive health care regardless of not eating properly or being proactive with education that was provided for them. (Noble goal, but insane and completely unjustifiable)
Are you trying to absolve irresponsible people of the choices they make on the grounds that they don't have enough education?
If so, how much education does one need to realize that eating bags of chips and soda isn't a good decision for your health and weight? Give me a break.
Basic nutrition education is completely lacking in the public education system. Michelle Obama is doing a really good job at bringing these issues that many people are unaware of to light.
But obviously we should just write these people off.
People need to want to be helped before you can really help them. Most people who are obese are so because they don't want to work to be thin (it does require work). Helping someone who doesn't want help is just a waste of money. When we're sitting on almost 16 trillion in debt I would think that people may want to stop piling on.
Again how much education does one need to realize that eating bags of chips and soda isn't a good decision for your health and weight?
It's kind of a paradox really. You can have government control and regulate everything, and thus either: *** things up, auction off said powers to the highest bidder, corrupt policies in favor of lobbyists, etc. Or you can unregulate corporations and leave them to their devices and just hope the well being of American citizens as well as their consumers is a priority to their agenda aside from status quo, bottom line, profits, etc. Protip: It isn't.
You're much better off in the latter for the simple reason that "the well being of American citizens" and therefore a satisfied customer almost always leads to higher profits. The world will never exist without corruptible politicians.
Not really. Have to remember that we all are not only consumers but employees as well.
The system functions MUCH better when 7 billion individuals are looking out for their own interests instead of a selected group of 5000/5,000,000 law/policy makers looking out for them.
Thats anarchy what you are describing.
The only difference in a full free market and full governmental control is that instead of law makers ruling over you the head of a few mega corps that choked out all competition will rule over you.
I dont see much of a difference.
Capitalism brings us things like the IPAD, products that are ONLY made in the search for profits, we are all better off from that search. Government brings us things like the post office, loosing millions of dollars a day.
Greed/self interest is GOOD.
using that as an argument isn't helping your case.
The ipad is a piece of ***product that's overpriced when a competitor's product will do more for less, very very bad persuasive example.
Government also brings the VA liquor store, which brings in profit.
The post office issues could be solved, like I stated earlier, unions need to go but at the same time basic levels of employee treatment need to rise significantly.
Also fuel is expensive, post office would be able to run well if their vehicles used something other than gasoline.
I will give you though that it is a prime example of screwing it up.
Are you trying to absolve irresponsible people of the choices they make on the grounds that they don't have enough education?
If so, how much education does one need to realize that eating bags of chips and soda isn't a good decision for your health and weight? Give me a break.
Try not to mistaken ignorance for stupidity.
One is simply not knowing better, and the other is knowing better but doing it anyways. What may seem like common sense to us, isn't always the case for many people; especially those too poor to have a means to said education.
So because I' m ignorant I am not responsible? You know I try that every time I get pulled over. No matter how many times I tell the cop I didn't know what the posted speed limit is he always responds with "Ignorance is not an excuse".
I'm not trying to pass it as an excuse or a means to justify one's behavior, just merely noting that it is a factor in gravity of our situation and can be alleviated with efforts put into educating people. But again, that's just one of the many factors.
Education only helps those who care to learn.
People who are raised by parents who care very little about education have a good chance of learning that sentiment & also of passing it along.
