What Do You Think Really Happen with Religions in ST?

[Arpy]

A democracy in name only is a democracy in name only. If for your personal categorization you'd like to call "President" Saddam Hussein a democratically elected and maintained leader...nope, can't do it. You're just wrong. An election in which every count is rigged and the candidates are murdered is not a legitimate election.

Indeed, it's an illegitimate election. Which does not change the fact that it is, you know, an ELECTION, which is a feature of a democratic government, not of a monarchy, not of an autocracy, not of a plutocracy, not of a meritocracy.

You can't conflate the DEFINITION of a thing and the CONDITION of a thing; to do so would imply that democracy is only democracy when it's implemented perfectly. That just isn't the case. If I take your car, rip out the engine, smash the transmission, steal all four tires and your steering wheel, your car doesn't suddenly transform into a sofa. It's still a car, it's just an utterly and completely UNDRIVEABLE car.

What definition? The election isn't an election. It's theater staged to look like one in order to give the dictatorship the illusion of a democracy. It's the difference between statement and reality.

EDIT: to be clear. The condition of the thing is what the thing IS. Good or bad democracies are still democracies. Dictatorships pretending to be democracies are still dictatorships.

 

[Anticitizen]

Indeed, it's an illegitimate election. Which does not change the fact that it is, you know, an ELECTION, which is a feature of a democratic government, not of a monarchy, not of an autocracy, not of a plutocracy, not of a meritocracy.

Come on, man - that's silly. I can glue Ferrari badges all over a Saturn and claim that 'Ferrari badges are a feature of Ferrari cars, not of Saturn cars - and therefore, this car must be a Ferrari!'

Doesn't make it so. And sham elections, which are as fake as those plastic Ferrari emblems, don't transform a dictatorship into a democracy, either.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I may be a bit late to this thread but I honestly don't think that ANYTHING happened with religion in ST. There may be the occasional character who says it died out, but I don't believe them. I think it's still there. (Phlox, for example, attended Mass at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. )

Of course I'm biased , but in a debate like this, everyone else is as well.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

A democracy in name only is a democracy in name only. If for your personal categorization you'd like to call "President" Saddam Hussein a democratically elected and maintained leader...nope, can't do it. You're just wrong. An election in which every count is rigged and the candidates are murdered is not a legitimate election.

Indeed, it's an illegitimate election. Which does not change the fact that it is, you know, an ELECTION, which is a feature of a democratic government, not of a monarchy, not of an autocracy, not of a plutocracy, not of a meritocracy.

You can't conflate the DEFINITION of a thing and the CONDITION of a thing; to do so would imply that democracy is only democracy when it's implemented perfectly. That just isn't the case. If I take your car, rip out the engine, smash the transmission, steal all four tires and your steering wheel, your car doesn't suddenly transform into a sofa. It's still a car, it's just an utterly and completely UNDRIVEABLE car.

What definition? The election isn't an election. It's theater staged to look like one in order to give the dictatorship the illusion of a democracy. It's the difference between statement and reality.

It's the difference between working and non-working, actually. A dictatorship in a democracy is HIGHLY broken to the point that it serves none of the functions of a democracy (much like a car you have set on fire is no longer usable as a car). So what about a SLIGHTLY broken democracy? What about a government where only the votes from white male landowners actually count? What about a government where the field of candidates is intentionally narrowed to a handful of political suckups who can be trusted not to challenge the status quo and leave the reigns of REAL power undisturbed? What about a government dominated by a single-party system where elections are merely contests between rival politicians to settle old grudges and/or gambling debts?

It isn't a binary choice. There are degrees of functionality within a democratic system ranging from "functional" to "utterly fubared." My point, however, is that democracies do not cease to BE democracies just because they are dysfunctional, let alone HIGHLY dysfunctional. I expect you find that distasteful because you are comfortable with the idea that democracy always works and that if it doesn't work, it isn't "really" a democracy. Trouble is, the Marxists will tell you the same thing about communism, and they run into the exact same problem of definitions.

EDIT: to be clear. The condition of the thing is what the thing IS. Good or bad democracies are still democracies. Dictatorships pretending to be democracies are still dictatorships.

That depends on the nature of the pretense. When the government says "An election has been held, here's the result" when no polls have opened and no votes have been cast, then it's just propaganda. But you may recall that Iraq was ruled by a parliamentary government even under Saddam, and that the legislature and the entire civilian apparatus was tightly controlled through the very real threat of violence and the omnipresence of the Boss' counterintelligence engine and their ancillary death squads. This is not a dictatorship PRETENDING to be a democracy, this is a democracy hamstrung by a dictatorship. In essence, a very very dysfunctional democracy.

Indeed, it's an illegitimate election. Which does not change the fact that it is, you know, an ELECTION, which is a feature of a democratic government, not of a monarchy, not of an autocracy, not of a plutocracy, not of a meritocracy.

Come on, man - that's silly. I can glue Ferrari badges all over a Saturn and claim that 'Ferrari badges are a feature of Ferrari cars, not of Saturn cars - and therefore, this car must be a Ferrari!'

Doesn't make it so.

Correct, because "Car with Ferrari badges on it" is not a workable definition of a Ferrari. "Car MADE by Ferrari" is.

If your Saturn was manufactured in a Ferrari plant, then it would be, IMO, a very crappy Ferrari (or a very high-quality Saturn). But to claim that it ISN'T just because it is lacks the key functionality of a Ferrari--flashiness, attractiveness, ridiculously high speed--is just special pleading. And again in the same case if I take an actual Ferrari and then set it on fire... it's still a Ferrari, whether it is drivable or not.

"No true scottsman" is a logical fallacy for this reason. Iraq WAS a democracy, not a "democracy in name only" that was actually a dictatorship; Stalin WAS a communist, not merely a fascist masquerading as one; suicide bombers ARE Muslims, not simply lunatics hijacking an otherwise peaceful religion; Catholic priests molesting altar boys ARE Christians, not "Christians in name only".

 

[Paradon]

A democracy still works, even if it's not perfect, if the government doesn't spend too much and the country is peaceful. Look at the U.S. for example, it was doing great for a long time until President Bush and Obama think we need to spend tons, and tons, of money on foreign policies...especially on these ridiculous war. That's why the terrorists bombed the U.S...to cause chaos, and so we go to war and bankrupt us in turn. I'm no big fan of the U.S. after hearing what a lot of people say about me and my country, and other countries, but it's stupid to let your country go down like this. Bring the troops back...and mind your own business.

 

[sonak]

Indeed, it's an illegitimate election. Which does not change the fact that it is, you know, an ELECTION, which is a feature of a democratic government, not of a monarchy, not of an autocracy, not of a plutocracy, not of a meritocracy.

You can't conflate the DEFINITION of a thing and the CONDITION of a thing; to do so would imply that democracy is only democracy when it's implemented perfectly. That just isn't the case. If I take your car, rip out the engine, smash the transmission, steal all four tires and your steering wheel, your car doesn't suddenly transform into a sofa. It's still a car, it's just an utterly and completely UNDRIVEABLE car.

What definition? The election isn't an election. It's theater staged to look like one in order to give the dictatorship the illusion of a democracy. It's the difference between statement and reality.

It's the difference between working and non-working, actually. A dictatorship in a democracy is HIGHLY broken to the point that it serves none of the functions of a democracy (much like a car you have set on fire is no longer usable as a car). So what about a SLIGHTLY broken democracy? What about a government where only the votes from white male landowners actually count? What about a government where the field of candidates is intentionally narrowed to a handful of political suckups who can be trusted not to challenge the status quo and leave the reigns of REAL power undisturbed? What about a government dominated by a single-party system where elections are merely contests between rival politicians to settle old grudges and/or gambling debts?

It isn't a binary choice. There are degrees of functionality within a democratic system ranging from "functional" to "utterly fubared." My point, however, is that democracies do not cease to BE democracies just because they are dysfunctional, let alone HIGHLY dysfunctional. I expect you find that distasteful because you are comfortable with the idea that democracy always works and that if it doesn't work, it isn't "really" a democracy. Trouble is, the Marxists will tell you the same thing about communism, and they run into the exact same problem of definitions.


That depends on the nature of the pretense. When the government says "An election has been held, here's the result" when no polls have opened and no votes have been cast, then it's just propaganda. But you may recall that Iraq was ruled by a parliamentary government even under Saddam, and that the legislature and the entire civilian apparatus was tightly controlled through the very real threat of violence and the omnipresence of the Boss' counterintelligence engine and their ancillary death squads. This is not a dictatorship PRETENDING to be a democracy, this is a democracy hamstrung by a dictatorship. In essence, a very very dysfunctional democracy.

Indeed, it's an illegitimate election. Which does not change the fact that it is, you know, an ELECTION, which is a feature of a democratic government, not of a monarchy, not of an autocracy, not of a plutocracy, not of a meritocracy.

Come on, man - that's silly. I can glue Ferrari badges all over a Saturn and claim that 'Ferrari badges are a feature of Ferrari cars, not of Saturn cars - and therefore, this car must be a Ferrari!'

Doesn't make it so.

Correct, because "Car with Ferrari badges on it" is not a workable definition of a Ferrari. "Car MADE by Ferrari" is.

If your Saturn was manufactured in a Ferrari plant, then it would be, IMO, a very crappy Ferrari (or a very high-quality Saturn). But to claim that it ISN'T just because it is lacks the key functionality of a Ferrari--flashiness, attractiveness, ridiculously high speed--is just special pleading. And again in the same case if I take an actual Ferrari and then set it on fire... it's still a Ferrari, whether it is drivable or not.

"No true scottsman" is a logical fallacy for this reason. Iraq WAS a democracy, not a "democracy in name only" that was actually a dictatorship; Stalin WAS a communist, not merely a fascist masquerading as one; suicide bombers ARE Muslims, not simply lunatics hijacking an otherwise peaceful religion; Catholic priests molesting altar boys ARE Christians, not "Christians in name only".

you've mangled the "no true Scotsman" fallacy beyond recognition. That fallacy isn't about saying that there are NO defining conditions for being included in a category. It's about not moving the goalposts in an argument to narrow those defining conditions to exclude something or someone that otherwise WOULD be in that category.

(Angus would ordinarily be considered a valid example of a Scotsman. Except in the classic example he's EXCLUDED from that category because the argument in question requires "true Scotsmen" to NOT LIKE PORRIDGE. So the goalposts are moved. )


no serious logical argument would say that there's no substantive difference between sham elections and real elections.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

A democracy still works, even if it's not perfect, if the government doesn't spend too much and the country is peaceful. Look at the U.S. for example, it was doing great for a long time until President Bush and Obama think we need to spend tons, and tons, of money on foreign policies...especially on these ridiculous war. That's why the terrorists bombed the U.S...to cause chaos, and so we go to war and bankrupt us in turn. I'm no big fan of the U.S. after hearing what a lot of people say about me and my country, and other countries, but it's stupid to let your country go down like this. Bring the troops back...and mind your own business.

All true for the most part. OTOH, a government under true democratic control probably wouldn't OVER spend and would limit its expenditures on things its people actually need.

But again, this was in the context of organized religion, where democracy mainly manifests in your choice of church and/or denominational following. This creates some problems because there's no overriding religious authority who can shutter heretical churches; one church can declare polygamy heretical, another can declare acceptance of homosexuality to be a venial sin, and nobody has to take EITHER of them seriously except for members of the church themselves (and sometimes not even then).

 

[Crazy Eddie]

you've mangled the "no true Scotsman" fallacy beyond recognition. That fallacy isn't about saying that there are NO defining conditions for being included in a category.

I never said it did. I said that FUNCTIONAL is not a defining characteristic of a thing, and therefore a dysfunctional democracy is still a democracy (sort of like how a comatose scottsman who doesn't wear a kilt or a bagpipe is still a scottsman, by virtue of his BEING FROM SCOTLAND).

It's about not moving the goalposts in an argument to narrow those defining conditions to exclude something or someone that otherwise WOULD be in that category.

It kind of IS, actually. The point of moving the goalposts in this case is to imply that democracy always works. The only way to assert that is to suggest that all the cases where democracy DIDN'T work are examples of false democracy or "democracy not properly implemented" or "democracy in name only."

"No True Scottsman likes porridge" becomes "No true democracy fails to work."

no serious logical argument would say that there's no substantive difference between sham elections and real elections.

There IS a substantive difference between a sham election and a real one. In the same way there's a substantive difference between a comatose scottsman and a healthy one. But a sham election that goes through the motions of taking place is still, at the end of the day, a democratic process. You produce a dysfunctional democracy by sabotaging or rendering irrelevant a democratic process (as America's electoral system theoretically does). When that process disappears altogether and is replaced by a different one, THEN you have produced a fundamentally different type of system.

The only point here is the implication that "democracy always works" just doesn't pan out. It doesn't always work, it isn't always allowed to work, it isn't always MEANT to work by the people who implemented it.

This, IMO, is something our government overlooked when it started its nation-building experiments in Iraq. It's not enough just to impose democracy on the people, because democracy is just a means to an end. It doesn't do any good unless it actually raises their quality of life, and ANY government--democratic or otherwise--needs to be able to do this in order to have the support of its people.

 

[Arpy]

I think we're of different views here. What makes a democracy is power lying in the hands of the demos (common people). If you could somehow accomplish that without elections, the government would still be a democracy, if not a "classical" one. What made Iraq a dictatorship, isn't that all civics questions were answerable with "Because glorious leader wishes it" and there were no elections, legitimate or otherwise, but because Hussein held dictatorial power.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

What happened in the future if there were no religions?

The need for them was evolved beyond.

But then they evolved beyond the need to evolve beyond religion, so religion became the "in" thing again.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I think we're of different views here. What makes a democracy is power lying in the hands of the demos (common people). If you could somehow accomplish that without elections, the government would still be a democracy, if not a "classical" one.

And what makes communism is collective ownership of the means of production in a particular state and equitable sharing in both the burdens and bounty of the people's collective efforts. It is, in theory, democratic control of the economy as well as the government. The fact that communism is almost never implemented this way doesn't mean that no "true" communist countries have ever existed. Under the Soviet Union, for example, the means of production was entirely monopolized by the state, ostensibly on behalf of the people, but without actually giving the masses any real say in their economic activities.

Concentrating power in the hands of the people is the GOAL of democracy, not the definition. It has this goal because it is based on the fundamental assumption that the people have the right and the ability to self-govern and no longer need some sort of elite autocrat sitting in a position of power to tell everyone what to do. Democracy can and does fail to achieve this goal at times, and democracy can and does get taken over by dictatorships. But it is (slightly) easier to remove a dictator from a democracy than it is to impose democracy on what has previously been an autocratic state. In the latter case you have to create totally new institutions amidst a sudden power vacuum, while in the former you need only reorganize existing ones and reempower them.

Ironically, the Coalition utterly failed to resurrect any of Iraq's EXISTING institutions--fired the entire army and permanently dismissed all of its existing public officials--which produced a power vacuum that never would have existed JUST from the removal of Saddam. That's the equivalent of remodeling a house by dynamiting its foundation first.

 

[Arpy]

I don't know that there has ever has been a truly communist state. The Soviet Union does not qualify. Again, it's substance over form. Not that different from there being republican Democrats and democratic Republicans.

Edit: and regarding goals of government types. Iraq remained a dictatorship because its democracy held no power and was not in place to give the people power but as a smokescreen. A bad book with a good cover is still a bad book.

And yes that's still different from, say, the US when you had to be a white, male, landowning, non-jew/quaker/catholic to vote.

 

[Paradon]

I think we're of different views here. What makes a democracy is power lying in the hands of the demos (common people). If you could somehow accomplish that without elections, the government would still be a democracy, if not a "classical" one.

And what makes communism is collective ownership of the means of production in a particular state and equitable sharing in both the burdens and bounty of the people's collective efforts. It is, in theory, democratic control of the economy as well as the government. The fact that communism is almost never implemented this way doesn't mean that no "true" communist countries have ever existed. Under the Soviet Union, for example, the means of production was entirely monopolized by the state, ostensibly on behalf of the people, but without actually giving the masses any real say in their economic activities.

Concentrating power in the hands of the people is the GOAL of democracy, not the definition. It has this goal because it is based on the fundamental assumption that the people have the right and the ability to self-govern and no longer need some sort of elite autocrat sitting in a position of power to tell everyone what to do. Democracy can and does fail to achieve this goal at times, and democracy can and does get taken over by dictatorships. But it is (slightly) easier to remove a dictator from a democracy than it is to impose democracy on what has previously been an autocratic state. In the latter case you have to create totally new institutions amidst a sudden power vacuum, while in the former you need only reorganize existing ones and reempower them.

Ironically, the Coalition utterly failed to resurrect any of Iraq's EXISTING institutions--fired the entire army and permanently dismissed all of its existing public officials--which produced a power vacuum that never would have existed JUST from the removal of Saddam. That's the equivalent of remodeling a house by dynamiting its foundation first.

People need to realize they do not need the government to help them solve their personal and social problems...because the government has no wisdom and knowledge about people's and societal problems and cannot solve your problems. For example, if you run a business, you don't need the government to tell you how to run it. You know exactly what you need and what to do in case there are problems. Burger King runs their restaurants differently than McDonalds, Wendy's and Jack in the Box. Every business is different, even within the same categories.... How can they anticipate everyone's needs and future problems? That's impossible! Nobody knows everything! Only God does! People need to stand up for themselves if they want true democracy and not let scums like Sadam bully them around and take control. People are tougher than they think! They just think they're helpless, but in reality you are in control of your destiny. People make their lives to be whatever they want...whether it's a bad one or sucessful one.

Power to the people!

And, needn't I say. You can't just go into a country and start taking people out and replace it with someone else. It's doens't work that way. People's problems are complex.... Foreign government cannot understand the problems other countries are experiencing...or at least not a lot and certainly not everything. That's why they created the power vacuum when the Americans went in there and took out Sadam. We need to encourage their people to rise up against scums like Sadam and stop interfering with foreign politics because we dont have the the wisdom and knowledge to do it properly. We can put politically pressure on the dictators, but not on the people. If you put a sanction on the people, they'll hate us and give more control to Sadam. That's what we did prior to the invasion. We need to put political pressure on the dictators not the people, by encouraging the people to rise up against them. You'll risk plunging the whole region into civil wars by interfering, taking out the dictators, because it creates a power vacuum which allows others to rise to power.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I don't know that there has ever has been a truly communist state. The Soviet Union does not qualify. Again, it's substance over form. Not that different from there being republican Democrats and democratic Republicans.

Sauce for the goose: by that criterion there has never been a truly democratic state either (I don't necessarily disagree with that viewpoint, to be honest). I guess at the end of the day you could say that some states are more/less democratic than others, and some hugely so.

People need to realize they do not need the government to help them solve their personal and social problems...because the government has no wisdom and knowledge about people's and societal problems and cannot solve your problems.

That's a bit of a paradox there, don't you think? After all, a government of the people, by the people and for the people should technically be composed of THE PEOPLE and would in and of itself become a conduit to channel their collective efforts to solve any particular problem. INDIVIDUAL problems would be beyond the scope of such a government, but widespread/systematic problems--pollution, hunger, poverty and diseases, to name a few--are problems that tend to require the cooperative efforts of the entire community to help solve them.

If the government is some vast independent bureaucracy that the people don't actually control, then it is indeed true that it cannot and should not get involved in society's business. But a democratic government serves at the will of the people, so it does what the people need it to do, up to and including solving their social and economic problems.

For example, if you run a business, you don't need the government to tell you how to run it. You know exactly what you need and what to do in case there are problems.

Begging the question: DO you? Safety and sanitation inspections are performed the way they are because alot of people running restaurants today either don't know or don't care how to guarantee the safety of their food. Health inspectors do their job because people would rather have to pass inspections every couple of months than suffer a potentially fatal outbreak of food poisoning.

How can they anticipate everyone's needs and future problems? That's impossible!

B.S.. People's needs are pretty straightforward: they need to be nourished and they need to not be poisoned. People's future problems are just as straightforward as a matter of cause and effect.

A democratic government is responsive to the needs of ALL its people, though, which means it safeguards both the rights of the customers not to be duped into buying lead-paint and salmonella sandwiches, and the rights of business owners to run their business the way they see fit. Balancing those two competing rights produces a best-fit solution that maximally satisfies everyone; you can't toss the rights of one at the expense of the other.

Nobody knows everything! Only God does!

I asked God how many fingers I'm holding up... apparently he drew a blank.

 

[Paradon]

The government job is to protect the people and their rights, freedom and liberty, and to protect the borders, the country and its natural resources. How can the government claim to know what my problem is, and yours, and anybody else for that matter. They have to make policies that reflects on the people not regulate them. There is a difference between you think you know and you know for a fact. For example, how do you what disease is afflicting me right now...the government is just as in the dark as you are, my friend. Most of the problems can be solved if you let free market runs its course. They can give cooperate tax break and cuts if they donate huge sum of money for to pay for people who are disabled and needed the money. They can take turn in getting tax break or cut. Food safety inspection should be run by independent company who has nothing to do with government and the food industry, so they can study and give out the most accurate and unbiased food safetly report. Still I think in some area the gov should stay the hell out of the food industry business. In Europe they sell unpasturized cheeses and milk products which taste exceptionally good. I mean they should be require do label, but not regulated. In specialty stores I think the people should be allowed to sell whatever they want. I lived in Thailand as a kid and eat shit, I'm stronger than most people...and I didnt' died.

[edit] They can even give small businesses tax breaks and cuts, too, if they are willing to donate. Health care crisis would be adverted if they let medical doctors run their own hospitals and businesses. With a lot of competition they have to drop the prices. A doctor visit would probably run around $30-$40 a visit and the service would be quick since their is no back lock, which happens when people try to take advantage of the free or insured health care. And people can pay for cheap catastrophic health insurance, which would pay for everything. Since their is no middleman (the insurance companies) it would be a lot of cheaper and everybody can afford the insurance. People dont often get seriously hurt, so they can afford to paid off people's hospital bills, plus it would be a lot cheaper without the middleman.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The government job is to protect the people and their rights, freedom and liberty, and to protect the borders, the country and its natural resources. How can the government claim to know what my problem is, and yours, and anybody else for that matter.

Because we wrote to them and TOLD them what our problems were and demanded that they do something about it. And because when they didn't believe us, they consulted thinktanks, research firms and data mining companies specifically created to find out what our problems were and suggest possible solutions.

They have to make policies that reflects on the people not regulate them.

The desire not to experience food poisoning is one the people universally possess. Sanitation regulation reflects this. The desire not to be crushed to death in a poorly-constructed building is one the people universally possess. Building code regulation reflects this.

There is a difference between you think you know and you know for a fact. For example, how do you what disease is afflicting me right now...the government is just as in the dark as you are, my friend.

The thing is, YOU know what you're suffering from, and so does your doctor. And if both you and your doctor are citizens of this country, then the government that answers to you can be made aware of that condition at your slightest whim.

So if you're allergic to peanuts, then you're part of a large group of people with a specific need that the government ALSO represents. In reflection of that need, health code regulations state that the kitchen MUST prepare food items separately when asked to do so. They're banned by law from recklessly poisoning you and then billing your next of kin for the meal.

Most of the problems can be solved if you let free market runs its course.

So goes the theory. The problem is, EVEN IF THAT WERE TRUE, the resolution of those problems first entails the suffering and exploitation of the people who stand to be victimized by unregulated businesses. The government's purpose is to protect the PEOPLE, not the market.

Health care crisis would be adverted if they let medical doctors run their own hospitals and businesses.

True, putting power in the hands of care-givers instead of insurance carriers. But that would require some sort of single-payer system for basic healthcare, something I get the feeling you wouldn't approve of.

 

[Paradon]

The government job is to protect the people and their rights, freedom and liberty, and to protect the borders, the country and its natural resources. How can the government claim to know what my problem is, and yours, and anybody else for that matter.

Because we wrote to them and TOLD them what our problems were and demanded that they do something about it. And because when they didn't believe us, they consulted thinktanks, research firms and data mining companies specifically created to find out what our problems were and suggest possible solutions.

They have to make policies that reflects on the people not regulate them.

The desire not to experience food poisoning is one the people universally possess. Sanitation regulation reflects this. The desire not to be crushed to death in a poorly-constructed building is one the people universally possess. Building code regulation reflects this.

The thing is, YOU know what you're suffering from, and so does your doctor. And if both you and your doctor are citizens of this country, then the government that answers to you can be made aware of that condition at your slightest whim.

So if you're allergic to peanuts, then you're part of a large group of people with a specific need that the government ALSO represents. In reflection of that need, health code regulations state that the kitchen MUST prepare food items separately when asked to do so. They're banned by law from recklessly poisoning you and then billing your next of kin for the meal.

Most of the problems can be solved if you let free market runs its course.

So goes the theory. The problem is, EVEN IF THAT WERE TRUE, the resolution of those problems first entails the suffering and exploitation of the people who stand to be victimized by unregulated businesses. The government's purpose is to protect the PEOPLE, not the market.

Health care crisis would be adverted if they let medical doctors run their own hospitals and businesses.

True, putting power in the hands of care-givers instead of insurance carriers. But that would require some sort of single-payer system for basic healthcare, something I get the feeling you wouldn't approve of.

Still every person problems are different.... Unless they are willing meet with you personally let say: for a mining incident, I think it's more efficient if you seek doctor's help on your own. The reason doctors are so inefficient is because they got possible lawsuits on their hands. They don't want to perform any procedures that might hurt someone. Every mistake they make when they hurt someone, even if unintentional, they can get sued and put in prisons. Medical procedures will put anyone at a possible risk of injury, that is unavoidable.

Tell me why food in the U.S. taste so disgusting? [laugh] You can go to places that serve safe food and then their is specialty stores where they can do whatever they want. If you don't to risk it, then dont eat it. It's your choice it's a free country. And besides, if they want to serve food using peanuts and peanuts oil that's their choice. They should be made aware to customers, so they can go somewhere else to eat.

Construction code is different than the food safety. That I concurred with you. The government should make sure the building it up to snuff.

Like I said earlier, it would be more efficient if you seek doctors help yourself. Free market will help people make doctors visit a spiff and provide great services.

If the doctors did hurt someone intentionally or due to shear negligent, that's a different story...or if they are exploiting someone! So, yes! They can be held accountable for it by laws. YOu dont need special insurance companies (Kaiser or whatever) telling doctors how they should operate their hospitals and clinics.

It's just like owning dogs. Should we regulate people, too. IT's possible that the dogs might maim and hurt someone badly, even kill, but is that the government's job, or the responsibility of the persons owning the animals. Nobody is that stupid to not notice that they dogs can hurt or kill someone. Why don't we regulate that, too.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I agree the free market should be trusted. I believe the smaller the government, the more our liberties are protected. However, I disagree that god knows everything.

 

[Arpy]

^ Government, for all its problems, is essential. Less government doesn't mean more liberties; it just means that there's less to stop business from running your life.

Warning: heavy sarcasm ahead: snark shields up!

"So you want to have that extra scoop of ice cream do yah? Well get ready to pay for your own insurance because your employer's gonna drop you after your next random pee test. And be sure not to say anything about what you think you saw in that safety report or your wife's gonna be shopping for tombstones. Oh what am I saying? I'm sure they'll just send a Pinkerton or two to smash your windows. That is, if you can afford any on your slave wages. Good thing your six-year old works at the same factory as you though - that third income's important these days. Oh, and Soylent Green is...oh you get the point. Eat Smacky Smores!*"

*A Weyland-Yutani Company

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

uh...no. You haven't demonstrated your case. But I ask you: where does it end. Once government has control of something they rarely give it back. So you want them to take care of you from cradle to grave? See where this is going?