Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[gnarlylove]

In my experience, "the ends justify the means" is always worth questioning.

I've been on both sides of the issue but have concluded there are no genuine means to an end. All events are end results in themselves. TO ignore an event or group of events for the sake of achieving some idea or goal is inauthentic. It ignores the quality of an event for the preference of another. As conscious beings we can withhold concerns in order to magnify other concerns, but nature and reality have no preference for one over another.

Of course there are tons of moral dilemmas we can raise regarding this, but we must realize we are understanding life not on nature's terms but on our pre-selected terms.

So in thinking about outcomes, we need to first realize the need for a gigantic health care system is largely preventable. By a nourishing diet and exercise one can reach a free cure for most ailments. This is preventive medicine, and should be the most important--but in an industry of profit, the more sick people the more money--so capitalism has deceived us again. Around 700CE famous Chinese doctor Sun Si-miao said that when a person is sick, the doctor should first regulate the patient's diet and lifestyle. In most cases, these changes alone are enough to effect a cure over time. Only once these changes are identified as inadequate, says Sun Si-miao, should the doctor administer other interventions such as internal medicine and acupuncture.

 

[RKMBrown]

It's not 'against' government at all. It's just a clear recognition of it's nature and how it should, and should not, be used.



In my experience, "the ends justify the means" is always worth questioning.

It is a moral belief about how it should be used.

The "means" in question are taxation. I have no problem talking about the nature of taxation but an emphasis on the outcome doesn't mean the "means" are ignored. The means are inherent in the outcome approach.

The means in question are a convoluted cluster fuck of corporatist mandates.

That's one means in question. The other means in question is the funding via redistributions (public theft) of Peter's income and assets to pay for Paul's health care.

 

[RKMBrown]

In my experience, "the ends justify the means" is always worth questioning.

I've been on both sides of the issue but have concluded there are no genuine means to an end. All events are end results in themselves. TO ignore an event or group of events for the sake of achieving some idea or goal is inauthentic. It ignores the quality of an event for the preference of another. As conscious beings we can withhold concerns in order to magnify other concerns, but nature and reality have no preference for one over another.

Of course there are tons of moral dilemmas we can raise regarding this, but we must realize we are understanding life not on nature's terms but on our pre-selected terms.

So in thinking about outcomes, we need to first realize the need for a gigantic health care system is largely preventable. By a nourishing diet and exercise one can reach a free cure for most ailments. This is preventive medicine, and should be the most important--but in an industry of profit, the more sick people the more money--so capitalism has deceived us again. Around 700CE famous Chinese doctor Sun Si-miao said that when a person is sick, the doctor should first regulate the patient's diet and lifestyle. In most cases, these changes alone are enough to effect a cure over time. Only once these changes are identified as inadequate, says Sun Si-miao, should the doctor administer other interventions such as internal medicine and acupuncture.

That's a really long winded attempt to justify the raping of a small group of people for the benefit of another small group of people.

 

[gnarlylove]

"Are the privileged and powerful finally starting to get it? Former Fed chief Alan Greenspan said yesterday to the National Association of Business Economists: “I consider income inequality the most dangerous part of what’s going on in the United States. You can see the deteriorating impact of that on our current political system, and you cannot talk about politics without talking about its impact on the economy.”

Bill Gross, co-founder and co-chief investment officer of Pacific Investment Management Company, the biggest bond-trading firm in America, wrote in one of his recent investment letters that the share of total pretax income going to America’s top 1% more than doubled from 10% in the 1970s to 20% today, and that his wealthy clients did not “create that wave. You rode it. And now it’s time to kick out and share some of your good fortune by paying higher taxes or reforming them to favor economic growth and labor, as opposed to corporate profits and individual gazillions.”

Is the business class beginning to understand that as long as 95% of the economy’s gains go to the top 1%, the rest of America doesn’t have the purchasing power to get the economy out of first gear? Or are they afraid that if prosperity isn’t more widely shared they'll face a political backlash against concentrated wealth, corporate power, free trade, and global capitalism?"

-Robert Riech, former Clinton Sec. of Labor

 

[gnarlylove]

In my experience, "the ends justify the means" is always worth questioning.

I've been on both sides of the issue but have concluded there are no genuine means to an end. All events are end results in themselves. TO ignore an event or group of events for the sake of achieving some idea or goal is inauthentic. It ignores the quality of an event for the preference of another. As conscious beings we can withhold concerns in order to magnify other concerns, but nature and reality have no preference for one over another.

Of course there are tons of moral dilemmas we can raise regarding this, but we must realize we are understanding life not on nature's terms but on our pre-selected terms.

So in thinking about outcomes, we need to first realize the need for a gigantic health care system is largely preventable. By a nourishing diet and exercise one can reach a free cure for most ailments. This is preventive medicine, and should be the most important--but in an industry of profit, the more sick people the more money--so capitalism has deceived us again. Around 700CE famous Chinese doctor Sun Si-miao said that when a person is sick, the doctor should first regulate the patient's diet and lifestyle. In most cases, these changes alone are enough to effect a cure over time. Only once these changes are identified as inadequate, says Sun Si-miao, should the doctor administer other interventions such as internal medicine and acupuncture.

That's a really long winded attempt to justify the raping of a small group of people for the benefit of another small group of people.

I must admit you are very creative. My abstract discussion of ends justifying means should denote that all events, all people are not means. Despite your creative deduction, I will state for the record: all people are ends. There should be no raping/exploitation because no person can be considered a means (i.e. sacrifice or expendable) for the sake of some glorified end. Maybe someday we will treat others as ends, not means, but I won't hold my breath given your level of exegesis.

 

[RKMBrown]

I've been on both sides of the issue but have concluded there are no genuine means to an end. All events are end results in themselves. TO ignore an event or group of events for the sake of achieving some idea or goal is inauthentic. It ignores the quality of an event for the preference of another. As conscious beings we can withhold concerns in order to magnify other concerns, but nature and reality have no preference for one over another.

Of course there are tons of moral dilemmas we can raise regarding this, but we must realize we are understanding life not on nature's terms but on our pre-selected terms.

So in thinking about outcomes, we need to first realize the need for a gigantic health care system is largely preventable. By a nourishing diet and exercise one can reach a free cure for most ailments. This is preventive medicine, and should be the most important--but in an industry of profit, the more sick people the more money--so capitalism has deceived us again. Around 700CE famous Chinese doctor Sun Si-miao said that when a person is sick, the doctor should first regulate the patient's diet and lifestyle. In most cases, these changes alone are enough to effect a cure over time. Only once these changes are identified as inadequate, says Sun Si-miao, should the doctor administer other interventions such as internal medicine and acupuncture.

That's a really long winded attempt to justify the raping of a small group of people for the benefit of another small group of people.

I must admit you are very creative. My abstract discussion of ends justifying means should denote that all events, all people are not means. Despite your creative deduction, I will state for the record: all people are ends. There should be no raping/exploitation because no person can be considered a means (i.e. sacrifice or expendable) for the sake of some glorified end. Maybe someday we will treat others as ends, not means, but I won't hold my breath given your level of exegesis.

Yeah well your statements are all over the map, thus my criticism.

You say all people are ends.
Then you say all people are not means.
Then you say maybe some day we will treat others an an ends not a means.

You appear to be willing to admit we should not enslave the rich and health care providers for the benefit of the masses, but for some reason you want to do it while still pretending to be a progressive that is somewhat in favor of the way the enslavement is actively going on, this based on a limited ability to hold your breath.

 

[RKMBrown]

The point about ends justifying the means is not based on some scientific view of results of events. The point is directed to actions being justified based on the desired results. While every result is based on actions, there are various types of actions. Forcing someone to perform an action to achieve a desired result, is not the same as the person choosing to perform an action to achieve the same result. The result may be the same, however, the result in the former is a tainted result. The result is tainted because it involved some level of force on the person. For example, when a woman has a baby an ends has been achieved (baby born, new person.) However, raping a woman to achieve the ends is not justified.

 

[dblack]

The point about ends justifying the means is not based on some scientific view of results of events. The point is directed to actions being justified based on the desired results. While every result is based on actions, there are various types of actions. Forcing someone to perform an action to achieve a desired result, is not the same as the person choosing to perform an action to achieve the same result. The result may be the same, however, the result is in the former is a tainted result. The result is tainted because it involved some level of force on the person. For example, when a woman has a baby and ends has been achieved (baby born, new person.) However, raping a woman to achieve the ends is not justified.

Exactly. 'The-ends-justifies-the-means' is a problem when we're asked to ignore questionable means because they produce a desired result.

 

[KevinWestern]

The point about ends justifying the means is not based on some scientific view of results of events. The point is directed to actions being justified based on the desired results. While every result is based on actions, there are various types of actions. Forcing someone to perform an action to achieve a desired result, is not the same as the person choosing to perform an action to achieve the same result. The result may be the same, however, the result in the former is a tainted result. The result is tainted because it involved some level of force on the person. For example, when a woman has a baby an ends has been achieved (baby born, new person.) However, raping a woman to achieve the ends is not justified.

When it comes to health care, here's my belief. It's a strange sort of product (because people don't know what they need, and currently care less about cost because insurance covers it) so there IS an argument that it can be a "government provided service" using the logic that the "government acts in our best interests". There are entire economics books written about this unique sector and how it's very dissimilar to say the buying market for televisions (for example).

But with that said, Obamacare is NOT socialized medicine. It's the same f'cking system only now we're being forced to buy insurance. Private companies (who don't always act in OUR best interests) are still running the whole gig, and on top of that now must take on pre-existing conditions.

The only logical conclusion (knowing that costs were already rising under this system) is that they will continue to rise even more (due to the added expenses).

The whole thing is a sham. I'd have been fine with them just expanding medicare/medicaid if they wanted to insure a bunch of uninsured people but that's not what the Democrats decided to do.

This ACA bill is going to reek havoc. It sucks.

 

[gnarlylove]

The point about ends justifying the means is not based on some scientific view of results of events. The point is directed to actions being justified based on the desired results. While every result is based on actions, there are various types of actions. Forcing someone to perform an action to achieve a desired result, is not the same as the person choosing to perform an action to achieve the same result. The result may be the same, however, the result is in the former is a tainted result. The result is tainted because it involved some level of force on the person. For example, when a woman has a baby and ends has been achieved (baby born, new person.) However, raping a woman to achieve the ends is not justified.

Exactly. 'The-ends-justifies-the-means' is a problem when we're asked to ignore questionable means because they produce a desired result.

We are in agreement, all three. Perhaps my use of language was confusing but considering every person and event as an end in itself implies we cannot treat them/it as means to some desirable result. Thus, we can not rape a woman to produce a baby because although we may need that baby to keep the human race alive, her will of not having a baby must be respected as a end in itself. Thus, sacrificing her desires for the greater good is never ok. In the area of applied ethics one can properly discusses such examples but bottom line, the ends should never justify the means.

I think where we disagree with my assertion of "never." This atemporal assertion conflicts with the our current economy: the idea of exploitation, treating a laborer as a means to generating profit. Sure, workers are "paid" but this is not a commensurate exchange. Given many workers are near poverty line openly demonstrates how we treat laborer as a means . Even the worker herself tends to treat their laboring as a means to an end--the paycheck--not as an end in itself. This is the whole foundation of alienation of the working class. The worker no longer views their laboring as important or an end, it is merely a means to sustenance (and to keep society functioning which benefits the profiteer much more than the alienated worker).

 

[Bombur]

It's not 'against' government at all. It's just a clear recognition of it's nature and how it should, and should not, be used.



In my experience, "the ends justify the means" is always worth questioning.

It is a moral belief about how it should be used.

The "means" in question are taxation. I have no problem talking about the nature of taxation but an emphasis on the outcome doesn't mean the "means" are ignored. The means are inherent in the outcome approach.

The means in question are a convoluted cluster fuck of corporatist mandates.

I was talking about UHC generally.

The US system is a cluster fuck but that doesn't mean the solution is a blind ideological devotion to "not government" like you have pushed.

Half our problem is that no one seems willing to step back and address the problems with the system. Instead we are stuck in BS ideological debates that result in crap compromises and inefficiencies. The government is a massive thing that needs to be reformed but when the conservative ideology amounts to "no government is the only good government" there is no reform happening.

 

[gnarlylove]

The point about ends justifying the means is not based on some scientific view of results of events. The point is directed to actions being justified based on the desired results. While every result is based on actions, there are various types of actions. Forcing someone to perform an action to achieve a desired result, is not the same as the person choosing to perform an action to achieve the same result. The result may be the same, however, the result in the former is a tainted result. The result is tainted because it involved some level of force on the person. For example, when a woman has a baby an ends has been achieved (baby born, new person.) However, raping a woman to achieve the ends is not justified.

When it comes to health care, here's my belief. It's a strange sort of product (because people don't know what they need, and currently care less about cost because insurance covers it) so there IS an argument that it can be a "government provided service" using the logic that the "government acts in our best interests". There are entire economics books written about this unique sector and how it's very dissimilar to say the buying market for televisions (for example).

But with that said, Obamacare is NOT socialized medicine. It's the same f'cking system only now we're being forced to buy insurance. Private companies (who don't always act in OUR best interests) are still running the whole gig, and on top of that now must take on pre-existing conditions.

The only logical conclusion (knowing that costs were already rising under this system) is that they will continue to rise even more (due to the added expenses).

The whole thing is a sham. I'd have been fine with them just expanding medicare/medicaid if they wanted to insure a bunch of uninsured people but that's not what the Democrats decided to do.

This ACA bill is going to reek havoc. It sucks.

I agree, Obamacare is not a justifiable means to the end of having everyone insured. It has been corrupted by Obama's dismal of the public while his retained ties with Big Pharma and Big Insurance. The public was vehemently against this forced system, but it stands to reason the companies from which we are forced to buy are making bank.

I like how you denoted your agreement with having everyone insured, which generates a healthier society on the whole (we hope) but the way we are being forced into is is unfortunate to say the least.

I think the real discussion that's not on the table is preventive medicine. This is why our system is overburdened. People simply do not take care of themselves and haven't the slightest clue how to either--good job cheap food companies (a predictable result of profit over people).

 

[RKMBrown]

The point about ends justifying the means is not based on some scientific view of results of events. The point is directed to actions being justified based on the desired results. While every result is based on actions, there are various types of actions. Forcing someone to perform an action to achieve a desired result, is not the same as the person choosing to perform an action to achieve the same result. The result may be the same, however, the result in the former is a tainted result. The result is tainted because it involved some level of force on the person. For example, when a woman has a baby an ends has been achieved (baby born, new person.) However, raping a woman to achieve the ends is not justified.

When it comes to health care, here's my belief. It's a strange sort of product (because people don't know what they need, and currently care less about cost because insurance covers it) so there IS an argument that it can be a "government provided service" using the logic that the "government acts in our best interests". There are entire economics books written about this unique sector and how it's very dissimilar to say the buying market for televisions (for example).

But with that said, Obamacare is NOT socialized medicine. It's the same f'cking system only now we're being forced to buy insurance. Private companies (who don't always act in OUR best interests) are still running the whole gig, and on top of that now must take on pre-existing conditions.

The only logical conclusion (knowing that costs were already rising under this system) is that they will continue to rise even more (due to the added expenses).

The whole thing is a sham. I'd have been fine with them just expanding medicare/medicaid if they wanted to insure a bunch of uninsured people but that's not what the Democrats decided to do.

This ACA bill is going to reek havoc. It sucks.

Every sector can be argued as necessary, and thus a thing that we can't trust to private enterprise. However, the issue is not one of trust, the issue is one of power and control over the sector. Do we let the consumers exercise liberty to control their own choices or do we switch one step at a time from an American Capitalist economic system based on liberty under the rule of law, to a Marxist Soviet style system with government managing every important aspect of our lives and the law being a police state where there is only a very minimal amount of liberty that the government can't take without killing you.

They did expand medicare and medicaid... they did that some dozen times over the last dozen years. ACA was just one more baby step to the democrat nirvana of a land in which liberty is the liberty to put their boots on everyone's neck.

 

[Bombur]

The point about ends justifying the means is not based on some scientific view of results of events. The point is directed to actions being justified based on the desired results. While every result is based on actions, there are various types of actions. Forcing someone to perform an action to achieve a desired result, is not the same as the person choosing to perform an action to achieve the same result. The result may be the same, however, the result in the former is a tainted result. The result is tainted because it involved some level of force on the person. For example, when a woman has a baby an ends has been achieved (baby born, new person.) However, raping a woman to achieve the ends is not justified.

When I was talking about outcomes I was talking about looking at all the steps which would include things like how the plan is funded. Or in your analogy the rape.

If you want to compare taxation for UHC to rape then that is your belief. I would love to live in a world without taxation but that is not a realistic approach to real problems a nation and a society of people face.

 

[Bombur]

The point about ends justifying the means is not based on some scientific view of results of events. The point is directed to actions being justified based on the desired results. While every result is based on actions, there are various types of actions. Forcing someone to perform an action to achieve a desired result, is not the same as the person choosing to perform an action to achieve the same result. The result may be the same, however, the result in the former is a tainted result. The result is tainted because it involved some level of force on the person. For example, when a woman has a baby an ends has been achieved (baby born, new person.) However, raping a woman to achieve the ends is not justified.

When it comes to health care, here's my belief. It's a strange sort of product (because people don't know what they need, and currently care less about cost because insurance covers it) so there IS an argument that it can be a "government provided service" using the logic that the "government acts in our best interests". There are entire economics books written about this unique sector and how it's very dissimilar to say the buying market for televisions (for example).

But with that said, Obamacare is NOT socialized medicine. It's the same f'cking system only now we're being forced to buy insurance. Private companies (who don't always act in OUR best interests) are still running the whole gig, and on top of that now must take on pre-existing conditions.

The only logical conclusion (knowing that costs were already rising under this system) is that they will continue to rise even more (due to the added expenses).

The whole thing is a sham. I'd have been fine with them just expanding medicare/medicaid if they wanted to insure a bunch of uninsured people but that's not what the Democrats decided to do.

This ACA bill is going to reek havoc. It sucks.

Every sector can be argued as necessary, and thus a thing that we can't trust to private enterprise. However, the issue is not one of trust, the issue is one of power and control over the sector. Do we let the consumers exercise liberty to control their own choices or do we switch one step at a time from an American Capitalist economic system based on liberty under the rule of law, to a Marxist Soviet style system with government managing every important aspect of our lives and the law being a police state where there is only a very minimal amount of liberty that the government can't take without killing you.

They did expand medicare and medicaid... the did that some dozen times over the last dozen years. ACA was just one more baby step to the democrat nirvana of a land in which liberty is the liberty to put their boots on everyone's neck.

This is gross hyperbole that has no place in any serious discussion. Get real.

 

[gnarlylove]

The US system is a cluster fuck but that doesn't mean the solution is a blind ideological devotion to "not government" like you have pushed.

Good summary of dblack position. He seems to be full steam ahead at ridding the world of government but his push is an ideological one--not one centered in feasible policy or society. We must have a transition to reaching this government-less society. And remaining free market in ideology is not a transition--it maintains the status quo which is irrespective of government. I admit the government helps enforce the status quo but the status quo goes deeper than purely a government policy--many corporations are multi-national and do not have to bow to American policy. It would be a different story if Americans were aware of the sham of corporations and refused to acknowledge their domination, but alas, this won't happen anytime soon since 99.9% tacitly affirm the power of the status quo.

 

[KevinWestern]

The point about ends justifying the means is not based on some scientific view of results of events. The point is directed to actions being justified based on the desired results. While every result is based on actions, there are various types of actions. Forcing someone to perform an action to achieve a desired result, is not the same as the person choosing to perform an action to achieve the same result. The result may be the same, however, the result in the former is a tainted result. The result is tainted because it involved some level of force on the person. For example, when a woman has a baby an ends has been achieved (baby born, new person.) However, raping a woman to achieve the ends is not justified.

When it comes to health care, here's my belief. It's a strange sort of product (because people don't know what they need, and currently care less about cost because insurance covers it) so there IS an argument that it can be a "government provided service" using the logic that the "government acts in our best interests". There are entire economics books written about this unique sector and how it's very dissimilar to say the buying market for televisions (for example).

But with that said, Obamacare is NOT socialized medicine. It's the same f'cking system only now we're being forced to buy insurance. Private companies (who don't always act in OUR best interests) are still running the whole gig, and on top of that now must take on pre-existing conditions.

The only logical conclusion (knowing that costs were already rising under this system) is that they will continue to rise even more (due to the added expenses).

The whole thing is a sham. I'd have been fine with them just expanding medicare/medicaid if they wanted to insure a bunch of uninsured people but that's not what the Democrats decided to do.

This ACA bill is going to reek havoc. It sucks.

I agree, Obamacare is not a justifiable means to the end of having everyone insured. It has been corrupted by Obama's dismal of the public while his retained ties with Big Pharma and Big Insurance. The public was vehemently against this forced system, but it stands to reason the companies from which we are forced to buy are making bank.

I like how you denoted your agreement with having everyone insured, which generates a healthier society on the whole (we hope) but the way we are being forced into is is unfortunate to say the least.

I think the real discussion that's not on the table is preventive medicine. This is why our system is overburdened. People simply do not take care of themselves and haven't the slightest clue how to either--good job cheap food companies (a predictable result of profit over people).

Personally, I think the BEST thing we can do is move to a catastrophic based insurance model, where people can choose/pay for regular checkups and what not out of pocket - free market - and will use insurance only to cover unlikely events (like a major kidney surgery).

The model we currently have would be like using insurance to cover a flat tire, or an oil change - two very likely events. We pay that kind of stuff out of pocket..

This will force people to doctor-shop and will force doctors to lower their prices. In addition, we need the government to lift some of these insane regulations, etc, and loosen up on the patent laws so that an AIDs pill will cost $1 vs $50. Medicine is so much cheaper elsewhere in the world.

I think the most viable solution is adding more free market into healthcare. In a perfect utopia, maybe I'd be down for universal healthcare, but unfortunately I just don't trust these guys in Washington and feel the US is too large for a "blanket system".

 

[KevinWestern]

The point about ends justifying the means is not based on some scientific view of results of events. The point is directed to actions being justified based on the desired results. While every result is based on actions, there are various types of actions. Forcing someone to perform an action to achieve a desired result, is not the same as the person choosing to perform an action to achieve the same result. The result may be the same, however, the result in the former is a tainted result. The result is tainted because it involved some level of force on the person. For example, when a woman has a baby an ends has been achieved (baby born, new person.) However, raping a woman to achieve the ends is not justified.

When it comes to health care, here's my belief. It's a strange sort of product (because people don't know what they need, and currently care less about cost because insurance covers it) so there IS an argument that it can be a "government provided service" using the logic that the "government acts in our best interests". There are entire economics books written about this unique sector and how it's very dissimilar to say the buying market for televisions (for example).

But with that said, Obamacare is NOT socialized medicine. It's the same f'cking system only now we're being forced to buy insurance. Private companies (who don't always act in OUR best interests) are still running the whole gig, and on top of that now must take on pre-existing conditions.

The only logical conclusion (knowing that costs were already rising under this system) is that they will continue to rise even more (due to the added expenses).

The whole thing is a sham. I'd have been fine with them just expanding medicare/medicaid if they wanted to insure a bunch of uninsured people but that's not what the Democrats decided to do.

This ACA bill is going to reek havoc. It sucks.

Every sector can be argued as necessary, and thus a thing that we can't trust to private enterprise. However, the issue is not one of trust, the issue is one of power and control over the sector. Do we let the consumers exercise liberty to control their own choices or do we switch one step at a time from an American Capitalist economic system based on liberty under the rule of law, to a Marxist Soviet style system with government managing every important aspect of our lives and the law being a police state where there is only a very minimal amount of liberty that the government can't take without killing you.

They did expand medicare and medicaid... the did that some dozen times over the last dozen years. ACA was just one more baby step to the democrat nirvana of a land in which liberty is the liberty to put their boots on everyone's neck.

No, I disagree. Here's the thing, you don't need 8 years of medical schooling to know that the TV you're buying is right for you, but you DO need 8 years of medical schooling to know that the little pain you feel in your side is something serious that needs to be operated on. We're talking about a sector where people don't know what they need, and a sector where people don't care about the cost of things.

Simply put, the competitive forces that are usually driving efficiencies in the Television market are absent, making it unique. If we used insurance to buy TVs I assure you they'd cost 2 to 3 times more than they do today.

So we probably have to do something; I say revamp the insurance model and use some gov't funds to help cover basic care for the poor.

 

[dblack]

The US system is a cluster fuck but that doesn't mean the solution is a blind ideological devotion to "not government" like you have pushed.

Good summary of dblack position. He seems to be full steam ahead at ridding the world of government but his push is an ideological one--not one centered in feasible policy or society. We must have a transition to reaching this government-less society.

You guys still trying to dress me up as an anarchist? Try listening to what people say rather than trying to squeeze them into your stereotypes.

 

[Bombur]

The US system is a cluster fuck but that doesn't mean the solution is a blind ideological devotion to "not government" like you have pushed.

Good summary of dblack position. He seems to be full steam ahead at ridding the world of government but his push is an ideological one--not one centered in feasible policy or society. We must have a transition to reaching this government-less society.

You guys still trying to dress me up as an anarchist? Try listening to what people say rather than trying to squeeze them into your stereotypes.

Fine, replace "not government" with "government as a last resort which means no government involvement in the issue being discussed" or something. The point is the same either way as you are basing your position on a strict ideological belief.