Do You View Socialism Positively?

[bripat9643]

Suppose, when Marx had looked about for a name to give to his program to transition capitalism to communism he had selected "scientific capitalism" instead of scientific socialism? Would all this furor that socialism leads to communism have existed; I wonder if we would have spent the last 100 years or so dreading capitalism? Marx gave us another good one and we were even afraid to read and learn how stupid the whole communistic set up or we would be afraid of being labeled a communist. I remember taking a college course on comparative economic practices and I kept one textbook covered so the title with Marx could not be seen. Students were not above accusing one of being a communist if they carried a textbook about Marx and communism to class.
After the 1917 revolution the USSR dropped the scientific-socialist thing pretty quick, and then dropped the whole communist program, it didn't work-except to frighten. Can anyone name a country that made Marxian communism work?

It isn't the name, it's the system people live under. Call it whatever you want, I want to minimize what the state takes from me to redistribute to others and pet projects. We were not formed as a socialist country, capitalism made us number one and moving away from it is lowering quality of life and freedom for most of us. Putting a happy face on socialism to sell to the masses isn't going to improve our economy.

As a democracy continually makes adjustments to meet the needs of the people so our economic system makes changes to meet the needs of the people. We cannot keep either our government or our economic systems as they were in 1787. By making changes America has kept both its political system and economic system alive and well, Had we tried to keep them the same as in 1787 we might have lost both.
One of our big economic problems is keeping capitalism capitalistic.

All the changes were made purely for the benefit of politicians and their minions, not for the benefit of the people. The laws of economics do not change over time. If the government is set up correctly in the beginning, then it doesn't require changes in the rules. However, there have always been servile statist toadies bent on converting the USA from a nation of free people to a nation of serfs.

 

[Lakhota]

Suppose, when Marx had looked about for a name to give to his program to transition capitalism to communism he had selected "scientific capitalism" instead of scientific socialism? Would all this furor that socialism leads to communism have existed; I wonder if we would have spent the last 100 years or so dreading capitalism? Marx gave us another good one and we were even afraid to read and learn how stupid the whole communistic set up or we would be afraid of being labeled a communist. I remember taking a college course on comparative economic practices and I kept one textbook covered so the title with Marx could not be seen. Students were not above accusing one of being a communist if they carried a textbook about Marx and communism to class.
After the 1917 revolution the USSR dropped the scientific-socialist thing pretty quick, and then dropped the whole communist program, it didn't work-except to frighten. Can anyone name a country that made Marxian communism work?

It isn't the name, it's the system people live under. Call it whatever you want, I want to minimize what the state takes from me to redistribute to others and pet projects. We were not formed as a socialist country, capitalism made us number one and moving away from it is lowering quality of life and freedom for most of us. Putting a happy face on socialism to sell to the masses isn't going to improve our economy.

As a democracy continually makes adjustments to meet the needs of the people so our economic system makes changes to meet the needs of the people. We cannot keep either our government or our economic systems as they were in 1787. By making changes America has kept both its political system and economic system alive and well, Had we tried to keep them the same as in 1787 we might have lost both.
One of our big economic problems is keeping capitalism capitalistic.

All the changes were made purely for the benefit of politicians and their minions, not for the benefit of the people. The laws of economics do not change over time. If the government is set up correctly in the beginning, then it doesn't require changes in the rules. However, there have always been servile statist toadies bent on converting the USA from a nation of free people to a nation of serfs.

You've said many dumb things on this board - but that may be the dumbest. Corporations are constantly "gaming" the system - so government must change the rules to keep up. The founders didn't envision the world we currently live in. Things change. Shit happens. It ain't rocket science...

 

[bripat9643]

Suppose, when Marx had looked about for a name to give to his program to transition capitalism to communism he had selected "scientific capitalism" instead of scientific socialism? Would all this furor that socialism leads to communism have existed; I wonder if we would have spent the last 100 years or so dreading capitalism? Marx gave us another good one and we were even afraid to read and learn how stupid the whole communistic set up or we would be afraid of being labeled a communist. I remember taking a college course on comparative economic practices and I kept one textbook covered so the title with Marx could not be seen. Students were not above accusing one of being a communist if they carried a textbook about Marx and communism to class.
After the 1917 revolution the USSR dropped the scientific-socialist thing pretty quick, and then dropped the whole communist program, it didn't work-except to frighten. Can anyone name a country that made Marxian communism work?

It isn't the name, it's the system people live under. Call it whatever you want, I want to minimize what the state takes from me to redistribute to others and pet projects. We were not formed as a socialist country, capitalism made us number one and moving away from it is lowering quality of life and freedom for most of us. Putting a happy face on socialism to sell to the masses isn't going to improve our economy.

As a democracy continually makes adjustments to meet the needs of the people so our economic system makes changes to meet the needs of the people. We cannot keep either our government or our economic systems as they were in 1787. By making changes America has kept both its political system and economic system alive and well, Had we tried to keep them the same as in 1787 we might have lost both.
One of our big economic problems is keeping capitalism capitalistic.

All the changes were made purely for the benefit of politicians and their minions, not for the benefit of the people. The laws of economics do not change over time. If the government is set up correctly in the beginning, then it doesn't require changes in the rules. However, there have always been servile statist toadies bent on converting the USA from a nation of free people to a nation of serfs.

You've said many dumb things on this board - but that may be the dumbest. Corporations are constantly "gaming" the system - so government must change the rules to keep up. The founders didn't envision the world we currently live in. Things change. Shit happens. It ain't rocket science...

Only a servile statist moron would dispute the point.

Getting government to change the rules is how corporations "game the system." Government regulations don't do a thing to protect the consumer. Corporations that make shoddy products and provide bad service go bankrupt. The railroads who snookered Congress into subsidizing the transcontinental railroads were all a bunch of crooks. They were involved in massive scandals like Credit Mobilier. They built shoddy railroads over the most circuitous routes imaginable and as a result they all eventually went bankrupt. No government anti-trust case ever did a thing to benefit the consumers.

Here's a great example of how government regulation benefits the consumers:

FDA Stranglehold Of Sunscreen The Daily Caller

Senate Bill Passes To End FDA Stranglehold On Sunscreen Innovation

Without any objection, the Senate has passed a bill forcing the FDA to speed up the approval process for sunscreen technology, HAPPI reports.

Sunscreen technology has stagnated in the United States since the 1990s, not because companies have failed to innovate, but because the Food and Drug Administration has been sitting on proposals submitted 12 years ago without even reviewing them.

The proposals include new sunscreen ingredients, and since the FDA has dropped the ball, the Senate has picked it up with the passage of the Sunscreen Innovation Act on Wednesday night.

Rates of melanoma have skyrocketed in the last 40 years, giving lawmakers a sense of urgency. For men, melanoma, the deadliest type of skin cancer, has increased 400% for women, 800%. The new bill would speed up the FDA’s approval process, specifically for sunscreen products, and mandate a predictable time frame for a decision.

“Americans have gone more than a decade without the kinds of innovative sunscreen products citizens in other countries have enjoyed for years. Meanwhile, skin cancer has become a public health crisis that has lead US Surgeon General to issue A Call to Action to Prevent Skin Cancer calling for the government and stakeholders to act immediately to address this deadly, but preventable disease,” said Michael Werner, policy advisor for the Public Access to SunScreen Coalition.

Other countries have benefited from new sunscreen technology, but the FDA has gummed up the review process, putting the United States sometimes 15 years behind Europe, Asia, and Central and South America.

“Congress’ commitment to addressing the skin cancer epidemic in the United States was clearly demonstrated in tonight’s Senate passage of the Sunscreen Innovation Act,” Werner said. “It’s a great day for Americans. Now US consumers will be able to get the latest in sunscreen technology that has been available to citizens of countries all over the world.”
​

 

[Derideo_Te]

Socialism is an economic tool. National Parks are socialistic. As are police departments, fire departments, and the military. All are supported and ran by the government. Our Interstate System is a creation of socialism.

I don't agree that's what socialism is. Those parks are funded by the private sector, capitalism, not state ownership. The state doesn't create any wealth, it doesn't fund jack shit, that's the people's money. The people fund the state, that's capitalism.

Your ignorance as to the definition of socialism doesn't alter the definition.

National Parks, police, fire depts, etc are all socialist by definition.

All are paid for by those who pay fed taxes which is roughly the top 50% of earners and corporations. The bottom 50% and all non-earners get a free ride.

100% of all taxpayers pay FICA taxes which is funding government spending.

Woo, Disingenuous much?
FICA taxes are Social Security and Medicare, both gov't mandated INSURANCE policies.
The money that pays for our roads, parks, military, gov't operations, etc., etc., etc., is confiscated from the top 50% of earners and corporations. The bottom 50% and all non-earners get a free ride.

Woo, Disingenuous much?

Ironic!

 

[Ibentoken]

Suppose, when Marx had looked about for a name to give to his program to transition capitalism to communism he had selected "scientific capitalism" instead of scientific socialism? Would all this furor that socialism leads to communism have existed; I wonder if we would have spent the last 100 years or so dreading capitalism? Marx gave us another good one and we were even afraid to read and learn how stupid the whole communistic set up or we would be afraid of being labeled a communist. I remember taking a college course on comparative economic practices and I kept one textbook covered so the title with Marx could not be seen. Students were not above accusing one of being a communist if they carried a textbook about Marx and communism to class.
After the 1917 revolution the USSR dropped the scientific-socialist thing pretty quick, and then dropped the whole communist program, it didn't work-except to frighten. Can anyone name a country that made Marxian communism work?

It isn't the name, it's the system people live under. Call it whatever you want, I want to minimize what the state takes from me to redistribute to others and pet projects. We were not formed as a socialist country, capitalism made us number one and moving away from it is lowering quality of life and freedom for most of us. Putting a happy face on socialism to sell to the masses isn't going to improve our economy.

As a democracy continually makes adjustments to meet the needs of the people so our economic system makes changes to meet the needs of the people. We cannot keep either our government or our economic systems as they were in 1787. By making changes America has kept both its political system and economic system alive and well, Had we tried to keep them the same as in 1787 we might have lost both.
One of our big economic problems is keeping capitalism capitalistic.

All the changes were made purely for the benefit of politicians and their minions, not for the benefit of the people. The laws of economics do not change over time. If the government is set up correctly in the beginning, then it doesn't require changes in the rules. However, there have always been servile statist toadies bent on converting the USA from a nation of free people to a nation of serfs.

You've said many dumb things on this board - but that may be the dumbest. Corporations are constantly "gaming" the system - so government must change the rules to keep up. The founders didn't envision the world we currently live in. Things change. Shit happens. It ain't rocket science...

Free enterprise capitalism is from our founders. They sure didn't envision the government regulating our life from cradle to grave.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't agree that's what socialism is. Those parks are funded by the private sector, capitalism, not state ownership. The state doesn't create any wealth, it doesn't fund jack shit, that's the people's money. The people fund the state, that's capitalism.

Your ignorance as to the definition of socialism doesn't alter the definition.

National Parks, police, fire depts, etc are all socialist by definition.

All are paid for by those who pay fed taxes which is roughly the top 50% of earners and corporations. The bottom 50% and all non-earners get a free ride.

100% of all taxpayers pay FICA taxes which is funding government spending.

Woo, Disingenuous much?
FICA taxes are Social Security and Medicare, both gov't mandated INSURANCE policies.
The money that pays for our roads, parks, military, gov't operations, etc., etc., etc., is confiscated from the top 50% of earners and corporations. The bottom 50% and all non-earners get a free ride.

Woo, Disingenuous much?

Ironic!

Don't all you servile liberal turds all claim that FICA taxes don't go into the general fund?

 

[Derideo_Te]

AIPAC

Nonsense. Here are the top 20 all time campaign donors from opensecrets.

The top 1 is the Dem PAC ActBlue. 12 of the 20 are unions - supporting the Dems. And then we have the banksters who support both parties.

View attachment 32144


Heavy Hitters Top All-Time Donors 1989-2014 OpenSecrets

Using that time frame to hide the Libertarian donations of the Koch Bros?

 

[bripat9643]

AIPAC

Nonsense. Here are the top 20 all time campaign donors from opensecrets.

The top 1 is the Dem PAC ActBlue. 12 of the 20 are unions - supporting the Dems. And then we have the banksters who support both parties.

View attachment 32144


Heavy Hitters Top All-Time Donors 1989-2014 OpenSecrets

Using that time frame to hide the Libertarian donations of the Koch Bros?

How would that time frame hide donations by the Koch brothers? That's precisely the time frame when they have done most of their donating.

 

[Ibentoken]

AIPAC

Nonsense. Here are the top 20 all time campaign donors from opensecrets.

The top 1 is the Dem PAC ActBlue. 12 of the 20 are unions - supporting the Dems. And then we have the banksters who support both parties.

View attachment 32144


Heavy Hitters Top All-Time Donors 1989-2014 OpenSecrets

Using that time frame to hide the Libertarian donations of the Koch Bros?

Have a problem with George Soros?

 

[Derideo_Te]

AIPAC

Nonsense. Here are the top 20 all time campaign donors from opensecrets.

The top 1 is the Dem PAC ActBlue. 12 of the 20 are unions - supporting the Dems. And then we have the banksters who support both parties.

View attachment 32144


Heavy Hitters Top All-Time Donors 1989-2014 OpenSecrets

Using that time frame to hide the Libertarian donations of the Koch Bros?

Have a problem with George Soros?

Please provide an example of a single nation that operates under a libertarian government.

 

[Ibentoken]

AIPAC

Nonsense. Here are the top 20 all time campaign donors from opensecrets.

The top 1 is the Dem PAC ActBlue. 12 of the 20 are unions - supporting the Dems. And then we have the banksters who support both parties.

View attachment 32144


Heavy Hitters Top All-Time Donors 1989-2014 OpenSecrets

Using that time frame to hide the Libertarian donations of the Koch Bros?

Have a problem with George Soros?

Please provide an example of a single nation that operates under a libertarian government.

Answer my question first and I will answer yours.

 

[regent]

Suppose, when Marx had looked about for a name to give to his program to transition capitalism to communism he had selected "scientific capitalism" instead of scientific socialism? Would all this furor that socialism leads to communism have existed; I wonder if we would have spent the last 100 years or so dreading capitalism? Marx gave us another good one and we were even afraid to read and learn how stupid the whole communistic set up or we would be afraid of being labeled a communist. I remember taking a college course on comparative economic practices and I kept one textbook covered so the title with Marx could not be seen. Students were not above accusing one of being a communist if they carried a textbook about Marx and communism to class.
After the 1917 revolution the USSR dropped the scientific-socialist thing pretty quick, and then dropped the whole communist program, it didn't work-except to frighten. Can anyone name a country that made Marxian communism work?

It isn't the name, it's the system people live under. Call it whatever you want, I want to minimize what the state takes from me to redistribute to others and pet projects. We were not formed as a socialist country, capitalism made us number one and moving away from it is lowering quality of life and freedom for most of us. Putting a happy face on socialism to sell to the masses isn't going to improve our economy.

As a democracy continually makes adjustments to meet the needs of the people so our economic system makes changes to meet the needs of the people. We cannot keep either our government or our economic systems as they were in 1787. By making changes America has kept both its political system and economic system alive and well, Had we tried to keep them the same as in 1787 we might have lost both.
One of our big economic problems is keeping capitalism capitalistic.

All the changes were made purely for the benefit of politicians and their minions, not for the benefit of the people. The laws of economics do not change over time. If the government is set up correctly in the beginning, then it doesn't require changes in the rules. However, there have always been servile statist toadies bent on converting the USA from a nation of free people to a nation of serfs.

You've said many dumb things on this board - but that may be the dumbest. Corporations are constantly "gaming" the system - so government must change the rules to keep up. The founders didn't envision the world we currently live in. Things change. Shit happens. It ain't rocket science...

Free enterprise capitalism is from our founders. They sure didn't envision the government regulating our life from cradle to grave.

Does "free enterprise capitalism" mean government passing laws to help industry? As soon as the new government was in office they passed a bill helping industry.

 

[bripat9643]

It isn't the name, it's the system people live under. Call it whatever you want, I want to minimize what the state takes from me to redistribute to others and pet projects. We were not formed as a socialist country, capitalism made us number one and moving away from it is lowering quality of life and freedom for most of us. Putting a happy face on socialism to sell to the masses isn't going to improve our economy.

As a democracy continually makes adjustments to meet the needs of the people so our economic system makes changes to meet the needs of the people. We cannot keep either our government or our economic systems as they were in 1787. By making changes America has kept both its political system and economic system alive and well, Had we tried to keep them the same as in 1787 we might have lost both.
One of our big economic problems is keeping capitalism capitalistic.

All the changes were made purely for the benefit of politicians and their minions, not for the benefit of the people. The laws of economics do not change over time. If the government is set up correctly in the beginning, then it doesn't require changes in the rules. However, there have always been servile statist toadies bent on converting the USA from a nation of free people to a nation of serfs.

You've said many dumb things on this board - but that may be the dumbest. Corporations are constantly "gaming" the system - so government must change the rules to keep up. The founders didn't envision the world we currently live in. Things change. Shit happens. It ain't rocket science...

Free enterprise capitalism is from our founders. They sure didn't envision the government regulating our life from cradle to grave.

Does "free enterprise capitalism" mean government passing laws to help industry? As soon as the new government was in office they passed a bill helping industry.

No, it doesn't mean that. "Laizzes faire" means the government doesn't get involved at all. It doesn't regulate industry, and it doesn't help industry.

 

[Derideo_Te]

AIPAC

Nonsense. Here are the top 20 all time campaign donors from opensecrets.

The top 1 is the Dem PAC ActBlue. 12 of the 20 are unions - supporting the Dems. And then we have the banksters who support both parties.

View attachment 32144


Heavy Hitters Top All-Time Donors 1989-2014 OpenSecrets

Using that time frame to hide the Libertarian donations of the Koch Bros?

Have a problem with George Soros?

Please provide an example of a single nation that operates under a libertarian government.

Answer my question first and I will answer yours.

Thank you for tacitly admitting that your libertarian position is just pie in the sky!

 

[bripat9643]

AIPAC

Nonsense. Here are the top 20 all time campaign donors from opensecrets.

The top 1 is the Dem PAC ActBlue. 12 of the 20 are unions - supporting the Dems. And then we have the banksters who support both parties.

View attachment 32144


Heavy Hitters Top All-Time Donors 1989-2014 OpenSecrets

Using that time frame to hide the Libertarian donations of the Koch Bros?

Have a problem with George Soros?

Please provide an example of a single nation that operates under a libertarian government.

When will liberal turds ever tire of asking this question that proves absolutely nothing?

 

[Lakhota]

As a democracy continually makes adjustments to meet the needs of the people so our economic system makes changes to meet the needs of the people. We cannot keep either our government or our economic systems as they were in 1787. By making changes America has kept both its political system and economic system alive and well, Had we tried to keep them the same as in 1787 we might have lost both.
One of our big economic problems is keeping capitalism capitalistic.

All the changes were made purely for the benefit of politicians and their minions, not for the benefit of the people. The laws of economics do not change over time. If the government is set up correctly in the beginning, then it doesn't require changes in the rules. However, there have always been servile statist toadies bent on converting the USA from a nation of free people to a nation of serfs.

You've said many dumb things on this board - but that may be the dumbest. Corporations are constantly "gaming" the system - so government must change the rules to keep up. The founders didn't envision the world we currently live in. Things change. Shit happens. It ain't rocket science...

Free enterprise capitalism is from our founders. They sure didn't envision the government regulating our life from cradle to grave.

Does "free enterprise capitalism" mean government passing laws to help industry? As soon as the new government was in office they passed a bill helping industry.

No, it doesn't mean that. "Laizzes faire" means the government doesn't get involved at all. It doesn't regulate industry, and it doesn't help industry.

Is "laissez-faire" mentioned in the Constitution?

 

[Bfgrn]

Suppose, when Marx had looked about for a name to give to his program to transition capitalism to communism he had selected "scientific capitalism" instead of scientific socialism? Would all this furor that socialism leads to communism have existed; I wonder if we would have spent the last 100 years or so dreading capitalism? Marx gave us another good one and we were even afraid to read and learn how stupid the whole communistic set up or we would be afraid of being labeled a communist. I remember taking a college course on comparative economic practices and I kept one textbook covered so the title with Marx could not be seen. Students were not above accusing one of being a communist if they carried a textbook about Marx and communism to class.
After the 1917 revolution the USSR dropped the scientific-socialist thing pretty quick, and then dropped the whole communist program, it didn't work-except to frighten. Can anyone name a country that made Marxian communism work?

It isn't the name, it's the system people live under. Call it whatever you want, I want to minimize what the state takes from me to redistribute to others and pet projects. We were not formed as a socialist country, capitalism made us number one and moving away from it is lowering quality of life and freedom for most of us. Putting a happy face on socialism to sell to the masses isn't going to improve our economy.

As a democracy continually makes adjustments to meet the needs of the people so our economic system makes changes to meet the needs of the people. We cannot keep either our government or our economic systems as they were in 1787. By making changes America has kept both its political system and economic system alive and well, Had we tried to keep them the same as in 1787 we might have lost both.
One of our big economic problems is keeping capitalism capitalistic.

All the changes were made purely for the benefit of politicians and their minions, not for the benefit of the people. The laws of economics do not change over time. If the government is set up correctly in the beginning, then it doesn't require changes in the rules. However, there have always been servile statist toadies bent on converting the USA from a nation of free people to a nation of serfs.

You've said many dumb things on this board - but that may be the dumbest. Corporations are constantly "gaming" the system - so government must change the rules to keep up. The founders didn't envision the world we currently live in. Things change. Shit happens. It ain't rocket science...

Free enterprise capitalism is from our founders. They sure didn't envision the government regulating our life from cradle to grave.

REALLY? Then there should be plenty of empirical evidence. Why don't you provide some?

 

[Lakhota]

Why did the founders bother to write a Constitution if they weren't trying to make our lives better?

 

[SAYIT]

[

I don't agree that's what socialism is. Those parks are funded by the private sector, capitalism, not state ownership. The state doesn't create any wealth, it doesn't fund jack shit, that's the people's money. The people fund the state, that's capitalism.

Your ignorance as to the definition of socialism doesn't alter the definition.

National Parks, police, fire depts, etc are all socialist by definition.

All of which are paid for by those who pay fed taxes which is roughly the top 50% of earners and corporations. The bottom 50% and all non-earners get a free ride.

100% of all taxpayers pay FICA taxes which is funding government spending.

Woo, Disingenuous much?
FICA taxes are Social Security and Medicare, both gov't mandated retirement INSURANCE policies.
The money that pays for our roads, parks, military, gov't operations, etc., etc., etc., is confiscated from the top 50% of earners and corporations. The bottom 50% and all non-earners get a free ride.

Woo, Disingenuous much?

Ironic!

What ... no defense of your bogus claim that all earners pay to fund the federal cost of operating America? I'm not surprised because it isn't true and I suspect you knew it when you made that claim. Thus, disingenuous.
Now see if you can support your "ironic" claim.

 

[SAYIT]

Suppose, when Marx had looked about for a name to give to his program to transition capitalism to communism he had selected "scientific capitalism" instead of scientific socialism? Would all this furor that socialism leads to communism have existed; I wonder if we would have spent the last 100 years or so dreading capitalism? Marx gave us another good one and we were even afraid to read and learn how stupid the whole communistic set up or we would be afraid of being labeled a communist. I remember taking a college course on comparative economic practices and I kept one textbook covered so the title with Marx could not be seen. Students were not above accusing one of being a communist if they carried a textbook about Marx and communism to class.
After the 1917 revolution the USSR dropped the scientific-socialist thing pretty quick, and then dropped the whole communist program, it didn't work-except to frighten. Can anyone name a country that made Marxian communism work?

It isn't the name, it's the system people live under. Call it whatever you want, I want to minimize what the state takes from me to redistribute to others and pet projects. We were not formed as a socialist country, capitalism made us number one and moving away from it is lowering quality of life and freedom for most of us. Putting a happy face on socialism to sell to the masses isn't going to improve our economy.

As a democracy continually makes adjustments to meet the needs of the people so our economic system makes changes to meet the needs of the people. We cannot keep either our government or our economic systems as they were in 1787. By making changes America has kept both its political system and economic system alive and well, Had we tried to keep them the same as in 1787 we might have lost both.
One of our big economic problems is keeping capitalism capitalistic.

All the changes were made purely for the benefit of politicians and their minions, not for the benefit of the people. The laws of economics do not change over time. If the government is set up correctly in the beginning, then it doesn't require changes in the rules. However, there have always been servile statist toadies bent on converting the USA from a nation of free people to a nation of serfs.

You've said many dumb things on this board - but that may be the dumbest. Corporations are constantly "gaming" the system - so government must change the rules to keep up. The founders didn't envision the world we currently live in. Things change. Shit happens. It ain't rocket science...

Free enterprise capitalism is from our founders. They sure didn't envision the government regulating our life from cradle to grave.

Nor micromanaging and paying for it.