>Where? Seems to me when someone fails in a business, capitalism is working as it should. In government, you're stuck with the bad idea.
South America -- right-wing governments have gotten voted out in favor of left wing ones... Just because the Soviet Union was a flaming pile of crap doesn't mean that a little bit of socialism doesn't help every now and then. No one, not one person here or in our government, is advocating an entirely planned system; we're just advocating the creation and preservation of some safety nets and some regulation of a system where it takes money to make money and you're left behind if you don't have money in the first place.
>We don't refuse services to those who abuse them? You just posted why socialism fails. "No one else gives a shit, why should I".
No, 1. the costs of abuse are probably a heck of a lot lower than we're led to think, and 2. you want to make it so that even if people are secure when they're not working, they're better off when they are working.
>I find it difficult to see a significant difference in your justification for banning trans fat cooking oil yet not banning cigarettes. What benefits do you get from cigarettes?
They ease people's stress, make them feel good for a few minutes a day, and apparently taste good. If we were able to create chemicals that would give people the same experience without being nearly as harmful as cigarettes, I'd be for banning tobacco cigarettes, too.
>Anyway, my point is, everything is fine if you get to decide how to run the system. Will you be just as content following along my recommendations if I was the one making the rules?
No, why should I be? And why is that a point to make? I haven't the slightest idea why that's relevant.
-Z |
