Craig, you're so far off your rocker, I don't know what to do for you buddy. I'm a libertarian, trying to associate me with politicians and ideological leaders on the Republican side isn't addressing a single point of deductive reasoning presented in my post about human behavior, ethics, or anything else. You're trying to find a moral justification for stealing from people under the pretense that an elected official knows better how to spend that money than its earner. I understand it's quite difficult, so you may want to save your antagonistic funny history for somewhere else. I'm sure you champion things like the FDA without considering the lives that are lost from the delays in testing experimental drugs for certification, which can't possibly show up in statistics. Want another bummer? How about stevia, a natural sugar substitute with no patent that has been used in Japan safely for hundreds of years, banned due to artificial sweetener companies in the U.S. bribing (lobbying) FDA board members so that they could sell their patented chemical bullshit to Coke and Pepsi free and clear. How's that good for the consumer, who is now not allowed to choose a soda pop for their kids using stevia under the pretense of government protection? Meanwhile, people are free to smoke and drink causing countless deaths and rising health care costs for everyone who didn't in a socialist system. This shit happens all the time, my friend. Your idealist, all-deciding centralized decisions are corruptible because they are run by corruptible men that we fall in love with and elect after being promised all the goodies in the world.
My initial post is responding to your contention that the American dream is impossible and that hard work doesn't, on the average, pay off. That's just utter nonsense, and I have no idea what kind of socialist study you're going to point to in an attempt to "prove" this. Be seriously careful with statistics, they often get super selective with variables and make bad correlations depending on the people using them. Just one example is your utter failure to see how socialist Europe benefits from importing computer and medical innovation created under a system of capitalistic incentive. If that wasn't happening, they would be unable to point to their system and say "look here, it's working, therefore you can do it, too, America." No, that's just Michael Moore short-sighted nonsense.
As for your "vaccum" and "reality" response, that is utterly lacking in explanation. If anyone is dodging human behavior, incentive, motivation, on the average costs vs benefits, it's you. Instead, you take this high brow position saying that perfection is achievable and that government must work to equalize everyone's holdings without addressing how they're going to achieve that without also stealing from legitimate workers to give to truly lazy workers. You can't do it. You remind me of the dummies who oppose guns. "If only we got the government to ban guns, because less guns would obviously mean less violence!" they say. And then they do it and gun crimes rise. Why? Because they took the optimal system for granted under the belief that NO gun crime is possible instead of understanding that they were already in the system with the best cost/benefit ratio. What they were oblivious to was the coercive deterrent that existed when a criminal failed to act out of fear that the supposed victim may have had a gun. That's a crime that didn't happen, so it didn't show up in statistics. And when law-abiding citizens turn in their guns, the criminals sure as heck don't. No longer deterred, they start shooting. And after becoming illegal, the gun prices go up, giving criminals a source of profit just like with drugs, making their influence and criminal activity go up. Chain reaction, eh, but difficult for the common utopian socialist to see at first.
I'm giving you these examples not to veer of course, but to serve as examples and explanations of how you're misattributing problems and missing entire variables that convince you to take a pro-socialist position.
My initial post is responding to your contention that the American dream is impossible and that hard work doesn't, on the average, pay off. That's just utter nonsense, and I have no idea what kind of socialist study you're going to point to in an attempt to "prove" this. Be seriously careful with statistics, they often get super selective with variables and make bad correlations depending on the people using them. Just one example is your utter failure to see how socialist Europe benefits from importing computer and medical innovation created under a system of capitalistic incentive. If that wasn't happening, they would be unable to point to their system and say "look here, it's working, therefore you can do it, too, America." No, that's just Michael Moore short-sighted nonsense.
As for your "vaccum" and "reality" response, that is utterly lacking in explanation. If anyone is dodging human behavior, incentive, motivation, on the average costs vs benefits, it's you. Instead, you take this high brow position saying that perfection is achievable and that government must work to equalize everyone's holdings without addressing how they're going to achieve that without also stealing from legitimate workers to give to truly lazy workers. You can't do it. You remind me of the dummies who oppose guns. "If only we got the government to ban guns, because less guns would obviously mean less violence!" they say. And then they do it and gun crimes rise. Why? Because they took the optimal system for granted under the belief that NO gun crime is possible instead of understanding that they were already in the system with the best cost/benefit ratio. What they were oblivious to was the coercive deterrent that existed when a criminal failed to act out of fear that the supposed victim may have had a gun. That's a crime that didn't happen, so it didn't show up in statistics. And when law-abiding citizens turn in their guns, the criminals sure as heck don't. No longer deterred, they start shooting. And after becoming illegal, the gun prices go up, giving criminals a source of profit just like with drugs, making their influence and criminal activity go up. Chain reaction, eh, but difficult for the common utopian socialist to see at first.
I'm giving you these examples not to veer of course, but to serve as examples and explanations of how you're misattributing problems and missing entire variables that convince you to take a pro-socialist position.
