We all know about the fallacy of ad populum, or, as it is more commonly known, appeal to the majority. A majority of people believe X. What a majority of people believe is true. Therefore X is true. Most of us can identify when someone else engages in this sort of "reasoning," but what about within ourselves?
The most common place this occurs is in morality. Don't lie, cheat, steal, etc. Most people don't really understand much of the basis to these beliefs; instead, they just go with what they've been told by whatever society they live. So, if they had been born in another society, their "conscience" would lead them in radically different directions than where it does now.
It often bothers me that many of my beliefs might be the result of the time and place where I've grown up. I can take solace in some aspects of my life. I grew up in a Republican, Christian family, and I am now a liberal atheist.
As a liberal atheist, I eventually came to believe George Zimmerman might have been innocent (though recent statements from the medical examiner now bring this into question). Other beliefs I don't agree with my liberal friends on are: affirmative action and hate crime laws. I've also noticed that there is an undercurrent of hostility to true free speech among some liberals, and this saddens me.
So I don't just have a blind following for whatever orthodoxy my side believes in. But it's hard to separate true convictions from those reinforced by the "normality" of those around me.
Can you point to some beliefs you have in the political realm that may not be shared by a majority? I don't mean ridiculous beliefs like opposition to gay marriage or continuing the war on drugs. I mean something more challenging and real, like a society without money or government.
Also, what kind of consequences do you think result from people making a majority of their decisions based on what they perceive to be the majority opinion?
Disclaimer: I'm not looking to hash any specific debates, only looking to challenge perceptions.
I was also raised by Republican Christians, I reamained Christian but have had a democrats ideology as long as I can remember which is largely due to the circumstances of my life. I also do not tow a party line of thought...I actually think more like a Conservative in matters of Foriegn Policy and the necessities of war. My thoughts have lately been of the discussions and arguements surrounding taxing and spending. As a government, if we spend on subsidies for the oil companies, etc., then we are in fact, taxing the poor. If we subsidize food and healthcare for the poor then we are taxing the wealthy. I believe the tax and spend arguement to be a farse and the terms basically mean the same thing. Republicans say we are taxing businesses too much and spending for the poor too much. Democrats say taxing the wealthier of society is a way to have spending programs for the poor..entitlements so its called. So, both sides of the isle actually agree to tax and spend, just on very different classes of society, representing a very different view of the future of America.
I live in a place where if you care for the environment and ride a bike you must be an environmentalist. I live in a very energy efficient house, ride a bike most places I go and started recycling long before it was considered the proper thing to do, I am not an environmentalist. I like to think about history and the economy and how they inter- relate.
Why you would be hesitant to call yourself an environmentalist?
I'm a conservative. I see no problem with somebody riding their bike and trying to have an energy-efficient home. I, myself, am in the process of adding more insulation to my attic, because it will save energy and money. What's wrong with being healthy and wealthier while helping the environment, even it it's just a bit?
For the record, I'd love to add solar but just can't afford it. I even tried to buy an electric vehicle but the state rebates were pulled. . .after I ordered it! Call yourself an environmentalist, and be proud of it. That's just my opinion.
"Environmentalist" would link me with a political agenda I don't care to be associated with. I like to ride my bike, I was trained to recycle because it was profitable,and thrifty, not because it was good for the environment. I was taught it was better to leave a place better than you found it, because it is important to take responsibility for my actions.
Your statement is interesting to say the least. I believe that over the years Americans strive to do or offer the path of least resistance when it comes to political, social and practical issues. The problem becomes apparent when legitimate questions arise about implementation of those views and their ramifications. Our children are taught the easiest way of doing things as though they are the best ways while the greatest generation taught us that to persevere is the best way. Kind of like Homer where it is the journey that matters more than the end.
I recently got into a series of conversations with a coworker who has declared himself a staunch conservative. When he asked where I stood politically I said I consider myself an independent thinker who reserves his thought to digest the facts of every issue. He immediately declared me a liberal and proceeded to try and place me in a pigeon hole where every issue involved conservative and liberal dogma he could explain. As I reasoned with him over the course of several weeks he understood we agreed on more than we disagreed and that there was common ground on which we could base our musings. The best part is when after awhile he spoke of me to his wife one evening at home and she asked him where I was politically. He said he took a moment to think and replied, reasonable. This he admitted out of frustration but honestly because he could not label me either way. He relayed to me this conversation the next day. The best thing that came away from this was that while he may still rail at others about their beliefs, when he looks at me to comment he calms down and begins an intelligent conversation that usually has some agreement as its reward.
One I think is quite interesting is the justification of private property, we seem to accept it quite readily (myself included) but there is no concrete rationalization for it. Maybe Proudhon was right and property is theft.
Ultimately humans are social creatures and it's inevitable that our views will be influenced by our society, having said that it's important that we self analyse to understand why we believe things.
Because I don't want to be the guy who chickened out on giving his own controversial opinion: my personal one is I believe most capitalist labor to be coercion on the laborer.
"The idea of 'free contract' between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of absurd ideas, but nowhere else."
I remember when I first came to believe that as well. I posted it in a forum, and a heated discussion ensued.
The power relationship is so unequal it's odd that anyone would call it freedom. I first imagined it as a random group of people being dropped in the middle of a field owned by two farmers. The dropped had to work for the farmers or die. Somehow, that becomes freedom.
It IS a bit unequal, isn't it? A business owner must find someone to perform the labor at a price that allows him a profit, but the worker never cares whether that profit is enough to live on or not. Just how much they can squeeze out of the business.
The only thing "free" about it is that business owner can try to find someone else if the laborer wants more than he can afford. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but that's life.
Funny how there is almost always two sides to every story, isn't it? All it generally takes is someone honest enough to LOOK at both sides rather than just go with the loudest voice.
Yes, how do we make the voice of the worker heard over the much louder voice of the employer?
After what labor and government regulation has done to our businesses, we need the employer's voices to be louder, lest we not be able to hear them all the way from China.
I would love to hear your story if you would be willing to share. I know all too well the other side of this equation, but never hear a real life grass roots example of your side of the story.
Tammy, I may not possess the story your inquiring about. I think you may have misunderstood my post. Did you think I meant I was in China?
No not at all...I haven't had a real opportunity to hear a story of how governmental regulations or taxations are enabling your ability to function properly, and I would truly love to understand that side of the equation.
We may still have a misunderstanding. I have been in management or ownership my entire career. Even when trying to blend in and work a union job for the benefits that company offered, my wife said "I give you two years before your in management, no matter what you say now." It took less than 18 months.
Solving problems and making things work for everyone is what interests me. On the labor side, from my experience, their view frequently is that the company has plenty of money and labor, rather than partnering for mutual success, must fight for all of it they can get, giving no concern for the viability of the host for surely the company's wealth is endless.
Government regulation and unreasonable labor demands have driven too many of our jobs away, and now many major employers, (even if they are our companies simply relocated), are now off our shores. Many major businesses may still have a presence here, but they have taken their money and jobs elsewhere. As for the smaller businesses, they have been largely driven out of business, unable to be competitive under the yokes of government regulation and organized labor.
So if you would like to hear a story of how governmental regulations or taxation are enabling small business owner's abilities to function properly, I am not the one who can help. After far more years than I care to admit working in the business world, I am so unaware of any such example, that I wouldn't even know where to begin to make such a story up.
The main thing I want to understand are the regulations...for instance I understand the problem with coal and emissions at certain levels and such, but what exactly are the regulations of corporate America or your company for example?
I've worked in different industries, usually involving automotive or motorsports so our regulations are heavily environmental. I have no problem with the need to handle and dispose of hazardous materials responsibly, but regulation and oversight are often slow, redundant and expensive. Getting business done while waiting for inspections and permitting can be stifling. Different departments at different levels of government each wanting a piece of the action, and over paid government employees looking for things in order to justify their existence, can bring a company that needs to provide goods and services to a discerning clientele in an expedient manner, to it's knees.
Frivolous grievances which never bear fruit due to their ridiculous nature, still take management, ownership and even legal man hours to respond to, and can also drive a business with thin profit margins under.
I currently live in a liberal area with more regulation at state and local levels than most. I would like to start another business but due to this regulation will probably just end up contracting to solve problems, provide training, marketing and resource management advice. When I need assistance to complete these tasks for clients, I will contract out for it rather than having employees. As long as things continue as they have for many years now, this will be an increasingly popular model. There will also be a market for it since businesses that used to have the bandwidth to take care of these functions in house, will need to run lean and outsource as needed instead.
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer, I really appreciate that and understand a lot more clearly. It sounds like a lot of red tape gums the system and so slows the pace it then hurts profits etc. so really the problem is effeciency as well as waste of certain unneccessary positions which is indeed changing the trajectory of future business.Businesses will need to be lean and mean and outsource or hire independent contractors etc.
I have recently been looking for telecommute positions and that market is exploding. Dangers in schools today have opened the on-line k-12 market and teachers are finding work that actually allows them to work from home. The world she is a changing as my Daddy always says...and since change is the only constant we will adapt or perish I guess.
Thank you so much for the conversation
You're so right man when I walk down the street I always see former mine owners and business magnates begging on the curb obviously their situation is so much direr and they need to be protected.
The average business owner has a much bigger separation between himself and starvation than the average laborer. Thus we get a scenario where both are playing chicken to take a loss of some sort. An analogy would be: if two men were placed on separate hot plates and the fist to cry stop lost, the plates heat up further as time goes on, the problem is the business owner starts with a plate on 5 Celsius and the laborer's starts on 200 C. Almost always the laborer is forced to give out first.
The results are also unequal, the business owner may make less of a profit that month, usually that won't close his business, in a pure capitalist system on the other hand the laborer and his family starve to death. Yes now we have a welfare state to prevent starvation but that is barely a bandage over the symptom not a cure and even that bandage has opposition from conservatives.
Come, come. Exaggerations and fibs are not conducive to debate.
While most businesses can tolerate a month or even six without a profit (just break even or a small loss), much more than that and the business will die.
On the other hand an unemployed worker can go indefinitely in today's world without needing a casket, let alone one for his kids.
Still, we DO need a cure. It just isn't supporting people cradle to grave. It's getting them to support themselves, by force if necessary. We will either learn to back off from socialism and require people to produce or go under, or we will all be reduced to poverty instead of those few that refuse to be responsible for themselves.
Your turn: will it be YOU WANT THE CHILDREN TO DIE ? I'm flipping the coin now...
Well given that I don't believe it will lead to poverty and all the available data backs that theory it's a non starter of a question.
Are you seriously going to argue that the business owner has less power in wage setting then the employee? All the people working on starvation wages around the world for multi billion dollar corporations like Nike would beg to disagree.
I think the thing that really bothers me is how our parties, no matter what they might be, decide for us what we are to believe. I like the phrase "Vote your conscience."
If we think that abortion is wrong, aid to the poor, no foreign fuel and equal rights for all is good, then we should not allow anything or anyone to sway us. Maybe we would be better off with no parties... no affiliations. Just voting for the person (s) who supports the things highest on our lists.
I like the phrase, too, but...
And it is a very big BUT, at least to me. Whenever I see that, or anything about voting on a morality issue I think back to Voltaire and the "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" which is often misattributed to him. Is it really right for the majority to define morals for all, morals which affect them not at all? When there is really no right or wrong answer, should the opinion of the majority rule the minority? Our constitution was as much about protecting the minority as anything else...
The right is kind of inconsequential, it's inevitable, even for example outlawing pedophilia is the moral opinion of the majority being forced on a minority of people who think it's ok. Strangely enough I don't see conservatives decrying the rights of the minority in that instance, the only time I do (most usually anyhow) is when it affects their pocketbook.
It is indeed a problem that way. In my own mind the conundrum is generally solved by considering whether it the action affects others; pedophilia certain has an affect on people other than the pedophiliac.
Not surprising that the only thing you see in a conservative is their pocketbook; that's normal when the only thing desired from them is what's inside the wallet. It's always interesting how the liberal mind gets around the concept of ownership, of "might makes right" to decide that taking whatever they can grab is reasonable as the ends justify the means.
Everything has an effect on someone else, are you suggesting letting kids go hungry in school does not have an effect on them?
You are quite happy to enforce your moral beliefs on others, and quite happy to tax others for things they don't believe in but if the same happens to you you cry foul on the foundation of "freedom", it's hypocrisy nothing else. You use exactly the same principles.
The only people who can make the argument you are making without a simple hypocritical contradiction are anarchists and you aren't one.
Your second paragraph has the same response, you support doing exactly the same thing you condemn on principle.
Yes I believe in taxation moderated by democratic opinion, I hold by that belief rather than using it when it suits me (enjoying the protection of an army, police etc.) and decrying it when it might cost me a few cents. Because my morality isn't based on what will save me most money.
Absolutely. I want all kids under 18 to die tomorrow.
For sure. Only I am capable of designing a moral code. Everyone must follow it and do as I say.
Nope - not an anarchist.
Yes - all I want from anyone is their money, so I can give it away to someone else. As people, individuals in their own right, they do not exist.
No you don't. Any time you can find a moral "cause" you will increase taxation to pay for it, right up to the point of complete communism.
So you didn't answer the questions.
#1 Does kids going hungry not have an effect on them?
#2 So you think paying for the army or the police force should be voluntary? Otherwise you support forcing your beliefs (and desire for safety) on others and making them pay for it.
Nope not a communist, I know you don't know the difference but that's a matter of simple ignorance.
You do exactly the same thing you just don't have the courage to admit it and like to claim the opposite to avoid paying some taxes.
Taxation is the coercive taking of funds to fund projects for the benefit of it's society, if you suppose that principle you have to be an anarchist, if you support that principle in any form then you cannot argue against taxation as a concept (which is what you are doing).
1) Yes it does, and if you do it enough they will die. The desired result.
2) No. Everyone should pay double what is needed and give the excess to me.
Taxation is indeed the coercive taking of funds to fund projects for the benefit of it's society. At least to the conservative; to the liberal socialist you will have to remove the "for the benefit of it's society" because those people do not give a rat's a$$ if it benefits society or the country. Only that it increases govt. control over people and can be spun into being morally correct in the short term. Long term effects and ethical concerns are ignored.
Right so your objection is not to coercive taking it's to some coercive taking, you are fine however with forcefully taking from others for the good of society as you see it.
The only discussion then is an opinion on what is good for society. One opinion can draw from data around the world for proof that backs it's claim the other cannot.
Don't pretend to have a conceptual moral issue with coercive taxation then, that's dishonest.
I've never said that taxation was bad - outside of the sarcasm here I fully recognize that taxation is a necessary evil and without it both the country and the society within it's borders will die.
But I fully expect a return for those taxes. Roads, cops, military, clean water, etc. I even expect some of it to be used for charity (don't faint on me now!)
Unfortunately, when half the citizens do not contribute to the maintenance of the country but instead live off the efforts of the other half, through excessive taxation, it has gone too far. The socialism has proceeded far beyond what is desirable and the country as a whole WILL pay a very heavy price for the lack of incentive to produce.
Obamacare is an excellent example of this; that abomination, if left as is, will bankrupt this country in less than a decade. Enacted with a speed that intentionally denied study it is nothing but one huge lie about the cost of the program. All because it is the "right" thing to do, we shall ignore the future and what it brings. We'll pretend we can pay for it while driving the country to financial ruin and destroying what health industry we DO have. Unable or unwilling to look at long term results, we'll just pretend it won't happen.
And that's the inevitable result of excessive charity - a long, slow fall back to third world conditions. A fall that the socialists of the world don't want to believe will happen and so pretend it won't.
We don't pretend, we know, we can look all around the world, the nations most advanced int his course are actually the most successful.
As for the PAACA actually there was and is plenty of long term study by non partisan organisations (like the CBO), all have found it will be easily paid for by it's fundign and in fact reduce the deficit slightly. The whole bankruptcy claim is just rubbish and it coincides with zero non partisan professional analysis, but I know those are those educated professionals who actually know what they are talking about, much better to rely on your gut
Yes, I've seen your "knowing". People are happier in socialistic countries because the government is socialistic. People don't like thinking for themselves or providing for themselves; they are happier letting a politician make their decisions and provide their food.
Yeah, I saw them. And I see the countries that are slowing going socialist and slowly losing their standard of living (most of Europe).
So it's like I said - the socialist will pretend that the future is rosy even as it collapses around them. They will pretend that people will work hard and be productive for ever less return. They will pretend that a nanny state is good for people. I choose not to.
I love how you are now an expert in human psychology too
The other thing is just false there was no collapse in any socialist country, and the most socialist remain the most successful in the world.
Standard of living in Europe has been climbing steadily forever, it fell slightly with the financial crisis as it did everywhere in the developed world including the US, on the other hand the US's standard of living rank has been steadily falling for 50 years.
I see you oh so typically ignored the actual research on the last issue, you have a startling commitment to avoiding facts and research.
Thank you - I try.
I don't recall saying any country has collapsing, just that is is slowly going downhill. You make my point for me, though, when you pretend that using definitions of "successful" that are heavily biased towards socialism (people like socialistic governments) show success. You pretend that it is true, in other words, by spinning your definitions.
If you think the standard of living in the US is falling for the past 50 years, you obviously haven't lived here. I did, and I assure you that it has not been falling for that long. Since the housing collapse, maybe, just like the rest of the world, but certainly not for 50 years. Just another pretense to make it sound good.
You want to maintain that claim, please show me:
Size of housing comparison, 50 years ago to current
Number of automobiles owned per family
Number of large toys owned per family (boat, RV, 4 wheeler, dirt bike, etc.)
Education per capita
Obesity rates (are we starving?)
Leisure time for adults in appropriate relationship (2 parent families, perhaps).
Age at first "real" job
Computers per family
telephones per family
rate of satellite TV usage
number of TV's per family - no. of flat screen or 3D TV's per family
Average number of shoes per capita, or amount of clothing
Amusement park receipts, or perhaps visits per capita.
Look at them, and then describe again how the standard of living is falling over the 50 year span.
All of those stats are utterly irrelevant and most are impossible to calculate, you know they are irrelevant.
If Bill gates sold all his stuff tomorrow and so didn't have a single flat screen does that mean he is poorer than you? Obviously not, dumb criteria.
If Bill gates sold all his stuff tomorrow and had no RV's would be be poorer and less well off than you? obviously not, dumb criteria.
If tomorrow... well you get the idea, computers etc.
Obesity as a demonstration of improving quality of life, you have to love that level of sheer gall, evidence however shows clearly that obesity is a symptom of poverty and low quality lifestyle as poor people can't afford to eat as healthy and have irregular diets due to irregular income which contribute to obesity.
Your stats are a measure of consumerism not how well off people are, consumerism has indeed risen, unsustainable consumerism which has out most Americans in debt, I wouldn't call it a positive.
Meanwhile the average wage has dropped, the wealth gap has increased, hours worked have increased but even still remuneration has decreased, suicide is up etc.
More ignoring the facts.
Oh and those stats, health, life expectancy, education, happiness, wealth per capita those aren't socialist statistics those are again the measures used by actual professionals who know what they are talking about because they are most representative of a nations well being. They are also the things that people find most important. Attempting to change this process of measure to things we can't measure very well to hide from the statistics is jut hilariously pathetic.
You made the point I've been trying to make. I want a return on my taxes. When the government gives money away without any justification of need, it takes away from other great things that same tax money could have accomplished.
Let's help those who need help. Throwing money at the problem and allowing everybody to be on the dole doesn't solve the problem. It's a waste of resources that could be used to further help those who truly need help. How is that not compassionate? When I say this, I'm villified by some who say that I want children to starve. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want to help those needy children more, but there are limited resources that we can't afford to waste on people who don't need a share of those resources.
As for the not caring about society it just conceptually is easily disprovable.
Liberals have no direct personal investment in progressive policies other than that they will raise their own taxes more since liberals are on average wealthier.
Conservatives on the other hand have a very clear profit margin in avoiding taxation, it's obvious who is more likely to care about society and which has a selfish motivation.
Come on, Josak, will you EVER stop the spin? "Progressive" indeed - the only thing "progressive" about socialist policies is that they will back us up 50 years even faster. Change is not always admirable, not always advisable, and the ever increasing "share the wealth" mentality WILL cause great harm. Not progress to Utopia, but return to the dark ages.
You think there is no benefit in enslaving a population to depend on the liberal to survive? Really?
Yes which is why as we know Denmark, Norway and Sweden who have been semi socialist since the 20s now live in the dark ages.... Wait that's not true they top all statistical analysis of national performance.
It's just laughable as a claim.
Here. Forget the money; here is the socialist dream world.
A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because the school told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.
The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the person who was inspecting all lunch boxes in the More at Four classroom that day.
The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs - including in-home day care centers - to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.
Here is the complete story:
A West Hoke Elementary School teacher quit her job days after being suspended over a school lunch incident that gained national attention.
Margaret Maynor, a prekindergarten teacher, was suspended with pay on Feb. 23, according to Dr. Cheryl Benson, assistant superintendent of human resources. Maynor resigned five days later, Benson said.
Maynor was suspended after an investigation into a Jan. 31 incident in which three 4-year-old pupils ate chicken nuggets from the cafeteria rather than lunches they brought from home.
Bob Barnes, assistant superintendent of curriculum and instruction, sent a letter last week to the parents of students in Maynor's class telling them there would be a substitute teacher "until we can bring resolution to this issue."
Maynor had worked with Hoke County schools since 2007, according to her teacher page on the school's website. Before that, she worked in the Robeson County schools for 18 years.
Maynor did not return phone calls or emails seeking comment for this story.
In a Feb. 24 interview, Barnes said it was a teacher who told three preschoolers that their homemade lunches did not meet the required nutritional guidelines set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The USDA requires schools to provide lunches that include one serving each of meat, milk and grain, as well as two servings of fruits or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.
Since the incident at West Hoke Elementary, that regulation has come under fire from the public, talk-show hosts and politicians who say it overrides a parent's authority.
One of the preschoolers involved had brought a lunch of a turkey sandwich, potato chips, a banana and apple juice. Another brought a salami and cheese sandwich and juice. The students instead ate chicken nuggets and milk from the cafeteria.
The school system investigated and released this statement on Feb. 21: "Home-packed lunches brought to school by Hoke County students are not inspected by Hoke County schools personnel, not by representatives of the USDA or the North Carolina Division of Child Development and Early Education.
"Rather, pre-k personnel simply provide supplemental food or milk to pre-k students whenever they happen to observe that a bag lunch is missing a required food item," the statement said. "Although this did not occur on Jan. 31, 2012, at West Hoke Elementary, as three pre-k children went through the lunch line and received complete meals due to staff error."
The statement said the school's personnel have received additional training on child nutrition regulations and procedures.
Lori Walston, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the N.C. Pre-K program, said the teacher did not violate the USDA regulation.
"The rules require that the provider, in this case the school, at least ensure the missing items are offered," Walston said in an email. "It would not be a child care rule violation for a child to be provided more than what was needed."
The meal swap made headlines in early February with one 4-year-old's story. Since then, two other families have come forward saying that their children's lunches also were substituted.
U.S. Rep. Larry Kissell, whose 8th District includes Hoke County, along with U.S. Rep. Renee Ellmers, of the 2nd District, wrote to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack asking for "clarification of this ridiculously misguided provision and a refocus of the work done by those tasked with implementing it."
State Rep. G.L. Pridgen, who represents Hoke, Scotland and Robeson counties, said he plans to join Kissell and Ellmers as they seek to change the USDA regulation.
LOL - did you catch it? No one inspects the lunches for nutrition, and the school food was an error. So the teachers had to take additional training on child nutrition. Riiight!
Sad, though, that a worker following the laws and guidelines of the liberal nanny state had to pay the price when it fell apart on them all. Of course, that's how it will work throughout the country, too, when it all falls apart. Hope it lasts another 30 years or so, until I'm gone.
When you factor in everything that went into that story, from the passing of the laws, the building and staffing of the bureaucracy, the implementation of the silly programs, administration of the taxes involved, the planning, shopping and building of the lunch from home and the money paid to confiscate and throw that lunch away....every aspect which represents real money, just how much were those nuggets?
Can we have a twisted light bulb award here please?
So wait in a country where half the population doesn't understand nutrition well enough to not kill itself through obesity you think ensuring kids aren't being destroyed in the same way is a bad idea?
Childhood malnutrition and Obesity are skyrocketing and ironically enough often present in the same individual whose parents are feeding them lot's of bad food that lacks the basics their body requires.
If the South could stop eating so much that it's starting to tilt the country then we wouldn't have to worry so much but as it stands the country and conservative states in particular have shown they don't have the necessary knowledge to ensure they feed their kid correctly, they are in fact killing them in many instances since childhood diabetes is way up.
A single example of someone screwing up such an assessment is pretty irrelevant.
Yes it's a bad idea. I understand that you will never understand why the nanny state is not a wonderful thing (as long as it is the liberal mind making the decisions for everyone, anyway) but you will just have to live within that ignorance. You cannot have a nation of adults if you've convinced them they are all children, but then if control is the goal (and it is) then the dumbing down of America is a good thing.
When they come for you, when they decide that you are incompetent to run your own life, perhaps you will understand then.
In my world we look after our Nannies! They don't look after us.
Me, too, John. But then my nanny is 91 years old, 3/4 blind and having real difficulty just getting dressed in the morning. Overall, I don't fit that description (I hope! ) and get a little offended that I am incompetent to make my own decisions. That some idiot politician or poll taker with an axe to grind does a better job of it than I can.
Missed the point. It's not about your own life, I fully support the right to destroy that as you will, I support legalizing all drugs for example so actually I have way more respect for someones right to do what they want to themselves than most.
The problem here is it's killing their kids (no I am not being hyperbolic things like diabetes are often lethal) that's a very different issue.
As usual, you and I will never agree here.
A child is not a slave (although I've heard parents claim they "own" their children. Parents are merely caretakers, but on the whole they are the best caretakers there are. Parents must be absolutely miserable at the job, with outrageous failures, before some faceless bureaucrat is (or should be) able to override them. Beatings for punishment. Starvation. Refusal to supply medical care.
Not giving the kid a soda when Josak thinks that's too much sugar.
Literally killing them is not enough?
Childhood diabetes often kills children.
I am not advocating taking these kids away or something awful just making sure that at least at school they are getting a decent diet if their parents don't know how to provide it.
it's not my opinion of what too much sugar is it's a medical fact. So many children are actually being pumped with so much sugar that it is actually breaking their bodies ability to deal with sugar management.
Our government has regulations for school lunches. Honestly, we call them "The Hunger Games."
Have you seen school lunches? The government comes in and tells us what is nutritious and how much to serve. It reduces portion size to limit calories. Kids are now complaining that they are still hungry. The government tells us that we must serve a certain portion of vegetables and fruit. At best, most cafeterias use canned fruits and vegetables. Who needs to serve that though? The government even allows ketchup to be considered a vegetable. Pizza, for that matter, is considered a vegetable too, at least by the government.
Yeah, I think we can do better with less government intervention here.
This happens at a national level. These are federal guidelines that all public schools must follow.
Here's the thing. School lunch is OPTIONAL. If you don't like it, or you don't want your child to eat it, or if your child doesn't want to eat it, then they can bring their lunch. The behavior of the teacher in the article was an aberration, not the norm.
If a government program exists, it must have regulations. If you don't think the government should serve school lunches, then work to change it. As for your other comments, canned fruits and vegetables are often more nutritious than fresh. Look it up. And, no, ketchup is not considered a vegetable by the government. Look it up. As for pizza, that isn't either. It is possible that the vegetables served on pizza count, though, but I'm not sure.
You're making wild assumptions about what I have said about this program. If you read my posts, you'll find that none of these assumptions are correct. I am not opposed to lunch programs and do believe there needs to be some regulation.
How nutritious would you consider canned fruit cocktail in a base of sweetened juice to be? That's a pretty common canned fruit in most school districts.
I called our director of food services and asked if ketchup and pizza are considered vegetables. You're right that ketchup isn't considered a vegetable, but you wrong about pizza. Cheese pizza can take the place of a vegetable, because it has tomato paste. Here's another one:
You can't sell carbonated, sweetened beverages in the same area where lunch is sold. You can, however, sell sweetened beverages. Basically, you can't sell soda, because it's bad for you, but you can sell Gatorade. Is Gatorade really that much better for children? No.
"Congress blocked the proposal to restrict starchy vegetables, and it required that pizza continue to count as a vegetable, she says."
http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-fo … 52779404/1
Okay, so I was wrong about pizza; well, as long as it has tomato sauce on it. I don't agree that tomato sauce should count as a vegetable.
I noticed you didn't address my point that school lunches are optional. No one is coercing any parent into not providing their own lunch for their child. School lunches are an option, probably a welcome one for those with little money.
By the way, I did not make any assumptions. I used the word "if."
Yep, it's an optional program. Isn't that obvious? What's your point?
Your "if" statement sure sounded like an assumptive comment.
My point is that a recurring theme among those who oppose government programs, or call these types of programs evidence of a "nanny state," is the perceived loss of freedom caused by those programs. In this case, there is no loss of freedom; rather, a service is provided for those who want to use it. That is all.
Maybe you don't consider the school lunch program to be a part of the nanny state, though. You didn't say that; someone else did, so pardon me if I am misconstruing your criticisms.
And there I thought I lost the freedom to spend my earnings as I see fit when they bought school lunches with it instead of leaving it in my wallet. Guess my "service" was to buy lunches, although I'm not sure where the "want to use it" part fits in...
That policy is set by our elected officials. Vote for those who oppose it, then. I don't want my money spent on a bloated defense, but I don't couch my objections to it in a philosophical objection to taxes or a nanny state.
Then when elected officials put me in jail (maybe for not paying taxes) it does not qualify as a loss of freedom?
Because that what my reply was about; the spin that because one needn't take a free lunch means that the buyer of that lunch has not lost any freedoms. Come on, PP; when you advocate taking things from someone, at least own up to it instead of pretending it didn't happen!
LOL, I freely acknowledge that taxes are taking from someone. I've never said otherwise.
I said exactly the same thing yesterday, Wilderness also supports taking from people (through taxation) and presumably also supports throwing people in jail for not paying their taxes. But somehow feels justified to critique exactly that. It's bizarre.
Would you support 100% taxation? Somehow I think not.
Neither would I support 0% taxation.
Somewhere in between, determined by the use for which it is put, is the proper number. We just disagree on what is a reasonable and moral use: you think it is anything for which you can spin up a moral reason, I think it must (almost) all be for the good of the country. I think taxes are for the country, you see them as something for individual citizens.
Wilderness, why can't you see that people and society ARE the country...That a country is only as strong as it's citizens? What if this country was all middle and higher class...what if everyone below poverty was given the ability to climb out..Sure some wouldn't, I know that, but it is feasible. This country would forever be the strongest, most powerful, and most humaine. Why does this not make sense to you, I just don't get it..
Good, reasonable questions and I will answer with my opinion.
You ask what if all were given a chance to climb out of poverty, but what you really mean is to share the wealth. You are not asking what if they earned their way out; you are really asking what if we play Robin Hood and "help" them.
The answer is that it creates a nation of people that when too much help is given it results in a nation of people that actually are incompetent to support themselves. People need to be pushed, they need to be forced, or all too many will become nothing more than couch potatoes, useful to no one and to no country, as they live out their lives feeding at the public trough.
Along with that, it creates a nation of people that have given up on improving their own state as every time they do it is promptly taken away. This, too, is human nature. Steal from someone long enough, repeatedly show them that you will not allow them to grow, and they will give up. Give up or leave for greener pastures, and we already see a good deal of that as the rich are transferring their wealth offshore and out of the hands of those that figure they know better how to spend it.
The end result will always be a decrease in the standard of living. Yes, all will be equal; equal at a much lower standard than what the average could be if left alone. Not the strongest, not the most powerful and not even the most humane when you think of what the average citizen could have.
So the bone of contention, IMHO, is that the do-gooder liberal, wanting a socialist community where everyone is the same, ignores the long term results of what their actions will do. They hurt when they see the poor, the hungry children, the people dying from lack of medical care, and they are willing to spend the future of all to help a few; a few that don't need help. For we really CAN help those in need, we just can't "help" half the country!
Despite our history, people are not created equal. There will always be the "have's" and there will always be the "have not's". Accept it, helping those at the very bottom to improve themselves through their own efforts, and you will have lots more "have's". Deny it and share the wealth of the producers to the point they no longer produce and nearly all will be "have not's".
It's kind of like a parent with a drug addicted child. Mom and Dad can send the kid to centers, can sell their home to pay for it, and put everything into that child, but it isn't going to work until the child wants out of the drug cycle and is willing to sacrifice much to get there. Similarly (not identical, but similarly), when the poor decide they want out of the cycle and will sacrifice for it, they can be helped. Until then we accomplish nothing but buying luxuries for people that refuse to earn them.
No, just give everybody an equal opportunity to succeed so that those that don't rise up have nobody to blame but themselves.
Not possible. The (literal) idiot will never "succeed". Neither will the quadriplegic, except in very rare cases. Nor the slum kid that refuses to learn and will spend his life in jail. Or the upper class kid that "feeds" himself with a needle. Not everyone will have the same opportunities, and not everyone will take advantage of the opportunities they DO have.
Unfortunate, but real, and nothing you or I can do to change that.
So because some would fail to use an equal opportunity, nobody should have the advantage of an equal opportunity!
No. Because you do not either the funding or ability to provide equal opportunity for all you should not make the attempt.
Accept that you cannot do it, decide what you can afford to spend in trying anyway, and be happy with whatever it produces. And make that decision based on reality, not a misguided effort at an ethical utopia that will result in Hell.
Funding would only play a very minor part in it, a much bigger part would be the will.
Trying to do it would be a start - just as equal franchise was not instant but took decades or even centuries but I don't think anybody ever said "let's be happy with what we've got"
No, funding is not a minor part. I understand that socialists view all the money in the country as yours personally to do with as you wish, but there are quite a few people that disagree with that ethical stance. Funding is a major problem, and to think the country has the funds to even make a really good stab at the problem is foolish in the extreme.
And we HAVE started. School lunch. Food stamps and all the other welfare programs. Free education through high school. Lots and lots of things to equalize opportunity as much as we can, but there ARE limits. We cannot, for instance, eliminate all the slums in all the cities were we to spend the entire GDP of the US. It cannot be done. We cannot even eliminate all the homelessness in the country, for Pete's sake. Try as we might, provide homes whenever we can, we cannot eliminate the problem - if nothing else, some people WANT to be homeless. Just as some people WANT to be jobless to the point they will live in what you and I would call abject poverty.
Doesn't mean that we are or should be happy with what we've got. We need to continually look for better ways, other forms of help, help for differing problems. Do whatever we can, but that does NOT include throwing unlimited money at it until the country is bankrupt in a futile effort to ensure that every citizen is "equal". Money is very seldom the answer to social problems and equal opportunity is no different.
Again, do you really not understand socialism or do you deliberately twist it? It is not socialists who view all money as their own but capitalists. We believe that money is for everybody, not the chosen few.
Tinkering around the edges. What about nepotism - the old school tie
Food stamps and other welfare programmes are the equivalent of setting up a first aid station at a dangerous road junction rather than altering the junction to make it safer.
There is more than enough money being thrown at papering over the cracks in the problem, redirect that so that instead of tying people into the system it encourages them to get out of it.
As you might have gathered I have little good to say about Thatcher but she did for a short time allow people who wanted to set up their own business to continue to claim unemployment benefit for up to two years without being required to be available for work. At the end of that two years they were barred from claiming any benefit for a number of years. Quite a few people set themselves up via that scheme. I'm not sure why it was stopped, probably too many left wingers making use of it.
If you truly thought the money belonged to everyone you would leave it with whoever earned it. But you don't; you take it in taxes and then determine how it should be spent or who it should be given to.
I agree. It is a makeshift solution to cover the symptom and not cure the disease. The cure, though, requires that everyone work to support themselves, and too many will not even if they could. Add in that it is extremely unpopular with the liberals to require work and you have a disease with no cure.
Probably because it was claimed anyway and you can't LET PEOPLE STARVE so it was paid. An expensive, losing proposition for society that served no purpose except to let people be on it longer.
Reminds me of the US program a while back where welfare was limited to only a specific time. Sounded very good, but as the people it was aimed at ("professional" charity takers) refused to work it came down to the same thing for them and their children; "YOU WANT THE KIDS TO DIE" and we kept feeding them. Little to no change, in other words.
But if you think there is lots of money, please tell us what to do with the people of the slums. We can afford to bulldoze them, but would rather not leave the people there while we do it. So what about the millions of people living in the slums that everybody says cannot get out (and won't try, either, so is a true statement)? Remember, 100% of that money is already need to "feed the starving children" or some other social program so there are no free funds. Whatever you budget comes from what is already being used.
No, if the money truly belonged to everybody there would be no need for taxes
I think the idea of everybody working to support themselves is a great idea. Over to you you capitalists and suppliers of jobs.
Thatcher was quite happy to let folk starve, mind you, the present lot are even more willing.
That wasn't the reason she did it, more likely to get down the obscenely high unemployment figures.
OK OK, you win, no problems are solvable, you can put a man on the moon but you can't put a man on his feet!
Good. We understand each other then. Money belongs to the person that earned it, not to some group that has the power to take it.
Why? Why don't you supply the jobs if you want them? Without capital as you have none.
Really? How many caskets, with those on extended unemployment inside, went into the ground? Gross exaggeration is not conducive to communication...
Interesting, because that's what I keep trying to tell you. Pay people for not working, and they won't work. Pay them an insufficient salary for the work they produce (perhaps by taking half of it back) and they won't work. Or at least will no longer produce as they could.
I can put a man on his feet. I can't stand 100 million, though - can you? Without using money you don't have?
I'm glad you agree at last that money belongs to the person who earns it and not some anonymous share holder.
I'm now retired but have provided quite a few jobs in my time.
I knew some who went in the ground as a direct result of Thatcher. The many soup kitchens prevented many more.
ARGH! Do you never listen? Do you really think that about 20% of the working population was so happy to see her in power that they spontaneously gave up work?
How many men could you put on their feet for the cost of putting one man on the moon?
But the shareholder DID earn it. By risking their own capital - hard labor is not the only way to earn. However, I might agree in today's stock market concept for anyone not in at the startup.
Then you understand capital and presumably did not offer salaries more than the job could withstand. Why do you expect others to, or to start a business with no hope of recouping their capital?
You will excuse me if I don't believe that you stood by a starving man and let him die before you would give him a sandwich.
Perhaps I misunderstood. Someone starts a business, and it flops. When it does they were entitled to 2 years of unemployment as an encouragement to entrepreneurs. That's what I understood you to say was happening, and it won't take long before people figure that out and start a business for the sole purpose of getting 2 years of pay for no effort.
Not sure - don't know what it cost except that it would not provide new housing for slum dwellers in just one major city. But whatever it was, are you willing to give up all the other benefits, like Teflon, that came out of the program? People are always knocking the space program because they haven't gotten rich from it or something, but it actually gave rise to a very large body of knowledge; knowledge that has become quite important to everyday life.
Agree. The first three bites of a food taste buds are the most distinguishing. Try eating three chocolate chips one at a time. Savor each one. Add a fourth chip and decide whether it tastes as good as the first 3. People who receive and receive never get the opportunity to give. If I could turn back time I would say, "No" to my kids more often than I said, "Yes". I would have said,"Do your homework, or you don't go to soccer practice". All I thought was the good of the team, it was no favor to my kids. Because of ,"Yes" there were tired kids trying to do homework after soccer,karate etc. The were kids who stayed up too late doing homework leading to crabby kids who went to school the next day. Thank goodness their father who knew how to say,"No".
That's a bunch of malarkey. If you're equating paying taxes with loss of your personal freedom, then it is ideologically inconsistent to be okay with some taxes but protest others because of your "loss of freedom." At least be honest and say you're okay with paying for some things but not others based upon your personal values.
I argue that ensuring kids who need it can get at least one good meal a day is good for the country. That is why I'm fine with paying for it with my taxes. You might argue it isn't. If you believe taxation is okay for some things but not others, then we are arguing about values, not personal freedom. Be honest about that.
Edited to add: This post was meant to be a reply to your other post, "And all I said was that your statement that there was no loss of freedom from "free" school lunches was false. False because someone was forced to pay for them and thus had loss of freedom."
Of course, are you not OK with some of what govt. buys and not with something else? Isn't that a part of living together? And yes, I base that, to a large extent, on personal values. That and expected returns from buying those things. When the cost for X, however good X is, is 10 times what it should be then I have to question if we should be spending for X at all. Our welfare system as a whole costs us many times what the needs of the poor actually are. As such it needs questioned, not supplied with more money.
Love the sentiment ("ensuring kids who need it...") and agree with it. Let's talk about that need part, though. For a great many of those kids they are already given food stamps to provide that lunch with and thus do not need it. Nearly all the others have enough to eat at home and do not need it. If Mom and Dad are too lazy to make them a lunch, or give the school a couple of bucks to buy it with, then they need a different Mom and Dad, not an introduction to a welfare system that gives based on laziness. Or maybe Mom and Dad need a few days in jail for child abuse. There are other solutions for the large majority of kids that don't "need" that lunch than throwing more money at the problem of hungry children.
My larger point, which you did not address, is that it is dishonest to argue against a particular governmental expenditure using the taxation is an infringement upon your personal freedom argument, when you have explicitly stated that you are fine with taxation for some services. Instead, just say you are against paying taxes to feed children at school while you support paying taxes to fund the military.
Partially true, but there is more to it than that.
Two kids; one (A) with a family on food stamps, one (B) without those stamps.
Now (A) kid is receiving a subsidy to eat with. We give it to Mom each month, and depend on her to take care of the problem. And we give enough to do the job. Kid A, then, does not "need" a free lunch; he already has one from home.
Kid (B) has sufficient funds at home to buy his own lunch. We know that or he would be on food stamps as well, but he is not. Kid (B) then does not need a free lunch either.
So why are we buying them one? We already did for one of them and the other doesn't need it. Is there no one out there that lost their job and will lose their home, that a few hundred can tide over to the next job? Does no one need help as these kids do not?
Money is limited; do we really wish to give to people that don't need it or that we've already taken care of?
The more taxes you pay the less control you have about your money. That seems to be a loss of control, which some think is a loss of liberty.
So you don't agree that having healthy and well educated children is for the good of the country!
Right then you can't keep making statements like this when you support that very loss of freedom.
"Then when elected officials put me in jail (maybe for not paying taxes) it does not qualify as a loss of freedom? "
But it's not about money - to the liberal mind (a most obvious culprit here) money is unlimited and nothing but the means to a goal. In this case, control of what people eat. An insistence that Papa knows better, that the nanny state will care for you and make all your decisions FOR you from cradle to grave.
So if the twisty is about control, then most definitely they have earned it.
Taxation as we know it is not good. Remember the constitution forbade taxation for anything other than to support a force to protect the nation until 1913.
While the government takes care of the poor, we absolve ourselves of any guilt that poverty exists. A moral compass? In the 70's the mantra was "You can't legislate morality". Still it seems to me that many of the laws passed the last 40 years have done precisely that. We now have laws that tells us what kind of light bulb to buy. Most of those light bulbs are hazardous material. I break the law if I don't take the spent bulb to the hazardous material collection center. Whose morality is this; which says I must use a light bulb that can harm me if it breaks, and makes me a law breaker if it breaks and I sweep it up and put the pieces into the garbage?
When we're trying to feed needy children, which is better? Should we serve a questionably more nutritious food that isn't consumed or a questionably less nutritious food that is consumed? In my extensive experience, few kids are eating the majority of what's on their plates. They find their lunch disgusting.
Kids are also complaining that the portions are too small, and they're still hungry. The government stipulates that we must minimize the caloric count. Ultimately, we have children who dump the gross food that is supposed to be nutritious and eat small quantities of the food that is less nutritious but tasty. Then, they go to class hungry. We're no better off with greater government regulation than we were twenty years ago with less regulation. Kids are still hungry. Kids are still eating foods that aren't great for them.
Those lunches are based on calorific and nutritional necessities, that is they have the essential vitamins, minerals and fats. Which means those meals are not unhealthy.
As for kids being hungry after it is probably due to being overfed outside of school, the vast majority of Americans over eat (have you looked at childhood obesity stats recently?!) so getting a properly sized meal may well be a shock to the system.
You'd argue with a mannequin if it had a sign saying conservative on it.
You stated the obvious in your first paragraph.
As for the second paragraph, the reasons are quite different. First off, the kids hate their lunch, so they dump it in the garbage. Secondly, portion sizes, for the tastiest and least healthful parts of the lunch, are smaller. Thus, the kids aren't eating much at lunch. They typically drink their milk and eat one or two food items off the plate; the rest makes it into the garbage. That's why they're hungry.
The liberal socials know far better than any of the rest of us how we should live, eat and drink. You are but a child, compared to them, and incompetent to make life decisions such as the size of your soft drink. So shut up and follow orders from the Masters of the Universe.
Wait so first the kids are going hungry now they are not going hungry enough to even eat their food... I see. So kids are not going hungry at all they just aren't eating their food.
My kid didn't eat vegetables, but going hungry a couple of meals taught him to, it's how childhood works.
I take it you have never raised children. Or at least have never raised a picky eater.
Because they absolutely will throw away food they don't like, even as their belly is growling. Not that that ever induced me to prepare special meals for any of them...
Yeah I raised two kids, one picky eater, parenting is precisely about fixing that and things like it... Unfortunately we live in a country where many parents are too incompetent and irresponsible to handle that and just feed their kids junk food instead. Cue obesity epidemic and massive childhood diabetes.
You got it - let the parent cater to that pickiness and the kid will throw away a school lunch even when hungry.
Possibly, what proportion of kids are really that fussy though. My guess is most will eat the meal.
And sure kids will go hungry once or twice but I think overtime they will change their minds.
I don't know - anecdotal only, but it looks to me like the percentage is increasing rapidly. Probably as a result of both increased affluence (eating out is popular, unappetizing meals can be thrown out, etc.) and laziness of the parents. It's easier to whip up a second (pre made) meal than it is to be a parent.
Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. Many of these kids are hungry, yet they aren't eating all of the food. It doesn't make sense, but it's true. The food is not tasty; schools are so busy trying to meet federal nutrition guidelines, while doing that within an extremely tight budget, that the food ends up being horrible. Many of the kids hate the food so much that they would rather go hungry than eat what is served.
One example is iceberg lettuce served with what appears to be ranch dressing that has more water than dressing. It's a common cafeteria staple, one that has minimal nutritional value. Another example is a hamburger with extremely lean "meat" and a hard, wheat bun. No condiments are typically provided. The milk is almost always room temperature. Room-temperature milk isn't very popular, as you might imagine. I'm awaiting further examples from teacher colleagues across the nation. These, however, were common examples that were mentioned three or more times and in different states.
Kids have always complained about cafeteria food, but things are worse now. In education, we teachers talk about unfunded mandates; both President Bush and Obama get a lot of criticism when we talk about this. The federal government consistently tells us that we need to do to provide greater services or accountability, but then, it provides few, if any, resources to actually accomplish these tasks. This is an extremely common complaint among teachers, extremely common. The cafeteria is a prime example of this. The government comes in and mandates all of these changes but doesn't provide the funding necessary to actually serve meals children will eat. Fresh fruits and vegetables are rare, because canned is cheaper. What frustrates me is that there are plenty of federal resources to provide healthful, tasty lunches, but resources are squandered; many parents bilk the system and request assistance when they don't need it. This takes away from what we could do, how we could serve better lunches. That's what is frustrating.
We need programs that help hungry children. We need some government regulation to make sure the food is nutritious. Our current regulations are too extensive and don't necessarily result in healthful food. We are spending enough to ensure that children get tasty, nutritious foods, but much of this money is wasted; many parents are bilking the system and getting assistance when they don't need it or don't even qualify for it with their real, actual income data. There is no accountability though, and the end result is that our kids are left with the short end of the stick. That's not right. We can do better, and we owe it to our kids to do so.
In fact you could say that I exercise independent thought!
by mikelong5 years ago
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07 … k1%7C77674If businesses could play by the rules, perhaps they wouldn't need to be watched...
by Ralph Deeds3 years ago
Economists Agree: Solutions Are ElusiveBy EDUARDO PORTERPublished: April 23, 2013 "Last week the International Monetary Fund hosted a conference of some of the world’s top macroeconomists to...
by Sooner283 years ago
http://abcnews.go.com/US/eleven-stores- … b9Q0vmUQ4pThis is what would happen without regulation of business (whether in an anarchist society by exile or completely shutting down something like this), or in a...
by lady_love1585 years ago
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/1 … ufacturingIn a word, regulation... government regulation too much of it and too much corporate taxes. This mans story is the perfect illustration of how government...
by Kathryn L Hill3 weeks ago
The essence of the current battle seems to be this:Liberalism/Socialism vs Republicanism/FreedomWe have to keep this country free. The Constitution, rightly understood and followed, provides the laws/boundaries which...
by NJ Blake4 years ago
Where does personal responsibility begin? The news is full of talk about government regulation and/or intervention - not surprising since it's an election year, but where should the line be drawn? Tobacco, alcohol,...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.