I know I said no more politics, but...

Textkit is a learning community- introduce yourself here. Use the Open Board to introduce yourself, chat about off-topic issues and get to know each other.
Post Reply
PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

I know I said no more politics, but...

Post by PeterD » Tue Aug 03, 2004 2:45 am

...I am very upset!

Why must a little girl have to set up a lemonade stand in the richest country in the world to raise much needed funds for cancer research. It sucks!

This little girl , Alexandra Scott, of Wynnewood, Penn., died today of her disease: cancer. She was just 8!

Here's the link to the story: http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/conditio ... index.html

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure this thing out. Simply cut that "bogeyman" military budget -- it's around half a trillion dollars per annum, even a 10% cut is substantial --, rescind the taxcuts for the rich -- hey! they don't need the money, even Warren Buffet says so -- and put that money into healthcare and education -- period! And, maybe, just maybe, little children won't have to hit the streets to raise funds.

President Eisenhower, in his farewell address to the nation, said the following in regard to defense vs. domestic spending:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who are hungry and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

What can I say, texkit members? A democracy that only grants its citizens political rights but hardly any meaningful economic rights -- free healthcare, affordable housing, a livable minimum wage -- is a bogus democracy.



~PeterD
P.S. I am not picking on the Republicans. In my opinion, both parties, Republican and Democrat, dismally failed to meet the serious concerns of the majority of their citizens; they just don't care.

P.P.S By the way, what I said above does not apply only to the US.
Last edited by PeterD on Tue Aug 03, 2004 4:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2019
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Contact:

Post by Lucus Eques » Tue Aug 03, 2004 3:23 am

A democracy that only grants its citizens political rights but hardly any meaningful economic rights -- free healthcare, affordable housing, a livable minimum wage -- is a bogus democracy.
Not really. (I don't disagree with your principle or the rest of your post necessarily, but this one item requires clarification.) Indeed, it is not a "bogus" democracy if that is how the voters voice their opinions. If a majority vote to go to war, then we go to war. If a majority vote against military action, then we stay put. This is a pure democracy. Even if a majority vote against spending money on cancer resarch, and that vote is carried through, it is not a "bogus" democracy at all, but an entirely effective one. The people who compose this democracy may circumspect, but the democracy is sound.

What you describe as the best system for our government is no democracy at all, but Communism, a totalitarian regime where a wise, enlightened dictator, a "philosopher king," if you will, who knows better than everyone else, meets out the justice and effects the laws and directs the whole nation in the way he sees most fit. It's a nice idea, I admit — but personally I like freedom better. A plurality of ideas and skills in the top echelons of government bring about equally thoughtful and creative decisions, a variety which ultimately uplifts us all. Mistakes will happen, by the very nature of the imperfect system. Still, short of total democracy, the republic is the best we have.
L. Amadeus Ranierius

SCORPIO·MARTIANVS

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Tue Aug 03, 2004 3:30 am

Hey PeterD,

I agree that it is tragic that this little girl died from cancer. I cannot imagine what the family must be going through now. I have a daughter that will turn 8 soon so this hits me very close to home, but........

When did free healthcare, affordable housing, and earning a certain wage become a right? As I am sure you know, we do not live in a democracy (mob rule) we have a representative republic. The things you are talking about are socialism at best and maybe bordering on communism. Can you name anywhere that these have worked for very long? I know there are several strong communist countries (China, North Korea, etc.) in the world but it is only a matter of time before they collapse also. England and Canada both have forms of socialistic governments but why do so many Canadians come to the US for medical care? How much aid does the US give all of these countries? If their form of government was working so well they would not need money from the US.

Only when government gets out of the way will there be a cure for things like Cancer, AIDS, and other terrible diseases. That may mean that someone will make a profit but why is that so bad, they were willing to take the risk. Why are people so quick to want to punish those who are successful? I am not one of those successful people but someday I hope to be.

Lastly, the defense budget is so big for two reasons. We have to rebuild everything that Clinton tore down and then we were attacked by someone whose stated goal is to kill 4 million Americans (I heard that reported on Fox News). I think that justifies a very large defense budget. And by the way, one of the federal goverments primary purposes in the US Constitution is to provide a STRONG national defense. The stronger the better I say.

Rhuiden

emily8937
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 3:11 am
Location: Louisiana
Contact:

Post by emily8937 » Tue Aug 03, 2004 3:42 am

i agree it does suck that a little 8 year old has to raise money for cancer...greedy rich motherf&*kers dont even donate any money towards anything but themselves....if we all gave a little the whole world would be better...but the wholly truth to it is...we're all greedy and only care for ourselves! dude get real.

User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Contact:

Post by klewlis » Tue Aug 03, 2004 4:24 am

Rhuiden wrote:England and Canada both have forms of socialistic governments but why do so many Canadians come to the US for medical care? How much aid does the US give all of these countries? If their form of government was working so well they would not need money from the US.
*cough* That bugs me at so many levels I don't know where to start. :)

I can think of only two reasons why Canadians go to the US for medical care:
1) it's faster
2) on certain types of procedures you have the experts

While the Canadian healthcare system does need some work, overall it works very well and few Canadians have any desire to Americanize it. The simple fact of the matter is that I can walk into any clinic or hospital anywhere in the country and get service without ever having to worry about how I'm going to pay for it. Since I work in the social service field I see the effects of this amongst the most impoverished, and I would never dream of trying to take that away from them simply to improve my own convenience.

In addition, you may think that the benevolent US is "aiding" us in whatever ways (who knows, perhaps technically they do... I don't know how those things work) but your country is completely dependent on our wood, water, and power, among other things, so this is not a one-way street. Don't ever think that you are somehow propping us up. Our form of government works quite well, thank you.

MDS
Textkit Fan
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2003 4:04 am
Location: Pickering, Ontario, Canada

Post by MDS » Tue Aug 03, 2004 5:22 am

I second everything Klewis had to say. One of the biggest reasons for Harpers downfall in our last election (aside from his MPP's shooting their mouths off) was the Conservative's continuing wish to Americanize our health care system. No thanks!

My Grandpa recently had a triple bypass operation which was covered under our health care plan. The equivalent proceedure would have cost over $80,000 USD out of pocket and resulted in him having to mortgage his house as well as liquidating his assets.

Anyone familiar with the movie John Q with Denzel Washington? He finds himself unable to pay for his daughters treatement and resorts to drastic actions. (in general terms to avoid spoilers) Don't think thats entirely fictional, people have done such things in the past. When its your family on the line you often act first and think later.

User avatar
blue
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 6:39 pm
Location: florida

Post by blue » Tue Aug 03, 2004 5:48 am

Rhuiden wrote:Hey PeterD,

I agree that it is tragic that this little girl died from cancer. I cannot imagine what the family must be going through now. I have a daughter that will turn 8 soon so this hits me very close to home, but........

When did free healthcare, affordable housing, and earning a certain wage become a right? As I am sure you know, we do not live in a democracy (mob rule) we have a representative republic. The things you are talking about are socialism at best and maybe bordering on communism. Can you name anywhere that these have worked for very long? I know there are several strong communist countries (China, North Korea, etc.) in the world but it is only a matter of time before they collapse also. England and Canada both have forms of socialistic governments but why do so many Canadians come to the US for medical care? How much aid does the US give all of these countries? If their form of government was working so well they would not need money from the US.

Only when government gets out of the way will there be a cure for things like Cancer, AIDS, and other terrible diseases. That may mean that someone will make a profit but why is that so bad, they were willing to take the risk. Why are people so quick to want to punish those who are successful? I am not one of those successful people but someday I hope to be.

Lastly, the defense budget is so big for two reasons. We have to rebuild everything that Clinton tore down and then we were attacked by someone whose stated goal is to kill 4 million Americans (I heard that reported on Fox News). I think that justifies a very large defense budget. And by the way, one of the federal goverments primary purposes in the US Constitution is to provide a STRONG national defense. The stronger the better I say.

Rhuiden
gonna have to agree with almost all of that, especially the bold...(though i don't think canada takes money from the US. they pay to get procedures done here, rather, for the reasons klewlis stated.)

Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper » Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:19 am

Although I endeavour to stay as far away from any political discussion on the net as I can, I would just like to add that any (modern) country governed by a two party system can/will never qualify as a democracy/representative republic/etc.

The idea that any population can be split up in only 2 camps is beyond ridiculous. And sure, there are other tiny parties you can vote for, but who are we kidding? - the system is set up for 2 parties only and any population in today's world is far too divers to be represented in such a way.

Out. :arrow:
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

Keesa
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1108
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:59 pm

Post by Keesa » Tue Aug 03, 2004 11:14 am

I hate to scorch poor PeterD any more, but I have to say, they're right. Nowhere in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independance or the Bill of Rights (although I don't have that last one handy right now to reference) does it say that healthcare, decent housing, and a livable minimum wages are rights that the government should provide. These just aren't the functions of the government--were never meant to be--which may explain why they've made such a mess of it. I agree that all those things are good and necessary and important, but the army, and not these other things, is the government's responsibility.
phpbb

User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Contact:

Post by klewlis » Tue Aug 03, 2004 2:40 pm

Keesa wrote:I hate to scorch poor PeterD any more, but I have to say, they're right. Nowhere in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independance or the Bill of Rights (although I don't have that last one handy right now to reference) does it say that healthcare, decent housing, and a livable minimum wages are rights that the government should provide. These just aren't the functions of the government--were never meant to be--which may explain why they've made such a mess of it. I agree that all those things are good and necessary and important, but the army, and not these other things, is the government's responsibility.
But it's only that way because at the time they chose to place military concerns over other concerns. There is no inherent reason why that should be so. It was simply a value judgment by the american people at the time. And apparently it is still, since no one has seen the need to change it.

That would never fly in Canada. We value health care and education over military concerns, and so those ARE functions of the government. :)

(I simply find it odd that so many americans base their value systems on the constitution, which, as fine as it may be, has just as much chance of being fallible and outdated as any other human construction.)

User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Contact:

Post by klewlis » Tue Aug 03, 2004 2:43 pm

Kasper wrote:Although I endeavour to stay as far away from any political discussion on the net as I can, I would just like to add that any (modern) country governed by a two party system can/will never qualify as a democracy/representative republic/etc.

The idea that any population can be split up in only 2 camps is beyond ridiculous. And sure, there are other tiny parties you can vote for, but who are we kidding? - the system is set up for 2 parties only and any population in today's world is far too divers to be represented in such a way.

Out. :arrow:
This is why we have multiple parties in Canada. :) We currently have four parties represented in Parliament, plus one independent... and it is very possible that with the next election we will see the Green Party rising up as well.

Not that this mixture makes our government any more effective...lol.

User avatar
Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

Post by Timothy » Tue Aug 03, 2004 3:55 pm

The idea that any population can be split up in only 2 camps is beyond ridiculous.
It's not just chocolate and vanilla.

Match the camps with the candidate:

a whig
b federalist
c anti-federalist
d democratic-republican
e republican
f conservative republican
g liberal democratic
h democratic
i conservative democratic
j moderate republican
k moderate democratic
l green
m rainbow
n bull moose

1 Adams
2 Eisenhower
3 Madison
4 Lincoln
5 Johnson
6 Washington
7 Nader
8 Roosevelt, T.R.
9 Roosevelt, F.D.
10 Jefferson
11 McCain
12 Kerry
13 Jackson
14 Clinton

Q: Does a party need to win an election in order to be counted?
Q: What is meant by "undecided voter"? "Swing State"?

If you were able to match the list then the point is made.

aside: I can empathize with PeterD's frustration.

- tim
phpbb

User avatar
Kopio
Global Moderator
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Boise, ID
Contact:

Post by Kopio » Tue Aug 03, 2004 5:59 pm

klewlis wrote:But it's only that way because at the time they chose to place military concerns over other concerns. There is no inherent reason why that should be so. It was simply a value judgment by the american people at the time. And apparently it is still, since no one has seen the need to change it.
Lol......the reason we chose to place those concern above other concerns is because around the time those documents were written, there were a bunch of guys with funny accents running around in red coats in our country!! THAT is the "inherent reason". It had nothing to do with a value judgement, people were dying and we were struggling for our independance. It has continued to be one of our main concerns throughout the history of our country....and it's a darn good thing, otherwise we'd all have German accents right about now!
:lol:

Oh....PeterD....this ones for you :lol: :roll:

Clemens
Textkit Member
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 11:59 am
Location: Salzburg (Austria)

Post by Clemens » Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:07 pm

Usually I avoid getting involved in political discussions but this time I can't resist ;-)
When did free healthcare, affordable housing, and earning a certain wage become a right?
Hmm, at least in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights you can read:
Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
It was adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations (including the USA).
The things you are talking about are socialism at best and maybe bordering on communism.
People who want the government provide a free national health care system for everyone are (almost) communists?! What has it got to do with Communism if one wants that a certain percentage of the tax he pays is spent on health care?

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Tue Aug 03, 2004 9:34 pm

Hmm, at least in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights you can read:
I will have to say that I have never heard of this document but I will not dispute what it says. I will say that it has no authority in the United States. We have not given our sovereignty over to the United Nations although the Democrats want to do this with every fiber of their being. In fact, if we pull out of the United Nations (which I think we should do), it may cease to exist. The United Nations is a joke. It seeks to become the one world government. At one time it served a purpose but now I would like to see it go away.
What has it got to do with Communism if one wants that a certain percentage of the tax he pays is spent on health care?
There is nothing wrong with someone wanting this. The point is that it is not the governments job. The government will only make a very large mess. The private sector is the best vehicle for the healthcare system. The quality of care will be better and the cost will be less.
My Grandpa recently had a triple bypass operation which was covered under our health care plan. The equivalent proceedure would have cost over $80,000 USD out of pocket and resulted in him having to mortgage his house as well as liquidating his assets
MDS: First, I hope your grandfather is doing well. While it is true that major medical costs are extreme, he would only have to pay this if he did not have private medical insurance. If the costs we in excess of what his insurance would pay, it is true he would have to pay the bill if he had assets worth enough to pay the bill. If he has these assets, why should others property (money) be taken to pay for something he could afford. If he did not have the assets, there are programs in the United States which would have paid the bills for him. I don't understand how people can expect their bills to be paid for by others.

This had turned into another great discussion. I look forward to reading everyone's responses.

Rhuiden

User avatar
Fredericus
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:04 am
Location: California

Post by Fredericus » Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:13 am

"Free speech," "the right to bear arms," etc. can be a rights because I do not impose any obligation on another citizen. "Free health care," on the other hand, requires that the state, on my behalf, confiscate funds from my neighbors in order to pay for said "free" health care. Therefore, socialized medicine cannot be a "right," merely a "benefit."

Of course, bread and circuses worked for the Romans so why not?

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:41 am

"Free speech," "the right to bear arms," etc. can be a rights because I do not impose any obligation on another citizen. "Free health care," on the other hand, requires that the state, on my behalf, confiscate funds from my neighbors in order to pay for said "free" health care. Therefore, socialized medicine cannot be a "right," merely a "benefit."
Well said.

I have some experience with socialized medicine. Let me share how it has worked so far in the United States. If you remember when Bill Clinton was elected, one of the first things he did was to put Hilary in charge of designing a national healthcare system. Luckily this was never implemented on the national level but a test system was set up in Tennessee. Tennessee received a special waiver from the federal government to opt out of the medicare system and start TennCare. This has turned into a black hole that does nothing except suck money out of pockets of Tennesseans.

At the time TennCare was implemented (in the early 90s), our state budget was approximately 10 billion annually (I rounded because I did not want to take the time to look up the actual number). Today, our state budget is approximately 23 billion annually (same explanation as above). The primary reason for this is that TennCare has proven to be a huge mistake. The waste in the program is incredible. People come from all over the United States to get into the program. It was supposed to be only for residents of Tennessee who were uninsurable for some reason but anyone could get on the program with a Tennessee PO Box. Also, most participants were supposed to pay some amount in monthly premium. This was supposed to be determined by a formula that calculates what they could afford based on their income. Most never paid and but were not taken out of the program. Soon after its inception, the abuses became well known. At first the politicians tried to fix it the way they always do (raise taxes and throw more money at the problem) but this only created a bigger and hungrier monster. When attempts to correct and reform the program were finally started, the federal government and the various court systems have been in the way. It is to the point now that the Governor (a democrat) and the legislature (both houses controlled by democrats) are considering dropping the program (I hope) and going back into the medicare system. Many doctors will no longer accept TennCare because the payments are low and it restricts what treatments he can use.

Do not misunderstand what I am trying to say. It is not my intention to contend that people should go without healthcare, I simply believe they should pay for it. The standard argument is : What about the people who can't pay for it? There are already programs available in the US for these people but the programs are not meant for people to be on them their entire life. Also, it is not legal for anyone to be refused medical care when it is needed in the US.

I hope you all are able to understand my ramblings. I am not as well spoken as most of you but I try.

Rhuiden

User avatar
blue
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 6:39 pm
Location: florida

Post by blue » Wed Aug 04, 2004 10:14 am

gotta agree with Rhuiden and Fredericus.

also...what about charity? i give to charity, yet i'm against universal healthcare, welfare, etc. it's not because i'm heartless, but simply because i don't think certain things are the government's responsibility. some things should stay in the private sector.

MDS
Textkit Fan
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2003 4:04 am
Location: Pickering, Ontario, Canada

Post by MDS » Wed Aug 04, 2004 4:30 pm

MDS: First, I hope your grandfather is doing well. While it is true that major medical costs are extreme, he would only have to pay this if he did not have private medical insurance. If the costs we in excess of what his insurance would pay, it is true he would have to pay the bill if he had assets worth enough to pay the bill. If he has these assets, why should others property (money) be taken to pay for something he could afford. If he did not have the assets, there are programs in the United States which would have paid the bills for him. I don't understand how people can expect their bills to be paid for by others.
Thank you for your concern Rhuiden, he is in fact doing better at the moment. I am unfamiliar with programs available in the United States which would cover medical procedures in lieu of holding private medical insurance. Perhaps you can enlighten me? I fully agree with you that those who can afford it should not expect handouts from others, not everyone has this luxury though. My greatest problem with the concept of private medical insurance is simply that there are millions who CANNOT afford it and thus do not receive the same quality of health care. A rich life is equal to a poorer man's life in my eyes. That said I am more angered by professional sports teams who have their own MRI machines and such while the millionaire players can certainly afford said private medical insurance. ^_^ The private sector has proved time and time again that it is driven by pure profit and while you can argue that the government is no different in that respect, at least a government must maintain some level of accountability to its electorate. I will respectfully disagree with anyone advocating a two-tiered health system in any country. As blue said, the government is certainly not responsible for everything, we just differ in whereabouts that line should be drawn.

Good discussion so far!

Democritus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
Location: California

Post by Democritus » Wed Aug 04, 2004 5:26 pm

Rhuiden wrote:
Hmm, at least in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights you can read:
I will have to say that I have never heard of this document but I will not dispute what it says. I will say that it has no authority in the United States. We have not given our sovereignty over to the United Nations although the Democrats want to do this with every fiber of their being.
No, this is factually false and it is dishonest of you to run around saying this. It is false. The Democrats do not advocate this. I am a Democrat and I do not advocate this, I don't know of any Democrats that advocate this, and I wouldn't vote for any Democrat who did advocate it.

The U.N. has no authority to legislate within the U.S., and no party advocates giving them this authority.

If you are worried about the U.S. losing its sovereignty, then remember that "free" trade arbitration courts have authority over our U.S. courts, under NAFTA and similar treaties, which unfortunately have been supported by both Republicans and Democrats (including the Bushes and Clinton). If we are losing our sovereignty, we are losing it to so called "free" trade bureaucrats. Not to the U.N.
Rhuiden wrote:In fact, if we pull out of the United Nations (which I think we should do), it may cease to exist. The United Nations is a joke. It seeks to become the one world government. At one time it served a purpose but now I would like to see it go away.
The U.N. has nothing to do with one world government.

The U.S. helped create the U.N., decades ago, back when the U.S. was not run by right-wing zealots. It was one of the more astute things the U.S. has ever done.

There are plenty of things I don't like about the U.N., but pulling out of the U.N., or allowing the U.N. to collapse, would be a particularly bad idea.

Rhuiden wrote:
What has it got to do with Communism if one wants that a certain percentage of the tax he pays is spent on health care?
There is nothing wrong with someone wanting this. The point is that it is not the governments job. The government will only make a very large mess. The private sector is the best vehicle for the healthcare system.

The quality of care will be better and the cost will be less.
I understand that some folks on the right treat this sentiment as some kind of unquestionable, revealed truth from God, but unfortunately it just isn't always true.

There is no reason to maintain a naive, unquestioning faith in the good intentions of private companies. The private sector is full of fallible human beings, which means they are just a likely to be corrupt as any government. Most people have good intentions most of the time, but somtimes people misbehave. It happens in the private sector too.

If you think that waste, inefficiency and mismanagement only exist in government, then you probably have never actually worked in the private sector. And no, the "market" does not always eliminate these things, sometimes it rewards them. Also, sometimes private companies succeed in insulating themselves from market forces. That happens, too.

Inside the health care system, insurance companies are a profit-driven middleman. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not always a good thing either. There are upsides and downsides to this.

Sometimes government systems are broken. But sometimes private sector schemes are broken, too.

Personally, I don't have any solutions for fixing health care. There are lots of very difficult dilemmas in pricing and providing care, and I don't know how to resolve them. But it is unproductive and unwise to label any government involvement as "communist." I don't want these dilemmas to be solved solely by the private sector, because I want to have some kind of voice in the process. Eliminating government completely will eliminate democracy from the process, and I do not advocate that.

Post Reply