"flipper" wrote in message
...
The
interesting question, then, is... can it continue?
Depends on what you mean by 'continue'. As the premier world power?
No. Wealthy? No. Free? No. Will there still be humans? Yes. So it can
'continue'.

You may notice that the first two are considered 'evil' anyway by the
left and the third, managing the dumb human herd, is the means they
feel is necessary to rectify the evil.

The left considers power and wealth evil? If they do, they sure don't
practice what they preach -- they're just as power- and money-hungry as any
right-wingers are.

It reflects a deliberate 'progressive' strategy which, among other
things, involves feigning a false argument because the real intent
would never fly.

I don't think they're necessarily false arguments (although they might be
misguided) -- and even if they are, it doesn't really do any good to consider
them as such rather than trying to deal with the argument itself. I mean,
once you go from arguing about some principle someone is advocating (on the
left or the right) to arguing about whether or not they themselves really
believe the arguments they're putting forth or if they're just trying to
mainpulate you, how can you make any progress towards getting (at least some
of) what you want?

In general everyone tends to assume those on the opposite end of the political
spectrum from themselves are just evil liars. :-)

The government itself, that you claim has done a spectacular job, says
the poverty rate is no better than before it began the spectacular
job.

This is largely because the definitinon of poverty is updated occasionally to
keep up with the average standard of living: I guarantee you someone living
right at the poverty line today would volunteer that they're still far better
off than someone living at the povery line in 1940.

Well, sure. Why worry about the Constitution just because it's a
blooming contract specifically defining what the government is, and is
not, empowered to do? No reason to consider THAT.

It's inevitable, IMO -- regardless of how "solid" a foundation for a
government or religion is, over time people will always start re-interpreting
or just outright ignoring bits of it that no longer jive that well with
"popular culture." It's not worth the energy to be upset about this because
there's simply no way we could have one big vote and return the government to
the state it was in in, say, 1900 (or pick your date) -- the best we can hope
for is those incremental changes to get the government back on track to
something sustainable and closer to your own interpretation of the
constitution's and founding fathers' intents.

This is why none of Ayn Rand or Ralph Nader could ever be elected president.
(Apparently Ron Paul as well, although I had high hopes for him.) -- Even
though all of these people have done many great things.

Government does not 'come up with' better anything.

They fund research projects that historically have come up with plenty of good
things -- more productive/disease resistant crops, lots of far-more-effective
weapons for waging war/maintaining peace (take your pick), vaccines for
various childhood diseases, much of the technology that led to the Internet,
etc.

(But I'm not arguing that the private sector doesn't come up with better
mousetraps. They certainly do too...)

They're ALL 'good ideas'... to someone. And the money is free, free,
free, free... yeehaw. Or, if you're sober, it's just a matter of
extorting money from the evil rich, who deserve to be screwed anyway,
especially for a 'good idea'. And they're ALL 'good ideas'... to
someone.

This is a very cynical way to view it, IMO: There are elements of truth there,
but the "average man" recognizes that forcibly taking money from his fellow
man to fund some pet project is never to be taken lightly and should only be
done after a lot of deliberation as to the true potential/worth of that
project.

Even the "let's soak the rich!" crowd doesn't really get ahead much because,
well, there just aren't that many rich to soak. Soaking the middle class is
far more effective... :-)

Al Capone saw nothing wrong with theft either.

The difference is that he wasn't put into power via popular vote.

That's the most ridiculous, AND unrelated, argument you've come up
with yet (as if CPR HD radio has any connection with sanitation or
other vital services). There is no 'lack of interest' in, or
'unappreciation' of, sanitation technology by the poor, or anyone
else. It's a failure of government to deliver services and you're
about ready to pee in your pants cheering the government. (Notice the
terribly clever, in context, allusion.)

My point was that it often takes the government to "do good" rather than just
figuring that individuals or corporations will voluntarily band together and
"do the right thing." That's one part of what government is: An argeement
among people that it makes sense to empower an elected group of officials to
engage in acts that are sometimes going to be inviable or unpopular but that
we can trust are still often reasonably good ideas overall.

In practice how well this happens varies quite a bit, of course. Comparing
India vs. the U.S., it's rather worse in India because their government is
rather more corrupt than the U.S.'s.

---Joel