Colinism said:
The problem in what you have said however is not that I think you are wrong, but that people differ on what ideas and consequences are in fact world changing or need to be regulated by the public. I can honestly see people trying to regulate "Sinful sexual behavior" IE gays based on the teaching of a 2,000 year old book. Do you really want to risk that slippery slope by allowing people to think they should have that much power over others, and actually giving them the tools to do so?
That's what democracy is about.
Heathen_Dave said:
I read what you said, just disagree with the foundation of it.
Well, good for you. Say hello to John Galt for me.
Colinism said:
The problem in what you have said however is not that I think you are wrong, but that people differ on what ideas and consequences are in fact world changing or need to be regulated by the public. I can honestly see people trying to regulate "Sinful sexual behavior" IE gays based on the teaching of a 2,000 year old book. Do you really want to risk that slippery slope by allowing people to think they should have that much power over others, and actually giving them the tools to do so?
Wow, I haven't seen this many slippery slopes since the last time I went to Splash Mountain.
There's a big difference between suggesting the government should have the power to regulate certain aspects of the economy and suggesting the government should have the power to regulate the private activities of consenting adults.
You're using reductionist logic that assumes the concept of government is a lightswitch, not a spectrum.
No I am assuming that people being people will abuse power thats given to them for even the best of intentions. I'm not going to dissagree that the government has a legit reason for regulating businesses, zoning, and other activities. The original point was made that people should not be trusted with their money because instead of buying health insurance they might buy an xbox Thats the part that I am referring to when I say I am uncomfortable with people being given that much power over the decisions of others. Democracy or not I highly doubt that the people tasked with making those decisions will be directly elected, most likely they will be appointed by special interests and I can honestly see Insurance companies getting their people into those positions and all of us getting screwed into having worthless overpriced coverage or worse.
Colinism said:
No I am assuming that people being people will abuse power thats given to them for even the best of intentions. I'm not going to dissagree that the government has a legit reason for regulating businesses, zoning, and other activities. The original point was made that people should not be trusted with their money because instead of buying health insurance they might buy an xbox Thats the part that I am referring to when I say I am uncomfortable with people being given that much power over the decisions of others. Democracy or not I highly doubt that the people tasked with making those decisions will be directly elected, most likely they will be appointed by special interests and I can honestly see Insurance companies getting their people into those positions and all of us getting screwed into having worthless overpriced coverage or worse.
That's a reason to vote against special interests, isn't it?
You generally don't get a chance to vote against them. They simply lobby, buy the candidate of their choosing and get shit done that makes you cringe. :/
zarth
Seattle, WA
December 2004
OCT 05, 2007 11:37 AM