Join The Debate!

Massliberal

Read massachusettsliberal's post and you will know everything you need to know about the thought process of a liberal. They actually consider that rational thought.

thickasabrick

Your points 1, 2, and 3 in your July 4 post are certainly true for for almost all people. Excellent post.

A corollary is that when anyone, whether government, HMO, or insurance company attempt to control medical care costs they run into this economic fact:

There are three things they can attempt to control: cost, quality or availability of medical care. They can attempt to control any two of these economic factors, but in a free or mixed econonmy it is not economically or politically possible to control all three.

Your points and this corollary are the reasons why the current medical care and delivery system is approaching crisis as the baby boom generation approaches the age group which places the most demands on it. They also explain why the solution is so hard to find. No one should kid themselves: there are very few people who will not demand treatment for ailments no matter how expensive it is when that treatment will extend a life with reasonable quality, either theirs or someone they care deeply about. Regardless of how expensive the treatment is or their means to pay for it.

Thus there are very few people who will refuse treatment when put to the test, no matter reasonable that option may appear while they are well. Imagine yourself in the position of a parent with little or no insurance with a young child you love more than life itself who is diagnosed with a disease with a treatment which has a 80% cure rate. However you can bankrupt yourself but even that comes nowhere near covering the cost of the teatment. Time is limited and the treatment must start immediately.

What do you do? More importantly what do you want the state to do? Require that your child be treated regardless of your ability to pay and let the bankruptcy courts and charities sort out how much of the bill gets paid? Require that unless you can borrow the money or get a line of credit to guarantee payment of the bill up front your child must be allowed to die regardless of the fact that a cure was possible?

These are hard choices and based on their religious or moral beliefs people in such situations will choose differently.

These kind of situations are the reason insurance was invented. Insurance spreads the risk a small percentage of people face of financial disaster and inability to pay for needed care across the many. I think there are two parts to the solution.

One is that society needs to "coerce" (or require if that is a more palatble word) all of its members to carry insurance so that the few who contract life threatening illnesses are covered.

The second is to keep the many who buy insurance to the few who need heroic and expensive care relationship as high as possible. This means at least

1. taking insurance dollars and investing in preventive care so that diseases are caught at earliest possible stages or prevented all together. Keep the vast majority of the taxpaying population healthy.

2. limiting the demands the terminally ill can make on society. This means a greater investment in palliative care and hospice faciliies for the terminally ill and elderly for whom no known treatement will extend their lives beyond some reasonable number of months. The number of months would have to be reasonable to a super majority of the taxpaying population.

I think any system of medical care is going to have to have these characteristics to be successful in finding an optimal mix of of cost, quality, and availability. It doesn't matter whether the solution is a single payer one or one based on private and employer based insurance plans. In the coming election debates, I will be listening to all candidates from both sides of the aisle to understand how well whatever plans they promote matches up to these requirements.

Gimme My Money!

"Afghanistan has a nationwide government, fyi."

That's news to the Afghans. Really, have you done no reading about what the situation is? I suppose I could have used the example of the North West Frontier province of Pakistan but you'd probably inform me that Pakistan has a national government too.

"And no: life is not better when income is redistributed."

Of course it is. Take a look at states with high tax burdens and states with low ones. The low ones are generally terrible places to live and the high ones are where people want to live because life is better there. People with sense want services and infrastructure and are willing to pay. You're never going to get your way, so why not move to a government-free country?

Tax Whiners

I note that there is no specific movement of Americans whining about their tax burden to move to places where there is no government, like Somalia or Afghanistan. Libertarian paradise is yours, people, for the cost of a plane ticket.

These posts

Make me soooo glad we live in a republic!!! I thought common sense was common until I read y'alls' posts. You read Town Hall, now go out and learn about the rest of the world before you write again, this time with an informed intellect.
Disclaimer: the above is obviously not meant for all posters ;-)

To thickasabrick

Your plan (thank the doctor, refuse treatment, go home) has merit as long as your terminal illness is of relatively short duration, however acute it may be. But I can think of a couple of problems.

First, you might get a terminal illness that is long and expensive. Suppose instead of getting diagnosed with already-metastisized cancer that will conveniently take you off this planet in a couple of months, you develop Alzheimer's or an inoperable but slow-growing brain tumor or suffer residual effects of a stroke that make you absolutely ga-ga but don't kill you and for another twenty years you require expensive surveillance, probably of the residential variety, the alternative being that you live with your married daughter and ruin her family life. What do you do if you can't AT ALL function independently---accept an expensive alternative? Commit suicide?

Second, your decision to accept death and go out ASAP may have consequences for others. Suppose you have children ages 8, 14, and 17 at the time of your diagnosis. If you elect to die quickly, you deprive them of a parent, while accepting medical treatment (however expensive) may prolong your life, which may be of greater value to others (your kids!) than it is to you. Or, suppose that you are retired with a comfortable annuity based on your years of work and that, upon your death, your wife receives only 40% of that annuity, which will make her life a lot less comfortable. Your choice to die may leave her in seriously reduced circumstances (an eventuality you perhaps hoped to avoid by refusing expensive treatment that would consume your estate).

Third, there is a Teri Schiavo-ish flavor to this. Nobody is legally required to accept medical treatment, but when the alternative is certain death, refusal is a little bit like stopping T's feeding or like pulling out the plug of the life-support machine. This would have ethical consequences for some people who say that only God can take a life. Yes indeed, God is the one who has sent you the cancer, but God has also sent you the surgeons and radiologists and chemotherapists who can give you another thirty years of life; he has inspired the scientists who invented the drugs that may demolish your cancer cells. It's arguable that by refusing treatment you would be slamming the door in God's face.

I am playing the devil's advocate here because you raise fascinating (and difficult) ethical questions.

A Point for Poot - - -

quoth poot: "Why do conservatives insist that the FCC should be able to ban "adult" entertainment in prime-time on the Big Four TV broadcast networks? ANSWER: Are you kidding me?"

No sir.


poot: "Are you going to tell me that there is no reason why broadcast TV should not have decency standards?"

WHOSE decency standards? YOURS?

What about MY standard of decency? Stop wasting all those broadcast hours with religious programming.



poot: "Do you not see the consequences of allowing impressionable children to consume "adult" entertainment."

I notice that people who have heartburn because they notice people making love on TV or uttering the "F-bomb" will *generally* have no problem at all when someone uses machine-guns and rocket launchers to blow away half the planet.

But that's beside the point.

If you want to protect your impressionable children from sleaze on TV, by all means do so. Do it for YOUR kids, NOT MINE.


poot: "It's about shoving your decadent lifestyle down the throats of all the rest of society. Now, who is it that's seeking to push their values on others?"

Apparently you are unaware that every television ever made comes equipped with an OFF SWITCH.

If you don't like what's on, don't watch. In the meantime, some of us LIKE watching it, thank you very much.


poot: "Who is simply fighting to maintain some semblance of decency so that kids are not sexualized too early? This is common sense."

What you're trying to do is TAKE the responsibility for raising kids AWAY from their parents, and give it to Big Brother Government.

I don't think Big Brother Government is particularly well qualified to take care of my kids.

judging from the posts here . . .

John Stossel's column must have been about the availability/unavailability of alternatives to Microsoft software and the alacrity with which some techno-geeks are willing to impute ignorance on such matters to others.

Bounces with obvious translation

thedoomfromthesky at gmail.com

I'm adding this to

the mix; it's from corner.nationalreview.com

One of today's entries:

"Re: Docs of War [Iain Murray]

'Just a few years ago, the proportion of foreign trained doctors in the NHS was 25 percent. It is also pertinent to note that foreign-trained doctors are substantially more likely to be charged with serious professional misconduct.

The high proportion of foreign physicians is indeed down to a lack of British Doctors - not just from lack of students, but also because many trained Doctors choose to pursue other careers. Life in the NHS is not a rewarding experience. A family member of mine who is so highly regarded as a Doctor that she has won a prize carrying a substantial annual stipend for the rest of her life has withdrawn from clinical treatment because she was constantly asked to make life-or-death decisions based on the rationing of resources (you won't hear that story in Sicko).

The socialization of medicine in the UK is responsible for a lot of problems. The importation of terrorists is just one of them.'"
07/03 12:03 PM

--------------

One of those UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES of a NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, wouldn't you say?

Bugs

thickasabrick writes: Wednesday, July, 04, 2007 3:34 PM

"However, it must be admitted that Linux, the only reasonable alternative for anything but graphic arts, still requires a degree to get going or upgrade."

The smart folks were those from Bell Labs that gave away Unix (homonym to that other English word noted) to the colleges. The kids got out and demnanded what they weere comfortable with. We still have people thinking that C and its many flavors are real programming languages.

I'm waiting for somebody to engineer (most software "engineers" aren't) an OS in a true object-oriented 4- or 5GL. For years now MS has been focused on cosmetic changes instead of really fixing anything, like their trashy ODBC drivers. As a result each new release has thousands of bugs: NT4.0, 10,000; W2K 63,000 (30mslc*); XP 106,500 (45mslc) and Vista (50mslc) - 27,479 bugs (as of July 3 last year, new number anybody?), and growing as people use it. Isn't anything fixed from before reusable, or wasn't anything ever really fixed? How many new things does an OS have to do? Why do they still call it an "operating" system?

What is needed is interface stadardization.

* mslc = million source lines of code

Henny Penny

Did you mention you're from Tassie? I hail from the "North island" but find myself celebrating 4th July with our friends across the Pacific...

Anyway, about your comments on Microsoft: as a lifelong software developer, there was I time when I would have agreed with you entirely. However, age has mellowed me out somewhat. It must be admitted that there is in fact some choice, and I have been a Linux fan since the mid 90s. Even my wife (possibly the world's least-savvy computer user) has been using Linux exclusively, and only became aware of the fact when some .exe download refused to run :-) If you can't convince your school admin to run Darwin or Linux then that's their fault. (And damnable ignorance!)

However, it must be admitted that Linux, the only reasonable alternative for anything but graphic arts, still requires a degree to get going or upgrade. In spite of hurculean effort on the part of open source developers, it is still a mishmash of often ill-fitting software components.

The abovementioned spouse relies on me to fix things when they go wrong, so without me she would be just another happy little vegemite windows user.

To the more serious question of whether Microsoft uses force or undue influence: who is to define these terms? I don't doubt that they resort to some underhanded tricks. After all, when you are a giant you don't spend all day looking to see there are no ants crushed underfoot. They have no qualms about eliminating competition, in the style predicted by Adam Smith, however it is nothing that their lawyers couldn't be paid to defend.

If Microsoft is the biggest power, it is only because the ordinary beople and businesses put them there or at least took the path of least resistance. Once the snowball is big enough, you may as well roll with it. It seems to be a general principle, in that things which compete for the same niche tend to coalesce into a handful of large players, with the weaklings being eliminated by natural selection. The genius of Darwin (the man, not the OS!) is that natural selection has such broad applicability: not just to animal species.

One thing which I take a dim view of, however, is any invasion of privacy or right to use a product which is legitimately purchased.

All windows versions have had very restrictive licensing, but the new Vista product is a particularly worrying example which, in common with previous versions, is only "leased" to you (the purchaser), and also allows Microsoft to intrude and "check up on you" via internet connections. For the (dubious, IMO) benefit of being able to view HD video, you sell your computer's soul. Go to the http://www.gnu.org site if you want more details on this.

2 or 3 cents worth...

HENNY: I hate to tell you this, but your job of helping people learn to use computers would be living nightmare were it not for some standardization. That's how it was in the early days of computing, when every piece of softwre had a different interface. Nowadays, we need to be able to get up and running fast, and we need to be able to send people files they can open.
Bill Gates saw the future needs, and geared his products that way.
I know that some people wanted beta format videos, but vhs format won out because they sold the players. That became a standard.
Market driven. That's alot different than force.

Meanwhile, KNIGHT, you made good points way up top, but I never heard anything so boring as one guy trying to prove he knows more about computers than someone else. Yawn.

AUDI: I have a feeling that you, like many of us, will be watching to see where Mr. Moore goes when he needs his bypass (!)
As a side note on SICKO, the California Nurses Association is sponsoring screenings of this film, and soliciting nurses all over the country to try to help bring about healthcare reform by hosting shows. Any nurses out there concerned about the professionalism of that?

Rich D.

First of all, hang in there. I end up agreeing with you far more often than with KOB.

Second, it's always "more complicated than that" when it comes to suits of this kind. If Apple considered its intellectual property to have been stolen, that's one thing -- and yes, I've been aware of that potential aspect of the situation.

But there's a remedy for that in law, and it's not the hook on which the feds had Microsoft swinging. The concern of the government was monopolistic practices, and that's where the case breaks down. None of the hallmarks of "monopoly" existed (or exist now) for the consumer: literal inability to purchase the good in question other than from the monopolist, prices being set in an uncompetitive context (in other words, higher than they would be with competition).

People can always buy Macs; they can install other OSes on CPUs; they have a choice of functionality and price, and prices have been declining -- fast -- for two decades, while functionality and features have advanced. This is not what a "monopoly" produces.

For most people, it's less convenient to buy a Mac or install a non-Windows OS. This is not a "problem" produced in their lives by Microsoft. Applying anti-trust concepts to MS is, rather, an attempt to treat it as one.

Maybe Bill Gates didn't treat Apple very well -- and we've all heard the stories of Microsoft behaving as outlined in the article at your link, with other designers and vendors as well as Apple.

But that's a matter for the other companies to seek redress for, if they think laws have been broken. It's a DIFFERENT issue from whether Microsoft is making sure consumers don't have choices, and charging them too much because it can.

Quite obviously, consumers DO have choices, and the rapid decline of computer prices against the rapidly rising power and functionality of computers demonstrates clearly that Microsoft has no power to set prices above what a competitive market will bear -- and indeed has to keep improving its product, as everyone else in the industry does, in order to stay competitive.

And Another Thing

If the government believes you are too old or frail to be worth saving, you get no health care at all.

A friend of mine had this happen to his auntie. He and the family took her to Connecticut and put her in a good nursing home, where she lived comfortably for another five years and died peacefully with her family around her.

In Canada she would have been dumped.

Michael Moore's Sicko

Michael Moore is his own best "Sicko." He advocates socialized medicine while using the very capitalistic system in which he lives to impose his "propaganda" (I will not call his movies: documentaries) on the credulous many in this country. What a hypocrite! The U.S. has the best health care system in the world, and while it does not address every American's needs, it does a pretty damn good job of keeping most of us healthy and living longer than any other "socialized" country. Take a hike Mike!

That Michael Moore has become...

a commentator worth interviewing or even listening to is a sad commentary in and of itself.

If Mr. Moore would like to move to Canada (where I lived for 7 years) or the U.K. and enjoy the "benefits" of socialized medicine, he is not only welcome to, he is encouraged to.

- Should his corpulent frame's heart finally succomb to that excess weight he is carrying, may he wait months for life-saving surgery rather than next-day service as in the USA. But, no fair "opting out" and using all that money from film-making to fly to the Mayo Clinic or Stanford or Johns Hopkins. Nope. All animals are equal and no animals can be more equal than others.

- Since he does not see government as force, may his socialized medicine program result in a sliding scale, based on income. He can pay more so that those who cannot will be able to ride on his "forced" generosity.

As I said, I lived in Canada for 7 years between 1988 and 1994. I have been able to experience the costs and the quality of health care in both countries. May I suggest that in spite of all the blustering, there is, and always has been, a "two-tiered" health system in Canada? Those words are anathema to Canada's liberal elite, who tried to prevent a Quebec man from seeking a life-saving operation in the United States recently WITH HIS OWN MONEY. That is how far these people are willing to push things in their quest for a utopian, socialized society (fortunately, the man won, took his money to the US, and got his operation).

Here's the reality:

1) Those with good jobs in Canada that provide benefits get dental insurance and supplementary health insurance that pays for the things that "basic" government-imposed health insurance doesn't cover. If you think everyone in Canada is walking around with perfect smiles and mouths full of government subsidized fillings, crowns, and semi-annual cleanings, you are mistaken. Ditto for many health care services.

2) It isn't free. You are paying premiums for these insurance plans. The only difference is that your premiums are going to two different "insurance" companies - one run by the provincial government (I lived in Alberta) and the rest to private insurance companies, like Blue Cross.

3) It isn't free. On average, I paid somewhere in excess of 30% of my gross income to taxes while living in Canada. At the time, our combined household income was around $60,000 CDN. Now, I make 6 figures USD, do not have any special or exotic tax shelters, and pay about 9% of my gross in federal taxes. You do the math. All the socialization in Canada may look delightful to armchair observers like Moore, but there is a price tag attached. What could you buy for yourself more efficiently than the government with 21% of your gross income? For me, the answer was "quite a bit."

4) It isn't free.

5) It isn't free.

6) It isn't free.

7) Ever been frustrated by your medical insurance company disputing something and having to wrangle for payment? Imagine getting the government involved? More efficient? Hardly. If you think socialized medicine means that you and your doctor make all the decision while somebody else foots the bill, you haven't been paying attention to what is happening to health care in the US, where insurance companies increasingly decide everything, and doctors and patients are simply along for the ride. It's like that in Canada, except kicked up a couple dozen notches. And even more so in the U.K.

8) The quality of care is not the same as in the US. Yes, there are many very good physicians in Canada and many very bad ones in the US, but on the whole, the more that a society removes free market economics from the equation and inserts government- (or insurance-) mandated fees for certain procedures, the more you are going to get assembly line type care by people who get the same paycheck regardless of the quality of care given. Again, it isn't too hard to imagine socialize medicine...it's what we have in the US with insurance companies calling the shots...only worse because now, there isn't even competition among competing insurance companies.

So, take it from somebody who has lived under both systems: the US system may have problems, but insurance companies and the quasi-socialization of medicine are to blame for that. If that's your idea of an "ideal" health care system, then join Michael Moore in embracing a Big Brother to make your health care decisions.

But make no mistake: it isn't free, it isn't fair, and it isn't better.

To henny penny

You are about to step deeper into a manure pit if you attempt to have a rational discourse with KoB. His posts sometimes disappear and his handle has changed, suggesting that he gets suspended. The end of his handle is Bad-@ssed Atheist With Attitude, and much bad attitude you will certainly see. Other's stupidity is to blame for all of his problems.

There is nothing he doesn't know, and fortunately for us dummies, he isn't shy about setting us aright and putting us in our places under his feet. He is also a hypocrite, as he uses the word "should", meaning that it's OK for him to tell you what to do, but don't try telling him.

His favorite word is "liar", which he uses for anyone who even makes an innocent mistake or assumption about anything (or typo). Note how he said: "One more thing: knowing Photoshop or Illustrator doesn't make you a computer expert. Just thought you should know that." He takes such arrogant pride in his logic, but allows himself to say that when you didn't even mention those packages, nor claimed to be an "expert". Let's see if he can (or will) spot the fallacies in his own statements.

He also said: "If you know anything about computers (which you don't)…" Well, the fact that your mother probably didn't post your comments for you and that you teach computers now gives you the right to call HIM a "liar", which I suspect you won't do because you (and most people and gorillas) have more social skills than he does.

His favorite tactic is to parrot back what you say like a grade-school kid, and then resort to ad hominem attacks and subject shifting - note how he trashed this discussion already and turned it into a discussion of his superiority.

Furthermore, he has already accused you of ignorance and hatred (you'll soon learn that he's a seer, also, so you can't accuse him of lying on that score) and demanded that you make "a good [choice]", i.e., agree with him. However, your attempts to dismiss the attacks with humor, showing you to be a much better man than bitterly cold knight is, will have no affect.

And juandos's (nee John-two-cents-worth) spoon comment finely illustrates Gresham's Law.

This thread will continue to decompose, and KoB will be quick to call me a name. We'll see if his new squire juandos follows.

to knightofbaawa

knightofbaawa asks “Let me get this straight, henny:
The problem of not having a choice of computers/OS in a public school lies with Microsoft?”

Did I say that? I do suggest that many computers within the price range of affordability for many schools are supplied with MS software as standard. I’m aware, as you and juandos are, that there are other choices available but the majority of teachers and administrators are not. How did it come about that MS Windows is so often the standard OS for so much of the PC market? I suggest that Microsoft used force. Clearly, I don’t refer to the force which governments wields, but it is a force nonetheless.
I base my knowledge of public schools and their resources here on more than just my sons’ school, and I mention few intances for the sake of brevity and not for the lack of examples; and, if you’re going to mention logical fallacies, there are quite a few you’ve missed in the above posts.
Also, I for one am not blaming markets for the faults of government (though I’m not averse to blaming governments for the faults of markets).
My original point disputed Mr Stossel’s assertion that gates did not emply force. I have nothing against any entrepeneur trying to make a fortune by any legal means, and though I wish that my web-pages would look as nice in IE as they do in Firefox or Safari, I’m not trying to stop anyone who actually chooses to use IE from doing so.

It’s late here and, unless other readers express the wish to have this particular discussion continue publicly here, I should be willing (if anyone really want to argue the matter) to answer any questions by e-mail in the morning. My address is thedoomfromthesky at gmail.com.

re: Henny's less than good choices

"I have no power to persuade the school to provide better software or hardware"...

Public school?

OS choice

knightofbaawa_ kindly writes:
“But [students] do have a choice [whether to use a Microsoft or Apple (or whatever) OS].

I should gratefully read your explanation of how students in Grade 1 in my sons’ primary school have this choice.

“I seriously doubt that you know the difference between RAM and a hard drive.”

Doubt, seriously or dressed in pink polka-dot knickerbockers, as much as you like.

A truly unhappy person

I see Michael Moore as an obese piece of propoganda flesh, who seems to be really unhappy, despite his recent wealth. Maybe if he found a nutrition program he could stick to, and also educated himself with the writings of Adam Smith and Milton Friedman, he'd lighten up.

Moore and all the Hollywood Lefty types never cease to amaze me that they've become wealthy in this GREAT COUNTRY, yet they put down and criticize this country at every turn. It is precisely the free market and Capitalism that made you rich, Michael!!! Why do you want to undo the very means that enabled you to climb the ladder of success!?

elong

I couldn't watch the whole thing because I was getting that same urge. The "man" is a total buffoon.

Wingo

I'm glad I didn't catch that interview. I probably would have stuck my foot through the television.

Like I said, the guy doesn't get it. Pie vs. bypass surgery.....great analogy.

I'm sure he did address why so many Canadians make the trip to the states to have urgent procedures performed.

re: David Brooks

I find it hilarious that anyone would think that someone working for the NEW YORK SWINE could honestly be considered in any way a conservative...

Stossel rightly noted: 'Thomas Jefferson said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." Was he ever right! Liberty yields as well-intentioned busybodies try to "fix" the world by stopping you from using gasoline or forcing you to finance antipoverty programs'...

Yet we have an 'alledged' conservative working with a known alcholic woman killer and all around liberal parasite thinking of other ways to extort more money from the citizens for federal socialist programs:

'Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) released a statement in June supporting an increase in the tobacco tax to fund the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), which is due for reauthorization this year. Kennedy and Hatch were the original sponsors of the program when it was created in 1997.'
(http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200707/POL20070702a.html)

What's this all about and why should other people have to pay for the problems of someone else's children?

Caught Moore in a PBS interview

He made an analogy between Canadians waiting for health care and people waiting for a slice of pie after dinner (imagine that, Moore using food as an analogy). Americans are just so greedy and grabby. Every one of us wants the first slice of pie, but that is impossible. Sometimes you have to wait for the 4th slice, or the last slice, but that doesn't mean there isn't enough to go around.

The point he excludes in this analogy is the FLAVOR of the pie. People don't mind waiting for their slice of apple or pumpkin. My wife likes like cream pies and would gladly wait hours for her turn to come around.

Canada, in the case of her health care, is serving heaping slices of COW pie. It's not so much that we Americans don't want to wait to be served, it is more that we care what is on the menu.

Moore's a knuckle head

"Of the people, by the people, and for the people? That was Moore's repsonse to Stossel? Are you kidding me? He needs to take another history class.

None of that passage of the Constitution has anything to do with the confiscation of money that is earned by the people of this country. The govt was created of the people (our representative republic), by the people (the founders designed it), for the people (in order to protect our life, liberty and pursuit of happieness)! Not to do everything for us, take all responsibility for ourselves away from us, and ultimately run our lives.

The guy just doesn't get it. The govt was formed so we wouldn't have a tyranical leader running our lives! It wasn't formed so hard working americans could have their money confiscated to to fund programs that the govt will never operate properly.

We done as usual John Stossel. Thank you!

conservatism and pot

HeavyJ writes: "I can't figure out the medical marijuana thing tho! .....I'm getting a headache right now..."

That's exactly why I raised the issue:

A dozen states have now legalized the medicinal use of marijuana, including Montana and New Mexico, which are usually GOP strongholds. And yet Bush's Justice Department refuses to accept this and continues to treat all smoking of marijuana as a criminal offense.

If conservatives really believed in Stossel's "Live and Let Live," or in Fred Thompson's "federalism" of devolving power to the states, they would repeal all Federal marijuana bans and allow marijuana (if not other drugs) to be decided by the states.

But they don't.
Which proves what I said: Modern conservatives, once they get into power, don't want to limit the power of the Federal Government for THEIR goals. Only for the LIBERALS' goals.

If you love this, you'll love Ron Paul

Stossel's position = Ron Paul's position

We love you both!

The Free Market

Obviously doesn't work because people are constantly making the wrong decisions about how to lead their lives. Thank God there are men like Mr. Moore to show us the error of our ways.

What amazes me is that given the abysmal failures that the government has foisted upon us there is this urge on the part of the left to increase government's involvement in our lives.

Do you decry the mess in Iraq, complain about the response to Katrina and sit in bumper to bumper traffic on the way to and from work? Then how do you possibly advocate increased government activity in any area?

questions for social conservatives

If conservatives truly support "live and let live" rather than direct Federal government control, then why do they insist on a Federal Defense of Marriage Act or a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage at the Federal level?

Why do they insist on having Federal laws against medical marijuana--indeed, against any use of marijuana?

Why do conservatives insist that the FCC should be able to ban "adult" entertainment in prime-time on the Big Four TV broadcast networks?

Social conservatives, once they got INTO POWER, decided to use the power of the Federal Government to promote THEIR vision of society. I can remember when they used to denounce liberals for doing the same thing.

Gag

perfect! seems everyone, even conservatives complain about something that government ought to compel others to do! When I hear it I say that it is ok with me that someone dies as a result of ingesting something, or being electricuted in their bathtub. If you smoke, and it kills you (it may not), I am ok with that! What I am not ok with is the fact that virtually everything I do seems to be regulated to the nth degree. I want the government to leave me alone! Period! If that results in my death, so be it!
Lastly, do you think they could come up with a simple tax system that doesn't require a degree to understand. It would also be helpful if there were no audits and no one ever had to worry about back taxes. every April I am afraid that If I make a mistake, I could go to jail! The sad part is I could! It terrifies many Americans, and I do not think a consentual government should ever terrify its citizens. the more nanny rules there are, the more money we owe, and the bigger the mistakes are that we can make... It could drive you to drink!

Good Luck with Secession, Knight

Knight,

Statists and non-statists are really the only two kinds of people. Since statists and their enablers occupy both sides of the political spectrum, they will always be in control. Government is analogous to an organism. It feeds on taxes and does everything in its power to grow and survive. There are few friends of liberty as evidenced by Stossel's anecdotes.

If he were alive today, Thomas Jefferson would be on a no fly list. As soon as you raise up your head in defiance, the axe will slice it off. As technology improves, the power of government to monitor your activities will likewise increase until the inevitable Orwellian nightmare is achieved. A good example is Joe Lieberman's recent comment about increasing video surveillance in light of the Glasgow attack.