Leo

Reading your posts in this thread makes me think you are more Libertarian than Republican. Not saying this in any negative light, just simply an observation.

No offense taken whatsoever, Kevy - I'd say I'm somewhere in between. I really consider myself to be a Reagan Republican. This is why I have been so disappointed with Bush.

I'd consider switching to libertarian if most of the political leaders of the party weren't so....odd.

I will add that it is certainly easier to believe in conspiracy theories that fit your political agenda than those that don't.

The whole "One generation's conspiracy theory is another's obvious fact" only goes so far. There are 100 different theories about the Kennedy assassination and I do not consider myself to be any sort of expert on it whatsoever, but they range from the mob to LBJ being the masterminds behind it all.

I have those I certainly believe - one being that my father in law is really in the CIA, but that's another story.

Still haven't watched the film, but I have heard lots of conspiracy theories, most of which I promptly dismiss. A plane did crash into the Pentagon- my cousin-in-law saw it happen. (He worked across the way from the Pentagon). I do believe that, at the very least, part of our rush to Iraq was enouraged by the military complex that Cheney is involved with, and he has certainly profited from the war. I don't put much past anyone, in our government or others, but I do need some sound proof and reasoning behind the accusations.

scaeagles, the government is made up of tens of thousands of people, in hundreds upon hundreds of bureaucracies. It just so happens that your claimed Only Federally Mandated function ... the military function ... is not to be trusted in any nation of the world, at any time in history - for the obvious reasons that its purpose of applying weaponry to cause death might attract a certain type of person.

Those people who might deal with health rather than death, though certainly not 100% unsusceptible to corruption, might have a bent that's somewhat the opposite of the brutal destruction business of the "Defense" deparment (euphemistically renamed from the more apt "War Department" only a few years before I was born). And, in fact, remove the profit motive from anything - - including War - - and the incidence of corruption will decrease dramatically.

We have a completely different view of capitalism. We have a completely different view of application of the military (while the purpose is to kill people and break things, you have a strong military so that others are assured of their defeat should they use their military against you).

I do not believe that removal of the profit motive necessarily eliminates corruption. However, the removal of the profit motive will certainly reduce quality.

All very altruistic, that version of the military you have. One unfortunate thing you forget, though, is that HUMANS must be involved. With instruments of death available, those who want to use them for offense rather than deterrent will inevitably rise to positions of being able to use them for the offenses they desire.


You cannot stop human nature. The world, alas, will always be ruled by those willing to do what the next man will not. This is why terrorism, as a tactic, will never be eradicated.

I completely understand the whole human nature argument. This is why I want us to have a strong military - because I trust us more than I trust Kim Jong Il or the President of Iran. Mutually assured destruction is why Western Europe was not absorbed by the expansionist Sovets.

It is also my understanding of human nature that leads me to support capitalism in medicine. Profit motive leads to better innovation, more research, and the best minds to pursue it (which, on a side note, is why I think teachers should be paid more than what they are).

The profit aspect is a double edged sword: the very thing that motivates some to research and develop new treatments for illnesses places such treatments out of the financial reach of many. I know quite a few seniors who cannot afford their prescriptions right now and with the cuts to Medicare will soon not even be able to afford to go to their doctor.

However, WB, without the money spent on R&D, and the profits necessary to make the R&D worthwhile to those investing the funds, then those new treatments or cures or medicines are not available to anyone. And over time, the costs for new things go down as generic equivalents become available and competition drives down prices.