Currently Online 
| Zappykins said:
4. Nah, " if you advocate the government's involvement in the economy, it is the same thing as a communist" Socialism, that is socialism. Like the Fire Department, Police, Paramedics- they serve everyone regardless of financial status. It's socialism, and I have no problem with it. That recent case where the FD just watched and let someone who hadn’t pay some extra fee's house burn shows that it's a good idea for the good of all to protect everyone. They only started to fight it when the fire grew and spread to other people's homes. (Plus the insurance companies bill are so much higher now.) Also the growing of resistant strains of tuberculosis are a result of Regan throwing the homeless (mentally ill) people out on the streets, AIDS and a combination of the two. If we had better universal care, the new TB would have been minimized. In the late 90’s around 1/3 of LA’s homeless population tested positive for TB. 6. Really? It's a direct consequence of the Indiana law. I think it’s funny he accidently made marijuana legal.
|
4. My point was an analogy of two different statements in which one person equates one instance with another without regard for the real-world degree. Also the government can and often does have a role in an economy without owning the means of production, and therefore not providing a social good. None of what you typed after that is relevant.
6. My statement was that, " religion does not protect someone if they initiate force, such as: enslaving another human being, stealing from them, or mudering them." It might've in the past, but in today's world it is not protected by the state. So yeah, saying that Christianity justified slavery in 17th - 19th centuries isn't relevant to what my original statement was.
