POLL: Does the size and role of government exist on a continuum?

[Mac1958]

I've been unable to get a straight answer from another poster on a different thread, so let's try this.

My position is that the size, scope, depth, breadth and authority of governments exist on a continuum. That a country can be, for example, "more" socialist or "less" socialist. "More" authoritarian or "less" authoritarian. "More" capitalist or "less" capitalist.

It seems pretty obvious to me, but I guess not to others.

So please vote and comment, thanks. I voted "Yes, obviously".
.

No.

You either have an authoritarian state or you do not....Varying degrees of relative authoritarian control are irrelevant.....You either have cancer or you do not.

Capitalism is an economic model, not a political one....Socialism is both political and economic.....Black markets (nearly pure capitalism) exist organically outside any form of authoritarian gubmint control.....In fact, such authoritarian tyranny is the root of them being "black" markets.

So let me get this straight, and tell me if I'm wrong.

First, the actual poll question does not bring up socialism. I'm taking about the size of government.

You said "more capitalist or less", and I made the point that capitalism is apolitical...Socialism was mentioned as a contrast.

You don't see anything on the planet in between the USA and Venezuela? Really?
.

Is the USA's gubmint authoritarian or not?....Do they rule by force or not?...Don't haggle over degrees, it's a yes or no question.

So evidently your answer is "no".

Okay, thanks.
.

Apparently, "no" is your answer as well.

Oh, I'm not afraid to answer questions.

To a degree, yes, but since you operate in a binary world, I'll say "no".

My answer is "no".

See? That's not so tough!
.

 

[Slade3200]

I just stated otherwise. There was a time when members of the opposing parties worked together in much more frequency and decency than what’s happening today. That’s a fact, not my opinion. Why are you working so hard to make excuses for this partisan crap?

I'm not making excuses, I'm stating facts.

And those halcyon days of "working together in much more frequency and decency" gave us the unweildly, prohibitively expensive, and oppressive state we have today....When those assholes "work together" it's We the Peasants who take it in the ass.

So you like the gridlock because you think it limits the government from making progress that you disagree with? That’s an interesting way to look at it.

 

[Mac1958]

Why don't those who think the answer is "no" have the balls to just answer "no" to the poll?

Any guesses?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I just stated otherwise. There was a time when members of the opposing parties worked together in much more frequency and decency than what’s happening today. That’s a fact, not my opinion. Why are you working so hard to make excuses for this partisan crap?

I'm not making excuses, I'm stating facts.

And those halcyon days of "working together in much more frequency and decency" gave us the unweildly, prohibitively expensive, and oppressive state we have today....When those assholes "work together" it's We the Peasants who take it in the ass.

So you like the gridlock because you think it limits the government from making progress that you disagree with? That’s an interesting way to look at it.

Yes, that's what toddlers do. Don't like the group project in preschool? Smash it. Don't like your snack at snacktime? Ruin everyone's snack.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why don't those who think the answer is "no" have the balls to just answer "no" to the poll?

Any guesses?

Oh, that's a softball. They know that they have embarrasing positions. Thus the tapdance.

 

[SavannahMann]

The problem is that Poll’s reduce a complex question to an over simplified answer that is at best only partially true. It is not like an election.

In an election you vote for the candidate you prefer of the available options. Let’s take my own vote in 2016 as an example. For decades I voted Democratic. The general principles of the party reflected my own ideals more closely than the Republican Party.

That is not to say I did not examine the candidates and their issues. I am a firm believer in and defender of Civil Rights. I approved of Obama’s, Bush’s, and Clinton’s investigations into Police Departments in response to Constitutional Violations. I disapproved of attack’s on the Second Amendment.

I believe in a progressive tax plan. The richest should pay a higher percentage than the middle class. I do not believe this should be outrageously high. I believe in Social Programs to hell those who fall off the ladder. I do not believe that those programs should be graded by how many are receiving help, but how many they get back onto the ladder to success. I supported Clinton’s Welfare Reform that out work and jobs training into the mix.

Normally my views were best represented by Democrats. There were some exceptions. Bush’s Medicare Drug Plan was better than the Seniors had now and better than they were ever going to get otherwise. I was a reasonable individual who believed that a little is better than none.

I opposed Bush’s “Free Speech Zones” for protestors.

I oppose corruption. So when the abuses involved in the Hillary Coronation became apparent. I had to make a decision. I disagree with Trump ending the investigations into Police Departments. I disagree with his negotiating technique. I disagree with a lot. But no more than I disagree with the Democratic Candidates on issues. I voted Republican. As for who I will vote for in the next election the decision is still open.

I have never seen any Politician I agree with all the time. In the end I normally choose the one I disagree with the least.

But if you reduce that to a stupid question you miss the details. Whose policies are better for America? The truth is neither. The Armed Fascist state at the end of the line for Republicans is no better than the Armed Socialist State at the end of the road for the Democrats. The best would be a course charged using the issues each is more right about as a guide.

Where they want to go is dangerous. And yes I am speaking of both of They’s in that statement.

People want a wise and thoughtful President. Not a blistering in your face blowhard. They also do not want a bumbling senile fool.

You claim that the size of the Government is the question. It is not. It is the intrusive and abusive actions of the Government. That has always been the case when responsibility is not demanded from the lowest to the highest ranked officials.

Why you ask? We tend to identify with individuals and beliefs. Those who see Crime as out of control cheer the police abuses and the idea that the criminals finally got what they deserve. The folks who identify with Politicians who make similar arguments are not going to risk losing an advocate for their ideals over anything but the most indefensible corruption.

The same is true of every ideology and beliefs. Obama made mistakes. But those who felt that Obama was mostly right are willing to studiously ignore the mistakes. This carries down to the lowest level of our Government.

Things that should be a simple question are confused beyond belief. A cop who beats a restrained suspect is not held to account any more than anyone else. At least not by the supporters. We supposedly all Believe in the Constitution. But even there we want to rewrite it or change the meaning to suit our ideals instead of the clearly stated principles we all supposedly support.

 

[Andylusion]

I've been unable to get a straight answer from another poster on a different thread, so let's try this.

My position is that the size, scope, depth, breadth and authority of governments exist on a continuum. That a country can be, for example, "more" socialist or "less" socialist. "More" authoritarian or "less" authoritarian. "More" capitalist or "less" capitalist.

It seems pretty obvious to me, but I guess not to others.

So please vote and comment, thanks. I voted "Yes, obviously".
.

No.

You either have an authoritarian state or you do not....Varying degrees of relative authoritarian control are irrelevant.....You either have cancer or you do not.

Capitalism is an economic model, not a political one....Socialism is both political and economic.....Black markets (nearly pure capitalism) exist organically outside any form of authoritarian gubmint control.....In fact, such authoritarian tyranny is the root of them being "black" markets.

All states are authoritarian at some level. I mean, by definition, government has some level of authority and control over the public. If they didn't, it wouldn't be a government.

That said, I would suggest that the US government is one of the least authoritarian.

Otherwise I agree. Capitalism by itself, has little or nothing to say about social or political issues.

The only connection between Capitalism and those things, is that it is extremely difficult to have a socialist or authoritarian government, and have a capitalist economy.

And the reason is simply that people who wish to control social society and political society, generally also want to control economic society.

 

[Slade3200]

Why don't those who think the answer is "no" have the balls to just answer "no" to the poll?

Any guesses?

Because they don’t like to openly admit to how they act when it’s called out so plainly.

 

[Andylusion]

I've been unable to get a straight answer from another poster on a different thread, so let's try this.

My position is that the size, scope, depth, breadth and authority of governments exist on a continuum. That a country can be, for example, "more" socialist or "less" socialist. "More" authoritarian or "less" authoritarian. "More" capitalist or "less" capitalist.

It seems pretty obvious to me, but I guess not to others.

So please vote and comment, thanks. I voted "Yes, obviously".
.

No.

You either have an authoritarian state or you do not....Varying degrees of relative authoritarian control are irrelevant.....You either have cancer or you do not.

Capitalism is an economic model, not a political one....Socialism is both political and economic.....Black markets (nearly pure capitalism) exist organically outside any form of authoritarian gubmint control.....In fact, such authoritarian tyranny is the root of them being "black" markets.

What can we call portions they are calling capitalism a cancer when laws are skewed to enrich those who are already rich? Like Obama Care, taxpayer funds given to large corporations, taxpayer money spent to develop pharmaceuticals and technologies that is then given to corporations that charge our own citizens excessive costs to use or enjoy that can be purchased in other countries for little to nothing?

Well it's not Capitalism. Capitalism, is when you use your capital.... hence capitalism.... to offer goods and services to the public, in voluntary exchange.

Let me give you an example. A bar tender, decided to make a product to help people hunt. He built the product himself. He traveled around in his old pickup truck, trying to sell them to stores. He was laughed at, shown the door time after time. After a while he started getting some sales. He hired people to make more of them. Now they are sold everywhere, and Phil Robertson is a multimillionaire for selling a Duck Caller.

That is capitalism. Robertson is wealthy not because of some law. There was no law "make duck callers profitable". He became wealthy because he was selling a product that people found valuable.

Now when you point to laws that enrich the already rich, that's like Elon Musk. Solarcity never made a profit, and Tesla has rarely had a profit, and last year lost a Billion dollars.

Yet if you ever see Elon Musk, he's living the high life. How that possible? The answer is socialism. The government has subsidized Elon Musk's companies for years. Solar panel subsidies, subsidies for green-cars, subsidies for green energy grants.... and the list goes on.

That isn't Capitalism. Capitalism is not that you go use government to steal other people's capital, and use it to enrich yourself. That's socialism.

Now as a special side note, let me focus on the complaint about using tax money for research.

I personally would not have government funding any research anywhere, ever.

However, one thing you need to grasp.... people on the left, appear to want to play this game where they can having things both ways.... that they can fund research, but refuse to have anyone profit from it.

This is not a realistic outcome. Nothing happens in this world, if no one can profit from it. Sorry to burst the bubble, but that's the reality.

The only way to have research done, and not have someone profit from it, is to simply lock all the discoveries from that research in a vault somewhere, and have no one use it. And if you do that... then why spend that money on research at all? Either use it to build a road instead, or cut taxes and let the public keep their own money. Why do research just to file it in a safe somewhere, so no one can profit from it?

Because that's the only alternative. If you want someone to use that research to make a product or service the people can use.... no one is going to spend BILLIONS of dollars to use that research to make a drug, only to sell it for 5¢, and make no profit from it.

Would YOU..... YOU yourself... spend a million dollars of your own money, to end up...... just without a million dollars because you are not allowed to make a profit? No. Be honest, you wouldn't. If you wouldn't, who would?

Now if you want to cut research spending, I'm all for it. Let's cut research spending.

But if you, like the vast majority of the left-wing, wants to have research spending, then you can't complain it was used by people to make a profit. You can't have it both ways.

 

[CowboyTed]

Instead of moving towards the direction of less America, let's move towards the direction of MORE America. That means more liberties, smaller government and a wall to keep unAmericans out.

Smaller Government, just reduce the size of the Military..

 

[Mac1958]

I've been unable to get a straight answer from another poster on a different thread, so let's try this.

My position is that the size, scope, depth, breadth and authority of governments exist on a continuum. That a country can be, for example, "more" socialist or "less" socialist. "More" authoritarian or "less" authoritarian. "More" capitalist or "less" capitalist.

It seems pretty obvious to me, but I guess not to others.

So please vote and comment, thanks. I voted "Yes, obviously".
.

No.

You either have an authoritarian state or you do not....Varying degrees of relative authoritarian control are irrelevant.....You either have cancer or you do not.

Capitalism is an economic model, not a political one....Socialism is both political and economic.....Black markets (nearly pure capitalism) exist organically outside any form of authoritarian gubmint control.....In fact, such authoritarian tyranny is the root of them being "black" markets.

What can we call portions they are calling capitalism a cancer when laws are skewed to enrich those who are already rich? Like Obama Care, taxpayer funds given to large corporations, taxpayer money spent to develop pharmaceuticals and technologies that is then given to corporations that charge our own citizens excessive costs to use or enjoy that can be purchased in other countries for little to nothing?

Well it's not Capitalism. Capitalism, is when you use your capital.... hence capitalism.... to offer goods and services to the public, in voluntary exchange.

Let me give you an example. A bar tender, decided to make a product to help people hunt. He built the product himself. He traveled around in his old pickup truck, trying to sell them to stores. He was laughed at, shown the door time after time. After a while he started getting some sales. He hired people to make more of them. Now they are sold everywhere, and Phil Robertson is a multimillionaire for selling a Duck Caller.

That is capitalism. Robertson is wealthy not because of some law. There was no law "make duck callers profitable". He became wealthy because he was selling a product that people found valuable.

Now when you point to laws that enrich the already rich, that's like Elon Musk. Solarcity never made a profit, and Tesla has rarely had a profit, and last year lost a Billion dollars.

Yet if you ever see Elon Musk, he's living the high life. How that possible? The answer is socialism. The government has subsidized Elon Musk's companies for years. Solar panel subsidies, subsidies for green-cars, subsidies for green energy grants.... and the list goes on.

That isn't Capitalism. Capitalism is not that you go use government to steal other people's capital, and use it to enrich yourself. That's socialism.

Now as a special side note, let me focus on the complaint about using tax money for research.

I personally would not have government funding any research anywhere, ever.

However, one thing you need to grasp.... people on the left, appear to want to play this game where they can having things both ways.... that they can fund research, but refuse to have anyone profit from it.

This is not a realistic outcome. Nothing happens in this world, if no one can profit from it. Sorry to burst the bubble, but that's the reality.

The only way to have research done, and not have someone profit from it, is to simply lock all the discoveries from that research in a vault somewhere, and have no one use it. And if you do that... then why spend that money on research at all? Either use it to build a road instead, or cut taxes and let the public keep their own money. Why do research just to file it in a safe somewhere, so no one can profit from it?

Because that's the only alternative. If you want someone to use that research to make a product or service the people can use.... no one is going to spend BILLIONS of dollars to use that research to make a drug, only to sell it for 5¢, and make no profit from it.

Would YOU..... YOU yourself... spend a million dollars of your own money, to end up...... just without a million dollars because you are not allowed to make a profit? No. Be honest, you wouldn't. If you wouldn't, who would?

Now if you want to cut research spending, I'm all for it. Let's cut research spending.

But if you, like the vast majority of the left-wing, wants to have research spending, then you can't complain it was used by people to make a profit. You can't have it both ways.

Was all that a yes or no?
.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Mac needs to sell you on his version of government intervention...he insists on making the place cozier for his brown pet humans...He knows they need a heavy dose of commie-lite government. Sad really.

So you don't want to answer.

Got it.
.

Mac, you work your ass off trying to pitch a commie-lite version of .GOV...I’m fascinated by it yet not at all surprised as this is the brown beggar in you speaking aloud.
Look bud, this isn’t complicated...good, productive, real Americans all agree with investing in infrastructure, military, public service personnel...fire, police etc.....But NOBODY wants to invest in wetbacks, their litters, whitetrash or ShaQuita and her weed harvest....or any other piece of shit human beings.
Sorry dude...that’s just the way good real Americans think.
You still confused?

I realize you're consumed by skin color (just like your cousins on the Regressive Left, and I do love that), but perhaps you could just answer the question.

Don't be afraid. I won't laugh. It's a pretty straightforward question.
.

I’m actually “consumed” by facts and statistics which happen to correlate with skin color...weird huh?

 

[Andylusion]

free people exchanging value voluntarily...

But that is not an accurate description of what actually results,over time. To which many people working full time and on welfare can attest.

if if your only option is trying to live on a minim wage job the problem is with you with your lack of skills or education, not the wage
learn a skill get an eduction and you wont have to live on minimum wage

Ah yes, the libertarian fraud nonsolution.

Problem? Oh, I'll solve it: I shall point at peole and say, "do better!".

You know.... So I have no skills. I have no education. I failed out of college. I have no certifications, no trade skill training. I have nothing.

I was working for a company that was paying me a very low wage. What did I do? I quit, and found a job that paid more.

What do you mean "non-solution"? I literally did exactly that. I got a better job, that paid more, without any help, without any education, without anything.

How many hundreds of people did exactly what you call a non-solution? Harrison Ford, was working for almost nothing, slapping movie sets together, before he landed his role as Han Solo in Star Wars.

Chris Gardner, who was the basis for the movie Pursuit of Happiness, was a black guy, utterly impoverished, was even sleeping in public bathrooms at night. He worked hard, landed a job, and now runs his own company, and is a multi-millionaire.

What you call a non-solution, is the defacto standard for every successful person in this world.

 

[Andylusion]

I've been unable to get a straight answer from another poster on a different thread, so let's try this.

My position is that the size, scope, depth, breadth and authority of governments exist on a continuum. That a country can be, for example, "more" socialist or "less" socialist. "More" authoritarian or "less" authoritarian. "More" capitalist or "less" capitalist.

It seems pretty obvious to me, but I guess not to others.

So please vote and comment, thanks. I voted "Yes, obviously".
.

No.

You either have an authoritarian state or you do not....Varying degrees of relative authoritarian control are irrelevant.....You either have cancer or you do not.

Capitalism is an economic model, not a political one....Socialism is both political and economic.....Black markets (nearly pure capitalism) exist organically outside any form of authoritarian gubmint control.....In fact, such authoritarian tyranny is the root of them being "black" markets.

What can we call portions they are calling capitalism a cancer when laws are skewed to enrich those who are already rich? Like Obama Care, taxpayer funds given to large corporations, taxpayer money spent to develop pharmaceuticals and technologies that is then given to corporations that charge our own citizens excessive costs to use or enjoy that can be purchased in other countries for little to nothing?

Your post touches on a good point:

Surely everyone can agree that the profit motive doesn't belong in some institutions.

Be specific. What institutions?

 

[Norman]

free people exchanging value voluntarily...

But that is not an accurate description of what actually results,over time. To which many people working full time and on welfare can attest.

if if your only option is trying to live on a minim wage job the problem is with you with your lack of skills or education, not the wage
learn a skill get an eduction and you wont have to live on minimum wage

Ah yes, the libertarian fraud nonsolution.

Problem? Oh, I'll solve it: I shall point at peole and say, "do better!".

You know.... So I have no skills. I have no education. I failed out of college. I have no certifications, no trade skill training. I have nothing.

I was working for a company that was paying me a very low wage. What did I do? I quit, and found a job that paid more.

What do you mean "non-solution"? I literally did exactly that. I got a better job, that paid more, without any help, without any education, without anything.

How many hundreds of people did exactly what you call a non-solution? Harrison Ford, was working for almost nothing, slapping movie sets together, before he landed his role as Han Solo in Star Wars.

Chris Gardner, who was the basis for the movie Pursuit of Happiness, was a black guy, utterly impoverished, was even sleeping in public bathrooms at night. He worked hard, landed a job, and now runs his own company, and is a multi-millionaire.

What you call a non-solution, is the defacto standard for every successful person in this world.

Sounds like you put some effort into it, and the post as well.

Do not expect a reasonable response. Effort is basically impossible for a leftist.

 

[progressive hunter]

I've been unable to get a straight answer from another poster on a different thread, so let's try this.

My position is that the size, scope, depth, breadth and authority of governments exist on a continuum. That a country can be, for example, "more" socialist or "less" socialist. "More" authoritarian or "less" authoritarian. "More" capitalist or "less" capitalist.

It seems pretty obvious to me, but I guess not to others.

So please vote and comment, thanks. I voted "Yes, obviously".
.

you can easily find your answer in the constitution,,,
its very clear about it

So you don't want to answer.

Got it.
.

there is no answer that includes the constitution,

So you don't want to answer.

Got it.
.

It is sort of funny to watch all the people that praise Trump for sending our tax dollars to the farmers turn around and whine about the Constitution.

Or the people that praised Trump's plan to use the Feds to deal with a states homeless problem turn around and whine about the Constitution.

I've never praised trump,,,unless calling him a big government progressive counts, which of course I meant in a negative way

 

[Andylusion]

The food at your super market, is obviously a Capitalist system.

Hmm, hold on, there. The food at our supermarkets is both highly regulated and the target of subsidy programs that aim to control supply. So clearly, it is part of a mixed system.

Not really. Not nearly as controlled as you think.

Famously when Walmart started selling roasted chicken at their stores, they started off on the basis that Government would conduct safety checks. Because like you, they believed that this was highly regulated.

After one year, they did a review of how many safety inspections were done by the government. They found that out of their 200+ stores selling roasted chicken, the government conducted a total of three safety inspections, and 2 of the 3 were at the same store.

Government can write hundreds of laws and regulations. That's true, they have piles on piles of regulations, to fool the stupid and easily duped, that they are in control.

The reality is, government doesn't really control much of any of that. There are certain specific lobbying groups that have enough pull in washington for greater control, like the corn lobby, which is why Ethanol still exists as a product. But otherwise, it is a fairly free-market capitalist system in the food industry.

By the way, Walmart ditched the "government will save us" model, and they purchased thousands of wifi connected thermometers, and now all roasted chickens are checked for proper cooking in real time.

 

[BrokeLoser]

free people exchanging value voluntarily...

But that is not an accurate description of what actually results,over time. To which many people working full time and on welfare can attest.

if if your only option is trying to live on a minim wage job the problem is with you with your lack of skills or education, not the wage
learn a skill get an eduction and you wont have to live on minimum wage

Ah yes, the libertarian fraud nonsolution.

Problem? Oh, I'll solve it: I shall point at peole and say, "do better!".

I really wish you twisted and confused filthy bastards would make up your minds…Your twisted buddy francoHFW is always telling us how productive illiterate non-English-speaking wetbacks are in our nation… He claims they own homes, nice cars, they are positive contributors… Are you telling me that Americans can’t find their way?

 

[RodISHI]

[
Yes of course it is a continuum in reality. In partisan politics it is an all or nothing slippery slope game. Our politics has devolved into demonizing, stereotyping, and fear mongering. A fair, honest, objective debate is few and far between. Drama is what drives ratings and emotions and that’s what the media and our leaders play off of. We need a disrupter who can find success using good old fashioned character and integrity and intellect. Something to change the tides because we are neck deep in some really ugly crap and sinking fast

Politics has always been about demonizing, stereotyping and fearmongering....The political discourse when Murica started was far more coarse than it is today.

Get a grip.

I don’t find that excuse acceptable. Political battles have always been fought but there was also a common sense of service and respect and collaboration that was involved with governing... now it’s two sides where the others are the enemy. It’s dangerous and counter productive

Just exactly when was that? I am pretty certain it hasn't been that away during my life time.

I've been unable to get a straight answer from another poster on a different thread, so let's try this.

My position is that the size, scope, depth, breadth and authority of governments exist on a continuum. That a country can be, for example, "more" socialist or "less" socialist. "More" authoritarian or "less" authoritarian. "More" capitalist or "less" capitalist.

It seems pretty obvious to me, but I guess not to others.

So please vote and comment, thanks. I voted "Yes, obviously".
.

No.

You either have an authoritarian state or you do not....Varying degrees of relative authoritarian control are irrelevant.....You either have cancer or you do not.

Capitalism is an economic model, not a political one....Socialism is both political and economic.....Black markets (nearly pure capitalism) exist organically outside any form of authoritarian gubmint control.....In fact, such authoritarian tyranny is the root of them being "black" markets.

What can we call portions they are calling capitalism a cancer when laws are skewed to enrich those who are already rich? Like Obama Care, taxpayer funds given to large corporations, taxpayer money spent to develop pharmaceuticals and technologies that is then given to corporations that charge our own citizens excessive costs to use or enjoy that can be purchased in other countries for little to nothing?

Well it's not Capitalism. Capitalism, is when you use your capital.... hence capitalism.... to offer goods and services to the public, in voluntary exchange.

Let me give you an example. A bar tender, decided to make a product to help people hunt. He built the product himself. He traveled around in his old pickup truck, trying to sell them to stores. He was laughed at, shown the door time after time. After a while he started getting some sales. He hired people to make more of them. Now they are sold everywhere, and Phil Robertson is a multimillionaire for selling a Duck Caller.

That is capitalism. Robertson is wealthy not because of some law. There was no law "make duck callers profitable". He became wealthy because he was selling a product that people found valuable.

Now when you point to laws that enrich the already rich, that's like Elon Musk. Solarcity never made a profit, and Tesla has rarely had a profit, and last year lost a Billion dollars.

Yet if you ever see Elon Musk, he's living the high life. How that possible? The answer is socialism. The government has subsidized Elon Musk's companies for years. Solar panel subsidies, subsidies for green-cars, subsidies for green energy grants.... and the list goes on.

That isn't Capitalism. Capitalism is not that you go use government to steal other people's capital, and use it to enrich yourself. That's socialism.

Now as a special side note, let me focus on the complaint about using tax money for research.

I personally would not have government funding any research anywhere, ever.

However, one thing you need to grasp.... people on the left, appear to want to play this game where they can having things both ways.... that they can fund research, but refuse to have anyone profit from it.

This is not a realistic outcome. Nothing happens in this world, if no one can profit from it. Sorry to burst the bubble, but that's the reality.

The only way to have research done, and not have someone profit from it, is to simply lock all the discoveries from that research in a vault somewhere, and have no one use it. And if you do that... then why spend that money on research at all? Either use it to build a road instead, or cut taxes and let the public keep their own money. Why do research just to file it in a safe somewhere, so no one can profit from it?

Because that's the only alternative. If you want someone to use that research to make a product or service the people can use.... no one is going to spend BILLIONS of dollars to use that research to make a drug, only to sell it for 5¢, and make no profit from it.

Would YOU..... YOU yourself... spend a million dollars of your own money, to end up...... just without a million dollars because you are not allowed to make a profit? No. Be honest, you wouldn't. If you wouldn't, who would?

Now if you want to cut research spending, I'm all for it. Let's cut research spending.

But if you, like the vast majority of the left-wing, wants to have research spending, then you can't complain it was used by people to make a profit. You can't have it both ways.

I want a very tight leash put on large corporations and entities that are nothing more than bullies.

You don't have to tell me how to make it as I already did that several times over and it was literally stolen from myself and my husband by extremely very illegal means because they believed that we were a threat and because we don't sell out and I don't need to take payoffs in this country (well its not suppose to work that away as we do have laws if they are enforced but they haven't been). We made our million several times over and we invested back into something else. Neither of us had a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of when we started out.

In my early 20's. I was literally scrapping by on food stamps and a measly welfare check back in the early 80's and no one wanted to give me a job at things I knew about and how to do. I would not have had to be subjected to welfare and food stamps to care for and feed my small children if the state of California would have done their job gathering together child support I was entitled to. Not only that the initial judge order alimony too. I got neither for over ten years only only a few months worth after that while the ex was under the thumb of the court. He died owing me a pretty tidy sum which he never paid. (not a full story but that's the jist of it) I bid a government contract back then because I saw an advertisement for bids and knew it was something I could do. It ultimately ended up I was blacklisted because I refused to be sexually harassed. Over the years we did a lot of things in our own business enterprises that we built or started with our own money no matter how little or great it was. Now take your analogy and shove it.

People did research in private firms and as individuals before. And still do as a matter of fact. Since poverty hit us by way of crooks I've done a hell of a lot of it myself.

As taxpayers the people are spending near a trillion dollars a year for grants to colleges. It could be more I got tired of adding them all up one night when I took the time to look and see what was spent in the way of federal grant money. The greed doesn't stop. In order to justify themselves they like you they need to work for someone else or get someone else's money to make a living by rook or crook. When technology is released that the government paid for if the people in our country is not benefited from that research in the way of lowest cost medicines or new technology the tax payers don't need to fund it. The peoples research investment has giant bloated beastly abominations called pharmaceutical companies that are destroying thousands of children's health in this country with their human experimentation. And ignorant people who haven't a clue like yourself saying that should be forced on them whether their parents want to subject their children to these things or not.

You can call me a lefty as I am not impressed with your story about not having any education either. I have no degrees and walked in junior high after a few days in the 8th grade. I did do a very short stint at the local college later but did not care for the professors there and their business proposal to have me be a madame while they encouraged young'ns to whore for them. I did though faithfully study all my business books and later I also taught myself how to do various tasks that made some fairly decent money over the years,

Those regulations you talk about in the next post you make will and are most definitely applied to the small business enterprises. I know this for a fact. Hell my husband's equipment that the only ones who ran or were subjected to were us; that was Rod's older equipment that he'd paid for previously and worked pretty to hard to keep nice that we were using at the mine operation that I was fined by OSHA several times. The last time the bastards crawled over the gate while the whole thing was shut down but they were a little late because it was already decided at that point that the bank needed to cover up the fraud they committed and they'd also help cover up the fact that my equipment which they loaned money on was designed to fail from the factory so I was already basically out of business. I didn't even fall under the laws OSHA was sicked on me for. Talk about a whole lot of desperate SOB's not wanting someone else to be able to make a living if that person didn't play their corrupt games. If a neighbor goes out and butchers another neighbors cow for them without spending a small fortune on licensing that poor soul will be crucified too. Hell I could possibly raise some chickens and sell them but I wouldn't be able to butcher and freeze them for someone else without going through shitloads of licensing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not really. Not nearly as controlled as you think.

Yes, really, the food on the shelves is regulated and is often part of subsidy programs which control supply.

"Not as much as I think" only speaks to degree. It doesnt render any of the above to be false. So, you already granted my point to acknowledge the degree.