Government is far from perfect, however if I had to choose I have more confidence in a disorganized bureaucracy i.e. government, than a organized, exploitative, evil entity i.e. corporations.
there's a palpable hypocrisy inherent in a thread about how the government does a great job regulating everything in our lives posted on a website devoted to marijuana.
I have an education; and you clearly feel that only those who have had there minds shaped in a educational system have knowledge and wisdom.... what an elitist simpleton you are. Arrogance of ANY form is subversive.... unshackle your mind
Government doesn't regulate our lives, corporations regulate the people vicariously through the government. You think corporations have nothing to do with the reason why marijuana is currently illegal? I'm sure the alcohol companies have nothing to do with it...
I do believe the phrase "libtard" is used quite frequently on this board. Sure, it annoys me, but I don't report people for it. Your point is moot.
That's the main reason I support a limited government. Corporations answer only to consumers in a free market, not the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats.
People reported you for that post OP?! That's fucking ridiculous, you're damn right that we hear 'libtard', 'sheeple', 'Obamabot' and all manner of condescending rubbish on here. One just has to call themself 'liberal' and prepare for some kind of snide little attack on your presumed character. In fact, one doesn't have to call themself 'liberal' at all to be subjected to being called all manner of nasty little names. I dunno, I don't think ANYONE should be reported for something as trivial as 'libtard' and 'stupid' - I mean, we're fucking ADULTS here, aren't we? Mature, responsible, cannabis smoking adults such as ourselves shouldn't get offended at the word 'stupid', surely...? But yes, I'm quite disgusted by such a double standard. /rant
It's not about efficiency or benefits. It never has been. The Boston Tea Party was a protest about freedom. The monopoly on tea was reducing the cost of tea due to what, today, we call "economies of scale." It's about freedom. Nothing else. Live Free or Die: Death is not the worst of evils. It is objectively better to be a free man in the poorest country in the world than a slave in the wealthiest richest best palace of the King, with all the best food and technology and comforts possible. Watch Shawshank Redemption sometime. There is the great scene where the main character finally escapes, crawling through a storm sewer full of shit. At that moment, he is infinitely better off than he was just a few minutes ago. Because even though he has no shelter, is covered in shit, is soaked, and will be killed if caught...he is free.
Objectively better? Not 'subjectively better' maybe? If not, prove objectively that it is, in fact, objectively better to be free than to be a slave
I can quote a local restaurant owner who fled from Cuba before Castro rose to power; "The lack of freedom is more deadly than a lack of oxygen". Awesome guy, too, opened up an amazing (genuine) Cuban restaurant, and was rated as some of the best eats in the area. I agree with SE, I'd rather be free in the poorest country in the world, than be a slave in the richest. Luckily for me, I have the power to prevent my rich country from turning me into a slave, and so far I'm a success story--however a vast majority of my countrymen are not. My job is to wake them up
Andy crawled to freedom through five hundred yards of shit smelling foulness I can't even imagine, or maybe I just don't want to. Five hundred yards... that's the length of five football fields, just shy of half a mile. When I picture him heading south in his own car with the top down, it always makes me laugh. Andy Dufresne... who crawled through a river of shit and came out clean on the other side. Andy Dufresne... headed for the Pacific.
The Green Mile ain't half bad either man... Actually, I might be onto something! If you've seen it (I confess to not having seen The Shawshank Redemption yet, which I'm beginning to feel is a grave deficiency attributable solely to myself), you'll know that John Coffey has the chance to leave prison (where he is on death row for a crime he didn't commit) - I'm fairly sure, from memory, that the prison guard protagonist actually says "Please go free, please..." or something to that effect, PLEADING him to leave. But Coffey refuses, saying there's too much pain in the world and that he doesn't want his freedom. He doesn't value freedom, he doesn't want to go free - he wants death. Granted, this is a bit different because it's basically suicidal or even a bid for euthanasia, but you see the point? Either way, it's a fucking brilliant film, the first film I ever bought on DVD as a matter of fact. Well worth the watch
This post is Hilarious! I understand your point about how "socialism" really aint that bad.... however when I read your story I couldn't help but think "Man, the government sure wastes a lot of money so this guy can live out his mundane, boring life..." I mean, is there anything in that story that would really be different if money wasn't spent on those government programs? Oh, and as for the Shawshank Redemption/Green Mile Discussion. A few things to add: 1. There is a SUBTLE difference between Andy Dufresne and John Coffey. 2. Both stories were written by Steven King. King is known for supernatural thrillers - much akin to "The Green Mile" where there is some unexplainable supernatural element to the story. "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" on the other hand was written as part of a collection of stories by King that uncharacteristically featured NO supernatural elements. It was packaged together with similar books "The Body" (which turned into the classic kids' movie "Stand by me") as well as "Apt Pupill"which was made into a movie with the same name. The book is called "Different Seasons" for anyone that's interested.
Did you know in many places in the US you have the choice to choose who you buy your power from? Not to mention, multiple sets of power lines are in no way required.
ok, who payes for the infastructure to be built? and wouldn't who ever charged the lowest per kilowat hour get the most customers and thus eventually drive out the competitors?