GOP'ish candidates

[tslust]

Originally Posted by smc

Do you advocate zero government intervention in the economy? And, by extension, do you think that all things that are created for public use should be built by the private sector? How would you reconcile the public use with the private desire to make these things inaccessible or charge fees for their use? And what about regulation? Isn’t regulation of economic activity socialism? Should there be completely unfettered capitalism?

I believe that the buisness should, for the most part, be allowed to function on their own. I don't think there should be zero government intervention, some regulation is good for the consumers. I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about with the public use and private sector production. I don't believe it would be possible to impliment "pure" capitalism. As for government meddling into buisness, I believe that so long as the general public isn't put in danger by a buisness' practiecs (either through health concerns or lack of ecconomic incentives reasulting in degradation of services, ie monopolies) the government shouldn't get involved.

Originally Posted by smc

As for your “argument’s sake” question, I won’t answer for a very simple reason. It belittles the argument to compare healthcare and 2% milk, on so many levels. It does not cost society anything based on my decision of which kind of milk to purchase. I pay when the guy next door doesn’t have health insurance. That alone makes your analogy ridiculous. Ask something of substance if you want to have this debate.

By the way, do you now advocate electing the justices of the Supreme Court?

It's not that I don't understand your position. The fact is that the Court upheald the idea that the Federal government has the authority to demand that the citizens must purchase a product. And that is blatantly against the Constitution. I suppose that one could argue that the individual mandate/tax is in effect a Bill of Attainder and therefore void. The 2% analogy stems from the question of how much further will the Federal government go. What will they demand that we buy next?

I have no problem with the selection process of Judical nominees. However I would like to see them made more accountable to the people. It's interesting to note that in Article Three, Section I, it says: "...The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour,..." Does that mean the Constitution gives us a way to get rid of judges that we see as bad? IMHO If enough people sign a petition (like about 40%) saying that Ruberts is a bad justice and is not doing his job; then the question of whether he should be retained or not as a justice would be put on the ballot of the next National election. If 51% vote him out, then he has to go.

Originally Posted by smc

Finally, "provide meaningful investments" by ... the government?! My god, wouldn't that be socialism?!

It is in the Constitution, "To promote the Progress of Science..." That being said, there's too much waste and too much money being poured down holes with nothing to show for it. That's why I said meaningful investments.