Pilot's Political Orientation

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...

When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By
religious background and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?

If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.


One wonders why it's a question at all.


Perhaps because we're a democracy rather than a dictatorship?

"Dan Truesdell" wrote in message
...


Dude wrote:

snip


Perhaps, but what about the argument that escalating college costs are a
direct result of too much government subsidy. Why did he need college,
because he didn't get an adequate high school education? Was this due
to
the effect of the liberalization of public schools?

My high school was adequate, but one does not become a Mechanical
Engineer without going to college. Many of the engineers I graduated
with had some kind of public assistance. Think about this the next time
your doctor orders a MRI to diagnose your ailment. It would be pretty
tough to do if some of us that actually design and build the things you
use everyday weren't motivated by something other than money.


All this post points out is that the government has gotten way too
involved
in our lives without any supporting evidence that we would not be better
off
without that involvement. We don't know that the author would not have
been
better off without college.

That's not the point. This was, and is, NOT about me! That is a
selfish attitude, and one I choose not to take. When will there be a
general realization that, for all of it's faults, the government
intervention that you so quickly dismiss provides many necessary items
that WE ALL use every day. There may be no supporting argument to say
that WE are better off, but the opposite is not the case. There are
many supporting arguments indicating that WE would be worse off if there
were no government (read general public) intervention. The people that
are fond of spouting that we "should let the Free Market Economy work
(our fearless leader included) seem to forget that we have done this in
the past. And it gave rise to things like Love Canal, horrible child
labor situations, Company Stores, and Slavery. Please recognize that
this government intervention that you speak of is exactly the
intervention that brought these and many other horrific "features" of
the "Free Market Economy" to an end.

snip



That same free market is what caused the MRI you are so proud to be
invented. The government didn't tell anyone "You MUST build the MRI."

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net...

Perhaps because we're a democracy rather than a dictatorship?


Explain.

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Gene Seibel wrote:


Possibly, if I thought it was better. At 53 years old I've pretty well
got my mind set on what I think is better. Others may not agree.
Doesn't mean they are wrong. With TV, books and internet, there aren't
a whole lot of ideas out there that have been kept secret. Most of
what I hear is new packaging for old ideas.

This has been true for at least 2000 years, at least with respect to
things involving people. Technology has advanced dramatically, but
people are pretty much the same as they were in Biblical times.

Human nature hasn't really changed in a lot longer than 2000 years.

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...

"Dan Truesdell" wrote in message
...
the past. And it gave rise to things like Love Canal, horrible child
labor situations, Company Stores, and Slavery. Please recognize that
this government intervention that you speak of is exactly the
intervention that brought these and many other horrific "features" of
the "Free Market Economy" to an end.

snip



That same free market is what caused the MRI you are so proud to be
invented. The government didn't tell anyone "You MUST build the MRI."

Correct, but they DID throw quite a few directives towards the people at
Love Canal.

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

That's the problem with abortion, it
controls the body of another.

The problem with prohibiting abortion is that it controls the body of
another.

When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By religious
background
and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?

If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.

It's not that it (or any other such) question is all that difficult, but
that emotions run rampant, and cloud out thought.

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Neither was taxation... sigh.


The Constitution does not provide for taxation?

Gig Giacona wrote:
snip



That's not the point. This was, and is, NOT about me! That is a
selfish attitude, and one I choose not to take. When will there be a
general realization that, for all of it's faults, the government
intervention that you so quickly dismiss provides many necessary items
that WE ALL use every day. There may be no supporting argument to say
that WE are better off, but the opposite is not the case. There are
many supporting arguments indicating that WE would be worse off if there
were no government (read general public) intervention. The people that
are fond of spouting that we "should let the Free Market Economy work
(our fearless leader included) seem to forget that we have done this in
the past. And it gave rise to things like Love Canal, horrible child
labor situations, Company Stores, and Slavery. Please recognize that
this government intervention that you speak of is exactly the
intervention that brought these and many other horrific "features" of
the "Free Market Economy" to an end.

snip



That same free market is what caused the MRI you are so proud to be
invented. The government didn't tell anyone "You MUST build the MRI."



You are correct. So the questions should be: Would we even have an MRI
at this time without public schools? Just where would the developers of
modern technology come from?



--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

"Dan Truesdell" wrote in message
...

You are correct. So the questions should be: Would we even have
an MRI at this time without public schools? Just where would the
developers of modern technology come from?


Private schools.

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...

When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By
religious background and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?

If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.


One wonders why it's a question at all.


Perhaps because we're a democracy rather than a dictatorship?



If that were true abortion would be outlawed. Every poll shows the vast
majority of the American public apposes abortion. If that is the case in a
democracy, shouldn't the majority rule?