toolboxnj

The government doesn't pay for the services, the people do. Government on its own cannot do anything because it's financed by the people. My neighbor down the street has no more right to my property than I have to his, no matter how horrible his or my suffering may be. If taxes were lowered and government regulations were eliminated, even those flipping burgers would be able to afford health insurance.

Is the movie going to be about how government intervention in healthcare actually declines its effectiveness? Certainly, government agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (and its counterparts in other countries) are responsible for thousands (perhaps millions) of deaths by not allowing the individual full discretion over their own treatment along with their licenced physicians. The best example I can give is the prosecution of American doctors that prescribe narcotic pain-killers to patients that are in chronic pain. Isn’t the doctor’s job to treat illness the way he/she and the patient see fit, not the government's?

Yes, I'm sure the American people can use this money more efficiently as well. Let's examine the morality and practicality again. Missle Defense is certainly moral, because states have the right to self-defense. I don't think this is an issue. But, is it practical? There we can explore the questions like "can it work effectivly?" and "will it trigger an arms race?" Everything, though, must be taken into account. The shear opinion that M.D. will not work is not good enough.

The Pope is the most anti-life figure on the planet, although for different reasons than you state above. His only accomplishment is assisting in the waning of Communism in Eastern Europe. Other than that, the Catholic Church does nothing to advance life in this world, which is the only world that counts.

Does Bush not have the right to surround himself with advisors that think the way he does? I would hope so. I am also against neo-conservatism, but to call Dr. Rice or Colin Powell a "puppet" is foolish. Their job is to advance the policies of the administrion, not to formulate their own.

It's not good debate to assume that something "will not work in the future". As the technology advances, missle defense will be more of a reality just as other "impossible" technologies were before it. Form your opinions as if it is a possibilty, and perhaps they will carry more water.

Why is Communism a "good idea"? Even theoretically it is a horrid system. Marx was a philosophical lightweight who manipulated the ideas of the greats that came before him into a nice, compact “theory” of sorts. It rests on the idea that man has no capacity for knowledge, that man’s consciousness is reflected in nature and that the economic base determines of the overall system (called the superstructure). According to Historical Materialism social progress, cultural and political climates are driven by the economic structure that exists in society. Therefore, the materialist believes that man’s consciousness is determined by his relationship to the world; as the economic environment changes the people’s consciousnesses evolves, rather than the political climate, or another “category” affecting the consciousness. What does this lead to? Materialists argue that man exists through nature, but deny the rationality of consciousness. It means that man does not have volition and does not have the capacity to think. Existence and consciousness develop simultaneously through observation and concept formation through Objective epistemology. By denying that man is an agent and that propagating that the world is merely a structural formation that forms a collective consciousness, the individual is therefore destroyed. Anarchy in the International System is much different than an anarchic state or regime. John J. Mearsheimer, the founder of Offensive Realism (which is the theory that you are unknowingly describing), is the first to recognize this fact. Anarchy under O.F. means "the absence of hierarchy", not authority, or that there is no “government of governments” (his words). Libertarianism is merely the absence or minimalization of government, a variant of anarchism. That's not the reason. Under anarchy, the gang or mob with the most power determines what rights the collective has, which is a misnomer in itself since collectives cannot have rights. One cannot produce if his life is always in danger because laws are subjective and according to the whims of the gang in charge. A society, even if every member of it is flawlessly moral, needs a set of objective laws and an arbiter to settle honest disputes. Anarchy provides neither. There is equal opportunity to die at the hands of a mob or gang. "Equality of opportunity" is also a flawed concept, since who is going to provide this "opportunity". Every man is born different, so should the playing field be lowered to the level of the lowest man at the expense of others? A moral government would give "Freedom of Action" as long as actions do not interfere with the rights of others, not this "Equality of opportunity" which is no more than slavery. You are correct there. The only moral functions of the state are: 1/ Police - to protect from domestic criminals 2/ Military - to protect from foreign armies 3/ Courts - to settle contractual disputes under an objectively defined law This "coerciveness" is the government’s monopoly on force. Individuals have no right to initiate or retaliate with force; they may only use force in self-defense to protect their life. Only the government may use retaliatory force, or force against those who infract on others' rights. Under a moral system neither the government nor any individual may initiate force on another.

There are pros and cons to missle defense, and I am torn by the issue. The only moral use of force is in self-defense, so missle defense is in fact, moral. But is it practical? Would a missle defense system provoke an arms race? You have first strike and second strike capablities in terms of nuclear force. First strike is your ability to launch an offensive attack, attempting to disable your opponents tactical (military) targets. Second strike is the ability for a state to retaliate for a first strike offensive stategically (cities, civilian populations). First strike is easy to calcuate: it is merely the number of weapons you have. Second strike is more difficult, but heavily relies on your ability to hide your weapons. For instance, mobile submarines are effective at hiding nukes. If you increase the second strike ability of your country, other nations may build more advanced weapons to take out military targets, thus you have an arms race. The best situation is when you have two countries that both have the equal ability to destroy each other, or MAD.

America’s Dumbest Intellectual Not to mention, he denies that the denial of the Holocaust was not anti-Semitic. But, Canadians love America-hating, so he's probably the author for you. For more intellectual honesty from the leftist point of view, I recommend Christopher Hitchens. I don't think anyone's been more discredited from the American Left and Right than Chomsky.

He's a social-libertarian. Basically as statist as you can get. States secure power in order to ensure security in the international system. Dominated by anarchy, the international system lacks a hierarchical presence to bridge the gaps between states. States, therefore, are encouraged to pursue a foreign policy of self-interest motivated by procuring more power than any state in the system. The state with the most power, relative to other states, is the hegemon; the hegemon sets the rules of the international system to their benefit since regional powers will challenge its status. An example of rule-setting is Pax Americana: collective security and economic universalism were proposals pushed by the United States at the end of World War II. The hegemon also acts as a stabilizer and global conflicts are less likely to occur in a uni-polar system than in one that is multi-polar. Of all the theories of international relations, hegemony and offensive realism offer the best explanation of how power and international politics are related to human nature and the concept of rational egoism. Canada practices offensive realism in its foriegn policy, although it isn't a "foriegn policy" per se. You won't find any "offensive realists" in the state ministry, since it's a theory of international relations. Canada will not sacrifice for another state. For instance, its unwillingness to participate in the occupation of Iraq was purely selflish, as the US occupied on selfish reasons as well. So, Canada suffers from the same disease that every other country suffers from: a need for power.

Think there were more journalists than protesters there. Apathy or just propaganda gone wrong?

He has the right to say whatever he wants. It's his private property, his time and his rep. He is just obsessed with the United States! Maybe shouldn't throw stones in glass houses.