Bringerofrain

So, are you suggesting that only crimes that produce an ACTUAL REAL-LIFE VICTIM should be enforced?

No more "driving while intoxicated" infractions?

AND, more significantly, are you in favor of ABOLISHING THE USE OF FINES AS PENALTIES?

I guess in theory you could claim they aren't evil despite destroying competition like drug cartels would do by getting the government to be their slaves as opposed to slaves of the people like intended.

So you don't have an answer. Then try this one. Why did he even  bother healing  a few lepers or curing anyone at all if  they were "already dead anyway"?   You see here again you have yourself highlighted one of those biblical anomalies that need answering. 

Tell me , who would you rather have walking among you,  a murdering insurrectionist criminal or a wonder worker that could heal your sick child and even bring them back to life?

although the poetry is usually worse

I'm back.

When I use the word monopoly for clarification I am using it liberally and just mean oligarchy .

You are quoting poems or something. We get it. Your maya angelou or some other artistic person thanks. 

What he says almost seems like word salad. A lot of schizophrenics have religious fixations and write in pretty incomprehensible ways like him. The thing that bothers me, is that I have seen people like that get better just by taking lithium every single day and yet a lot of them refuse to do so. I just hope if it ever happens to me, somebody forces me to take my medicine. I have never seen a schizophrenic actually prefer the delusional state over the same state of being. I don't want to insult him. I feel genuinely bad for him and want him to seek help. However I think you are right. I'm better off if prong him as he likely won't take my advice to actually start taking his meds anyway.

What point are you trying to make? 

Also

They pretty much strong armed everybody to build the business as well. In a capitalist society that would not be allowed. The goal of a free market is competition. We can always look at how much market share businesses had prior to and after market regulation to see if your theory is correct. If your theory that free markets create monopolies and that centrally planned economies eliminate them and foster competition we can look to history to see if that is true. 


1. Before the FDA existed there was a massive amount of mom and pop grocers and food producers. After big businesses paid politicians to create the FDA, we now get most of our foods from just 5 food producers. 


2. Before FDR put massive regulations on banks, 80% of banking was done by small banks, now it is mostly done with big banks. 


3. Once the automotive industry faced heavy regulation we stopped seeing 20 car manufacturers who competed with ford and now it is almost impossible to start a car company, unless you are Elon musk and can afford to lose billions for 10 years straight. 

You can't have it both ways. Either capitalism creates an unregulated wild wild west of small businesses that prey on people and need to be stiffly regulated or capitalism creates monopolies that control everything. Socialists in the age of FDR would be mocking you for thinking unregulated markets have less competition than regulated ones. 

That's why I believe in punishing politicians who get bad results for example. After their term take a look at some factors that would determine if society has proved or not. If not, put them in prison as a traitor. This would incentify politicians to have the correct motives. 

I would judge success on a metric such as by measuring happiness levels of the population as a whole. 

If my corporate mob kings were interested in improving society in some way, I'd be the first to offer up my worship.

I already said it doesn't affect climate change in a noticable way, it merely exports are carbon to other countries and does significant damage to america short term, with a barely visible impact long term. The only logical reason to harm America that much for long term gain of barely anything, is if you think that the minor help you give to the world, will somehow come back and help america in the future through some kind of butterfly affect. 

I'm not saying liberals are wrong, but is absurd to think they put America first. They always default to thinking of the international community first. 

Even there you claim that the long term benefits of exporting our carbon to China outweighs the short term irreversible devastation. To doing so. So it seems your underlying ideology agrees with my analysis that liberals put the world first while thinking america will benefit. (See exporting carbon example) . While republicans once the conservatives are she'd will only care about putting America first and knowing the world benefits from a better america. 

Lithium doesn't work, if you don't take it