Boogy your statement is equally ridiculous. You need to learn the difference between morals and rights. Rights are something that you have regardless of your morality.

For example; it is a violation of individual rights to own slaves; regardless of whether your warped morality says it is fine.

Please don't confuse rights with moral values. They are clearly different things. It is my right to own property; regardless of your morality or mine. It is my right to speak my mind; regardless of your morality or mine. It is not your right to seize my property; regardless of your nutty moral judgments and your empathy for poor people; whom btw are much worse off because of your phony moral legislation like minimum wage.

Your moral legislation leaves a path of broken lives in it's wake. Mine merely stays out of peoples business and let's people live their lives as they want; as long as they do not violate others rights.

Nodice; you are implying that I'm not a responsible person? Please elaborate...

My firm belief is that the way to get the most benefit to the most people is to give everyone the incentive to make their own lives better.

It is self-evident that when government steps in and controls an industry, setting prices, providing subsidies, and otherwise interfering with the free market balances that would lead to the most efficient production of goods and services, that they are by definition making that industry less efficient. They are directly causing less overall economic output.

They are also hurting the very people they claim they are helping. The poor will not be better off, their quality of life will go down. Their health care will not improve, it will be worse.

You have the presumption that wanting a free market for health care also means that I want poor people to have less, when the precise opposite is true. This isn't a zero sum game, where the only way to give to the poor is to take away from the rich. If you raise the overall production, there is move for everyone. If more people have jobs and are providing value to the people around them, *everyone* benefits.

If it is profitable to be a doctor, or a medical researcher, there will be more doctors and researchers. There will be more services available, at competitive prices. There will be more medical discoveries that help people. There will be more affordable choices for everyone, because creative people will find business models that work, wherever there is market demand.

Government interference cannot improve this.

Well put PC

So no response to the fact that our economy is based on unsustainable industries?

IM EXPECTING PICTURES OF KITTENS! hehe

No but really idk what I will do if Obama is reelected. I mean the other day Michelle Bachmann was starting to sound good. You know thats when things are really getting bad. :P

Ps I was responding to the first page. Tbh I stopped reading deads rants long ago.

Deadcode I don't really know your qualifications to be giving me a lesson on political and moral philosophy, but not even your girl Ayn Rand agrees with your claim that rights, including property rights, exist independently of morality:

"“Rights” are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law."

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_man_rights

Boogy; Ayn Rand considers morality to be objective; meaning; there is ONE morality. All other moralities her view are not moralities because they do not work towards the best interest of the individual.

So I was not speaking of morality in the Objectivist sense. Like I said before; I'm not an Objectivist.

When speaking in terms of morality as a subjective thing; what I said above is correct.

To sum up; I was speaking in terms of 'rights be objective and morals being subjective. Ayn Rand is speaking of rights and morals as being objective.