what is wrong with america today...

[sgtmac_46]

Government does not 'provide opportunity' and that is not what I said.

I do not think that 'goverments provide prosperity' and that is not what I said.

So, again, by your argument 'Saddam Hussein' was 'creative' and 'industrious'. Why then aren't we studying his methods and tactics?

That Saddam Hussein was creative and industrious IS true. That he was also pathological is also true. Apparently you can't tell the difference between successful attributes, and an individual who possess them.

This is a logical fallacy. 'If Saddam was industrious and creative, and he was evil, then anyone who is industrious and creative MUST be evil'. That's faulty reasoning.

So pointing out that Saddam Hussein was industrious and creative is irrelavent. Those are the reasons WHY he was successful, but they have nothing to do with what was wrong with his regime. He just happen to be successful at being a sociopath, and his industriousness and creative are what allowed him to rise above the level of hoodlum, to lead a nation.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I believe I am a victim of fate?

Please Dr. Freud, explain to me how it is you come to understand what my beliefs are? Because, I am unaware of that belief. It must be in my unconcious somewhere.

Please Dr. Freud, help me understand these beliefs that I don't think I have. It must be like high cholesterol, or something, cuz I'm not aware of it.

I must have hit a button for you to be taking this argument personally. I had been dealing with your arguments, not you. I can't tell if YOU feel you are a victim of fate, only you know.

However, your argument is predicated on the idea that no one is responsible for their own success or failure, therefore, it is the job of government and well-meaning people to ensure that people are successful. That is, quite frankly, wrong. That is my 'point'.

What you feel about your own life, quite frankly, is of no consequence to me. It is not in any way my intention to engage in an ad hominem war of personal attack, as I have no idea what you think, personally, toward yourself. I am only dealing with the ideas that we are debating, and as such, the difference between what you are claiming, and what I am claiming.

 

[michaeledward]

I must have hit a button for you to be taking this argument personally. I had been dealing with your arguments, not you.

Dealing with the argument's, eh?

I'm glad you get it, because it's obvious michael doesn't. ...

That michael thinks it requires a government to provide opportunity ...

What michael fails to realize, though, is that in ANY system ...

That michael thinks that governments provide prosperity ...

I haven't included the 2nd person pronouns you used is a few of the last posts, which were also directed at me.

No, sir, you were attacking me.

 

[michaeledward]

However, your argument is predicated on the idea that no one is responsible for their own success or failure, therefore, it is the job of government and well-meaning people to ensure that people are successful. That is, quite frankly, wrong. That is my 'point'.

There are no predicates in my argument.

I have spelled out, in what I believe is a consice (although perhaps, this medium requires a too contracted consiceness) argument that governments are required for the accumulation of wealth. They don't cause it, they create the environment for the accumulation to occur.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Dealing with the argument's, eh?



I haven't included the 2nd person pronouns you used is a few of the last posts, which were also directed at me.

No, sir, you were attacking me.

Call it whatever makes you feel better, michael. If you feel that I have offended you, personally, then please accept my most humble apologies.

Merry Christmas to you, sir.

 

[sgtmac_46]

There are no predicates in my argument.

I have spelled out, in what I believe is a consice (although perhaps, this medium requires a too contracted consiceness) argument that governments are required for the accumulation of wealth. They don't cause it, they create the environment for the accumulation to occur.

Actually, societies have created an environment for wealth accumulation. Governments are a product of socieities, not the other way around. Originally, the development of societies and the ability to plant crops, specialize tasks, and store resources, created an environment for wealth accumulation.

My argument, however, is that TOO MUCH government involvement stiffles wealth accumation for the majority of people. That a government that governs least governs best.

Subtle, but important distinctions.