Paul Kurtz: The Free Market with a Human Face

Paul Kurtz: The Free Market with a Human Face

Late 21st Century Man
Late 21st Century Man

January 13th, 2004, 7:12 am #1

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/ ... z_24_2.htm

The Free Market with a Human Face
Editorial
Speaking Personally
by Paul Kurtz

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 24, Number 2.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is an astonishing phenomenon: the predominant influence on America today is a militant minority committed to what might be called "Evangelical Capitalism." Evangelical Capitalists say they are devoted to individual liberty first and foremost. By this they mean economic liberty, which they apparently view as divinely inspired-"the hand of God," as it were-at work in human institutions. This is translated concretely into their demands for business deregulation, lower taxes, and free trade come hell or high water.

Evangelical Capitalists are not talking simply about the laissez faire doctrines of Adam Smith, the freedom of individual entrepreneurs to engage in commerce. They seek unfettered freedom for huge corporations that already dominate national and global markets. They oppose any governmental interference with corporate actions, for the business of government is business, not welfare, or education, or public health. Evangelical Capitalists' devotion to economic liberty is so extreme that it seemingly precludes any concern for the common good.

Max Weber, founder of modern sociology, observed that the rise of capitalism is related to the emergence of the Protestant ethic, with its emphasis on thrift, saving, and diligent effort; and also with its view that the accumulation of wealth is a dispensation from God rewarded to those most deserving of it. American workers may be the hardest working and most productive in the world, though we are now told by Evangelical Capitalists (contradicting the work ethic and thrift) that they need to "spend and consume" to stimulate the economy! Evangelicals fervently believe that everything should be left to the free market. This will stimulate economic growth; a rising tide will lift all boats.

No doubt there is some truth to this. The free market, released from the dead hand of inefficient governmental (or corporate) bureaucracy, can be a powerful engine of economic growth, as the former proponents of "social planning"-such as China and now Russia-have learned.

But surely the free market is not a panacea for every social ill, nor an infallible instrument for human progress. One cannot test every human need by the profit it generates. Those who wish to privatize everything-perhaps even social security-court enormous risk. And they disregard countless unmet social needs: environmental protection; crumbling national rail and metropolitan transit systems; declining inner cities; the demutualization of life insurance companies for the benefit of stockholders but to the detriment of policyholders; the loss of retirement funds by employees working for bankrupt companies; a static minimum wage; and the disgraceful fact that 42 million Americans have no medical health insurance.

The latter item is especially poignant: the United States, the wealthiest nation in the world, does not have a universal system of health coverage. Here a basic humanistic principle is at stake: the conviction that health care is a human right and that each person is entitled to some coverage.

The legislation now enacted and signed by the president to provide prescription aid for the elderly may be long overdue, but it is also another illustration of "too little, too late." Worse, it rewards private health- maintenance organizations, encouraging them to enter this arena, perhaps one day to supplant government-run Medicare. Nor will this bill allow cheaper drugs to be imported from Canada, a sop to the pharmaceutical industry.

Evangelical Capitalists claim that "we cannot afford" universal health insurance or adequate prescription- drug coverage for the elderly. Yet government provides massive handouts to corporations, farm subsidies for agricultural conglomerates, and a huge tax cut and the gradual repeal of estate taxes for the wealthy. Lobbyists toil for the special interests: the hogs feed mightily at the pork-barrel trough and keep the feed coming through deal-making lubricated by campaign contributions. There is a long line of suitors buying political influence. No wonder corporate profits today in industry after industry are breaking all records.

Interestingly, as the nation's piety increases, its compassionate concern for those most in need tends to decrease. European democracies are much more secular than the United States and equally committed to freemarket economics, yet they manage to supplement private enterprise with principles of social justice. America at present cannot and will not pursue social justice-because it is committed to the dogmas of Evangelical Capitalism. We need a free market, yes, but with a human face—a free market that also recognizes principles of equity and fairness, welfare and justice, and some concern for the common good.

If freedom and the free market are sacrosanct, then why not privatize the armed forces, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency? The heavens forbid. If freedom from government regulation is sacred, then why not truly defend the rights of individual freedom and privacy? Let's start with a woman's right to choose, the right of terminally ill patients to choose euthanasia, the right of any two individuals to cohabit or marry. The Evangelicals wish to regulate the most intimate part of each person's life. Here liberty ends and piety intrudes.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul Kurtz is editor-in-chief of Free Inquiry, professor emeritus of philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, and chair of the Center for Inquiry.

Quote
Share

Rick
Rick

January 13th, 2004, 1:47 pm #2

Jerry, presumably you just read 21cm man's article by Paul Kurtz. Just to keep the discussion in this thread tightly focused, tell me --very briefly-- what the top 3 objections to Kurtz are that occurred to you as you read it, please. Thanks.
Quote
Share

j.t. searcy
j.t. searcy

January 14th, 2004, 1:07 am #3

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/ ... z_24_2.htm

The Free Market with a Human Face
Editorial
Speaking Personally
by Paul Kurtz

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 24, Number 2.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is an astonishing phenomenon: the predominant influence on America today is a militant minority committed to what might be called "Evangelical Capitalism." Evangelical Capitalists say they are devoted to individual liberty first and foremost. By this they mean economic liberty, which they apparently view as divinely inspired-"the hand of God," as it were-at work in human institutions. This is translated concretely into their demands for business deregulation, lower taxes, and free trade come hell or high water.

Evangelical Capitalists are not talking simply about the laissez faire doctrines of Adam Smith, the freedom of individual entrepreneurs to engage in commerce. They seek unfettered freedom for huge corporations that already dominate national and global markets. They oppose any governmental interference with corporate actions, for the business of government is business, not welfare, or education, or public health. Evangelical Capitalists' devotion to economic liberty is so extreme that it seemingly precludes any concern for the common good.

Max Weber, founder of modern sociology, observed that the rise of capitalism is related to the emergence of the Protestant ethic, with its emphasis on thrift, saving, and diligent effort; and also with its view that the accumulation of wealth is a dispensation from God rewarded to those most deserving of it. American workers may be the hardest working and most productive in the world, though we are now told by Evangelical Capitalists (contradicting the work ethic and thrift) that they need to "spend and consume" to stimulate the economy! Evangelicals fervently believe that everything should be left to the free market. This will stimulate economic growth; a rising tide will lift all boats.

No doubt there is some truth to this. The free market, released from the dead hand of inefficient governmental (or corporate) bureaucracy, can be a powerful engine of economic growth, as the former proponents of "social planning"-such as China and now Russia-have learned.

But surely the free market is not a panacea for every social ill, nor an infallible instrument for human progress. One cannot test every human need by the profit it generates. Those who wish to privatize everything-perhaps even social security-court enormous risk. And they disregard countless unmet social needs: environmental protection; crumbling national rail and metropolitan transit systems; declining inner cities; the demutualization of life insurance companies for the benefit of stockholders but to the detriment of policyholders; the loss of retirement funds by employees working for bankrupt companies; a static minimum wage; and the disgraceful fact that 42 million Americans have no medical health insurance.

The latter item is especially poignant: the United States, the wealthiest nation in the world, does not have a universal system of health coverage. Here a basic humanistic principle is at stake: the conviction that health care is a human right and that each person is entitled to some coverage.

The legislation now enacted and signed by the president to provide prescription aid for the elderly may be long overdue, but it is also another illustration of "too little, too late." Worse, it rewards private health- maintenance organizations, encouraging them to enter this arena, perhaps one day to supplant government-run Medicare. Nor will this bill allow cheaper drugs to be imported from Canada, a sop to the pharmaceutical industry.

Evangelical Capitalists claim that "we cannot afford" universal health insurance or adequate prescription- drug coverage for the elderly. Yet government provides massive handouts to corporations, farm subsidies for agricultural conglomerates, and a huge tax cut and the gradual repeal of estate taxes for the wealthy. Lobbyists toil for the special interests: the hogs feed mightily at the pork-barrel trough and keep the feed coming through deal-making lubricated by campaign contributions. There is a long line of suitors buying political influence. No wonder corporate profits today in industry after industry are breaking all records.

Interestingly, as the nation's piety increases, its compassionate concern for those most in need tends to decrease. European democracies are much more secular than the United States and equally committed to freemarket economics, yet they manage to supplement private enterprise with principles of social justice. America at present cannot and will not pursue social justice-because it is committed to the dogmas of Evangelical Capitalism. We need a free market, yes, but with a human face—a free market that also recognizes principles of equity and fairness, welfare and justice, and some concern for the common good.

If freedom and the free market are sacrosanct, then why not privatize the armed forces, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency? The heavens forbid. If freedom from government regulation is sacred, then why not truly defend the rights of individual freedom and privacy? Let's start with a woman's right to choose, the right of terminally ill patients to choose euthanasia, the right of any two individuals to cohabit or marry. The Evangelicals wish to regulate the most intimate part of each person's life. Here liberty ends and piety intrudes.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul Kurtz is editor-in-chief of Free Inquiry, professor emeritus of philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, and chair of the Center for Inquiry.
Rick, can you do something with your code that allows one to copy and paste. It is a pain in the ass to manually write everything said that I wish to respond to so as to keep my response in context. Please!

>"...the predominant influence on America today is a >militant minority committed to what might be called
>'Evangelical Capitalism'."

I assume Mr. Kurtz is referring to the Libertarians (am I incorrect?). Of course if one wishes to denegrate an entity, one will use what might be called 'Emote-Speak'. That is the use of words that stir up negative emotions in the reader by using words in a context that insults the entity.

Thus Mr. Kurtz uses 'Evangelical Capitalism' instead of Libertarianism. He refers to this idea as 'divinely inspired' - "the hand of God, "as it were...". There is no God. I don't know the full history of the ideas that led to formation of the Libertarian Party in 1971, they might have been formed in the distant past by someone with a belief in God, but they were not formed by the non-existent God.

He continues: "This is translated...demands for business deregulation, lower taxes, and free trade come hell or high water." His statement up to "come" was rational. After that he returned to emote-speak, "come hell or high water". deregulation, lower taxes and free trade is exactly what Libertarians want!

>"...the business of government is business...".

Incorrect, very incorrect. The "business" of government is to protect our constitutional rights and nothing else! Business should be left to business.

>"Evangelical Capitalists devotion to economic >liberty is so extreme..."

More emote-speak (Evangelical Capitalist and extreme).

>"...that it semmingly precludes any concern for the >common good."

Here he exposes his socialist tendences. Feel free to move to N. Korea, Cuba or anywhere else socialism is the official dogma, Mr. Kurtz! Don't try to inflict it on our republic!

>"Evangelicals fervently believe that everything >should be left to the free market."

More emote-speak. Everything? Perhaps. I am not sure national defense and the criminal justice system would function efficently if privatized, but it would be an interesting experiment.

>"This will stimulate economic growth; a rising tide >will lift all boats."

Not if the boat has a hole in it. The current boat piloted by the R & D's is full of holes!

>"Those who wish to privatize everything perhaps >even...countless unmet social needs"

He goes on to list many currently unconstitutional functions of the Feds. Then there is that statement: "unmet social needs".

Of course, as a socialist he would have NO regard for our constitution. It is just an ol' rag written by slave-owning white men centuries ago. It's only purpose is for incoming bureaucrats to place their right hand on and (except for Ron Paul) lie about upholding it!!! Dig into your pocket and voluntarily pay for these "unmet social needs" Mr. Kurtz! Don't advocate government stealing my money to pay for it. Or you can try to steal it yourself! Coward!

>"...disgraceful fact that 42 million Americans have >no medical health insurance."

Try starting an insurance company Mr. Kurtz...you will then be introduced to myrad price-increasing government regulations on the federal level. After hopping through all those hoops, you will then be introduced to myrad price-increasing government regulations on the local and state level.
Your arguments are old, wrong, stale and tiring!

>"the United States, the wealthiest nation in the >world, does not have a system of universal health >coverage."

The U.S.S.R. did, Canada does, Cuba does. Why not move there. Socialized medicine huh. Pay a visit to
a veterans hospital or the post office there is your "universal health care"! Wealth doesn't belong to the United States (another socialist bull---- dogma) It belongs to the INDIVIDUALS who created it with hard work.

>"...a basic humanistic principle is at stake: the >conviction that health care is a human right and >that each person is entitled to some coverage."

That "basic humanistic principle" is engraned in the minds of all socialist and most R & D's. Jessie Jackson says the same thing and includes housing. Unfortunately for both and all of you...it is not engraned in the U.S. Constitution. I know, who cares...right?

>Evangelical Capitalist...cannot afford..."

More emote-speak. On and on you go! As for handouts for corporations, farm subsidies, huge tax cuts and repeal of estate taxes...we "Evangelical Capitalist" oppose all those except the tax cuts and repeal of estate taxes. IT AIN'T YOUR OR THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY Kurtz!!

>"...why not privatize the armed forces, the Federal >Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence >Agency?"

In my opinion the F.B.I. is unconstitutional and unnecessary. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution authorizing the feds. to investigate bank robberies and kidnappings. Several states have their own State Bureau of Investigation. Abolish the F.B.I. and give that money back to those who earned it.

As for privatizing the military and C.I.A. I covered that earlier. I would like to see it tried. If it failed, return to the current system.

>"Lets start with a woman's right to choose, the >right of terminally ill patients to choose >euthanasia, of two individuals to cohabit or marry. >The Evangelicals wish to regulate the most intimate >part of each person's life."

More emote-speak! Here is where I wonder: "maybe Mr. Kurtz is not talking about Libertarians". He should know we support all of the above except the last sentence.

Rick this is aimed at you: As a cryonicist do you believe in his statement about terminally ill patients? If you do then you choose and pick the rights you wish humans to have. It's o.k. to have a right if it helps me, if it doesn't affect me...ban it!
Jerry

I don't think you can put all "euthenasia" into one category. I need to study the dividing line between life and death further to fully understand why and when a person is pronounced. I don't know what to say about all the other cut and pastes you did here. It seems to me that you are exactly what Kurtz critisizes-- an evangalist for unbridled capitalism. You pretend to know something about the constitution in this regard however the Preamble mentions the phase "general welfare" which is equivalent to the common good. "Privatization" of publicly funded situations would be "theft" of the highest order. It the the Libertarians who represent thieves-- not good government acting on behalf of the General Welfare, the ONLY duty and responsibility of good government. I'll occasionally start a new thread to deal with further points you raised in relation to Kurtz.
Last edited by recreation on January 14th, 2004, 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

j.t. searcy
j.t. searcy

January 14th, 2004, 1:15 am #4

Jerry, presumably you just read 21cm man's article by Paul Kurtz. Just to keep the discussion in this thread tightly focused, tell me --very briefly-- what the top 3 objections to Kurtz are that occurred to you as you read it, please. Thanks.
1. He is a socialist 2. He wishes to inflict that tired old, tried and failed system on the U.S. 3. All his examples are (like I said in my reply to him) stale and wrong.
Jerry
Quote
Share

Non E. Moose
Non E. Moose

January 14th, 2004, 3:59 am #5

Rick, can you do something with your code that allows one to copy and paste. It is a pain in the ass to manually write everything said that I wish to respond to so as to keep my response in context. Please!

>"...the predominant influence on America today is a >militant minority committed to what might be called
>'Evangelical Capitalism'."

I assume Mr. Kurtz is referring to the Libertarians (am I incorrect?). Of course if one wishes to denegrate an entity, one will use what might be called 'Emote-Speak'. That is the use of words that stir up negative emotions in the reader by using words in a context that insults the entity.

Thus Mr. Kurtz uses 'Evangelical Capitalism' instead of Libertarianism. He refers to this idea as 'divinely inspired' - "the hand of God, "as it were...". There is no God. I don't know the full history of the ideas that led to formation of the Libertarian Party in 1971, they might have been formed in the distant past by someone with a belief in God, but they were not formed by the non-existent God.

He continues: "This is translated...demands for business deregulation, lower taxes, and free trade come hell or high water." His statement up to "come" was rational. After that he returned to emote-speak, "come hell or high water". deregulation, lower taxes and free trade is exactly what Libertarians want!

>"...the business of government is business...".

Incorrect, very incorrect. The "business" of government is to protect our constitutional rights and nothing else! Business should be left to business.

>"Evangelical Capitalists devotion to economic >liberty is so extreme..."

More emote-speak (Evangelical Capitalist and extreme).

>"...that it semmingly precludes any concern for the >common good."

Here he exposes his socialist tendences. Feel free to move to N. Korea, Cuba or anywhere else socialism is the official dogma, Mr. Kurtz! Don't try to inflict it on our republic!

>"Evangelicals fervently believe that everything >should be left to the free market."

More emote-speak. Everything? Perhaps. I am not sure national defense and the criminal justice system would function efficently if privatized, but it would be an interesting experiment.

>"This will stimulate economic growth; a rising tide >will lift all boats."

Not if the boat has a hole in it. The current boat piloted by the R & D's is full of holes!

>"Those who wish to privatize everything perhaps >even...countless unmet social needs"

He goes on to list many currently unconstitutional functions of the Feds. Then there is that statement: "unmet social needs".

Of course, as a socialist he would have NO regard for our constitution. It is just an ol' rag written by slave-owning white men centuries ago. It's only purpose is for incoming bureaucrats to place their right hand on and (except for Ron Paul) lie about upholding it!!! Dig into your pocket and voluntarily pay for these "unmet social needs" Mr. Kurtz! Don't advocate government stealing my money to pay for it. Or you can try to steal it yourself! Coward!

>"...disgraceful fact that 42 million Americans have >no medical health insurance."

Try starting an insurance company Mr. Kurtz...you will then be introduced to myrad price-increasing government regulations on the federal level. After hopping through all those hoops, you will then be introduced to myrad price-increasing government regulations on the local and state level.
Your arguments are old, wrong, stale and tiring!

>"the United States, the wealthiest nation in the >world, does not have a system of universal health >coverage."

The U.S.S.R. did, Canada does, Cuba does. Why not move there. Socialized medicine huh. Pay a visit to
a veterans hospital or the post office there is your "universal health care"! Wealth doesn't belong to the United States (another socialist bull---- dogma) It belongs to the INDIVIDUALS who created it with hard work.

>"...a basic humanistic principle is at stake: the >conviction that health care is a human right and >that each person is entitled to some coverage."

That "basic humanistic principle" is engraned in the minds of all socialist and most R & D's. Jessie Jackson says the same thing and includes housing. Unfortunately for both and all of you...it is not engraned in the U.S. Constitution. I know, who cares...right?

>Evangelical Capitalist...cannot afford..."

More emote-speak. On and on you go! As for handouts for corporations, farm subsidies, huge tax cuts and repeal of estate taxes...we "Evangelical Capitalist" oppose all those except the tax cuts and repeal of estate taxes. IT AIN'T YOUR OR THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY Kurtz!!

>"...why not privatize the armed forces, the Federal >Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence >Agency?"

In my opinion the F.B.I. is unconstitutional and unnecessary. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution authorizing the feds. to investigate bank robberies and kidnappings. Several states have their own State Bureau of Investigation. Abolish the F.B.I. and give that money back to those who earned it.

As for privatizing the military and C.I.A. I covered that earlier. I would like to see it tried. If it failed, return to the current system.

>"Lets start with a woman's right to choose, the >right of terminally ill patients to choose >euthanasia, of two individuals to cohabit or marry. >The Evangelicals wish to regulate the most intimate >part of each person's life."

More emote-speak! Here is where I wonder: "maybe Mr. Kurtz is not talking about Libertarians". He should know we support all of the above except the last sentence.

Rick this is aimed at you: As a cryonicist do you believe in his statement about terminally ill patients? If you do then you choose and pick the rights you wish humans to have. It's o.k. to have a right if it helps me, if it doesn't affect me...ban it!
Jerry

I don't think you can put all "euthenasia" into one category. I need to study the dividing line between life and death further to fully understand why and when a person is pronounced. I don't know what to say about all the other cut and pastes you did here. It seems to me that you are exactly what Kurtz critisizes-- an evangalist for unbridled capitalism. You pretend to know something about the constitution in this regard however the Preamble mentions the phase "general welfare" which is equivalent to the common good. "Privatization" of publicly funded situations would be "theft" of the highest order. It the the Libertarians who represent thieves-- not good government acting on behalf of the General Welfare, the ONLY duty and responsibility of good government. I'll occasionally start a new thread to deal with further points you raised in relation to Kurtz.
Rick is probably unable to change the Network 54 software to do what you want. It sounds like what you really want is something like most email programs do and Eudora calls "excerpt bars" - when you reply to the email it puts the message you are replying to there with > or bars or whatever at the beginning of each line so you can hack it up and reply to each piece.

A partial solution is to do the Cut/Paste (cut=copy) solution already in most Windows applications. First you highlight the text you want to deal with, by holding your left mouse button down and moving over it, then let go when you have what you want. Then do Ctrl-C (that is hold down the Ctrl key, type the C key, and let both up). That highlighted text is now in your "clipboard" which is a Windows buffer for whatever you put into it doing Ctrl-C or PrtSc. Then start your new message up, and when you are at the point where you want to deal with your buffered text, type Ctrl-V. That pastes it into your message.

If you use Eudora, you can use its Ctrl plus > command to add excerpt bars at the beginning of your current line, or at the beginning of all highlighted lines. I don't know how other programs work on that. Anyway, now you have the text where you want it to hack up and reply to as you wish, and at least you don't have to retype it all.

Here, then, is something for you to chew on, the ANTI-LIBERTARIANS! :

http://members.tripod.com/~Kevin_OConnell/index.htm

Cut and paste ...

Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

January 14th, 2004, 4:01 am #6

Rick, can you do something with your code that allows one to copy and paste. It is a pain in the ass to manually write everything said that I wish to respond to so as to keep my response in context. Please!

>"...the predominant influence on America today is a >militant minority committed to what might be called
>'Evangelical Capitalism'."

I assume Mr. Kurtz is referring to the Libertarians (am I incorrect?). Of course if one wishes to denegrate an entity, one will use what might be called 'Emote-Speak'. That is the use of words that stir up negative emotions in the reader by using words in a context that insults the entity.

Thus Mr. Kurtz uses 'Evangelical Capitalism' instead of Libertarianism. He refers to this idea as 'divinely inspired' - "the hand of God, "as it were...". There is no God. I don't know the full history of the ideas that led to formation of the Libertarian Party in 1971, they might have been formed in the distant past by someone with a belief in God, but they were not formed by the non-existent God.

He continues: "This is translated...demands for business deregulation, lower taxes, and free trade come hell or high water." His statement up to "come" was rational. After that he returned to emote-speak, "come hell or high water". deregulation, lower taxes and free trade is exactly what Libertarians want!

>"...the business of government is business...".

Incorrect, very incorrect. The "business" of government is to protect our constitutional rights and nothing else! Business should be left to business.

>"Evangelical Capitalists devotion to economic >liberty is so extreme..."

More emote-speak (Evangelical Capitalist and extreme).

>"...that it semmingly precludes any concern for the >common good."

Here he exposes his socialist tendences. Feel free to move to N. Korea, Cuba or anywhere else socialism is the official dogma, Mr. Kurtz! Don't try to inflict it on our republic!

>"Evangelicals fervently believe that everything >should be left to the free market."

More emote-speak. Everything? Perhaps. I am not sure national defense and the criminal justice system would function efficently if privatized, but it would be an interesting experiment.

>"This will stimulate economic growth; a rising tide >will lift all boats."

Not if the boat has a hole in it. The current boat piloted by the R & D's is full of holes!

>"Those who wish to privatize everything perhaps >even...countless unmet social needs"

He goes on to list many currently unconstitutional functions of the Feds. Then there is that statement: "unmet social needs".

Of course, as a socialist he would have NO regard for our constitution. It is just an ol' rag written by slave-owning white men centuries ago. It's only purpose is for incoming bureaucrats to place their right hand on and (except for Ron Paul) lie about upholding it!!! Dig into your pocket and voluntarily pay for these "unmet social needs" Mr. Kurtz! Don't advocate government stealing my money to pay for it. Or you can try to steal it yourself! Coward!

>"...disgraceful fact that 42 million Americans have >no medical health insurance."

Try starting an insurance company Mr. Kurtz...you will then be introduced to myrad price-increasing government regulations on the federal level. After hopping through all those hoops, you will then be introduced to myrad price-increasing government regulations on the local and state level.
Your arguments are old, wrong, stale and tiring!

>"the United States, the wealthiest nation in the >world, does not have a system of universal health >coverage."

The U.S.S.R. did, Canada does, Cuba does. Why not move there. Socialized medicine huh. Pay a visit to
a veterans hospital or the post office there is your "universal health care"! Wealth doesn't belong to the United States (another socialist bull---- dogma) It belongs to the INDIVIDUALS who created it with hard work.

>"...a basic humanistic principle is at stake: the >conviction that health care is a human right and >that each person is entitled to some coverage."

That "basic humanistic principle" is engraned in the minds of all socialist and most R & D's. Jessie Jackson says the same thing and includes housing. Unfortunately for both and all of you...it is not engraned in the U.S. Constitution. I know, who cares...right?

>Evangelical Capitalist...cannot afford..."

More emote-speak. On and on you go! As for handouts for corporations, farm subsidies, huge tax cuts and repeal of estate taxes...we "Evangelical Capitalist" oppose all those except the tax cuts and repeal of estate taxes. IT AIN'T YOUR OR THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY Kurtz!!

>"...why not privatize the armed forces, the Federal >Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence >Agency?"

In my opinion the F.B.I. is unconstitutional and unnecessary. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution authorizing the feds. to investigate bank robberies and kidnappings. Several states have their own State Bureau of Investigation. Abolish the F.B.I. and give that money back to those who earned it.

As for privatizing the military and C.I.A. I covered that earlier. I would like to see it tried. If it failed, return to the current system.

>"Lets start with a woman's right to choose, the >right of terminally ill patients to choose >euthanasia, of two individuals to cohabit or marry. >The Evangelicals wish to regulate the most intimate >part of each person's life."

More emote-speak! Here is where I wonder: "maybe Mr. Kurtz is not talking about Libertarians". He should know we support all of the above except the last sentence.

Rick this is aimed at you: As a cryonicist do you believe in his statement about terminally ill patients? If you do then you choose and pick the rights you wish humans to have. It's o.k. to have a right if it helps me, if it doesn't affect me...ban it!
Jerry

I don't think you can put all "euthenasia" into one category. I need to study the dividing line between life and death further to fully understand why and when a person is pronounced. I don't know what to say about all the other cut and pastes you did here. It seems to me that you are exactly what Kurtz critisizes-- an evangalist for unbridled capitalism. You pretend to know something about the constitution in this regard however the Preamble mentions the phase "general welfare" which is equivalent to the common good. "Privatization" of publicly funded situations would be "theft" of the highest order. It the the Libertarians who represent thieves-- not good government acting on behalf of the General Welfare, the ONLY duty and responsibility of good government. I'll occasionally start a new thread to deal with further points you raised in relation to Kurtz.
Cut and paste is a horrid writing style that shouldn't even be allowed. It's a disgraceful way to write. It indicates a fair degree of weakness of mind because the responder is apparently unable to grasp an article or posting "as a whole". There is no need to respond to every single point that a writer makes. You ought to be choosing a few of the most interesting or most outrageous points made and then focus on those. Sometimes, a successful attack on one aspect an article can be instrumental in discrediting the entire thing. Lastly, trying to READ a cut and paste composition is a horrible experience. I can't take it. Please stop and never, ever, ever, repeat that style of writing here. Thanks.

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

January 14th, 2004, 4:05 am #7

1. He is a socialist 2. He wishes to inflict that tired old, tried and failed system on the U.S. 3. All his examples are (like I said in my reply to him) stale and wrong.
Jerry
I'll let you get away with one joke. Now, give me 3 points he makes that you object to. If you don't, you're in full public view here. You certainly don't want to appear silly, do you? You will, if you don't bear down on this mini-task properly. And I'll advertise it all over the place if you don't.
Quote
Like
Share

Non E. Moose
Non E. Moose

January 14th, 2004, 4:18 am #8

Cut and paste is a horrid writing style that shouldn't even be allowed. It's a disgraceful way to write. It indicates a fair degree of weakness of mind because the responder is apparently unable to grasp an article or posting "as a whole". There is no need to respond to every single point that a writer makes. You ought to be choosing a few of the most interesting or most outrageous points made and then focus on those. Sometimes, a successful attack on one aspect an article can be instrumental in discrediting the entire thing. Lastly, trying to READ a cut and paste composition is a horrible experience. I can't take it. Please stop and never, ever, ever, repeat that style of writing here. Thanks.
Rick wrote:

"There is no need to respond to every single point that a writer makes."

That is a cut and paste, about the only way it can be done on this primitive forum, that I know of.

It allows one to select exactly what one is responding to, and make it clear what one is responding to. Like I did above.

I know, some people chop up everything and make tedious nonsensical replies to things that should be ignored, and also include the headers and footers. That needn't be the case, though.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

January 14th, 2004, 4:24 am #9

If you understood what you just read, then you don't need ANY cut and paste at all. Quotes ought to be used VERY sparingly. Case in point: Have you EVER in your life see a published book with the amount of quotes that "cut and pasters" like Jerry use these days? The plain answer is "no". There's a reason for it. It's a debased form of writing. You might not "get it" Moose, but at least you haven't sullied this area with the amount of cut and paste that Jerry just did, nor have you begged for "enhanced" features that allow you to debase your responses with excessive cut and paste.
Quote
Like
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

January 14th, 2004, 4:37 am #10

Cut and paste is a horrid writing style that shouldn't even be allowed. It's a disgraceful way to write. It indicates a fair degree of weakness of mind because the responder is apparently unable to grasp an article or posting "as a whole". There is no need to respond to every single point that a writer makes. You ought to be choosing a few of the most interesting or most outrageous points made and then focus on those. Sometimes, a successful attack on one aspect an article can be instrumental in discrediting the entire thing. Lastly, trying to READ a cut and paste composition is a horrible experience. I can't take it. Please stop and never, ever, ever, repeat that style of writing here. Thanks.
You could always do something like this...

<FONT color=#009DBE>Lastly, trying to READ a cut and paste
composition is a horrible experience.
I can't take it. Please stop and
never, ever, ever, repeat that style of
writing here. Thanks.
</FONT>
Quote
Share