Spew All About Politics Here

[Anathema]

Then what do you propose, Edric? A static system?

The only real solution is that man learns to strife for immaterial wealth rather then material.

[emprworm]

Altough, perhaps in yours, Joanna might start building huge bonfires to keep her house warm, using up all the wood. What's to stop her? In anothersystem, the resouces could be approportioned, or its use specified by the community.

Incorrect. Capitalism does not necessitate depletion of natural resources. On the contrary, in my society there will be a government, and there will be an objective moral law. The government will impose regulation. Now, on Joanna's private property, she of course is free to consume all her resources. Government land will be available for resource comsumption under scientific regulation. (example, hunters may hunt deer but will have restrictions on how many they can kill based upon deer population). This kind of regulation is quite typical in most capitalistic societies.

"The same 50 units changed hands over and over again, each time it changes hands, wealth grows. Assets increase. The key to the capitalistic economy is that money changes hands"

That may be true, but what you get in is still what you get out - the same improvements could be done in any non-capitalist system, and especially in a system based on co-operation, rather than people's 'rights' not to.

i responded to this already. You responded that motivation and competition is against yourself. This is patently impossible. Self motivation is a weak force, extremely weak. This is plainly seen all over the world. How many people can quit smoking or lose wieght alone? Very FEW. How many athletes can gain their level of talent if they only competed against themself? Cmon Nema, you can do better than that. In fact, your proposed society itself requires external competition. I have read you requesting numerous times for people to find 'flaws' or 'weaknesses' in your argument so that you can fine tune it. You contradict yourself, Nema. You are debating with me and with others regarding your proposed society. One purpose of you debating with me and others is so that you can IMPROVE your proposed government. You specifically asked TMA (I think thats who it was) to review your argument and find potential flaws so that you could improve it. Hence, you are using competition just to compose your argument. So, in effect, you use competition to IMPROVE your argument that there should be no competition! LOL! :)

Think how much weaker your argument would be right now had you received no critical analysis of it.

Lets admit the truth, Nema. People are natural competitors (as you and Edric have proven yourselves to be simply for having these debates- but thats not a bad thing though) - it is the conduit for human progress. The moment you remove competition, your society will come to a screeching halt. I think you know this deep down, and it is your primary fundamental problem in your society.

"Money changes hand. Wealth increases. Economy increases.

You see?"

I see that this is indeed the case within a capitalist system, provided the flow of money is roughly circular. If it isn't, then it accumulates in one area, and we get problems when other areas have too little money to

But this means that for the system to work, no-one can be greedy, else they will keep all the money and/or waste it.

greediness does not invalidtae capitalism. People are greedy no matter what government is in place. Your society will not stop greed. in fact, I propose your entire society is based on it. I resent the idea of someone taking another persons money and giving it to me just because I might not be as rich as everyone else. I would hope that I would be morally upstanding enough to refuse it and throw it back in your face. You dont understand, Nema, i DONT WANT someone else's wealth. Blessed are the poor. I have no problem living a life lacking material items. THere is great wealth all around me in this amazing universe. And no government can redistribute it (thank God)

So instead they are thankful for what they have, and have no incentive to improve?

of course they have incentive to improve. Enter Jason who invents a better cart.

Or do you teach them to work for each other? In which case, capitalism is obsolete, when you could have a system designed so that we could do that best!

you teach them that cooperation is a good thing. ANd let them freely decide if they want to cooperate or not.

The profit with a capitalists system is that it is incredibly vulnerable to greed. And, since greedy people exist, and are unlikely to simply stop, they continue to be greedy at the expense of others.

At whos expense? The Enron executives were greedy at stockholders expenses and they were breaking the law. They were punished. If you are committing fraud or racketeering, its illegal, and you get punished. Microsoft was monopolizing, and they too were punished. Its illegal. Intel invented a remarkable computer chip. Everyone wanted one. They made millions. At the expense of no one. YOu are so locked into this "greed" thing Nema. You mention it over and over again. I think this is the fundamental pillar of your system. Yet you have a very shallow view of it. There is much greed in everyone. And there are laws to prevent the kind of abuse you are opposing. Those laws already exist . Revolution not required.

Say, for example, Fred, as the only person who has the skill to build good houses, decided that he won't do it for less than 20 units, so that he can make a profit. Everyone really wants a house, so they must bow to Fred's 'right' to choose his price. (Or does the troll step in here? If so, where does he draw the line between profit and extortion? And how does it justify the existence of such a line?)

Education alone won't stop him being greedy, emprworm. We need regulations to stop Fred extorting money from the other villagers.

its called laws forbidding monopolies. Already have it. Revolution not necessary.

What I really want you to explain is whay it is better for individuals to invest, and expect profit for themselves (and at the expense of others (either the workers get paid less, or customers pay more - for no good reason)), than for government to invest license to use resources - a more direct solution, and the government will not require profit for itself, but REAL gain for all. Please answer this first.

first of all, it is not at the expense of others. you havent shown that at all. I showed you a graph of the Dow Jones since 1930. Everyone who invested and held... EVERYONE rich and poor alike...made money. Before you continue along this "at someone else's expense" line of reasoning, you need to debunk my evidence.

One comment to Edric:

ENTROPY. An isolated system can only decay, NOT develop. In the end, the source of all profit is input from outside the system. In our case, this input comes in the form of natural resources.

Edric, the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to human intelligence. Therefore you absolutely cannot use it regarding an economy which is inexorably tied to human progress which is inexorably tied to human intelligence.

Have you ever seen stonehenge? It is an ancient astronomical clock of some sort. At the time it was built, it was technologically advanced. Today, we have the Hubble telescope. So we go from stonhenge --> Hubble. I'd say entropy was no where to be found in that equation. Yet Hubble would not be here today if it werent for competition.

I already demonstrated a scenario how everybody wins. THe only resource used in my demonstration was wood, which can be easily replenished. THe end society was far greater than the starting society. The laws of entropy apply only to matter and energy (have you read the law at all--?) and are null and void in reference to human progress.

[Anathema]

Government land will be available for resource comsumption under scientific regulation. (example, hunters may hunt deer but will have restrictions on how many they can kill based upon deer population). This kind of regulation is quite typical in most capitalistic societies.

But this kind of restrictions aren't present in (all) commerce treaties. The woods in South America are still being cut because of the demand for lumber in the US and in Europe.

[Edric O]

The laws of entropy apply only to matter and energy (have you read the law at all--?) and are null and void in reference to human progress.

Last time I checked, humans were made of MATTER and required ENERGY to sustain themselves.

Have you ever seen stonehenge? It is an ancient astronomical clock of some sort. At the time it was built, it was technologically advanced. Today, we have the Hubble telescope. So we go from stonhenge --> Hubble. I'd say entropy was no where to be found in that equation.

Oh please. You know as well as I do that humanity in itself is not an isolated system. We went from Stonehenge to Hubble by exploiting the resources of the Earth. ANY increase in order (anywhere and in any form) causes a decrease in order somewhere else in the universe. In your example, humanity advanced at the expense of the environment. And some parts of humanity advanced at the expense of other parts of humanity. But we can't go on like that forever.

You cannot grow forever. When capitalism runs out of space/resources to grow, it comes crashing down.

Yet Hubble would not be here today if it werent for competition.

Nuclear weapons would not be here today if it weren't for competition.

We can easily move forward without competing with each other, as Nema showed in his post. Moreover, unlike the one caused by competition, this advancement will not be reckless.

[Anathema]

Edric, could you possibly make a summary of what your society would look like? Otherwise we'll have to view every page to gather bits of it.

[emprworm]

Edric, the more I hear you say this, the more you sound like an atheist. You are proposing an exact argument that atheists propose. THey believe matter and energy is all that exists, hence human intelligence is subject to entropy. This argument that human intelligence is immune to entropy is actually a good argument for creation. Entropy states that all systems go from order to disorder. Knowledge works in the oppositte direction, in a closed system or open system. If you put a human being into an impervious shell, his body will begin to shut down (most certainly since he has no energy to sustain it), yet his knowledge will actually increase. He will learn about his environment. he will contemplate his impending doom. His intelligence will increase. Edric, from a fellow creationist, dont use an atheist argument to support your societal beliefs, it's not worth it. Intelligence is neither material or immaterial. It is not subject to natural laws. I think an atheist is in a tough place to show how it could be. I believe that all humans have souls, and that those souls are also immaterial. These are components of humans that are not bound to entropy. All humans who belong to the Kingdom of God will spend eternity learning. You will never stop learning. After 1 trillion years, we will still be learning about the wonders of the infinite God.

[Anathema]

As I recall, Edric once mentioned he believed in the evolution theory.

[emprworm]

Nuclear weapons would not be here today if it weren't for competition.

true, yet there is no way you will eliminate violence. under any circumstances. competition, like a knife is neither good nor evil. some competition brings forth evil things, other competition brings out good things. competition brought forth nuclear weapons, but it also brought forth nuclear power, and an entire new dimension of physics- greatly enhancing human knowledge regarding our universe to a degree never before even imagined. Thanks to competition, which brought both the evil nuclear weapon and the precious, immensely important knowledge of atomic theory and nuclear power, this is the only way mankind can be saved from the impending and inevitable depletion of oil.

earthnuker, I did not know the US is using lumber from the Amazon. Please cite your source. I had no idea about this.

[Anathema]

You didn't know about lumber from South America? It's pretty well known down here- I'll try to find a source to confirm it.

Of course a weapon itself is not evil, but I wouldn't put to much confidence in human nature. We have to protect ourselves from ourselves.

[Anathema]

Here's one:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Deforestation/

Most trees are cut down for commercial logging or for agricultural expansion.

[emprworm]

Brazil had an international debt of $159 billion in 1995, on which it must make payments each year. The logging companies seek to harvest the forest and make profit from the sales of pulp and valuable hardwoods such as mahogany.

it doesn't specifically say the US. you said specifically that the US has all this demand for lumber and that was why it was being cut down. I didnt read that in this article. do you have any other sources.

[Anathema]

I said US and Europe. I'll find a few other sources.

[nemafakei]

I would like to know something. Would you continue to oppose my system, no matter how much I prove to you? Given that you seem to be attacking only the periphery of the idea, I get the feeling you oppose it simply because you refuse to accept I may be correct.

If I sound angry, I am merely a little frustrated. Please do not take it as anything nasty.

"This kind of regulation is quite typical in most capitalistic societies"

Within each society, perhaps, but not across borders. Some countries simply decide they can take a bigger slice of what is available than what they require or deserve, and different countries have different degrees of regulation. (example in Lake Titicaca, the peruvians might allow twice as much fishing as the bolivians, and so deplete the fish supply of the lake as a whole. There are no regulations to stop this.)

"So, in effect, you use competition to IMPROVE your argument that there should be no competition!"

There is a big difference between constuctive criticism and competition for competition's sake. Even my own argument seems to benefit more from people who agree with my ideas, but wish to refine them, than people who oppose them, and find (or try to make) flaws where there are none.

"People are greedy no matter what government is in place"

Maybe so, but we can at least try to stop greed having an effect! There are people who might want to kill others - we must prevent them from realising this! In the same way, we are, in my system, able to ensure that, even if people remain greedy, they are not able to do anything about it.

"I have no problem living a life lacking material items"

Good for you. Now, I'm off to help those who are in need, and are a little annoyed that they have no clean drinking water, yet work far harder than you can imagine.

Now, are you deliberately reading and responding to only part of each point?

"You dont understand, Nema, i DONT WANT someone else's wealth."

Go back and read my system again. Nowhere did I say that I was going to take anyone's earnt wealth. Nowhere. That may be communism, even socialism, but I am neither communist nor socialist, and I'd than you if you class me as neither.

You will have your own wealth. You will earn it yourself, as will everyone else. And even if you don't want to have what you earn, others might want to earn from their work.

"Enter Jason who invents a better cart."

Think about what I said. What is his incentive to improve? How come he made a better cart? Does he seek to improve for himself, for others, for the hell of it? I don't just ask questions for the good of my health.

-Or does the troll step in here?- "its called laws forbidding monopolies"

That has answered the first question; the answer to that was far less important than to the other two:

If so, where does he draw the line between profit and extortion?

(ie - how much profit can people make, before the laws will start?)

And how does it justify the existence of such a line?

(ie What is the difference between someone who is sensible enough to make more profit than necessary- but not enough to get caught, and someone who makes a bit more profit, and is accused of monopolising?)

"Everyone who invested and held... EVERYONE rich and poor alike...made money"

I've replied to this twice - are you not getting the picture?!

I agree that the people who invested won, be they rich or poor. That is not in doubt. It is the people who DID NOT invest that lost out! Tell me exactly how the people whose wages were cut to provide money for the investors won, and tell me exactly how the companies who had been in competition against the Dow Jones companies ans so on were also winners.

I have now proven your evidence to be irrelevant three times. Please either refute this with new, valid logic, or I will take it that you accept that your evidence does not show that everyone wins in a capitalist society.

"first of all" Where is the second and more constructive part?!

You have not responded to the most important part of my post!

Why is it better for individuals to invest, and expect profit for themselves, than governments, who decide specifically for the benefit of all?

[ken124578]

Go nema fakei!

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Nema is angry?

;)

Though, Nema's reply makes more sense.

[The_Sadukar]

(Gathers my freinds for a Nema Fakeiistic coup, and starts to speak) "The has come to bring justice to all, and bring down the vile danish goverment"

[Inoculator9]

I agree, you should address the topic more directly.

[emprworm]

I would like to know something. Would you continue to oppose my system, no matter how much I prove to you? Given that you seem to be attacking only the periphery of the idea, I get the feeling you oppose it simply because you refuse to accept I may be correct.

I would be more willing to consider it, if it did not contain contradictory flaws in its philosophy. Earlier you criticized competition. I pointed out that your argument itself was drafted in and is flourishing under competition. This is a glaring contradiction. In your response you now redefine your original view of competition, which I will address in a bit, but does leave me to throw my hands up and sigh.

If I sound angry, I am merely a little frustrated. Please do not take it as anything nasty.

oh no, its quite ok. You of all people deserve to get emotional at times. You are always so calm. I am an emotional wreck in here. 8)

Within each society, perhaps, but not across borders. Some countries simply decide they can take a bigger slice of what is available than what they require or deserve, and different countries have different degrees of regulation. (example in Lake Titicaca, the peruvians might allow twice as much fishing as the bolivians, and so deplete the fish supply of the lake as a whole. There are no regulations to stop this.

all this shows is a common need in capitalistic nations to reach agreements regarding the environment. Such as hunting whales, sharks, ect.

Preserving the environment is not contrary to capitalism. I am surprised you keep bringing this up, because you should know better.

"So, in effect, you use competition to IMPROVE your argument that there should be no competition!"

There is a big difference between constuctive criticism and competition for competition's sake. Even my own argument seems to benefit more from people who agree with my ideas, but wish to refine them, than people who oppose them, and find (or try to make) flaws where there are none.

ok here we go. You have said that people point out flaws which do not exist. You are making a stand here...a stand to which you wont back down. You are empirically declaring no flaws while someone else empirically declares there are flaws. Looks like a good old fashioned stand off. Perfectly fine, and acceptable. Progress is rarely made when all people think alike. If two people think alike, one person is not thinking, as I always say. Competition is NECESSARY or human growth will die. And as for "competition for competition's sake" I'm not sure what that even is, but if you are going to try to banish competition, just who in the world do you think you are? Are you going to tell 2 people who are playing a game of 1 on 1 basketball that they need to stop because Nema says "this isn't good for society?". Are you now going to regulate what people do and what time they have to sit on the toilet each day? Just how much power are you after here, Nema? You seriously are scaring me.

"People are greedy no matter what government is in place"

Maybe so, but we can at least try to stop greed having an effect!

yea. lets lock them all up in a cage. give them food and water, but thats about it. Then we will never see any effect of greed. :P

I just dont get it. You want to regulate people's decision making AND their belief system. I have one word for it: infringement

There are people who might want to kill others - we must prevent them from realising this!

you cant. you never will. o wait, you can lock them up. Solitary confinement should do it.

And if you really truly believe this, Nema, then why aren't you backing the US president George Bush to disarm Hussein? Or do we just let any maniac get nuclear weapons?

In the same way, we are, in my system, able to ensure that, even if people remain greedy, they are not able to do anything about it.

because they have no freedom.

"I have no problem living a life lacking material items"

Good for you. Now, I'm off to help those who are in need, and are a little annoyed that they have no clean drinking water, yet work far harder than you can imagine.

i know they work hard. I hope they have water to drink. I know the problem exists and I acknowledge the problem. I do not blame capitalism for it. The problem existed long, long, before the US capitalistic economy was ever even conceived. We both recognize the problem, but we do not agree with the solution because we do not agree to the cause.

Go back and read my system again. Nowhere did I say that I was going to take anyone's earnt wealth. Nowhere. That may be communism, even socialism, but I am neither communist nor socialist, and I'd than you if you class me as neither.

for your system to be implemented, you must take wealth by force. and once it is in place, society will die a slow death because no one will really care since their freedoms are curtailed and their motivation dissappaited.

You will have your own wealth. You will earn it yourself, as will everyone else. And even if you don't want to have what you earn, others might want to earn from their work.

no i wont. the wealth does not belong to me. There is no such thing as wealth in your system. i read it and I see no allowance for wealth. private property is a deception.

"Everyone who invested and held... EVERYONE rich and poor alike...made money"

I've replied to this twice - are you not getting the picture?!

I agree that the people who invested won, be they rich or poor. That is not in doubt. It is the people who DID NOT invest that lost out!

this is such a poor response. It makes no sense. It is meaningless. Its like saying "those who did not go to India did not see the Taj Mahal". Or "Those who did not go to the hospital last week did not go to the hospital" What are you trying to say?

When I was a senior in highschool, we had went on a field trip. Anyone had the option of going. Those who chose to go on the field trip went on the field trip. Those who chose to stay home, well, they didn't go on the field trip.

And we can also say the same thing here: Those who did not invest in the Dow Jones did not earn capital gains.

uh...and?

people who did not invest in the Dow Jones did not lose...they didn't gain, just like people who didnt go on the field trip didnt get to ride the bus. Its kind of a given. But calling them losers? Rediculous.

Tell me exactly how the people whose wages were cut to provide money for the investors won,

wages increased. They have been doing so for the last 100 years. So I guess there's really nothing to say. And now, the US Per capita is 33,000 bucks. Even the poorest person in the US is making bank compared to ppl 100 years ago. A few losers, but such will always be where you have freedom, equality, and capitalism, but most are winners. The only real losers in my country are the people that don't care. Can't help them. They dont want to be helped.

and tell me exactly how the companies who had been in competition against the Dow Jones companies ans so on were also winners.

the dow jones changes, and there are plenty of other companies that also won. I showed you more than one graph. did you not see the nasdaq? you are adamant that there are always losers, this flies in the face of reality and the fact that I showed clearly how a simple capitalistic system can produce where there are no losers. your theory is debunked as far as I am concerned.

I have now proven your evidence to be irrelevant three times. Please either refute this with new, valid logic, or I will take it that you accept that your evidence does not show that everyone wins in a capitalist society.

uhhh...well, my evidence already has shown it. And my example of Ashton holds well. You are just assuming there are always losers, which is a narrow econonomic view of capitalism, yet you have not really cited any. All you can cite as far as losers go are third world countries. And thus this is the pillar of your argument. You and Edric both. The entire sum of your argument rests on this one assumption: The third world poverty is the result and/or enablement of capitalism. You will have to show me how its current status is the result of capitalism, to which I would challenge you to do. Edric has not done so, but maybe you can.

Why is it better for individuals to invest, and expect profit for themselves, than governments, who decide specifically for the benefit of all?

Because I want to be free to decide what is best for me, and not a government or Nema or Edric that doesn't have a clue about me or what I want. And I believe that others should have the freedom to make that same choice.

[Edric O]

So your main argument is freedom, Emprworm? Then you should be an anarchist.

Freedom has no innate value. Freedom is only a tool that people use to make themselves happy. Happiness is the final purpose, not freedom.

Would you rather be free, but starving and miserable, or would you sacrifice a little bit of that freedom for happiness?

Capitalism gives you the freedom to be miserable and die of starvation. Capitalism gives you the freedom to abuse other people for the purpose of satisfying your own insatiable greed. I want none of that "freedom". And if other people agree with me, we should have the right to throw away your capitalist nightmare and create a better world for ourselves.

People do not have the freedom to make other people unhappy. That is part of my philosophy.

Just like you sacrifice a little bit of your freedom to allow the government to enforce laws and keep public order, we want to sacrifice a little bit of our freedom so that all the people can be happy and live pleasant lives.

[Edric O]

If you put a human being into an impervious shell, his body will begin to shut down (most certainly since he has no energy to sustain it), yet his knowledge will actually increase. He will learn about his environment. he will contemplate his impending doom. His intelligence will increase. Edric, from a fellow creationist, dont use an atheist argument to support your societal beliefs, it's not worth it.

Ah, but I am not a fellow creationist... only a fellow christian.

Even human intelligence must bow down to the laws of entropy within this universe. In your example, the trapped person would gain some knowledge in his last moments, but then he would die, and all that knowledge would be gone. Entropy wins again.

Of course, he would take his knowledge with him to heaven/hell, but those are not part of our universe. So as far as the universe is concerned, human intelligence IS bound by entropy, just like everything else.

[emprworm]

entropy applied to his body, Edric. Not his intelligence. People can learn until their body shuts down with their actual knowledge itself never in a state of decay. If that man records his knowledge, then the next guy in line picks it up. People's bodies shut down, their knowledge increases. This is actually a good argument for creation. Human knowledge is not subject to entropy.

And I really do not see how you can be a christian without being a creationist. Do you not read the Bible, Edric?

"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. " - John 1

Or is that verse just another "allegory?"

So your main argument is freedom, Emprworm? Then you should be an anarchist.

I described this in detail. My main argument is freedom with an objective moral law in which all people are bound to. A government must be in place to enforce and uphold the objective moral law. While in place, laws governing the society are necessary in order to protect and serve the people, to administer justice for crime, and to protect the environment.

This is no infringement upon freedom. Nema is infringing, I am not.

People do not have the freedom to make other people unhappy.

rediculous. I make people unhappy just by the virtue that I am a Christian. I can drive my car on the road and someone will be unhappy about me. And your government will make me unhappy.

Where...o where do you guys get such ideas? Governments job is not to make people happy, that is beyond absurd.

You do not have the right to infringe upon another persons protected rights. Happiness is irrelevant. People may be unhappy with you for various reasons. Big deal. I made you unhappy at times with my debating. So I go to prison now? Cmon Edric. Wake up my friend. You cannot dole out happiness like some sort of food bank handing out loaves of bread.

You going to lock someone up because he wore a red shirt and it made someone unhappy?

lol. ok man.

[Anathema]

for your system to be implemented, you must take wealth by force. and once it is in place, society will die a slow death because no one will really care since their freedoms are curtailed and their motivation dissappaited.

You base your entire argumentation on the assumption people need money to be motivated. It is our nature to seek wealth and happiness for ourselves- but we're not animals! In your society people will always strife to be rich, but only a very small percentage will ever become rich- it's like sitting on a donkey and hanging a carrot in front of his nose. The donkey will always walk, in hope that he will reach the carrot, but he never will. In your system, the rich elite are the donkey riders and the poor, yet motivated masses are the donkeys. You may feed them a piece of carrot every now and then, but it will not make them happy.

People do not need money to become motivated. The people in Japan worked their asses of after WO II, initially with at most modest living conditions. Now I agree that a non capitalist system wouldn't work in America- or the EU. That's because of the reason we teach our children to be greedy.

I'm sure you want to cite now how bad communism always turns out- let us take a look at Cuba. Cuba is way more wealthy then most Central American nations. When Castro took over, Cuba was a sh1t poor farming island. Now they have high quality health care and education for their children (in fact, Cuba has more docters per capita then the US).

When Castro took over, all the rich bastards that worked for the facist (American puppet) Batista weren't willing to share their money with the masses they exploited during Batistas rule- so they left with their fat wallets and headed for America. Of course Cuba isn't the wealthiest nation in the world!

If you want a more glamorous job then farmer, fine, work for it. If a doctor wouldn't earn more then a farmer, I'd still rather be a doctor. Besides, a doctor earns more respect then a farmer.

[Edric O]

Emprworm, there is a difference between "annoyed" and "unhappy". If I wore a red shirt and someone didn't like it, that means he got annoyed.

But if I'm a greedy employer who only uses his employees as paid slaves to make him profit, then I'm making people unhappy.

Or to make things clearer, change "unhappy" with "miserable" in my statements. That's what I meant. THAT kind of "unhappy".

Obviously, Emprworm, we disagree on a fundamental level, including the role of the government. The job of any public organization, including any government, is to make people happier! That's what it's all about! Freedom, protection, justice... they're all TOOLS by which to achieve happiness!

And since my government is run BY THE PEOPLE, there will be no abuse.

[Acriku]

The government's only duty is to serve the people. When it cannot fully fulfill that duty, the people have the right to take over and start a new one. Guess where that came from...

[Edric O]

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. " - John 1

Yes. And what's your point? This verse doesn't support Creationism. God made the universe, of course. The only thing we disagree on is just how He made it. Is that really so important?

Anyway, let's not turn this into a religious debate. There are other topics for that.