Correct, although, the Human Being is naturally greedy.

Coincidentally, this is the same problem with Communism.

I still like the goverment policy of "With us not over us."

Luciene wrote: But it is encouraged through government tax breaks...

What do Tax Breaks have to do with charity?

For us, tax is deducted automatically, and we get money back if we donate, are under 18 etc.

*Shurg*

I wonder if that sort of thing is common.

Come on, it's not like I was really trying to be philosophical.

Thats what I was talking about: A perfect choice for everyone can't exist:
If it's perfect for one, it can't (by our nature) be perfect for everyone else.
~

Like Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of Government, except for all the others."

Communism had a nice idea, but hey, look what happened.

Post wrote: *Shurg*

I wonder if that sort of thing is common.

I believe it is. We have a similar system in the UK.

wrote:Eh? No. The Free Market means there is no governmental control over the economy, the Consumer calls the shots as competition is huge.

The Consumer is not expected to donate a large part of his income to charity.

I meant the choice part. If the government decides for you, it's not the basic part of economics.

...not entirely sure where you are going with that thought, but in a Command economy, the government does makes decisions for the people. But obviously, pure Command economies don't exist today.

I think that's Marxism?

wrote:I meant the choice part. If the government decides for you, it's not the basic part of economics.

;)

Governments are required. Free Markets have been shown to routinely degenerate into monopolies.

Sherman Anti-Trust Act limited monopolies in America; I don't know if other nations have something similar.

Luciene wrote: ...not entirely sure where you are going with that thought, but in a Command economy, the government does makes decisions for the people. But obviously, pure Command economies don't exist today.

I think that's Marxism?

Or at least what the Ruskies decieded to do.

I would think every country would have some version of the law, otherwise things could get very bad.

Does the US government have the power to Nationalize industries, à la Atlas Shrugged?

Apollo wrote: Sherman Anti-Trust Act limited monopolies in America; I don't know if other nations have something similar.

Actually, the real thing stopping monopolies is government subsidies. Those big American farmers and whatever heavy industries they have are simply not competitive. A farmer in say Zimbabwe grows stuff for the fraction of the cost that the Redneck does. If there was a real Free Market then those Africans would have annihilated the competition, Earning a hundred times more than whatever the Western world gives as Aid.

Thats because uptight white people of the "1st World" are so damn Greedy.


I'm not really ashamed, but I find it sad.
Do I sound Cynical?
I call it realistic.
In any group, there's the Optimists, the Realists, and the people who don't give a damn.
The only difference is the Realists get called Cynics, and then they call the Optimists Pussie*cat*s

I have nothing against Individual Optimists, I know several. They're just Bubbly.
As a group, they annoy me all to hell.

True, the optimism philosophy associated with Conservatism can be foolish at many times, and I do consider myself a Realist (most of the time).

However, as a human being, I would prefer to live in a happier, bright world than in a pessimistic, rehtorical and somewhat cynical world. Call me crazy, I have no doubt you will, but I believe that a sort of combination between the two may lead to a positive result.

Oh, it does. Quality of life has never been this good.

Apollo wrote: However, as a human being, I would prefer to live in a happier, bright world than in a pessimistic, rehtorical and somewhat cynical world. Call me crazy, I have no doubt you will, but I believe that a sort of combination between the two may lead to a positive result.

Why would I call that crazy?
It's what I try to do.


I call the near-euphoric people crazy.

Cue, "Imagine."

Pulling this back on topic, what does everyone here think about the baby engineering, altering the genetics for Green Eyes or whatnot.

I'm pretty sure that it will happen - as soon as we can alter genes to remove genetic diseases we'll be able to change genes for eye colour, and then more complicated things, until you can completely design your baby's appearance. And soon, as the technology gets cheaper, everyone will be beautiful, and nobody will care much about looks any more. And I think that can only be a good thing. It will suck rather in the transitional point where only rich people can get it though.

ive just spent supper discussing human/animal hybrids...was pretty interesting.