World Politics

[Anonymous]

now you are talking about all the new criminals who might be produced via healthcare refore...you like a good argument...why are you not sticking with this one instead of tossing ridiculous paranoid things onto the highway....

Ridiculous and paranoid?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TJb7trBXk8

Poor audio in parts, sorry for that.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

xxxxxx...

Your best argument?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Oh please...now you are going to lecture me as to why MY state is working...god man you are hopeless...I have a real understanding why we ran your ilk and associated dna outta here a "couple hundred" years ago...

You keep waiting for that "Net" export taxation...

Unfortunately some stayed behind. Also, there is working, then there is working well. I know California is not working well and Vermont may be working better at the moment, but it certainly is not the economic powerhouse of the United States.

 

[Anonymous]

Gosh...you are right on every level...vermont, taxes, health care, the poor, capitalism in general, ****ing whatever...feel it man, you are RIGHT...good luck to you you ****ing nut...

 

[CentralCaliBike]

[too foul to display]

While I have not commented on your intelligence (you tend to give it away in your manner of argument) I have noticed you seem to think you know it all as to each of the above subjects as well. Apparently, once you reached intellectual nirvana on those subjects the books were closed and any opposition annoys you.

 

[Anonymous]

While I have not commented on your intelligence (you tend to give it away in your manner of argument) I have noticed you seem to think you know it all as to each of the above subjects as well. Apparently, once you reached intellectual nirvana on those subjects the books were closed and any opposition annoys you.

It's a problem with the far left. Facts just completely screw them up. When they realize they don't have facts on their side the name-calling starts. It's always the same.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

It's a problem with the far left. Facts just completely screw them up. When they realize they don't have facts on their side the name-calling starts. It's always the same.

- I have to admit it is entertaining (I guess that is why I am here rather than watching TV at the moment).

 

[Bala Verde]

Last time, no swearing or insulting.

Next... I'll lock the thread.

 

[Bala Verde]

Sounds very romantic

It's publicly available in the better history books. Most commonly those that deal with issues dating back further than 1776 and beyond the US border.

I tend to find romantic views of history to be far from the truth.

Me too. That's why I never got conservatism... I also find it touching that you believe to hold the key to 'the truth'. You must be a very well published and read author

Check out Ostrom's work (although I don't have any abstracts). It should be quite appealing to anyone with an interest in Political Economy.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Last time, no swearing or insulting.

Next... I'll lock the thread.

Hard to argue with the person with the key - but I hate to think that a few poorly chosen words would lock out an interesting debate.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Check out Ostrom's work (although I don't have any abstracts). It should be quite appealing to anyone with an interest in Political Economy.

I have looked at her Bio a couple of times this weekend - I have to admit the Nobel Prize does not seem to hold the same weight anymore - seems a little political to me.

 

[Bala Verde]

A right wing nut job evil employer and business owner (me) has a few questions.

I am glad to see that you don't have the answers to everything

Is anyone bothered forcing young healthy people to pay higher than market rates for insurance to provide a subsidy to older Americans?

In reply:

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

I think that would apply to those 'rich in health' as well.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

I also find it touching that you believe to hold the key to 'the truth'. You must be a very well published and read author

I have written a little (not much published) - been involved in research for other authors as well - but never claimed to be an expert in economics (although I believe I have a fairly good handle on human nature).

In general, I believe that liberalism starts with the thought that the basic nature of man is good, that most will look after their neighbor if given the chance. Conservatives tend to see the nature of man in general is selfish, or as Thomas Hobbs once stated about life in a society without government, it is "nasty, brutish and short".

Since Liberals tend to believe that man is generally decent - they tend to believe that, given equal economic access, most people would avoid corruption and be willing to do with less to insure their neighbor has what they have. They also tend to believe that conservatives are a mean and selfish aberration to the basic nature of man.

I see conservatives concluding that most men will attempt the most gain with the least effort. They believe that a large number of people are more than happy to obtain all they can from others while putting in little to no effort to give back. Culturally, if hard work is not a value and society makes sure that everyone has food and shelter, a growing number in that society will be happy with the basics and not attempt for more. The problem with this situation is that the number of those who are providing the financing of that free shelter will continue to decrease as the gain is not equal to the effort.

I have a number of friends (and a few family members) that are liberal - I do not dislike them for that, however, I disagree with their basic understanding of human nature.

 

[Oldman]

I have looked at her Bio a couple of times this weekend - I have to admit the Noble Prize does not seem to hold the same weight anymore - seems a little political to me.

Particularly when you don't have to spell the prize's name correctly.

 

[Anonymous]

I am glad to see that you don't have the answers to everything



In reply:



I think that would apply to those 'rich in health' as well.

So parents get to extract their pound of flesh from their kids right at the start of their adult life? Let's see, new in their budding careers, perhaps college loans, new family perhaps, possible eye on that first home... and they get to pay higher than what is actuarily sound so that their parents and grand parents can be more comfy?

Contrast that with auto insurance for example. Drivers without much or any experience cause accidents at a much higher rate than those with experience and are charged accordingly. Medical insurance charges more as people age because those are the folks filing insurance claims in greater scope and scale. To make the young and healthy pay even a portion of a senior subsidy is patently unfair particularly when there are far fewer young people than seniors. That is not to say they should take so much risk... they should have health insurance, but to tax the historically lowest wage earners among us.... And that's passes as fair?

The young in this country are completely screwed. There are fewer of them and they sure have a ton of financial burden bestowed upon them.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Particularly when you don't have to spell the prize's name correctly.

Agreed (this program cannot let me off with just a word of apology)

 

[Laszlo]

The young in this country are completely screwed. There are fewer of them and they sure have a ton of financial burden bestowed upon them.

Not completely screwed, assuming other conditions eg environmental etc. remain stable, I envy their employment prospects in the future.

Unfortunately, if enviromental predictions concerning global warming are correct, the future might be much more difficult. The future is usually far different from what we imagine it will be.

 

[Bala Verde]

So parents get to extract their pound of flesh from their kids right at the start of their adult life? Let's see, new in their budding careers, perhaps college loans, new family perhaps, possible eye on that first home... and they get to pay higher than what is actuarily sound so that their parents and grand parents can be more comfy?

Contrast that with auto insurance for example. Drivers without much or any experience cause accidents at a much higher rate than those with experience and are charged accordingly. Medical insurance charges more as people age because those are the folks filing insurance claims in greater scope and scale. To make the young and healthy pay even a portion of a senior subsidy is patently unfair particularly when there are far fewer young people than seniors. That is not to say they should take so much risk... they should have health insurance, but to tax the historically lowest wage earners among us.... And that's passes as fair?

The young in this country are completely screwed. There are fewer of them and they sure have a ton of financial burden bestowed upon them.

Hey, I was just quoting Adam Smith's "wealth of nations". He seemed to favor progressive taxes, and I thought this was somewhat analogous, but then from a health perspective.

The rich in health support the poor in health, perhaps also understood as intergenerational support? This also works reversely, when those older people with an income pay taxes and support the law (enforcement), fire depts, libraries, defense, infrastructure and public education etc. We also have a system called 'inter-citizenry support' or nationalism. When people in New Orleans get hit by Katrina, we (ideally) would support them in their unfortunate circumstances, because they are fellow citizens of all ages, races, and backgrounds.

I am unsure though what you are referring to here exactly. You mentioned 'higher 'than market insurance fees' before, but it seems as if you are pointing at taxes on the young as well? (I could be mistaken though)

In terms of taxes, many youngsters don't even have an income (so no income tax, rest is what, sales taxes on consumer goods), or start out with a rather low income (0-$50.000; not including the new doctors and lawyers). That means you have (as a max) around $3.000 per month to spend, and an end of year tax credit is probably worth another 2-3K since you are in the lowest (10%?) bracket.

If you refer to insurance fees, I think you are obfuscating the fact that a car insurance only applies to those who possess a car, hence a consumer of a (luxury) good. You can choose not to own a car, and therewith even forgo on auto insurance. Everyone however possesses health, merely by being a human being. Secondly, an individual's health cannot be replaced (like a broken car) and will therefore require inevitable maintenance later in life, no exceptions.

Hence, to me, health is not a luxury good and affects everyone, the young the old, the poor, the rich, the smart, the stupid and of all colors and denominations. IMO, to then say, 'hey you are young and therefore very likely to be healthy' is completely different from 'hey you are a good driver and have never caused any accidents, stuck to the laws, and behaved well'.

Further down the line, when a young person turns senior citizen, he would quite possibly also not want to go bankrupt when he'll be suffering from an unavoidable ailment. It's what Rawls called 'maximizing the minimum'.

The young in the US are screwed because of government 'divestment' through the eternal (American) politics of tax cuts leaving public institutions in tatters.

To illustrate the American 'respect' for government institutions, I walked into a Social Security office to apply for my first card as a recent newcomer. I had never seen such tacky, run down, crappy and under-equipped (computers from year 200 A.D) government office before. They reminded me of those dark, grim concrete government buildings you saw in Eastern Europe and the USSR. If image means anything in the USA...

Hence, overly expensive private education/bad public education, no access to health care, collapsing bridges, bad roads, no public transportation system, social security problems, outsourcing of public functions to private companies, who then charge premium rates to satisfy their for profit motives. Heck, even the military is gradually being outsourced, see Blackwater/XE services, whose mercenaries make 10k per month while some poor SOB who joined the army gets paid what 2k a month?

On second thought... You might be right. The government's chronic and structural underfunding of American society shall be attributed to the current and past (voting) generations. So let the young cut ties and let them say "you know what, because of you our opportunities have been eroded, our potential can't be realized without taking on extreme and risky debts, much has been privatized and become exceedingly expensive, American society has become a frustrator, not a facilitator. Screw you, we don't owe you anything". And then start their golden age of irresponsibility.

 

[Bala Verde]

I have a number of friends (and a few family members) that are liberal - I do not dislike them for that, however, I disagree with their basic understanding of human nature.

That's where we differ. I don't believe in 'human nature'.

Anyway, on conservatism, I don't (yet) seem to understand how (US) conservatives can reconcile conservatism with their positions on many issues. If you read Burke you'll see the following:

- A strong state.

- collectivism over individualism (i.e. collective institutions and traditions weigh stronger than one man's rights). The cement of a society is its collective will, the individual's connections with each other in a society that determines these relationships, and a belief in its own traditions over the autonomy of the individual, who potentially upsets these dependencies and which could lead to individualized isolation. How does that compare to the US bill of Rights, which by many is understood as the proclamation of individualism.

- resistance against revolutionary change, while allowing gradual transformations. See his opposition to the French Revolution (Compare that to Bush's revolutionary interpretation of 'self defense' and foreign intervention in a well established body of international law)

- Burke's take on 'ambition', acknowledging its strengths to achieve things, as well recognizing as it as a source of great destruction.

And then we haven't even begun to question its fantasized and romanticized interpretations of historical traditions and institutions - dating back to Aristotle and his Nicomachean Ethics and the presumed 'greatness' of ancient Greeks and Romans - that are deemed to regulate and temper man's inherent vices:

Avarice v. capitalism. If man is essentially greedy, why allow for such an excessively under-regulated form of capitalism.

Wrath v. gun control. If man is essentially revengeful, why not restrict people's access to guns.

Glutony v. barring government regulations to control people from becoming obese, or leading unhealthy lives. Capitalism is thus placed before its concern for society's health.

Sloth (laziness, disinterested attitude) leading to increased detachment from society. v. State's receding influence in public affairs, (ie. leaving education to the private sector, ie a bad public transportation system, allowing people to live alone in their cars) turning more and more people into mere consumers, isolated individuals instead of engaged, and passionately involved in the public sphere.

The public sphere in which many of the traditions of society are preserved. Under-education (the passing on of traditions and a ideas of society) should be seen by conservatism as a major problem for the future of their society. Burke for example was rather pronounced in his opinion of 'stupidity'

‘one of the main causes of our present troubles [is] general discourses, and vague sentiments’

I would therefore not doubt that Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld would be high on his list of people that would meet his scorn... And then its opposition to certain types of (medical) research that would be 'contrary to the word of God'. Conservatists valued scientific endeavors strongly "research everything, and try to preserve the good"

 

[usedtobefast]

Hey, I was just quoting Adam Smith's "wealth of nations". He seemed to favor progressive taxes, and I thought this was somewhat analogous, but then from a health perspective.

The rich in health support the poor in health, perhaps also understood as intergenerational support? This also works reversely, when those older people with an income pay taxes and support the law (enforcement), fire depts, libraries, defense, infrastructure and public education etc. We also have a system called 'inter-citizenry support' or nationalism. When people in New Orleans get hit by Katrina, we (ideally) would support them in their unfortunate circumstances, because they are fellow citizens of all ages, races, and backgrounds.

I am unsure though what you are referring to here exactly. You mentioned 'higher 'than market insurance fees' before, but it seems as if you are pointing at taxes on the young as well? (I could be mistaken though)

In terms of taxes, many youngsters don't even have an income (so no income tax, rest is what, sales taxes on consumer goods), or start out with a rather low income (0-$50.000; not including the new doctors and lawyers). That means you have (as a max) around $3.000 per month to spend, and an end of year tax credit is probably worth another 2-3K since you are in the lowest (10%?) bracket.

If you refer to insurance fees, I think you are obfuscating the fact that a car insurance only applies to those who possess a car, hence a consumer of a (luxury) good. You can choose not to own a car, and therewith even forgo on auto insurance. Everyone however possesses health, merely by being a human being. Secondly, an individual's health cannot be replaced (like a broken car) and will therefore require inevitable maintenance later in life, no exceptions.

Hence, to me, health is not a luxury good and affects everyone, the young the old, the poor, the rich, the smart, the stupid and of all colors and denominations. IMO, to then say, 'hey you are young and therefore very likely to be healthy' is completely different from 'hey you are a good driver and have never caused any accidents, stuck to the laws, and behaved well'.

Further down the line, when a young person turns senior citizen, he would quite possibly also not want to go bankrupt when he'll be suffering from an unavoidable ailment. It's what Rawls called 'maximizing the minimum'.

The young in the US are screwed because of government 'divestment' through the eternal (American) politics of tax cuts leaving public institutions in tatters.

To illustrate the American 'respect' for government institutions, I walked into a Social Security office to apply for my first card as a recent newcomer. I had never seen such tacky, run down, crappy and under-equipped (computers from year 200 A.D) government office before. They reminded me of those dark, grim concrete government buildings you saw in Eastern Europe and the USSR. If image means anything in the USA...

Hence, overly expensive private education/bad public education, no access to health care, collapsing bridges, bad roads, no public transportation system, social security problems, outsourcing of public functions to private companies, who then charge premium rates to satisfy their for profit motives. Heck, even the military is gradually being outsourced, see Blackwater/XE services, whose mercenaries make 10k per month while some poor SOB who joined the army gets paid what 2k a month?

On second thought... You might be right. The government's chronic and structural underfunding of American society shall be attributed to the current and past (voting) generations. So let the young cut ties and let them say "you know what, because of you our opportunities have been eroded, our potential can't be realized without taking on extreme and risky debts, much has been privatized and become exceedingly expensive, American society has become a frustrator, not a facilitator. Screw you, we don't owe you anything". And then start their golden age of irresponsibility.

bv, as a recent resident(you said) your understanding of the american
situation, leaves most natives behind.

 

[Anonymous]

Hey, I was just quoting Adam Smith's "wealth of nations". He seemed to favor progressive taxes, and I thought this was somewhat analogous, but then from a health perspective.

The rich in health support the poor in health, perhaps also understood as intergenerational support? This also works reversely, when those older people with an income pay taxes and support the law (enforcement), fire depts, libraries, defense, infrastructure and public education etc. We also have a system called 'inter-citizenry support' or nationalism. When people in New Orleans get hit by Katrina, we (ideally) would support them in their unfortunate circumstances, because they are fellow citizens of all ages, races, and backgrounds.

I am unsure though what you are referring to here exactly. You mentioned 'higher 'than market insurance fees' before, but it seems as if you are pointing at taxes on the young as well? (I could be mistaken though)

In terms of taxes, many youngsters don't even have an income (so no income tax, rest is what, sales taxes on consumer goods), or start out with a rather low income (0-$50.000; not including the new doctors and lawyers). That means you have (as a max) around $3.000 per month to spend, and an end of year tax credit is probably worth another 2-3K since you are in the lowest (10%?) bracket.

If you refer to insurance fees, I think you are obfuscating the fact that a car insurance only applies to those who possess a car, hence a consumer of a (luxury) good. You can choose not to own a car, and therewith even forgo on auto insurance. Everyone however possesses health, merely by being a human being. Secondly, an individual's health cannot be replaced (like a broken car) and will therefore require inevitable maintenance later in life, no exceptions.

Hence, to me, health is not a luxury good and affects everyone, the young the old, the poor, the rich, the smart, the stupid and of all colors and denominations. IMO, to then say, 'hey you are young and therefore very likely to be healthy' is completely different from 'hey you are a good driver and have never caused any accidents, stuck to the laws, and behaved well'.

Further down the line, when a young person turns senior citizen, he would quite possibly also not want to go bankrupt when he'll be suffering from an unavoidable ailment. It's what Rawls called 'maximizing the minimum'.

The young in the US are screwed because of government 'divestment' through the eternal (American) politics of tax cuts leaving public institutions in tatters.

To illustrate the American 'respect' for government institutions, I walked into a Social Security office to apply for my first card as a recent newcomer. I had never seen such tacky, run down, crappy and under-equipped (computers from year 200 A.D) government office before. They reminded me of those dark, grim concrete government buildings you saw in Eastern Europe and the USSR. If image means anything in the USA...

Hence, overly expensive private education/bad public education, no access to health care, collapsing bridges, bad roads, no public transportation system, social security problems, outsourcing of public functions to private companies, who then charge premium rates to satisfy their for profit motives. Heck, even the military is gradually being outsourced, see Blackwater/XE services, whose mercenaries make 10k per month while some poor SOB who joined the army gets paid what 2k a month?

On second thought... You might be right. The government's chronic and structural underfunding of American society shall be attributed to the current and past (voting) generations. So let the young cut ties and let them say "you know what, because of you our opportunities have been eroded, our potential can't be realized without taking on extreme and risky debts, much has been privatized and become exceedingly expensive, American society has become a frustrator, not a facilitator. Screw you, we don't owe you anything". And then start their golden age of irresponsibility.

In the current house version of the bill there are provisions that 1) force everyone to purchase insurance or face potential fines and/or criminal prosecution and 2) force the young and healthy (who represent the largest portion of the uninsured) into the insurance pool at rates that are artifically high (or higher than what actuary's would suggest is sufficient) so the rates for seniors will be artifically low (according to actuarial tables).

I think it's one thing for a child to take care of their elderly parent (in many cultures that is an automatic occurance) but quite another to force someone into a system where they pay higher than necessary rates in order to provide a subsidy for someone else's parents and grand parents. I have a problem with that just as I would have a problem with a vehicle driver being forced to pay more than what was actuarily adequate for auto insurance so that younger folks could pay artificially lower rates... AND be told that it was somehow "fair".

Whatever happened to the idea that people have to plan for a day when they may be old? Somehow because folks failed to plan and eventually need help they can't (or don't want) to afford it then becomes society's fault? It really rewards people who are the most irresponsible among us, doesn't it?

I don't think there are very many people in the US who do not extend helping hands to those who need it. Developmentally disabled, poor, working poor rarley draw the disdain of the average American citizen. Look at the help available to those who have disabilities (American with Disabilities Act). But what pity does anyone have for able-bodied people who constantly spend more money than they ever make never putting away a nickel and somehow expecting tax-payer subsidies when they need long term care (or medical insurance)? Again, it rewards bad behaviour and I have problems with it.

I'm 45 years old and pay about $200/month for my wife and I to have Long Term Care insurance. I'm paying for a policy that will provide a decent level of care if we are ever in a situation to need it. Very few people in this country have this type of insurance because they would rather vaction twice per year (or buy a boat.. whatever). I also have life insurance and put some money away for retirement. My wife and I bought our first house in 1993 and still live in it. I don't own a boat or a Harley but I'd like to have both. If I get rid of my LTC policy I could afford a Harley. So if I made that decision and later on needed care (that I could/should have paid for) what responsibility is it for society to step in and provide for me?

The "golden age of irresponsibility" has been going on since about 1960. We have replaced the "greatest" generation with the most "selfish" one.

 

[Beech Mtn]

To illustrate the American 'respect' for government institutions, I walked into a Social Security office to apply for my first card as a recent newcomer. I had never seen such tacky, run down, crappy and under-equipped (computers from year 200 A.D) government office before. They reminded me of those dark, grim concrete government buildings you saw in Eastern Europe and the USSR. If image means anything in the USA...

There is an old phrase, "good enough for government" that refers to this.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

The "golden age of irresponsibility" has been going on since about 1960. We have replaced the "greatest" generation with the most "selfish" one.

Since the 1960s the United States culture has changed it's value system - we went from valuing the individual for having a sense of responsibility, hard work, education, and independence to a society that demands individual rights without individual responsibility, a society that expects to be paid but not to give full value to the employer. I believe it is interesting that it was in the 1960s that our view on the government's role in providing for the citizens changed as well - enter "The Great Society".

 

[Anonymous]

I have written a little (not much published) - been involved in research for other authors as well - but never claimed to be an expert in economics (although I believe I have a fairly good handle on human nature).

In general, I believe that liberalism starts with the thought that the basic nature of man is good, that most will look after their neighbor if given the chance. Conservatives tend to see the nature of man in general is selfish, or as Thomas Hobbs once stated about life in a society without government, it is "nasty, brutish and short".

Since Liberals tend to believe that man is generally decent - they tend to believe that, given equal economic access, most people would avoid corruption and be willing to do with less to insure their neighbor has what they have. They also tend to believe that conservatives are a mean and selfish aberration to the basic nature of man.

I see conservatives concluding that most men will attempt the most gain with the least effort. They believe that a large number of people are more than happy to obtain all they can from others while putting in little to no effort to give back. Culturally, if hard work is not a value and society makes sure that everyone has food and shelter, a growing number in that society will be happy with the basics and not attempt for more. The problem with this situation is that the number of those who are providing the financing of that free shelter will continue to decrease as the gain is not equal to the effort.

I have a number of friends (and a few family members) that are liberal - I do not dislike them for that, however, I disagree with their basic understanding of human nature.

Wow, oversimplification of the year. You win!

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Anyway, on conservatism, I don't (yet) seem to understand how (US) conservatives can reconcile conservatism with their positions on many issues. If you read Burke you'll see the following:

- A strong state >>> basic rationale for government in the first place, protection of it's citizens

- collectivism over individualism (i.e. collective institutions and traditions weigh stronger than one man's rights). The cement of a society is its collective will, the individual's connections with each other in a society that determines these relationships, and a belief in its own traditions over the autonomy of the individual, who potentially upsets these dependencies and which could lead to individualized isolation. How does that compare to the US bill of Rights, which by many is understood as the proclamation of individualism. >>> the Bill of Rights recognizes that the United States had a young and, at the time, multi-religious/political viewpoints, that being the case we had the bill of rights to prevent an in place majority from the abuse of in place minorities in order to avoid civil war and disinigration of the state. Burke came from a society that was far more cohesive in religion and politics (although it was changing to a certain degree)

- resistance against revolutionary change, while allowing gradual transformations. See his opposition to the French Revolution (Compare that to Bush's revolutionary interpretation of 'self defense' and foreign intervention in a well established body of international law) >>> Burke had a strong fear of the nature of revolution and he was right about the violent tact it was going to take - there were several generations of violence in France and Europe that England was able to avoid for the most part because England went the gradual change route instead of revolution.

- Burke's take on 'ambition', acknowledging its strengths to achieve things, as well recognizing as it as a source of great destruction. >>> this would be difficult for any rationale person to dispute.

And then we haven't even begun to question its fantasized and romanticized interpretations of historical traditions and institutions - dating back to Aristotle and his Nicomachean Ethics and the presumed 'greatness' of ancient Greeks and Romans - that are deemed to regulate and temper man's inherent vices: >>> no one is immune the the fiction of the "Good Old Days". Although that does not mean there are Golden Ages for most great civilizations and a reason they began to crumble.

Avarice v. capitalism. If man is essentially greedy, why allow for such an excessively under-regulated form of capitalism. >>> Think about how the insurance companies might change their business model if the government encouraged entry into the market by new comers.

Wrath v. gun control. If man is essentially revengeful, why not restrict people's access to guns. >>> You will not stop violence by regulating firearms - individuals who are inclined to kill are not likely to be impressed with gun control (also, I have had a couple of experiences where lawfully owned firearms prevented violence - I have prosecuted a large number of cases where unlawfully owned guns were used to murder people).

Glutony v. barring government regulations to control people from becoming obese, or leading unhealthy lives. Capitalism is thus placed before its concern for society's health. >>> not really sure where you were going here.

Sloth (laziness, disinterested attitude) leading to increased detachment from society. v. State's receding influence in public affairs, (ie. leaving education to the private sector, ie a bad public transportation system, allowing people to live alone in their cars) turning more and more people into mere consumers, isolated individuals instead of engaged, and passionately involved in the public sphere. >>> a large number of the people I come into contact with have the vice of sloth, they also seem to enjoy welfare (mostly complaining that the government did not give them a "real" attorney).

The public sphere in which many of the traditions of society are preserved. Under-education (the passing on of traditions and a ideas of society) should be seen by conservatism as a major problem for the future of their society. Burke for example was rather pronounced in his opinion of 'stupidity' >>> again, missing the point here.



I would therefore not doubt that Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld would be high on his list of people that would meet his scorn... And then its opposition to certain types of (medical) research that would be 'contrary to the word of God'. Conservatists valued scientific endeavors strongly "research everything, and try to preserve the good" >>> there is a difference between a conservative and a "modern conservative"

Just some thoughts