Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
"So you are critiquing bureacracy, and advocating more of it? Doesn't seem to make much sense to me."
Because you miss my point. I am saying tht the name you give a system, in my 'hypothetical' case Democrtic Capitalism, is pretty meaningless. Call your form of government anything you like, it's the way it's practiced that has some meaning.
And I agree with Ror. Government is corrupted by peoples desire for power. This is why I favor heavy, reinforced checks and balances. It's why I think the sytematic attempt to remove these checks and balances is dangerous. I don't care what 'ism' youre under.
|
I disagree with your assumption. This war was not done for Cheney. It happened because we've had Gulf War vets in the Pentagon itchin' to oust Saddam for a long time, Bush needed an outlet to spend money, and, as I'm sure he thought finding WMDs would not be difficult, would help foreign relations. I'm sure he thought he would get some votes, too.
Kahljorn, what you just wrote made no sense. I didn't even see demand mentioned. Who knows how much to supply if they don't know the demand? In a market economy, prices are constantly adjusting to such fluctuations. Moreover, the market rewards more efficient means of production, which socialism does not.