• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teddy Roosevelt tried to reform campaign finance, but also lined his own pockets!

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There's a difference between following a process you want reformed and following a process you want abolished. Would you call republicans hypocrites for criticizing deficit spending while participating in deficit spending? I'd say they're hypocrites, and so do the democrats who are in power.



I don't have a real choice. T.R. did.



You don't have a choice. T.R. did.

No, he didn't, in order to get elected, because back then corporations were the only ones with the money available to raise the contributions needed to get politicians elected. You have to remember the difference in media back then and today. Back then, every politician was beholden to business interests. It's just that they were beholden to different factions of business interests.

For example, the Republican Party was beholden to the business interests of the industrialists in the North, while the Democratic Party was beholden to the business interests of the agri-businessmen in the South. The progressives and the populists of both parties also represented the business interests of farmers and miners in the West.

After all, you have to remember why the People's Party of the 1880's was formed. It was formed by groups of farmers who wanted the government to have regulation power over the businesses who provided services that those farmers relied on. For instance, the farmers wanted the government to have power to regulate the price of shipping over the railroad so the farmers (who sell their produce as a business) wouldn't pay too high of a profit margin paying the unregulated costs of shipping their produce on the railroads.

And while I don't think corporations should have more power over politics than others, I do think that those who are corporatists have the right to representation in government.

Then what does constitute hypocrisy? If anyone were to argue for prohibiting X,Y, and Z while privately being guilty of performing X, Y, and Z, then that person is a hypocrite. How can we take TR and the progressive movement seriously if TR and progressives secretly go against everything they stand for...right up until it becomes law? That's like a republican advocating for repeal of Roe v. Wade and then forcing his daughter to have an abortion. It's not hypocrisy, according to your logic. According to everyone else, it is hypocrisy.

Well, regarding the underlined, why are judging the whole platform of progressive philosophy based on a single issue? That is disingenuous to political thought. That's like saying that we shouldn't listen to Republicans about fiscal responsibility because pro-lifers like to use pipe bombs against abortion doctors.

As for your analogy, yeah, I would call that hypocritical of that Republican to do so. But I think abortion rights and campaign finance laws are too different issues. Abortion is a personal issue. Campaign finance is an issue regarding the process of the body politic. I think that those two things make them inherently different. I think there's a difference between controlling someone's personal life and coming up with a system of government policy.

You're comparing people who have a choice and people who don't have a choice. The freedom to choose makes a big difference.

You can choose not to pay taxes. You can sue to not pay taxes. You probably won't win, and you may have to suffer negative consequences for doing so, but you still have the choice.

The thing you have to choose is to determine if the cost of accepting a policy is less or more than the cost of protesting a policy. Your behavior, however, is up to you.

You actually agree with the Citizens United ruling?!?!

Yes I do. Start a thread on it, and I may make my opinion of it known in that thread.

Again, see the example of the conservative anti-abortion republican and his pregnant daughter.

Again, I think there's an inherent difference. There's a difference between how a person operates with regards to his or her personal life and how a person operates within the social contract. I don't think those issues should be considered in the same way. How people act on an individual level and how people act as a governed society are two different things. They should be considered in different ways.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why would this "shake at the very core" of progressivism? I'm a progressive, and my internal response was "Politician acts hypocritically and unethically. News at 11."

My views don't stem from some particular leader.

Wow, I never heard that. Usually, the progressives I debate argue that politicians are generally good people who want to change things for the better.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Wow, I never heard that. Usually, the progressives I debate argue that politicians are generally good people who want to change things for the better.

That is not entirely correct.

Most progressives believe that the government can be used to change things for the better. However, not every progressive believe that politicians want to change things for the better.

I certainly don't.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No, he didn't, in order to get elected, because back then corporations were the only ones with the money available to raise the contributions needed to get politicians elected. You have to remember the difference in media back then and today. Back then, every politician was beholden to business interests. It's just that they were beholden to different factions of business interests.

He could have chosen not to accept the money. After all, if accepting bribes from big businessmen was so unethical, then he could have refrained from doing so. Whether or not that meant victory is irrelevent.

For example, the Republican Party was beholden to the business interests of the industrialists in the North, while the Democratic Party was beholden to the business interests of the agri-businessmen in the South. The progressives and the populists of both parties also represented the business interests of farmers and miners in the West.

What does that have to do with the fact that TR thought it was unethical to accept bribes from business, while he privately accepted bribes from business?

After all, you have to remember why the People's Party of the 1880's was formed. It was formed by groups of farmers who wanted the government to have regulation power over the businesses who provided services that those farmers relied on. For instance, the farmers wanted the government to have power to regulate the price of shipping over the railroad so the farmers (who sell their produce as a business) wouldn't pay too high of a profit margin paying the unregulated costs of shipping their produce on the railroads.

What does this have to do with anything?

And while I don't think corporations should have more power over politics than others, I do think that those who are corporatists have the right to representation in government.

I think you need to expand that statement. Such logic may lead to a contradiction in thought.

Well, regarding the underlined, why are judging the whole platform of progressive philosophy based on a single issue? That is disingenuous to political thought. That's like saying that we shouldn't listen to Republicans about fiscal responsibility because pro-lifers like to use pipe bombs against abortion doctors.

No, it's more like asking why we should listen to republicans about family values while republicans remain divorced with children out-of-wedlock. Why should we listen to democrats about campaign finance reform when they're guilty of accepting HUGE bribes from businesses and unions? Why should we listen to republicans about individual liberty when they do everything in their power to limit individual freedom? Etc.

As for your analogy, yeah, I would call that hypocritical of that Republican to do so. But I think abortion rights and campaign finance laws are too different issues. Abortion is a personal issue. Campaign finance is an issue regarding the process of the body politic.

I don't think you can make that distinction. The process of recognizing the right to choose an abortion is a process of the body politic (Roe v. Wade). The process of accepting large bribes from a corporation is also a personal ethical dilemma (especially if you stand against it while privately accepting it).

I think that those two things make them inherently different. I think there's a difference between controlling someone's personal life and coming up with a system of government policy.

Government policy is about power- power over people's lives.

You can choose not to pay taxes. You can sue to not pay taxes. You probably won't win, and you may have to suffer negative consequences for doing so, but you still have the choice.

Yea sure, just like TR could have chosen to not accept the bribe. If he did, he would have at least retained his integrity and he'd still be a free man. If I decide to break the law, I surrender all my freedoms. There's a big difference, wouldn't you say?

Again, I think there's an inherent difference. There's a difference between how a person operates with regards to his or her personal life and how a person operates within the social contract. I don't think those issues should be considered in the same way. How people act on an individual level and how people act as a governed society are two different things. They should be considered in different ways.

Again, you can't make that distinction. If a republican politician is attempting to overturn Roe v. Wade (operating within the governmental process) while simultaneously forcing his pregnant daughter to have an abortion (operating within the personal process), he's still a hypocrite.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That is not entirely correct.

Most progressives believe that the government can be used to change things for the better. However, not every progressive believe that politicians want to change things for the better.

I certainly don't.

When it comes to changing things for the better, the progressives certainly don't believe private business can do it. Am I wrong? Therefore, they believe government is the ONLY avenue to change things for the better. And who makes the government if not individual politicians? Generally speaking, of course. I'm sure there are exceptions.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
48,254
Reaction score
28,052
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
When it comes to changing things for the better, the progressives certainly don't believe private business can do it. Am I wrong?

I do and I seem to fit the definition of progressive.

Therefore, they believe government is the ONLY avenue to change things for the better. And who makes the government if not individual politicians? Generally speaking, of course. I'm sure there are exceptions.

I guess thats me.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
He could have chosen not to accept the money. After all, if accepting bribes from big businessmen was so unethical, then he could have refrained from doing so. Whether or not that meant victory is irrelevent.

What does that have to do with the fact that TR thought it was unethical to accept bribes from business, while he privately accepted bribes from business?

What does this have to do with anything?

It shows proof how closely business interests (of all varieties) and political parties (of all varieties) are related, oppose, and support each other, especially in the past. In the past, most politicians focused on the business interests of one kind or another for campaign financing. Why? Because business interests should have just as much representation as any other kind of interest, and business interests in particular have the most money to provide campaign financing.

And politicians will tell you that unless they get elected, they cannot effect the change they want. You, as a libertarian, whose policies go unrepresented in government because of electoral policies, should understand that most of all.

So I see nothing wrong with a politician accepting campaign donations from corporations while advocating campaign funding reform, especially when he accepted those donations before his reform became law.

I think you need to expand that statement. Such logic may lead to a contradiction in thought.

No contradiction at all. I agree that people of all different political philosophies and interests deserve representation in government. This includes those political philosophies that I personally oppose. However, that does not mean that I think particular political philosophies should be favored in a way that's out of proportion to the number of citizens who support that philosophy.

No, it's more like asking why we should listen to republicans about family values while republicans remain divorced with children out-of-wedlock. Why should we listen to democrats about campaign finance reform when they're guilty of accepting HUGE bribes from businesses and unions? Why should we listen to republicans about individual liberty when they do everything in their power to limit individual freedom? Etc.

I don't think you can make that distinction. The process of recognizing the right to choose an abortion is a process of the body politic (Roe v. Wade). The process of accepting large bribes from a corporation is also a personal ethical dilemma (especially if you stand against it while privately accepting it).

Government policy is about power- power over people's lives.

Yea sure, just like TR could have chosen to not accept the bribe. If he did, he would have at least retained his integrity and he'd still be a free man. If I decide to break the law, I surrender all my freedoms. There's a big difference, wouldn't you say?

Again, you can't make that distinction. If a republican politician is attempting to overturn Roe v. Wade (operating within the governmental process) while simultaneously forcing his pregnant daughter to have an abortion (operating within the personal process), he's still a hypocrite.

No. The process of recognizing the right to choose an abortion is a process of the body politic. The process of practicing the right to choose an abortion is an individual action. Abortion has very little to do with electoral processes, such as how ballots are counted, how candidates for the ballot are chosen, or who is able to take part in the electoral process. That is why I see them as different types of issues. One is personal, the other is parliamentary.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
When it comes to changing things for the better, the progressives certainly don't believe private business can do it. Am I wrong? Therefore, they believe government is the ONLY avenue to change things for the better. And who makes the government if not individual politicians? Generally speaking, of course. I'm sure there are exceptions.

You're taking things too far, and far too absolutist.

I'm not going to say I speak for all progressives. However, I will speak for my own neopaleoprogressive philosophy.

It's not that I don't believe that private business can do it. It's that I don't think every private business has an agenda to make things better. Rather, I think the agenda of every private business in our capitalist-mixed society is to make a profit.

Sometimes private businesses can make a profit by making things better. Sometimes private businesses can make a profit by making things worse.

When private businesses try to make a profit by making things worse, it is the job of the government to prevent them from doing so.

While this is the role of the government, not every government official adheres to this role. Some government officials take kickbacks to ignore regulations for their private greed.

Now, while I accept that some government officials are corrupted, I do not think that I can judge all government officials on the acts of a few. Rather, I am aware of the reality that there are some good politicians and there are some bad politicians, and I hope that the number of good politicians and their actions outweigh those who are bad. Especially considering what could happened when the actions of big businesses can go unchecked by government officials.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So I see nothing wrong with a politician accepting campaign donations from corporations while advocating campaign funding reform, especially when he accepted those donations before his reform became law.

Let me rephrase the republican and his pregnant daughter example. Let’s say the republican is a powerful man within government. Let’s say he casts the deciding vote that overturns Roe v. Wade. Now, let’s say this same conservative justice was found to have forced his daughter to have a legal abortion right before he cast the deciding vote against Roe v. Wade. Is it still an entirely different situation? In the case I have just given you, the conservative jurist IS a hypocrite. In the case of TR (who had the power to push the Tillman Act but of course only after it was discovered that he lined his pockets with corporate money) IS a hypocrite. There is no technical difference so that you may freely call the conservative father a hypocrite and TR just a law-abiding citizen. You have applied a double-standard.

Again, I’ll keep hitting it on the head: T.R. LIED about the bribes before deciding to push the Tillman Act.

Again, I’ll repeat another point: The Tillman Act was a hollowed-out bill that was purely meant to restore T.R.’s public posture. It changed NOTHING in the campaign finance system.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's not that I don't believe that private business can do it. It's that I don't think every private business has an agenda to make things better. Rather, I think the agenda of every private business in our capitalist-mixed society is to make a profit.

So, profit = progress. When is profit a bad thing?

Sometimes private businesses can make a profit by making things better. Sometimes private businesses can make a profit by making things worse.

If businesses make a profit by infringing upon the rights of other citizens, then we're on the same page. In that scenario, the government is equipped to punish the guilty business and to reward damages to the victims. We shouldn't disagree on that one. But, in other ways, how might profit make things worse?

When private businesses try to make a profit by making things worse, it is the job of the government to prevent them from doing so.

Way to be specific! In terms of limiting the freedom of others to pursue economic gains, you might want to be a little bit more specific. Such a broad interpretation of "making things worse" could have the government preventing them from doing so much more than you'd like them to.

While this is the role of the government, not every government official adheres to this role. Some government officials take kickbacks to ignore regulations for their private greed.

Like Teddy? Have you ever read about regulatory capture and how often it occurs? When the government regulates business, it is often because they want a piece of the cake for themselves. Big business ultimately wins in the regulatory structure, because they have the resources to hire an army of lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists who can twist the regulation in their favor, especially by limiting new competition into the market. The small business hurts the most in this case, because they don't have such resources. Just look at the ICC's regulation of the railroads in the early 20th century for a great example of regulatory capture.

Now, while I accept that some government officials are corrupted, I do not think that I can judge all government officials on the acts of a few. Rather, I am aware of the reality that there are some good politicians and there are some bad politicians, and I hope that the number of good politicians and their actions outweigh those who are bad. Especially considering what could happened when the actions of big businesses can go unchecked by government officials.

Here's the major difference. Businessmen often create things that people want and/or need while politicians destroy things, legally murder people, torture foreign suspects, create wars, imprison political dissidents, and enslave a segment of the population. In the political world, it's more like a few good men, and lots of rotten apples.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I do and I seem to fit the definition of progressive.



I guess thats me.

Well, you are "slightly liberal" so I suppose you are a little less progressive than your colleagues on the left.

And so is Samsmart. I CAN'T believe he actually supports the Citizens United ruling. I'm waiting for the punchline. I have yet to meet a "progressive" of whatever breed who actually supports the ruling. Do you?
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
48,254
Reaction score
28,052
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Well, you are "slightly liberal" so I suppose you are a little less progressive than your colleagues on the left.

And so is Samsmart. I CAN'T believe he actually supports the Citizens United ruling. I'm waiting for the punchline. I have yet to meet a "progressive" of whatever breed who actually supports the ruling. Do you?

I can't support the ruling as it limits free speech, by giving unequal speech by those with greater means.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I can't support the ruling as it limits free speech, by giving unequal speech by those with greater means.

How does it give unequal speech to those with greater means? If I can only afford to send in five dollars, and my rich cousin can spend the maximum allowed by law, then is he "given" unequal speech because he's the one with greater means?

You have it backwards. It upholds the first amendment.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
48,254
Reaction score
28,052
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
How does it give unequal speech to those with greater means? If I can only afford to send in five dollars, and my rich cousin can spend the maximum allowed by law, then is he "given" unequal speech because he's the one with greater means?

You have it backwards. It upholds the first amendment.

Person X having more speech (since money is speech according to the SCOTUS) means that person Y has less speech due to crowding out. Ultimately, it means we are no longer equal under the law. At least that is the end result for our current rulings.
 
Last edited:

other

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
1,473
Reaction score
587
Location
VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Person X having more speech (since money is speech according to the SCOTUS) means that person Y has less speech due to crowding out. Ultimately, it means we are no longer equal under the law. At least that is the end result for our current rulings.

That's not inequality as long as there's no artificial limit to the amount of money you can make/spend. That one person can purchase more airtime is beside the point, you might as well make the claim that media outlets are limiting people's speech by charging for airtime. It comes down to the fact that people should be able to spend their money to put out whatever message they choose (within the accepted limits of the law) without having to find legal loopholes to do so (which they would). The end result, should such legislation pass allowing the government to pick and choose in such matters, would simply be to shut out people who can't afford a panel of lawyers and lobbyists to grease the wheels of the bureaucracy.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,155
Reaction score
36,334
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
When it comes to changing things for the better, the progressives certainly don't believe private business can do it. Am I wrong? Therefore, they believe government is the ONLY avenue to change things for the better. And who makes the government if not individual politicians? Generally speaking, of course. I'm sure there are exceptions.

Yes, you're wrong. You're falling into the same absolutist trap that conservatives do.

Business and government are neither inherently good nor inherently bad.

I mean, really? You think progressives believe that government is the ONLY way to change things for the better? What, you been listening to Limbaugh lately? :lamo

At the same time, progressives are also obsessed with "green business," right? Do you experience much cognitive dissonance?
 
Last edited:

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yes, you're wrong. You're falling into the same absolutist trap that conservatives do.

Business and government are neither inherently good nor inherently bad.

I mean, really? You think progressives believe that government is the ONLY way to change things for the better? What, you been listening to Limbaugh lately? :lamo

At the same time, progressives are also obsessed with "green business," right? Do you experience much cognitive dissonance?

They are obsessed with green business, and with subsidizing green business. I haven't heard a single progressive argument that didn't include regulation or taxes or subsidies or tariffs as solutions to daily societal problems.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Person X having more speech (since money is speech according to the SCOTUS) means that person Y has less speech due to crowding out. Ultimately, it means we are no longer equal under the law. At least that is the end result for our current rulings.

That's nonsense! There should be no artifical barrier (or law established) that limits the freedom of the individual to speak freely. See the First Amendment. It states that NO LAW SHALL BE ESTABLISHED...that limits freedom of speech. All campaign finance reform inherently violates the First Amendment.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,155
Reaction score
36,334
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
They are obsessed with green business, and with subsidizing green business. I haven't heard a single progressive argument that didn't include regulation or taxes or subsidies or tariffs as solutions to daily societal problems.

Because when talking about society on a large scale, the conversation is usually about government.

If you haven't heard a progressive talk about individual actions for societal issues, you haven't been having the right conversation. Or, you've been letting Hannity tell you what THOSE LIBERALS think.

Your premise is ludicrous.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Because when talking about society on a large scale, the conversation is usually about government.

If you haven't heard a progressive talk about individual actions for societal issues, you haven't been having the right conversation. Or, you've been letting Hannity tell you what THOSE LIBERALS think.

Your premise is ludicrous.

I don't watch Hannity. If I could find a progressive that sought solutions separate from government action, I would withdraw my claim. But so far, I haven't seen it. I'm willing to read or view anything you wish to send me to prove me wrong.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I don't watch Hannity. If I could find a progressive that sought solutions separate from government action, I would withdraw my claim. But so far, I haven't seen it. I'm willing to read or view anything you wish to send me to prove me wrong.

So what solutions to society's ills are there that doesn't involve government action?
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So what solutions to society's ills are there that doesn't involve government action?

Are you serious? When someone experiments in a lab to discover the next cure for cancer, MUST it require government backing and support? Of course not. When someone invents something, must it always require government backing and support? When local citizens decide to get together to form an advocacy group to change things for the better, must it always require government backing and support? When your business prospers, was it only because government allowed it to prosper?
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Are you serious? When someone experiments in a lab to discover the next cure for cancer, MUST it require government backing and support? Of course not. When someone invents something, must it always require government backing and support? When local citizens decide to get together to form an advocacy group to change things for the better, must it always require government backing and support? When your business prospers, was it only because government allowed it to prosper?

You are being incredibly generalized in your answer.

I never said anything about which things government should get involved in.

I just asked for solutions to society's ills that don't involve the government.

Please let me know when you've stopped venting and actually answer the question.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You are being incredibly generalized in your answer.

I never said anything about which things government should get involved in.

I just asked for solutions to society's ills that don't involve the government.

Please let me know when you've stopped venting and actually answer the question.

I gave you numerous examples. What more do you want? Countless societal problems are solved everyday without the use of government. I've answered your question.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I gave you numerous examples. What more do you want? Countless societal problems are solved everyday without the use of government. I've answered your question.

You have given me 4. That is hardly all of society's ills. And you didn't give any details about how those would be better served without government intervention than with.

Actually, I should count those as 3 1/2, since the body that most advocacy groups try to mobilize people to get involved in is the government for their particular stance on an issue.
 
Top Bottom