It disagrees with your cherished beliefs. What do I win?

Fine, i'll just tell you the fallacy. It uses a strawman argument. They say that I don't like the government because it doesn't do anything for me. But that's not why I don't like the government. I hate government because of it's limitation on freedom. I know very well that the governmnet does stuff for me, but I don't want it to. The best thing it could do for me would be to go away.

I'm not quite sure what the point of this is. You could find a website on any subject that does a shitty job of making its case.

Government doesn't limit your freedom to do stuff.

@Bob: Was that vague on purpose? What kind of "stuff" are you talking about?

Anything. What does government stop you from doing?

In addition, it is clear that this economic meltdown was caused in large part by conservative-led cutbacks in government regulation of financial markets, and that re-regulation of the financial sector is essential if we are to avoid such problems in the future.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This statement denies the antecedent.

@Bob - Everything that is illegal.

@Conservative Man.

No, the government doesn't stop you from doing things it deems illegal. It changes the potential consequences for doing those actions. If you want to pay those consequences, you are still able to do illegal actions.

So really, what you're saying is you don't like those potential consequences. And hey, that's your choice. Any similarity to a 16 year old bitching about losing access to their parents' car for getting a D in biology is, I'm sure, purely coincidental.

@bob - The thing is, what gives the government the right to add consequences to certain actions?

What antecedent is ignored?

The same thing that creates any right: the power to enforce its claims.

@bob: But isn't that a bad thing? I think it is. So shouldn't we work to stop the government from doing that?

At first i agreed with Con Man, then I realized he meant no government at all. I thought he meant less government, as in no government checks for the unemployed, not those who are unwilling to work at least,. And about the website, Great Britain and Canada both told the US that the way Healthcare reform was bad in their own countries and that they didn't want it in the Us. Obama just ignored them like they had no personal experience.

Is that a bad thing? Not really. It can be used in ways that I find unfortunate, but rights divorced from the ability to enforce those rights are mere wishes.

Should we work to stop government from having power? You can if you want to. I rather enjoy roads, schools, fire departments, consistent measures, safe food, cleanish water, the internet, and all of the other things that go along with having a form of social organization more developed than that of a tribe of nomadic hunters.

So, I'll be working against you.

You really think healthcare is bad? I don't mind paying a few more taxes, if that means if I get badly injured, I can simply walk into a public hospital and get treated, no questions asked (unless criminal matters may be involved) and for free if I'm poor.

Thing is, we in America already have socialized medicine, through the bankruptcy courts. It's just that it's about the least efficient system of socialized medicine you could draw up by any metric other than what creates the most profits for the health insurance industry.

So, Bob, are you saying might makes right?

@largeham: In my ideal system, there would be no money, so healthcare would be free.

Also, @Bob: All the things you list could be provided by other enties besides government.

More or less, yes, I am saying might makes right. Right and wrong cannot be divorced from the ability to put those principles into effect.

Well, I guess they can, but it's just wanking until it gets put into practice.

Wait, how can you be conservative and against money? Is your name a misnomer, or are you conservative only in social values. Because I agree with you on the money issue.

As to whether roads, etc. can be provided by non-governmental entities, I would agree that they can be. The problem is that they won't be provided nearly as universally as they are when provided by a government.

@largeham: I wasn't an anarchist when I joined here.

@Bob Genghiskan: Why wouldn't they?

I'm going to bed, so we'll have to continue this debate tomorrow.

No government and no money. I like it. If we brought this in tomorrow I wouldn't have to pay tax anymore making a lot better off financially. But I guess that would be redundant because I could get stuff for free. First up and I walk into the local BMW dealership and get myself a new car, then off to a real estate agent and get myself a swanky new home for free. And then go shopping for some furniture (what I really want is a top class leather couch and the biggest and best LED TV money can buy (used to buy, of now all stuff is for free). No point going to work. I am in marketing and I don't think our new utopia will need that. Don't worry I still want to contribute to society - my new career will be singer/songwriter/actor - much more fulfilling way to spend my time than my old stressful job. This sounds great - what are we waiting for? Let's get the revolution under way!

Lots of typos above. It's hard to write long messages on the iPhone.