Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
Edit: I don't want government to engage in every "will of the people". If you want our gov't more socialistic, than obviously you would disagree with me. I think our government is big enough, we have enough laws and intrusion (too much, if you ask me), we don't need to expand its powers even more. At some point, people need to realize that they can accomplish many things on their own, without involving the government.
|
I'm not the one advocating the organization of the masses to force their will upon the capitalist, thereby altering the natural course of the market- don't shovel the socialist label off onto me.
I guess i just disagree with the notion that the government shouldn't be used to spread the will of the people. I disagree with the notion that it is somehow lazy for people to use the legislative branch as a means of improving their lives. The phrase "by the people for the people" comes to mind. What's the point of having a government if the people can't use it to make their lives better?
I disagree with the notion that smokers would be more pleased if bar owners willingly prohibited smoking rather than having it imposed on them by the countrymen and women. The smoker demographic is for the most part, one giant wet blanket. You claim that everybody gets what they want if they go your way, but i don't think that's the case. I think most smokers only pretend to care about the business owner's right to self determination because they can't think up any better argument against smoking bans. Many smokers could only get what they really want if they were allowed to smoke anywhere they wanted, everyone else be damned.