I agree with your statement that countries are better informed. We digitally spy on each other constantly. Additionally, I think the general population is better informed through the constant flow of 'leaks'. In the past, dictators were quick to start wars because if they won, they could always blame the other guy for starting it. If they lost, it won't matter.
Currently, political decisions are so public that CNN knows the landing site of an invasion before the troops do. Therefore, politicians are hesitant to start wars they will get blamed for, even if they win (re: President Bush)
I posted an earlier debate that simply asked if you would be willing to go back and assassinate Hitler. The winning side (so far) has said no, that they wouldn't, primarily because Hitler didn't create the environment that allowed him to become so powerful.
In this debate, I'd have to choose Hitler, only because I believe that history will be kinder to President Bush than the press has been. Does that make me an optimist or naive?
I would leave it to the individual. If you've had Christmas all year long and are in debt, maybe you should consider letting it go. My family has been very fortunate in that we have no debt and have had "cash Christmas" as far back as I can remember.
I think this takes wisdom on the part of the individual though, and should not be something forced from the outside.
I agree that Linux will eventually take over.
The only thing holding back Mac software is the absence of a strong Open Source community.
The only reason Windows software is more popular is because if something goes wrong, someone has an open source solution. Who goes to Microsoft for help?
There is also a separation between public and private. Making your private wants a public issue is an abuse of government. If you don't want your morals policed keep them where everyone else keeps them. Private.
If I wanted to get a tattoo, a perfectly legal decision on my part, and then had a public debate on the values of getting tattoos, do you think I should be surprised if some people disagreed with me? And then, should I cry out that the government is abusing its power?
Historically speaking, there have been successful dictatorships. Rome immediately comes to mind. As to the points you made, I would respond the following:
+"So I ask, in the absence of government would you go out and kill and steal?"
The average person might not initiate it, but in anarchy they would see it as a viable option for justice. The violence of the French Revolution started small and grew popular with the public. The Holocaust of WWII was generally accepted by Germans. Road-rage is a good modern day example. People don't just become violent, but they respond violently to keep someone from getting away with something.
+ "Take away government and you take away their power to harm others."
I disagree, there will always be a way for a power-hungry person to create their own power, in their tribe for example, where the rest of society is chaotic.
You're right. The original estimate was that 75% are alive. But a good guess is 5.8%, so only 1 in 20 people who have ever been born have died.
I find it interesting that what you list as weaknesses I would tally as advantages for McCain. (Currently) we can put Iraq in the plus column, showing that even though it was difficult, as long as you persevere, things can improve. Also, the economy is only bad if you just compare it to the previous highs of the unusual American prosperity. We are still well above average globally.
My own argument fails, however, because I don't think this will be an issues campaign, but one just about personalities...
I do realize that, but I appreciate you bringing it into the argument.
Just because the government has done something in the past does not justify the continuation of the practice. The Three-Fifths Compromise goes back to the founding of the US, well beyond the practice of Federal funding of the sciences. I'm totally against bring back the Three-Fifths Compromise.
I take exception to your argument that government funding is key to scientific development. Capitalism has had more influence than Federal sponsorship. Also, which technologies do you suppose would "never have been developed"?
Yet it sounds like you have done the research for me. Thank you. You're wrong about the commission report and the NIST report. You may believe that they are frauds, but that is hardly the same thing.
You're also wrong about the engineers and scientists not having anything to gain. They get immediate fame, which just goes to show how much science has been taken over by "American Idol"-itis. (Just like the scientists that blindly follow Al Gore.)
As to the question of how long a secret must be kept, I would think it would have to be forever. Frustrating, isn't it?
It is certainly possible that 9/11 was an inside job, but I would not classify it as probable and it in not way comes close to being definite. It is a fun mental exercise to think about it, though, the same way people spend time debating about Roswell and the moon landing being faked.
I appreciate the time and effort you have put into thinking and researching this, but frankly I don't think it is credible.
