teo123 wrote:OK, I get it. The moment you try to talk sensically is the moment nobody wants to discuss politics with you any more. Sad, but true.
Patience.
This is more of a word game than anything else. How do you define mentally ill behaviour? As not normal? Murder isn't normal, most of the people don't murder. As irrational? It's hard to imagine a situation when murder would be rational. As bringing personal suffering? Murdering someone brings you a lot of personal suffering. It's hard to imagine a situation in which the murder wouldn't fulfill all the criteria for mentally ill behaviour.
No, the criteria for what constitutes a mental illness is determined by psychologists/psychiatrists, not you or me or anyone besides an expert.
You can't say that everyone who commits murder is mentally ill. There are people who don't value other peoples' lives and murder them who aren't mentally ill.
Why do you keep ignoring the evidence that the laws don't help? Claims disproven long ago (like that omega-3 helps with heart disease) continue to be perpetuated by the advertisers. And again, watch the Bite Size Vegan videos on animal testing. If you invented penicillin these days, you would be banned.
What evidence that the laws don't help?
Every person in society not always following the law doesn't mean the law doesn't help. Without the law, advertising would be far more deceptive than it is today, because companies could literally say whatever they want. Just because they still get away with deception doesn't mean the law hasn't and doesn't have more potential to reduce deception. It does, or companies would say whatever they want.
And if an employee doesn't make him that much money, he can't pay him or he would be losing money.
Raising the minimum wage is controversial. You weren't describing the minimum wage correctly, you were just stating your opinion about it.
It's so sad that you've heard only political propaganda and not the mainstream economics.
You have to do your own research on-line. What politicians say make the economists' head spinn.
I haven't stated my view about the minimum wage.
I don't listen to politicians, and almost everything in American politics is corrupt. I don't agree with you because free market capitalism with no regulation has been shown not to work, which is why the United States abandoned it, and because government has been shown to bring stability and order to society.
Just because a system isn't without flaws doesn't mean it isn't the best system we have.
The vast majority of the professional economists knew that Obamacare would fail. They just weren't covered by the media. Mainstream politics and the mainstream economics are almost in complete opposition.
Near the end of the Wikipedia article on economics there is a table about what the economists have reached a consensus about. Look at it, just to get a general idea. It's so sad just how distorted picture the media portray us.
Obamacare is controversial, it's not something everyone believes has failed. Obamacare has insured over 20 million people in the United States who weren't insured before, but it also has many problems.
Republican politicians have been against Obamacare for a very long time, and are currently in the process of replacing it with a bill that would throw millions of people off of healthcare. It's not something that all politicians agree on.
I asked: if the employers paying the employee's health care with a money that would otherwise be a part of the employee's wage was a good thing, why would you need a law forcing the employers to do that? Wouldn't it be better if people could choose what to do with the money they made? Would you try to solve the problem of homelessness by forcing the employers to pay for the houses to be built?
Yes. I'm saying that just because something is in a law doesn't mean it's not a good thing necessarily. Just because you need a law to enforce something doesn't mean that thing is bad. For example, like I mentioned, stopping murder is good, but you need the law to do that.
I haven't really seen evidence that justice systems solve the problems of violence, and I have seen a lot of evidence that they actually cause violence (my own experience). A right analogy to a justice system may be this: trying to use a disassembler to debug a remote server (so that it is costly to access relevant information) you know very little about how it works. Theoretically, you could solve the problem. But you are way more likely to misdiagnose it and make things worse.
The justice system puts people in prison who commit acts of violence, removing them from society and preventing them from killing more people.
There are many flaws with the justice system - some innocent people are put in jail, prisons have a lot of abuse, sentencing to too harsh, corruption, racism, etc. etc. but the justice system, overall, makes society more safe by putting away violent people.
Everything in life has flaws. Phones don't have infinite amounts of battery, and their screens break. Lamp lights short out and break. Glasses get cloudy. But without those things, our lives would be harder. Just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean it isn't important.
Why would anybody do that? How would he gain acceptance from enough people? Lenin and Mussolini gained acceptance because people were unsatisfied with the contemporary government (regardless of whether it was actually responsible for what it was blamed), they wouldn't have been supported if there wasn't a bad government already. When Hitler became a dictator, there was already a law making it possible for a person to become a dictator, government actually helped him do that. It's hard to imagine someone becoming a dictator without there being a previous government.
Yes, Lenin and Mussolini gained acceptance because people were upset with government. But mainly, they just wanted food. Lenin's phrase was "peace, land, and
bread". Whenever people are starving and suffering, if someone comes and says they will fix that, the people rally around and support that person. If there is tremendous suffering, people will turn to a dictator.
Yes, that's correct. Otto Von Bismarck's law that enabled one person to become a dictator was used by Adolf Hitler. However, the whole reason he came into power in the first place was because the people were suffering, just like with Mussolini and Lenin.