Skeptic wrote: "The alternative would be to give some person, King, Pope, or the Oracle at Delphi, superior authority to make laws."

Pardon, but that makes no sense. You continue: "In that case, men, not Law would be supreme."

But the men make the laws. You wrote: "government of laws, not men"

Obviously, we have laws in our government. They are made up of men. To support your point, you quote: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

Which is completely different then saying that we have a government of laws, not men. But I'm still listening. Please continue with your explanation of how you get "government of laws, not men" from the above.

"Quoting out of context leads nowhere."

Pardon, but I edit for brevity... not to quote you out of context. I truly wondered from what you wrote that you think raising children is the responsibility of society.

"Out of self-interest, society plays a role in raising children. I think I defined my hierarchy of responsibility a little later in the post."

Yes, I read the hierarchy that you defined. That doesn't remove the idea that you think society should play a role in raising children. I find that concept repugnant.

"The problem that I see is that the capitalist model assumes linear relationships with the market forces."

Whenever I see a sentence, like the above sentence, I wonder why the writer is taking such great lengths to be obtuse. NOTE: I only quoted the first sentence of the paragraph, because the next few that you wrote are based on the opening one. HOWEVER, it assumes that the reader has the faintest concept as to what you refer to in the opening sentence.

Let me be specific in my criticism, so that you do not assume that I am simply avoiding your concept. 1) Which capitalist model are you referring to? From what I've read and understood, there are literally thousands. 2) What market forces do you refer to? Inflation? Supply and demand? Monatary policy? 3) All economic models are flaky in their assumptions. It doesn't matter if it is capitalist, communist, socialist, or Disney-esque. The first thing that my economics teacher taught me was that all models are flawed.

"Define "unhealthy" companies? I think you give the government much more credit for intelligent intervention than is warranted."

Tobacco. The government has regulated, taxed, and oversaw tobacco. Heck, they even created an agency for it. Yet, tobacco thrives. As I wrote: "the companies start playing the loopholes. "

"And for some level on insight beyond the superficial. Are tariff's wrong?"

Most of the time, I believe yes.

"What effect do subsidies play in this? Are so called tax incentives any better (or worse) than regulatory taxes."

I think that all three are pretty henious.

"Given the history of self regulation (th infamous meat packing plants being the best known, probably), should government interfere?"

I was thinking California power, but the point is the same in both cases. The government is still regulating, but even less effectlively by putting one foot in the tub.

"If not, how do you stop the excesses?"

The excesses???

"The primary value of Capitalism is the accumulation of wealth."

And freedom.

"Is using actuarial tables to decide whether to correct a defect in a car something that should be ignored by the government? As they are the ones who reformed tort laws to make holding companies responsible for their own harmful acts harder to litigate, what role should government play?"

Tort reform is making it harder to litigate a "nuisance" lawsuit... a suit just cause you can. It doesn't make it harder to sue a company that created an airplane with a known tendency for engine fires.

>>>Pretend is loads more fun then reality<<< "Pretend is limited self gratification."

I couldn't disagree more. The ultimate pretend is the pretend that you play in groups.

"Reality is more fun.IMO. And has a really nasty way of slapping you in the face if you ignore it."

I've never been into getting slapped.

"How do you mediate your free will and mine and everyone else's with the need to live with others, to function as a society."

That's easy. As long as I'm not posing harm to others, I should be able to do what I want.

>>>You want the community to have the ability to "moderate" your PERSONAL values??? <<< "The expression of them, yes."

Ick!

"I will still have my personal values. Moderating the expression is part of the social contract."

What contract??? Who said that my personal values can be moderated? Explain!

"Dances With Wolves? It was a movie. As I haven;'t seen it, I can't comment on it's historical accuracy."

1) It's a great movie. 2) I'm sure it's not historically accurate, but it does accurately portray what it was like for the first settlers moving West. 3) Try watching it. Its long, its drawn out, but its really quite good.

"I am highly skeptical about the factual basis of anything designed for pure entertainment. Perhaps someone else who has seen the movie and studied the time period and culture can respond."

I hope that they'll just get you to see it for entertainment purposes.

"I remember exactly how, and why the first Europeans came here."

You're much older then I thought.

"And they survived as a community, not as "rugged individualists"."

Okee, not trying to create an argument on everything... however, most of what I've read on the first Europeans suggests that they came here to see untamed wilderness.

"They survived by cooperation. The earliest colonists had strong elements of theocracy and tended to demand orthodoxy."

Are you talking about the first ones who tried to form a socialist society and almost starved to death on their first winter here?

"The few who practiced rugged individualism were usually tolerated, sometimes venerated, and weren't all that good at being a part of society. So they went off exploring or whatever."

The FEW? Do you know how many people went West? ARrrrrgh!

"The classic rugged individualist doesn't build a trans-continental railroad or a church."

Okay. Alright. You tell ME who went West to create the trans-continental railroads.

"Restated, how would you/do you, mediate the difference values, beliefs or whatever in a society as large as ours. What should or shouldn't the government do."

Leave our values to us. The primary reason that Europeans came to the U.S. was because the government (England mainly) tried to dictate people's beliefs via the Catholic Church. Or was it the Protestant Church? You get the point. Everything was dictated as to what you were supposed to believe and do. Thus our special emphasis on freedom of religion in the U.S.

You get to be as religious or atheist as you want, and carry your values with that.

I'll respond more later, but I need sleep now.

John