Except when the government supports what you want, like banning abortion.

And you seem to be opposed to the financial bailout. At this point, the only outcomes I see are do the bailout in hopes that we can prevent the fallout from affecting those who are not responsible for it, or don't do it and let the chips fall where they may, most likely affecting people who were, again, not responsible.

I think we can all agree that both of those situations are non-optimal, so it would most likely be preferable to avoid the situation, right? Well, the only way we can really guarantee that is by government regulation. Unless you can tell me why that's not the case, I'm going to have to argue that you're cherry-picking your data for why you're opposed to governmental interference.


I obviously cannot speak for everyone, but, just so you understand my point of view better, I'm not in favor of those things because I'm out to get something for free. I'm in favor of those things because I feel that it promotes the infrastructure of the country. Those of us who are doing well can afford to provide some services for those who aren't, and helping those people get a leg up should help all of us. At the same time, I don't believe that those services should be available only to a certain class of people, so the government should offer those services to everyone. Some may choose not to partake of those services for whatever reason, but it should be a right, not a handout.