Riddler,

Geeze, where to begin? I suggest you educate yourself in Economics. Milton Friedman is a good start. I also recommend you watch the one where he pwns Michael Moore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk

I think the people aligned with unions, minimum wages, and unions are lunatics. However, the majority of today's super rich got there by bribery, rent-seeking, insider-trading, and taking advantage of laws that benefited them.

Finally, your flat tax idea is ludicrous. Ever hear of the concept of economies of scale?

Flint,

I suffer from a condition called "human imperfection." I am biased, and occasionally fail to satisfy my own standards. Happy?

By the way, when I appear to rely on an idea of morality, it may be because I am attempting to persuade you by appealing to shared values. Also, one can live according to principles without appealing to a mysterious normative reality. Yes, I believe man is the creator of all value.

Kemp,

I think Zarf just proved you weren't even bothering to comprehend what I stated. So I quite agree with you. If you aren't going to bother understanding my position, then we have nothing further to discuss.

But I can offer a solution to problem of selective justice. I think transparency could be improved enough to make those corrupt sleazeballs have an incentive to at least be adequately accountable. Then they wouldn't be able to easily cherry pick the organizations to prosecute, so no organization or individual could rely on being shielded by the favor of powerful interests.

Whether or not you agree with me that the law is being selectively applied in the case of Planned Parenthood, do you agree that transparency is an effective way to expose corruption and can be greatly improved upon?

Flint,

Yes, I have faith that my experiences have some correspondence with an external reality, that most politicians are scum, and that my closest friends are loyal etc. This is a different kind of faith than the one you espouse.

But more importantly, I was shocked anyone would demand evidence that most politicians and the individuals and organizations associated with them are scum. Seriously, wtf? Since I didn't want to argue the point, I appealed to faith in order to stick to what I consider relevant. Sure, I have evidence, but it's not enough to convince anyone skeptical, and I don't feel like researching the corruption in American politics. That's a mammoth project I don't have time for.

Xeno,

Capitalism is not a zero-sum game.

V.Kemp,

I meant to say that of the set of all political organizations with any relevance in Washington that receive public funding, at least 95% of them are corrupt. Additionally, I implied that at least 95% of the members of government are corrupt, and they nurture a culture of corruption. I also acknowledged that I am accepting this on faith. Faith doesn't require examples. But, for good reason, you are welcome to dismiss my argument on this fact alone. However, you are repeatably confused about my argument that follows.

Your confusion seems to conflate two different types of justice. The one is about imposing the rule of law. I am not disagreeing with this principle at all. The second type occurs when the whole system is rotten, and prosecution is hypocrisy. Whether one is actually prosecuted for the crimes every one else is doing depends on their relationships with the powerful political coalitions. So what you call justice, I call laughable hypocrisy stemming from the competition to win political favor at the expense of their vulnerable enemies. Of course, you are welcome to dismiss my conclusions because my understanding of the government is unusually cynical and not supported with any evidence.

My position is:

1. Most politicians and political organizations are corrupt. This is assumed on faith, but also in part due to the many cases that imply it.
2. Assuming (1), then Planned Parenthood is not less guilty than the majority of other political organizations.
3. Since Planned Parenthood is not less guilty than the majority of political organizations, we can only surmise that they have been targeted because it's politically convenient for social conservatives.
4. In practice, Planned Parenthood will be punished if social conservatives have their way, but the political machine will continue to operate as "politics as usual."

But

Dpenguins has clearly stated he doesn't care. If you are guilty, then you should be punished. I'm not in disagreement, except when "justice" is applied selectively.

Consider how Russian "oligarchs" are all guilty of tax evasion in one form of another. They get away with it, at least until Putin finds it politically expedient to punish them. They are usually guilty, but it's selective justice for the winning political coalition to eliminate the losers, who are equally corrupt. I don't stand for this kind of nonsense, so I say "either punish all of them or just the worst of them." And it doesn't seem to me that Planned Parenthood, even if guilty, has done anything extraordinarily corrupt.

Dpenguins,

The assumption that nearly every politician and political organization is corrupt is a common one. I am going to accept it on faith, and if you refuse to do so then we have nothing further to discuss.

But if you want to be reasonable by accepting this assumption, the fiasco involving Yulia Tymoshenko is almost identical to what is happening to Planned Parenthood, only she is an individual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yulia_Tymoshenko

Dpenguins,

If you are only going to persecute 1 out of 2000+ of those who are equally guilty because that 1 party is a politically convenient scapegoat, then you shouldn't persecute them at all.

Okay, everyone is focusing on the polygamy option way too much. That isn't my central point, although I argued rational women may pursue it. My central point was that marriage is biased and too constrictive for the needs of consumers. By treating marriage as a business contract, more fluid arrangements would be possible. Moreover, I think many such arrangements, like polygamy, should be permitted if it works for the parties involved.

Worn,

Polygamy may not work for most people or even for you, but does that make it right to prohibit such an arrangement for those it does work for?

Simon,

Well it's not really relevant, since the less attractive women could easily cater to the lower class men.

One woman could potentially contract with multiple men, but it's unlikely. There are few cases of polyandrous societies, and of those that are it's between two brothers and one wife. I mean, would you really be willing to be Paris Hilton's 100th husband? I'd rather be single, and I think most men would agree.

> Simon wrote:

> What do you do with the left over bachelor males?

I think the usual solution is to send them to war. Alternatively, there is prostitution.