It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A Libertarian Take On Unniversal Healthcare:

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:40 AM
reply to post by poet1b

...In his tedious tome Das Kapital, Marx is so obsessed with elaborate and minute detail that either he inadvertently or very cleverly obscures the fact that he engages in lies of omission in order to present his own distinctions as academic and intelligent rather than being what they truly are which is a repetitive style that lacks internal consistency of thought. There are numerous volumes of Das Kapital where Marx rambles on and on in attempt to appear as an intellectual but his ramblings are flawed at best when it comes to actually understanding economics. Marx is infamous for inventing phrases that have little to do with actual economics. Phrases such as "cost price" and "variable capital" and "surplus value" are nonsensical terms that do little to explain prices of commodities as they rise and fall in a market place. When Marx addresses "costs of goods sold" he is not at all consistence with his own definition of "cost price" and when he refers to the very real elements of "wages" and "profits" he again is not at all consistent with his own definition of "surplus value".

Marx will teeter totter between his own invented terms and universally accepted phrases such as "profit" and in volume 3 of Das Kapital actually attempts to broaden the definition to become synonymous with "surplus value". But it is telling that in both volumes 1 and 2 Marx goes out of his way to avoid using the term "profit" and very rarely uses the word, instead continually uses the phrase "surplus value" instead of "profit." What Marx has done with Das Kapital is go to extraordinary lengths to present nothing more than trivial data that is banal and nonsensical in order to portray the capitalist system as being less flexible than it is, attempting to paint a picture of a system that is incapable of being managed and responsive to the needs and desires of the people.

It is also worth mentioning that the brief excerpt posted from above makes the point that Marx embraced industrialization. Indeed, Marx's entire theory is predicated on the events of the "industrial age" which is an age long since gone. The industrial age was the age of factories and manufacturing goods on assembly lines that still has a place in the modern world but is by no means the primary factor in wealth production. While it is true that Marx and Engels predicted a "stateless" environment they advocated a system that necessarily demanded a gargantuan state in order to implement their theories and then somehow, some would say naively, believed that gargantuan state would somehow just voluntarily go away once the their theories were turned into reality. It is just more misdirection to suggest that free market advocates are the same as communists because of a belief in this "stateless society". The primary difference between the free market advocate and the communist is that free market advocates do not at all advocate relying upon the state in order to see their theories borne out. This is a crucial difference between the two ideals and one should not be mistaken for the other.

In a free and unregulated market those who wish to create insurance schemes that offered some form of insurance for health care can do so, and those who wish to purchase this insurance are free to do so but being a free and unregulated market no one is required to provide the insurance and no one is required to purchase it. Good health is a primary factor in any persons ability to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and in this regard it is a universal necessity, it does not, however, make medical services and medicine a public commodity. People should be free to act in ways conducive to good health and should be able to earn the money necessary to ensure that health. People also should be free to live unhealthy lives if they so choose.

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:40 AM
reply to post by poet1b

The idea of taxing people in order to ensure some semblance of "universal health care" is abhorrent to freedom. It is the skyrocketing prices of medicine and medical services that has created this debate over "universal healthcare" and above and beyond that, it is a grossly over regulated market place combined with worthless currency that leads to gross inflation of prices that has made it increasingly difficult for people to first and foremost purchase the food and other goods and services that would allow them to live healthy and prevent illness, let alone pay for the medical costs that come with chronic illness.

The argument that the market system of the renaissance was "the original market system" underscores a profound ignorance of what market systems and economies are. Long before the renaissance there were market systems and the renaissance was dominated by a system of mercantilism. Adam Smith had some problems with at least two of the major tenets of mercantilism, those two tenets being protectionist tariffs and the notion that nations required large reserves of precious metals in order to secure economic success. Mercantilism is no doubt preferable to communism or socialism but it was not in itself a market system that could allow any person regardless of stature or inheritance to flourish and prosper.

As to Newt Gingrich, I am no fan of this politician and could care less what his politics are. The use of "neo-conservatism" to label people is yet another attempt at misdirection. There are many conservative movements across the world and throughout history. Whatever the movement be rest assured they were conserving something. The conservative movement in America was created in an effort to conserve the Constitution for the United States from progressives who were taking far too liberal a view of that same Constitution. Any attempt to change the conservative movement into something else would be nothing more than an abandonment of conservatism and instead itself becomes a form of progressiveness. The idea that neo-cons are "extreme conservatives" seems to miss the point of conservatism as any one who would form a political party advocating conservatism has all ready shown a proclivity towards extremism. Either one is a conservative or they are not. There are no neo-conservatives or semi-conservatives and indeed, there seems to be a proclivity with people describing themselves as socially liberal and fiscally conservative and certainly such a dichotomy is plausible but if one is "fiscally conservative" what are they conserving? If that person doesn't know it is doubtful they are truly conservative.

It is important to clarify the meanings of words as they are what we use to communicate with and when a movement arises that attempts to diminish the power of words by hijacking existing words and changing their definitions they become guilty of what Orwell called "double speak". In the end, A is A and what is, is...but that of course depends on what your definition of is, is.

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 03:25 AM
reply to post by poet1b

Feudalism was FAR from Communism.. it was far worse than any Capitalist system at that.. it was pure Oligarchy?

The workers, IE, Peasants, did NOT own the land to which they farmed and lived. Their Lord did, and the Lord of the Lord owned him, and the Lord of the Lord who owned the Lord owned them, and the King who owned the Lord who owned the Lord who owned the Lords who owned the Peasants owned everything.

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:56 AM
reply to post by Rockpuck

And the system of feudalism still exists today in third world nations, whom we compete against for jobs. Except instead of reporting to some king, they are slaves of corporations like Bechtel. Seriously, do you think children working seventy hour plus weeks in horrible work environments are better off than the serfs of Europe back in the day?

How much power did the kings or the past have. I suggest you look up mad king Ludwig, and see what happened to him. At least back then, there was a living person to revolt against. Today, we are dealing with faceless entities that people are able to hide behind while committing their acts of evil.

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 11:07 AM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

You come here and tell us what Adam Smith believed in without ever bothering to quote Adam Smith to back up your claims, so I provide a link to someone who does the same thing. Apply your criticism to the person to whom I linked, to yourself. You are no better, and in fact worse.

You label me a collectivist, and then you complain about labeling others, as I did with the term neocon. There is a term for that. The fact that you would label me in such an insulting manner tells volumes about you. Nothing I have posted speaks of collecting anything from anyone.

Yes, markets have always existed, every fool knows that, but The thing about mercantilism, that you label the market system of the Renaissance as being, is that such a system actually exists, but your free market does not, and never will, just like communism. The Renaissance saw a rise in the market system that had never been seen before, that is why the period properly gets labeled as the birth of the market system.

You claim -

The primary difference between the free market advocate and the communist is that free market advocates do not at all advocate relying upon the state in order to see their theories borne out. This is a crucial difference between the two ideals and one should not be mistaken for the other.

This statement is pure fantasy. All the free market advocate does is rely upon the state, and play into the hands of the people with the money and power. This then enables the PTB to more easily control our markets, and eliminate market access, and therefore destroy the market system, as has occurred every time free market principles have been allowed to be put into place. Every attempt at creating this mythical free market has ended in disaster.

Reality 101, market systems, that are more than what exists at a basic tribal level, require laws and rules to prevent dishonesty, corruption theft, all those natural human tendencies to cheat and steal.

Our markets and our medical insurance industries, and a great deal more to boot, are in shambles because people like you support the free market fantasy that allows crooks to rob the system blind. You call for more of the same that has destroyed our market system and that is plain foolish.

Guess what, in a republic people have the ability to choose where their tax dollars go, and if they want universal health care for their money, that is their choice.

I will tell you what is abhorrent to freedom, expecting the middle class to pay for the huge deficits created by neocon regimes, as in Reagan Bush I and Bush II, to further enrich the filthy rich, and enable wide spread corruption.

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by poet1b

Feudalism was FAR from Communism.. it was far worse than any Capitalist system at that.. it was pure Oligarchy?

The workers, IE, Peasants, did NOT own the land to which they farmed and lived. Their Lord did, and the Lord of the Lord owned him, and the Lord of the Lord who owned the Lord owned them, and the King who owned the Lord who owned the Lord who owned the Lords who owned the Peasants owned everything.

Actually under feudalism workers had far more freedoms and ways to address grievances with TPTB than we do now. Most land worked was what was known as 'common land', it was privately owned but worked 'in common', and anyone could use that land as long as it was used productively and they payed the land owner. That is sort of like communism as in it was collectively used.

The land was given to nobles by the King in exchange for military help. The land was rented to vassals who had to, as part of the deal, protect that land and the King. The peasants could collectively work that land as they wished and payed the vassals with produce, and later money. The only difference between that and what we have now is capitalism, which took feudalism a huge step forward for the Kings and took any autonomy away from the peasants by turning them into slave laborers for the land owner (by taking away what the peasants produced and selling it back to them at a profit), instead of autonomous folks controlling and producing directly for themselves. Capitalists have re-written history to make it appear we are so much better off under their system.

Sorry but your arse is still owned by the Lords and Kings, in fact even more so. You only think you have more freedom because we're told we do.

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:31 PM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Why are you rambling on about Marx? Not all socialists are Marxists. Personally I see him as a charlatan who stole socialist ideas and tried to create a state system with it. Socialists were traditionally anti-state and anti-government long before Marx came along with his bourgeois take on a working class system.

Socialism is simply 'The workers ownership of the means of production and distribution'. A system with no middle man private owner. Oh yes I know you all dream about being a business owner but the chances of becoming a successful one is pretty slim, and most people just end up working a 9-5 hourly paid 'job'. So why not improve your lot as a worker instead of dreaming away your life on unrealistic goals? If the workers owned the means of their production we would all be better off. Instead of a system where what you produce is taken from you, and sold back to you at a profit for the private owner (who produces nothing), you would directly receive the product of your labour.

Everything in this system is set up for the minority private owner, while the majority workers barely have anything to address their grievances or better their position in life. You shouldn't have to become one of the elite to better your life. If the wealth created by the workers who actually produce that wealth was more fairly distributed then we would all be better off. The rich may have less wealth, but wouldn't that be a good thing?

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 10:24 PM
reply to post by poet1b

If you need Adam Smith Quotes that support my claims then here! Of course, it is still better that you read the entirety of A Wealth of Nations for yourself, which it is perfectly clear that you have not. You may pretend that it was your intent to illustrate how I had misrepresented Smith by you yourself then posting the link to Korten's piece, but had you actually read A Wealth of Nations you would know I have not misrepresented his ideas or work.

Great nations are never impoverished by private, though they sometimes are by public prodigality and misconduct. The whole, or almost the whole public revenue, is in most countries employed in maintaining unproductive hands... Such people, as they them-selves produce nothing, are all maintained by the produce of other men's labour... Those unproductive hands, who should be maintained by a part only of the spare revenue of the people, may consume so great a share of their whole revenue, and thereby oblige so great a number to encroach upon their capitals, upon the funds destined for the maintenance of productive labour, that all the frugality and good conduct of individuals may not be able to compensate the waste and degradation of produce occasioned by this violent and forced encroachment.

The Wealth of Nations, Book II, Chapter III

The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition ... is so powerful, that it is alone, and without any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations.

The Wealth of Nations Book IV Chapter V Section IV

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is im-possible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and jus-tice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary...A regulation which obliges all those of the same trade in a particular town to enter their names and places of abode in a public register, facilitates such assemblies...A regulation which enables those of the same trade to tax themselves in order to provide for their poor, their sick, their widows, and orphans, by giving them a common interest to manage, renders such assemblies necessary...An incorporation not only renders them necessary, but makes the act of the majority binding upon the whole.

The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter X

Every man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniencies, and amusements of human life. But after the division of labour has once thoroughly taken place, it is but a very small part of these with which a man's own labour can supply him. The far greater part of them he must derive from the labour of other people, and he must be rich or poor according to the quantity of that labour which he can command, or which he can afford to purchase. The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities. The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it.

The Wealth of Nations, Book I Chapter V

I could go on quoting Smith ad nauseam but being honest it wouldn't satisfy you...if you're capable of being honest. In the next post....

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 10:24 PM
reply to post by poet1b

...I will address your absurd proclivity towards reducing words to such an extent that they mean either lies such as what you've done with myth or collecting such as you've done with collective. If I were to accuse you of collecting anything I would have used that word and not the word collective. While dictionaries will use the word "collecting" to better define what a collective is, there are no dictionaries that define the word "collective" as simply being the act of collecting. This sort of simple minded use of language speaks volumes about you. In fact, in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary the use of the word collecting is used in the second definition and used to make it synonymous with aggregate rather than the verb collecting. The first definition Webster's New Ninth offers is this:

Denoting a number of persons or things considered as one group or a whole.

Dictionaries found on the internet offer these as definitions of the word collective:

corporate: done by or characteristic of individuals acting together; "a joint identity"; "the collective mind"; "the corporate good"


1.) Assembled into or viewed as a whole.

2.) Of, relating to, characteristic of, or made by a number of people acting as a group: a collective decision.

3.) An undertaking, such as a business operation, set up on the principles or system of collectivism.

The Free Dictionary

Your claim that "Nothing I have posted speaks of collecting anything from anyone.", is disingenuous since your very first post with your very first three sentences made this claim:

"I think the best system would be a tax free medical savings plan. If companies are willing to pay insurance $5,000 a year, they should be willing to pay into an employer managed tax free savings plan. Let everyone be given the choice of getting the same amount of money the company is willing to pay to insurance to people who choose the tax free medical savings plan."

How is that not a collective? Any business that would create such a system would in fact be collecting money for a COLLECTIVE in order to produce this medical savings plan. Furthermore it is amusing you with your multiple laughing emoticons, that you would make fun of my free market advocacy and label it a fantasy while then asserting that all free market advocates do is rely upon the state when in that first post you made this claim:

"Have the government run a catastrophic health insurance plan for people who get extremely expensive health problems, which shouldn't force families into poverty in order to try and save an extremely ill family member.

This would create a market system that could work very well. People who take good care of themselves would be able to amass large medical savings accounts which would save taxpayers a great deal of money that is being spent on retirees government paid plans."

This quote is, of course, following this quote:

"The government does in fact do many things very efficiently. It is a myth that the government can not do anything right."

Which is offered as a rebuttal to those free market advocates you claim are reliant upon government. When you claim that "Nothing I have posted speaks of collecting anything from anyone.", it is not entirely true. You also claim that all a free market advocate does is play into the hands of people with money and power and yet your first post clearly advocates doing exactly this and you praise of mercantilism or feudalism or as you put it "cottage industry". In fact let's quote you exactly:

"You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, the original market system, the cottage industry that helped drive the Renaissance, was a system where the workers owned the means of production."

Now let's quote you from your latest post:

"Yes, markets have always existed, every fool knows that..."

Need I say anything more?

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 12:06 AM
reply to post by ANOK

I am "rambling" on about Marx, as you put it, because at least Marx is honest enough to admit that in order to accomplish "'The workers ownership of the means of production and distribution'. A system with no middle man private owner.", then it is necessary to create a state system that would prevent any individual from private ownership. Just exactly how do you imagine workers who have not invested any of their own private wealth into property or ideas would bring about ownership of the means of production? Workers own their own labor and that is all. If they own wealth that could be invested in property that facilitates the means of production then why not invest it? Labor in and of itself does not constitute the means of production but is just one component of it.

Your claims that the chances of being a successful business owner being "pretty slim" ignores the vast amounts of evidence to the contrary. Even in the heavily regulated markets of today there are multitudes of successful business owners who became so not by claiming some sort of nobility or royal dictate but through the toil of their own efforts. You pretend as if this isn't so in order to be so dismissive of the dream, (once considered across the world to be "the American dream".), that you insist is a waste of time. Instead of embracing hope, and the so called wasted dreams you speak of are hopes, you suggest that one who is not yet a businessperson should just accept their lot in life as a being a worker and do exactly what? You are vague and unclear in exactly how the worker would obtain ownership of the means of production and instead rely upon the tired canard that it belongs to them and has been "taken" from them by owners of private property.

It is your advocacy of eliminating private ownership that sounds so much like Marxism regardless of whether Marx "stole" that idea from socialist or not. Your insistence that the private owner produces nothing is just plain false. Unless, of course, you are referring to those who inherit property and then do nothing with it. However, at least in America, the vast amount of people who own private property came to this ownership through the toil of their own effort. In the United States, the private owner is not a least not yet. The socialist programs that have been systematically implemented by the states and federal government have greatly contributed to a system that has threatened to ensure a minority of private ownership and prior to these socialist programs the ability of people to gain ownership of property was easier and did not take near as much time as it does today thanks to socialist programs.

It is also not true that free market adherents advocate a "stateless" society. I am aware it was not you that made that claim and instead a different poster however in order to respond to your assertion that socialists were traditionally anti-state and anti-government I feel compelled to clarify that free market advocates are not traditionally anti-state nor anti-government. In order to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare and secure liberty to ourselves and to our posterity, it seems evident that governments are necessary. What is not necessary is to create a government that controls the market place.

While it has been argued by many that in order to promote the general welfare of the people government controls of economies are necessary the free market advocate argues that a laissez-faire economy is sufficient enough to do this. I understand that many socialists attempt to distance themselves from Marxist ideals but how exactly they propose to implement their own understanding of economy is not so clear. Thus the "rambling" on about Marxist ideals for at least he deserves the credit for attempting to address economic issues.

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 09:59 AM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Intellectual grandiosity aside, nothing you have quoted from Adam Smith supports your belief in a free market system, in fact, the complete contrary.

All conduct is private, and what is done by the public is only a combination of private interests.

Personally, I was never all that impressed by Adam Smith. John Locke's "Treatises on Government" and "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" are far superior works and much more relevant to the discussion.

It seems that you have confused the word collect with the word pay. When you go to the pub, the bar tender collects your money for the purchase of a beer, he charges you the price of that beer. If you want to conduct business in the U.S., you have to pay the taxes that the U.S. government charges in order to conduct business in the U.S..

Now complain all you will about the poor conduct of the U.S. government, the fact of the matter is that the customer rating of the U.S. government is the best there is. This is why U.S. currency is the world's currency, and other countries have lotteries where getting allowed to live in the U.S. is the lottery winners award. Does any of this sink in? Once again, if you want to go into a pub and buy a beer, you have to pay for that beer, and the bar tender must collect the money, or at least a promise to pay, before he will give you a beer. That beer has to be paid for. If you want to conduct business in the U.S., the government will collect tax dollars to pay for the system in place that allows the function of business in the U.s.. The U.S. government has to be paid for.

Is it your assertion that anyone who collects a fee is a collectivist?

Back to the subject at hand.

What separates us from the animals is that we help our fellow human beings. I guess maybe this sounds alien, or wrong to you, but it is a fundamental tenet of civilization. If you understood the concepts of the balance of power, you would recognize that the people have the right to require that all who participate in our economy contribute to the general welfare, as is directed in our constitution.

Laws that establish business conduct are essential to the success of our nation, just as laws are needed for individual conduct. How can you not get this.

If a business is given a tax deduction for paying an insurance company, on the behalf of a worker, then it is completely reasonable to require that business to give the same amount directly to the individual in order to justify the tax deduction, at the request of the worker. Why would you be against this, unless you see your own monetary gain by preventing this?

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 03:36 PM

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Is it your assertion that anyone who collects a fee is a collectivist?

I'm curious about that also.

A collective is similar to a Cooperative, a group of people working together with the sames goal, and sharing equally in the work done and the benefit of that goal. It's got nothing to do with collecting anything. The term comes from 'collectively' working together. The difference with a COOP is a collective is not necessarily focused on economic gain, or saving, but it can be.

It has nothing to do with collecting fees. America can't seem to see past MONEY, and think it's the only thing that motivates people. Well maybe in America that is the case simply through social/economic conditioning? There are enough resources in the world for everyone to be fed, clothed and housed, but some economies in the world seem to think they have the right to take a larger piece of the pie (our resources) and share that pie, ala mode, with their close knit group of wealthy friends, who then sell our resources back to us, after we have produced that resource, to make themselves rich.

The Earth, and it's resources, belongs to all of us, not just those fortunate enough to be in a position to exploit those resources for their own selfish gains. All this while we, and they, know people are dying from a lack of resources. Not a lack of ability, or education, or any of the other excuses we hear, it's a lack of resources because those resources have been stolen from them. America has taught the world to be economically selfish, a state perpetuated by the media and the fear of survival it instills in society with it's continuous stream of bogey men and designed hysteria.

[edit on 11/12/2009 by ANOK]

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 11:41 PM
reply to post by ANOK

Rather than reply to both of you I am going to make this one reply and leave it at that. First on the definition of "collective". It was not I who reduced the word "collective" down to collecting money or any other such form of collecting it was the other poster who did so. Here is the exact quote: "Nothing I have posted speaks of collecting anything from anyone." It was based on that remark that I took that poster to task for reducing the word to meaning nothing more than collecting. That posters response is not worth replying to and I reply to yours simply to clarify this issue. The entirety of that post can be found on page two and was posted on 11-11-2009. Either you read that post and did not catch that remark, or you did catch it and ignored it simply to satisfy your own prejudice towards "Americans", (a term in and of itself that is a gross generalization of what you really mean since I doubt you are attacking Canadians and Mexicans or the many different countries in both Central and South America as those people have as much right to refer to themselves as Americans as does any person in The United States), or you didn't even bother to read that post at all. Regardless of what the truth is on that matter, your vain attempt to portray me as the one who reduced the word collective down to collecting is misguided at best.

I am well aware of the differences between COLLECTIVISTS and people who form co-operatives in order to work towards a common goal. Both of you have entered this thread and given the appearance that you support the current Congressional legislation of the U.S. for this so called "health care" issue. That legislation requires that "most" people residing in the U.S. purchase health insurance or face fines and even imprisonment under penalty of "law". That is not a co-operative of people who have come together to work towards a common goal but is instead a COLLECTIVIST mentality that presupposes the needs of the group take precedence over the needs of the individual regardless of any individuals protestations or insistence that they do not share the same goal.

It is this form of collectivism that I am speaking to. It has occurred to me, however, that any attempts to clarify this or anything else with the both of you is just, quite simply, a waste of time. There is an old saying that goes: "When a wise man argues with a fool it is difficult to differentiate between them." Take that however you wish, that this thread has taken the tragic downward spiral of pointless argument between the three of us makes us all fools and foolishness is not a characteristic I care to embrace.

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 09:43 AM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

You're certainly not the wise man in this conversation.

I know exactly what you meant by the term collectivist, just as you knew exactly what I meant by the term myth.

Anyone who believes in a free market isn't working with a full deck. You are proof of that.

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 11:31 AM
reply to post by Rockpuck

1. Anything run by the Government automatically fails.

A.) Firefighters
B.) Police Officers
C.) The NIH
D.) The Manhattan Project
E.) The University of Michigan
F.) Urban Planners of Post-War Germany
G.) Most everything that goes on in Singapore
H.) The Army
I.) The Navy
J.) Marines
K.) Air Force
L.) Berkely
M.) Cash for Clunkers
N.) The Interstate System
O.) The railroad
p.) The V.A. Hospital
Q.) Department of Motor Vehicles
R.) The Postal Service (The Internet is putting a kink in their operations, not the government...the USPS worked amazingly well until the internet takeover

Those are things i came up with off of the top of my head, without giving them much thought at all. I'm certain if we were to set down and brain storm, we could figure out many more

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in