[lsbskins1]

Osborn-

If you do not advocate for a "hands off business" model, I have less of an arguement with you. If you suggest that the average citizen is worse off today in his safety, his disposable income and his ability to pursue happiness than he was before the era of government regulation (ie, before the progressive era), I have a very strong arguement with you. You need not claim perfection to imply that we were MUCH CLOSER to perfection. Lets not nit pick on semantics. Let me place a few facts on the table:

1) Every institution is subject to corruption. Government, big business, unions, churches, police departments. The fact that there is a history of some level, or even great levels, of corruption in any institution is not an arguement for it's destruction. It is an arguement for finding ways to thwart the corruption.

2) In order to justify a return to a flawed policy, one must demonsrate that the cure was worse than the disease. So, if you want to go back in time, erradicate the income tax, return the country to non-regulated drug, food, and over-all business policy, demonstrate how the average citizen is worse off under the current system than he was under the system you want to return to. Otherwise, your contention that the previous system was "more perfect" does not hold water.

3) The application of a policy can be flawed without rendering the policy itself inopperative. The simple truth is that dishonest people look for weaknesses in the law, just as hackers look for weaknesses in security systems. If you argue that getting rid of secuity systems is the answer to the problem rather than arguing for bolstering the security system by some new method, you have answered and solved nothing.