On gov. regulations. I was just reading this morning where there is a very big increase of black lung for miners in Appalachia n Coal mines. So I am all for gov. regulations relating to the health and welfare of us citizens. Getting rid of or at least redifining the scope the 2nd amendment would be great. Like the Bible I don't care for laws that can be interpreted to suit anything the reader wants it to.

This is an exam, right? If we pass we get to move on to the next level?

bottom line is yes and no . the powerful will always exploit the weak and govt tries to soften the blow. unions got us our current standard of living [without them we'd still be in work houses] the law is subject to judges. american judges are elected by moneyed interests. that is a problem. your law has been hijacked. regulations give us clean water for a start. right now you have the right to speak out against the powers but not too loudly. and the right to operate a credit card and travel. . that's better than alot of the rest of the world

These are all questions we should be asking and probingly discussing every day. The problems are that (1) many politicians seem too dense to even get their heads around the questions, much less potential answers, (2) too many people and politicians have fixed themselves and their flaswedanswers to a false ideology, and (3) not enough people seem to even give a damn about the questions.

Last one first. Wealth is aggregated profit. The concept of profit to me is spurious. If we apply Newtons first law, we would have to accept that to gain, someone or something must lose, whether it is slaves, underpaid workers or devastated environment. (there are exceptions). The apply Newtons 2nd law re entropy and we would realise that any profit would disappear. Yay, I made a profit this month of 600,000 watermelons. This is where money distorts things. In regard to taking advantage of others, this can be done directly, but what about simply being smarter than average, seeing how things work, and then gliding through the system, turning it on it's backside and making it work for you. It is easier than people realise.

Individual, no, yes, no, no, yes, being born, inalienable, yes, yes, yes, should be fewer in general, business, no, no, no, no, no, yes, yes, parents, owners, both, created. And that's all I have to say about that.

I think extremes are bad, compromises are generally middle ground and work best. Straight capitalism, say the Victorian era/robber barons was a brutal world. Straight communism isn't any fairer and tends to kill off huge numbers. What our forefathers envisioned, a democracy that relied on very slow and cumbersome compromise to bring about change would seem to me the best answer. Compromise also answers all those questions since no answer is black and white, just a different shade of gray. So the basic assumption is we all have a small piece of the answer.

You just put 50 questions in your post-would take me a day to answer all of them. Going to try to answer one of them:
. The individual makes decisions for themselves based on social programs that are available to them. When I was diagnosed with leukemia this is how I made my decisions.
a. Boston hospital or Dartmouth Medical School-I live in NH, not a city person-chose to stay
in NH and be at top Medical School. Ambulance would have gone to either. I had good
medical insurance.
b. Chemo or no chemo. Vs chemo but docs said I'd be dead in 3 weeks so went with chemo,
radiation and bone marrow transplant.
c. Insurance issues-my policy converted to Cobra-got medical assistance from Hospital.
d. Cobra cancelled-Applied for and received Obamacare.
e. Medicare available, Social Security Disability.
f. Medicaid home based program
Hospitals provide social workers who help someone make these decisions. I am grateful of the assistance I have received for the past 5 years enabling me to recover. Paid into the system.

Whoa..maybe it's time to grab a relaxation herb and take a long walk outdoors!

Well that's a lot of questions. I'd say that no group of individuals has a right to govern another. A right is a natural entitlement. I see no legitimate claim to the right to rule. The less government, the more free the people. The constitution doesn't grant anything, existence does.

Jesus h man one thing we can all agree on is a limit of two questions per post. How about breaking that up into manageable segments suitable for texting?