> G-Money wrote: > You throw around this phrase "socially responsible". But that's really an > amalgam of a wide variety of things, and probably means something different > to you than it does to me. >
+1. I'm against the gov't enforcing an arbitrary morality which "socially responsible" is as certainly as Gay Marriage is. Dana's Penn study is just one study amongst millions (even if we assume it supports her contention which I don't). Further, if she really wanted to give good examples of her point she'd point to entire countries that use the government to enforce "socially responsible" business, and have for decades. 2 great examples would be France and Finland. Without getting into details, France's implementation disproves Dana's theory while Finland's supports it. However the a problem with Finland is that they have oil wealth which could skew the success, but, nevertheless, it's been working. So, for me, the bottom line is this: Does that crap work? Yeah, it could, and it does. But not in the US. It's just like gun control. I'm for an implementation of it if there were no guns. But there are so it's too late. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:193139 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
