Lazy Whiner Kid offers a good debate about my previous rant.

Is there a SINGLE bad thing in the world that liberals aren't responsible for in your book?

While liberals aren't responsible for all things bad in the world, that doesn't mean that they do any good either. All kidding aside, I used to be a die hard liberal. I grew up democrat, and my mother is a die hard liberal to this day. I don't want to delve too deep into liberals vs. conservatives, but basically, we believe in the same ideals. I want cleaner air, a social security fix, and more better edumacation. Where I differ with liberals is with the means to the end. Whereas liberals tend to think government programs and higher taxes are the answer to everything, I think just the opposite.

Socialism doesn't have enough of a carrot for people to achieve and prosper while Capitalism doesn't have enough of a stick for people who abuse the system.

You'd be surprised at how big of a stick there is for those who abuse the system. The markets correct themselves, while people who defraud others risk going to prison. Just look at what Martha Stewart is going through. I'm not saying that innocent investors don't get caught in the middle sometimes, but that is the risk you take in the stock market. Nobody was complaining when the stocks were climbing for no logical reason.

And also, by the way your theory is total bollocks... Capitalism is all about throughput (level of production and speed of production combined).

And also by the way, capitalism is about free markets. You can make a lot of stuff really fast, but if nobody wants to buy it, you will fail. The point is that you need to provide a value to people. Lets say you make a widget and sell it for $2. Joe wants to buy your widget, and gives you $2. Joe is happy because he didn't want to make the widget himself, and you are happy because you got Joe's $2. Now if Joe comes along and points a gun in your face and takes your widget without giving you $2, that is a crime, right? Why then, do people feel comfortable with empowering the government to do it for Joe? That is exactly what they do when they legislate price caps, and the like. Either that, or they go to your neighbors house and take his $2 by force, just to buy Joe the widget that he wants. (For example, 'free' prescription drugs.)

You think McDonalds is making you pour your own drink in order to keep their prices down so more people will eat there? BS They're doing it to reduce their labour costs which at the end of the day affects their bottom line.

Who is the 'their' in 'their bottom line?' Those profits must go somewhere. Corporate profit will go to either employees in the form of higher wages, customers in the form of lower prices, or shareholders in the form of shareholder equity and dividends. You can enjoy any of those by going there to dine, going there to work, or buying their stock.

To equate your having to pour your own drink with high taxes

I did? I don't remember doing that. I was trying to point out that high taxes mean people have less disposable income. Less disposable income means people spend less money and are more prone to serve themselves, rather than pay extra for the added value. With people less likely to pay for good service, good service disappears and people either choose a new profession, or lose their jobs. With people out of work or changing jobs (underemployment) you are back to less disposable income again.

It is a vicious cycle, and tax relief can help break it.

Didn't self-service gas stations in Jersey get banned after Joe Perry from Aerosmith got burned in a gas station fire and lobbied the state senate to ban them?

I don't know that much about it. I do remember my first time filling up in NJ, and the guy came running over and grabbed the pump out of my hand. I've also heard some humorous stories about people born and raised in NJ actually not knowing how to pump gas.