You can take the boy out of the country. . .

But can you really blame him for his actions even if he is not in his natural state?

Um. . .well. . .yes.

Since I never did take the Philosophy 101 course at Black Squirrel U, I will admit that my answer is probably naive, so tell me Jeffy, why is this so important? Suppose this crazy material world around us is not our true natural state, then are we any less responsible for our actions? In contrast, suppose this really is our natural state, after all, it is a world (at least in part) made by human hands. Does that imply we are fully responsible for the consequences of our unbridled greed? Or even worse, that this type of instability is an inevitable part of human nature.

I think the question I am getting at is can we be good without big brother watching? Do we need some formal bureaucratic structure that enforces an altruistic agenda within the market (if that is even possible). Is more government regulation necessary to keep that greed in check?

I know the liberal in you is saying yes of course we need to federal government to watch out for the little guy, but I want to focus on the motives for exchange within a market and not ensuring human and political rights (We will assume that Obama is capable of advancing those rights although we will soon see once this whole torture issue plays out).

Man, I need to get some tea to think this through--damn it--why is the price of tea so high?

Stupid tea parties. Where were these "patriots" when we were spending billions of dollars in Iraq for no good reason? Is the thought of spending money on health care, education, and infrastructure really that appalling? Man, I need to get off this soap box and get a coffee.