How well do restaurant patios and smoking coexist?

I don't know what you mean by "forcing their hand".

I mean, i.e., the private sector's overwhelming influence in legislation.

It's in the Constitution that people can join together to petition their government. I don't see that as a big a threat as how the government has grown all out of proportion, interfering in private affairs to an unprecedented degree. Just look. The Sisters of the Poor are bad guys for not wanting to pay for contraception. The. Sisters. of. the. Poor. Bad. Guys. Crazy!

A larger government attracts lobbying like a magnet. There are more goodies to dispense, more preferences to bestow, and more competitors to hinder. Shrink the government, and the need to lobby goes down, without compromising Constitutional principles.

It's funny, you are worried about the corporations lobbying government and campaigning. These are ways to get the government to do what they want. You aren't complaining about them forcing you directly. That's because they need the government to do it. Clearly, you already know this.

No. That's not funny at all. Plutocracy has been on an upward trend for quite a while now.

Yes. Exactly right. Larger governments always lead to Plutocracy. We agree on this. This is why I don't understand the desire for more, more government power.

Speaking of Plutocracy. Do we really need to elect another Bush or Clinton President? Really?

Just think of a minimal, small government. There would be little reason to lobby or campaign for special favors. In fact, the bigger the government is, the higher the stakes get and the more frantic lobbying and campaigning you'll see. Shrink the government. Lower the stakes. And let people get back to being productive instead of rent seeking from the government.

Many that pay lip service to smaller government really means less oversight and regulation, specifically, in financials. The irony being, the more the plutocrats get their way, the more the requirement for low income assistance, for example. Of course inefficiencies need to be cleaned up. But bigger fish are to be fried.

Here's the problem with your assumption here. You assume that the government will regulate things in a fair manner to protect the populous. But that's not what happens. Public Choice Theory says it's inevitable that the result is always Regulatory Capture. History provides plenty of evidence of this.

So, instead of benevolent oversight, we always get bureaucrats doing favors for preferred corporations, damaging competitors, keeping out competition, and then cashing-in for a big payday with a job in a corporation they previously coddled. So, you see, government power sets up that Oligarchy that you say you are worried about.

Government money has been taken from someone.

Yes, because taxation is theft, period. After all, paying for infrastructure, defense, social services, et al, is highway robbery. Does corruption exist? Of course. Is taxation summary theft by definition? Well, that's just silly.

Talking about a strawman! Of course there necessary government powers. But....

Yes, all taxation is theft. There is no doubt about that. Don't pay your taxes and eventually men with guns will come and take it. That is theft.

There are some legitimate things that must be done, as we agree. Government should do those things and nothing more. Forgetting that taxes are theft, makes it too easy for the government to raise taxes for inessentials, like for example, bailing out Wall Street when they lose a lot of money. Do you think that is an essential use of Government taxing power? Do you think it is right to steal money and give it to Wall Street? No? That is the result of the government regulatory action that you favor.

And to assume that bureaucrats are virtuous is naive.

I never implied that, but nice attempt at the straw man. Since you said it, conversely, to assume that the private sector and "the market", left unchecked, is somehow the panacea to all of society's ills is truly naive.

You said this:

For me, I'll take the better intentioned (and less funded) state school/government funded research over research funded by, i.e., Monsanto, et al. It's a no-brainer.

To me, "better intentioned" can be substituted for virtuous. You are free to clarify your thoughts, if you wish. I truly didn't mean to set up a straw man.

It was also a no brainer when NASA thought the o-rings weren't sensitive to low temperatures. It was also a no brainer when NASA thought the foam insulation didn't have enough mass to damage the heat shield tiles. No brainers are really unexamined assumptions, and feeling safe while doing it.

Perhaps. However, it might be an insult to you if pointed out off the wall and silly examples of when a no-brainer does not fall under the limitations of your own definition. But I digress, as I want no part in space vehicle accidents.

By your own definition, a "no brainer" is a decision that you make without examining the details. Isn't that right? I believe my assessment of a what makes a "no brainer" is accurate, but I did not mean for it to be taken as an insult. Sorry for that misunderstanding. I surely could have made my point more clearly.

If you reply, I'll surely read it and probably even want to reply. However, I'm finished, as discussions like this never end.

Personally, I don't think there is enough dialog across the aisle, so to speak. There's no pressure to reach a conclusion here. If this conversation has ceased to amuse you, then definitely, go do something else! Life is too short!

Take care.