><Likewise, it is not the intention of General Motors to create quality vehicles for the American public. Cars are just a byproduct of General Motors' desire to collect money from the American public...

>>I do NOT interpret this as a slam. You are absolutely right, and it is very perceptive of you. The secret of the competitive free-market system is that for GM to collect the maximum amount of money, they are FORCED to produce quality vehicles!

Theoretically, that's how democracy works, too. The voters seek their own best interests, and leaders who do not deliver, disappear.

>>The key proof would be a politician who voted in a way that would be consistent with his principles, but would be certain to alienate his constituency. I am racking my brain, but can think of no examples right off hand of this occurring. Maybe you can?

Well, another poster pointed out Clinton's role in welfare reform. Another example might be Clinton's support of free trade. Or pretty much any democrat that had to bring us into a war. Or Nixon's trip to China.

>>The short answer is yes. I believe such a valuable service would prove to be very profitable, and that the private sector (which funds communications satellites after all) could easily have developed and operated a weathersat system without additional government funding.

I don't agree. Business could have done this any time they wanted. Same as business could be building hotels in space right now. Business won't. Space is too expensive, too risky, and doesn't show signs of providing the huge profits necessary to justify points one and two. I want to be wrong about this.