Anyways — admin’s idea that current views that government is the answer blurs the distinction is a non sequitor (it doesn’t logically follow). The blurry distinction is there because it logically follows that if you want to keep people from infringing on the rights of others, you rely on the government to do so. If I come to rob you, then you need the government (police) to protect you. You could try to use your 2nd amendment, but my robbing skillz are superior and you will fail. If you are bold and do rely on your personal arsenal and by pure luck are successful, then you rely on the government to protect you from jail. You rely on a government document, a fictitious conjecture, called the constitution, which is a pretty cool fictitious conjecture by the way, to say that you had a right to shoot me. Therefore, you rely on the government to keep me from infringing on your right to be secure. Well, perhaps I want to be secure from your diseased body, which is contagious, and infringes on my right to be healthy. Why can’t I rely on the government to prevent you from infecting me with your diseases? You don’t have an answer because the line is blurred. Well, I’ll answer it for you. The reason is that transaction costs are just too high. It cost too much money for me to prevent your disease ridden body from blowing germs on me in the subway. I would have to identify all of you diseased selfish people and hire someone to protect me from you. Why should I have to pay because you are diseased and threatening me bodily harm? Perhaps, you should pay? (I know this hurts but it will be over soon). Anyways, back to high transaction costs. How do you minimize these transaction costs tennisaddict? You do like a business might, you spread the fixed costs among a large output. In otherwords, you set up single payer healthcare system that everyone contributes to (not necessarily everyone, but for argument’s sake, lets just say everyone). This is no different than a single payer policing service. Why don’t you hire your own security to protect you from my superior robbing skillz; because the transaction costs are too high to justify the risk. This analogy seems pretty clear. You may ask, well, why can’t we just have one business do it as a free enterprise? Refer to the beginning of this post. The benefit of having a government do it is that government doesn’t have to profit and in fact can operate at a loss. You do not necessarily run the risk of paying a high price for restricted output like a profit maximizing firm must end up doing. If they try, you elect different commissioners or whatever and you change who runs the operation. In a private corp., no one cares what you think, you don’t own stock.

All in all, it seems clear that when you say “the distinction seems pretty clear to me,” its because you haven’t thought about it. You have no reasons to say the distinction is clear. Your reason is that the modern view that government is always the solution is blurring the line. Hows that? Where did you come up with this modern view and how do you know that it is the modern view? And if it is the modern view, how does it blur the line? Perhaps my position is that your view that government is the problem blurs the line? Why am I wrong and you are right? I’ll answer this one for you. I’m right because I gave reasons, logical ones, that support my conclusions. On the other hand, you have not provided any reasons. As a result, your argument is weak and doesn’t really prove anything or demonstrate anything. In general, you can’t just say a conclusion over and over again and say it’s true because you say it over and over again. That is what people who don’t think do. You need reasons that make sense according to rules of logic. Though, most people avoid logic because you have to think to do it. Thinking is hard and you might not like the results.

But don’t confuse Communism with a mixed economy, in which government sets rules and regulations to protect citizens from unfettered capitalism, which we all know is toxic.

Universal health care in this country, as proposed by many people, would simply eliminate the for-profit middle man (insurance companies) and reduce costs by spreading the risk across a much larger pool. It would also mean the end of preexisting conditions and denied claims.

The biggest misinformation is the myth that you’d be standing in line, that you’d have no freedom to choose your doctor, that doctors would stop practicing, etc, etc.

Hey, if you and other people still wanted to pay for your own insurance then I’d have no problem with government making sure that stays an option, but for the vast majority this would make perfect sense.

Also, I’d much rather have a government-managed water supply under strict regulation than privatized water systems with profit-motivated corporations looking to cut costs at every turn in an effort to maximize the bottom line.

I guess my point is simply this, there are things that government can do better than the private sector and we should focus on finding what those things are. I love freedom as much as the next guy, but freedom is meant to be for the individual, not the corporation.

The U.S. health care system is a mess. However, it is by no means a free market industry. Insurance company and drug company lobbyists have bought legislation that benefits their interests.

Would you want to drive a government made car? Fly in a government made plane? Shop at a government grocery store?

Government should not be entrenched in medicine or education. Choice will be eliminated. Everyone will have to settle for whatever level of service government delivers (which is likely to be terrible).

Why force this on people that don’t want it? How is it fair to force people to pay for something they don’t want?

If you want it, then by all means – work towards a system that allows some to opt-in and pay their own way.

Please consider that many would prefer choice and shouldn’t have to support your views. Choice is at the core of freedom. Government kills choice.

You probably know a few –access and quality of health care, access and quality of education, poverty rate, etc.

Using words like “big government” to describe access to, for example, universal health care is a well known tactic for hard right, free market worshipers that has already been discredited. As for it being a nightmare… well, the current system of free-for-all that only benefits insurance companies and leaves people to die of preexisting conditions doesn’t exactly seem like a dream to me. Does it to you? You must be a CEO!

And again, socialist schemes have not and do not exist in America. What you talk about are at best pseudo-social programs that serve almost exclusively a very narrow segment of the population, leaving the vast majority to fend for themselves.

Believe me, I was born and raised under true government sponsored programs and what we have in the US is most certainly not. Back in my home country, I never had to pay a dime to get medical and dental care, hell even the medicine was free, but here even though I have health insurance, I’m always paying co-pays and getting bills in the mail for something that wasn’t covered, or paying $15-$20 for each medication I have to take, not to mention living with the fear that I might get dropped at any time because of a preexisting condition.

Does this sound like freedom to you? If it does then, to paraphrase the great George Orwell, freedom is indeed slavery.

I do not believe the backbone of this country resides in the elite.

I believe the backbone of this country resides in those striving to be elite.

Red tape, regulations, and codes that can only be deciphered by high priced attorneys are the road blocks government puts in the way of the emerging entrepreneurs, scientists, engineers, inventors, and productive professionals.

This is why economic growth slows as government gets bigger and more intrusive.

Look at the extremes for confirmation: Zero government — rapid growth. Huge government (USSR/East Germany) — negative growth.

Less government = good government.

Freedom is the right to do as you please without infringing on the rights of others.

You have a right to work towards eliminating your fear of contracting a disease that could bankrupt you. You do not have a right to take by force from others to alleviate your fear.

You have a right to ask for help. You do not have a right to force it.

It seems an obvious distinction to me. I can see how society and current views of government as the answer for every problem could blur the line…but this is only one more reason to conclude we are taking the wrong path.

Technology and science improve the human condition. Government does more harm than good.

It’s wrong to force people to give to charities/programs. It’s wrong to force others to pursue your goals.

If government is so great, let them prove it and ask for donations like thousands of other charities. If it’s so obvious that government really does improve the human condition, then of course they will rise to become the #1 charity.

Of course, that is just silly. No one likes dealing with government bureaucracy. Except of course for those well-connected elite than can manipulate it.

Government has gotten in the way in New Orleans, the city is still in ruins. Government has caused some of the most valuable real estate in New York to go unused for over 7 years (The World Trade Center). Government ‘projects’ in cities are some of the most dangerous places on planet earth.

Government is in charge of Social Security. How big is the fund now? How well have they managed it? If I created a savings plan for people that paid retirees and spent every penny of the fund would that be ok?

We should be throwing politicians and bureaucrats in prisons by the handful. Giving them more power and more money is reckless and will result in a catastrophe here in a America.

***************************************

~ you wrote “go ahead and vote libertarian/republican” — those 2 parties are in no way aligned. I am every bit against Republican policies as I am Democrat. McCain or Obama doesn’t matter to me. Either one will do immense damage to this country.

***************************************

You write rationally, you are obviously an intelligent thinking human being. Please answer a few questions for me:

1. Let’s choose a charity that is irrefutably an important cause. Let’s say: Darfur. If that doesn’t work for you, then pick something that does. Now, would it be justified for me to grab a shotgun and walk around my neighborhood collecting money for the cause by force? Let’s say your answer to that is: maybe..or it’s different if Government does it for me. Then, would it be ok if I pocketed 75% or more of that money before sending it to the cause? After all, I have expenses.

2. Did the policies of FDR pull America out of the great depression? If so, how? How can government possibly improve economic conditions without creating any products?

3. If government is working for the people, then why in times of hardship do they not take pay cuts, or work for free? Why do they constantly grow regardless of whether or not programs are working? Why do they get angry when asked about the effectiveness of their policies?

4. Why do places with the least government experience the fastest growth? The American West and Hong Kong are examples. Why does unemployment go up and growth go down under big government?