Okay in that case let's get rid of the military afterall don't they "provide for the common defense?" From now on it's up to ordnary citizens to provide for their own defense. I am going to buy stock in Smith and Wesson on Monday.
Eh, now we're just at the level of useless sloganeering, I'm not even going to bother. So you're basically asking me why most people don't understand that, in certain markets, structural obstacles to Pareto optimality arise, which make an optimal distribution of welfare unlikely to occur? I mean the question basically answers itself. COmbine that with popular misconception/repetition about deregulation overall and trying to explain things like information asymmetry and increasing returns doesn't go very far. Intellectual laziness of the masses combined with monied interests keeping them that way results in morons going to tea parties, carrying a sign with a picture of hitler and shouting "get your government hands off my medicare"... But why is there even a debate on the subject? There's not a debate on teh subject of health care being unable to regulate itself. Nobody with any sort of education about the subject seriously believes that health care can be allocated efficiently by the market. The market itself decided that it couldn't, which is why it evovled all sorts of regulatory mechanisms to try to cope with it. Look at you - you're in nursing school. Why do you have to go to nursing school and obtain some sort of certification? Why can't you just go be a nurse tomorrow? Wouldn't that be a more efficient, laissez faire approach? Or is there something there that a market won't pick up and is being compensated for? Why would I say something that isn't true? Our system used to work quite well and resulted in the best health care in the world. Now our system is all f***ed up and our overall quality of care is in jeopardy. Sure, I can tell you it's because statistic after statistic shows that "waiting time" nationals don't get any worse health care overall than we do, and get it at lower cost. Really? WHere are you getting these "efficiency gains"? So you're saying that any reduction in wait time for you results in greater efficiency? No matter the cost? Sorry but that's not the definition of efficiency. It's the definiton of "convenient to me" And of course this leaves out the 300 million people not on your health plan, whose waiting time ranges from comparable to FOREVER, in the case of the 60 million or so without insurance.
Maybe it says that the society would like a SAY in where their tax dollars are spent. I would prefer they be spent on helping out the society rather than bombing others societies. DD
Do you seriously think we would be where we are today if this were the practiced philosophy? You might as well be living in the woods and pooping in a coffee can if you really believe in this no-government, anti-society stuff.
There probably wouldn't be any coffee cans though, because there'd be no way to organize industry or manufacturing.
I believe in a government that exists to protect my rights, and nothing else. I believe in a society free from coersion. Individuals form societies voluntarily for mutual benefit. The individual does not exist to be the servant of society. We aren't an ant colony.
You continue to make less and less sense, all your Rand-esque nonsensical right wing slogans notwithstanding.
This sloganeering is familiar and repetitive. As in the many previous iterations I've read elsewhere, it is void of any real-world vision. Just the spouting of words like freedom, rights, coercion, servitude... it's a vague, emotion-based regurgitation of ideals which are very meaningful to you, but you give no thought to what kind of society you would create if your ideals became a reality. The Ayn Rand fantasyland libertarians are every bit as deluded as the people who think pure communism can work, it just hasn't been done properly yet.
Its is U.S. Constitution-founded resurgence, unlike the sick, twisted ideas of socialism and free health care as a inalienable right.
Don't make me out to be against clean water standards. Unlike you, I actually do have kids and I care about these things. I just categorize it as a public service rather than an inalienable human right. And yes my analogy does work. There is a difference between civil or legal rights and privileges and "inalienable human rights". I would consider inalienable human rights to be fundamental basic principals that cross borders. Many can claim human rights atrocities being committed by fascist states (such as denial of free trial, etc.). They are not claiming that legal rights have been violated. Any fascist state can make whatever laws they want. And I don't think it would be fair to accuse a poor country of human rights violations if they cannot produce free, public, clean, potable water that is up to US standards. If clean water was an inalienable human right that MUST be provided free by the state, then any poor country in the drylands is intrinsically evil?
"if the country can afford it" just that caveat makes it impossible to be an inalienable human right. legal right for denizens of the United States? sure. HUMAN right for all humans? not possible. some humans live in countries that can't afford it.
