Posted on 06/09/2003 9:37:02 AM PDT by RJCogburn
You may have missed the author's point.
Which is it, conservatives?It's neither. The question itself as it is posed is bogus. How is removing a dictator like managing the material and administrative costs of creating so massive a new entitlement, one that will swallow about seven percent of our GDP? Answer: one is not like the other, not in the least.
You may have missed the author's point.No, he's dead on about the author's point. Overthrowing a dictator is a practical, achievable goal; universal healthcare, on the other hand, in practice always leaves one as underwhelmed as it leaves one underserved.
The only problem with this line of thought is that there is no such thing as the government paying INSURANCE on everyone.
Since insurance companies actually make a profit from what they do, to make the government the only payee to them would give the government absolute power at how they handle expenses and would be to absolutely subsidize and control our medical care. It adds up to Hitlery's Socialized Medicine Plan.
Lets say you have a plumber, he is a good plumber, does the job great when ever your pipes are screwed up. Does that qualify him to now be a doctor. NO. Well, if he is such a good plumber, why can't he be a doctor. Asking this question is stupid, but a liberal would say just pay him more.
Now what if we asked our happy plumber who is now a pretty damn bad doctor, would also like to be our accountant. We pay him more. Eventually, you've given him every single job, you have no money since you pay him every penny you make, and he does absolutley everything for you, but he does nothing good, except plumbing,(when he has the time) well.
Government has roles, the constitution sets them out, the founding fathers knew what government could do, and what, it could not. Over the years, through stupidity, we have forgotten that.
They spend half their time praising the federal government for its miracles in Iraq (and, if they get their way, in Iran) and the other half of their time ridiculing the Democrats for thinking that the same federal government can provide medical insurance for everyone.
It's not a conundrum at all. Conservatives realize that somethings the government does very well, National Defense, law enforcement, etc. Other things, that should be left to private industry and charity, like welfare programs, the government has a horrible track record of managing.
Whether we'll be able to help in creating a model free market democracy in Iraq is an open question, however the fact that we wiped out one of our biggest adversaries in about three weeks speaks volumes to the efficiency of the U.S. military.
Richman doesn't seem to offer an alternative to either leaving S/H in power or leaving a power vacuum to be filled by whatever tin pot depot or islamo fascist is on hand. An excellent illustration of the liberal malady of not recognizing that everything can't be controlled.
”Guns Before Butter.”
Liberalism (in the original pro-freedom sense) cannot be force-fed.Yuh-huh. That's why Germany is still a Nazi state, Japan is still ruled by a warlord clique of generals, and, fifty years of twilight struggle and Cold War later, the Warsaw Pact still threatens the security of Europe and the world. You simply cannot force-feed people freedom or dignity. They want to be ruled by tyrants and murderers.
But that is not his point. Overthrowing a dictor is quite different from what he asks.
Then why do conservatives think the government can do something more complex, such as turning Iraq into a modern, enlightened polity?
I don't know that I agree with him, but think the discussion should answer his question, not a different one that was not asked.
Hence it's logical to argue that government is quite efficient at making war (or enforcing laws) but badly inefficient at redistributing income or administering healthcare programs.
... I don't know that I agree with him, but think the discussion should answer his question, not a different one that was not asked. ...Why would you expect anyone to address a question the premise or premises of which they reject on its face? It's like the question "when did you stop beating your wife." As I wrote before, the question as it is posed is bogus--to answer the question on its own terms is to accept the assumption of a symmetry that does not exist. Overthrowing a dictator is not like creating an entitlement: no equivalence, hence no contradiction.
Very few of the roles were spelled out in the constitution and the ones which were only applied to the Federal government. Most of what government does is a matter of tradition and common law. Which is why there is little outcry over the 1st amendment--designed to encourage the free exercise of religion--being used to censor religious expression.
9/11 was the result of the inability of the government to provide a national defense, and you are telling me this is a job 'they' do well?
The government is no better fit to provide a national defense than it is adept an running the postal service.
And the alternative you'd suggest that would do a better job is?
Perhaps your own militia?
How many 9-11s have occurred since the first one?
I suppose private industry could have overthrown Iraq in 2 weeks?
Is everything measured by JohnGault's unreasonable expectations and everything short of that is unacceptable? Or, perhaps you're a person who has all complaints and no solutions...
”Guns Before Butter.”
The government is no better fit to provide a national defense than it is adept an running the postal service.Or a national healthcare system or healthcare insurance system, right? But we do tend to fight rather well, as evidenced in Afghanistan, Iraq etc. Our common defenses may be flawed, but the rest of the world tends to respect them when we finally decide to use them. Go figure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.