If I needed water and food, I could get it for free. Not the same with health care.
I find it hard to understand why subsidizing something essential like health care with taxpayer money is ridiculed, while building roads, courthouses, and bridges with the same money doesn't get half the scutiny.
Would the quality, convenience and choice of the "free" stuff be equal to that of what you'd have to buy?
And it's only free to the user, not society.
I find it hard to understand why subsidizing something essential like health care with taxpayer money is ridiculed, while building roads, courthouses, and bridges with the same money doesn't get half the scutiny.
Because it's not feasible for individuals to build all those things. Theoretically, the government should only be financing and buying what it's impractical for individual citizens to do.
Are you *sure* you're a Libertarian????
So you would privatize all public works?
I think one thing I'm realizing as this thread progresses is that to me moderation and balance appeal most to me.
A mixture of free market and government intervention seems to be the way -- sort of a checks and balances system. Each has its strengths, and I think they compliment each other nicely. Why give up either? Why not figure out which one works best where?
Sometimes I get the feeling conservatives want to completely eliminate government. Is that true? If not, where do you draw the line? What should be private and what should be public?