Comment: These kind of arguments are powerful among casual political

(See in situ)


These kind of arguments are powerful among casual political

observers who aren't jacked in and visit Daily Paul everyday.

A strong counter would be that libertarians are happy to come to the table provided:

1. Health care is not decreed as a tax or coerced government type function, but a business type function being performed by government. This type of shit is done all the time. Look at a county annual financial report for a distinction between government type activities and business type activities.

2. It is a voluntary system where people can choose to participate in it or choose not to participate in it.

Sure, some libertarians might have some great ideas but if those two conditions don't exist who in the hell wants to compromise on expanding or increasing the size and scope of government?

No Karl, it's not about a perfect solution. It's about integrity. According to all the minarchists and many anarachists who used to be minarchists, government has very limited and specific roles to use coercive power if it has any legitimacy to exist at all. If you want government to do more than that then be honest about it. Don't pass it off as a government type activity which coerces everyone. Don't force everyone to pay for it. If people want government to run a health care system then fine, let's think up a system but keep it voluntary, don't force everyone to pay for it, and if it is a good system people will use it.

A strong counter argument to this kind of Karl BS is ... Yes, I believe government can't run shit well but I am willing to give government the benefit of the doubt and let government prove it can do a good job if congress is willing to make national health care a voluntary system paid for solely by those who use and benefit from it.

It's a safe bet to put the ball back in their court because I think many strongly feel corrupt ass politicians are not going to settle for any government program being voluntary.