Comment: the best response to this was posted not long ago

(See in situ)

the best response to this was posted not long ago

it was about a girl getting heart surgery because of Obamacare, and what to say if someone played the emo card:

But medical procedures are governed by the same law of economic scarcity as everything else. Economics is all about the unseen. It a wonderful thing the girl got surgery (I didn't see the video; It is gone.) Who didn't get heart surgery because this girl did? What if, thanks to the Affordable Healthcare Act, two other people had to do without? Who didn't get something else because they were paying for this instead? It is the broken window fallacy again. The girl got heart surgery, but at what cost? Was there no other way for her to get heart surgery?

I could ask you for $5 to get a sandwich to give to my kid, or I could hire someone to put a gun in your ribs to take $10 from you so I can get a sandwich to give to my kid. I could rob the sandwich vendor in order to give one to my kid. I could work for someone else in trade for $5 to buy a sandwich to give to my kid. In the end, you say, that it is good my kid has a sandwich to eat. Does it matter how the sandwich got into my child's hands? Are there different consequences to each approach? I would say so."

Truthfully its the same exact thing, I was asked once in debate:

"If you make roads private, whats to stop people from charging outlandish prices to drive on them.?"

To which i replied:

"Supply and Demand" Are you not paying taxes for roads now? How much do you pay, and how much is wasted through the lack of competition from government, who will just pay whatever it costs to get the job done, rather than outsource it to those who will do the work cheaper for the opportunity of work?

Then they laughed and scoffed at the idea of letting the chaos of free markets run it, but I can't help their ignorance of the math, we can't all be smart enough to do large calculations in our head. ;)