The_vagabond7 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
I am all for stepping in and fixing healthcare. And if what you say could be done, I would not be against it.
It would be against my ideology, but if what you painted could be done, I would not argue against it.
But there has never been an example of government running anything well. I would be much more for government reform then I would the government taking over.
|
So should we let the private sector run the military? Or the police?
|
No, because it's our counties responsibly to protect us from others (domestic and foreign).
If they were run privately however, they would run a lot more efficiently (it's why we have contractors, they do things a lot cheeper).
It's the governments job to protect you, not to provide for you. In a free society, there is no way for the government to provide for you, as they have no assets to provide. Anything they have, they must take from someone first. Taking from an individual to provide for another, is against there sole purpose of existing... to protect you.
|
But they shouldn't protect you from disease? They should only protect you from Jihadist? That's a narrow definition of "protect". And they have to take from one to protect another. There is very little chance of a terrorist attack where I am. Should I be angry I'm paying to protect new york? If I am paying to protect new york from terrorist attacks and be fine with it, why should I be angry if I pay to protect new york from diabetes or cancer?
|
They should protect you from disease. The FDA is a good example of that. They should not provide for you if you contract it.
So, if it's to cold, I will freeze to death. Should the government provide me with a house to keep me out of the cold? should they provide me with heat?
