TheRealMafoo said:
Depends on the government. The US government is supposed to protect your rights, but not look after you. That's part of the deal in a free country. You are required to provide your efforts (in the form of taxes) to cover your costs for running the country, and then what you do with the rest of your time is up to you, provided you don't infringe on other peoples rights. Your time belongs to you. THe risk to a free country is there is no one to take care of you, other then you. The benefit is you get to take advantage of your efforts. The US always tries to remove the risk of a free country, but does so at the expense of removing your freedoms. Some people welcome that. I am one that does not. I don't want/need anyone to take care of me. I will do that. Just protect my rights, and get the hell out of my way. |
Bad choice of words on my part. Look after your interest would be better. Provide infastructure and services if you don't have them or the ones you have are inefectual whilst letting their be alternatives to encourage competition ad choice.
I think you also have a kinee jerk reaction to "take care of you" So if you get injured you'll "take care of yourself"? Part of running the country means looking after the health and safety of it's population. If a large part of the populous were unhealthy and dying wouldn't you want the gov to do smething about it like you would expect them to "look after you" during a natural diesaster? or are you going to do that with no interference from them?
I heard that a lot of people were pissed off about that during Katrina?
What about education? Are you going to look after yourself with that? I bet you gov had a big hand in your education so why not your health care?
Fact is your government has been holding your hand and looking after you since the day you was born even if you don't want to admit it.
