[duncan_bayne]

Funding the left is every bit as evil as funding the right. Someone once observed that the left wants to control your wallet, and the right your bedroom.

The behaviour of the 'right' in using lethal force to prevent people obtaining abortions is every bit as immoral as the 'left' using lethal force to ensure that people pay for other people's healthcare.

The only moral alternative is to eliminate coercion from all dealings between people, and the only framework I've seen that might have a hope in hell of doing so is anarcho-capitalism.

[LeeHunter]

"... the 'left' using lethal force to ensure that people pay for other people's healthcare."

WTF?

Here's a message from the civilized world where publicly funded healthcare is an utterly mundane fact of life, on a par with publicly funded policing: Take two Valium America and calm yourself down.

[duncan_bayne]

Lee,

It's interesting that you assume I'm American on the basis of my description of what "public funding" really is, at heart. Newsflash: I'm actually Australian, born in the UK and raised in New Zealand.

You're not exactly addressing the point I raised, though. "Public funding" relies upon coercion. That many people consider such coercion an "utterly mundane fact of life" is irrelevant to the underlying immorality of it: forcing some people to pay for goods and services to be given to others.

I'm not suggesting that people who are through no fault of their own incapable of providing for themselves be left to die or suffer. I'm suggesting that the ends don't justify the means when it comes to the initiation of force.

Edited: here's an open letter, originally written to Rand, that illustrates the coercive nature of Government, and explains a rational, coercion-free alternative: http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/roy-a-childs-jr/objectivi...

Edited: linking to LewRockwell.com does not constitute a blanket endorsement of their content on my part :)