[anamax]

> I don't trust large sections of my country and you don't have a solution for dealing with the people who decide to spend their money irrationally.

I've got news for you. I don't trust YOU to decide how to spend their money or my money.

Yes, people do dumb things with their money. However, they do dumber things with other people's money. And, since the potential damange is greater in the latter case than in the former, that's double-plus ungood.

[mikeryan]

So what no gov't? No taxes? Every year we just let everyone pay what they think roads/school/defense deserves?

What do you do with large populations of kids can't go to school because their parents don't want to pay for it.

Or people die because of lack of food and drug regulation

Or when kids break their legs without health insurance.

Or when our parents and grandparents don't have a retirement fund because they saved foolishly.

I fail to see how having a gov't spending our money makes the potential damage worse.

The list goes on.

[BrentRitterbeck]

Or people die because of lack of food and drug regulation?

This happens every day.

Or people die because of lack of food and drug regulation?

This also happens every day.

Or when our parents and grandparents don't have a retirement fund because they saved foolishly?

So does this.

[anamax]

> I fail to see how having a gov't spending our money makes the potential damage worse.

Oh really?

When you spend your money on your stuff, you try really hard to get the best value.

When you spend your money on someone else's stuff, you go cheap.

When you spend someone else's money on your stuff, you don't worry so much about cost effectiveness.

Govt spending is someone else's money for someone else's stuff. Do you really think that that's as good as either of the previous two categories, let alone the first one?

[solutionyogi]

No one is suggesting that there should not be government or taxes. What we are advocating for is limited government and minimal taxes.

Think about this for a moment. You think that health care is a right and everyone should have it. To expand this, you can also say that 'food' is a right and everyone should get it. Should government get in to business of taxing people and making sure that food is provided for everyone?

[anamax]

> you can also say that 'food' is a right and everyone should get it. Should government get in to business of taxing people and making sure that food is provided for everyone?

More to the point, even if you think that food is a right and tax people to provide it to the less fortunate, should we have "Nationalized Food Service" or a subsidized "public option"? How about a tax on employers that don't provide acceptable "private food service"?

And speaking of this "food right", does it apply to folks who aren't capable of full participation in civil society? I ask because one of the White House advisors on health care believes that health care as a right does not apply to such folks, giving as an example folks with dementia. Would folks with Downs syndrome qualify?

He also thinks that old folks don't qualify.