rec.arts.theatre.musicals

On Oct 10, 2:17 am, t...@ (Tim Gowen) wrote:

> So wishing for a civilised society is wrong?

No. Civilized society depends on the *voluntary* non-coerced
cooperation between individuals, where there is mutual exchange to
mutual benefit. I oppose coercion as a general rule except when
absolutely necessary, and since government fundamentally depends on
coercion, while the free market fundamentally depends on voluntary
cooperation (a truly free market does, that is -- not one intricately
mixed with government), I advocate a strictly limited government and a
free market.

> > In a civilized society, people should not have to go hungry. Why
> > then, shouldn't the food industry be brought under government control
> > and distribution?
>
> Because the market can provide food, it's very simple to do and it's
> basically what started the market in the first place.

Do I understand correctly that the difference you see between the
government providing healthcare vs. food is that you think food is
"very simple to do," while presumably you believe healthcare is very
complex, and the complexity justifies government intervention in the
healthcare industry where it's unnecessary with food?

Assuming I am correct above:

1) How is it that the allegedly evil selfish profit motive that can't
be trusted elsewhere, results in most people being able to afford an
adequate supply of safe food to eat?

2) What about shoes? That's not so simple to do. It takes special
skill to make a shoe. I couldn't do it and probably most people
couldn't make their own shoes. And you can't expect people to walk
around barefoot, can you? Government intervention then?

If the government got itself involved in the shoe or food industry the
way it does in healthcare, prices would certainly rise (that situation
exists to some degree even now -- with government mandated ethanol
regulations driving up food prices because of its impact on farmers)
and any imperfections in the system (E-coli found in the food, for
instance) could be used as a justification for further government
interference. There will always be some imperfection somewhere to
latch onto as a justification for government intervention. I'm
surprised the idea isn't floated more often.

> People are also
> able to provide basic healthcare for themselves.

Then why rely on the government for basic healthcare?

> Why does the USA have a defence budget when there's the 2nd Amendment?

Because the Constitution established that the government should
provide for the common defense, and established the 2nd Amendment to
address individual defense, and as defense for the People against a
future government gone wild that would seek to oppress the populace
with force.

> > There is no such thing as "society" apart from individuals. If
> > "society" pays, that means that some individuals pay and other
> > individuals receive.
>
> An obnoxious sentiment.

It is obnoxious in the sense that a society of forced servants and
masters (those who are forced to pay and those who demand to receive)
is far from a civilized one. It only creates a society where self-
responsibility is discounted and mooching is elevated to a self-
righteous virtue.