Healthcare costs and the free market

Obviously. But there is a difference between accepting some small measure of random infringements and institutionalizing such infringements across an entire society.

 

Why not? The government provided everyone healthcare. That's what you want, isn't it?

 

How can the government violate one's rights when one's rights are determined by the government?

 

Not really. Your model does not work anywhere.....because it is unworkable

 

You asked us if we wanted the USA to be more like Denmark and Canada. We said yes because those countries operate on a much smaller scale than the USA does. I'm not sure what the confusion is.

 

Far far far more than that. You want to argue in a vacuum which is dishonest

 

And I said quite clearly that their models ONLY work because they are NATIONAL models and we should do the same

 

The model of individual liberty and political decentralization is what America was founded on. That is why we're the richest country in history. So not only does my model work, it works better than every other model that's been tried.

 

Because that is the only way a society can function. Even a libertarian one

 

Their models only work because their populations are small. We should split into several small-population countries, and then adopt their models.

 

What was wrong with their system? The government was heavily involved in making sure that wealth was distributed equally across society and that every Soviet citizen had the basic necessities.

 

Well that is your theory. We became the most successful at around the same time as we started many social programs such as social security so I could make that case as well

 

That is your theory. But you notice THEY don't split it up within their countries. Their programs are nationwide

 

And I keep reminding you that their national models are much smaller than a national model in the USA would be. For some reason, you are unwilling to concede the importance of that difference.

 

They need more capitalism mixed in. A mix of capitalism and socialism works best

 

But why don't they split them up by city in their countries? Wouldn't that be more efficient?

 

It's a theory that is backed up by mountains of evidence.

The American revolution, the bill of rights, a federal system of government. These are all based on libertarian principles.

 

Hm. You didn't answer my question, so I'll ask it again.

I asked you how do we discern a dictatorship from a non-dictatorship.

Your answer: "When they violate human rights to a standard we can not accept. Yes ....we."

Are you saying that human rights are something inherent and independent of government and that can be violated by government?

 

I thought you wanted the healthcare system to be socialized?

 

I am saying that human rights are defined by the people and they can change over time

 

I do. I also want capitalism in the US in other areas.

 

Perhaps it would be. Some theories of democratic confederalism say that the municipality is the largest scale at which genuine democracy can operate. In any case, the issue of scale cannot be ignored or dismissed. It is of crucial importance.

 

The last 70 years of social programs in the US where we became the most powerful nation on earth is also powerful evidence

 

So when it comes to healthcare, you don't want a "mix" of capitalism and socialism. You just want socialism.

 

Clearly they have shown the evidence for a national model