In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, BIll Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >On Sat, 2005-04-23 at 12:38 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: >> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 00:21:51 -0700, Frank Reichert >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> <snip> >> >The point in all of this is that 'People' should be the ones to >> >make their own choices,..... >> >> >> I agree. And along those lines, the solution is simple: a dual-mode >> healthcare system. There's no reason why a government-run socialized >> healthcare system can't co-exist with a free-market system. > >Yes, there is. Multiple reasons, actually. > >1. The government system takes money away from the would-be consumers >2. The government can (and does) make participation mandatory >3. The government can, and does, make rules that benefit it's "service" >while inhibiting the development of competing services >4. The government (currently) licenses the would-be competitors. > > > > >> The problem is that the lines between them are undefined, hence the >> conflict. Just like two countries sharing an undefined border. If >> both the people and the government can look beyond the stigma >> attached to the term "socialism" then maybe both will realize that >> the ideology can be adopted for its beneficial characteristics >> -without- threatening capitalism. This applies to education as well. >> IMHO. > >Well, your HO is contradicted by fact. Indeed, the "education" sector >demonstrates the problem with your thesis dramatically. Here, the >requirements placed on private schools that public schools do not have >to deal with are glaring. When one "competitor" can make all the rules >and force everyone else to bend to them (via force of government/law), >there is no free market, and thus the two are as incompatible as oil and >heavy water, if not more so since one destroys the other. > >Curious that you use the term socialism out of context while complaining >people need to use it properly. Voluntary socialism between small groups >without force of government has a chance at working for said small >groups. Socialism as used by *any* government will not work, and can not >work. No stigma needed. If it's broke, it's broke. And Socialism via >government mandate/involvement is exactly that: broke. > >Cheers, >Bill > Very well put, and what I would have said myself If I could have been bothered to do anything else than jeer at the economic illiteracy of the original poster.
Incidentally, the phenomenon you refer to above is what is technically called by economists and historians of the subject "crowding out". Once the state starts supplying such services it crowds out the ability of people to purchase them privately. (In reality, of course, as you point out, it also regulates and restricts the competition). Dr. Chris R. Tame, Director The Libertarian Alliance Suite 35 2 Lansdowne Row Mayfair London W1J 6HL Tel: 0870 2421712 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] LA Web Site: http://www.libertarian.co.uk Free Life Web Site: http://www.libertarian.co.uk/freelife The Hampden Press Website: http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk LA Forum: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/libertarian-alliance-forum "The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom is Courage". Pericles' Funeral Oration (431BC) _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
