It is important to understand that there is a difference between the elites who call themselves “conservative” and what actual free market economics is.

http://www.mises.org

We have seen time and again that the use of force (also known as government) to redistribute wealth, or coerce producers to give away their products to the needy, only results in skyrocketing prices, shortages, and eventually chaos.

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/2007/aug/23/death_by_government

The free market is not the domain of the selfish. Freedom (social AND economic) under a restrained government is the most humanitarian form of government possible. Yes. God said sharing is superior. But God also said stealing is wrong.

Do not be deceived: government is nothing more or less than force. The use of government should be restricted to those things you would kill someone over.

Kudos nick, and very nice to meet you!

Governments have risen and fallen on the performance of the NHS so we almost take it for granted that if we get ill then we won’t need to worry about how we’re going to afford it. There are some situations where drugs have denied (e.g. advanced cancer) but we can still take the government to court.

The fact is the US has a terrible healthcare system (at least the US expats I know think so) and it’s interesting how the people who don’t think so have always had good health insurance.

To Nicholas: I’m planning a new blog to respond to your comment, which is based on several false assumptions, mainly that–
1) if we can’t make it perfect, we shouldn’t try. if followed, this argument would ban all our endeavors
2) that we don’t already have government-funded health care. we do have government-funded health care, it just sucks ass.
I’m trying to fix it.

The common good is based upon individual rights. It is just the collective representation of those rights. Like Hugo Chavez, most government planners and regulators seem to see the common good in opposition to the individuals rights.

The keys to a free society are tolerance, respect, equal access to protection, and self determination.We have to distinguish between what we don’t like and what hurts us. I did not like the glow worm green a neighbor painted his house, yet I would fight for his right to paint it whatever color he wants. If my neighbor wanted to paint burn the n–r’s house down, that would be different. Why? One is just differing tastes and the other is a threat of violence. The duty of government is to protect the individual so we have a consistent standard and not the changing emotionalism of mob rule or vigilante justice.

Government has a duty to allow you exercise to your rights because that is the reason we formed it. Government was not formed to force a uniformity of lifestyle. It was formed so we could all live our lives based upon mutual respect and self determination.

The law has no power but that which the individual can concede to it. I have a right to protect my life, liberty, and property. By social contract, I have hired the government to be my agent for that job. I do not have the right to tell my neighbor how big his house should be (unless it crosses my property line or is unsafe) or what color his house should be. The government does not either.

If we remember that the government is a collection of individuals to protect themselves, their rights, and their property, we will be more likely to let it stay on purpose. The government is a most wonderful tool if we use it for its purpose.

With a government health care system, the government will necessarily say No. No, you can’t have treatment right away, but must wait months for surgery, even if you die in the meantime, or your cancer grows beyond what surgeons can hope to entirely remove. No, we don’t cover acupuncture, or chiropractic, or psychological counselling, or birth control, or whatver it is you think you need. No, we don’t provide drug A, only drug B, which is much cheaper, and usually works just as well. If you find that drug B doesn’t work for you, or has horrible side effects, and you think drug A might save your life, too bad. Governments have limited resources, too, and will have to balance national health against national defense, law enforcement, protecting the environment, public education, providing various goodies for politically influential people, and so forth. And then there’s the problem of keeping taxes low enough that the productive don’t all flee to some place with lower burdens.

Inevitably, enacting government health care will make some people worse off, even while saving the lives of others. Not only will the government not pay for something you want, it will make it impossible for you to buy it for yourself, either by nationalizing medical care in toto, or by taxing you so much to pay for other people’s medical treatment that you can’t afford what you or your family need.

There are tragic choices to be made, and it is not clear to me that government medical care will be more humane in its effects than private medical care.

You are wise beyond your years and have the soul of a fighter; keep taking the battle to them.

I AM a Socialist, and proud to be one because I believe in the social contract and that the life, health and well-being of my brothers and sisters IS a worthy concern.

Stand up for what’s right with Nick, people. As Ben Franklin said, “If we don’t hang together, we will most assuredly hang seperately.”

It amazes me that people are so afraid of the word “socialism” that they deny medical care to 47 million Americans.

It also amazes me that a country that so loves to call itself “great and good” can’t figure out a way to provide health care to all its citizens, as virtually every other industrialized nation has done.

If you ever want to contribute somewhere else, us guys at http://worldnewstrust.com would love to have you.

You got the Burnin’ Mojo and The Black Cat Bone, bubba.

But, you know that the people who responded so negatively to you will be the first in line for every program and benefit they can get their greasy lunch hooks around, come crunch time, don’t you?

It’s just meaningless word abuse, most of these people have no clue as to what the word “socialism” means, and when it is explained to them, they argue that the meaning of the word has changed through usage. And I quite agree with them, the meaning of the word “socialism”, in the United States of America, circa 2007, is simply “whatever a Republican leader does not want to happen, especially if it would benefit anyone not of the wealthiest class”.

Why is granting special contracting rights to Halliburton not described as “socialism”? Why are special exemptions from taxation for the wealthy not “socialism” for that class? Apparently, gifts of tax monies for special projects is not “socialism” IF THEY ARE GIVEN TO THE ALREADY WEALTHY. The Chrysler bailout in the 70′s was indeed described as “socialism”.

If you don’t NEED government money, then you can get it without being called “socialist”. That’s the twisted logic of the Republican elites.

I love Air America, I podcast a lot of their stuff too.

I don’t know how to contact you, but I hope you keep reading!

There is nothing particularly revolutionary about social justice, except that we live in what George Orwell called “times of universal deceit.”

“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.”

A just society is not socialist any more than a healthy community is communist. It’s just a name they use to demonize those of us who oppose their selfish agenda.

I’d bet dollars to donuts that you don’t get Air America radio in your neck of the woods, so I feel the need to recommend to you the Thom Hartmann Show, which you can podcast for free from the White Rose Society.

Download today’s show and listen to the first segment, Thom actually debates a guy from the Ayn Rand Institute who, just like you say, wants to abolish public education.