This is me being liberal for a second. I propose that courts should be free, doctors and hospitals should be free, gasoline and oil should not be purchasable and college should be free. The courts would provide actual equal accessibility to all people of all social classes and would likely end injustices quicker. Free healthcare would not only help people who cannot get it, but it would also force people to pay for it, by doing this you would not have so many hospitals that do no turn a profit due to uninsured patients getting free healthcare and you would have less hospitials reaching for government aid because of the latter reason. If all oil is consumed solely by the government then the price would be far more stable because the government would only buy as much as needed. If college were free then social class mobility will have reached maximum fluidity, there would be no need for affirmatives action and middle class people would be relieved both an arm and a leg when their kids turn of age. I am willing to give up affirmative action and social security for these four things, and I am willing to put restrictions on the oil thing... sort of a way to keep the environmentalists from messing that up.

This is a debate. I don't want any foolish name calling, simply list pro/cons, your personal beliefs or your philosophies and ideologies. And since I'm going to be democratic in the debate, I swear not to be a foolish and naive by not accepting hypothetical problems that will surely come with each.

There is no such thing as "free." If some dirtbag shoots up a storefront, I don't want to pay for his court fees.

There is no such thing as "free." If some loser spends 40 years fellating cancer sticks, and needs a new lung..."F" him. I ain't paying for his operation.

There is no such thing as "free." How will you pay the thousands of individuals that work between the oil tanker and the pump?

There is no such thing as "free." College is not a "right" or an "obligation." It is voluntary, and such things should have a cost, just like any other service.

Maybe in fantasy land.

Hugo? Is that you?

Bottom line...there's a common theme to each point. To make each of these points law, would be to increase taxes to an oppressive level. Citizens will be at the mercy of the government, instead of vice versa. It would be socialism at its worst.

__________________
"I should be calling collect from jail for the things I commit each night in my head" - D. Mustaine.

There really isn't any such thing as a free lunch. It is just something socialists will have to accept. Someone has to make the grow that food, someone has to prepare that food, and they're not going to do that out of their own good will.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't studied economics.

You're right, it would not be free. Something like this would take an extreme amount of taxes, but it would also not be a total loss to the average person. If the government controlled the purchase of oil they could control the price, sort of like how a union controls the wage rate. We could simply ration our buying, and for the most part it that could be done with out effecting us if we had sufficient reserves. The price of gas could easily be under 2$ nation wide. You would not have to pay for health insurance. Also, what you're forgetting is that the government pays hospitals anyway. If a patient comes in, let's say with a gun shot wound, they have to treat the person regardless of whether or not they have health insurance. Nevertheless, you're right, the taxes would go up, but if the whole nation paid then there is a good chance the price would go down and there would be a net gain for those who paid for it before hand, unless of course the Hillary Clinton model of "tax the rich" got passed, that would likely fail... quickly. College and courts would indisputably place a heavy burden on taxes, but is this a worth while burden? It is a hope for more natural equality.

I agree it's a dilemma, figuring out how to pay for all the stuff that I think a good society should offer its citizens for free.

Like, justice. What we have in America now, in the courts, is not justice. It's just a competition to see whose lawyers can get more expensive.

Currently, the state is expected to pay the wages of cops and judges, right? What about lawyers? I don't watch a lot of Law & Order, so I don't know these things.

Oil consumption being illegal for private citizens? Well ... I guess that's one way to go ... and you could definitely make the case that it's necessary due to matters of public health ... but it does seem awfully draconian. Plus, at this point, society is designed to run with a certain level of mobility, and restricting that mobility from private individuals would really screw them over.

On the other hand, there is that pesky we'll all die if we keep burning oil problem. It may not be a matter of debate forever, for basically the same reason that nobody debates the need for laws against arson.

As for college being free ... sounds pretty cool. As long as there are no rules against private institutions of education for those of us who don't trust a government education.

If this is a question of economics, there could be something to be gained. A more fluid and educated population will, one would hope, be more prodctive and be able to do more with their own lives than they might have done without. I don't know if it would be a net positive or not, but a more educated, more fluid population can get better jobs and pay more back into the system than they took out.

Healthcare is similar... preexisting conditions creates barrior to the free movement of people in the labor market and is anti-competative.

Gasoline raising to too high a cost can also, quite literally, restrict the movement of people and creates another barrior to the movement of people in a competative labor market.

There are practical limitations to the free and open markets required for capitalistic theory to work... I think a good capitalist system will work to reduce these barriors and practical limitations.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

Right now if you are accused of a crime you will get a lawyer for free, but if you wanted to sue someone for something they did that was small time (like under a thousand dollars) you would probably pay that much in fees alone so there is no reason to sue. That's unfair. Then there is always the idea that some people are above the law simply because they can buy a better lawyer.
lol that's not at all what I meant. I was talking about the buying and selling of oil as a commodity on the stock exchange, not the buying of gasoline. Basically, you know how oil is $120+ a barrel? Well that is causing the price of gas to go up big time, and the true value is really only around $30, united we could fix that problem.

You may be right, but I really don't like to assume that any form of government regulation is good for the economy.
From my personal study of the situation, I think the capitalism of oil is rotten. There's so much red tape that it's almost a joke to imagine that the oil business will ever be fixed.

Do you folks notice how confused and contradictory you are? You don't seem to know that the inconsistencies you describe define our present stagnation as a society that can't make up its mind whether you want freedom of choice or your societal and economic problems solved. You simply cannot have it both ways.

America is overdue for our maturity into the progressive/socialist state that will provide uniformity and equality to the masses through strong enforcement of centrally planned policies. We must surrender our outdated notions of personal liberty and individual property to the greater good of having our needs provided for and properly distributed by our government institutions.

If you can't get your heads around this simple reality, just vote Democratic and things will go the way you really want anyway.

I disagree. Lack of freedom of choice is the societal and economic problem. I don't think that hardcore capitalism actually works for freedom of choice as well as some people seem to think it does, is where I tend to end up disagreeing with the republicans and the libertarians and such.

We all agree, I think, that freedom of choice is the goal. We're just arguing over how best to get there. Personally, I think that a more social government will accomplish that, as long as it doesn't become too authoritarian. Granted, I'm not sure how to accomplish that, exactly. But I do think it's the way to go. Right-wingers seem to think that freedom of choice will only happen when nothing is free any more and everything is for sale, which I find counter-intuitive, but if they can figure out a way to make that work I'll be just as happy. I just don't see it happening.

Y'know, you really are more useful in a conversation than you get credit for, KOD.