The confusion in this thread comes from the fact that so many people are arguing so many different topics. We've talked about regulation, govt healthcare, etc. Whenever issues like this get brought up everyone argues from their own perspective and often one person will be arguing economics while the other is arguing politics. A prime example is this notion that economic freedom and social programs are mutual exclusive ideas, which they aren't. In fact, a lot of countries that have socialized healthcare, Switzerland for example, have far less govt intervention in the economy, yet still provide healthcare for their citizens.
If you want to argue the virtues of govt healthcare, do so. If you want to argue economics, go for it. But when you bunch them all together we get so polarized that everyone feels it is this all or nothing proposition, that if you admit for examples, govt regulation often leads to the creation of artificial barriers of entry - that you must also admit that socialized healthcare is a bad idea, which simply isn't the case.
I'm just as guilty of it as the rest of you, since it is really easy to get side tracked on another issue you're passionate about. Simply put, if one person arguing for socialized healthcare and another is arguing about economic theory - they're never going to get anywhere because they're focusing on two drastically different topics.
"I woke up this morning and watched the weather channel, thus Austrian Economics is flawed..." doesn't really work out so well as an argument.
|