An honest question for Liberals

[dullard]

I didn't read the thread, so sorry if there is repeat in what I say.

Originally posted by: Stunt
My question to Liberals is: Many of you preach a stronger role of government, more control of currently private jurisdictions, and more collective/inclusive social programs.

I'll give you the more collective/inclusive social programs. But will you provide us of other examples of where liberals want stronger government powers (when compared to conservatives)? You stated that you want to find yourself politically. So answering that question is one big step to finding yourself. Note: I'm not saying one side is worse/better than another, I just want you to do the thought process and hopefully you'll learn something along the way.

Why is it that almost every person on the planet thinks all public systems are inefficient, poorly administered and executed? Before we advocate an expansion of state, can we not focus on fixing the current social programs/institutions we have today?

Public systems are inefficient by definition. There are certain essential services that private companies will NEVER fund. Take military defense as an example. What US company would spend the ~$500 billion a year do provide this service? What US company has ~$500 billion to spend? The answer is obvious: none. There is no longer any profit in a private military. Thus, private companies won't do it. Thus, it MUST be a public service. It must be a public service that is unprofitable. Therefore, because it is unprofitable, by definition, it is inefficient. If it were efficient, private companies would do it, and the government wouldn't need to step in. Apply the same logic to all necessary public services - they are necessary to be public because it is unprofitable for the private companies to do them.

Removing the public services simply removes one more choice from the consumers. And I shutter to think of the outcomes if some of these choices were removed.

For me, social programs are like a Model T Ford...domestic, works, black and that's it. Why disappoint everybody when competition, flexibility and motivation can give you many brands, options and character.

That is why many liberals support the combination of public/private ventures. Leave all the private companies in place - competing for your dollars. But a government with social programs can still guarantee a hard working person enough to afford at least minimal levels of the necessary services.

For example, think of the most simple possible government supported health care.
[*]Suppose most people can buy minimal health insurance for ~$X/year if they shop around enough. I'll let you chose the value of X for this silly example.
[*]Add an average of $X/person tax to the tax code.
[*]Add a $X/person refundable tax credit for health insurance.
[*]In essence, everyone would have basic health insurance as it would be stupid not to do it. You spend $X and get a free $X.
[*]The government is not out a penny - there is no increased net spending.
[*]Illegal alliens who don't pay taxes, clearly don't get the tax credit, and thus don't get any health insurance from this.
[*]No health insurance competition is removed. We still get all the benefits of companies competing for our dollars.

Of course the devil is in one detail above - how do you do an average of $X/person tax? We'll never agree on that detail in these forums. But the noble goal is accomplished: even the most destitude of us Americans gain the right to basic health care. If you want more than the basic health care, that is your choice to spend more of your OWN money. That, in essence, is the liberal viewpoint - to gain a right to what many consider a human necessity.