Since we're playing loose with the definitions, I'm referring to someone who opposes all socialism, rather than the hybrid system we have.
Is there anyone here who supports ending:
- All taxpayer-funded education - Abraham Lincoln got some books and taught himself the law.
- All public fire departments - if you want fire protection, hire a private contractor. (Ben Franklin started the public system).
- All public libraries - the private bookseller sells books. (Ben Franklin again).
- The standing US Military - Jefferson was against one, and today, there are more private contractors hired by the government in Afghanistan and Iraq than military forces.
- All public roads - if there's a demand for a road, someone will build it and sell access.
- All emergency medical care paid for by the state - people when the country was created didn't have government paid emergency rooms.
- Putting a man on the moon - not the government's job to go around spending tax dollars to thrill the public. One of these days, the private sector can develop it.
- Federal regulation of the economic system. If you want to invest in a stock, why should the government tell you and the seller what rules you have to follow? That's not freedom.
There should be any number of competing stock markets, and the free market will ensure with competition that adequate safeguards are in place, or people won't spend there.
Why should the government have a monopoly with the dollar - private parties and states can set up whatever currencies they want.
- Federal consumer protection. If Kraft starts selling food that kills, people won't buy Kraft - the free market ensures adequate protection - we don't need red tape inflating prices.
- PBS/NPR. Potential to become 1984-like tools of government media dominance. If the people want excellent documentaries, the private sector will make all they need.
- America's Army computer game. Besides the unfair competition (free) for private shooter games, we won't need it to recruit for the no-longer standing army.
- Government-collected data. If people want economic data, they can pay a private firm to collect it.
- Police. Criminal courts will still be provided to prosecute crimes if sufficient evidence is brought to prosecutors, but the police won't invesigate for free. Hire a police service.
- Medical research sponsored by the government. The private sector researches, and that's all that we should do.
- Social Security. Before it the elder poverty rate was 90%, but the constitution is the constitution.
- Medicare. Ending Medicare will reduce the number of elders in poverty. Not the percent, but the numbers.
- Welfare. Will reduce the number of poor similarly to the Medicare effect.
- EPA. Where there is sufficient demand, the private sector can clean up pollution.
- National Parks. If people want them, private companies can buy the land and sell passes.
Does anyone here agree with opposing all socialist programs?
Is there anyone here who supports ending:
- All taxpayer-funded education - Abraham Lincoln got some books and taught himself the law.
- All public fire departments - if you want fire protection, hire a private contractor. (Ben Franklin started the public system).
- All public libraries - the private bookseller sells books. (Ben Franklin again).
- The standing US Military - Jefferson was against one, and today, there are more private contractors hired by the government in Afghanistan and Iraq than military forces.
- All public roads - if there's a demand for a road, someone will build it and sell access.
- All emergency medical care paid for by the state - people when the country was created didn't have government paid emergency rooms.
- Putting a man on the moon - not the government's job to go around spending tax dollars to thrill the public. One of these days, the private sector can develop it.
- Federal regulation of the economic system. If you want to invest in a stock, why should the government tell you and the seller what rules you have to follow? That's not freedom.
There should be any number of competing stock markets, and the free market will ensure with competition that adequate safeguards are in place, or people won't spend there.
Why should the government have a monopoly with the dollar - private parties and states can set up whatever currencies they want.
- Federal consumer protection. If Kraft starts selling food that kills, people won't buy Kraft - the free market ensures adequate protection - we don't need red tape inflating prices.
- PBS/NPR. Potential to become 1984-like tools of government media dominance. If the people want excellent documentaries, the private sector will make all they need.
- America's Army computer game. Besides the unfair competition (free) for private shooter games, we won't need it to recruit for the no-longer standing army.
- Government-collected data. If people want economic data, they can pay a private firm to collect it.
- Police. Criminal courts will still be provided to prosecute crimes if sufficient evidence is brought to prosecutors, but the police won't invesigate for free. Hire a police service.
- Medical research sponsored by the government. The private sector researches, and that's all that we should do.
- Social Security. Before it the elder poverty rate was 90%, but the constitution is the constitution.
- Medicare. Ending Medicare will reduce the number of elders in poverty. Not the percent, but the numbers.
- Welfare. Will reduce the number of poor similarly to the Medicare effect.
- EPA. Where there is sufficient demand, the private sector can clean up pollution.
- National Parks. If people want them, private companies can buy the land and sell passes.
Does anyone here agree with opposing all socialist programs?
Facebook
Twitter