Cafeoutdoors.com: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

From HillaryCare to Liberty's nonsensical rants about forest fires . . . wow . . . that's a stretch!

Anyway, Lib you said something interesting:

"Name anything the government can do better than the free market, anything."

I'll take a stab: police and fire protection, national security - Marines, Army, CIA, etc; criminal and civil justice, to name but a few basics. Your penchant for extreme statements emits some heat, but no light.

"You can't, government can't do anything better than the free market, hence why some smart individuals created a limited government and here you are handing over more of the damn keys."

I just did. If you believe otherwise; i.e., if you really believe government can't do anything better than the free market, then there is no need for government. I had no idea you were such an anarchist - but, I guess there are plenty of young hippie hotties at those WTO protests, so I guess I can see where you are comin' from.

So, listen up Liberty, and take this lesson. The capitalist market system is an indispensible mechanism for our way of life and has created a standard of living unrivaled in world history. It is an enabler of and outlet for human freedom. But a world ran by a completely unfettered, "free" market is not a world we live in or have ever lived in. Like nearly everything in this world, when taken to an extreme, an implosion soon follows. This is very simply because our market system depends upon the provision of certain public goods that can only be effetively and efficiently provided by government; eg., interstate and international infrastructure, a sound currency, national defense, property rights, rule of law, etc., etc. ) The public goods that governmet should (must?) provide are things that can be provided just as cheaply/efficiently for many people as they can for a single individual. When you have such a situation, it is also basically impossible to stop people who haven't paid for such goods from freeloading off the benefits - so when those two conditions are satisfied, government should be involved. Do you really want the "free market" to come up with ways of regulating and enforcing property disputes? That would amount to nothing but a "he who has the gold rules" system.

An example of your no-holds barred the government can't do anything better free marketeering would be slavery, child labor in the 1800's, etc. And if you really believe in a completely free market, then you'll have to admit that prostitution and drugs should be legalized . . . which actually isn't a half bad idea... And you'll have to quit whining about the gubiment's lack of action on National Forests - if it's a problem, then the free market should yield a cost/benefit incentive that encourages people to move out of harm's way. Of course, you'll object that the very existence of the National Forests is not a free market situation and is therefore bad . . . the obvious reply to which is that the folks who live in or around our National Forests enjoy the benefit of that environment presicesly because the surrounding area is relatively pristine and desirable because it is a National Forest and would whine like babies if a factory or suburbia sprung up next door.

FWIW, I used to live in Wyoming - brother still does - what makes that state great is its unparralled opportunities for hunting, fishing, backpacking, etc. in some huge tracts of farily pristine lands (if you can get away from the ATV's and don't happen upon the camp some of the slob outfitters that cart in their fat and lazy clients and leave trash all over the place) - wouldn't be that way if an unfettered free market had its way.

Post Extras