I will do the research because I want to and will not report back to you. It makes no difference here.

You make an interesting point and one that more people should do. That is to think. I have thought much and concluded I want more Laissez-Faire Capitalism. I really wonder if Altruists have thought about the economics of Socialism. For me being hard working middle-class, I get screwed the most as well as all other middle-class persons. I want more freedom of choice. Others want less because of fear and guilt. Fine. Don't make me suffer as well. That's why I consider the US Democratic party Socialist. Any way you slice it. Hell, I was and voted striaight Democrat for 19 years until last year.

I'll throw you a bone here. I heard an author of some new book on Conservative talk radio last week make the case that GWB and this Republican administration are creating a conservative Theocracy in the US. Of course all callers-in were just livid. He made a strong point and I thought about it. This scares the crap out of me as well. But there's the dilemma. A Dictator or a Theocracy. Not much of a choice I'd say. I like neither.

True Randian Laissez-Faire Capitalism needs no religion or Altruism to provide a moral basis. It's inherent. I would ask you consider reading Ayn Rand, if interested.

---

Sean

I will do the research because I want to and will not report back to you. It makes no difference here.

Why not report back? It's an interesting topic.

<I have thought much and concluded I want more Laissez-Faire Capitalism.> <I want more freedom of choice. >

How is it that you think laissez-faire capitalism leads to more freedom of choice? It doesn't, in actual practice- it leads to less.

True Randian Laissez-Faire Capitalism needs no religion or Altruism to provide a moral basis. It's inherent. I would ask you consider reading Ayn Rand, if interested.

There is no moral basis in inherent in capitalism. The more laissez-faire it gets, the more amoral it becomes. True laissez-faire capitalism would be nothing more than economic anarchy.

And I've read Ayn Rand's books. I recommend you check out Chesterton, or Belloc, slowman's views notwithstanding.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

OK--here are the problems with your idea (other than the internal inconsistency where you say you believe in incentivization but want to punish the incentivized to reward the disincentivized).

One--Are you sure we are not already providing socialized medicine? I say we are. Most cities/counties have public health organizations that provide basic health services. For example, in my county, I can take my kids down to the health department and get them free immunizations--EVEN THOUGH MY FAMILY INCOME IS OVER SIX FIGURES! How about socialized education? Well, we are already providing that too in many ways (Pell Grants, scholarships for certain minority students, etc.) to the point where we have disincentivized responsible behavior. I saved for my children's education, even when I was making next to nothing. My sister and brother in law never put aside a nickel. So, when I applied for Pell Grants for my kids, I didn't get them because I had saved. Guess who DID get them?

Two--Why limit the giveaways to free medicine? How about food? After all, if I don't eat, I get sick, right? How about gas money? How can I get to the free health clinic with no gas? What about a car, a house, a TV, clothes, beer, cigarettes (if you know where to go, you can get the last two with food stamps)? You see the slippery slope here? You disincentivize work and productivity every time you grant a free bennie. You disincentivize work too much, and who is left to pay the bill? Once I get to the point where my taxes are reducing my take home pay beyond a certain point, I might as well quit and have everything provided to me by the government too.

Would you believe the per capita GDP of the Dominican Republic is over twice that of Cuba? $6,000/yr. as opposed to $2,700/yr. Depending on when you visited Cuba, you may have been misled by the vast amount of money the Soviets were spending there to prop up Castro and make communism appear to be viable so they could continue to try to export communism to the western hemisphere.

Also, of your three examples (Canada, Norway, and Sweden) only Norway at a per capita GDP of $37,700/yr. comes close to the US with $37,800/yr. Canada is $29,700/yr. and Sweden is $26,800/yr.

One of the reasons you all have more money to waste (err, invest!) in socialized medicine is the fact that we subsidize your national defense. We spend 3.9% of our GDP on defense while Canda spends $1.1%. Sweden and Norway (a little closer to the bad guys) spend more, 2.1% and 1.9% respectively, but are still largely (as is the rest of NATO) under our umbrella.

One could argue that Sweden, Canada, and Norway have a more "fair" (or even, as it were) distribution of wealth, and that may be right. However, if you look at the US and assume capitalism is what causes that, you would be wrong. The cause is that one growing sector of our society does not take advantage of the free education offered them by the state and is becoming increasing left behind by those that do take the initiative to get an education. Education, or lack thereof, is the biggest determinative factor in household income--far beyond race, sex, or anything else. Also, the fact that a growing number of families are being headed by single-parent, female heads of household is to blame. We (the US) have transferred $6 trillion in wealth from the "rich" to the "poor" since Lyndon Johnson declared "War on Poverty" with negative results (increasing versus decreasing poverty rates). Until people wake up to the fact that it is personal responsibility and behavior causing their poverty--not something the government or the wealthy are or are not doing, I don't know what else we can do.

Loving this thread folks.
Yes, tax is bad - I hate the fact that my govt takes my money and gives it to whiners and losers.
For me the rule of thumb is the Andretti rule - you don't give to people who won't help themselves, you give to people who can't.

---

kiwipat

per ardua ad astra