From: Damien Broderick <d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au>
>To some extent, we have chosen to fund this via taxation rather
>than private insurance, in the belief that it's more efficient to
>do that, and out of a history where very many people had no
>discretionary funds to spend on insurance.
Here in the states we believe government programs are greatly
inefficient compared to free market solutions. Which is why private
insurance is the prefered method.
>But this misses the key aspect of Theobald's proposal (and that
>mad socialist Milton Friedman's), which is to *abolish* most of
>the bureaucratic meddling and tinkering by making the income floor
>a *guaranteed `right'*, a secure floor permitting either
>enterprise or sloth.
I have no desire to encourage sloth.
>But where the money going to come from? I'm not going to pay some
>lazy thief to loll around, or suffer my rightful earnings to be
>extorted from me! --Different points, those. Irrelevant to this
>particular objection. (Or so it seems to me.)
How we are to pay for something is an imperative in a free market
society.
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
Adler Planetarium www.adlerplanetarium.org
Life Extension Foundation, www.lef.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:39 MDT