1. By Pops on

    Few things with which I disagree – the argument for provision of service to the poor should not always be construed as real concern for the poor. I’d say more often than not, at this point in time, that argument is a talking point whereby a noble-sounding concern is used to cover up an actual grab for power. Many who would use that argument would not help the poor if they had the means and the opportunity. If Spinney’s argument is used as rebuttal, the socialist would argue that there wouldn’t be enough concern for the poor to actually cover the cost of the poor, therefore it would need to be mandatory for everyone. But I think two things would happen – the costs would come down in order to be more competitive, and small informal “health insurance” companies would spring up, say between family members, groups of employees, churches, civic groups, etc., in order to spread the risk, and the less fortunate would find a way to contribute rather quickly when they know the govt won’t bail them out. I truly believe that those who cannot help themselves would be helped by friends, neighbors, family, churches, and civic/benevolent groups. His rambling at the end about turning off power and water “if we have the least little inkling” of some small accounting irregularity begins to sound like an overbearing big brother like the one we already have!

  2. By frettsy on

    good points! I think the most important difference with regard to your final point is that what Mr Spinney advocates is voluntary/contractual. also, when socialists make the argument you mentioned, then the rebuttal should be “then it’s clearly not the will of the people, so it shouldn’t be done by the government anyways”. that shuts em up pretty quick :)

Comments are closed.