I hope that you two guys never get near the policy and platform writing functions for the Republican Party. If you did, you would be the best “campaign managers” the socialists ever could find. Your 19th century total leissez-faire solutions to social problems would drive many voters to the left, probably the far left.

There are some aspects of the welfare state that have merit. Here is one that affected me a decade ago and is very much an issue at the moment. What polices are in order for senior citizens who need extensive custodial and medical care and can’t afford it?

In the early 2000s my mother moved to a continuing care facility. The up-front charge was over $50 thousand, and the monthly fee was about $1,200. Overtime she developed dementia and ultimately was unable to do anything for herself. She was like a big baby wearing diaper who could not feed or dress herself. She was like this for over two years. The annual costs were about $30,000. Fortunately she had saved in her lifetime, and I managed her assets to the point when there was plenty of money to take care of her.

Now my wife and I are dealing with my mother and father-in-law. They are both 90 years old. My mother-in-law has reached the point where she can do nothing for herself. She is now in a facility that costs about $120,000 a year or $10,000 a month. My father-in-law can pay for that for only a limited time, and he has his long-term care to consider. They both have long term care insurance. Her policy has been exhausted. The family has resources, but gift taxes get involved if you do very much, and financing must become more creative.

So what do you do with grandma and grandpa? Do you kick them out in the snow? How do you think that will play with the voters? Do you think that your 19th century solutions will work?

The facility where my mother stayed was church run and partially financed by the Du Pont Family. In other words, it was founded via a private initiative. Still, it was not cheap, and ultimately it had financial problems and had to be sold to a private corporation.

These are huge issues, and you can’t sweep them under the rug with antiquated, survival of fittest solutions. They have to be addressed.

I can cite other examples in addition to these, but I will let you mull this over.


The “safety net” should be provided by the community, not the government. If the government hadn’t usurped the whole so-called “charity” business, people would still be helping people. But the government takes so much of their money, they can’t do as much as they used to.


Did you bother to note how much it takes to care care of ONE PERSON? People live much longer because today’s medicines can keep people alive who have limited mental capacity. “We can keep people alive,” one doctor told me, “but we can’t fix their brains.” This is a major problem.


Obviously, the current system isn’t even close to a free market, and the biggest welfare state of all is the nanny state for the rich—a system that does everything in its power to protect the rich from market discipline and competition from the working class.

Basically, we have a system that metaphorically breaks peoples legs with regulation and privileges to the rich, and then hands them a crutch in the form of a welfare state.

The solution clearly isn’t to simply take away the crutches. The first step has to be to stop government from breaking peoples legs. And to me, that means a free and fair market.


Then why did you find Obama and Hillary Clinton so attractive since they have done exactly what you oppose?


Presumably for the same reason you find farm animals so attractive.

See what I did there?

Strawmen are fun.


You mean you voted for Trump in the last election? Good to know. You just went up in my opinion … or did you vote for Gary Johnson?


I rarely vote, and decided not to vote in the last election. If I had voted, it would have been for anyone not named Trump. Maybe one of those farm animals you’re so fond of.


It’s all the government is capable of. The more government, the more broken legs.


No, Mutual Aid Societies.

They work better than Government-run programs, because Government is both too big, and too remote to run anything in everyday society effectively.

To be effective, it needs to be accountable to the people who use & pay for it. Voluntary societies simply work better because they’re scaled downward.

It was the widespread participation in Fraternal Societies that made Alex De Tocqueville dub “American Exceptionalism”.

In the age of Social Media, there’s little reason we shouldn’t bring it back.


We can certainly agree with the fact, that beyond a certain point, bigness because an impediment to efficient administration to the services.

The trouble is the sheer dollar volume posed by the problem overwhelms the private agencies. On the family level having to pay over $100,000 a year will bankrupt most Americans in short order. Multiply that the many thousands of families who are facing this, and you have something that will financially bankrupt private agencies.


They’re headed there anyway. I see no reason to compromise with a bad idea in the name of “big tent” vote attraction when the big tent won’t stand the storm. If they won’t come into the building that’s solidly founded, I see no benefit to adding my name to the disaster.

Not in the long term. Ever.

And insurance and government welfare are a big part of the reason for the inflated costs.

I think if we continue the socialist welfare solution, we’ll all be out in the snow. Some of us in that aforementioned gulag.

There you go again; saying stuff I agree with…

I understand the point you were making about strawman arguments, but let’s not run the farm animal attraction theme too far, please.


Which would you rather have? $100 with every dollar WORTH one dollar in buying power? Or would you rather have $1,000 with every dollar worth a nickel in buying power? That’s what “quantitative easing” does to you. Have you bought a Snickers bar lately? They were a nickel when I was a kid. Today, they cost at LEAST a dollar and are smaller in size than when they cost only a nickel.


He does that sometimes…it’s very disconcerting.


He doesn’t say much of anything with which I can agree since he has accused me of bestiality. I’ve only told him that he is politically confused, which is a simple fact.

We all disagree over specific issues, that sometimes seem to oppose our basic political philosophies. The trouble he can’t decide if he is a classic Jeffersonian liberal or a Nancy Pelosi interventionalist.


Or perhaps the trouble is your reading comprehension.


Ah, there’s the real J.Anderson…


Or if you could put things in your own words instead of pedantic quotes from long dead philosophers, you might communicate better. Look, I have read those guys works too, and admired their ideas, but the world changes. They give you a framework, not a road map.


What quotes? What are you even talking about? Your constant gross misrepresentations of my views and posts is extremely tedious. I just went through literally every post I made over the last year, and the only quote from a “long dead philosopher” was a quote from Frederick Douglass, where the discussion in question was over how to interpret Douglass’s position on a topic.

This is going to be my last reply to your nonsense.