My Politics

[cr1t]

So I think it is save to say that I’ve always been more liberal and socialist in my view of politics.
But this morning I came to a realization. In one hand I think government should look out for the weakest
of the society by supplying medical care pensions ect. There are way to many people that to no fault of there
own can’t take care of them selves. But I’m also against a Nanny state I’m more libertarian in that sense.

But my shock came in when I realised the one leads to the other. If you expect the government to pay for
medical cost. You’re going to get a government that tells you can’t do that and this because simple put
he who pays makes the rules.

So I guess I’m more shocked to find a contradiction in my thought. It’s unnerving and exciting at the same time.
I’ve got a real problem to resolve and I guess the unnerving part is not knowing if it’s resolvable.

[Mintaka]

@cr1t post:1

You’re going to get a government that tells you can’t do that and this because simple put
he who pays makes the rules.

And most would be happy to abide by the rules in exchange for free services. If a compulsory state medical aid comes into being, it will test exactly this.

Many animal welfare societies will put up only sterilized animals for adoption. Similarly, a wise but unpopular government will only offer freebies to the sterilized. Fat chance of that happening though - what with short term human rights trumping medium term sanity most of the time.

Rigil

[brianvds]

@cr1t post:1

But my shock came in when I realised the one leads to the other. If you expect the government to pay for
medical cost. You’re going to get a government that tells you can’t do that and this because simple put
he who pays makes the rules.

It’s not the government that pays though. It’s the tax payer. The government just pretends to be the benign nanny.

[Tweefo]

It will become very expensive if you want / need more than the very poor service you are going to get from a state run thing like that.