Nothing like taking a statement and blowing it completely out of context.

But I stand by my words. Individuals usually make pretty good judgments. An individual is not capable of speaking for the masses - that is the basis of the statement. It is easier for the "masses" to make blanket statements and believe Utopian dreams. This is not a political statement on one side or the other (and could be used by either side of the aisle). It is just a truism that I happen to believe.

One of the best comments posted yet in this thread.

Well, hmm, masses do a democracy make ... but I am not sure if that is what you mean. Your masses are made up of individuals, correct? And these individuals can make "pretty good judgments, right? Or, maybe you are suggesting these masses are a separate entity, that dream of utopia and "make blanket statements" as one. Wow. Hmm. Methinks, KB, ye watch too much Star Trek.

But at any rate, FREE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL*

But with all due respect to JW Bear, whose comments in this thread I wholeheartedly agree with, we're not even accomplishing the sandmovement. We're not accomplishing anything, and that's not the point of talking about this.

If, by the sand comment, he meant no one is changing anyone else's mind, that's usually the case ... but not a cause to stop shooting the sh!t with one another.

There is a vast difference in decisions made by and for individuals which by and large can meet the needs of those whom they are making decisions for, and a mass of individuals making decisions for those that they do not understand nor are capable of meeting the needs of.

So, the intelligence of individuals gathered together does not necessarily equal something intelligent. This is not uncommon thought.

I opt out of the public school system, and I get a dollar for dollar tax credit for contributing to charitible organizations that assist in private school tuition. Why is this offered? Because the public school system (while certainly not underfunded) is over burdened and there needs to be a way to alleviate it. Social security is a forced contribution that I will likely never see a penny of and I know I could do better investing my money elsewhere, but that's not permitted (and even fought against). There is such gross mismanagement of medicare and foodstamps and you name it by government that I have no desire to see them involved whatsoever in health care decisions I make for me or my family. Need an abortion? There's a 10 month waiting period. Something tells me that's not going to fly.

I volunteer to move to Paris as part of a grand social experiment on health care (and to found the LoT Paris Commune)

Well, you may have a point there, I suppose it was these so-called "stupid masses" who elected Bush into office.

No, I don't thank you. But, to paraphrase Huckleberry Finn, that is one whopper of a "stretcher."

And the collective intelligence of the masses depends on the perspective of the individual.

All I can say is that I'm glad I don't live in Myanmar.

Yes, to a degree (though since I don't pay directly out of pocket for it, per the definition offered in this thread I would like to point out that our nation offers free warfare). War is most certainly a government function, one of the few specific ones written into the constitution for our government.

Now, whether this war is a good use of money is an altogether different this.

But I really don't see the argument you're making. Just because I like something better than war is not a justification for the government paying for it. I like Snickers bars and blow jobs better than war too but so far I still pay for those out of my own pocket.

We won't change anybody's minds. I am essentially a liberal libertarian and see as a net bad thing the exact same thing you likely see as a net good thing. There is no common ground on which to build a consensus other than to either just all shut up or just enjoy the process of explaining ourselves.

But that is mostly moot. If I though Moore's suggestions would actually result in a massive improvement I might support it anyway. But I don't think that, in fact I think if the choice is that or the status quo then the status quo is preferable.

That's just me, though. I don't think the people who disagree with me are stupid, evil, immoral, ignorant, fascists, communists, etc. (though they might be any of these things). I just think we disagree. And that is what makes talking about it interesting.