Quote:
Originally Posted by Tref
Of course, we can pay for war, but God help those who would like us to pay for health, right Alex?
|
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.