Absolutely, Geege! I was wondering when we were going to get to
insurance. Right on, sistah! ;-)
> Arguing about which box things go into
Yup, but I'd propose to move the debate a little farther along. Arguing
over which box things go into is fine; and there should be mechanisms
for sharing risk. (Uh, waitasec, that's more or less what you were
saying too, isn't it Geege? ;-) And as insurance illustrates, it's not
the case that gov't is the only solution to risk sharing and security.
(Side tangent on insurance; I think insurance is fantastic in
principle. In practice, the insurance industry as it exists in this
country is hellishly scary, given its unholy alliance with government
and its strong behind-the-scenes role in much policymaking. More on
that some other time, though. Removing the gov't removes this problem,
though.)
Again, show me any of these gov't services that I'm coerced into paying
for but which I believe I could do without that could not be more
efficiently, more effectively, and more cheaply funded and accomplished
through the private sector.
Side tangent, but on school shootings: face it --- tightening the noose
on kids is like trying to squeeze a handful of water. It's just going
to shoot out in all directions. By extension, I think this is true of
lots of behavior that stems from anger at authority and general
discontent; there's a finite amount of it, and it isn't compressable,
it's a liquid. "Tightening things up" is just going to result in
(potentially violent) movement and expression of that anger and
discontent where things are less tight.
jb