>>37
With that logic you can almost justify all government action as benefiting society
I wouldn't say that, because I don't think in black and white like libertarians do. There are many shades of gray, and things are a lot more interconnected than you realize. It's not all government regulation = bad, free market = perfect, and government regulation = perfect, free market = never, ever good. It's not even so much as a balance rather than where free markets work good, and where government regulation is needed. More often than not, government regulation is needed than not.
the problem is when people disagree with what your preferences are and you are in the majority. In this system the majority can always impose their will on the minority (democracy). You might say the constitution is supposed to prevent that but the majority control even that.
Checks and balances. They're there for a reason, to protect people from their duly elected morons, and from themselves. For fuck's sake, to even amend the constitution, you need 3/4th of the state legislatures and Congress to pass. There's so much overhead, that I wouldn't even worry about it. Are you sure we're talking about the same constitution here? Have you even read it?
Only problem with your theory is that we don't truly have a free market in the US and many institutions are government funded which lowers the incentive for good results and instead only give the minimum requirement of work. (EX:Teachers unions)
Free market? Neither do most Western countries. EU member states are collectively regulated tighter than the US is, both from EU governance itself, and from its constituent governments. Finland, for example, has free full university education, and they consistently rank within the top 5 in the world for education excellence. Their secondary education is funded through the regional governments, and the national government, it's not a free market per the common definition among American libertarians. How would you then explain this correlation? It would seem that if education is properly and efficiently subsidized, education excellence will increase dramatically.
Well everyone doesn't value health like you do, so why is your value more important than someone elses?
Realistically, no. But, of course, they should. Not only for the fact that doing so makes it less expensive for everyone else, but also for the fact that they'll be living much more fulfilling lives. Ignoring things like genetics, because for some, no matter how healthy you try to remain, there are genetic factors that affect health, and you can never really get rid of those. That doesn't mean that treatment for them should be at a charge that only a few can afford.
People don't even have to be "money hungry" or "evil", it's an institutional problem that correlates with the fact that profit is the motive, and not being specifically aimed at looking out for the welfare of the public's health in and of itself.explain
Under the current for-profit institution, people will make stark rationalizations based on arbitrary situations like patients being denied insurance coverage for "pre-existing conditions", patients being denied certain treatments because the expense to administer them is more than what the patient (or their insurance) can afford to dish out, etc. It's simply the profit motive, not people's evil intent that makes health care such a mediocre, horribly over-priced sector. You cannot ever purge health care of these problems even in principle, unless you completely expunge it as a for-profit enterprise. However, if you still insist on having private health care, even countries that have universal health care also have private health care as well. If you can afford the private health care for yourself, by all means, knock yourself out.