I disagree with the france thing, the french threw out their government after we did, it wasn't a democracy at first, then it whent through a ton of reforms (including a military dictatorship and a new monarchy) before finally settling on a republic in the mid 1800's. So if you go by what they have right now then we are older. healthcare isn't truly pricatized, government meddling serves to create the nightmare we have now with artificial scarcity of dr's and artificially inflated costs of medicine. If we made it actually private and allowed for real competition you would see prices drop because nobody would buy their healthcare from someone who they can't afford if fro,. College is expensive because the government supplies near guaranteed loans for college. Because of this colleges can raise proces because they know the kids are going to go their any way, so they have no reason to ever make their prices cheaper. It isn't just about practicality either, it is about principal, people deserve to keep their money and not have it taken to pay for things they don't believe in. Those unrelated things are related because I am talking about all encompasing liberty for every citizen. We aren't going to agree ideaoligically I am sure because the idea of the governnt making me pay for services that go to the people who don't even pay taxes (richb people don't need the programms but can easily afford top pay, middle income people don't need them or need them that much, but paying for it hurts them, and lower income people straight up don't pay taxes and reap the benefits) so the middle class suffers, the rich don't lose anything and the poor don't contribute anything, that is disgusting to me, just like the stipend thing is. I believe in liberty, competition, and self determination. I don't think anyone is owed, or deserves handouts inherently, and that charity should be left to private people. and the funny thing is that that stipend that everyone gets, comes out of their taxes, so they are literally paying for themselves

Actually you're right. Although they became a republic in 1789, I forgot about their imperial phase, then the re-election of Louis XVIII, and then the second imperial phase with Napoleon III, then the second republic, etc, etc. Man, I feel like a dummy.

It was a democracy at first though, it was just like the early Jacksonian democracy. They even redrew the districts in France and had a city be a representative for each one. These representatives where then elected from their home/district by white land-owning patriots. (source: living the french revolution & the age of napoleon, I'm a big nerd on france )

We're barely older dude, 3 generations (about 80 years) has NOTHING on what these ancient states and governments have. Us Americans should be humbled when approaching this matter because like the rest of our New-World brothers, we're pretty young and we have a long way to go. The thing about history and states and borders is that we may never know which one is the best one and that's where government and states becomes a process of trial-and-error.

Scarcity of doctors and inflated cost of medicine? What the **** kind of **** are you smoking because I want some. Listen buddy, my whole family works in an urban hospital, I guarantee you there is NO shortage of doctors (because of the promising pay, most college kids go into medicine and health/bio services) and yes inflated costs of medicine because there's nothing regulating the market and the big medicine companies WANT a huge profit. Most medicine is actually extremely cheap to make. I'm sorry dude, but you have too much faith in the private system, competition doesn't automatically mean lower prices because more likely than not, a company is gonna create a monopoly and affix its prices based on supply-demand. Besides, out of all the places, medicine is NOT the place for privatization because even assuming there WAS competition, the market wouldn't be regulated enough and people would sell medicine with serious side-effects that would fix your headache and **** up your kidneys. in that case, you're playing with people's lives and health and man, out of all the things, medicine should not be solely in the hands of private contractors. Besides long before there was even socialized healthcare in this country, giving birth would STILL cost you 20k, and that's ridiculous.

College: I'm skipping that because you didn't address any of my previous points.

"lower income people straight up don't pay taxes and reap the benefits": WOOOOAAAHH, HALT. Damn dude, talk about brainwash.
www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/18/who-doesnt-pay-taxes-in-charts/
www.cbpp.org/research/misconceptions-and-realities-about-who-pays-taxes
www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2013/09/12/most-americans-do-indeed-pay-federal-taxes-including-the-poor/
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/24/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/
www.economicpopulist.org/content/poor-pay-more-taxes-5660
www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/the-gops-weird-obsession-with-poor-people-not-paying-enough-taxes/250928/
www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/poor-americans-state-local-taxes_n_1903993.html

And I don't know who told you that the middle class don't need them. My friend's pretty middle class but since her family makes so much money she doesn't qualify for FAFSA. That means she gets even more debt than a poorer student because her family just barely the means to pay for it since they have a million other things to worry about. (like real estate, the example of the private business sector)

Your thing about principle... I dig that. I think that there should be a system tied for social security. When you reach a working age you should get a SSC ID and your employer should give you the option of paying taxes or not. If you choose not, you're not entitled to any social programs and you must always pay out-of-pocket.

You do know that the AMA limits the number of dr.s that get to graduate every year right? and because of government involvment the medical industry is allowed to violate the sherman anti trust act which help them to keep up the practices that drive up medical costs. The catastophic surgeries and medicine will always be crazy expensive, but privatization would lower the cost of the non life saving stuff because people won't ruin their lives over something they don't 100% need if they don't have to, but they will pay out the ass to save their life.

I would appreciate you answer the college issue because idk how i didn't answer your points and not answering does nothing to further discussion

we already have medicine that does what you descibed, side effects of anything you see on television alone are ****** up

Some of those links are pretty ******* screwy. The top 1% of earners are taxed at the end of the day at about 60% not 5. (loopholes put a dent in this but that is mostly for the corporation itself and not the individual executives themselves

I stick by what I said on the middle class getting less use out of it with the disclaimer that middle class is kind of a broad term and the lower end of it is not much better off then those in poverty.

I don't believe in government taking care of the people like you do but I will say that if we got tid of income tax, cut the obscene benefits and salaries of congress, cut stopped war spending, and trimmed the government beuracracy down, and instituted a consumption tax that everyone pays every time they spend money, and was crazy hard to raise, I would be ok with the government having aid programs for the needy because everyone would be taxed equally and nobody would be getting ****** over to help the less fortunate

Also the "AMA forbids..." topkek
yeah man, and schools forbid teachers from teaching more than 20 students
and the law forbids smoking marijuana
and I forbid kids grabbing more than one piece of candy on halloween from my porch.
When was the last time you read a doctor not being allowed to practice because of the AMA? it's ridiculously mate, I'm telling you my whole family works in the health system and that's kind of a joke.

Yes you're right, they will pay their ass to save their life but what happens when they have no money after? Yes we do have medicine that does that because the healthcare system right now is privatized. Obama didn't just wave a magic wand and POOF socialist healthcare now fixes everything, these are long-standing issues that need to be fixed slowly.

Okay where's your links? Cause I posted pretty centrist stuff, none of that FOX or CNBC/CNN ******** . Dude, there IS NO MIDDLE CLASS.

YESSS **** WAR SPENDING, we need to keep our sphere of influence in check but we don't ******* need supermeganuclear missile carriors of 1 trillion dollars each. But for the most part those links I sent you stand their ground where loopholes and masses of wealth give the richer bigger tax breaks than the middle class or poorer people.

2/2 also dude please break your paragraphs into points, it's really hard to read. "the poor don't contribute anything" oh boy, here we go again
www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/the-hypocrisy-of-helping-the-poor.html?_r=0
www.bls.gov/news.release/forbrn.nr0.htm
www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/04/16/Study-Finds-Illegal-Immigrants-Pay-118B-Taxes

also remember my statement about Mississippi? And how they're the poorest state? and the most conservative? and they're on a government programs even though they don't belive in them? that's pretty gross too.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUdGrbX2g24 watch this, this guy right here lays out how I would ideally like to see the country run

Well I see he's a libertarian (and an hour long video, so I'm gonna put that on my watch later and yes I promise I will watch it one of these days) but I think you can agree with a few points:

We, as a nation, are extremely diverse and extremely young compared to other nations. This is nowhere especially true but in the American identity crisis, we don't know what we want to be.

We don't know what form of government will be ideal nor effective in this incredibly diverse republic and we have longways to find that out. Too many ideologies, cultures, and ideas are battling in America right now, trying to create a good future. No party, no ideology is wittingly trying to harm the nation; there is no libertarian, republican, conservative, democratic, liberal, nor socialist agenda.

The only way to achieve future prosperity is through compromise, cooperation, and open-mindedness. This country was built on compromise and right now it is in a state of passive-aggression. Fear mongering, and worst of all, (you're a historian, you should know this...) BLAME are one of the most useless tools for political problem-solving.

The only completely free market I believe in is the free market of ideas, where discourse strengthens the complimentary native of the U.S.A. and what we've just done right now of having an honest discussion about how we idealize the future of America is one that everyone needs to be having with one another.

hey I love open discussion, I am just not alway so open to accepting those ideas lol I just can not bring myself to agree with anything that limits the people god given right to make their own decisions. That is the basis of my entire system of beliefs

Yes and that's why you're a libertarian lmao

a key difference between us though is that using pure logic and no emotions or idealism, my beliefs are objectively morally right

No dude morality is subjective. It's like IS giving everyone absolute freedom the right thing to do? Why?

It's like the kid's candy argument.
If your kid is crying because he wants candy, what do you do?
Do you satisfy his craving and give him the candy?
or do you not give it to him to teach him a valuable lesson?
What if he's not crying? Why wouldn't you give it to him, maybe he's earned it.
Or maybe you focus on his health and deny him it because it's unhealthy?

There's a million approaches to morality. (I personally don't believe in right or wrong). My approach to society and government is "how can we build a system that is both progressive & effective (actually builds societies UP) and satisfies everyone (makes people happy)" Freedom isn't inherently good and people aren't inherently good. If you give people complete freedom, a "good" society won't just spring up.

I don't judge societies by how "free" they are but how happy their citizens are. The happiest countries?
Denmark
Norway
Switzerland
Netherlands
Sweden

People achieve more when they're motivated. When they live in a system where they're fostered and taken care of. They don't become discouraged, lost, or worst, suicidal. People should be encouraged to be better, to care, and what's wrong with that?

the thing is dude, morality is only subjective beyond "hurting people is bad, stealing the fruits of their labor is bad, and taking their freedom is bad" ask a philosophy proffessor and they will tell you that if you follow a logical path of thought, the only real morality is those three things, and following through in a contract. It does not matter how much it hurts your feelings, or how happy people are, nobody at all should have power over your life or your property besides you, that is wrong. Principal above practicality you could call it, because practicality inevitably leads to authoritarianism. Liberty does not

No dude morality is completely subjective. It's dynamic, it's change over thousands of years of civilization and WILL continue to change. This is a fundamental concept you should understand as a historian, especially one older than me. I have asked philosophical professors, I am STILL really good friends with all my social sciences teachers from college and high school and they will tell you the following:
morality is subjective
ethics are subjective
there is no "good and evil/good and bad"
ideologies are dynamic and flawed
social contexts are constantly changing and will always change

I'm not talking about "feelings" and "hurts" nor "feels", I'm asking you to fundamentally question EVERYTHING you've been taught. and me, myself, and I hold our personal opinion that a government that seeks to HELP is "morally" a better government than one that does not. This is my own personal opinion and in 1,000 years it may either be a complete fallacy or a societal truth. I believe in healthcare, and to quote my friend in England: "Paying for healthcare is atrocious. Illness is not an indulgence you should pay for, nor is it a crime for which we should be punished"

And happiness doesn't mean "feels" it means contentment in regards to living in a society and government. These aforementioned happiness levels are not about whether these people live happy great lives living off the government, but how effective their social systems are.

dude it's wrong TO YOU, because YOU are conditioned to think like that. Break outside the box, I'm not saying you have to agree with me but you have to look at the actual social context. Just like "I" don't care because I'm NOT conditioned to think like that. And whether each of us is "right" or "wrong" is completely out of the question because values vary from culture to culture. In the US property is already owned by the government, by banks, you HAVE to pay taxes and mortgage and **** . It's not like a car where you can sign it off to someone else and while that's not a great thing it's almost like you're envisioning Thomas Jefferson's "educated self-sufficient farmers'" society, and that's kind of outdated. We're in the 21st century, and you're right, people should have more sovereignty over their property, but if you think that the government systems of Europe are all about controlling property then you're just misguided.

Same with life, you're right they SHOULDN'T have power over your life, which is why healthcare should be a RIGHT but as it exists, if you get sick, you're ****** . and there's NOTHING you can do about it, does that sound like liberty and freedom to you? The right to get ****** in the ass for being sick?

Also it's principle. Which, principle is great, but it's not worth your life. Practicality does NOT lead to authoritarianism that is a fallacy and a completely laughable thesis to any argument. All arguments like that so far have been slippery slope and I await an actual argument with proof, especially on how practicality leads to authoritarianism,

your move, fellow history major

As for proof. Adolf Hitler, Julius Ceaser, Pol Pot, Mousolinni, Sadam Housein. All men who promised they would make the nation a better place if they had ultimate authority, all got it, all killed countless people (Ceaser wasn't so bad but he did pave the way for some real **** hooks)

ok first dude calm down a bit. 2nd, morality is subjective, but not once you reach the three truths of harm of person, property and freedom. I would love you to sit in here and take a course with my philosophy teacher, because he made a pretty inarguable case that what I just said is a logical truth.

Me believing that in true liberty is questioning everything I have been taught because that is not something any main stream political party or the amercican education system preaches, while what you are championing is a very mainstream and conformist way of thinking (that doesn't make it right or wrong, jsut pointing it out) so do not try to dismiss what I have to say by insinuating I am brainwashed, because I was not raised in a libertarian family, and I have never bought in to the mainstream liberal ideology

you are not punished when you have to pay for something, it is not someone activley harming you, it is someone failing to better you, and it is nobody's job to better you. If people want to help others that is fine, but nobody has the right to make that decision for someone else.

Your argument that nobody should have power over your life so health care should be a right is totally ass backwards, you never have the right to anyones goods or services. They don't have power over you because they aren't taking a choice from you, they are giving you one and it is yours to make, no matter how ****** the alternatives.

Sippery slope by the way isn't considered valid in philospohy, but it is an observable fact that repeats itself all through out history.

If principal isn't worth your life then there is no point in having them at all because you are stating that you do have a price from the very get go, that is a cowardly way to think

Practicallity is the seed of authoritarianism because the most practical way to get anything done, or to provide recources for people the way you want to, is to do away with rights, and have a government ruled by a single individual with total authority who can get things done much easier then a bureaucracy. That **** is how dictators get into power, by promising to use that ease of power to make changes a cluster ****** government could never do.

WHen it comes down to it, I am the one who favors free will and charity, and that is never wrong. I leave it up to people to decide their fate for themselves. If you want your money to go to helping people, donate it yourself, convince other people to donate it freely, charities are a multi billion dollar enterprise, people are more then willing to help without the government being involved

that last paragraph...topkek.

yeah surreeee man. People are SO generous without government. Just look at the US, it's a paradise.

@ #30 BRUUUUHHHHH. I don't know what kind of papers you've been writing at your Uni, but references to **** like Julius Caesar, Hitler, and Mussolini tend to be way more complicated than what they layman knows. If you're using those examples then
first off: yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause
second off: how do you explain the following awesome rulers
Frederick II of Prussia
Catherine the Great of Russia
Peter the Great of Russia
Joseph II of Austria
Leopold II HRE
Augustus Caesar of Rome
Henry IV of France
Elizabeth I of England
Isabella of Castile (DEBATABLE, she was bloodthirsty against non-Christians but she DID lead Spain's golden age)
Napoleon III (also debatable, but he did a lot of good things)
************* QUEEN VICTORIA

but hey, you know who also killed people?
WE DID. We interned Japanese into prison camps without a second thought.
We enslaved Africans when the rest of the world told us not to and when we KNEW it was wrong.
We DECIMATED Native American civilizations with NO remorse, and you're gonna tell me these rulers were bad because despotism?

Let me learn you a thing brotherman, it's not about the government, it's not about the laws, it's not about race or culture. PEOPLE can be inherently bad and do horrendous things, it is human nature that people will do some nasty things and none of the aforementioned can really be used as an excuse for what they did. Not capitalism, communism, socialism, nor monarchy could ever change human nature.

@#29 I can't help it I'm passionate.

I don't believe in three truths dude. Call me cliche but I believe in the whole "nothing is true, everything is permitted." I would love to argue with your philosophy teacher because if he were a real philosophy teacher he would teach you that there is no logical truth. There is no true in this world, there is no certainty. Remember "The oracle said I was the wisest man because I said that I knew nothing."

How is it mainstream and conformist? See this is where your teaching is flawed because you only believe in liberty, and believe that liberty is everything. So of-freaking-course you're gonna believe in the three truths and libertarianism and dada. It's all very dogmatic. I don't believe in ANYTHING aside from, me, myself, the facts of history, and the convoluted nature of people and societies. I don't submit to the ideas of socialism, nor communism, nor capitalism. I don't even submit to religion nor political parties. The truest form of historian is the spectator, you have to take a few steps back and look at the big picture.

Now I'm not saying you're wrong because you're libertarian, au contraire, all views are valid, all points can be valid. But to dismiss my thinking as "mainstream" and "conformist" just goes to show how vapid your philosophy is. You have to question yourself and your beliefs ALL the time. And I did for years, but if you believe that your views and your "truths" are the only valid ones then you're just stuck in a void of intellectual stagnancy forever.

Yeah dude what a great choice "hey here you go, you can either keep the cancer and die in one year, or we can help you for a small fee of $175,000. Your choice!" Sounds like something from a mafia movie, but hey, it's the principle that counts!

"Slippery slope by the way isn't considered valid in philospohy, but it is an observable fact that repeats itself all through out history. " Excuse me, what? How?

A cowardly way to think? No one should have to die for no stupid principle. Life is the most valuable and beautiful thing that we have.

Okay you can keep stating the practicality thing but
One: you have provided no examples
two: you're literally only using your own beliefs
three: it's a complete fallacy. You could've said "dogmatic thinking is how dictators get elected" and you'd be kinda right but practicality is kind of a huge stretch. Wait so you're anti-government but pro-bureaucracy? No dude, that's not how dictators get into power.

ummmm thanks stranger, you too

:-]