Your parents WOULD be able to afford to send you to school because ideally their taxes would be lower. Also since there would be competition in education you could shop around for a less expensive school if you wanted to.
Actually the free market is a natural economic force because it means there are no artificial barriers to entry (such as government regulation).
And unfortunately you are incorrect when you say that "people deserve care just as much as you or I". No one deserves anything other than the right to life, and liberty which are natural rights.
In the free market health care providers would be competing for business which means they would be price competitive. And without governmental regulation their prices would drop because their cost of doing business would be lower.
You have valid points, but the underlying truth is that many telcos are government granted monopolies!
Again, it's a problem the government created and continues to perpetuate.
Getting more government involvement into the market is a bad thing but so is standing by and letting the current level of government involvement remain the status quo.
The best thing is to not regulate the market and also not to give subsidies, corporate welfare, and/or government protected monopolies.
As Ron Paul says "in Washington things either get taxed/prohibited or subsidized - this needs to change"
Here is an excerpt: "As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem......
Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system....
Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good."
The problem is that American education is centralized in Washington, DC.
Fundamentally I don't think government should be involved in education at all, but legally the federal government has ZERO authority to get involved in education.
The reason education in this country has gone down hill is largely due in part to the fact that much control has been removed from local school systems and placed in the hands of the federal government often hundreds if not thousands of miles away.
I would agree with Dr. Ron Paul in the fact that at least we should get the federal government out of education and let the States handle it which is what the Constitution says. That at least would be a step in the right direction and return local control and accountability. It's much easier to hold your local government accountable for their actions than it is the federal government.
That is the fundamental problem with government education. When the govenrment is involved in education the government will teach it's agenda to your kids. This is why government should NOT be involved in education on any level. If you want your kid to get a secular education then you can send them to a secular school. If you want your kid to get a Christian education then you can send them to a Christian school. If you want your kid to get an Islamic education then you can send them to an Islamic school etc...
Either way, the best thing would be to have a separation of education and state!
The department of education is not Constitutional first off, neither is the DHS or FEMA.
And Ron Paul is a different kind of Republican unlike the current crop of neocons. Ron Paul wants a humble foreign policy and to make sure that EVERYONE (not just the wealthy) has lower taxes.
And then search for his voting record. By the way, he voted AGAINST the Patriot Act and against the DMCA and many other bills that trample our civil rights.
You have good points. But Ron Paul is a different kind of Republican.
He is an old school Republican who wants to do away with all of the neocon BS and get us back to the Constitution, fiscal responsibility, and a humble foreign policy.
I am no longer a Republican and swore never to vote for another one unless Ron Paul ran. Honestly the GOP doesn't like him because he is trying to reel them back in off of their mental holiday.
You should seriously do some research on him. Here are some of his original policy pieces:
The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to have a department of education, a pension program, or a national healthcare system.
You obviously are not very well educated on the free market. For example...When you are in the free market and want health care, you have a CHOICE and you can shop around to whichever doctor or health/insurance provider is going to best suit your needs. When the government provides the service, you don't get a choice, you have to take what's offered. That's why the free market is fundamentally better because it allows freedom and liberty of the consumer to decide what's best for them without the government making that decision for them.
He wants it overturned because it is not within the realm of the power of the federal government to decide whether or not it is legal for someone to perform an abortion.
If you search for writings and speeches by US Rep Dr. Ron Paul (who is running for President) you'll notice that he wouldn't allow secret wiretapping etc...
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that you have no right to demand someone give up their money to support your health.
Why should I be forced to pay for your health? Or worse yet, why should YOU be forced to pay for MY health?
I think you are proposing a communistic state which is directly contrary to the founding documents of this country.
No because in a free market insurance companies would be fighting for your business and many would be price competitive.
Your parents WOULD be able to afford to send you to school because ideally their taxes would be lower. Also since there would be competition in education you could shop around for a less expensive school if you wanted to.
Actually the free market is a natural economic force because it means there are no artificial barriers to entry (such as government regulation).
And unfortunately you are incorrect when you say that "people deserve care just as much as you or I". No one deserves anything other than the right to life, and liberty which are natural rights.
In the free market health care providers would be competing for business which means they would be price competitive. And without governmental regulation their prices would drop because their cost of doing business would be lower.
Take a quick second and read this:
http://ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=22
(it was written by a medical doctor)
You have valid points, but the underlying truth is that many telcos are government granted monopolies!
Again, it's a problem the government created and continues to perpetuate.
Getting more government involvement into the market is a bad thing but so is standing by and letting the current level of government involvement remain the status quo.
The best thing is to not regulate the market and also not to give subsidies, corporate welfare, and/or government protected monopolies.
As Ron Paul says "in Washington things either get taxed/prohibited or subsidized - this needs to change"
The preamble is not effective law. There is no legal authority in the preamble of the Constitution. It's called hortatory language. Look it up.
Read your history.
The 14th Amendment was never fully and properly ratified.
Thank you for the link. I learned something I had not previously known.
Ron Paul made a speech just before he voted for that bill.... you can read the entire speech here:
http://ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=635
Here is an excerpt:
"As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem......
Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system....
Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good."
The problem is that American education is centralized in Washington, DC.
Fundamentally I don't think government should be involved in education at all, but legally the federal government has ZERO authority to get involved in education.
The reason education in this country has gone down hill is largely due in part to the fact that much control has been removed from local school systems and placed in the hands of the federal government often hundreds if not thousands of miles away.
I would agree with Dr. Ron Paul in the fact that at least we should get the federal government out of education and let the States handle it which is what the Constitution says. That at least would be a step in the right direction and return local control and accountability. It's much easier to hold your local government accountable for their actions than it is the federal government.
Let's see the link verifying that statement, shall we?
That is the fundamental problem with government education. When the govenrment is involved in education the government will teach it's agenda to your kids. This is why government should NOT be involved in education on any level. If you want your kid to get a secular education then you can send them to a secular school. If you want your kid to get a Christian education then you can send them to a Christian school. If you want your kid to get an Islamic education then you can send them to an Islamic school etc...
Either way, the best thing would be to have a separation of education and state!
The department of education is not Constitutional first off, neither is the DHS or FEMA.
And Ron Paul is a different kind of Republican unlike the current crop of neocons. Ron Paul wants a humble foreign policy and to make sure that EVERYONE (not just the wealthy) has lower taxes.
You should consider reading his policy papers here: http://ronpaullibrary.org/
And then search for his voting record. By the way, he voted AGAINST the Patriot Act and against the DMCA and many other bills that trample our civil rights.
You have good points. But Ron Paul is a different kind of Republican.
He is an old school Republican who wants to do away with all of the neocon BS and get us back to the Constitution, fiscal responsibility, and a humble foreign policy.
I am no longer a Republican and swore never to vote for another one unless Ron Paul ran. Honestly the GOP doesn't like him because he is trying to reel them back in off of their mental holiday.
You should seriously do some research on him. Here are some of his original policy pieces:
http://ronpaullibrary.org/
The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to have a department of education, a pension program, or a national healthcare system.
You obviously are not very well educated on the free market. For example...When you are in the free market and want health care, you have a CHOICE and you can shop around to whichever doctor or health/insurance provider is going to best suit your needs. When the government provides the service, you don't get a choice, you have to take what's offered. That's why the free market is fundamentally better because it allows freedom and liberty of the consumer to decide what's best for them without the government making that decision for them.
He wants it overturned because it is not within the realm of the power of the federal government to decide whether or not it is legal for someone to perform an abortion.
You should read what he has to say about this here:
http://ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=21
Ron Paul does not want to "prevent women from having an abortion" as you have said.
He wants Roe v Wade overturned so that individual states can make their own decisions.
Have you ever even read any of his papers on abortion (by the way, he was an OB/GYN for years delivering over 4000 babies)
Either you are misinformed or intellectually dishonest. In case it is the later,
See this:
http://ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=21
A non-interventionalist foreign policy is indeed feasible and in fact it's the admonition the Founders gave us:
"Trade with all; entangling alliances with none"
You have that wrong. He voted AGAINST regulating the Internet.
If you search for writings and speeches by US Rep Dr. Ron Paul (who is running for President) you'll notice that he wouldn't allow secret wiretapping etc...
You should investigate the voting record of Ron Paul... and he's running for President.
Yes - Ron Paul voted "no" as usual.
He is the best friend of freedom and liberty!
From your post you sound like a supporter of Ron Paul?
Scientists have found Uranus rings gaseous
It will once again be free if we get Ron Paul elected!
CO2 emissions have not proven to be a problem yet.
And in a free market people are free to choose the competition or even start their own company; hardly feudalism.