Quote:


I'm sorry if I ever presented my beliefs in that way. I'm a Libertarian, not an Anarchist. I believe government is necessary to a certain point.

I think what you're referring to is my previous posts about having private entities provide social services to people. Allow me to elaborate here, if you will.

Some libertarians argue that all public social services should be abolished in favour of charities. For e.g. if a person is poor then they can go to Salvation Army or their local church and seek help. I don't necessarily support this manner of providing social services.

Second, the point I made specifically about my proposal was that private entities would provide social services on behalf of the Government and in compliance with the Government. I made this proposal because I was attempting to transplant a Swiss-style healthcare system to social services, which I conceded (later) probably wouldn't work for Social Services.

Basically, the Swiss healthcare system works by forcing people to buy insurance from private insurers, but those insurers must offer a specific package known as a 'universal healthcare package' at a fixed rate that offers government-defined benefits. All insurers have to offer this package and cannot discriminate against people. People could then purchase additional 'units' of healthcare according to their needs.

I was attempting to transplant this kind of system to a social services system whereby private entities such as Salvation Army, or Anglicare would offer unemployment insurance (or other type of insurances); but would need to offer a standard 'universal' package in which an adult would pay a monthly insurance rate. If the person lost his job, then he could apply for the benefit under the universal package - again, the rules for application would be the same. No private provider would be able to discriminate against a person for the 'universal' package, and everyone would have to charge the same. The consumer could purchase additional units of insurance to receive a bigger benefit, etc.

The reason why I would advocate this kind of private provision is because it would be more efficient. Companies would have room to compete with other companies, without at the same time being able to deny any person the right to receive a benefit. It would also save the government money, because people are personally responsible for their own insurance.

I hope this makes sense.

Aussie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 6:44pm:


I said that a social services system like the one we have in Australia is impossible without government. I never that a social services couldn't exist without government.

There is no need for me to labour the point.....you did take the position that government = social services.

That's it from me.

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 6:16pm:


That's where.

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 6:57pm:


So, you do equate Government with social services.  Isn't that where we began?

Okay.  Semantics play no part in drafting Constitutions.

Got it.

Not a snowflakes chance in Hell.  You need to be pedantic/semantic on issues like this....lest you have the High Court imposing and filling in gaps and that is another of your pet concerns.