17 Comments

Love the Friedman quote - he’s just not as gorgeous as Hayek 😁

Expand full comment

When we finally get to “medicare for all” aka socialized medicine, as a cost control the feds will have an ever greater incentive to regulate any behavior that can be deemed a health “risk”.

Expand full comment

We've already seen that argument, many times. Things like obesity are deemed "epidemics" or "public health problems" so that nannies can give themselves authority to try and manage us even more.

https://therootsofliberty.substack.com/p/bootstrapping-authority

Expand full comment

What about the bad consequences which affect others like the children in a family if their parents abuse drugs?

Expand full comment

What about the bad consequences which affect others like the children in a family if their parents abuse alcohol?

Expand full comment

I didn't see a reply in your comment.

Expand full comment

Do you propose we prohibit alcohol?

Expand full comment

Outright prohibition would not work. It would backfire. However, neither can you ignore the cost of abuse. And since I know that you're not in favor of government programs to aid those in need, what happens to the kids in these situations? Having had to help kids in that spot has made me very leery of efforts to introduce more ways for people to abuse themselves.

Expand full comment

Did you see the part about treating pot like an intoxicant?

You are arguing against a point I did not make.

Expand full comment

I am not sure how treating pot as an intoxicant makes that much of a difference.

Expand full comment

You can't have a free enterprise system without taxation. It exists everywhere from regular income to the matter of owning a gun. You would have to ammend the Constitution considerably.

Expand full comment

What type of taxation? Income taxation only became a thing in 1913, with the Sixteenth Amendment.

I've voiced support for "fee-for-service," which even the most minarchist sorts support.

Expand full comment