Essay talk:My Life Story in a Libertarian Parallel Universe

But... but the free market never fails! Just ask Michael Shermer! : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:47, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Cost Efficiency

One aspect you might like to add is that now, as a moderate earner, your taxes have probably repaid the costs of your medical treatment and education. Of course, you're quite happy to keep paying because you're aware that with increasing years the likelihood of requiring medical treatment again increases dramatically. Silver Sloth 06:00, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Good point. Of course, I do pay for medical prescriptions that are for non-life threatening conditions, but I've been into hospital a number of times over the years due to football related injuries (broken bones and the like) and received free treatment, despite the fact that I could have avoided the injuries by not playing a contact sport. Bondurant 06:04, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Hey there

You seem to advocate socialism (by which I do not mean Stalinism), and yet condemn any 'extreme' politics (though it could be argued that socialism is a self-contained system, and thus can't be fit onto a sliding scale, which is generally how 'extremeness' is measured). In other words, you're probably a reformist. Bloody reformists. Anyways, any clarification of your political beliefs? Also, a libertarian version would probably go on rambling about how your parents didn't deserve to be rich. -Judas Reward 11:08, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

You rang? -- Rem^Beau 14:46, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Does that really follow? Having social programs doesn't mean you're a socialist nation. Canada, for instance, is quite capitalist, yet we have a lot of elements that we share with socialism. I don't think you can call it all or nothing. --Kels 11:30, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

What she said. δλερνερ ^{διαλέγομαι | συνεισφέρω} 11:34, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm no socialist, far from it. I think you missed the part where I said that I believe that a balance between idealogy is the best solution, so I agree with some socialist principles, however. For example, competition is very important, but competition without adequate checks and balances enforced by government ultimately leads to anti-competition.

I work in the financial services industry, in a leading company, and as such, we have very tight regulatory control on what we can and cannot do. There is enough freedom for the company to innovate and take the lead in some respects, and also for our competitors. There are also new entrants to the market coming along all the time. This is also good. It would be bad, however, if we could simply buy up our competition and stifle their ability to innovate.

What I am an advocate for is the European style of government, where we have had hundreds of years through trial and error to come to a form of government where economies are relatively stable, our companies can compete in global markets, and all the people have equal opportunity to succeed. It's no coincidence, I think, that most of the main political parties in Europe are relatively centrist. The Tories and Labour in the UK are in opposition to one another, but can you truly say that they are that far apart? It's because electing a new government isn't about throwing the baby out with the bathwater - that making radical changes to tax rates and spending policy leads to economic unrest, higher interest rates, etc. Bondurant 11:35, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Ah, alright. And Canada doesn't have a lot of elements that it shares with socialism. But eh, this isn't the place for a debate. Either way, nice essay. -Judas Reward 14:54, 30 August 2008 (EDT)