[Radar]

The libertarian position on these things is by its very nature, a selfish one, thankyou for pointing that out. Healthcare is not cheaper if you cannot afford it..

There's nothing selfish about Libertarianism. There's nothing selfish about allowing people the freedom to make their own healthcare decisions. It is selfish to think you're entitled to reach into someone else's pocket just because you want or need something. Healthcare is cheaper when you're not being robbed for half of your income. Then even those with the lowest paying jobs can afford healthcare. Others would get it from private charities, friends, family, neighbors, churches, etc. And there are plenty of people willing to provide these essential services if only they could afford to do it. But they can't when half of their income is being STOLEN from them to pay for unconstitutional social programs that don't help anyone. Yes, Medicare, medicaid, etc. don't help anyone. Not only that the most poor people can just walk into an emergency room and get treatment and never pay for it so yes those that can't afford healthcare are still getting it.

Frankly i find it a sign of a civilized society that we are willing to pay for the healthcare of those that cannot afford it, rather than going for the most cost effective option.

I don't find armed robbery very civilized. And that's what income tax is. Armed robbery. The threat of force is used against us to pay for social programs that don't help anyone and are illegal under the constitution. Private healthcare is better than socialized medicine 100% of the time. In fact private industry is more efficient and provides better service in all areas 100% of the time.

Here most of the healthcare is provided by the govt, the exception being public hospitals, it's just the govt picks up the bill. Yet somehow that is less efficient?

Canadian healthcare is absolutely less efficient, provides substandard healthcare, long waits for service, etc.

On the other hand if i made my money by supporting the faults of substandard operating systems i'm say something to that effect too.

Windows 2000 is the best operating system in the world. It's more stable than Linux and more user friendly. It's the most tested and secure piece of software ever created.

Mother Theresa - Selfllessly helped the poor for the vast majority of her life
Ghandi - Freed a nation of colonialism and pioneered non-violent protest
Bill Gates - made billions by developing other peoples software and ripping off their ideas, then gave a fraction of it away to charity.
Yea. very even.

Mother Theresa and Ghandi did a lot to help the poor. Bill Gates has done even more. Bill Gates has earned his money honestly and provided great products. He is a tough and astute businessman but that's how business works. The strong survive. He's given more money to charity than any other two people on the face of the earth. It's given close to 3 BILLION DOLLARS so far and intends to give his entire fortune. Just like Mother Theresa and Ghandi, Bill Gates had dedicated his life to helping others, especially the less fortunate.

Bill Gates isn't Microsoft. And Microsoft has only stolen 2 things in their entire existence; Stacker and Java, and I fault them for that. There are a lot of other companies that have done worse things. They didn't steal the GUI interface as Apple claims. They didn't steal Netscape as they claim. They haven't stolen anything wrong other than Java in the 90's and stacker in the 80's.

Microsoft are not a monopoly? That explains why they can bully OEMs and everyone else without fear of a backlash, that explains why they can use their overwhelming market share to quash any competition.

The definition of Monopoly means ONE CHOICE. There are many choices of operating systems and software. The fact that Microsoft has better marketing and happens to be the most succesful doesn't mean they're a monopoly. In fact Microsoft doesn't even sell the fastest selling Operating system. And don't blame Microsoft for exclusive OEM agreements. They give OEM's a choice. OEM's don't HAVE to sell their systems with Microsoft OS's installed. But if they want to Microsoft wants them to sign an agreement that says they will ONLY sell their systems with Microsoft OS's. The OEM's can easily tell Microsoft to forget it but they don't because they know their customers want systems with Microsoft OS's installed. There's no force, bullying, or coersion.

Microsoft is not, nor has it ever been a monopoly. Microsoft doesn't prevent competition either. Microsoft has embraced and encouraged innovation and standards not just for their own company but for everyone. Microsoft has used their influence in the software community to make things far better than they were before they were around.

Ohh sorry, I forgot, a free market could never let that happen, right

That's right. A free market PROMOTES an environment where even the smallest company can compete equally with the largest multi-national conglomerate and doesn't promote monopolies.

Even if it's going to create monopoly?

I didn't say I wanted a lawless market, just a free market. Companies that are not monopolies like Microsoft would be free to continue business, but the government WOULD get involved if say one company bought all the railroads in America. The government would still make sure we didn't have monopolies, that businesses didn't commit fraud, didn't sell faulty products, didn't misrepresent themselves to their customers, didn't pollute other people's land, etc.

Oh, dear, the mating cry of the cooercive collectivist: "It's so selfish of you to not give us what we want!".

Exactly! How selfish of you to not be happy when I try to rob you.

Bill Gates spends some of his money on the poor, while living his life in his mansions flying on private jets, crushing smaller companies, and refusing to give consumers the best products, all so he can squeeze a few more billions out of the public.

Bill Gates lives well. So what? Helping the poor doesn't mean you've got to be poor yourself. And Bill Gates doesn't crush smaller companies or even stop competition. Bill gates gives conumers great products that are feature rich and as stable as any other solution out there. You can't name a more stable OS than Windows 2000. And don't be an idiot and say Linux because you know that's a lie. I like Linux and find it very stable, but it's hardly as good as Win2k.

You really think he donates his money because he really cares, he does it to increase his public images, something that obviously has worked in your case.

People don't spend 3 BILLION dollars because they don't care. And Gates isn't stopping there, he's giving all of his money to the poor. All of it!

When gates gave that 3 BILLION DOLLARS, he did more in a single act for the poor than Mother Theresa and Ghandi did in their entire lifetimes.

Or does your definition of "seriously wrong" not include "dishonest" or "unethical" and embrace only "blatantly actionable"?

Microsoft does business honestly and ethically in almost all cases. The only exceptions were Java and Stacker. Everything else they've done has been above board.

But jaguar's right when he says that a civilized society does what it can to stop people from falling through the cracks. We, as Americans, do not do enough in this regard.

Americans are the most generous people on earth. We give more money to people in need than anyone else. When there's an earthquake in turkey, starving ethopians, WTC bombings, etc. Americans always come together to help.

The only thing stopping Americans from giving even more is our government stealing half of our income to pay for programs that don't help anyone.

The free market is not the answer to everything. I think it should generally be used for most industries, but there should be a close watch put on it. And certain things, like the health of the population, should not be left to the free market.

The free market is better, cheaper, and more efficient at ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING than the government. It makes no sense to leave the government in charge of healthcare. Everything the government touches turns to shit. The people who do healthcare the best and care about people the most (Free market) should handle important things like healthcare, retirement, charity, education, etc. Not glorified DMV workers who don't care and keep 85% of the money STOLEN for their own overhead.

I hate how people use the word "society" and forget that "society" includes those of us who want to keep our money and choose which charities we give to and which we don't. It's not selfish to choose where your money goes. It's very selfish to think it's ok to rob your neighbors for what you think their money should be spent on.