Incarceration has exactly one purpose: to prevent and deter people from endangering the community.
Wrong. Incarceration has two purposes: to prevent and deter future crime AND to punish.
Statistically, most of the released inmates will have been there for drug-related charges, which, since drug law enforcement doesn't work anyway, I'm not gonna lose any sleep over.
What part of "drug law enforcement doesn't work?" Is it because people still use drugs? People still murder but no one is claiming that "murder enforcement law doesn't work." When you make something illegal then fewer people do it.
But again, the only reason to keep him locked up - the only reason the government should do anything with other people's money, for that matter - is if it will do some good.
Demonstrating punishment does good. If people think that there is not a larger consequence for fleeing the scene of an accident and leaving someone to die then that is the more likely response. Why hang around if you are driving drunk when you can flee and have a the chance to escape?
Just curious: how much do you think an American citizen should pay in order to "earn" the police cruiser that comes when that burglar breaks into his house? Or the fire truck that comes to stop it from burning down?
So let's send you a bill every month - your full, equal share of the government services you not only have, but take for granted.
They do send me a bill. It's called property taxes. It's itemized to include both police and fire service. Law enforcement and criminal justice is actually a job of government. It's one of the few things that they must do since we are a country of laws.
A policy that lets a government-funded insurance company compete with private insurers in a free market? To spur innovation, destroy oligopolist practices and drive down costs, all while giving individual Americans the right to choose whatever insurance option they want? If any? A true communist would be apoplectic.
Government funded really means taxpayer funded. So I would be paying for a system to compete with the one that I currently use? And the company that currently supplies me with health insurance doesn't get to set regulations? Doesn't get to create mandates? Has to worry about a profit? This is not competition. And a government that can't come out and say they want socialism has to take baby steps and work under the guise of "fairness" and "helping the poor."
The preexisting condition argument is the one that I find the most ridiculous. Of cours INSURANCE doesn't allow preexisting conditions... EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE. You can't wreck your car then get insurance. But you can get a job that provides health insurance, which is how most people get their health insurance, and because it is a group plan then your preexisting condition is accepted.
Ahem. Forty years on, Medicare is one of the most popular and successful government-run programs of all time, and the senior population would pretty much lynch anyone who tried to take it away.
The "first in" on a ponzi scheme will always support the program. And if you define "success" as "out of money and rife with fraud" then I'm not sure what to say.
I like you Kaelri and I know you once said that you enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged. I'd suggest re-reading it and remembering where Ayn Rand came from. I take the side of less government because that always means more freedom.