>>>>>And how does a hungry 3-year-old do that?
>
>>>>The parents are responsible and need to feed their child.
>
>>>I agree with you, but what if they don't for whatever reasons. I believe that one of the functions of forming a society is to ensure that children don't go hungry (or naked or uneducated).
>>
>>We agree on the principal. It's the method where i believe we differ. For instance I am all for tax money being spent on education. However, I despise the current system because the state and big unions have complete control. Local districts have far too little say in the educational process, let alone the parents or students themselves. I'm all for some form of a voucher system from pre-school through college. I believe an educated citizen has a much greater chance of being a productive and self-sustained member of society. In addition, I believe similar programs could be developed to address food, clothing and shelter as well. The problem I have is that the current solutions disregard the market completely and impose mandates from the state.
>
>But none of that addresses the 3-year-old whose parents aren't feeding him. The state does need to intervene in that case because they're the only ones with the authority to do so.

Apply the same voucher logic to the food stamp program. Smaller local control and management of public financing. Mandate the nutrients and allow the private sector to manufacture and distribute. Similar but smaller and more effective than the food stamp program.

>>Full disclosure : My mother is a retired 1st grade teacher and a member of the CTA
>
>FWIW, my mother is a retired 1st grade teacher, a member of the AFT, and a board member of the Philadelphia Retired Teachers (or whatever that piece of the union is called).
>
>She still volunteers in the school where she taught for many years, as well as at the school my sister's children attend.

Best estimate of how many boxes of stuff your mother collected over the years?
Mine took over a 12x12 storage room and it took us 4 weekends to sort and distribute to other teachers when she retired.

>>>If you think about it, rather a lot of what government is for is what happens when people don't do the right things. (Not all of it, of course--stuff like trash collection and road building is for the common good, in another way.)
>>
>>Of course "right" is a very subjective term in this context. I think the government should be minimalist in its approach and I have a big problem with legislating behavior. I'm not speaking of crimes against others but of the nanny laws controlling individual choice, such as helmet laws, banning cell-phones while driving and smoking ordinances on private property. To me free includes the freedom to make choices, good or bad.
>
>I agree that we shouldn't legislate everything, cradle to grave, but I also think there are some key principles. One of them is that kids need to be protected and if their parents won't do it, society has an interest in doing so. So requiring child car seats, for example, is in a different category than requiring adults to wear seatbelts.

There's that common ground. ;)

>The second principle is that we are a society and we do have to require people to do some things they may not want to, for the good of society as a whole. Laws that prevent people from dumping sewage into water supplies fit in this category, as do a whole host of laws around labor rules, public health, and so forth.

I wouldn't put it exactly that way mainly because I think the principals already exist in our individual rights. Our individual rights should be greater than the state's but they are not to infringe upon the rights of another. Once that principal is established the sewage dumping, certain labor rules and public health are accounted for.

>The hard question and, I suspect, the place where you and I part company is over what is in the public interest and what is not. Helmet laws are a good example. Bike helmets for kids fit into the first category above, so let's leave those out and talk about motorcycle helmet laws. The real question is whether motorcyclists who don't wear helmets and get into accidents end up costing the public money. Now, in your view of how things should work, they wouldn't because public money wouldn't be used for anyone's health care. In my view, the government is the payer of last resort. In that scenario, the cyclist who goes without a helmet, crashes and winds up needing a lifetime of car costs us both a lot of money.

Yep, this is where we part. This is exactly the reason I don't want the government in charge of my health care. Once the government is paying, they have control over my health just like education. The voucher concept could also apply here.

>Not sure we can resolve this difference, but just understanding it is a step in the right direction.

60 minutes had a show this season on health systems around the world. IIRC Taiwan was the most recent country to revamp their system. They sent a team to study health care in multiple industrialized nations and came up with a smorgasbord of ideas. It sounded like a good start, but I have no idea where it went.

I'm open to ideas that don't involve a government takeover. I personally don't like the 3rd party payer concept that currently exists because it's a bureaucratic hodgepodge of regulations, cya policies and knee-jerk legislation smashed together between lawsuits. Many things can be done to streamline the process and get the individual back in control.

>Tamar