[quote=@Pepperm1nts] Some things are in place, like public education, but I'm talking about higher education as well, and healthcare. [/quote] [Quote=@Me] It seems that a lot of problems facing America currently have almost always not a free-market economy, but some horrible hybrid. [/quote] [quote=@Pepperm1nts] Like? [/quote] See own previous statement for example? Seriously though, School is one of those things. Healthcare is too. You can't tell me those are a fully free-market. [quote=@Pepperm1nts] Some of our social elements, like social security, are actually universally loved. [/quote] I've honestly never heard anyone claim that social security was loved. Every adult I've ever spoken with always complains that they're being screwed over when they retire. So you've gotten me to look through things... https://news.gallup.com/poll/1693/social-security.aspx That is certainly not the case, even according to general polls https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-americans-will-never-get-social-security-benefits-and-we-dont-mean-millennials-2017-04-26 https://www.fool.com/retirement/2006/10/12/is-social-security-a-ripoff.aspx http://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2007/04/why_social_secu.html https://mises.org/library/social-security-most-successful-ponzi-scheme-history https://mises.org/library/social-security-most-successful-ponzi-scheme-history I won't get into a, is social security this or that, unless you'd like to. But the first link just goes into general polling on what people think of social security...and it isn't exactly being lauded with praise. Maybe you like the idea, more than the results? (Because those are [i]pretty bad.[/i]) [quote=@Pepperm1nts] I've already given some examples of things I'd like to see socialized. Healthcare and higher education should be free. If you want the option to go to a private school that you pay for, or want specialized healthcare that you pay for, those options should also be there. When I think of a hybrid system I am thinking about the Scandinavian way of doing things. [/quote] How would you go about implementing 'free' healthcare and higher education? Especially, without reshaping how many systems in America currently work entirely? I won't dive to deep into Scandinavian countries not really being all their cracked up to be. [quote=@Pepperm1nts] I don't know if you misunderstood, but... I didn't say people should get free government cars. [/quote] I didn't say you did. My comment was referencing I wouldn't -want- it. It's like being something used, the adage 'you get what you pay for'. I think steel metal death traps, would be something I'd care more for quality... [quote=@Pepperm1nts] Jesus, man, it's simple. [/quote] If something is simple, you should be able to explain it. You have not. You've said a lot of what it isn't, rather than what it is. And the only clarifications you do make are easily refuteable/debateable. It's not for no reason, it's to point out a fundamental flaw in an idea. (Which is basically my whole point.) [quote=@Pepperm1nts] It means not living paycheck to paycheck with no room for improvement because you're stuck in an endless loop where you're just barely getting by. [/quote] Which would obviously be different wages, based on what person you are, where you live, how many live with you, how many pets you have, etc etc. So you can not possibly make a universal dollar amount, but you would need to...to actually pass or propose anything solid aside from a phantom desire/dream... [quote=@Pepperm1nts] Basically what I said above. Living wage is [color=fff200]actually somewhat well-defined.[/color] [/quote] That couldn't have been a more appropriate oxymoron. 'well-defined' 'somewhat' (Kinda-sorta not really.) [quote=@Pepperm1nts] Drugs and alcohol, sure. [color=fff200]Phones are pretty essential these days, though.[/color] [/quote] Phones are a commodity in every sense of the word. You do not need phones to contact people. Also since you admitted phones are essential would that imply they'd be under 'the living wage'. What phone/service provider do they get? [quote=@Pepperm1nts] I think we already talked about how equal outcome refers to basic things, and a living wage is, again, a means with which to provide those basic things. I don't see how these two things are at odds. [/quote] You're asking why is assuming a universally applied set income trying to push equality of outcome? You are assuming that 'basic things' for people to (not even survive) but something that can literally only be quantifiable with pure opinion, like 'live with dignity and live comfortably' which absolutely can't be proven with facts. A universal truth/right. When my point is, you cannot possibly know what certain people 'basically' need to live. (Let alone, 'comfortably with dignity.') Your mixing feelings with something that would need clearly definable terms. This isn't a nitpick, it's a serious flaw when there's no follow through with implementation, and only what is basically a nice sentiment. The rest I didn't include was basically just repeated ideas, things basic comfortable, dignified, won't actually solve anything, living wages. And more of what it wasn't, and how much it's clear. Without much actual clarification. Ya know, I don't mind a, "I'm no economics expert, I don't know how to feasibly give a 'living minimum wage' as one set sum because standard and basic living expensive are literally different across all 50 states, the cities within those states and those communities with people within those homes. And how trying to make different free lump sums of cash would be so easily exploited, I couldn't possibly count all the ways in my head." AKA, I dunno. I'm not entirely, sure. But it sure sounds nice anyway. As an answer. If there is nothing more specific you have in mind/prepared/or expressed.