5 ms·
The problem with articles like this is that they're too patronising to be an engagement with the opposition, and they aren't charitable enough to present the op
by calpaterson 16y ago
The problem with articles like this is that they're too patronising to be an engagement with the opposition, and they aren't charitable enough to present the opposing arguments in their strongest form. I say this as someone who mostly agrees with the author.
Also, why is it missing all the obvious case studies in favour of focusing on American ones? If you're going to talk about government healthcare intervention, please please please mention the UK's national health service.
- OpieCunningham 16y agoI didn't find it patronizing in the least. As to whether it presented the opposing arguments in their strongest form, that's hard for me to say as I strongly agree with the article and generally find the pro-libertarian arguments to be weak. As to why the UK national health service isn't discussed - why should it be? The article is pretty specific that it's not intended to demonstrate all statism all the time is perfect, but that some statism some of the time is beneficial.
- calpaterson 16y agoThe fact that a person who agrees with arguments didn't feel personally patronised isn't exactly shocking... Think about the structure and arguments used here, things like "You lose." and "Tricked you.". There wasn't any real need for the childish hostility against some imagined libertarian If you don't understand why the NHS is relevant to the topic of government healthcare intervention (which is discussed at length) then I'm not sure?