3 ms·

Obviously the best is a balance between individual and collective rights/power. Your simplistic argument is ignoring the negatives of purely "individual actors

• dnautics 5y ago
  No, nongovernmental actors don't require full participation to achieve the desired social goals. Unless we have competing governments, governmental actors are unitary, so making something it's mandate means if it doesn't do something then it doesn't get done. Let's give a concrete example. Say it takes $10M to house the homeless in SF. One marc benioff (or, better yet, a few + tens of thousands of individuals, but not necessarily all) can step up and cover the cost and the rest of the greedy billionaires in SF can do what they want. Whereas if only the city takes care of it, then you could be hosed. By its very nature if you want robust social services, you should build a voluntary system because that's not going to have a single point of failure. Indeed your statement belies a serious level of projection: you're ignoring the negatives of a state run solution.