Raise the Hammer

mikeonthemountain >> In fact that is the whole point of HAVING a government of any kind.

The history of government in Canada is that of a monarchy, a ruling family who treated the people as subjects, not equals. The point of a government, if there is any, is to maximize individual freedom, harnessing the power of the many to ensure that all individuals can enjoy a life free from bodily harm, destruction of property, or theft. That's it.

These services could be delivered using less than 10% of GDP, which would free individuals and businesses to spend the other 90% of their income on things THEY value, as opposed to the 60% of our incomes we currently get to spend.

>> you know what corporations and deregulation (private for profit interests) have done to the environment.

Compare private property with state owned property and you will realize that land owned by private interests is much healthier and clean than that owned by the government. Have you heard of the Aral Sea (tinyurl.com/mdvuqg)? Or how about Chernobyl? As for water pollution, you do realize that bodies of water are owned by the government, not private companies?

Don't you think that if Lake Ontario was owned by a private corporation, that it would not take much greater measures to ensure the safety of it water (valuable asset), much more than the government? Of course it would and it would do that to ensure that it's capital was not put at risk by criminal behaviour. Shareholders would make sure that the water wasn't being polluted, just as farmers ensure that their crops are protected from destruction.

arienc >> The drug company will price that drug at the price which maximizes their profit

Abolish government backed monopolies on information and this won't be a problem. Some company will simply produce a knock off drug and will serve the low income market as long as it can cover it's costs. Once again, government is the cause of the problem, not the private sector.

>> Do employers not benefit from the education that was provided by the public schools to their workforce?

If I took $100 from you and buy you a sculpture that you would have only paid $50 for, would you consider that a benefit?

>> In a fully private "user-pay" system such as you seem to advocate, these external benefits would be absent.

When a person gets an education from a private school, is that not a positive externality? Or if a woman buys a hot looking dress for herself, does it not produce positive externalities for men who get to see her walk by? Or if a hockey player works like a bastard to become rich and famous, does that not help society at large? All of these scenarios produce benefits for society, as well as the individual and none of them require the government to make them.