Can you nane 10 of these 45,000 people? Can you name any, or is this one of the pulled out the butt gov't stats like the unsubstantiated jobs saved. I'll admit in advance that all poiticians make up their own BS numbers but some of the heathcare numbers are reaaly absurd even for professional liars(politiciana).doublem wrote:I've posted many times why I think it wouldn't work. I'm not going to do it again. You keep assuming your morality is more important than others.( Taxs= immoral). Yet, you don't have anything to say when 45k people die a year becasue they can't get health care or over a million go bankrupt. I find being taxed 3% more not in the same league as death.Guinness wrote:Why do you assume that a free health care market isn't any good? We don't have one now.doublem wrote:Yea, government attracts people that want power, like business, being a celebrity and a bunch of other things. I'm talking about private sector health care vs government, or business goals vs government. Business is in the business of making money that is what they do, but government can or should be about other things, of course idealism or good works can be apart of anything.
The facts about people do not change from government program to government program. Neither does the morality of the programs themselves.
LGP Political Discussion Thread
-
- AHL Hall of Famer
- Posts: 8933
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 2:24 am
Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 13430
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:05 pm
Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread
No, I don't know anyone, but this country has 300 million people. Here is some evidence.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/169216.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNe ... W520090917" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Those studies were not done by the government, so unless their is some massive conspiracy by Obama and his friends I would say that the government just didn't make it up. What would be enough evidence for you?
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/169216.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNe ... W520090917" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Those studies were not done by the government, so unless their is some massive conspiracy by Obama and his friends I would say that the government just didn't make it up. What would be enough evidence for you?
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 11465
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:30 am
- Location: At the pub
Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread
Agreed.doublem wrote:Who cares?Geezer wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11 ... ested-pot/
Barney at his boyfriend's house during his latest bong bust. Barney didn't know he was a horticulturist even though he was also with his main squeeze when he was busted 2 years ago for the same thing.
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 11465
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:30 am
- Location: At the pub
Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread
If I'm not mistaken, you've posted many times why you oppose the current system. A free market in health care does not exist in this country... hell, it doesn't exist on this planet. A *relatively* free and unregulated market exists for such goods as contact lenses, cell phones, computers, and other such goods, etc. - and what that *relatively* free market has provided is competition, diversity, decreasing (*relatively*) prices, and ubiquity. I don't assume that morality is more important than others... I KNOW that I have no right over your and other people's lives. You keep assuming that your ideals - however nebulous and poorly defined - are more important than the lives of others. I find not presuming to know better than others as not being in the same league as theft, destruction, slavery, and death. You and your FORCE will NEVER prevent a single human death, or misfortune, or malady, or illness, or poverty... at least not without being the CAUSE of MORE theft, destruction, slavery, misfortune, malady, illness, poverty, and death than you prevent.doublem wrote:I've posted many times why I think it wouldn't work. I'm not going to do it again. You keep assuming your morality is more important than others.( Taxs= immoral). Yet, you don't have anything to say when 45k people die a year becasue they can't get health care or over a million go bankrupt. I find being taxed 3% more not in the same league as death.Guinness wrote:Why do you assume that a free health care market isn't any good? We don't have one now.doublem wrote:Yea, government attracts people that want power, like business, being a celebrity and a bunch of other things. I'm talking about private sector health care vs government, or business goals vs government. Business is in the business of making money that is what they do, but government can or should be about other things, of course idealism or good works can be apart of anything.
The facts about people do not change from government program to government program. Neither does the morality of the programs themselves.
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 13430
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:05 pm
Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread
Even if that is true, which I don't know if it is. Health care isn't even remotely comparable to a cell phone. Actaully, I have no problem with the market for those goods. I think that is something the free market could be useful at.A *relatively* free and unregulated market exists for such goods as contact lenses, cell phones, computers, and other such goods, etc.
nd what that *relatively* free market has provided is competition, diversity, decreasing (*relatively*) prices, and ubiquity.
I can also point out what a free market has done to say, TV news. Competition hasn't made TV news better, nor has it made schools, prisons, military contracts better. So, you got cell phones and computers but lets leave things that serve a public good alone.
My ideals don't assume that taxation is theft and immoral. My ideals DO leave an option for people to make a choice if they want a government health care plan, a choice. I thought you were big on that. Plus, what do you think of the Reid proposal that would give states the rights to veto it if they didn't like it. Aren't you the closer government gets to me, the better?You keep assuming that your ideals - however nebulous and poorly defined - are more important than the lives of others.
Evidence? I think governments have played a part in at least a few of these things?You and your FORCE will NEVER prevent a single human death, or misfortune, or malady, or illness, or poverty.
http://cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056796.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 11465
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:30 am
- Location: At the pub
Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread
Health care is - I'm sorry to inform you - a 'good'. The dreaded market would do to 'health care' just as it has done to cell phones and contact lenses. There is no quantifiable reason that it would not.doublem wrote:Even if that is true, which I don't know if it is. Health care isn't even remotely comparable to a cell phone. Actaully, I have no problem with the market for those goods. I think that is something the free market could be useful at.A *relatively* free and unregulated market exists for such goods as contact lenses, cell phones, computers, and other such goods, etc.
As I've already mentioned - and you've obviously dodged -plenty of things that you presume cannot be addressed by the private sector have indeed been so addressed. I did not mention schools, but thank you for doing so. Private schools rank well above public schools and would do even better than they currently do if a level playing field existed (e.g., if they didn't have to compete against the looting "public funding" that public schools enjoy).I can also point out what a free market has done to say, TV news. Competition hasn't made TV news better, nor has it made schools, prisons, military contracts better. So, you got cell phones and computers but lets leave things that serve a public good alone.nd what that *relatively* free market has provided is competition, diversity, decreasing (*relatively*) prices, and ubiquity.
Yes, it is clear that you do not "believe" that the forced confiscation of a person's labor is immoral. What you don't seem to understand is that a so-called public "option" is no choice at all - it is by definition FORCE.My ideals don't assume that taxation is theft and immoral. My ideals DO leave an option for people to make a choice if they want a government health care plan, a choice. I thought you were big on that. Plus, what do you think of the Reid proposal that would give states the rights to veto it if they didn't like it. Aren't you the closer government gets to me, the better?You keep assuming that your ideals - however nebulous and poorly defined - are more important than the lives of others.
As for what I think of Sen. Reid's so called "veto" option: pfft. That's still force. It's better than that vicious b*tch Pelosi's proposal - because as you say the decision is made more closely to the people - however it is still the implementation of force... it is still federal hegemony at least over the states, the municipalities, the cities, and the people.
You and your FORCE will NEVER prevent a single human death, or misfortune, or malady, or illness, or poverty.
...because you do not understand the fallacy of the broken window.I'm sure that it has, and how do you know in the future it won't?
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 11465
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:30 am
- Location: At the pub
Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread
I had to come back to this - You don't know if what exists in the health care market today is or is not free? Really!?doublem wrote: Even if that is true, which I don't know if it is.
How can anyone take your opinion seriously on this issue??
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 13430
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:05 pm
Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread
And I'm saying that health care is a right. Like not to die when you can't afford it. Besides the fact that the health care industry makes money and keeps making money off people staying sick, I guess I don't see how that has to do with the markets self-correcting ability for someone to but a different cell phone. The profit margin goes up the more sick people are, in phones and computers and goods its not the same, is it?Health care is - I'm sorry to inform you - a 'good'. The dreaded market would do to 'health care' just as it has done to cell phones and contact lenses. There is no quantifiable reason that it would not.
And if government schools were eliminated. And the system was completely private schools competing against one another, this is your ideal system?As I've already mentioned - and you've obviously dodged -plenty of things that you presume cannot be addressed by the private sector have indeed been so addressed. I did not mention schools, but thank you for doing so. Private schools rank well above public schools and would do even better than they currently do if a level playing field existed (e.g., if they didn't have to compete against the looting "public funding" that public schools enjoy).
I know people might have to pay more taxes.What you don't seem to understand is that a so-called public "option" is no choice at all - it is by definition FORCE.
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
You really don't want a choice between government and private. You just want the market to work it out. Even if people want the government it still isn't a choice becasue the gov't is involved.As for what I think of Sen. Reid's so called "veto" option: pfft. That's still force.
Not if they don't want it.it is still federal hegemony at least over the states, the municipalities, the cities, and the people.
I edited this. I like how someone that preaches, know one knows better than me, is always telling me how I don't know anything, or I'm misinformed. I thought you were big on not telling people how to live. Seems kind of like a ideology to me.because you do not understand the fallacy of the broken window.
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 13430
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:05 pm
Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread
I was referring to MY system( which I thought meant social programs and government not saying lives). I have a link.Guinness wrote:I had to come back to this - You don't know if what exists in the health care market today is or is not free? Really!?doublem wrote: Even if that is true, which I don't know if it is.
How can anyone take your opinion seriously on this issue??
-
- NHL Second Liner
- Posts: 59962
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:27 am
- Location: Lake Wylie, SC
Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread
Tom Coburn (R OK) is planning on requesting that the health care bill be read in it's entirty on the senate floor before a vote. You need unanimous consent to forgoe reading of a bill before voting. So at 2000+ pages with the two ammendments passed last night arounbd 2:30 am which brought the cost up over $3 trillion over 10 years according to the CBO, it will takes weeks before they can vote on it and then every time there is an ammendment they have to read it again. Now that's how you fillibuster ![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 11465
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:30 am
- Location: At the pub
Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you suggesting that, in a free market, companies seek to create a situation where people do not have something? Because that really doesn't make sense. Companies can only do such a thing with government cooperation.doublem wrote: And I'm saying that health care is a right. Like not to die when you can't afford it. Besides the fact that the health care industry makes money and keeps making money off people staying sick, I guess I don't see how that has to do with the markets self-correcting ability for someone to but a different cell phone. The profit margin goes up the more sick people are, in phones and computers and goods its not the same, is it?
As I've already mentioned - and you've obviously dodged -plenty of things that you presume cannot be addressed by the private sector have indeed been so addressed. I did not mention schools, but thank you for doing so. Private schools rank well above public schools and would do even better than they currently do if a level playing field existed (e.g., if they didn't have to compete against the looting "public funding" that public schools enjoy).
Dodged again...And if government schools were eliminated. And the system was completely private schools competing against one another, this is your ideal system?
Wouldn't you rather it be? Better than our current system wherein children are indoctrinated in the righteousness of our empire and are taught to worship it? Surely independent and free schools would be better to sustain our republic, no?
[/quote]I know people might have to pay more taxes.What you don't seem to understand is that a so-called public "option" is no choice at all - it is by definition FORCE.![]()
You really don't want a choice between government and private. You just want the market to work it out. Even if people want the government it still isn't a choice becasue the gov't is involved.As for what I think of Sen. Reid's so called "veto" option: pfft. That's still force.
Not if they don't want it.it is still federal hegemony at least over the states, the municipalities, the cities, and the people.
I edited this. I like how someone that preaches, know one knows better than me, is always telling me how I don't know anything, or I'm misinformed. I thought you were big on not telling people how to live. Seems kind of like a ideology to me.because you do not understand the fallacy of the broken window.
We've done this probably a dozen times - I'm NOT telling you how to live... I'm telling you to not tell me - and everyone else - how to live. That's the nature of your philosophy - FORCE. You'd think that someone who "used to think like me" would understand that...
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 13430
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:05 pm
Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread
I'm suggesting in health care companies make more money when more people get sick. It's not the same with a phone.I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you suggesting that, in a free market, companies seek to create a situation where people do not have something? Because that really doesn't make sense. Companies can only do such a thing with government cooperation.
It's the same thing.We are both preaching about how we think we should live. I do understand that and that is why I don't think like that anymore.We've done this probably a dozen times - I'm NOT telling you how to live... I'm telling you to not tell me - and everyone else - how to live. You'd think that someone who "used to think like me" would understand that...
Anyways what about that CDC link? Hasn't the government played a factor in that?
Is that what they do in public schools now? Nope. Public schools were meant to educate the entire country in some basic way, so everyone would have some type of common education. I don't know how they are indoctrinated besides the fact that they do a very poor job of educating kids.Dodged again...
Wouldn't you rather it be? Better than our current system wherein children are indoctrinated in the righteousness of our empire and are taught to worship it? Surely independent and free schools would be better to sustain our republic, no?
Last edited by doublem on Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 11465
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:30 am
- Location: At the pub
Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread
That's illogical. Why would one seek out care from a health care company whose patrons seem to always be sick? If a free market in HEALTH CARE existed, the single greatest selling point would be the efficiency of health care provided by said company.doublem wrote:I'm suggesting in health care companies make more money when more people get sick. It's not the same with a phone.I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you suggesting that, in a free market, companies seek to create a situation where people do not have something? Because that really doesn't make sense. Companies can only do such a thing with government cooperation.
No - it's not the same thing. I'm not telling you how to live - I'm telling you you shouldn't be stealing from other people to implement your ideas. You're telling me that I don't care enough about people to steal from... you know... people!? As though the only way to "help" people is to enact force and steal from them... or some such nonsense.It's the same thing.We are both preaching about how we think we should live. I do understand that and that is why I don't think like that anymore.We've done this probably a dozen times - I'm NOT telling you how to live... I'm telling you to not tell me - and everyone else - how to live. You'd think that someone who "used to think like me" would understand that...
[/quote]Anyways what about that CDC link? Hasn't the government played a factor in that?
And again... the broken window fallacy...
-
- AHL Hall of Famer
- Posts: 8933
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 2:24 am
Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread
Any numbers that both sides agreed were valid or that a truly independent( no dog in the fight) group developed. And I'm not interested in anyone's numbers more than 3 years out; that's pure guesswork. One of the best unknown qoutes I've heard is" Long term economic planning(>5 years) is second as a science only to astrology.doublem wrote:No, I don't know anyone, but this country has 300 million people. Here is some evidence.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/169216.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNe ... W520090917" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Those studies were not done by the government, so unless their is some massive conspiracy by Obama and his friends I would say that the government just didn't make it up. What would be enough evidence for you?
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 13430
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:05 pm
Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread
And that is why health care shouldn't be left up to the free market becasue this is what would happen.We see that now, don't we? One doesn't seek out health care like they are shopping around for a car. You get health care becasue you are sick. What you are saying is that people would go to companies that didn't have sick people or less, or cheaper? Ideally, that would be a great way of running a system, but in reality companies look at what makes them the most money. Who is this company that give people the right amount of care and not like at the profit margin?That's illogical. Why would one seek out care from a health care company whose patrons seem to always be sick? If a free market in HEALTH CARE existed, the single greatest selling point would be the efficiency of health care provided by said company.
-
- AHL All-Star
- Posts: 6750
- Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:06 pm
Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread
45,000 is less than .015% of the US population. I think we can get them the care they need without enslaving the rest of us to a government bureaucracy.
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 11465
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:30 am
- Location: At the pub
Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread
Yeah, I guess that makes sense - why would I see out the company that would provide the greatest health care... or... something. Because, for a second there it seemed like you were saying that companies make money when people are sick, and then all of a sudden it's bad when people are healthy.doublem wrote:And that is why health care shouldn't be left up to the free market becasue this is what would happen.We see that now, don't we? One doesn't seek out health care like they are shopping around for a car. You get health care becasue you are sick. What you are saying is that people would go to companies that didn't have sick people or less, or cheaper? Ideally, that would be a great way of running a system, but in reality companies look at what makes them the most money. Who is this company that give people the right amount of care and not like at the profit margin?That's illogical. Why would one seek out care from a health care company whose patrons seem to always be sick? If a free market in HEALTH CARE existed, the single greatest selling point would be the efficiency of health care provided by said company.
It's entirely possible that I don't understand what you're saying...
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 13430
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:05 pm
Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread
Okay, but in reality this did improve things. In reality, which the evidence proves, not what might have been better if...I'm not talking in theory, I keep showing you evidence and you dismiss it becasue you don't like it, What is the point? If you think in theory or ideally that better results would occur, that's fine, but I'm showing you the improvements of what really happened. I admit that any system has its faults, and that I'm sure their were down sides.I don't pretend to have the ONE answer. But we will never no since this is all theory and estimation on your part.And again... the broken window fallacy...
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 13430
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:05 pm
Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread
I'm saying that when a person that can afford health care seeks it out they can get it, when someone that can;t afford it, they get screwed and don't have have any other options. I'm saying the miracle of competition won't be able to fix that. I'm looking at this from the sick persons perspective and how much money they have, not the company.Guinness wrote:Yeah, I guess that makes sense - why would I see out the company that would provide the greatest health care... or... something. Because, for a second there it seemed like you were saying that companies make money when people are sick, and then all of a sudden it's bad when people are healthy.doublem wrote:And that is why health care shouldn't be left up to the free market becasue this is what would happen.We see that now, don't we? One doesn't seek out health care like they are shopping around for a car. You get health care becasue you are sick. What you are saying is that people would go to companies that didn't have sick people or less, or cheaper? Ideally, that would be a great way of running a system, but in reality companies look at what makes them the most money. Who is this company that give people the right amount of care and not like at the profit margin?That's illogical. Why would one seek out care from a health care company whose patrons seem to always be sick? If a free market in HEALTH CARE existed, the single greatest selling point would be the efficiency of health care provided by said company.
It's entirely possible that I don't understand what you're saying...
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 13430
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:05 pm
Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread
What amount of evidence would do that? I keep showing you facts and you keep rejecting them.Geezer wrote:Any numbers that both sides agreed were valid or that a truly independent( no dog in the fight) group developed. And I'm not interested in anyone's numbers more than 3 years out; that's pure guesswork. One of the best unknown qoutes I've heard is" Long term economic planning(>5 years) is second as a science only to astrology.doublem wrote:No, I don't know anyone, but this country has 300 million people. Here is some evidence.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/169216.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNe ... W520090917" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Those studies were not done by the government, so unless their is some massive conspiracy by Obama and his friends I would say that the government just didn't make it up. What would be enough evidence for you?
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 11465
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:30 am
- Location: At the pub
Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread
Yeah, it's all theory and speculation on my part because statists like you won't cede control to people who believe in human beings, like me.doublem wrote:Okay, but in reality this did improve things. In reality, which the evidence proves, not what might have been better if...I'm not talking in theory, I keep showing you evidence and you dismiss it becasue you don't like it, What is the point? If you think in theory or ideally that better results would occur, that's fine, but I'm showing you the improvements of what really happened. I admit that any system has its faults, and that I'm sure their were down sides.I don't pretend to have the ONE answer. But we will never no since this is all theory and estimation on your part.And again... the broken window fallacy...
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Your evidence consists of only one side of the story - and that's the point of the broken window fallacy. Naturally, the breaking of a window creates commerce/wealth/whatever - but at what cost? We cannot know at what cost because of the intervention. So you can cite it to your heart's content, and deride me for not providing counter evidence - but how can I? You people won't let us. Again, this is why I say that your understanding of liberty/Austrian economics is incomplete.
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 13430
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:05 pm
Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread
Than why hasn't it happened yet, and the number of dead people keep going up? I'm sure the market would be able to figure an answer out by now.pittsoccer33 wrote:45,000 is less than .015% of the US population. I think we can get them the care they need without enslaving the rest of us to a government bureaucracy.
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 11465
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:30 am
- Location: At the pub
Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread
What you're saying is that you actively wish to commit an actual injustice to somehow right a perceived injustice.doublem wrote: I'm saying that when a person that can afford health care seeks it out they can get it, when someone that can;t afford it, they get screwed and don't have have any other options. I'm saying the miracle of competition won't be able to fix that. I'm looking at this from the sick persons perspective and how much money they have, not the company.
And I disagree solemnly with that...
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 11465
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:30 am
- Location: At the pub
Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread
WHAT MARKET!?!? Certainly not a FREE one...doublem wrote:Than why hasn't it happened yet, and the number of dead people keep going up? I'm sure the market would be able to figure an answer out by now.pittsoccer33 wrote:45,000 is less than .015% of the US population. I think we can get them the care they need without enslaving the rest of us to a government bureaucracy.
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 13430
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:05 pm
Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread
And if the people wanted it so bad why wouldn't they have elected someone that thought like them. If this was such a popular movement that everyone wanted, why didn't it become so popular like in the 17th century, 18th century, 19th century, 20th century? If the theorized actions are so beneficial why haven't people stormed the streets. There were plenty of revolutions in the past say 400 years, I don't remember any Austrian/Liberty/ Libertarian ones. Seriously?Guinness wrote:Yeah, it's all theory and speculation on my part because statists like you won't cede control to people who believe in human beings, like me.doublem wrote:Okay, but in reality this did improve things. In reality, which the evidence proves, not what might have been better if...I'm not talking in theory, I keep showing you evidence and you dismiss it becasue you don't like it, What is the point? If you think in theory or ideally that better results would occur, that's fine, but I'm showing you the improvements of what really happened. I admit that any system has its faults, and that I'm sure their were down sides.I don't pretend to have the ONE answer. But we will never no since this is all theory and estimation on your part.And again... the broken window fallacy...
Your evidence consists of only one side of the story - and that's the point of the broken window fallacy. Naturally, the breaking of a window creates commerce/wealth/whatever - but at what cost? We cannot know at what cost because of the intervention. So you can cite it to your heart's content, and deride me for not providing counter evidence - but how can I? You people won't let us. Again, this is why I say that your understanding of liberty/Austrian economics is incomplete.