First, I'd like to extend my gratitude toward The Real American Thinker, for being the only liberal who was man enough to take on my challenge head on: http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...-you-believe-how-do-you-implement-them-4.html Many points I could not agree more within his posts, so I shall take time refuting those beliefs of his that I find disagreeble: First of all, in prior threads, I iterated my accusation that liberals love hammering a wedge by the name of "government" wherever they believe to be a hole or a crack. R.A.T is no better, despite being vague about how should his ideal be implemented and by whom shall problems be addressed. If you believe there is a problem, the only justifiable ground that you should posit yourself on, should be where you, by your own effort, utilizing time and resources in your own possession, to tackle such problem(s). For fear of a foreign invasion, you would be willing to relinquish certain part of your monetary power to the government, which is a monopoly in military power. A military free-market would be extremely inefficient and disastrous. A free-market would only be free within a peaceful environment sadly and ironically secured by an entity that is neither peaceful nor free. I would argue that people living by the coast should pay more for defense budget than inlanders, since they enjoy more benefit brought about by their advantageous geographic position, and face more threats from on the sea. To sum up, an individual being willing to donate a proportion of his rightful possession to the government for the sake of defense is constructed strictly on his realization and awareness of how his personal benefits is subtly related to the defense matter. The same thing however, could not be said about food, sheltering and healthcare. First and foremost, my inaction in giving a piece of bread to a person that are starving, say in Alaska would yield no significant effect on the society as a whole, either positive or negative. It is also true with sheltering and healthcare. Of course, some liberals would argue, similar to the issue concerning national defense, that should people became excessively apathetic or self-centered, the society as a whole would deteriorate into a Darwinian jungle of course, without the voluntary multual-benefiting in between or within species. This belief is thoroughly false. For starters, humans can only improve themselves by improving others on consensual grounds. If there is a street with no restaurant, clearly, a man living in the vicinity of this street could become rich just by opening a restaurant, while at the same time, providing catering services that benefit others. Should he became more "selfish" or "self-centered", he clearly would have to increase his profit by expanding his business while at the same time, again, extending the coverage of his services thus benefiting more people. In short and in conclusion, the doomsday scenario that some liberals warn us about would be anything but possible. Interestingly, when look at the other side of the moon almost all those societies that employed coercive means to force charity upon people had an notorious role of playing the devil in the long course of history. This is a logical inevitability if a government could hold people on gun points to do charitable acts, what would be stopping them from forcing people to do anything it desires? Now, for a liberal, comes a truly more difficult part to what degree shall healthcare be provided? In a society with limited resources and time, who shall be given more priority when allocating the healthcare related resources? And by what standards shall these priorities be decided? Should we save a 12 year old child or a rocket scientist in his 40s when the two are at odds? How would a society be benefited if a retired automobile worker being kept alive on life support that cost the public 30,000 a day? And who shall decide when to terminate such support? And why should we consider them eligible and qualified in making such decision? To put it more concisely the quick fix that "let government do it" is not only in any logical way, easy, simple or quick NOT, but would also complicate every matter concerned exponentially beyond anyone's conceivability. It is more, much more complex than the infinite regress that "if god created everything, then who created god?".