On 3/23/2010 11:41 PM, Bill wrote:
"J. wrote in message
...

Suppose the government told you that you _must_ buy a Unisaw whether you
want one or not and whether you can afford one or not. Would you say that
that was acceptable? If not then why is them telling you that you _must_
buy insurance acceptable?


I haven't decided my position on this issue, but I see a problem with the
analogy above.
Everyone would benefit from having insurance--even if they can't afford it,
but not everyone would benefit from having
a Unisaw. Think of the spending as raising the level of happiness accross
the population, as a shared expense, as the cost of war presumably does.
Whether such a system would work well is another question entirely.

Whether it works well is irrelevant. Whether one benefits is
irrelevant. The issue is the power of the government to compel someone
to purchase a commercial product. If they can order you to purchase
insurance, what prevents them from ordering you to purchase a Unisaw?