News-Record.com

I just don't get proposals like this from communists. Why propose stealing from others to provide dental care for the "poor" when you could propose stealing from others to provide food for the "poor?" Isn't food a much more immediate and pressing need than dental care or healthcare?

"Communists?"

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: libertarianism has few worse enemies than the so-called Libertarian party, of which Mr. Elledge is a local leader.

A physician makes serious suggestion -- citing some private groups in his example, by the way -- and the response is about "communists" and "stealing"?

No wonder we're stuck with the Democrats and Republicans.

If this letter is a serious suggestion for anything other than a call for "other peoples' money," I will be surprised.

As an activist and leader in the (non-state sanctioned) Libertarian Party of Guilford County Mr. Elledge is attempting to create debate by cutting to the chase has he sees it. I'll take him over Marcus Kindley and what's his name from the two state sanctioned parties in our county.

Rather than allude to using the power of the state to fix a problem by forcibly taking people's money from them, a act some radicals do indeed equate with stealing, my recommendation to Dr. Mayer is to use his influence as a respected professional to lobby the state for changes to its dental licensing laws.

North Carolina has one of the most restrictive set of licensing procedures (read: income subsidies) for dentists in the country. It graduates something like only 85 dentists a year for a state that has grown recently by over a million citizens...and possibly as many non-citizens -- many of which end up in Dr. Mayer's ER.

Thus, a major reason many people are without dental care in this state comes from the fact that the state actively works to price dental care out of their personal reach.

What the citizens and non-citizens of Guilford County need are more price competitive dentists not more taxes to subsidize others inflated dental care costs.

This is the libertarian perspective.

Gee Whiz Folks, would you want the City fathers to take their donation of $590,000 from that rich Micro Device company, or the $800,000 from the golfing crowd, or the umpteen millions it is going to cost to close a city landfill site because people who bought property cheaply BECAUSE the landfill was there now want our garbage taken elsewhere? Do away with these great beneficial to All of us projects just to take care of some dental problems of poor people that very probably will improve their prospects for a better life or maybe even save their lives in the long term? What a bunch of bleeding heart hug a poor person sob sisters you are!

BrendaBee,

Why yes, the Libertarians would abolish taxpayer subsidies to phone chip manufacturers, golf fans and real estate speculators as well.

(You must have us confused with the Republicans.)

You guys aren't just on the fringe, you are lazy, too.

Google is easy. Use it, and it would show you that two of the groups the doctor sites in his insidious plan to help poor children get dental care are indeed PRIVATE -- those are the two that run the clinics he mentions -- and the third is a public/private partnership.

Oops, gotta run, a black helicopter is coming for my gold.

Ed,
I can't believe Hugh, Dan, and NeoCON haven't registered their contempt for the good doctor.

Ed Cone,

Indeed I made a slight mistake here. I read through all of these letters and then began responding. I actually intended for my first post here to be a response to the letter from March 3 entitled "Guilford County needs to add dental clinics," which is on the same topic. That letter specifically calls for the county commissioners to fund dental clinics.

As for your comments about stealing, I defy you to prove me wrong when I say that taxation is theft.

Paul, I'm sure that there is no convincing you that taxation is not theft.

Most people, however, despite their dislike of taxes and sense that they are too high, probably are able to make a distinction between the two, especially in a country where we elect our government.

The fantasy that we are not interdependent, and that there are not certain costs to living in a society, is yours to enjoy in this country.

But to get back to the point of my letter, preaching this fantasy is not going to build the Libertarian Party, and that will continue to undermine the goals of small-l libertarians.

"Paul, as I said at the N&R, I'm sure there is no hope of convincing you that taxation and theft are different things."

Translation: "You're right, but I'll never admit it, because that would mean proving my entire political philosophy wrong."

To be completely fair though, I must point out that the Libertarian platform is in fact inconsistent, contrary to David Boyd's statements. Libertarians call for a State, albeit a small, limited State, and a State is by definition a violation of rights, for it exists by force. I support the Libertarian Party, however, as an incremental step towards the ultimate goal of pure self-government.

"However, most people, despite feeling overtaxed, probably see the distinction, especially in a country where we elect our government."

Since you won't confront the taxation/theft question, I guess there's no way you'll answer this challenge either, but to make the point to everyone else, I'll issue it anyway. Tell me, Ed, why it would be wrong for me to rob someone but okay to elect someone else to do it for me.

"You are free in this country to preach your fantasy that we are not interdependent and that there are not common costs to living in a society."

I never said we're not interdependent. I just don't believe that putting one another in chains is an effective way to address our interdependency. A free market is the way to address that.

Only taxation without representation is theft. We are representated often poorly but represented none the less. Then of course double taxation is theft and we have loads of that in this state.

Private dental care can be provided by local investment as I have seen on other places that I have lived. Here in WNC there are several privately funded dental clinics and a few that are operated by dentist who just give their time one day a week and a couple of times a month to provide dental care for those who can not otherwise afford it.
Unfortunately those are few and far between and you run into those who want to charge you enough to make his BMW payment and part of his house payment. One charges according to the tuition his kids cost him and what the books cost. hahaha. So it would seem.

So good luck Dr.Mayer I hope some group will come along and help get a good program underway. I would imagine that you will be giving several days per month if not more.

Mr. Produce,

Since no one represents me, it's theft.

Deacon, I was out earning a living today, now I'm at half time between UNC & Duke, so I don't have time to chime in.

I must commend you for your civility of late. Thanks. Dan

I'm something of a small-l libertarian, and this letter made me think about a question that I've been pondering lately: namely, how much help is enough? There's a group of citizens that basically can't take of themselves--fine. I'm happy, as a taxpayer and member of civil society, to pay for housing, education, basic health care, and food. But this week I'm asked to pay for a dental clinic, next week for a diabetes clinic, next week for an after-school program, the week after for a neo-natal clinic, etc., etc.--all, individually perhaps, decent and useful things. But collectively, there's a point at which I say enough is enough--that the social cost of teaching and rewarding dependency on the state outweighs the individual good that clinic X might do. There's also a wearying sense that, in the end, helpless people are just helpless--that nothing can be done for them, that the things I do "to help"--volunteering in the schools, $200 to Katrina relief, buying Christmas presents for poor kids (the drip-drip-drip of everyday middle-class philanthropy)--simply doesn't. Where to draw the line is a tricky matter.

You don't have to vote for them to have them represent you Paul. That is how elections work.They are elected to represent ALL of the people of the district or whatever they represent. I vote but not always for the one elected.
If you don't vote then you gotta problem, a personal one at that.

Brian is on the mark. Even for the sympathetic, how much is enough?

Meanwhile, Ed asks us to ignore our years of practical experience and imagine that when a writer in the News and Record proposes "it's for the children" this is NOT a red flag screaming, "Taxpayers hold on to your wallets."

The problem remains that the State of North Carolina only allows for one grade of dental care at premium cost.

An analogy would be if the State determined that since Lexus has set the market standard for safety, reliability and performace the carline should become a mandated standard, below which no cars could be sold. Then, when the socially conscious in government were "shocked" to learn that many people could not afford personal automobile transportation, they propose that those of greater means buy the less fortunate a public transportation system...or in Ed's fantasy world, a public-private partnership where the taxpayer DOESN'T get tagged for 80% of the funding for a 20% vote in how a private entity spends the booty.