From: Ellen K. 

Actually I think a case could be made (although it is not my position) that
ambulance service is not the same kind of need as the other services you
mention, at least not for example for the person who has a heart attack in
his/her home, although possibly for auto accident victims.

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 15:40:57 -0500, "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message :

>Yes I understand what you are saying, but what I'm saying is
"emergency"
>services ARE the province of any government and that these very basic
>services and purposes are NOT about line drawing.  They are about the
>definition of government.  A government that does NOT provide national
>defense, fire, police, and true emergency accident services is NOT a
>government at all.  If the government did not provide national defense and
>define its borders, how would you tell there was a country there at all?  If
>the government doesn't provide national defense, police, and fire then what
>the hell would the government be providing, what purpose would it serve at
>all??
>
>You are confusing the point at which government arises (i.e., national
>defense, police, fire, and emergency services) with drawing a line on
>providing additional ELECTIVE services beyond those necessary to achieve
>government's existence.
>
>Its not line drawing or a sliding scale to socialism.  Its the difference
>between having a government and NOT having any government.  Hence my comment
>about pure libertarianism/anarchy.
>
>Gary
>"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>news:43bc01be$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Really? They are all degrees of society providing a service. Health care
>> would just be another add on. It all depends on how many add-ons one is
>> willing to accept
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
>> news:43bbff5d$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> > Basic services such as national defense, fire, police, ambulance don't
>> > have
>> > anything to do with socialism versus capitalism.  Those services aren't
>> > something that requires socialism for a society to provide. 
I think you
>> > are
>> > confusing pure libertarianism/anarchy with capitalism in making this
>> > distinction.
>> >
>> > Gary
>> >
>> > "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>> > news:43bbfa98{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> The point most of us are trying to make was that degrees
of socialism
>> > aren't
>> >> necessarily undesirable for a society. It all depends on perceived
>value
>> > for
>> >> those services.  Some draw the line further up the level
than you do
>but
>> >> most ( even those arguing that socialism is evil
incarnate ) readily
>> > accept
>> >> and desire some of it's benefits.
>> >>
>> >> The trick for any society has always been where to draw the line
>between
>> >> capitalism and socialism
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Mark"  wrote in message
>news:43bbf256{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> > Listen guys, I'm fully cognizant that my position
has contradictory
>> >> > elements to it, I suppose I could spend a lot of
time elaborating and
>> >> > refining various aspects, but I'm not going to do
it. I simply feel
>> >> > that
>> >> > fire, police and rescue are the most basic of
protective services to
>> >> > citizens and should not be billed out in a piecemeal
fashion as they
>> >> > are
>> >> > provided to people in trouble.
>> >> >
>> >> > Illogical or not, that's my story and I'm sticking
to it 
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5