Good post. The real key has always been that you do need both arrangements, but the SCOPE of 'collectivist' provision by the government ought to be only so much as can be agreed by (almost) everyone. Due to the individualists input that will necessarily be a narrow scope for government, but it will be a stable settlement. The collectivists, it can be pointed out, would be relatively free to run charities to deliver the 'missing' provision for the poor, by choice or vocation, but it isn't really about that for them.

What you would get is basic government doing police and military and a few other things, the social type provision would arise organically driven by how much people care, let the collectivists show how much they care by doing it all privately.

It's obvious but the left do not want a settlement like that, it proves they do not really care about their 'left wing' issues, just power for the money corruption generates. Good luck to Brazil.

Good post. The real key has always been that you do need both arrangements, but the SCOPE of 'collectivist' provision by the government ought to be only so much as can be agreed by (almost) everyone. Due to the individualists input that will necessarily be a narrow scope for government, but it will be a stable settlement. The collectivists, it can be pointed out, would be relatively free to run charities to deliver the 'missing' provision for the poor, by choice or vocation, but it isn't really about that for them.

What you would get is basic government doing police and military and a few other things, the social type provision would arise organically driven by how much people care, let the collectivists show how much they care by doing it all privately.

It's obvious but the left do not want a settlement like that, it proves they do not really care about their 'left wing' issues, just power for the money corruption generates. Good luck to Brazil.

The real key has always been that you do need both arrangements, but the SCOPE of collectivist provision by the government ought to be only so much as can be agreed by everyone. Due to the individualists that will necessarily be a narrow scope for government, but it will be a stable settlement. The collectivists, it can be pointed out, would be relatively free to run charities in a prosperous low tax environment to achieve the missing provision for the poor, by choice or vocation. Both sides would agree to basic government doing police and military and a few other things, the rest would arise organically, let the collectivists operate under freedom to influence that. It's obvious but the left do not want a settlement like that.