In a Free Market – Who Saves a Dying Child?

A progressive once asked me one of their most effective (and most dishonest) questions, which has thrown everyone off his game whenever I have seen it used,

In a free market, who would save a dying child from a poor family?

The most honest and most effective answer, in the context of the question, is …

In a free marketthe child wouldn’t be dying

How has our culture forgotten this wonderful truth … that in a free market, the family would be wealthier, the community would be wealthier, and the technology would be better and cheaper.

Government is not the solution.

Government is the problem.

Government dependency has failed.

The path forward is the free market.

In a free market, more people would be willing and able to help him.

In a free market, the child is not only more likely to survive … but is also more likely to thrive.

What you’re really asking is, “What can we expect for a dying child if we move towards more government dependency vs. moving forward to a free market?”

Under government healthcare, a bureaucrat, or a panel of bureaucrats, decides whether to save a dying child – depending on cost, race, politics, unions, cronyism, etc.

In a free market, competition without the burden of government maximizes quality, efficiency, and innovation – not just in the medical field, but in every field. In a free market, the people are thus safer and healthier, happier and wealthier, more productive and more empowered.

A cure would be very profitable if the inventor were allowed to profit from it, and thus the inventor could start a new company, so we should be seeing more and more new companies in a free-market, but we don’t because we don’t have a free market. We have heavy government intervention, and thus we see fewer and bigger pharmaceutical companies.

Not every company has a drug to treat (but not cure) a given disease, so why wouldn’t those companies release a cure both to profit and to hurt their competitor? The only possible reason is government intervention.

The problem is that government intervention exists to thwart competition. Of course, that is not how intervention is sold to the people, so the people demand more intervention. The solution to government is not “more government”. Government is a problem masquerading as its own cure.

Given free-markets, who would save a dying child?

Given free-markets, the child wouldn’t be dying.

Anyone who has kids and who loves their kids would choose the free market over government intervention

Those I’ve seen answer this question all failed because effective defenders of the free market are not allowed in the mainstream media. This is a self reinforcing strategy of the MSM. Consider that it is very difficult to become an effective supporter of the free market when we are inundated 24/7 with an inaccurate world view. The reality is that we do not live in a free market, big government has failed, and government is the tool by which elites manage innovation.

Only by thinking for ourselves, can we discover reality.

Freedom is the Promise of Reality.


Click Here to Leave a Comment Below 1 comments
Kaysersoze5 - November 8, 2013

Maybe you could add that dying children were almost eliminated in the free West during the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century. And what made the IR possible? Right, free markets.


Leave a Reply: