In a Free Market — Who Saves a Dying Child?
TLDR: In a free-market, the child wouldn't be dying. The biggest killer by far is poverty and socialism/government/cronyism is the biggest creator of poverty. Whereas, freedom is the biggest creator of wealth and innovation. Therefore, the 1st safety-net is that the child is far less likely to be dying in the first place in a free-market, and more wealth and innovation would be available to help the child in a free-market, which is the second safety-net. The 3rd safety-net in a free-market is that much more medical care would be available because the child/parents would be free to seek medical help from anyone. BTW, We don't live in a free-market. We live in a cronyist big-government system, but even now there is plenty of will to help children, and given that there would be far more competition in the media in a free-market, the propaganda that makes individuals dislike, distrust, and distance each other would not be dominant and ubiquitous like it is now, so the fourth safety-net is that there would be even more will to help children in a free market.
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?
The most honest and most effective answer, in this context of socialism vs. the free-market, is …
In a free market … the child wouldn’t be dying …
How has our culture forgotten this hard won truth … that in a free-market society (a very small decentralized government), 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 a child.
In a free market, the child would not only be more likely to survive … but would be more likely to thrive.
What they're really asking is, “What can we expect for a dying child if we move towards more government dependency vs. moving towards more of a free-market?”
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 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.
Whenever some companies don't have a drug to treat a given disease, why don't those companies ever try for a cure instead? Even if it were not as profitable, some profit is better than no profit, and it would leapfrog their competitors. The 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 should 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.