laissez-faire should exist but does not

As for welfare, I do not agree with the current system either. But you must admit that welfare indeed helped save many people from total destitution during and after the Great Depression. Is the system now to my liking? No. But reforms are needed, not a "system" of charity that is used to keep the poor afloat. It wouldn't work. I am not saying that welfare is perfect, it clearly is not. But it is the best we've got for now until we change it and the government being completely hands off would only exacerbate the problem of poverty and I think I've illustrated why. I will give you the point on the Patriot Act. But I will say again that what would you rather have your society be? A society where the government monitors suspicious phone calls but the lower class is helped out by the government so they can get on their feet? Or would you rather be in a society where the government cannot listen to any phone calls but the lower class gets NO federal aid and health care is entirely based on privatization and greedy insurance companies? Laissez faire certainly would not support governmental universalization of health care. Right now the US is ranked in the top 10 of the "most laissez faire" and I will quote Gotid24 (in the comments section, thank you Gotid24) here: "Our health care system is one of the worst, if you want to live, you better be rich. And our education system is worst. We are like walking commercials, and our owners are the logos we wear and depend on. The are slowly destroying and taking control of the world. When is it enough, how greedy can greed be???" So our government is one of the most laissez faire, especially in the realm of health care, and we have a very poor health care system compared to equally industrious nations. It's not coincidence. Our government does not do enough to support the disadvantaged and poor of this country. Welfare doesn't work very well and health care has left over 45 million Americans uninsured. If you've seen Sicko you also know how the businesses are screwing people over. Obviously, the businesses care most about making money and the lives of patients come second (or lower). SCHIP and other possible solutions have been shot down by Republicans who want to "keep the government's hands" out of the matter. But the fact is that the government has to intervene in a lot of situations. It is its duty to help the helpless and obviously if people were extraordinarily good and donated to charity in massive amounts we wouldn't have this problem of extreme poverty and uninsured Americans. But we must face reality. People are not that incredibly generous. The government has to help them. Let's suppose minimum wage were gone today. Of course, some companies would pay people a lot based on their skills and performance. But you cannot honestly tell me that companies would not pay people less if there were no minimum wage. It makes no sense. Businesses are based on profit so if they could pay their employees less and keep them, why wouldn't they? The minimum wage is a decent way of getting more money to the lower class without welfare-type means. In conclusion, I believe you have shown that laissez faire government is good in one or two aspects: wiretapping and that the government can sometimes in fact slow down the processes which may solve problems such as the Great Depression. BUT I believe that the negative aspects of laissez faire far outweigh the positives. Laissez faire would let big business rule and the poor would suffer and remain poor and uninsured. We are one of the most laissez faire nations in the world and our health care system leaves 16% of the country uninsured and even those that are insured are not taken care of properly. P.S. On the matter of anti-trust regulation, laissez faire does not favor it. Breaking up monopolies through this kind of regulation violates laissez faire policy. "The laissez-faire period ended by the beginning of the 20th century, when large monopolies were broken up and government regulation of business became the norm. The Great Depression of the 1930s saw the birth of Keynesian Economics an influential approach advocating government intervention in economic affairs." (Financial & Investment Dictionary. Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms. Copyright ï¿½ 2006 by Barron's Educational Series, Inc.) Good debating with you, I wish Round 2 would have existed as well but oh well, a good debate regardless.