The things I want are not allowed in their authoritarian society.

I love how you put "free stuff" in quotes like it's something they directly said while you list things that they talk about routinely but you ignore just so you can make this point.

I put "free Stuff" in quotes to encompass all the things the left thinks should be free. Things like free college, free healthcare, free citizenship for all, etc, all of which they have explicitly called for.

As far as the things I want, I have never heard any of the current Democrat Presidental candidates make any reference to them. Especially not free speech and free markets. I have heard them imply that these things should be government-controlled/regulated.

You haven't been listening, then.

Oh, I have heard the Left's mantra alright. All they want is more government. Except for open borders, name one policy that has been proposed by the left that doesn't require more government control.

Pivots from "I've never heard these topics being discussed" to "but it's the government control"

That statement is still correct. They never talk about free speech or free markets.

You need to keep up here skippy. Government control is referencing free college and free healthcare.

See, again: they do routinely and it really violates the suspension of disbelief that you would miss it.

Pivoting to government control does not work because it is a different conversation. People like me are happy to have free speech and free markets but I would argue that certain things are handled better when they are handled by the government. On this, we do not necessarily disagree. The military would be an example: there WAS a time when wars were fought by contracts to private mercenary groups, and that didn't work out well for anybody; now it's commonly accepted fact that government should maintain its own armies and command them, and we mostly never question it. Likewise, there was once a time where firefighting was handled by private companies; the first company to reach the fire hydrant would get the contract - people died as mob wars raged outside a fire to assert turf control over the hydrants. If any politician - even a Republican one - today ran on a platform of getting government control out of our firefighting service, we'd laugh them out of politics - left, right, and center.

So is it really that incompatible with the things you care about that healthcare and education should be handled by the government, at least to the point of universalization, as is the case in most of the rest of the industrialized world?

But don't conflate the two discussions. That's what's causing you to dismiss what the Democrats ARE talking about, because they have several candidates who are pretty much Republican Lite, on the basis that you're so certain you can bring everything to your hyperbole on government control.

You are convoluting government-provided services, fire, police, military, with government-provided benefits.

The police and fire departments are services that benefit everyone equally and it makes sense for the government to supply them.

Me paying for your college or healthcare has no benefit to me or anyone else other than you. So why should anybody but you pay for it?

The GI bill during the late 40's and early 50's put millions of veterans - which, after World War 2, meant a huge segment of the population - through technical schools. We had a record number of technically trained college educated white collar workers. Our economy famously boomed, salaries went up across the board, government revenue raked in, and the public got a comfortable return on their investment.

When the public is educated, it benefits you. When the public isn't sick, it benefits you. When we can treat epidemics, it benefits you. Why do you hate America that you would want to keep it sick and stupid?

You raise some good points.

First, I think the GI Bill was looked at differently at the time. It was a form of repayment for a small group of people who interrupted their life to provide a vital service to their country.

As far as having an educated society, again, you are correct. That is why society has determined that a certain amount of education is required. That is why we established the public school system and made it mandatory for all children.

This is very different than providing college to only some people. I do not see how your degree in lesbian dance studies benefits society as a whole. Unless the government dictates what courses are taught, as they do in public schools, it would not accomplish what you think. I fact, since nobody has any skin in the game, ie. they are paying for it, I see professional students, or people taking courses that are meaningless.

As far as a healthy society, I agree in principle. However, unless the government can dictate your lifestyle, this would not accomplish that. If you decide to sit on your couch and be 400 lbs. smoking 5 packs of cigarettes a day, why should I pay for your unhealthy habits? We can't even agree that all children should be vaccinated.

There is also the issue of escalating costs. If you're not paying for it, how do you control unnecessary tests, or running to the ER every time someone coughs?

As most economists will tell you, you can have cheap healthcare, good healthcare, or available healthcare, but you can only have two of the choices. This is the problem faced by Canada, the UK, and others. In Canada, you wait for 10 - 13 months for cataract surgery. In the U.K they have canceled all elective surgery for the next year. They went for cheap and good, but not available. In Cuba, they went cheap and available, but it is not very good.

I am not against programs that actually accomplish something, but spending resources just because it makes you feel good, not so much.

If someone could come up with a plan that was well thought out, affordable, and made sense, I would listen. However, none of the people pushing for free stuff has any idea on how to implement it or pay for it. We need serious discussion, not political pandering.

See, now we're having a conversation! This is a very different interaction than what we usually have. And of course go figure, now there is too much to unpack here in one comment, so sorry I can't cover the full scope of everything you mentioned.

Believe it or not, as long as we agree that some studies pay back dividends when we pay for someone else's education, I don't mind people posing the question "but where does it end? Does a media studies graduate add to our economy? Does a fine arts graduate return our investment on their education? Does a historian?"

I have my liberal opinions on those, but different countries will take different approaches. In New Zealand, they go one further than I would! The New Zealand government throws down some money in the form of a grant to anyone who wants to spend a year working on some kind of art project - a book, an exhibition of paintings, a music record, something artistic. And sure, some kids take that money and waste it - they bum around for a year, produce nothing, then that money is gone and they need a job. But most people will not like the idea of having nothing to show and getting pushed into a career they never wanted, so they produce something! And yeah, most of it is books that never get read, and music that never gets listened to, and paintings that nobody's seen - but New Zealand's culture is rich with undiscovered gems for that exact reason! Jermaine Clement did not happen by accident. It's the fruits of a direct investment into culture, naysayers be damned.

That raises the question: if the return on the investment is more sentimental than financial, is that what New Zealand SHOULD be doing with that money? And the answer is, New Zealanders do not agree with each other about that. It comes down to opinion. There's no single right answer, just as there are many wrong answers.

But even so, we saw a benefit to throwing down money even for the most selfish of taxpayers. If people can access medical school, then we'll end up with more doctors, and possibly better ones because what reason would we have to think that rich kids would be inherently better at learning medicine in the first place? If more people can learn engineering, then we'll end up with more engineers, and I don't think any country in history has ever said "you know what? We've got enough engineers! We're good!" We're always in shortage of engineers!

So obviously, there is a way to do this that isn't just "offering free stuff" to people!