This is taken from a list by Ricco over in the Why conservatives dislike McCain thread

Now I know fhe conservatives are going to fall over dead with this list, but ok, what is better? Given that we have an adequate defense and trade, how could the govt, any govt, go wrong guaranteeing these 4 things?

While the nation doesn't do a very good job of any of those, there's an explicit consensus about education already and an uneasy one about food and shelter. Currently, it's only medical care that's controversial.

I can't speak to other countries but this document doesn't state those as within its role.

Yes it does:

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8.

At whose expense? These things need to be produced by other human beings, so should the government force some of its citizens to produce food, shelter, medical care, and education? Assuming you would answer, "No!" (at least I would hope you would), then I have to further assume you mean some of the government's citizens will have to pay others to provide these things. But these citizens will have to work in order to produce other things in order to provide the money that will go to pay for these things. So, we're back to the question: Should the government force some of its citizens to produce money in order to pay for the food, shelter, medical care, and education of others? Again, I'm sure you have a problem with the word "force" - you probably (again, my fingers are crossed) don't want the government to force anyone to do anything. But then we're left with the question: How would government guarantee these things when it can neither force others to produce them, nor force others to produce something else which provides the money in order to pay others to produce the things you want it to guarantee?

I am not an anarchist, no. I recognize that the government, in fulfilling its legitimate functions, must force some people to do things. It would be nice if everyone agreed perfectly and nobody had to be coerced, ever, but it's not realistic.

Well, you're quite right, without force, the government could not do these things. But then, without force, the government couldn't really do anything. It couldn't collect taxes. It couldn't enforce the law. It couldn't defend the borders -- although admittedly most of the "force" in that case is applied to foreigners rather than citizens. A government without force, i.e. a completely voluntary government, is not a government.

Anarchism is beautiful in conception. But whether it's the version of Russeau, of Thoreau, of Tolstoy, or Bakunin, or of Marx, it's also a pipe dream. Sad but true.

It's not like this is a new idea

Franklin D. Roosevelt: "The Economic Bill of Rights"

__________________
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi (R)
on McCain

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R)
on McCain

“My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

McCain on McCain

How would you propose that the government provide those four things to 300,000,000 people?

I dunno, how was Roosevelt proposing to do it?

What is your counterproposal? Should we let some sick and poor people die in the streets? I'm not saying you're saying that but if you're not then you're acknowledging that we do, as a matter of fact, provide some of the things outlined above for our present population. How do we do it?

I'm speaking of govts in general. Most modern authoritarian govts, in fact, are quite good about providing these 4 things. This might give us some insight into why people are so willing to defend govts that oppress them otherwise.

Freedom is a great thing, but something of a hollow mockery if you're starving and/or sick.

1. The govt already does provide these things for everyone
2. It is not the responsibility of the federal govt to provide these things
3. The people can provide these things for themselves
4. Please list one authoritarian govt that are good about providing these things for people

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

odd... I don't see food, shelter, medical care or education mentioned.

So, in order to perform whatever you believe to be its legitimate functions, the government is justified in forcing some of its citizens to act? For example, in order to have the money to pay for everyone's food, the government would be justified in forcing everyone to work?
Anarchism is insanity in conception.

"Provide for the general welfare" is understood to include these things at necessity. I'm speaking of Constitutional authority, that is. Congress may tax (and by implication, spend) to pay the nation's debts, defend the country and provide for the people's well-being. Pretty much anything would be covered by that clause, actually. It's amazing to me that some people think the U.S. Constitution was set up to limit government powers, when a little knowledge of the history of how it was entered into would show that it was set up to create a stronger national government.

We have explicit limitations, statements of what the government can't do, precisely to counterbalance these all-encompassing general statements of what it can. The Bill of Rights was insisted on as a condition of ratification because many perceived, quite rightly, that the Constitution potentially created a very powerful central government and the anti-federalists wanted, at very least, to make sure the rights of the people were well protected from it.

I think the governement should only supply those things where it has shown that there is an advantage in doing so rather than in a market with private players. Food and shelter are better managed by private players, governement only needs to do some safety regulations. It is easier to make an argument for a larger role of the governement in supplying health care or education.

__________________
When WW2 had ended everyone joined the resistance.