<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Controls breed controls &#8211; part 2</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/controls-breed-controls-part-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/controls-breed-controls-part-2/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:44:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Shane Atwell</title>
		<link>http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/controls-breed-controls-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-2003</link>
		<dc:creator>Shane Atwell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:04:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=4490#comment-2003</guid>
		<description>Excellent posts on controls breeding controls. One example that I find particularly frustrating is how government controlled and subsidized medicine is used as an excuse to restrict personal freedoms. The argument goes like this: If we let people drive without seatbelts or helmets, then they get injured and end up in emergency rooms and we all have to pay for their care. (Who&#039;s paying is always a bit murky, &#039;society&#039; is how its described, but its probably the hospitals themselves since they are compelled to treat in their emergency rooms.). I&#039;ve also seen this argument used for regulations/taxes around smoking, recreational drugs, welfare in general, preventative medicine. I don&#039;t ever remember someone challenging the compulsory service itself, just the freedom that ends up making the service more costly. Kind of like blaming the freedom of bankers to lend money for distributing money that the Fed gave to them, rather than blaming the Fed for giving them the money in the first place.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent posts on controls breeding controls. One example that I find particularly frustrating is how government controlled and subsidized medicine is used as an excuse to restrict personal freedoms. The argument goes like this: If we let people drive without seatbelts or helmets, then they get injured and end up in emergency rooms and we all have to pay for their care. (Who&#8217;s paying is always a bit murky, &#8216;society&#8217; is how its described, but its probably the hospitals themselves since they are compelled to treat in their emergency rooms.). I&#8217;ve also seen this argument used for regulations/taxes around smoking, recreational drugs, welfare in general, preventative medicine. I don&#8217;t ever remember someone challenging the compulsory service itself, just the freedom that ends up making the service more costly. Kind of like blaming the freedom of bankers to lend money for distributing money that the Fed gave to them, rather than blaming the Fed for giving them the money in the first place.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

