78
79

MSNBC: Rand Paul saying government doesn't own your kids is fringe and just 'right wing rhetoric' (therightscoop.com)

Dotz-N-BubblezPaleoconservative が 投稿

全ての 65 コメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順

[–]Ditka69 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Won't the people who aren't vaccinated get, for example, Measles, and the people who are vaccinated not get it? Am I missing something here?

I believe you have the right to be an idiot unless it harms someone else, but in this case won't it not harm the smart people because they're vaccinated?

[–]doctorhillbilly 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It does harm others because there is a not insignificant number of children (100,000s to millions) who have any of a number of immunodeficiencies ranging from relatively benign to more severe. These immunodeficiencies prevent these children from being able to take vaccines or develop immunity based on them. The only way to prevent them from getting sick and possibly dying from vaccine preventable illness is to maintain herd immunity. Refusing to vaccinate your child is arguing for your right to put another's child at risk. It's like saying you have the right to drive drunk ignoring the fact that you may kill someone else in an accident in addition to yourself.

[–]doctorhillbilly 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (11子コメント)

I'm as conservative as they come, but but I'm also a doctor and Rand Paul is in the wrong here. Immunization should not be optional.

I'll re-iterate that I'm very anti- Big Government. There are, however, some concessions in personal liberty that need to be made to ensure our safety and that our freedom is protected. Murder should be illegal, it infringes on the rights/safety/life of others. I want to have the most powerful military in the world protecting us from those that would do us harm. I want our children vaccinated.

The science is irrefutable; vaccines are safe and effective. The onus of developing them, proving them safe and efficacious and administering them should fall on the government and the healthcare establishment but this is not one of those situations where you can argue "It's my kid, vaccinating them or not only effects us and the government has no right telling me how to raise them." Vaccines have nearly erradicated many illnesses that used to maim, cripple or kill children. Preventing these disease relies on herd immunity to protect those who's immune systems cannot develop immunity or tolerate vaccination.

By arguing your right to not vaccinate your child you are arguing for your right to endanger the lives of other children. It's like arguing for your right to drive drunk.

[–]contrarian_barbarian 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (5子コメント)

While I do believe that the parents who don't get their children vaccinated are complete and utter idiots, there's a lot of idiotic stuff one is permitted to do in this country, and I start getting a bit apprehensive about forcing things. I'd sooner see it something along the lines of yes, you can avoid vaccinations, but there will be consequences. For example, requiring vaccinations for public school attendance. Don't want to vaccinate? Home school is still an option, or the crazies can go make their own private school and keep it to themselves.

[–]doctorhillbilly 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Normally I'm 100% in favor of letting idiots be idiots. Seat belt laws for example; they're horseshit. If you wreck and die because of no seatbelt then it's your own damn fault.

Vaccines, on the other hand, do affect others. If you don't vaccinate your kids, you put other kids at risk who are unable to develop immunity of their own. This is not acceptable because it harms a third party.

I generally want fewer laws, restrictions, etc. In my opinion, the only role for laws is to protect individuals property, health and safety. I am okay with the government depriving me of the freedom to drive my car drunk because it puts others at risk. The same holds true of vaccination.

[–]contrarian_barbarian 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah, this is why it's a tough issue, and I'm having to spend some time thinking reconciling various stances. I guess it could be considered in the same category as smoking laws - your rights stop where they infringe on someone else's rights.

[–]doctorhillbilly 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's my take on the issue. Smoking laws are less clear cut though in my opinion as vaccine preventable illness is much more readily transmissible than the cumulative effects of second hand smoke.

[–]deadletter 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Actually, seat belts aren't quite like that - the person not wearing a seatbelt becomes a dangerous ballistic object - their elbows and feet and hands smash up other passengers. So, alone, perhaps - but with other people, one must wear a seatbelt to protect THEM.

Here's a british psa showing what is meant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6Qhmdk4VNs

[–]doctorhillbilly 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

TIL. Good point.

[–]geodole 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I am conservative as well, but I also agree there are limits especially for certain individuals, where the state has a role rather than just the family or parents. Milton Friedman says that individuals should be mostly free, with the exception of children and "madmen."

[–]JHStarner -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Can you at least agree that not all vaccines are worth it?

I really don't want any kind of Guv. mandated flu vaccine, that is going to get me sick for a week, and may not even work for the most visible strain that year. (Plus it's just mutating influenza to be stronger.)

EDIT: Just adding to this. My only argument for Parents having say in what vaccines for or against, are vaccines that are being created to treat Non-Lethal and Non-Life-Altering illnesses. I got all my shots growing up, and my kids will get theirs as well. But I have high doubts on the worth of Flu and Chicken Pox Vaccines, or anything else being created to treat something your body can get over on its own. I'd rather my kids get it, and let their immune system do the work like it's supposed to.

[–]doctorhillbilly 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

There does need to be serious scientific discussion on what vaccines are needed, there is no question. I agree with all childhood vaccines currently recommended by the CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics.

Influenza is a tricky issue. The getting "sick" you feel after a flu vaccine is the bodies immune response in which it produces immunity. The fever, chills, malaise, occasional runny nose or cough it causes are well worth the discomfort.

Many people think that they have had influenza and that it isn't so bad or that the illness you get after vaccination is influenza. Influenza kills somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 people every year. In the USA. It is an incredibly severe illness that usually requires hospitalization, IV fluids and often mechanical ventilation. The confusion comes because everyone refers to every mild viral upper respiratory infection and stomach bug "The Flu."

With respect to vaccination for influenza, it probably isn't 100% required. If you work in healthcare in any form (Docs office, hospital, nursing home, etc.) you absolutely should be required. If you visit anywhere where there are a population of elderly people (>65y/o) then you should also be required to be vaccinated or wear a mask. The elderly are very susceptible to influenza and typically are the ones that die from it where a younger person is more likely to survive their hospitalization.

[–]deadletter 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They may not be life-threatening for all, but they are deathly for some. Also, the spanish flu epidemic killed some 50% of health care workers... Can you imagine if the flu came through one year and killed half of all doctors and nurses? These aren't the fools and those who can't support themselves dying, this is those who care for them, have middle class lives and values - hence the push for the flu shot.

I also have never had one and don't plan to...

[–]optionhome 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (11子コメント)

I guess this thinking comes from their belief that parents are too stupid to be parents and the state has to take care of them.

And maybe from their point of view they are correct. It seems like most of the useful idiots are not skilled in raising children. If you teach your kids fairly tales instead of how the world really works, you are just raising an idiot.

Better to let the government teach them the officially approved lies of liberalism.

What they really want is what hitler, stalin, and mao had....mandatory organizations that all kids had to join in order for the regime to turn them into useful idiots.

[–]electrobutter 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What they really want is what hitler, stalin, and mao had....mandatory organizations that all kids had to join in order for the regime to turn them into useful idiots.

It's hard to take you seriously after a sensational statement like that. It just makes you look ignorant and close-minded...

[–]cranktheguy -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (9子コメント)

I guess this thinking comes from their belief that parents are too stupid to be parents and the state has to take care of them.

Do you think that these crazy California parents who believe in homeopathy but not vaccines are right? Are you seriously siding with Jenny McCarthy?

[–]SarcasticPanda 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (4子コメント)

That's not exactly equivalent. Believing that people have the right to make the decision as to whether or not to vaccinate their kids does not equal believing that all vaccines cause autism or whatever bullshit Jenny McCarthy says.

For example, the Hygiene Hypothesis says that our excessive cleanliness is leading to more allergies. I don't think vaccinations are bad, but the choice on whether or not to vaccinate your kids should be up to the individual parents.

[–]cranktheguy 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Believing that people have the right to make the decision as to whether or not to vaccinate their kids does not equal believing that all vaccines cause autism or whatever bullshit Jenny McCarthy says.

The source of your flawed reasoning doesn't matter. Vaccinations are proven, tested, and have been around since your grandparents. These outbreaks simply do not happen until people stop vaccinating. Quarantine is also a loss of freedom, but people understand and accept it because your freedom ends where other's begin. The same goes for vaccinations.

For example, the Hygiene Hypothesis[1] says that our excessive cleanliness is leading to more allergies.

The hygiene hypothesis has nothing at all to do with vaccinations. In fact, since vaccinations expose the immune system to these diseases the hygiene hypothesis would say that you should get vaccinated. But lets take a step back and look at what you just claimed: do you really think that exposing kids to Measles, Polio, and the like is going to make them healthier? That's retarded. The old saying "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" doesn't fucking apply to Polio.

[–]Erdrick 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

do you really think that exposing kids to Measles, Polio, and the like is going to make them healthier?

What do you think a vaccine is? It's a small dose of the bad thing so your body can generate resistance to it.

[–]doctorhillbilly 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's not what a vaccine is. Vaccines are created by taking components of viral capsids (their shell), surface proteins, parts of killed viruses, sequencing them, mass producing them and using these components to initiate immunity in patients. Vaccines are not exposing people to potentially virulent diseases, they are making copies of parts of viruses so that your body can recognize the actual virus when it sees it.

[–]cranktheguy 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What do you think a vaccine is? It's a small dose of the bad thing so your body can generate resistance to it.

Did you read the sentence before the one you quoted? Because I said exactly what you tried to tell me. There is a big difference between vaccines and normal exposure: the vaccines won't make you sick. They kill or disable the virus/bacteria. I think that tiny detail is important.

[–]matty25Conservative 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Where do you get that? He is advocating for parental freedom.

Mandatory healthcare, mandatory vaccines....making things mandatory is a slippery slope.

[–]cranktheguy 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

He is advocating for parental freedom.

If someone were to argue for parental freedom to take their Ebola infected kid in public you'd laugh in their face. The simple fact is that measles outbreaks do not happen when herd immunity is intact. A core conservative belief is that your rights end where you begin to affect the freedoms of others. The facts show that the crazy non-vaccinators were the cause of this break out, so this principle applies. Don't want your kid vaccinated? Well then stay on your hippie commune, Jenny- and out of public.

Mandatory healthcare, mandatory vaccines....making things mandatory is a slippery slope.

Once again, no one argued against mandatory quarantine for Ebola patients. No one argues against the same quarantine for measles patients. But for some reason the proven method of preventing the disease that been the most successful live saving campaign ever and has gone on for about 100 years is suddenly controversial.

Go ask your parents or grandparents about the Polio scares of their childhood and get back to me about parental freedom.

[–]nmotsch789 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think that if they made vaccines mandatory, it would just piss off the anti-vaxxers and they would resist the movement even more. They would just fake forms saying they vaccinated or claim its against their religion when it really isn't. When you force someone to do something they don't want to do, it makes them hate that thing even more. And for that reason, I think mandatory vaccinations would be more harmful than helpful.

[–]cranktheguy 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think that if they made vaccines mandatory, it would just piss off the anti-vaxxers and they would resist the movement even more.

It works in Mississippi.

And for that reason, I think mandatory vaccinations would be more harmful than helpful.

There's an outbreak of a deadly yet preventable disease, but we shouldn't do anything because stupid people might resist. Sounds logical to me.

[–]longrifleLibertarian Conservative 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm more astounded that Sharpton called freedom a "talking point"

[–]volci 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not astounded by anything Sharpton says, sadly.

[–]baldyloxRight Social Libertarian 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

With all of his tax problems, he's lucky his buddy, Obama, is in the White House. Otherwise, Sharpton wouldn't be experiencing 'freedom' these days.

[–]fillymandee -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

He called it a "new" talking point. At most, it's a buzz word for both parties, when it benefits their agenda.

[–]longrifleLibertarian Conservative 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I didn't hear the "new". But after watching it again you are correct. And your follow up statement was also right. Although I wish it wasn't and that instead of it benefiting their agenda, the benefit of the People was put first.

[–]narcedmonkey 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

MSNBC is just a bunch of totalitarian statist clowns

[–]LaLongueCarabine 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

From their point of view, that the state doesn't own people's children is laughable. That's why their point of view needs to be accurately represented to the public instead of hidden behind this facade of "caring" for people and "helping" them. When leftists campaign and govern as leftists they get their asses handed to them in America.

[–]cranktheguy -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

From their point of view, that the state doesn't own people's children is laughable.

From their point of view, no one "owns" children. You cannot "own" people. They even mock this idea in the clip by saying, "What are they, golden retrievers?" You're attacking and mocking a strawman.

That's why their point of view needs to be accurately represented to the public instead of hidden behind this facade of "caring" for people and "helping" them.

So making sure people are vaccinated is now in scare quotes? Do you think vaccinations don't "help"?

[–]miawallacescoke 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Yeah this happens when people who have zero problem with the government mandating kids do all sorts of things without their patents consent start talking.

[–]JoleneAL 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (10子コメント)

But are also the ones screaming about welfare rats being subjected (gasp) to drug testing.

[–]beedumboobop 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Every study has shown drug testing welfare recipients would cost more money than it would save weeding out those who test positive. It's not always a "liberal" reason for not liking that policy

edit: link for those who are downvoting facts http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=0

[–]SarcasticPanda 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I would rather spend the money making sure that people who are living off of my money are not using it for illegal purposes. I don't think pot should be illegal but while it is, if you're on welfare, you shouldn't be spending my money on drugs. Especially since most employers drug test and the point of welfare is to help you until you get a job, you are just limiting yourself in your ability to get off the government teat.

[–]GoGetHighOnThatMntn 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

What? How can you blatantly disregard the fact that it will cost MORE of your money to drug test than it will save from people on welfare who use drugs? That's the most backward logic I've seen in a while.

[–]SarcasticPanda 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

You didn't read my reply but let me sum it up: it's the principle of the thing. You're living off my money, you aren't doing drugs. I'm fine with my money going to keep deadbeats from living off the system and getting high. And, the mere threat of drug testing will likely result in them getting booted off the system by not reporting for their screening.

[–]beedumboobop 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I respect what you're saying, but to me it seems unfair that you would agree to have your money spent making sure welfare recipients don't use drugs (at a lesser rate than the population as a whole) rather than using that money to provide food for poor people.

You're still operating under the assumption that welfare recipients are mostly drug users. Instead, look at the numbers and realize most people receiving food stamps actually need the food to feed their families.

[–]SarcasticPanda -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

There have to be standards. Welfare should not be a blank check. We, as a society, shouldn't say, "here's money for you for being unemployed." and then walk away. No, there should be strings attached to it, no drug use (which is against the law), no other criminal activity, etc. If you drug tested all the recipients, you're right it would cost more money, but if you established drug testing policies and made it required they show up during that week to be tested, the drug users would simply not show up and effectively remove themselves from the system.

It's the same with illegal immigration, if we simply enforced the laws on the books and actually fined businesses for labor law violations, fewer businesses would hire illegals and they would self-deport due to lack of work.

[–]beedumboobop -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I get what you're saying. No one thinks welfare should be a blank check. We can agree on that. What we have to decide now is the importance put on each option. The statistics show drug use among welfare recipients is far lower than the population as a whole. I feel very strongly that poor people not making enough money to feed their families is a much larger problem than preventing 2.6% of recipients from not using money.

The benefit of feeding people who would not eat otherwise by far outweighs the costs of 2.6% using the money for drugs.

[–]beedumboobop 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think everyone would agree that they do not want their tax money given to anyone to use for drugs or anything illegal. With this logic, though, students receiving government money for college should be drug tested. Anyone receiving any type of tax credit should be drug tested. Every person receiving any type of government money should be tested. Also studies show welfare recipients do not use drugs at higher rates than the rest of the population. In Florida the rate was only 2.6% compared to 8% of the total population.

[–]Stoppreaching 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Right social security pays for itself, too. If you like your insurance plan, you can keep it. The southern border is completely secure and Al Queda has been decimated by obama.

[–]JoleneAL 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, at the start up it will be expensive because everyone currently on the gov't teat will have to be tested.

The expense after that would go down as you would only need to test those coming on to the teat, or suspected of using while suckling.

I still believe it is a good thing.

[–]BaronVonCrunch 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I agree that the state does not "own" children, but parents do not "own" their children, either. They are the guardians of their children.

There is a substantial difference between those two things.

[–]GoGetHighOnThatMntn 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Exactly, and I think that's what the talking heads in the video were objecting too. I don't think the state or parents own children, I think children are human beings that can't be owned.

[–]oss10 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (13子コメント)

Rand Paul is the only real Republican candidate. Jeb Bush was a shill for Obamacare in Florida, Christie played politics with federal money withholding funds from mayors who wouldn't play ball, Huckabee/Cruz/Perry are just puppets for the Koch bros...

It's like we have an actual viable candidate with GOP values in Paul and the media is scared and is looking for any way to keep him from getting the nomination.

[–]matty25Conservative 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

What about Walker? Rubio?

[–]oss10 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

To me, a 29 year old fiscal (not moral) conservative Republican, Rubio is the same person as Ted Cruz. Two nuts from the same tea party tree. Scott Walker I don't know enough about. From what I've researched, he's stayed out of trouble, and if he can survive a recall election in Wisconsin, he can be a contender. But I just haven't seen him go public with any real issues like I have with Paul.

Rand Paul isn't as outspoken as his father, but the way Paul will reach across the aisle to do what he thinks is right is something we don't see enough of. Remember the democrat-authored amendment to the Keystone Pipeline bill? It would have prevented foreign companies from seizing private property (eminent domain). That sounds like something right up the GOP's alley, but because the amendment was written by the left, all republican senators voted against it, save for Rand Paul and the senator from NH.

I live in Oklahoma, and unfortunately we're one of the most hardcore right wing states, there isn't much room for argument about working across the aisle. It's "Obama's a terrorist and immigrants are getting my kids high and giving them abortions" kind of mentality. I wish I were kidding. For me, to get my vote, I want my country to succeed. We need to end the drug war, let constituents have a say to our elected officials that is equal to lobbyist's influence, and we need to have a congress that actually passes legislation instead of pointing fingers and complaining about the other end of the spectrum.

[–]matty25Conservative 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's not me downvoting you by the way.

But I'd take another look at Rubio. He's probably 3rd or 4th on my list (along with Walker and Paul) but I am considering him. And he's not as hardline as Cruz is. My main concern with him is his experience.

There's some other candidates I wouldn't write off either.

[–]oss10 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Haha, I'm not concerned with downvotes. But for me personally, 2016 is right around the corner and I need to do my own research. Until they contenders all announce though, I won't know who to choose from. I'll read up on Rubio more.

[–]flailfu -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Rand Paul is a junior senator. He is not qualified to hold the highest executive office in the land.

And just to be clear, I like him.

[–]beedumboobop 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Lincoln only served 1 term in the House and 2 years in the Senate before being elected President

[–]bilabrin 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

No everyone is as incompetent and arrogant as Barrack.

[–]flailfu -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I will agree with you on that.

Historically speaking though, Presidents are usually former Governors, Secretaries of State, or Vice Presidents. Candidates need to have been in executive decisions so that they can cultivate, and demonstrate, their leadership abilities.

[–]chabanaisSi vis pacem, para bellum. -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

He is not qualified to hold the highest executive office in the land.

Source?

[–]flailfu 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

source what? the fact that he's a junior senator?

sure! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul#Election_to_U.S._Senate

or my opinion that four years as a senator is not enough experience to be president.

sure! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

[–]chabanaisSi vis pacem, para bellum. -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

or my opinion

Right...your opinion.

[–]flailfu 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

so people on reddit shouldn't give opinions?

i guess we just shut the whole thing down then!

lol

[–]chabanaisSi vis pacem, para bellum. -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You said this:

He is not qualified to hold the highest executive office in the land.

That's a statement of fact.

It's called 'grammar.'

[–]StopTop -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I noticed alot of the comments talking about how the government feeds the kids that are owned by the parents.

It seems to me to be an extremely easy way for the government to get power:

  • Offer meals to children
  • Well since we're feeding your kids, we have a say in how they are raised

Especially easy in this case:

  • Mandate health care / Give free health care
  • Well your health has an effect on all of society (costs), so we get to determine if you can smoke or what foods you can eat.

I could go on as I see this type of arguement used all the time on this website. Some ridiculous reach to make it seem as if society has a say in an individuals life because the gov. has authority to protect the "health, safety and general welfare of the people"

I don't understand people's obsession with making other people fall in line with the way they want things.

I honestly couldn't care if you: have health care, abort your kid, do drugs, vaccinate your kids, don't cut your lawn, have a busted car in front of your house, decide to educate your children, believe in science or the supernatural, join the armed forces, circumcision etc.

Other side: health care - increases costs on society

do drugs - has a "negative impact" on society when people do what they want with their own body

vaccinate - diseases come back if people don't vaccinate (but only to those who don't fucking vaccinate)

science - everyone must believe only what is currently provable or society will be "stupid" (seriously, who cares? if someone wants to believe something based on anecdotal evidence, let. them. Not every common sense knowledge has to have a peer reviewed study behind it)

cut lawn busted car - it makes the neighborhood look ugly (you own your house not your hood)

circumcision - parents shouldn't be able to make this choice for their children. Vac's and abortion are alright, though?

[–]carsismeZ06Libertarian Conservative 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

“When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side,’ [Hitler] said in a speech on November 6, 1933, “I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already. . . . What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.’” And on May 1, 1937, [Hitler] declared, “This new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing."

  • Adolf Hitler on children and society

[–]puddboy 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

In-tact family units pose the largest threat to liberalism. They act as the most widespread private enterprise, and we all know how liberals feel about the private sector.

Look at Hillary's book 'It takes a village'. For the left it's all about coercion and collectivism.