a) The health care system is definitely not working like a charm. But it is also definitely not anywhere close to privatized. The U.S. government prohibits cross state health insurance for crying out loud. We are FAR from an open market for health insurance providers.

b) "The industry then got to control what they wore, what they ate, how they acted, etc."

And this is relevant how? All police officers are mandated to wear uniforms. So are employees of a lot of private sector businesses.

Government monopoly on policing, fire fighting, schooling, or anything just means that people will have less resources to look after themselves.

For instance, maybe if we were taxed less, every neighborhood would have it's own fire engine, and people would take turns being on call to man it and respond to emergencies.

I am sure that in an open market plenty of volunteer and low cost emergency response services would emerge to supply market demand.

The ultimate goal of government is to create, enhance, and sustain monopoly. The government is just a corporation with a monopoly.

There is no service the government provides that can not be provided for more cheaply by private sector market competition.

If the ultimate goal of government was to keep us safe, to enhance the quality of our lives, and to help us flourish, then why would they need to use force to take our money?

If we all just stopped paying taxes, would the world just turn into total chaos? Are taxes a necessity of order, or is it just benefiting the power elite to have us think so?

I think Aldous Huxley was very articulate in his book Brave New World when he included recreational sex as an integral feature of his fictional dystopia. I know polyamorists try to make a distinction between themselves and swingers, in that swingers use sex as a recreation.

In my addition to this debate I will detail my beliefs that the more people one has sex with, the more recreational the sex necessarily becomes, despite the perceived level of non-sexual involvement.

Polyamourists claim that humans are able to love multiple people, and I do not dispute that.

What I do dispute is that, in general, no one has enough time to make a full commitment to more than one person. And love demands commitment. Lasting love takes time to develop. Trust takes time to grow.

Anyone that starts a relationship out with full trust might be in for a letdown. But a couple that begins with commitment and gains trust will have more longevity. It would be interesting to see how much longevity some of these poly-amorous relationships have.

I love everyone. I express this love in different ways. Some people I want to make (sexual) love to. Some people I want to help cross the street (old ladies), some people I want to help with advice, some people I want to save from a burning building (almost anyone).

However a line has to be drawn somewhere. I like to think that I love everyone, but I can not make a full commitment to everyone, regardless of whether or not I am having sex with them.

By full commitment I mean time investment. Just getting to know someone on a deep level takes a great amount of time investment. Developing trust takes time. Maintenance of a relationship takes time.

If business affairs are a part of the relationship, if a house and resources are shared, if there are children involved: all of these features of a relationship demand an investment of time. And trust.

When two people commit to each other, it does not necessarily mean they are promising to never be tempted to cheat, or to never feel like the love has diminished.

The couple is promising to invest time into one another. They are not saying they will never be able to love anyone else. They are promising that they will continue to love their partner.

Polyamorists often say that monogamy is about possession. I believe that monogamy is about trust. It is about trusting that when I am in need, my wife or partner will be there for me.

If there is another lover in the picture, then her time investment will be split between the other lover and myself. How can I trust that when I call on her, she will be available to me? If she is with her other lover, maybe her cell phone will be turned off?

People are complicated creatures. If it has taken all of my 29 years on earth just to discover as much as I have about myself, with no end in sight, surely it will take just as long for someone else to get to know me on a deep level. Not to say that I would ever expect anyone to know me as well as I know myself, but there has to be some commitment.

I am not totally closed to the idea of sharing my lover. There would have to be stipulations, because trust is important to maintain.

Humans are inherently good but we are not immune to temptation. When there is an opportunity to have sex with someone outside of a relationship, a poly-amorous lover will be more likely to just do it. A monogamist who values their contract with their other will avoid the situation.

There are evolutionary reasons why trust is beneficial. The less lovers, the less variables. The less chance of STD's, the less chance of cuckoldry, the less chance of one's partner not being available in a time of need.

Trust is something that has to be worked at, continually. Part of any functioning society is the making and keeping of contracts. Monogamy is a contract that say "I promise to invest my time in to you, to be available to you whenever you need me, and to trust you. I expect the same from you."

Polyamory can probably be made to work. I can see it working in a closed environment where there are limited variables and a tribal atmosphere. But that is rare. Generally I view the poly-amorous imperative as defaulting one step closer to recreational sex.

Humans are amazing, intelligent creatures, but no one can love everyone equally and in the same manner. No one has the time. So the more people one tries to love on the most intimate, emotional of levels, the less love one has for anyone.