Why do liberals think that in order to "improve access to something", it must be subsidized?

[Boshembechle]

Whether it is childcare, healthcare, or now community college, liberals often assume that the high cost of the status quo is somehow the natural, free market situation, and we need to break this nature by offering government money to people so they can access this stuff. Why have republicans/libertarians been so unsuccessful in getting the message across that current high prices of various necessities are the result of bad policy/law, not markets?

I would argue that the left has very successfully convinced America that the high cost of living is the result of the market order, and this is reflected by people such as Jon Stewart and John Oliver, who carry the talking point to young people. (Jon Stewart has never, ever taken a free market stance on anything).

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

It's an institution. We sold our freedom for stuff a long time ago.

[Sola_Fide]

Whether it is childcare, healthcare, or now community college, liberals often assume that the high cost of the status quo is somehow the natural, free market situation, and we need to break this nature by offering government money to people so they can access this stuff. Why have republicans/libertarians been so unsuccessful in getting the message across that current high prices of various necessities are the result of bad policy/law, not markets?

I would argue that the left has very successfully convinced America that the high cost of living is the result of the market order, and this is reflected by people such as Jon Stewart and John Oliver, who carry the talking point to young people. (Jon Stewart has never, ever taken a free market stance on anything).

Because most of them believe in intervention in the first place.

[otherone]

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.R6NSc1X8Dx7a5d%2fhTItPTA&pid=15.1&P=0

[tod evans]

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.R6NSc1X8Dx7a5d%2fhTItPTA&pid=15.1&P=0

Way to many of todays "men" want others to fight for them........

[tod evans]

////

[luctor-et-emergo]

It all starts with the so called 'social contract'. This is the basis for liberal thinking that allows government intervention in nearly anything because it's; 'For the public good.'

Liberals are right that subsidies improve access, however this is in the short term only and is not considering any moral values. In the long term, this of course leads to scarcity and further distortion of natural price fluctuation. I think the lesson to take away from this is that liberals are not thinking about the long term consequences of their ideas.

A problem I've noticed with liberals is that most (except for some really weird people) don't want their taxes to be raised, on someone else, no problem though. Yet when you even consider touching their 'rights' they look at you as if you are the devil himself. It's a disconnection from reality, me, me, me... They want to appear as generous people, because they pay their taxes, then they grab as much as they can get. I'd say they even loathe people who voluntarily donate money to good causes.. It's against their way of doing things, with force. I mean, democracy.

[otherone]

Way to many of todays "men" want others to fight for them........

Bread and Circuses, my friend. Turn off the largess faucet and watch the ivory towers topple.

[tod evans]

Bread and Circuses, my friend. Turn off the largess faucet and watch the ivory towers topple.

Give me control of the spigot!

Not only will I turn it off I'll salt the earth for 100 miles around the damn thing......

[osan]

Why do liberals think that in order to "improve access to something", it must be subsidized?

Because they are corrupt, brain damaged, soulless idiots.

[Unregistered]

It all starts with the so called 'social contract'. This is the basis for liberal thinking that allows government intervention in nearly anything because it's; 'For the public good.'

Liberals are right that subsidies improve access, however this is in the short term only and is not considering any moral values. In the long term, this of course leads to scarcity and further distortion of natural price fluctuation. I think the lesson to take away from this is that liberals are not thinking about the long term consequences of their ideas.

A problem I've noticed with liberals is that most (except for some really weird people) don't want their taxes to be raised, on someone else, no problem though. Yet when you even consider touching their 'rights' they look at you as if you are the devil himself. It's a disconnection from reality, me, me, me... They want to appear as generous people, because they pay their taxes, then they grab as much as they can get. I'd say they even loathe people who voluntarily donate money to good causes.. It's against their way of doing things, with force. I mean, democracy.

I believe this social contract you speak of is actually the Constitution. If my assumption were true, and your summarization of this social contract were true, then of course, the Constitution would say that it is the responsibility of the government to step in 'for the public good.'

So firstly, let's look at why the Constitution was established, according to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Right there it is. The entire purpose of the Constitution is to, among other things, promote the general Welfare, ie the public good.

This term is also used elsewhere in the Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
There is the part of that "social contract" that applies here. Taxes are to be collected for the purpose of providing for the common defense, and for the general welfare. Both of those could be considered 'for the public good.'

The argument shouldn't be whether the social contract exists, but how to best fill that contract.

As for your last paragraph, I feel you're off base completely. Yes, no one wants their taxes raised. I also don't want to go to work every morning. However, I do because I understand it is necessary for me to be able to obtain the things I want. I pay taxes because I understand they are necessary to provide for the general welfare.

I live in Maryland, and a couple years our wonderful government decided to raise the tax on gasoline. While discussing politics with my very conservative uncle, he brought this tax up and said that he actually supported it. The tax increase called for the increased revenues to go directly to the budget for state roads. He didn't mind paying more for gas because he saw it was necessary to raise money for road maintenance. The tax made since as well, because the people using those roads more frequently would be the ones buying more gasoline, and therefore contributing more tax money to the upkeep of the roads. Reasonable people don't mind doing something they don't want to do, if they are getting something they do want in return.