Not that you don't have a good brain, Tom, but cold implacable logic is only a minor theme in human affairs (see also: Vulcans). People aren't machines, and human logic isn't Boolean logic. Humans are analog, and treating them with a digital philosophy generally turns out badly, as it always does when you apply an inappropriate or incomplete paradigm to problem-solving. (See also: The last seven years of American foreign policy.)

Public policy in a free society must take into account what people want, even if they can't always make a logical case for it. As a strict constructionist, have you pondered the significance of "pursuit of happiness" in the government's mission statement? You don't think the Founders wasted their time on mere verbal decoration, do you? They understood that it takes more than logic to build a strong and healthy society.

What's the mathematical formula for happiness? Lemme know when you develop one...that spreadsheet should be worth a Nobel Prize.

Or to make the point another way: The assertion that objective logic can be applied to human affairs presumes that there's always one answer to every question that applies to everyone. That's patently not the case. In fact, it raises a profound question: If one-size-fits-all is possible in human affairs, why do we need a free society? Who needs democracy when a mathematical formula can produce the correct answer? Why wouldn't tyranny be a perfectly acceptable way to live, if people were so uniform that logic is sufficient to order their lives?

It's blindingly obvious that logic is insufficient to understand human affairs, let alone to try to govern them. To believe otherwise is to turn logic into tyranny.

The fundamentally subjective and illogical nature of human affairs even bears on that holy-of-holies, economics. There's no One True Economy, and within the genre of free market capitalism, there's a broad spectrum of economic systems produced by tweaking the various parameters that govern how the system works. Variations abound, and demonstrate the relativity of economics--different rules produce different winners and losers. European implementations of free market capitalism are generally adjusted to benefit individuals rather than corporations, and the results show in an overall better quality of life; European "socialism" is tuned to make Europeans happy. Conversely, what's good for GM has not been good for America.

Speaking of Europe, I just realized the irony of Conservative disdain for European "socialism": That you have so many examples of economic and political systems more liberal than ours to criticize shows that America is in fact one of the most conservative democracies in the world. You Republicans have really made your mark, warping America to your own image, but still you're constantly screaming about "Commies" taking over America. It seems that nothing will ever satisfy you. Still puzzled that people treat Conservatives like Chicken Little warning that the sky is falling?

To return to economics:

Too many liberals, deep down, don't really believe in economics, which is why it's so easy to convince them that the only reason our medical care isn't "free" is because of human greed and capitalism.

Liberals "believe" in economics--what a silly assertion, Tom. It's just that Liberals understand the malleability and relativity of economics, aren't blinded by a religious fervor for one particular ideological brand of economics, and are willing to make adjustments to ensure the best outcome for the largest number of people.

Economic systems can be understood as resource allocation algorithms. In the case of FMC, that algorithm is expressed as the "law of supply and demand" acting through the agency of the "invisible hand". FMC is a scarcity model, assuming that there's never enough of anything to go around and that prices are determined by the desperation of the highest bidder.

If that doesn't sound like an accurate description of the modern economy, bingo! The flaws in our resource allocation algorithm reveal themselves through such problems as the failure to provide health care to all Americans, devastating economic cycles, pernicious poverty in a subset of the population, unhealthy gaps between rich and poor, quality-of-life metrics consistently behind those of other "first world" nations with more progressive economic policies....the list goes on and on and on.

The belief that there's something sacred about the particular parameters of our implementation of an economic resource allocation algorithm blinds Conservatives to the possibility of further improving our lives by accepting responsibility for the operation of our economy. There's no juice in believing that an economy is a force of nature and that we're helpless to take charge of our own destinies. The truth is, we're not helpless, and we have the power and the right to regulate the economy that's the basis of our lives.

In particular, we can indeed tweak the parameters of our economy to produce health care for all, and it won't break the bank because the bank is elastic and resilient. It's not a matter of violating some natural law--we're not talking about making water flow uphill--but simply creating the preconditions in which it becomes economically feasible to meet our responsibility for health care by reallocating some resources.

There's power in understanding economics as resource allocation, rather than some supernatural force before which we're helpless victims. Pretending that free market capitalism is sacred and immutable only robs us of the power to control our own destinies and promotes an attitude of helplessness.

And where's the logic in that?