call their bluff

It is an article of faith to the "Tea Party" followers that government is bad. Of course a disinterested observer might notice that the parts of government they are thinking of are the programs that do not benefit them. Roads, courts to enforce contracts, a police/court property protection system the list goes on. The idea that government should only do defense, civil order and enforce contracts seems less commonsense and more about endorsing the parts of government that benefit themselves. Why should health care be considered a persons own problem but property protection is hallowed? A case could be made that relying on a "Nanny State" to protect ones property is asking the government to do something people should do themselves. I have a gun and big dogs. I don't consider the police the be an integral part of my property protection plan. Conservatives say what separates their conception of rights from a progressive one is the obligation to provide. Negative legal proscriptions against government interference require no public expenditiures. but property protection certainly requires public expenditures and the provision of this right by public servants. The difference btween that and health care is what exactly...?