There is nothing unfounded about the claim that people are driven by self-interest. What data is he/she supposed to produce for a new policy that is only going to show the full scope of its impact over 50 years?
EDIT, I'm being rate-limited, so I'll respond to the below here:
No, there is very clear negative correlation between economic growth and government spending levels:
Calling it "wild speculation" is disingenuous given social welfare spending's well documented negative impact on economic efficiency, and the basic economic theory that predicts this outcome.
>>there are overwhelming examples of entitlement systems that are solvent and functional despite a level of free ridership.
The most commonly cited example, Scandinavia, shows the opposite of what's popularly believed:
>>Stop holding back progress with unconstructive and uneducated critiques of iterative improvements to the social safety net apparatus.
Stop taking it as a priori that any move toward your preferred economic system; social democracy, is progress, and any one who questions it is being "unconstructive and uneducated". It's a very emotional/unconstructive attitude to bring to a discussion of such importance.
Wild speculation masquerading as an educated opinion holds negative value. If you make the assertion, provide facts to back it. People are self interested and yet there are overwhelming examples of entitlement systems that are solvent and functional despite a level of free ridership (which is unavoidable). We provide food assistance to people, some of whom might be able to work a bit more to not need it, but the benefit is overwhelmingly positive. Everyone will not immediately become reckless if universal healthcare is provided. This is no different. Everyone will not quit their jobs tomorrow to get a free home, just as everyone has not quit their jobs to live off of food stamps (or your country's equivalent benefit).
The worst that happens is its an experiment that fails, and there is still value in the data point. If you're not in Finland, and you're not contributing financially to this, I'd like you share why you feel so revolted by this idea, as we have to get to the heart of the core belief or value system being challenged by this effort.
(removed last sentence quoted in comment I replied to because it felt unhelpful and unkind to the discussion)
as usual you're just using your market fundamentalist links to prove your market fundamentalist ideas despite overwhelming on-the-ground evidence that e.g. Scandinavia has been a remarkable success.
If you dismiss any evidence that shows that social democracy doesn't work, including the evidence I provided about Scandinavia, which clearly shows how unsuccessful social democracy has been there, then of course you're only going to see the evidence supporting your pre-conceived notions. It would be impossible for any amount of evidence to cause you to change your mind when you take it as a priori that such evidence is from "market fundamentalists" and thus not credible.
"as usual",
the only thing "usual" is how reluctant those conforming to the mainstream ideology are to examine evidence that contradicts their narrative.
