# For the minority party, what's the alternative to "obstructionism?" **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 9, 2014, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971 "2014-09-09T16:29:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2014, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971/61 "2014-09-19T20:33:49Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > The thing is, sometimes it’s objective. Having health insurance is objectively better than not having health insurance. Having clean air and water is objectively better than not having clean air and water. Earning $10/hour is better than earning $7.25/hour which is better than earning $0.75/hour. Stuff like that. There are very few things that are objectively true. Let’s use your examples. Having health insurance is better than not having health insurance is only true if the cost of that insurance is lower than the value that insurance provides, provided the various risk tolerance for any given individual, and considering the availability of resources. Clean air and water are great! How clean? There is a cost involved and the relative utility of that cleanliness must be measured against the cost. Earning $10/hour is better than earning $7.25/hour, only if the job is the same. Many people turn down higher paying jobs because it’s not what they want to do. The relative utility of that extra income must be measured against what it takes to earn it. So, no. Those things are not objectively better as you’ve described. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-minority-party-whats-the-alternative-to-obstructionism/697971.md?page=3)