Author Topic: Why is the libertarian ideology so popular among otherwise reasonable people?  (Read 42353 times)

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Libertarinaism at it's best always seemed to be a philosophy that was coming from a place of wanting to expand the freedoms of individuals.  If a government is extremely large and has controls over every aspect of a person's life, this certainly limits freedom.  But when there isn't enough government to protect and care for it's people . . . this also limits freedom.  It's this latter half that is always forgotten or overlooked by your typical modern Libertarian.  Which is really a shame.
Libertarians don't believe the government should care for its people.
Libertarians don't believe the government does a good job caring for its people.

Financial.Velociraptor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2148
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Houston TX
  • Devour your prey raptors!
    • Living Universe Foundation
There are two flavors of Libertarian (well dozens really but I won't get into say "Libertarian Socialism").  Two main types are kind of like the Light and Dark Side of the Force in Star Wars.  The Light Side follows Adam Smith and Frederick Hayek.  Believe in personal liberty, personal property rights, and limiting CENTRALIZED forms of government (less toxic to local governance.)  I like these Libertarians.  It is sensible and in fact moral, at least somewhat derived from Adam Smith's work "The Theory of Moral Sentiments".

The Dark Side is in love with the cult of Ayn Rand and has adopted the erroneous philosophy the world and the US in particular would be better off if people could find it in their hearts to be a little more selfish, materialistic, and self-serving.  That way clearly lies madness. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Libertarinaism at it's best always seemed to be a philosophy that was coming from a place of wanting to expand the freedoms of individuals.  If a government is extremely large and has controls over every aspect of a person's life, this certainly limits freedom.  But when there isn't enough government to protect and care for it's people . . . this also limits freedom.  It's this latter half that is always forgotten or overlooked by your typical modern Libertarian.  Which is really a shame.
Libertarians don't believe the government should care for its people.
Libertarians don't believe the government does a good job caring for its people.

I disagree with the latter comment.  Libertairians never have alternatives to the government care that they want to get rid of.  While they may not believe government does a good job, without a valid alternative they are essentially lobbying for the end of care for other people.  It's part of why the modern interpretation of the whole idea is so repugnant to most.

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7400
Libertarinaism at it's best always seemed to be a philosophy that was coming from a place of wanting to expand the freedoms of individuals.  If a government is extremely large and has controls over every aspect of a person's life, this certainly limits freedom.  But when there isn't enough government to protect and care for it's people . . . this also limits freedom.  It's this latter half that is always forgotten or overlooked by your typical modern Libertarian.  Which is really a shame.

Agreed (with everything but the underlined sentence.

For talking with current libertarians who are forgetting or overlooking that point I find it really helpful to reference "Coventry" by Robert Heinlein (especially since he's an author who tends to be popular with many libertarians who hit on the philosophy in their teens or twenties). It's not a particularly amazing story on its own, but portrays a man being kicked out of society and into a special reservation for people who don't want to respect society's rules. He's so excited to be able to live free and create his own life ... and is then immediately robbed of all his world possessions and locked up by other "rugged individualists" as soo as he enters the reservation.

Because Heinlein leaned so much towards libertarianism himself, I find that the way he writes does a much more compelling job of getting across the point to people with the same philosophical leanings that libertarianism taken to extremes creates a world in which most people (those without the biggest guns) enjoy strikingly little freedom.

I disagree that the typical person who might identify as leaning libertarian misses this point, but agree with you that there are many activist members of the Libertarian Party in the US today who do indeed fail to realize it.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Libertarinaism at it's best always seemed to be a philosophy that was coming from a place of wanting to expand the freedoms of individuals.  If a government is extremely large and has controls over every aspect of a person's life, this certainly limits freedom.  But when there isn't enough government to protect and care for it's people . . . this also limits freedom.  It's this latter half that is always forgotten or overlooked by your typical modern Libertarian.  Which is really a shame.
Libertarians don't believe the government should care for its people.
Libertarians don't believe the government does a good job caring for its people.

I disagree with the latter comment.  Libertairians never have alternatives to the government care that they want to get rid of.  While they may not believe government does a good job, without a valid alternative they are essentially lobbying for the end of care for other people.  It's part of why the modern interpretation of the whole idea is so repugnant to most.

So you don't disagree with my comment, you are opposed to it? I.e. you aren't saying libertarians don't believe what I said, you're saying libertarians are wrong because they do believe it but don't have better options?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Libertarinaism at it's best always seemed to be a philosophy that was coming from a place of wanting to expand the freedoms of individuals.  If a government is extremely large and has controls over every aspect of a person's life, this certainly limits freedom.  But when there isn't enough government to protect and care for it's people . . . this also limits freedom.  It's this latter half that is always forgotten or overlooked by your typical modern Libertarian.  Which is really a shame.
Libertarians don't believe the government should care for its people.
Libertarians don't believe the government does a good job caring for its people.

I disagree with the latter comment.  Libertairians never have alternatives to the government care that they want to get rid of.  While they may not believe government does a good job, without a valid alternative they are essentially lobbying for the end of care for other people.  It's part of why the modern interpretation of the whole idea is so repugnant to most.

So you don't disagree with my comment, you are opposed to it? I.e. you aren't saying libertarians don't believe what I said, you're saying libertarians are wrong because they do believe it but don't have better options?

I believe that the latter comment is the reason most likely to be mouthed, but the former comment is the likely true underlying reason for their actions.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Location: The Buckeye State
That said, one of the issues I have with libertarians/small government types is that they often go to great lengths to justify *not* spending money on many of the things you described - robust funding for public education, health care, and child care spending aren't exactly popular concepts with those who identify as libertarians in the USA.

It's not that they don't want to spend money on education and health care, but rather they would prefer to have the choice of directing their own money towards charitable causes they believe in.  Read some of the comments about the waste and bureaucracy in the Federal government in this thread and you will begin to understand this viewpoint.

The one thing I would add to this, and to the discussion overall, is that most libertarians are okay with spending money locally.  As the examples in this thread have shown, the higher up the food chain the money goes, the more gets wasted.

As a self-employed person, I pay an absolute ton of money in federal taxes.  We could go on about the benefits I receive, but they are largely amorphous at this point.  The money is generally spent on a huge defense budget I don't agree with, paying approximately 800,000 workers employed by the federal government, social security/entitlement programs that I likely won't receive the benefit of for another 30 years (and won't get what I put in), interstates, health programs, and other spending. My federal taxes this year are probably in the $20,000 range -- and that's what I get back? Yikes.

Conversely, my property taxes are about $3,000.  I can see the new fire station on the green in the center of town.  I can go into the school and see the new lockers they put in. I can see the new police cars patrolling my neighborhoods.

Overall, I feel like I have more control locally, and that's because I actually do.  And FWIW, I vote Democrat a majority of the time, because both sides are money-spending hawks, and at least I agree with Democrats on social issues. If that makes me an insane caricature of a libertarian then oh well.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Libertarinaism at it's best always seemed to be a philosophy that was coming from a place of wanting to expand the freedoms of individuals.  If a government is extremely large and has controls over every aspect of a person's life, this certainly limits freedom.  But when there isn't enough government to protect and care for it's people . . . this also limits freedom.  It's this latter half that is always forgotten or overlooked by your typical modern Libertarian.  Which is really a shame.
Libertarians don't believe the government should care for its people.
Libertarians don't believe the government does a good job caring for its people.

I disagree with the latter comment.  Libertairians never have alternatives to the government care that they want to get rid of.  While they may not believe government does a good job, without a valid alternative they are essentially lobbying for the end of care for other people.  It's part of why the modern interpretation of the whole idea is so repugnant to most.

So you don't disagree with my comment, you are opposed to it? I.e. you aren't saying libertarians don't believe what I said, you're saying libertarians are wrong because they do believe it but don't have better options?

I believe that the latter comment is the reason most likely to be mouthed, but the former comment is the likely true underlying reason for their actions.

Lol, thanks for responding. I reread my comment and even confused myself. I guess what I'm asking is are you taking the tact that libertarians are hypocrites (i.e. they don't actually believe what I said) or that their view is flawed because they don't have alternatives.

I would say that at their worse, libertarians are bad, but that's no different from any political persuasion. At their best, however, libertarians are the voice that speaks up and is critical of the government taking over more and more things. They accurately comment that large government take over comes at a cost, and they believe that cost is often too high. It reminds me of the free speech thread we had where I was one of the few people who was fully on the side of free speech not having governmental penalties against it. Some people commented that it should be penalized because of the cost of people speaking what they think when it could be factually incorrect. Libertarians (again at their best) don't deny that there are costs with not having the government regulate things. They just tend to think the costs of governmental meddling can often be higher than the cost of them not. It's also not hypocritical to not have another solution but to feel that the cost is still too high.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
If there is an agreed upon problem, then proposing to end a working solution in favor of nothing is unproductive.  It amounts to whining.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
If there is an agreed upon problem, then proposing to end a working solution in favor of nothing is unproductive.  It amounts to whining.

Opposing a solution because you feel it causes more problems than the actual problem or a greater risk is not whining. It's an ethical decision.

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3551
  • Location: Seattle, WA
The one thing I would add to this, and to the discussion overall, is that most libertarians are okay with spending money locally.  As the examples in this thread have shown, the higher up the food chain the money goes, the more gets wasted.

I'm not sure that's true.  I do work with government agencies from local up to federal and I've observed that cities, and even departments within cities develop their own culture.  Some cities are really well run and efficient and some are bloated and awful.   On the state level, that can be true with different offices in the same department.  As a general rule, as you go up the chain you find better quality workers for the simple reason bigger projects tend to be more interesting and prestigious with bigger budgets and hence those jobs attract higher quality applicants.  Exceptions of course, but that's my observation.  The other things that tends to happen as you go up the chain is that things tend to be applied more consistently.  Getting a local permit might depend on who you know, but as you go up the ladder people tend to be treated more consistently. 

Please don't let that statement be interpreted as a defense of bureaucracy on any level.  I deal with mindless, inefficient bureaucracies all the time and find it as maddening as everyone else.

Re: Meddling.   This is an area where my patience starts to wear thin with many self-identified libertarians.  For example (I'll pick this example because no one here is saying this), Rand Paul made a speech decrying the low flow toilets in his house that don't work, and why should the government tell us what kind of toilets we're allowed to have?   It is true, in the old days low flow toilets didn't work well, but now they work great.  I installed one a couple years ago and noticed an immediate, non-trivial savings on my water bill.  Works better than the old one I replaced.   And if everyone had one, that means there is less infrastructure the city needs to maintain--hence lower costs overall.  And less need to impound or drill for water, which means more water for other uses like recreation or agricultural.   

So mandating low flow toilets means every single person, organization, and entity emerges better off.  Everyone wins.  Yet Rand Paul is still opposed because upholding his libertarian principles is more important that winning.   Being opposed to positive outcomes in principle is just dumb.  It is perfectly possible to look at each public policy in terms of costs and benefits.   Ignoring positive outcomes because they don't fit in with an ideology is well, ignorant.  I'm certainly opposed to many government programs and organizations, but it is because I feel like those specific programs or organizations don't provide benefits in line with the costs.  But it isn't an automatic world view that if it involves government, it is therefore bad.   

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3681
  • Location: Germany
I work for the government and I see first hand the fraud, waste, and abuse that goes on every single day.

And everyone working for a Megacorp sees the same. No reason here for saying private over state.

Quote
If government at all levels hadn't acquired so much power and influence - mainly over the last century - we wouldn't have a whole industry built to co-opt that power for economic advantage. I would like to see a smaller role for government in society - certainly at the national level. Return some of that power to the people and the states.

Ahem... Monarchy, anyone??

Quote
Extremes on the left want socialism and outlawing guns,
I would argue that socialism isn't extremest (except for a extremeist right winger of course), but it certainly isn't for "outlawing" guns, e.g. severely restricting access to them, as most of the world is doing.


Quote
Or how about zoning?  Why shouldn't I be able to run a junk yard or strip club next door to your house?  After all, zoning laws tell me what I can do with my property, which is a big no-no in libertarian thought.   In reality of course, zoning laws defend property rights, because it allows you quiet enjoyment of you property for the purpose for which you bought it.  That's why virtually every place has some form of zoning.  That's because through collective agreement even if in theory you might have to give up something, you actually get more of what you really want in return.   That's rock that sinks a lot of libertarian ships. 

Just ask a libertarian how he builds a 100 mile long road when on every route there is at least one person not willing to sell their land (a realistic scenario).

Quote
I think to myself, is that inequality borne from unequal opportunities (e.g. unequal access to education)? Then that should be frowned upon.
Frowning is nice. But if that situation never changes, all that frowning hurts!

Quote
The irony of this position is that taxation orders liberty.
The real irony is that the government creates money and with that markets (or the other way round, it's a bit of a egg-hen thing) and without the state, there would be no money you have that could be taxed!!

Quote
So mandating low flow toilets means every single person, organization, and entity emerges better off.  Everyone wins.
Fucking socialism!!


Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1341
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Canada
Overall, I feel like I have more control locally, and that's because I actually do.

A good point here and I mostly agree, but how much of this is a psychological artifact and how much of it is actual reality?  I mean, it's much harder to see your individual contributions to large infrastructure but we still need it either way.  More functionally, however, people need to SEE that their taxes are well spent, as a secondary problem from whether they are or not.

To address this issue, I like that we are finding modular, small scale solutions to large, global problems so that we can avoid this moral hazard and facilitate the participation of more libertarian types.  I'm thinking now about Boyan Slat and his Ocean Cleanup program, and river cleanup program, which are now very functional and doing a great job of pulling most of the plastic out of the ocean.

River Cleanup:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6bHhCNj6Fg

That brings me to climate change and large bureaucracy.  The EU is often seen as a libertarian's nightmare; a large amorphous organization that has little proximal relevance to anyone in the EU, really.  So I would hope that our long term problem solving can be managed by the proximal libertarians, and perhaps goals and targets can be set and considered by the larger, more generalized social organizations.  Whatever we do to resolve climate change will likely only work if it's an acceptable individual choice.  I think we can get there.

We have a very large global middle class now, and this allows for more ambitions outside the immediate family.  If enough people in the world can value something like ocean cleanup for their immediate community, we might be able to--fairly easily--reach large scale goals without the large scale implementations.  I like programs like GoFundMe and Patreon for this reason.  More libertarian fundraising will increase general responsibility, which is the needed outcome in a more libertarian society(since centralized authority HAS to be replaced by individual responsibility for libertarian structures to function).

Michael in ABQ

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2626
I work for the government and I see first hand the fraud, waste, and abuse that goes on every single day.

And everyone working for a Megacorp sees the same. No reason here for saying private over state.


But the money Megacorp is wasting was acquired through the sale of goods and/or services, not through taxation. Since most large corporations are publicly traded, there is certainly more incentive to reduce costs and cut fraud, waste, and abuse than in government.

Quote
Quote
If government at all levels hadn't acquired so much power and influence - mainly over the last century - we wouldn't have a whole industry built to co-opt that power for economic advantage. I would like to see a smaller role for government in society - certainly at the national level. Return some of that power to the people and the states.

Ahem... Monarchy, anyone??

How do you go from 10th Amendment to monarchy?

robartsd

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3342
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
I think it is easy to relate to the libertarian philosophy - government should allow everyone the most freedom possible while still providing people protection from harm caused by others. Librarians do not believe the government should CARE FOR people; but that does not mean that the government should be operated in a way that does not CARE ABOUT people. Libertarians recognize that there are other ways to care for people besides having government redistribute of wealth. Rather than lobby for a government intervention where people need caring for, a libertarian might look for a charity that efficiently serves the need. Although I know that plenty of people claiming libertarian-ism are opposed to environmental regulations, I think a stricter view of libertarian philosophy would recognize that damaging the environment for individual gain causes harm to others indirectly and it is government's role to protect people from that harm.

But the money Megacorp is wasting was acquired through the sale of goods and/or services, not through taxation. Since most large corporations are publicly traded, there is certainly more incentive to reduce costs and cut fraud, waste, and abuse than in government.
And more propensity to externalize harm in pursuit of profits.

freya

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 476
I see a lot of namecalling going on here, and not a lot of understanding of the reasons why libertarianism has some reasonable points...

I personally lean Democratic in that I do think society should take care of its most vulnerable members:  the disabled, people with expensive illnesses who couldn't afford the treatments on their own, etc.  Because, bad things can happen to anyone.

Beyond that though, I disagree with about 99% of the Democratic platform.  When the government steps in, you get bucketloads of bureaucracy, huge increases in costs, a near complete block on innovation, and reduced quality of services - at best.

Probably the best example is the combination of agricultural subsidies, mostly to grow monocrop corn (which destroys topsoil, uses an incredible amount of oil and pesticides, and  is used to produce high fructose corn syrup and grain fed beef), and the USDA dietary guidelines (which were based largely on the uninformed opinion of George McGovern's favorite doctor and which has led to the catastrophic rise in metabolic diseases).  The USDA is speaking out both sides of its mouth here, but is spending our money in both directions.  I heard the "myplate" thing, which looks like about a 2 hour graphic design job, cost $2 million to develop.

Another very good example is medical care.  No idea what prices would be if they were determined by the free market, but almost assuredly they would be far lower than they are now.  In fact, I would favor Medicare for all ONLY for specific diagnosis codes that are catastrophic/expensive (cancers, multiple sclerosis, trauma e.g. from a car accident etc).  All the other stuff like routine blood work, ear infections and sore throats and so forth, should be on a cash pay basis.  If you truly can't afford the care, go to a free clinic - I've volunteered at these myself, and more doctors probably would if they weren't so burned out from dealing with insurance and government over-regulation.  Then just watch as costs plummet.

So I guess you could say I'm a "financial libertarian" in that I detest massive inefficiency and unnecessary/counterproductive intrusion of government into private life.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Another very good example is medical care.  No idea what prices would be if they were determined by the free market, but almost assuredly they would be far lower than they are now.

Is there a completely free market medical care system anywhere in the world? Where and how much is a CT scan or MRI?

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Another very good example is medical care.  No idea what prices would be if they were determined by the free market, but almost assuredly they would be far lower than they are now.

Is there a completely free market medical care system anywhere in the world? Where and how much is a CT scan or MRI?

I'd d say the US has the closest thing to a free market medical care system that exists in developed countries. And we have the highest health care costs, too. So I'm not really seeing it...

Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1341
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Canada
Another very good example is medical care.  No idea what prices would be if they were determined by the free market, but almost assuredly they would be far lower than they are now.

Is there a completely free market medical care system anywhere in the world? Where and how much is a CT scan or MRI?
Thailand?  $500ish?  I could be wrong on both points.  Part of that is purchasing power parity, though.

A private MRI in Canada is about $1000CAD.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Another very good example is medical care.  No idea what prices would be if they were determined by the free market, but almost assuredly they would be far lower than they are now.

Is there a completely free market medical care system anywhere in the world? Where and how much is a CT scan or MRI?
Thailand?  $500ish?  I could be wrong on both points.  Part of that is purchasing power parity, though.

A private MRI in Canada is about $1000CAD.

I don't think so. Though there is private insurance and private hospitals, Thailand has universal, single payer, health care.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2019, 01:00:23 PM by bacchi »

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 709
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions they aren't entitled to their own facts. "I'm convinced all libertarians are hypocrites" is an opinion, "all libertarians are hypocrites" is a statement of (unproven) fact.

Once that distinction breaks down the ability to have a useful or interesting discussion about why and how people's opinions differ goes away.

Alright, in that case I imagine I'll be stuck continuing to point out when you are present opinions that just aren't unproven but are effectively unproveable* as facts.

Doesn't sound like much fun for either of us, honestly.

*Every libertarian is a hypocrite is a textbook case of a statement which requires trying to prove a negative.
There are entire philosophies that deal with the concept that we don't, and in fact can't, know anything.  That nothing is provable.

Furthermore, very little is ever stated strictly devoid of opinion and purely as an "accepted" fact.  Are you going to police every comment to ensure it meets the standard of accepted fact?  Or only those comments you disagree with?

I'm fine with my statement.  I consider it fact.  That you do not is of no interest to me.

Lastly, it's a good thing I never stated "every libertarian is a hypocrite" isn't it?  Perhaps, if you are so interested in facts and adherence to only that which can be proved, perhaps try quoting me directly and not put your own personal opinion on what my statement meant.  Good for the goose, good for the gander and all that you know.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 709
That brings me to climate change and large bureaucracy.  The EU is often seen as a libertarian's nightmare; a large amorphous organization that has little proximal relevance to anyone in the EU, really.  So I would hope that our long term problem solving can be managed by the proximal libertarians, and perhaps goals and targets can be set and considered by the larger, more generalized social organizations.  Whatever we do to resolve climate change will likely only work if it's an acceptable individual choice.  I think we can get there.

We have a very large global middle class now, and this allows for more ambitions outside the immediate family.  If enough people in the world can value something like ocean cleanup for their immediate community, we might be able to--fairly easily--reach large scale goals without the large scale implementations.  I like programs like GoFundMe and Patreon for this reason.  More libertarian fundraising will increase general responsibility, which is the needed outcome in a more libertarian society(since centralized authority HAS to be replaced by individual responsibility for libertarian structures to function).
Tragedy of the commons....

Plenty of research and experiments, not to mention history itself, indicate human nature is not so altruistic as you seem to think.  People will almost always seek to overuse a common resource while attempting to under-invest their contribution to the maintenance of that resource.

Libertarians, in my "opinion" see no problem with this situation as the right of the individual trumps all else.

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3681
  • Location: Germany
But the money Megacorp is wasting was acquired through the sale of goods and/or services, not through taxation. Since most large corporations are publicly traded, there is certainly more incentive to reduce costs and cut fraud, waste, and abuse than in government.
The government is responsible to more people than a company. With more possibilities.

Quote
How do you go from 10th Amendment to monarchy?
I didn't go from 10th Amendmend - I would have to look that up anyway, wrong country ;) I was starting from "If government at all levels hadn't acquired so much power and influence - mainly over the last century"
One century ago nearly every country was Monarchy. Not to mention before that.

Quote
Tragedy of the commons....
Tragedy of the untended commons. Which is, by definition, not a commons. Commons, especially those that have protection of a government from free market forces, are not only extremely durable but also very social and effective.

Quote
Librarians do not believe the government should CARE FOR people;
As a bibliophile I strongly protest this mischaracterization of librarians ;)

Quote
When the government steps in, you get bucketloads of bureaucracy, huge increases in costs, a near complete block on innovation, and reduced quality of services - at best.
I am always amazed how unthinkingly people regurgitate this idiology based nonsense.
Are there examples of that? Sure. Are there examples of the opposite? Legion.

Quote
Another very good example is medical care.  No idea what prices would be if they were determined by the free market, but almost assuredly they would be far lower than they are now.
You are speaking of the US? One of the least regulated market?

btw. Medicare for all has been shown in a number of independent studies to safe costs compared to the current status quo.

From all the libertarians that I have "met" they always ignore those facts, too. Like neolibaral economists.

bbates728

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 217
  • Age: 30
  • Location: PNW
I'm fine with my statement.  I consider it fact.  That you do not is of no interest to me.

And this is how we lose intelligent discourse. sigh.

If you don't care about what other people think then why are you in this conversation at all? If you don't care about the authenticity of an argument then why would anyone trust anything you are saying or engage with you at all? How is this a good thing for anyone except your ego?

Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1341
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Canada
Tragedy of the commons....

Plenty of research and experiments, not to mention history itself, indicate human nature is not so altruistic as you seem to think.  People will almost always seek to overuse a common resource while attempting to under-invest their contribution to the maintenance of that resource.

Libertarians, in my "opinion" see no problem with this situation as the right of the individual trumps all else.

Self interest and altruism are not mutually exclusive.  What is selfish for me often overlaps with what is altruistic for my direct family, and to a lesser extent, the greater community.  We all act faithfully as if our intentions are fundamentally noble, otherwise we wouldn't act at all.  This is essentially the territory of Piagetian constructivism, or Aristotelian logos, or indeed, the framework of Judaism and old testament Christianity.

We are group animals but our "selves" are bound inside our minds.  This conflict will never go away(unless we become assimilated into an AI monoconsciousness).

Your position has no actionable outcomes.  If we (almost) always seek to overuse a resource, does it follow that we should not use resources at all?  Why do you assume a third party organization is more altruistic if it is comprised of solely self-interested individuals? 

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 709
And this is how we lose intelligent discourse. sigh.

If you don't care about what other people think then why are you in this conversation at all? If you don't care about the authenticity of an argument then why would anyone trust anything you are saying or engage with you at all? How is this a good thing for anyone except your ego?
I'm not interested in trying to prove to an anonymous internet person what I have said is true.  Experience has taught me that no amount of proof will ever be enough.  I know the authenticity of my argument.  It is based on my experience and knowledge.  I do not care if anyone trusts what I am saying as I know they will only do so if it suits them and I have no control over that.

Why am I in the conversation?  Simply to put my viewpoint out there.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 709
Self interest and altruism are not mutually exclusive.  What is selfish for me often overlaps with what is altruistic for my direct family, and to a lesser extent, the greater community.  We all act faithfully as if our intentions are fundamentally noble, otherwise we wouldn't act at all.  This is essentially the territory of Piagetian constructivism, or Aristotelian logos, or indeed, the framework of Judaism and old testament Christianity.

We are group animals but our "selves" are bound inside our minds.  This conflict will never go away(unless we become assimilated into an AI monoconsciousness).

Your position has no actionable outcomes.  If we (almost) always seek to overuse a resource, does it follow that we should not use resources at all?  Why do you assume a third party organization is more altruistic if it is comprised of solely self-interested individuals?
I never said altruism and self interest are mutually exclusive.

I would argue that history and reproducible experimental data makes a strong case that self interest will trump altruism in virtually all instances that the two do happen to be mutually exclusive though.

No it does not follow that we should not use resources at all since we will almost always seek to overuse a resource.  I don't believe anything I stated even suggested such a thing.

Why do I think a third party is more altruistic?  I never stated that.  However, a third party, made up of self interested individuals may have the capacity to either set limits on what can be used by each individual so as to ensure adequate access for all or to ensure all individuals contribute a "fair" amount to the maintenance of the resources so as to ensure they are not depleted through overuse by any single individual for their own person benefit.

History and research has shown that a single self interested individual is virtually incapable of doing either of those things.  Instead seeking to maximise use of the resource for the own person gain without any consideration for the consequences suffered by those not deemed directly important to the individual in question.

Schaefer Light

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1328
Another very good example is medical care.  No idea what prices would be if they were determined by the free market, but almost assuredly they would be far lower than they are now.

Is there a completely free market medical care system anywhere in the world? Where and how much is a CT scan or MRI?

I'd d say the US has the closest thing to a free market medical care system that exists in developed countries. And we have the highest health care costs, too. So I'm not really seeing it...
In order for market forces to have their normal impact on medical costs, we'd have to eliminate the insurance companies and let consumers pay providers directly.

freya

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 476
In order for market forces to have their normal impact on medical costs, we'd have to eliminate the insurance companies and let consumers pay providers directly.

Yes, exactly.  It's the fact that you have insurers in the mix in adding their own idiosyncrasies to Medicare's documentation and billing requirements that is driving up the costs.  The amount this stuff layers on is easily 3/4 of the total expense.  I could very easily imagine routine MD office visits at $50 for cash pay.  This happens to be the cost for a telemedicine visit which is the one area with a situation that somewhat resembles the free market, because Medicare and insurers won't reimburse for this.  There are MOVIE tickets that cost that much!  Is it really so unimaginable to pay this directly?

Also note, that when insurance reimburses for routine costs, it's no longer really insurance.  Insurance is supposed to be about guarding against rare catastrophic events, like your house burning down.  What medical insurance has become is a weird form of cost sharing.  Just doesn't make sense.  Incidentally, that will also drive costs up, because when stuff costs you nothing, you are more likely to consume it.  Overutilization is a driver of high costs, too.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Yes, exactly.  It's the fact that you have insurers in the mix in adding their own idiosyncrasies to Medicare's documentation and billing requirements that is driving up the costs.  The amount this stuff layers on is easily 3/4 of the total expense.

Easily 3/4? Source?

Total costs in other countries are already 50% of what the US pays. What are they doing differently given that they have even more government control than the US?

Why do we need this free market speculation when we have valid, real world, examples of cost savings already? It's like trying to fit a square policy peg into a round ideological hole.

Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1341
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Canada
Yes, exactly.  It's the fact that you have insurers in the mix in adding their own idiosyncrasies to Medicare's documentation and billing requirements that is driving up the costs.  The amount this stuff layers on is easily 3/4 of the total expense.

Easily 3/4? Source?

Total costs in other countries are already 50% of what the US pays. What are they doing differently given that they have even more government control than the US?

Why do we need this free market speculation when we have valid, real world, examples of cost savings already? It's like trying to fit a square policy peg into a round ideological hole.

Some people are willing to pay more for more medical expenditure. 

CT scans and MRIs are often overutilized in Canada.  How do you decide/force people not to undergo them?  How do you establish the fair price of peace of mind?  I am prepared to pay out of pocket to undergo screening that shows I'm healthy, is the socialist health care system willing to do the same?  Generally no.

Socialist health care forces the square patient into a round triage hole.

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3551
  • Location: Seattle, WA
We have a very large global middle class now, and this allows for more ambitions outside the immediate family.  If enough people in the world can value something like ocean cleanup for their immediate community, we might be able to--fairly easily--reach large scale goals without the large scale implementations.  I like programs like GoFundMe and Patreon for this reason.  More libertarian fundraising will increase general responsibility, which is the needed outcome in a more libertarian society(since centralized authority HAS to be replaced by individual responsibility for libertarian structures to function).

That's true (individual responsibility), but things like that almost never happen.  Even on the local level.  You would think that fire or police departments would be important enough to a community they could be supported simply by volunteer efforts.   But they aren't.  Not even close.  Even home owner associations where you would think that all the home owners have a vested interest to chip in and keep things maintained don't work on a voluntary basis.  They have mandatory fees and penalties for non-payment.  There is no such thing as a laissez faire market place.  They don't exist.   All markets, even illegal markets, have rules for behavior and penalties for non-compliance. 

Another problem is that people tend to default to their own self-interest.  An example is the northeast Atlantic cod fishery, which at one time was the richest fishery in the world.   However, it was known since at least the 1950s that it was being overfished.   You would think the fishing industry would want to dial it back so they could preserve it, but individually fishermen were unwilling to do that.   Ultimately, the fishery collapsed and virtually everyone associated with the industry lost their jobs.  What could have saved them is meddling government regulations that limited catches.  By contrast,  the Bering Sea fishery is one of the richest in the world, and is sustainable managed--a requirement that was written into the Alaska state constitution.   Who has more freedom?  The New England cod fisherman who doesn't have a job but remained free of government regulation, or the Alaska crabber who makes big bucks thanks to government meddling? 

That's why libertarianism isn't a viable political philosophy.  It requires that people behave in a way that people people have never behaved before, or requires things that don't exist to suddenly appear.  We see that in the health care discussion.   There are no first world countries, zero, that use the free market to provide health care.  You can say that if hypothetically a free market system would be better.  But it will only ever be a hypothetical because nobody has made it work in the real world. 

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3681
  • Location: Germany
I am prepared to pay out of pocket to undergo screening that shows I'm healthy, is the socialist health care system willing to do the same?  Generally no.

Socialist health care forces the square patient into a round triage hole.

Bullshit. Even in the most socialist systems you can still hire your own personal doctor (or whole hospital if you want).
What a "socialist" system does is provide sufficient health care for a lower price than the Free Market, with the difference that everyone gets it.
Do some people pay more than they would be under Free Market? Yeah, can happen. Until the first big illness. But you know, when my father had cancer, we paid way less than 1000€ out of our pockets, including the cost to drive him to the radiology. When he had a stroke 2 years later and was in coma for 3 days, we didn't pay a single cent. That is normal in "socialism", and you can very well bugger off with the "you are not millionaire? Then die!" systems.
I happily pay my 14,6% (half employer, half employee) of my work income (though dividends etc. should also contribute to this) for this, even if it saves the father of someone else I am in the virtual reds!!!

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
But the money Megacorp is wasting was acquired through the sale of goods and/or services, not through taxation. Since most large corporations are publicly traded, there is certainly more incentive to reduce costs and cut fraud, waste, and abuse than in government.

I do not agree that ‘Megacorp’ is less prone to fraud, waste and abuse because it is a for-profit and/or publicly traded company.

Private companies exist to make money.  Full stop. Consequentially there will always be an incentive within the private industry for frauds, waste and abuse. This should be self-evident to anyone who’s observed corporate fraud cases, or simply the measures that companies take to police their own work staff. Being publicly traded (and thereby ‘beholden to its shareholders’) is not a solution in and of itself as individuals will still act in their own greedy self interests over that of the shareholders - the supposed ‘owners’ of Megacorp.  And there’s a perverse incentive for Megacorp to leverage their customers, suppliers and competition - morally, legally or not.  Ironically, transparency, accountability and regulation are good measures to fight fraud, waste and abuse - the very things that many libertarians rail against as “onerous governmental legislation’.

Government agencies are not immune to fraud, but they also aren’t set up as profit making entities. Each has a mandate to provide a service, and again each agency is composed of individuals who sometimes act in their own greedy self interests. But the incentive to bilk others isn’t inherent to mission.  Again, the best way to combat fraud, waste and abuse are transparency, accountability and regulation, and for the most part these exist to a much greater extent with government agencies (particularly state agencies) than with private corporations.  An agency’s budget, expenditures, hiring practices and strategic plan are all public knowledge. Frequently it’s upper management are selected democratically by the voters. And there is intense public scrutiny of everything they do. When government agencies are involved in fraud and abuse it tends to be after laws have been weakened to prevent transparency and accountability.

Finally, there’s the employees themselves.  Admittedly there’s a broad spectrum in both the private and public sector, but by-and-large the entry-level positions for both are filled with button-pushers that are there simply for the pay.   At the middle and upper-management levels, however, I notice a sharp divergence.  Whereas higher-level public sector employees tend to genuinely care about their agency’s mission, management for MegaCorp seems predominately motivated by total compensation. They switch companies far more frequently, and their primary motivation for switching is often greater compensation.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2019, 07:33:12 AM by nereo »

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2454

Another problem is that people tend to default to their own self-interest.  An example is the northeast Atlantic cod fishery, which at one time was the richest fishery in the world.   However, it was known since at least the 1950s that it was being overfished.   You would think the fishing industry would want to dial it back so they could preserve it, but individually fishermen were unwilling to do that.   Ultimately, the fishery collapsed and virtually everyone associated with the industry lost their jobs.  What could have saved them is meddling government regulations that limited catches.  By contrast,  the Bering Sea fishery is one of the richest in the world, and is sustainable managed--a requirement that was written into the Alaska state constitution.   Who has more freedom?  The New England cod fisherman who doesn't have a job but remained free of government regulation, or the Alaska crabber who makes big bucks thanks to government meddling? 


The question is why don't we apply the same ideology to reproduction of humans?  We know the world environment is in trouble and yet we let/reward people for having many more kids than is sustainable long term.

gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 448
What if we are libertarian because we can't be bothered? If you consider everyone to be conducting experiments to find out what works and what doesn't work, why should you interrupt them? At the very least they have gathered data to analyze.

freya

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 476
Yes, exactly.  It's the fact that you have insurers in the mix in adding their own idiosyncrasies to Medicare's documentation and billing requirements that is driving up the costs.  The amount this stuff layers on is easily 3/4 of the total expense.

Easily 3/4? Source?

Total costs in other countries are already 50% of what the US pays. What are they doing differently given that they have even more government control than the US?

Socialism costs money.  You tend to like it when it's other people's money rather than your own, but it also appears that the strategy of making costs opaque to the user is highly effective.  Like this quote by Lennstar very telling:

Quote
Until the first big illness. But you know, when my father had cancer, we paid way less than 1000€ out of our pockets, including the cost to drive him to the radiology. When he had a stroke 2 years later and was in coma for 3 days, we didn't pay a single cent. That is normal in "socialism".

So who paid for your father's medical expenses, if you didn't?  You ARE aware that your taxes are how this is paid for, correct?  The question is how much did this actually cost, not what you personally paid for it from one specific pocket.

Anyway back to the original question.  I happen to know something about how medical billing works, and here's just a few of the many line items that office visit fees have to cover:

The cost of outsourced billing:  typically 30% of the original fee charged.
The reduction in fees actually reimbursed by insurance:  this varies but typically about half of the original bill is the most you can expect, especially when you count outright denials.  It also tends to be delayed by several months or comes with demands for additional documentation or "preauthorization", which is an extra hidden cost.  Somebody has to be paid to sit on the phone with an insurance company for the 2-3 hours it takes to get a pre-auth.
The cost of the incredibly complex and time consuming electronic health record, required by the federal government:  hard to quantify on a per visit basis because I couldn't find any summary figures.  We do know that the federal government has spent about $40 billion to push EHR adoption, and the cost of the systems themselves range from hundreds of thousands for an individual practice to hundreds of millions for large medical centers.  Let's call it 10% of visit fees.

We haven't even gotten to the increasingly bloated administrative staff required to cope with the other new regulations passed during the Obama administration, or doctors salaries, or malpractice insurance, or ancillary medical personnel, and we're probably already down to the ballpark of 25%.   Presumably this isn't going to be quite as bad in other countries, but I'll bet their costs are bloated too.  You just can't have top down control like this without increasing costs dramatically.

That's why the most efficient possible method is to go cash only - and there's zero reason not to do this for non-catastrophic, routine costs (another issue with Lennstar's examples...those were hardly the colds and flu stuff I had in mind).  In fact, we already know that a cash system for office visits can work very well.  Telemedicine providers have been exploding, because people are happy to use them for the convenience and pay the $50.  And, it looks like they can make money on that $50, because government hasn't yet stepped in to take control of telemed - YET.  Just wait.

Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1341
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Canada
I am prepared to pay out of pocket to undergo screening that shows I'm healthy, is the socialist health care system willing to do the same?  Generally no.

Socialist health care forces the square patient into a round triage hole.

Bullshit. Even in the most socialist systems you can still hire your own personal doctor (or whole hospital if you want).
What a "socialist" system does is provide sufficient health care for a lower price than the Free Market, with the difference that everyone gets it.
Do some people pay more than they would be under Free Market? Yeah, can happen. Until the first big illness. But you know, when my father had cancer, we paid way less than 1000€ out of our pockets, including the cost to drive him to the radiology. When he had a stroke 2 years later and was in coma for 3 days, we didn't pay a single cent. That is normal in "socialism", and you can very well bugger off with the "you are not millionaire? Then die!" systems.
I happily pay my 14,6% (half employer, half employee) of my work income (though dividends etc. should also contribute to this) for this, even if it saves the father of someone else I am in the virtual reds!!!

Not sure where all the hostility is coming from.  My point was that the socialist system, at least in Canada, is mired with elective procedures like scans that are perhaps valued heavily by the consumer but not by the system.  The administrators of health care see this as waste, and the consumers see this as peace of mind, and neither of them is particularly incorrect.

I will acknowledge that socialist health care is great in many cases, but the lack of price discovery does have consequences, like long wait times.

Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1341
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Canada
Socialism costs money.  You tend to like it when it's other people's money rather than your own, but it also appears that the strategy of making costs opaque to the user is highly effective.  Like this quote by Lennstar very telling:

Quote
Until the first big illness. But you know, when my father had cancer, we paid way less than 1000€ out of our pockets, including the cost to drive him to the radiology. When he had a stroke 2 years later and was in coma for 3 days, we didn't pay a single cent. That is normal in "socialism".

So who paid for your father's medical expenses, if you didn't?  You ARE aware that your taxes are how this is paid for, correct?  The question is how much did this actually cost, not what you personally paid for it from one specific pocket.

An interesting framework emerges here.  Libertarians that are "successful" enjoy the selfishness of a low tax burden, for instance.  And Socialists(roughly) that are "unsuccessful" enjoy the selfishness of receiving more than they paid in.

I'm not saying that's what happened with Lennstar's father, or making any personal statement here, just trying to look at the framework.  Also, "successful" is in quotes since not all those that are "successful/unsuccessful" in this framework are recipients of merit.  Some people inherit wealth, make risky bets and win, and some people get sick or injured through no fault of their own.

I suppose while it's interesting to point out, it leaves us in the same place: some socialist(or authoritarian) policies will be needed, and some libertarian policies will be needed, and the "merit" involved is not a strong argument since "merit" isn't really possible to establish at a large scale.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
If there is an agreed upon problem, then proposing to end a working solution in favor of nothing is unproductive.  It amounts to whining.

Opposing a solution because you feel it causes more problems than the actual problem or a greater risk is not whining. It's an ethical decision.

I wanted to expound a little bit on this, especially in light of people continually harping on libertarians as if everyone who is one is a selfish jerk who just doesn't want to help others.

I have two examples of what I was referring to in regards to a solution being worse than the problem. The first is healthcare. I will likely always trend libertarian, so I would tend to avoid government influence on it. However, due to the issues with our healthcare and the prevalence of positive outcomes for other countries, I'm open to exploring government interventions in healthcare. I started out being a voice against it because I generally don't trust the government and assumed it would run things into the ground - not because I want poor people dying on the streets like most people assume. However, I was willing to change my mind.

Second example - free speech. There was a recent thread where many were arguing for the regulation of speech. First of all, I didn't think it was an extremely libertarian perspective to say the government shouldn't criminalize free speech, but apparently it is... So in that case, people supporting regulating free speech were talking about the issues that have come up with people posting erroneous things on social media, confusion as to what's true or not, etc. In this case, I see and recognize the problem. However, the proposed solution of government regulation is flat out not worth it, IMO. I don't really have a better solution. However, it's a completely legitimate position to be against the proposed solution and still not have a better alternative if you feel the solution's problems are worse than the actual problem.

So there, we have two different issues, both where I had libertarian views. The one I changed on was actually the one that related to money, and the other one, I stand by my position. How does this figure into all the negative stereotypes of libertarians...?

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Yes, exactly.  It's the fact that you have insurers in the mix in adding their own idiosyncrasies to Medicare's documentation and billing requirements that is driving up the costs.  The amount this stuff layers on is easily 3/4 of the total expense.

Easily 3/4? Source?

Total costs in other countries are already 50% of what the US pays. What are they doing differently given that they have even more government control than the US?

Socialism costs money.  You tend to like it when it's other people's money rather than your own, but it also appears that the strategy of making costs opaque to the user is highly effective.  Like this quote by Lennstar very telling:

So your support for "easily 3/4 of the total expense" is "Socialism costs money." Ok, great. Do you have any citations? Even from Cato or Heritage? Anything besides an internet post from a random person defending libertarianism?

The per capita costs for health care in the OECD countries includes taxes. No one is ignoring that.

Quote
That's why the most efficient possible method is to go cash only - and there's zero reason not to do this for non-catastrophic, routine costs (another issue with Lennstar's examples...those were hardly the colds and flu stuff I had in mind).  In fact, we already know that a cash system for office visits can work very well.  Telemedicine providers have been exploding, because people are happy to use them for the convenience and pay the $50.  And, it looks like they can make money on that $50, because government hasn't yet stepped in to take control of telemed - YET.  Just wait.

Yes, cash works fines for most of us for routine visits. It starts to fail quickly, though, when things get more serious.

Even in socialist Netherlands, an artery bypass costs $15k. How many Americans can afford that? Surprisingly little. How about chemo over several months?

What's the libertarian solution? Some vague, nebulous, "private charities will cover that" strategy?


bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
So there, we have two different issues, both where I had libertarian views. The one I changed on was actually the one that related to money, and the other one, I stand by my position. How does this figure into all the negative stereotypes of libertarians...?

Because the libertarians who hold steadfast to their positions, even when those positions are as utopian as Marx's communist paradise, are either more vocal or more numerous.

Michael in ABQ

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2626
Yes, exactly.  It's the fact that you have insurers in the mix in adding their own idiosyncrasies to Medicare's documentation and billing requirements that is driving up the costs.  The amount this stuff layers on is easily 3/4 of the total expense.

Easily 3/4? Source?

Total costs in other countries are already 50% of what the US pays. What are they doing differently given that they have even more government control than the US?

Socialism costs money.  You tend to like it when it's other people's money rather than your own, but it also appears that the strategy of making costs opaque to the user is highly effective.  Like this quote by Lennstar very telling:

So your support for "easily 3/4 of the total expense" is "Socialism costs money." Ok, great. Do you have any citations? Even from Cato or Heritage? Anything besides an internet post from a random person defending libertarianism?

The per capita costs for health care in the OECD countries includes taxes. No one is ignoring that.

Quote
That's why the most efficient possible method is to go cash only - and there's zero reason not to do this for non-catastrophic, routine costs (another issue with Lennstar's examples...those were hardly the colds and flu stuff I had in mind).  In fact, we already know that a cash system for office visits can work very well.  Telemedicine providers have been exploding, because people are happy to use them for the convenience and pay the $50.  And, it looks like they can make money on that $50, because government hasn't yet stepped in to take control of telemed - YET.  Just wait.

Yes, cash works fines for most of us for routine visits. It starts to fail quickly, though, when things get more serious.

Even in socialist Netherlands, an artery bypass costs $15k. How many Americans can afford that? Surprisingly little. How about chemo over several months?

What's the libertarian solution? Some vague, nebulous, "private charities will cover that" strategy?

Insurance. Real insurance, the kind that is rarely utilized and is only for large expenses. It may still run a few hundred dollars per month to be able to cover a six-figure expense for cancer, serious injury, heart attack, etc. But if insurance was only for paying for those big expenses, and wasn't used as a punching bag to justify $5 aspirin in the hospital - perhaps treating cancer would only cost $100,000 instead of $300,000.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Insurance. Real insurance, the kind that is rarely utilized and is only for large expenses. It may still run a few hundred dollars per month to be able to cover a six-figure expense for cancer, serious injury, heart attack, etc. But if insurance was only for paying for those big expenses, and wasn't used as a punching bag to justify $5 aspirin in the hospital - perhaps treating cancer would only cost $100,000 instead of $300,000.

Sure and that's something that the US, or individual states, can and should try.

You do realize that insurance still needs to be regulated, right? There's a reason that we have the non-exclusion law now -- insurance companies were only accepting the healthy and were using their rescission powers fraudulently.

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3681
  • Location: Germany
So who paid for your father's medical expenses, if you didn't?  You ARE aware that your taxes are how this is paid for, correct?  The question is how much did this actually cost, not what you personally paid for it from one specific pocket.
I distincly remember putting in the % just a few lines under.

Yes, in a "socialist" system (really: a solidarian), everyone pays for everyone, being, you know, social instead of egoistic dicks. You don't know how much it costs you until you die. You don't know how much you get out of it until you die.
What you know is that you don't really have to (financially) worry about illnesses, whatever they are.

And btw. in a libertarian lowest-tax society a lot of illnesses that are treatable today would not be, because there is no money to be made with finding a cure to them (because they are too seldom for example) and medical research (or basic research in all fields) is mainly financed by taxes.


Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
So there, we have two different issues, both where I had libertarian views. The one I changed on was actually the one that related to money, and the other one, I stand by my position. How does this figure into all the negative stereotypes of libertarians...?

Because the libertarians who hold steadfast to their positions, even when those positions are as utopian as Marx's communist paradise, are either more vocal or more numerous.

I see what you're saying, but the point of it wasn't to toot my horn compared to other libertarians that I was smart enough to see but they're dumb. It was to say that I legitimately believed the government would drive health care in the ground, and I can still see very legitimate examples and arguments on the libertarian side of things that still make me leery. I was just finally convinced. But nowhere in that thought process was it I hate poor people, or I'm indifferent if they die on the street. It wasn't selfish motivations. It was concern that many more people would be negatively impacted by government healthcare if it happened. Everyone seems to be stereotyping libertarians as selfish sobs. There are rational perspectives where that's simply not the case, and back to the original post, the questioning was how could anyone with any sense believe in libertarian points. This is how.

The other issue that you didn't comment on was the fact that there are numerous non-financial libertarian positions that there's really no way to claim are selfishly or personally financially motivated, like free speech. No one on here that I've seen that's talking about how bad libertarians are has addressed any of these issues (that I've noticed).

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
The way I stated my question presupposes there is nothing reasonable about the libertarian argument. That should not have been how I framed it!!

Let me try to re-state why I tend to get confused about this topic.

I tend to believe that no ideology is ever going to be the be-all-end-all answer to everything.

I had this epiphany moment some years ago in college, when we were being taught "Godel's Incompleteness Theorem" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems) in one of our 2XX math/cs classes. These theorem(s), way simplified, basically state that all axiomatic logical systems are "incomplete". If you stretch the meanings wayyyyyy more beyond any reasonable stand a mathematician would take - it is possible to argue this applies to all "ideologies" as long as they are based on some axioms (e.g. "individual liberty is sacrosanct"), rely on some rules of inferences, and prescribe some real-world stuff based on these.

Indeed, this seem to be borne out in real world. The more "literal"/"extremist"/"fundamentalist" followers a specific ideology/religion/world-view has - the more undesirable real world outcomes it causes.

This is not specific to ANY one ideology, but ALL of them!! It seems to be inherent in anything that has any axioms built in!! Libertarianism has absolutely not been the worst offender on this historically. Certain centralized religions, communism, colonialism ("white man's burden") etc. could all perhaps vie for the top spot if negative impact on humanity is measured by body count.

But in the here and now, libertarians seem to be the biggest threat since it seems to be spawning the most number of such ideologues compared to other competing ideologies at this moment. Examples are aplenty in this thread itself.

To me, my negative perception of an "ideology" is firstly in proportion to the # of zombies it produces, and only secondarily by any critical reading of its content. On this scale, in present day and age, libertarianism wins hands down as one of the worst in the now and here.

-------------
I find it difficult to believe anyone who takes the basic premises of libertarianism too seriously as soon as some level of detail is spelled out beyond just "individual liberty" - since empirical evidence seems to counter them very easily. I am not very familiar with the more nuanced versions of soft-libertarianism (more future reading material for me).

However, there tends to be way too many otherwise reasonable people who are still influenced by the simplistic-easily-falsifiable-extremist versions of libertarianism, and we had a few posts in this thread itself from posters who express opinions like the following:
1. My ideology trumps general welfare in importance.
2. Government provides less value than corporations (despite living in a first world country)
etc. etc.


ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
I have two examples of what I was referring to in regards to a solution being worse than the problem. The first is healthcare. I will likely always trend libertarian, so I would tend to avoid government influence on it. However, due to the issues with our healthcare and the prevalence of positive outcomes for other countries, I'm open to exploring government interventions in healthcare. I started out being a voice against it because I generally don't trust the government and assumed it would run things into the ground - not because I want poor people dying on the streets like most people assume. However, I was willing to change my mind.

In the period where you were "against" government run healthcare, your ideology seems to have overridden plenty of empirical evidence from other OECD countries showing that government run healthcare provides better outcome at less (often half) the cost.

So it was a case of your ideology taking a higher priority over and above the poor peoples welfare, or general welfare. i.e. you may not have actively wanted poor people to die, but did not care if they did as a consequence of you staying ideologically pure.

Do you think that is a defensible position by anyone, in any context?

Presumably you have changed now and discovered that your ideology, whichever one it is, is not more important than a human life. Kudos to you for that. That still does not excuse the libertarian tendency of being willing to sacrifice human life at the alter of their ideologies.

Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1341
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Canada
I have two examples of what I was referring to in regards to a solution being worse than the problem. The first is healthcare. I will likely always trend libertarian, so I would tend to avoid government influence on it. However, due to the issues with our healthcare and the prevalence of positive outcomes for other countries, I'm open to exploring government interventions in healthcare. I started out being a voice against it because I generally don't trust the government and assumed it would run things into the ground - not because I want poor people dying on the streets like most people assume. However, I was willing to change my mind.

In the period where you were "against" government run healthcare, your ideology seems to have overridden plenty of empirical evidence from other OECD countries showing that government run healthcare provides better outcome at less (often half) the cost.

So it was a case of your ideology taking a higher priority over and above the poor peoples welfare, or general welfare. i.e. you may not have actively wanted poor people to die, but did not care if they did as a consequence of you staying ideologically pure.

Do you think that is a defensible position by anyone, in any context?

Presumably you have changed now and discovered that your ideology, whichever one it is, is not more important than a human life. Kudos to you for that. That still does not excuse the libertarian tendency of being willing to sacrifice human life at the alter of their ideologies.

No one wants to be in the middle of the bell curve, even if the mean is higher.  If a libertarian policy results in a greater deviation, then people that can "climb" that deviation have a lot to gain.  Call it a survivor's dilemma. 

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3681
  • Location: Germany
Quote
The other issue that you didn't comment on was the fact that there are numerous non-financial libertarian positions that there's really no way to claim are selfishly or personally financially motivated, like free speech. No one on here that I've seen that's talking about how bad libertarians are has addressed any of these issues (that I've noticed).
1. because that is generally not what they are vocal for - especially when it comes to free speech for "statists" and their hard numbers.
2. because that is really not their unique selling point.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!