Universal Health Care

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no question in my mind that the free market provides better health care than socialism.

[/ QUOTE ]

No need to take the call for ACists to stop being logical to this extreme.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Not that I need to provide an example for my point to hold, but I suspect the government could provide universal blackjack to the masses while maintaining better odds and similar (conceivably lower) overhead than private business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. Presuming that you allow the government to make continual losses, which they always do, regardless of the industry, blackjack or otherwise, and grant it the power to make up those losses through coercion. Since you will be diverting resources that would have voluntarily gone to other goods and services to goods and services that would not have voluntarily been purchased in the absence of the government blackjack monopoly (otherwise there is no need for it), you have forced consumers to take lesser valued (according to them) rather than higher valued goods and services (again, according to them). I.e. you have made everyone poorer. There is no possible sense in which you can claim to be providing a good or service better while making everyone poorer for it. This analysis holds no matter which good or service you'd like to monopolize/subsidize/restrict/etc. the production of.

[ QUOTE ]
It might even be able to avoid a dreaded stagnation in blackjack innovation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because, certainly, monopoly doesn't harm innovation:

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"It seems reasonable to suspect that government might be able to administer some particular industry better than private business due to differences of structure and incentive."

It may seem reasonable... but can you give us an example?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on how you define "better", and that is purely a subjective measure based on personal values. I can say that UK's universal health care is better than the US system (even if free market) if I define "better" as % covered. Of course, many if not most would not consider this the only measure of merit. But measures of merit are ultimately subjective -- there is no absolute moral standard to compare them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be my guest. I choose to normatively, subjectively define "economically better" as "providing a higher standard of living for more people."

"Economically best" I choose to normatively, subjectively define to mean "providing the highest possible standard of living for the largest number of people", and by my definition the free market is easily the best. And it isn't even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Under your definition, I agree.

But I personally wouldn't use "the highest possible standard of living for the largest number of people" as my measure.

And this illustrates my point perfectly well. What one person uses as their subjective definition of "good" will drive their perceptions on what activity is therefore "best". This is the point that both sides in this debate often ignore.

For some, "highest possible standard of living for the most people" (criterion A) is not as important as "as reasonable a standard of living as possible for all" (criterion B). There will be more people covered in B, but maybe not to the same level as in A. It is a subjective value judgment. And the system judged best using criterion B may not be the same system judged best using criterion A.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"It seems reasonable to suspect that government might be able to administer some particular industry better than private business due to differences of structure and incentive."

It may seem reasonable... but can you give us an example?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on how you define "better", and that is purely a subjective measure based on personal values. I can say that UK's universal health care is better than the US system (even if free market) if I define "better" as % covered. Of course, many if not most would not consider this the only measure of merit. But measures of merit are ultimately subjective -- there is no absolute moral standard to compare them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be my guest. I choose to normatively, subjectively define "economically better" as "providing a higher standard of living for more people."

"Economically best" I choose to normatively, subjectively define to mean "providing the highest possible standard of living for the largest number of people", and by my definition the free market is easily the best. And it isn't even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Under your definition, I agree.

But I personally wouldn't use "the highest possible standard of living for the largest number of people" as my measure.

And this illustrates my point perfectly well. What one person uses as their subjective definition of "good" will drive their perceptions on what activity is therefore "best". This is the point that both sides in this debate often ignore.

For some, "highest possible standard of living for the most people" (criterion A) is not as important as "as reasonable a standard of living as possible for all" (criterion B). There will be more people covered in B, but maybe not to the same level as in A. It is a subjective value judgment. And the system judged best using criterion B may not be the same system judged best using criterion A.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem of course, is that the system that you impose trying to force society to reach (B) doesn't actually lead to (B), but rather to (C):"The lowest possible standard of living for the most possible people."

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"It seems reasonable to suspect that government might be able to administer some particular industry better than private business due to differences of structure and incentive."

It may seem reasonable... but can you give us an example?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on how you define "better", and that is purely a subjective measure based on personal values. I can say that UK's universal health care is better than the US system (even if free market) if I define "better" as % covered. Of course, many if not most would not consider this the only measure of merit. But measures of merit are ultimately subjective -- there is no absolute moral standard to compare them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be my guest. I choose to normatively, subjectively define "economically better" as "providing a higher standard of living for more people."

"Economically best" I choose to normatively, subjectively define to mean "providing the highest possible standard of living for the largest number of people", and by my definition the free market is easily the best. And it isn't even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Under your definition, I agree.

But I personally wouldn't use "the highest possible standard of living for the largest number of people" as my measure.

And this illustrates my point perfectly well. What one person uses as their subjective definition of "good" will drive their perceptions on what activity is therefore "best". This is the point that both sides in this debate often ignore.

For some, "highest possible standard of living for the most people" (criterion A) is not as important as "as reasonable a standard of living as possible for all" (criterion B). There will be more people covered in B, but maybe not to the same level as in A. It is a subjective value judgment. And the system judged best using criterion B may not be the same system judged best using criterion A.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. And we may make subjective value judgments about criteria for subjective value judgments. Criterion A seems more "fair" to the libertarian because, when seeking it, it's possible to have a minimum (to AC, nonexistent) amount of coercion. Criterion B, as I've pointed out before is subject to arbitrary definitions of the word "reasonable". In addition, evaluating economic policy according to criterion A allows each individual to make that "reasonable" definition for his or himself; the typical progressive idea is to be allowed to make that definition for someone else. According to my subjective morals, that is wrong.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"It seems reasonable to suspect that government might be able to administer some particular industry better than private business due to differences of structure and incentive."

It may seem reasonable... but can you give us an example?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on how you define "better", and that is purely a subjective measure based on personal values. I can say that UK's universal health care is better than the US system (even if free market) if I define "better" as % covered. Of course, many if not most would not consider this the only measure of merit. But measures of merit are ultimately subjective -- there is no absolute moral standard to compare them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be my guest. I choose to normatively, subjectively define "economically better" as "providing a higher standard of living for more people."

"Economically best" I choose to normatively, subjectively define to mean "providing the highest possible standard of living for the largest number of people", and by my definition the free market is easily the best. And it isn't even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Under your definition, I agree.

But I personally wouldn't use "the highest possible standard of living for the largest number of people" as my measure.

And this illustrates my point perfectly well. What one person uses as their subjective definition of "good" will drive their perceptions on what activity is therefore "best". This is the point that both sides in this debate often ignore.

For some, "highest possible standard of living for the most people" (criterion A) is not as important as "as reasonable a standard of living as possible for all" (criterion B). There will be more people covered in B, but maybe not to the same level as in A. It is a subjective value judgment. And the system judged best using criterion B may not be the same system judged best using criterion A.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem of course, is that the system that you impose trying to force society to reach (B) doesn't actually lead to (B), but rather to (C):"The lowest possible standard of living for the most possible people."

[/ QUOTE ]

I can live with the standard of living of France, UK, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, hell even Canada.

(This assumes states already exist, as they currently do.)

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"It seems reasonable to suspect that government might be able to administer some particular industry better than private business due to differences of structure and incentive."

It may seem reasonable... but can you give us an example?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on how you define "better", and that is purely a subjective measure based on personal values. I can say that UK's universal health care is better than the US system (even if free market) if I define "better" as % covered. Of course, many if not most would not consider this the only measure of merit. But measures of merit are ultimately subjective -- there is no absolute moral standard to compare them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be my guest. I choose to normatively, subjectively define "economically better" as "providing a higher standard of living for more people."

"Economically best" I choose to normatively, subjectively define to mean "providing the highest possible standard of living for the largest number of people", and by my definition the free market is easily the best. And it isn't even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Under your definition, I agree.

But I personally wouldn't use "the highest possible standard of living for the largest number of people" as my measure.

And this illustrates my point perfectly well. What one person uses as their subjective definition of "good" will drive their perceptions on what activity is therefore "best". This is the point that both sides in this debate often ignore.

For some, "highest possible standard of living for the most people" (criterion A) is not as important as "as reasonable a standard of living as possible for all" (criterion B). There will be more people covered in B, but maybe not to the same level as in A. It is a subjective value judgment. And the system judged best using criterion B may not be the same system judged best using criterion A.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. And we may make subjective value judgments about criteria for subjective value judgments. Criterion A seems more "fair" to the libertarian because, when seeking it, it's possible to have a minimum (to AC, nonexistent) amount of coercion. Criterion B, as I've pointed out before is subject to arbitrary definitions of the word "reasonable". In addition, evaluating economic policy according to criterion A allows each individual to make that "reasonable" definition for his or himself; the typical progressive idea is to be allowed to make that definition for someone else. According to my subjective morals, that is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"It seems reasonable to suspect that government might be able to administer some particular industry better than private business due to differences of structure and incentive."

It may seem reasonable... but can you give us an example?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on how you define "better", and that is purely a subjective measure based on personal values. I can say that UK's universal health care is better than the US system (even if free market) if I define "better" as % covered. Of course, many if not most would not consider this the only measure of merit. But measures of merit are ultimately subjective -- there is no absolute moral standard to compare them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be my guest. I choose to normatively, subjectively define "economically better" as "providing a higher standard of living for more people."

"Economically best" I choose to normatively, subjectively define to mean "providing the highest possible standard of living for the largest number of people", and by my definition the free market is easily the best. And it isn't even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Under your definition, I agree.

But I personally wouldn't use "the highest possible standard of living for the largest number of people" as my measure.

And this illustrates my point perfectly well. What one person uses as their subjective definition of "good" will drive their perceptions on what activity is therefore "best". This is the point that both sides in this debate often ignore.

For some, "highest possible standard of living for the most people" (criterion A) is not as important as "as reasonable a standard of living as possible for all" (criterion B). There will be more people covered in B, but maybe not to the same level as in A. It is a subjective value judgment. And the system judged best using criterion B may not be the same system judged best using criterion A.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem of course, is that the system that you impose trying to force society to reach (B) doesn't actually lead to (B), but rather to (C):"The lowest possible standard of living for the most possible people."

[/ QUOTE ]

I can live with the standard of living of France, UK, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, hell even Canada.

(This assumes states already exist, as they currently do.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Alas, time exists.

[Borodog]

From an earlier post:

------------------------------
In this article I am going to explain the Hobbesian rational for the necessity of states, explain the definition of a state, and illustrate the logical consequences of the existence of states. If you have read anything by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, much of this may sound familiar to you.

I take it as axiomatic that, in general, humans act in self-interested ways (even altruistic actions almost always have self-interested motivations; charity makes the charitable feel better, for example). We are told by the devotees of government that without government, it is the nature of humankind to be at each others' throats. That is, if left to their own devices, human beings will not spend enough on their own protection, leaving them vulnerable to aggression, while others will choose to pursue their own self-interest through aggression, thus becoming the aggressors. That the existence of the latter will tend to minimize the former is often ignored (as aggressors incentivize individuals to spend on their own defense), but for now, let us take this scenario to be true. This is the classical Hobbesian "anarchy" of violent chaos.

Hence it is rationalized that an external party, the State, is required to protect individuals from aggression (i.e. from themselves). The State's task, we are told, is to protect the life, liberty, and property of its "citizens." The State settles disputes between parties, defines and enforcers justice, protects the citizens from internal and external aggression, and taxes the citizenry to provide for these services. This is the justification given to the citenzry regardless of the political structure of the State, be it monarchy, democracy, dictatorship, etc.

What then, is the definition of State? As Hoppe tells us, the State (Government), is a territorial monopolist of ultimate decision-making and taxation. That is, the State (through legislation, enforcement, and a judiciary) defines and enforces justice, and tells the citizenry how much they are going to pay for it. This is not a remarkable definition of State or Government; it is widely accepted amongst economists and political theorists.

But . . . who is the State? Is the State made up of some divine race of angels not subject to the human foibles that we are told necessitate its existence in the first place? No. The state is made up of human beings. Since human beings can be counted on to act in self-interested ways, and since the state is the ultimare decision maker, it is easy to see that those self-interested human beings in Government will twist the definition of justice and the level of taxation to their own benefit. Hence, the life, liberty, and property of the governed will be under ever encroaching assault from those supposedly tasked with protecting the same. Eventually then, all states must collapse economically. Since the production of wealth depends on strong property rights (which Government acts to assault), disincentive to produce will eventually reign (why produce something if you are uncertain you will be able to keep the wealth you have earned?), and the economy must implode.

This is exactly the scenario that exists in all States, regardless of their political structure. Western-style democracy must implode in exactly the way that Eastern-block communism imploded over a decade ago. Communism simply imploded first because of the relatively smaller extent of property rights. However, the continuous assault on property rights in the Western Democracies will eventually lead them to the same end.

Are these then the only two alternatives? Violent chaos or the cyclic rise and collapse of parasitic States that destroy life, liberty, property, and economies?

Not at all. Recall at the outset that we said that the existence of aggressors (and surely they will ALWAYS exist) will incentivize individuals to spend on defense. In turn, strong defense acts as a disincentive to aggression. The central Hobbesian tenet that left to their own devices individuals will in general not spend enough on their own defense is simply false. Individuals already spend on the private provision of their security in far more effective ways than the state does. A man with little more to protect than the clothes on his back and the money in his wallet may carry a $20 revolver. A man with a home and family to protect may have a handgun in the house, a Rottweiler, a security system, and his homeowner's insurance policy. A man with much more to protect installs a safe and security cameras. If he has even more to protect, he may build his home in a gated community and hire armed guards. In other words, individuals tend to insure themselves against aggression in proportion to the value they place on their property and the level of threat they perceive. It is precisely when Government convinces people that it is not their responsibility to provide for their own security that violent aggression tends to increase, since of course the State can never have enough resources to take responsibility for all the people they have convinced to behave irresponsibly. This is why all government programs are constantly in a state of "chronic underfunding."

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]

"It seems reasonable to suspect that government might be able to administer some particular industry better than private business due to differences of structure and incentive."

[ QUOTE ]
It may seem reasonable... but can you give us an example?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]


The fire service