Am I really a Libertarian? I can't be....

[renodoc]

After some coaxing I agreed to serve as the President of the state Ophthalmology society. This mostly means that I am supposed to raise money and advocate for the profession on the state legislature level. I'm pretty cool with that. But two bills I am supporting have given me pause about how I've pidgeonholed myself as a Libertarian.

The first one has a clause in it that states that if a person does laser surgery on the eyeball that they have to be an ophthalmologist. Sounds pretty straightforward, right? I think so, but the optometrists probably arent too happy about it since their national agenda is to expand their scope of practice by legislative fiat. The pure Libertarian position would be that the government has no business telling people what they can and can't do in matters like this and that they have no power to "protect the public" as this type of legislation purportedly does. In a Libertarian society there would be no medical boards, and I could have someone with a high school education open up a shop next to me advertising that he fixes retinas. In theory, I would succeed in this marketplace because I would have private companies (Like the American Board of Ophthlamology) or the like certify me as knowing what I am doing. I suppose one could then take their chances with Joe Bob's retina palace (which would no doubt charge them less than I would), but this stipulates that the public is educated enough to make the distinction.

The second bill makes it illegal for hospitals to enter into exclusive contracts with insurance companies. One of the hospitals in town (the Big Nasty Hospital or BNH) has some phat exclusive contracts which drive patients into its facilities. The smaller players in town are lobbying to eliminate this practice. I personally don't like the way the BNH does business so I find myself supporting the little guys here. But its very anti-libertarian. The market shouldn't be interfered with by the state, and this bill is just incompatible with pure Libertarian principles.

ok, pvn, tomCollins, borodog- tear me up.

[NeBlis]

your exactly right both of those laws are vile. Sounds like its time for you to stand up for whats right, or be a typical statist and screw people for your own interests

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
After some coaxing I agreed to serve as the President of the state Ophthalmology society. This mostly means that I am supposed to raise money and advocate for the profession on the state legislature level. I'm pretty cool with that. But two bills I am supporting have given me pause about how I've pidgeonholed myself as a Libertarian.

The first one has a clause in it that states that if a person does laser surgery on the eyeball that they have to be an ophthalmologist. Sounds pretty straightforward, right? I think so, but the optometrists probably arent too happy about it since their national agenda is to expand their scope of practice by legislative fiat. The pure Libertarian position would be that the government has no business telling people what they can and can't do in matters like this and that they have no power to "protect the public" as this type of legislation purportedly does. In a Libertarian society there would be no medical boards, and I could have someone with a high school education open up a shop next to me advertising that he fixes retinas. In theory, I would succeed in this marketplace because I would have private companies (Like the American Board of Ophthlamology) or the like certify me as knowing what I am doing. I suppose one could then take their chances with Joe Bob's retina palace (which would no doubt charge them less than I would), but this stipulates that the public is educated enough to make the distinction.

The second bill makes it illegal for hospitals to enter into exclusive contracts with insurance companies. One of the hospitals in town (the Big Nasty Hospital or BNH) has some phat exclusive contracts which drive patients into its facilities. The smaller players in town are lobbying to eliminate this practice. I personally don't like the way the BNH does business so I find myself supporting the little guys here. But its very anti-libertarian. The market shouldn't be interfered with by the state, and this bill is just incompatible with pure Libertarian principles.

ok, pvn, tomCollins, borodog- tear me up.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is truly wonderful. You, sir, have woken up to your moral sense. This is the future of freedom, this is the future of a civilized society.

[TomCollins]

You are in a real fix here. I wouldn't blame you for lobbying for anti-Libertarian bills that supported your position. You aren't supporting them personally, but on behalf of a board. I might be inclined to resign the position, though.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't blame you for lobbying for anti-Libertarian bills that supported your position. You aren't supporting them personally, but on behalf of a board.

[/ QUOTE ]


That's the power of democracy: people think they do not have to take responsibility for their actions. The truth is different, my friend.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't blame you for lobbying for anti-Libertarian bills that supported your position. You aren't supporting them personally, but on behalf of a board.

[/ QUOTE ]


That's the power of democracy: people think they do not have to take responsibility for their actions. The truth is different, my friend.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like how you clipped this part-

[ QUOTE ]
I might be inclined to resign the position, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's playing a corrupt game. For the same reason I don't discount ACists who drive on public roads, go to (OR TEACH AT!) public universities, derive large portions of income from the government, I give renodoc the same benefit of the doubt. Not everyone has to be as much of an extremist as Nielsio.

[Borodog]

I'm the wrong person to ask. I'm a confessed giant hypocrite, sucking at the teat of the state.

As President of the Society do you have the power to lobby your own organization to remove its support from the anti-libertarian portions of the bills? Did your organization write the bills?
That might be the way to go, if possible.

[renodoc]

I'm very conflicted about the laser bill. Since we don't live in a society where the public could make the determination of where to go for the procedure if anyone could do it, (and this is simply based on my first hand knowledge, of being an expert in the field) there are some statist arguments that indeed, "make sense" given the fact that the whole house of cards isnt' coming down tomorrow.

The hospital bill is another matter. The Big Nasty Hospital has used the state to its own ends many times, bolstering its position and setting itself up for the monopoly that it desires. This bill would remove some of that and perhaps make the playing field more level. (and, as stated previously, I have no love for the BNH) If group A has used the state to their advantage, is it necessarily wrong for group B to use the state to remove that advantage?

[kutuz_off]

Were people who coaxed you into accepting the position aware of your libertarian stand? If yes, then you can proceed accordingly. If no, then you might make an argument that they made a decision based on insufficient information, which runs counter to libertarian ideals, and you should resign. On the other hand, you might claim that it's their own responsibility to do research about whom they hire.

PS. I'm not a libertarian and think that they hired you to advance Ophtalmologists' interests, not libertarian ones.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
The first one has a clause in it that states that if a person does laser surgery on the eyeball that they have to be an ophthalmologist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Semantics takes care of this for you. If you do laser surgery on an eyeball then you are an opthamologist.