Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question

[jackdaniels]

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone please lay out the libertarian stance on government in like a paragraph or two?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't lay out the Libertarian stance specifically, but I can tell you what a morally just stance is.

Essentially, society is comprised of individuals who gain much by cooperating. In order to allow for this cooperation, individuals must be free to make decisions for themselves based on whatever they think is best without the use of force to influence them one way or another. These individuals are free to trade with one another using persuasion, to the benefit of both parties. Individuals who have grouped together form governments to ensure that they can trade with each other without the threat of force by others. These governments have 3 basic responsibilities:

1. Police - to stop rogue elements in society (and every society has them)

2. Military - to stop foreign invaders.

3. A court system - to settle honest disputes amongst me.

The government shouldn't be in the business of doing ANYTHING else.

Now, without taxes, how does one pay for these things? One suggestion is a lottery, another, better suggestion is to institute a 1% tax on all financial transactions. This tax would be voluntary and would ensure that those who paid it would receive the benefits of gov't protection from crooks (police), foreign enemies (military) and would hear the case in case a dispute was brought forward by the parties who were part of the original transaction.

[suzzer99]

jack, can please address my questions wrt how things are actually going to play out in real life? Do you honestly believe this country would be a better place w/o guaranteed emergency room care, emissions standards, wheelchair ramps, civil rights laws, anti-trust laws, auto-safety regulations, the interstate highway system, endangered species laws, etc. etc. etc.?

My fundamental problem with libertarianism is this all-or-nothing attitude. I have no problem with the idea that *some* or even *a lot* of government spending is complete waste. But to say that *all* of the laws enacted to help sick/poor people, keep a level playing field for business, or protect the environment are completely unecsessary makes no sense. To be honest it seems to me like libertarianism attracts people who want things to be black and white in life, and can't handle compromise or grey areas.

Watch Gangs of NY. NYC used to be a lot more like the system you describe. Firefighters were paid by the job. So they used to go to war over who put out the fire, and let the house burn to the ground sometimes. Then the poor rioted and started sacking homes uptown. It finally dawned on the people with some money that they might be better off at least making sure the lowest rung of society had *some* level of basic services to keep the situation from total chaos. Sort of like how even George Bush gets that we have to do something about aids in Africa. Or *we* will be dealing with the fallout for 100 years to come.

No system is perfect. But at least from this perspective at this point in time, the western brand of socio-capitalism seems about the best solution. Your answer sounds more like Somalia.

[jackdaniels]

I don't think what I am advocating is possible without a lot of education. This is definitely not an overnight sort fo solution. The reason I bring it up is because it is the right thing to do and I would rather start taking baby steps in the right direction than just throw my hands up in the air and say it is impossible to do EVERYTHING right tomorrow, so we may as well continue to legislate immoral law.

I understand your fundamental problem and it is one many people have - the all or nothing issue. Lets break it down to components.

First, what are rights? Rights are moral principles defining a mans freedom of action in a social context.

1. The most fundamental right we all have is the right to life, from which all other rights stem (liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness).
2. This right is inalienable, it cannot be given to you or taken away from you (a man may take away your life but your right to it has not been alienated).
3. In order to excersize our right to life we require only one thing from our fellow man - freedom of action.

Do our actions always guarantee success? No, they don't. We will sometimes make good decisions and sometimes make bad ones - but it is our own decision to make.

Now, since we have the right to life, we have the right to defend our lives. If someone attacks us, we can strike back in self defense. Teh attacker in this instance is the one who is morally wrong, not the defender. As a society, we have extended that very right of self defense to our government. Once we give our government the authority to levy taxes and back up their "request" by the threat of the use of force, we have now become the agressor, the thief who initiates force against others - who shoudl rightly defend themselves against this attack.

So you see, from a moral perspective, we have no aothority to allow our government to levy taxes in order to build roads, create social programs, guarantee emergency care or any other thing they do. Futhermore, to think that no private entity would arise that would fill these needs, in a much better way than gov't reminds of the panic that set in when the soviet union collapsed (who will supply shoes/bread/cars etc... now that the gov't is gone???).

I watched Gangs of NY and I remember the scene you describe. I also remember that corruption was rampant during that era due to "fake" capitalism, the kind that gets produced when private companies are allowed to operate but require a license/permit/authorization from some politician. I also remember how corrrupt those politicians were. In a free society, where anyone is able to set up shop, businesses would be judged on their merits, and cosumer opinion rather than be cloaked in the authoritative green light of a beaurocrat who is often incompetent, sometimes criminal and always out of his element.

Hope this answered some of your questions. I wish I was a better writer nad could brings these important points across in an easier to read/understand way. The best thing I can suggest is that you read the FAQ/do the visual tour here: http://capitalism.org/ It is quick, to the point and very clear.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
jack, can please address my questions wrt how things are actually going to play out in real life? Do you honestly believe this country would be a better place w/o guaranteed emergency room care, emissions standards, wheelchair ramps, civil rights laws, anti-trust laws, auto-safety regulations, the interstate highway system, endangered species laws, etc. etc. etc.?

My fundamental problem with libertarianism is this all-or-nothing attitude. I have no problem with the idea that *some* or even *a lot* of government spending is complete waste. But to say that *all* of the laws enacted to help sick/poor people, keep a level playing field for business, or protect the environment are completely unecsessary makes no sense. To be honest it seems to me like libertarianism attracts people who want things to be black and white in life, and can't handle compromise or grey areas.

Watch Gangs of NY. NYC used to be a lot more like the system you describe. Firefighters were paid by the job. So they used to go to war over who put out the fire, and let the house burn to the ground sometimes. Then the poor rioted and started sacking homes uptown. It finally dawned on the people with some money that they might be better off at least making sure the lowest rung of society had *some* level of basic services to keep the situation from total chaos. Sort of like how even George Bush gets that we have to do something about aids in Africa. Or *we* will be dealing with the fallout for 100 years to come.

No system is perfect. But at least from this perspective at this point in time, the western brand of socio-capitalism seems about the best solution. Your answer sounds more like Somalia.

[/ QUOTE ]

I absolutely agree with this.

However, I think the economics of this should work from the bottom up. Most of the finanacing comes from the community who receives the services, with little to no money coming from the federel government.

No reason that people in California need to be paying for services enjoyed in West Virginia.

[jackdaniels]

[ QUOTE ]
No reason that people in California need to be paying for services enjoyed in West Virginia.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. So let's extend this a bit. Should people in LA pay for services in SF? How about people in the Hollywood area, should they pay for those in the Encino area? How far should we go? I stipulate that we go down to the smallest possible unit - the individual. Let each individual pay for what they want to use and be done with it.

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, if you're middle or upper middle class what is the play in the event of some insanely expensive long term illness, which doesnt kill you immediately, but requires hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care in the interim.

[/ QUOTE ]

My wife had breast cancer. Well over $100k in bills. All covered under my employer's plan.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Basically, if you're middle or upper middle class what is the play in the event of some insanely expensive long term illness, which doesnt kill you immediately, but requires hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care in the interim.

[/ QUOTE ]

My wife had breast cancer. Well over $100k in bills. All covered under my employer's plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

"158 million Americans get (Health Care) through their employers, that have either no caps or caps set at $1 million or more." -StateHealthFacts.org

[John Spartan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Basically, if you're middle or upper middle class what is the play in the event of some insanely expensive long term illness, which doesnt kill you immediately, but requires hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care in the interim.

[/ QUOTE ]

My wife had breast cancer. Well over $100k in bills. All covered under my employer's plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

"158 million Americans get (Health Care) through their employers, that have either no caps or caps set at $1 million or more." -StateHealthFacts.org

[/ QUOTE ]

That's great. What about the other 142 million?

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Basically, if you're middle or upper middle class what is the play in the event of some insanely expensive long term illness, which doesnt kill you immediately, but requires hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care in the interim.

[/ QUOTE ]

My wife had breast cancer. Well over $100k in bills. All covered under my employer's plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

"158 million Americans get (Health Care) through their employers, that have either no caps or caps set at $1 million or more." -StateHealthFacts.org

[/ QUOTE ]

That's great. What about the other 142 million?

[/ QUOTE ]

Covered by employer plans with less than a $1M cap?

Medicare

Medicaid

College sponsored Health Care for Students

Free Clinics

Charity sponsored Health Care

Their are PLENTY of opportunities for people to receive health care. "40Million people" are just too lazy or stupid or worried about their next fix. (~35Million Americans are addicted to drugs/alcohol)

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
"40Million people" are just too lazy or stupid or worried about their next fix.

[/ QUOTE ]
What are you basing this on? Don't me wrong, as I typically have complete confidence in unsourced and vague allegations. It's just that there's this crazy special interest group called the United States Census Bureau that claims that of the 45 million uninsured Americans it counted in 2003, 8.4 million were children, and of the 36 million adults age 18-64 who were uninsured, 21 million (about 57%) worked full-time jobs. Another 6 million worked part-time jobs, leaving 9.7 million who didn't work at all.

Could you please provide the source of your detailed analysis so I can set these reality-based whackos at the Census Bureau straight?