The Libertarian Delusion...

[Revoltingest]

That's great. I just wish that that type of thing could help the whole country in a stable and global manner. Some people would personally ignore the cold person if he or she were deemed "not as worthy of help" as someone else.

I'm not so virtuous as to help the unworthy.
I judged this guy as worthy.

 

[Revoltingest]

The free market is hardly free. When profit is the motive, people get left behind and/or suffer. Capitalism always needs government oversight, so it doesn't cause a large wealth gap like we have in the US.

That's not how the word "free" is used when preceding "market".
A social safety net would be independent of free markets.
But applying freedom to those receiving government support,
I favor their being able to buy what they want & live where they
want, even if government is footing the bill.

I don't oppose oversight. I just prefer that it be done better,
with more emphasis on liberty & cost effectiveness.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I consider myself a libertarian at heart (if we define libertarianism as the freedom of the individual to operate according to natural rights) but tend towards a more socialist Democratic philosophy in my mind (mostly because of our current technological state, population size, and it appears to be the closest political philosophy we can manage according to what our natural community inclinations seem to be).

 

[Revoltingest]

I consider myself a libertarian at heart (if we define libertarianism as the freedom of the individual to operate according to natural rights) but tend towards a more socialist Democratic philosophy in my mind (mostly because of our current technological state, population size, and it appears to be the closest political philosophy we can manage according to what our natural community inclinations seem to be).

If by the underlined term you mean capitalism with a social
welfare system, that seems the closest to libertarian ideals
possible in a stable country.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

If by the underlined term you mean capitalism with a social
welfare system, that seems the closest to libertarian ideals
possible in a stable country.

Yes, as long as the capitalism is regulated so that businesses don't restrict freedoms--which includes environmental protections. Hard for an individual to enjoy personal liberty while choking on smog and slogging poisonous water.

When I use the term freedom, I am using it to point to the individual being able to operate according to natural rights--fulfilling needs for food, meaning, love, etc.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, as long as the capitalism is regulated so that businesses don't restrict freedoms--which includes environmental protections. Hard for an individual to enjoy personal liberty while choking on smog and slogging poisonous water.

I apply libertarian goals to environmental protection, & find regulation can be
useful. If one pours used motor oil in a storm drain, it gets into someone
else's water supply. Requiring proper disposal protects everyone's rights,
while imposing minimal burden upon those using the oil.

When I use the term freedom, I am using it to point to the individual being able to operate according to natural rights--fulfilling needs for food, meaning, love, etc.

So long as one person isn't forced to provide for another, I'm OK with that.
But note that political reality will involve some compromise, eg, for a country
to be stable, some social safety net (fueled by taxes) appears necessary.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I apply libertarian goals to environmental protection, & find regulation can be
useful. If one pours used motor oil in a storm drain, it gets into someone
else's water supply. Requiring proper disposal protects everyone's rights,
while imposing minimal burden upon those using the oil.

So long as one person isn't forced to provide for another, I'm OK with that.
But note that political reality will involve some compromise, eg, for a country
to be stable, some social safety net (fueled by taxes) appears necessary.

Sounds reasonable to me. Likely, I think we'd disagree on details, but generally, this appears a sensible perspective.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sounds reasonable to me. Likely, I think we'd disagree on details, but generally, this appears a sensible perspective.

The Devil is in the details.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The Devil is in the details.

And he sets off the fireworks.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Those things, not being the means of production, aren't part of socialism.

For not being the means of production, healthcare certainly does produce a ton of goods and services.

 

[Revoltingest]

For not being the means of production, healthcare certainly does produce a ton of goods and services.

Things have certainly changed over the last century or so.
As capabilities increase, more maladies & treatments are discovered,
people become dependent upon them, & they live longer. In ye olden
days, people would've just suffered & died, enduring only a house call
& few leeches. We expect & get more now, & it consumes ever more
resources. The industry dwarfs formerly huge industries. But it still
doesn't fit the definition of "the means of production".
Ref....
Means of production - Wikipedia

 

[metis]

For not being the means of production, healthcare certainly does produce a ton of goods and services.

And there is really no difference economically when it comes to goods and services. Money spent on either circulates and then gets spent again.

IOW, it's all intertwined.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But it still
doesn't fit the definition of "the means of production".
Ref....
Means of production - Wikipedia

Health care does involve it, such "classic" theories and applications are being rendered obsolete by technology. In all reality, we probably arent too far away from the industry and production that defined such things and as we know them are entirely replaced by 3d printers, robots, and a handful of engineers and mechanicss. Healthcare is already an example of this, where we find manufacturing, distribution, information (all things included in the wiki article), it also provides ecomomic value in a more abstract way than strictly produce and consume. It's also unsuitable for market-based economies because we have things like the over prescribing of anti-biotics and anti-depressants. Mitch Daniels said he would make prozac profitable, which is inherently problematic in an environment where you can't normally create demand for your product.

 

[Revoltingest]

Health care does involve it, such "classic" theories and applications are being rendered obsolete by technology. In all reality, we probably arent too far away from the industry and production that defined such things and as we know them are entirely replaced by 3d printers, robots, and a handful of engineers and mechanicss. Healthcare is already an example of this, where we find manufacturing, distribution, information (all things included in the wiki article), it also provides ecomomic value in a more abstract way than strictly produce and consume. It's also unsuitable for market-based economies because we have things like the over prescribing of anti-biotics and anti-depressants. Mitch Daniels said he would make prozac profitable, which is inherently problematic in an environment where you can't normally create demand for your product.

Let's think about how to apply capitalism to health care.
I'll propose one way....not necessarily the best...but one to consider.
- Single payer run by government provides a level of free care to all.
It's paid for by taxes.
- Private alternatives are legal & available to any willing to pay.
- Lawyers are reined in with severe sanctions for meritless suits.
- Machines, ancillary services, drugs, clothing, etc are provided
by businesses who compete for contracts.
- Single payer health care customers have a choice of physician
& facility. So even with single payer, there's competition to be
better than others (lest one see shrinking funding).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Let's think about how to apply capitalism to health care.
I'll propose one way....not necessarily the best...but one to consider.
- Single payer run by government provides a level of free care to all.
It's paid for by taxes.
- Private alternatives are legal & available to any willing to pay.
- Lawyers are reined in with severe sanctions for meritless suits.
- Machines, ancillary services, drugs, clothing, etc are provided
by businesses who compete for contracts.
- Single payer health care customers have a choice of physician
& facility. So even with single payer, there's competition to be
better than others (lest one see shrinking funding).

The problem comes with profit. If people aren't sick or injured, they don't buy medical supplies. And creating demand is highly unethical for such things. Such as over reliance on psychotropic medications or anti-biotics. Our prices get jacked up for profit, another problematic issue of mixing healthcare and capitalism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is a fascinating thread. I have only just started reading it and clearly it requires much care in following the discussion. It is much more interesting than playing pigeon chess with creationists on several science threads I follow.

 

[Revoltingest]

The problem comes with profit. If people aren't sick or injured, they don't buy medical supplies. And creating demand is highly unethical for such things.

Those darned sick & injured people....creating demand!
How unethical of them.

Such as over reliance on psychotropic medications or anti-biotics. Our prices get jacked up for profit, another problematic issue of mixing healthcare and capitalism.

If you have a problem with medication practices,
that is separate from the issue of having single
payer.
Capitalism is what gave us so many medical advances.
I saw it first hand working for Black & Decker in their
short lived Medical Products Division (I designed
orthopedic surgical tools. My sagittal saw was a thing of
beauty. It was superior to other tools on the market
(Both steam & ethylene oxide sterilizable) but half the
price. And it was battery powered, so no assistant was
needed to deal with the old pneumatic hoses for power.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Those darned sick & injured people....creating demand!
How unethical of them.

We can't really look at it like something such as "Microsoft vs Apple." They can have commercials and advertising to create demand. When it comes to health, you can't make people sick. And the advertisements and such there are, they are leading to problems of stuff being over prescribed, and I wager an issue driving the run-away medical costs in America. I even gave a real life example of Mitch Daniels, Eli Lilly, and Prozac of why this is problematic. Prozac can be profitable, and pushing it did just that while also exposing people to unnecessary medical treatments that probably wouldn't help them anyways.

Capitalism is what gave us so many medical advances.

It didn't give us penicillin, x-rays, tooth brushes, it didn't realize the importance of women in reproduction or discover cholesterol, it didn't sketch out the human anatomy in such detail the sketches are used centuries later, it didn't discover things such as willow bark to refine and synthesis nor did it discover bone setting, and capitalist funding is an issue with current and future research into cures for as of now uncurable diseases.

 

[Revoltingest]

We can't really look at it like something such as "Microsoft vs Apple." They can have commercials and advertising to create demand.

The demand is already there.
But they can create excitement over brands new products.

When it comes to health, you can't make people sick. And the advertisements and such there are, they are leading to problems of stuff being over prescribed, and I wager an issue driving the run-away medical costs in America. I even gave a real life example of Mitch Daniels, Eli Lilly, and Prozac of why this is problematic. Prozac can be profitable, and pushing it did just that while also exposing people to unnecessary medical treatments that probably wouldn't help them anyways.

If docs are the gatekeepers to prescriptions for drugs, the solution lies in
the heavy regulation of their profession. Government currently allows
over-prescription of drugs like antibiotics. There's also a training issue,
with docs not practicing in line with epidemiological knowledge of best
practices.

It didn't give us penicillin, x-rays, tooth brushes, it didn't realize the importance of women in reproduction or discover cholesterol, it didn't sketch out the human anatomy in such detail the sketches are used centuries later, it didn't discover things such as willow bark to refine and synthesis nor did it discover bone setting, and capitalist funding is an issue with current and future research into cures for as of now uncurable diseases.

[/QUOTE]
While the free market doesn't give us everything, one cannot
refuse to acknowledge its usefulness. Medical tools would
be backward indeed without capitalism.