The Libertarian Viewpoint

[YmirGF]

You need to try a little harder.

Jackytar

As do Libertarians.

 

[Jackytar]

This is the worst debate I've ever been in.

Jackytar

 

[T-Dawg]

This is the worst debate I've ever been in.

For once I agree with a right-winger. Come on guys, at least answer his arguments instead of just putting words in his mouth and saying that there's no point in showing him the light...

 

[Wandered Off]

Where do you get the idea Jackytar is a "right-winger"?

 

[Gunfingers]

Yeah, he's very clearly a "down-winger".

 

[T-Dawg]

In America, "libertarian" usually refers to the libertarian right. Libertarian Left is called "Libertarian Socialist" or "Social Libertarian."

By your definition, we'd all be libertarians O_O.

 

[Gunfingers]

By your definition, we'd all be libertarians O_O.

I think you're finally getting this. Libertarianism does not mean minarchy. That's what i've been trying to explain from the beginning. There are libertarians who believe in some variation of minarchy (you should have seen the retarded video posted on the ALP facebook profile yesterday), but it's not what defines us. It's about rights and freedoms, two things that America's two primary political parties are intent on destroying.

 

[Jackytar]

Herbert Spencer's law of equal freedom:
"Every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the freedom of any other man" (Herbert Spencer stated that this would naturally extend to women as well, a notably progressive position for a man of his time.)

David Boaz (CATO Institute):
Individuals have the right to do whatever they want to, so long as they respect the equal rights of others. The role of government is to protect individual rights from foreign aggessors and from neighbors who murder, rape, rob, assault or defraud us. And if government seeks to do more than that, it will itself be depriving us of our rights and liberties.

This, of course, is the "hard-core" libertarian position. Most libertarians, to include David Boaz and myself, do not self-identify with the extreme position and allow for other government roles such as certain public works on the local level. But for them, and for myself, individual freedom, individual responsibility and free markets (no, not unfettered capitalism) is a guiding principle.

Jackytar

 

[Jackytar]

By your definition, we'd all be libertarians O_O.

Yes everybody agrees with freedom and liberty, except for this situation or that.

Jackytar

 

[T-Dawg]

I think you're finally getting this. Libertarianism does not mean minarchy. That's what i've been trying to explain from the beginning. There are libertarians who believe in some variation of minarchy (you should have seen the retarded video posted on the ALP facebook profile yesterday), but it's not what defines us. It's about rights and freedoms, two things that America's two primary political parties are intent on destroying.

I'm finally getting this? I knew all along that libertarian =/= minarchist O_O. I dunno about everyone else. I happen to be somewhere along the lines of Libertarian Socialist myself. This thread was about the libertarian right, however, and they make no sense, or at least, the views presented by the libertarian in the OP don't, as I explained in the OP.

 

[Gunfingers]

I'm finally getting this? I knew all along that libertarian =/= minarchist O_O. I dunno about everyone else. I happen to be somewhere along the lines of Libertarian Socialist myself. This thread was about the libertarian right, however, and they make no sense, or at least, the views presented by the libertarian in the OP don't, as I explained in the OP.

This thread is about bashing all libertarians by applying the extreme economic opinions of some libertarians to all libertarians. I apologize if i mixed you up with the others.

 

[Jackytar]

I'm finally getting this? I knew all along that libertarian =/= minarchist O_O. I dunno about everyone else. I happen to be somewhere along the lines of Libertarian Socialist myself. This thread was about the libertarian right, however, and they make no sense, or at least, the views presented by the libertarian in the OP don't, as I explained in the OP.

The "libertarian" in the OP did not self-identify with being a libertarian so yes. you are assigning the libertarian label to his political views.

A couple of things strike me about the OP. First of all your relative seems to be regurgitating Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck calls himself a libertarian, and at times he espouses libertarian ideas, but he clearly lacks the philosophical, principled and reasoned foundation that my brand of libertarianism is based on. Ronald Reagan and Bob Barr espoused libertarian ideals but they are both clearly social conservatives, as is Glenn Beck. Ron Paul understands libertarian philosophy, as does John Stossel and Drew Carey. Not very many public figures do, though many claim to. Even on economics they can be most unreasonable. The "less tax = more government revenue" line, for example, was popularized by Reagan using the "Laffer curve" developed by one of his economic advisers, Andrew Laffer. While true in theory, in actuality the US was well below the level of taxation where reducing taxes would spur increased revenue. This has been well established, even by Andrew Laffer himself, yet we still hear this BS from the mouths of economic conservatives, some of them, painfully to me, calling themselves "libertarians".

The second thing that sticks out in the OP is the notion that the individual mandate in health care represents a sinister influence of the insurance industry over our elected officials. Think this through - if we want guaranteed issue (no pre-existing conditions) and community rating (a leveling out of insurance premiums) we must have the individual mandate. Otherwise an individual could forgo paying for health insurance until they needed it, at which time the insurance company would be required by law to issue a policy at a community-adjusted rate. It really boggles my mind that otherwise intelligent liberals don't get this. They have their retinas burned by this perceived benefit for the evil insurance industry.

Jackytar

 

[Reverend Rick]

The "libertarian" in the OP did not self-identify with being a libertarian so yes. you are assigning the libertarian label to his political views.

A couple of things strike me about the OP. First of all your relative seems to be regurgitating Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck calls himself a libertarian, and at times he espouses libertarian ideas, but he clearly lacks the philosophical, principled and reasoned foundation that my brand of libertarianism is based on. Ronald Reagan and Bob Barr espoused libertarian ideals but they are both clearly social conservatives, as is Glenn Beck. Ron Paul understands libertarian philosophy, as does John Stossel and Drew Carey. Not very many public figures do, though many claim to. Even on economics they can be most unreasonable. The "less tax = more government revenue" line, for example, was popularized by Reagan using the "Laffer curve" developed by one of his economic advisers, Andrew Laffer. While true in theory, in actuality the US was well below the level of taxation where reducing taxes would spur increased revenue. This has been well established, even by Andrew Laffer himself, yet we still hear this BS from the mouths of economic conservatives, some of them, painfully to me, calling themselves "libertarians".

The second thing that sticks out in the OP is the notion that the individual mandate in health care represents a sinister influence of the insurance industry over our elected officials. Think this through - if we want guaranteed issue (no pre-existing conditions) and community rating (a leveling out of insurance premiums) we must have the individual mandate. Otherwise an individual could forgo paying for health insurance until they needed it, at which time the insurance company would be required by law to issue a policy at a community-adjusted rate. It really boggles my mind that otherwise intelligent liberals don't get this. They have their retinas burned by this perceived benefit for the evil insurance industry.

Jackytar

You speak with common sense Jackytar. Perhaps instead of having a mandate and fining folks who can't come up with their insurance premiums, (which make no sense at all), why not just have a one time pre-existing condition opportunity that you can accept or reject. I can't see legally requiring a Christian Scientist to enroll for example. I can't see the wisdom of imprisoning a person at a cost of 30,000 a year because they did not send in a couple grand either.

 

[T-Dawg]

You speak with common sense Jackytar. Perhaps instead of having a mandate and fining folks who can't come up with their insurance premiums, (which make no sense at all), why not just have a one time pre-existing condition opportunity that you can accept or reject. I can't see legally requiring a Christian Scientist to enroll for example. I can't see the wisdom of imprisoning a person at a cost of 30,000 a year because they did not send in a couple grand either.

I don't see the wisdom in that either. Are you refering to how Obama mandates that we buy health insurance, pay an extra tax, or go to jail? I don't agree with Obama's bill either (I mean seriously, it sounds like something Bush or Reagan would do O_O).

 

[Jackytar]

You speak with common sense Jackytar. Perhaps instead of having a mandate and fining folks who can't come up with their insurance premiums, (which make no sense at all), why not just have a one time pre-existing condition opportunity that you can accept or reject. I can't see legally requiring a Christian Scientist to enroll for example. I can't see the wisdom of imprisoning a person at a cost of 30,000 a year because they did not send in a couple grand either.

If you can't afford the premium you get tax-payer assistance (that's where the costs of this bill come in). As for your "one shot" deal, it won't work unless we are willing to deny care to people who are suffering.

I've rolled consumer-driven health care models around in my head and keep hitting this same wall. We have to deny care for it to work. There is no free market solution to health care without literally denying care - as in turning people away from hospitals who are suffering. Does anybody want to do that? I suggest you apply for the job if you think this is a reasonable solution.

On the other hand - there can't be a blank check for those who cannot afford gold-plated health insurance and there should not be restrictions on those who can. I see the current bill moving towards this outcome. Affordable health care in the insurance exchange with limited benefits (as in no $50,000 cancer drug regime for a small chance of a few weeks of extra life) and no-holds-barred health care for those who want it and can afford it. I'd be happy with the basic, time-tested stuff.

Edit - there is a free market solution which is to have private charity help the suffering (the libertarian viewpoint).

Jackytar

 

[Reverend Rick]

Myself, I would like to see catastrophic health insurance. We should all have to pay for the small stuff, just not lose your home if you get sick.

Or, perhaps a 5 or 10 grand deductible.

I agree with you though, what if science came up with a bionic body that made it possible to live forever? The cost, 20 million. Should everyone be entitled to one?

I don't want folks turned away for serious medical problems, however I don't want to wait a month to see a doctor because someone is ahead of me with a rash on their butt.

 

[Jackytar]

Myself, I would like to see catastrophic health insurance. We should all have to pay for the small stuff, just not lose your home if you get sick.

Agree. Consumers spending their own money means providers will have a harder sell for this test or that procedure. Individuals would be more cautious. And providers would have to compete on price. An MRI scan in Japan cost one tenth of what it does here. This using American (GE) equipment.

Or, perhaps a 5 or 10 grand deductible.

Catastrophic insurance is high deductible insurance. Same thing. I liked the idea when Bush promoted it, coupled with his Health Savings Accounts. But once again this consumer driven model hits the wall, ultimately. It may work for healthy, working people but those aren't the ones who need it. What are we to do when individuals cannot or do not save for their current health care needs? Turn them away? Most of the dough goes for chronic conditions, like diabetes.

I agree with you though, what if science came up with a bionic body that made it possible to live forever? The cost, 20 million. Should everyone be entitled to one?

Yes. Rationing. Yours is an extreme example but it makes the point. We have to talk rationing - based on need, effectiveness and, to some extent, cost - if we are to achieve universal health care at reasonable cost.

I don't want folks turned away for serious medical problems, however I don't want to wait a month to see a doctor because someone is ahead of me with a rash on their butt.

There is a shortage of primary care physicians in the US. But that person with a rash on their butt, or a serious medical condition, seeks care now in our current system. I don't think you are right that giving everybody insurance will suddenly overwhelm the system and if it does, the market will respond in short order. Nurse practitioners are being minted in large numbers, filling the void left by primary care physicians. They look at things like butt rashes all day.

Jackytar

 

[Magic Man]

Agree. Consumers spending their own money means providers will have a harder sell for this test or that procedure. Individuals would be more cautious. And providers would have to compete on price. An MRI scan in Japan cost one tenth of what it does here. This using American (GE) equipment.

The problem being that medicine is such a technical and complicated field. It's like car repair except ten times worse. If a doctor says someone needs something, 85% of people are going to go with it, if not more. After all, the doctor is the one who went to medical school for 4 years.

Catastrophic insurance is high deductible insurance. Same thing. I liked the idea when Bush promoted it, coupled with his Health Savings Accounts. But once again this consumer driven model hits the wall, ultimately. It may work for healthy, working people but those aren't the ones who need it. What are we to do when individuals cannot or do not save for their current health care needs? Turn them away? Most of the dough goes for chronic conditions, like diabetes.

Agreed. The problem is you're still saving for the possibility of something happening. If my deductible is $6,000, right now, that's more than 2 months salary for me. I don't exactly have that kind of money just sitting around.

Also, your point about chronic conditions is a good one.

 

[Jackytar]

The problem being that medicine is such a technical and complicated field. It's like car repair except ten times worse. If a doctor says someone needs something, 85% of people are going to go with it, if not more. After all, the doctor is the one who went to medical school for 4 years.

An excellent point, mball. And while this reluctance to go against your doctor will always factor in, libertarian economics always has a keen eye to what motivates people. That CT with IV contrast your doctor wants you to have to see of you have a kidney stone is well north of 1000 dollars with the radiologist's fees. If this were your money, as in taking it out of savings, wouldn't you give the cost some thought? Educate yourself on the web. Maybe ask somebody you know and trust in the medical field, perhaps a family member, if it is worth it? Of what benefit it is? How it impacts the outcome? And, on top or that, the only thing you think of now - what the risks are? Maybe even shop around for price?

I was adequately treated for a kidney stone in Canada with a urinalysis and a prescription for codeine. It could have been worse than it was, but if it was we would go from there. I'd opt for that plan today, knowing what I know, even if it didn't cost me a dime to go full court press.

Jackytar

 

[Autodidact]

Low taxes and a laissez-faire government has been tried repeatedly. It fails every time. It produces a tiny, predatory group of rich men on top; a vast, complient, insecure, underpaid, impoverished lower class; and almost no middle class to buy the goods and services the corporatists produce. It is unsustainable. Friedman is just plain wrong.

I used to be a Libertarian. In theory, it sounded good. But Seyorni is right. In practice, it leads to greater poverty, not prosperity. There are countries with very low taxes and few government services. They are NOT wealthy. Meanwhile, the more liberal countries of Western Europe, even those with 50% tax rates, are doing rather well.

So my turn away from Libertarianism is entirely empirical, not doctrinaire.