Non-Libertarian with some misgivings about this political philosophy (self.Libertarian)

Non-Libertarian with some misgivings about this political philosophy (self.Libertarian) submitted 12 hours ago by nandeEbisu So, I've always wondered how libertarians would approach a lot of intractable issues, and was wondering if I could have some input, who knows, you might even make a libertarian out of me. How would deregulation help with reducing health care costs, where the demand is so high, healthcare is basically inelastic since hospitals can charge what they want and you will try your hardest to come up with the money to save yourself or a loved one. How would deregulation stop deforestation, and pollution? As a chemical engineer I know we're trained to cut corners wherever we can to bring processes to market, which is where the government comes in to constrain what we can and cannot cut so that we don't infringe on the quality of life of the general populace. How would getting rid of the Department of Education help poorer communities / states have access to a decent education for their families and lessen future inequality due to circumstances of birth? Basically, how would we not turn into the EU if we weaken our central government? Things like pollution in one state can trickle into other states that would have no recourse except through pushing federal regulation. I know that a lot of current agencies are dysfunctional, but that doesn't mean they are unnecessary, they might even need to be replaced, but fundamentally it seems like we would need some sort of central body to sort a lot of these issues out. Edit 2 It seems like a lot of you think I'm pro-status quo, I'm not. I know that the current way of doing things is messed up, but I'm not sure if shutting out government is the solution. I think government CAN accomplish things, look at our national highway system (before subsequent administrations neglected to pay to maintain it), it was definitely an achievement by the government, and had a HUGE economic benefit to the united states. I know I don't have the answers, but I'm looking for ones that make sense to me and fit with my beliefs, which is why I'm exploring different political philosophies. Edit: Healthcare: I'm not arguing that the current system is fine as is, but I don't understand how a lay-person can be expected to be educated enough to compare different hospitals on price and ensure that the cheap one is still giving you decent quality healthcare. Insurance, from what some have you have said, should only be for emergencies, not checkups / minor injuries which makes sense to me, I think you could shop around for a decent GP on your own. That being said, I'm not entirely convinced that you wouldn't end up with a giant national insurance conglomerate, squashing competitors due to increased leverage due to more customers. It seems to depend on where you start getting bloated and lose the economy of scale, where this point is I'm not really sure of. Environment: I get that a lot of problems could be solved via civil suits / arbitration to drive up costs of polluting, but that still doesn't help the fact that if I own some land, it may be to my economic advantage to use it as a waste dump, buy a big enough buffer so I don't infringe on my neighbors, and I am profiting at the expense of future generations who will be unable to use this land, or will need to spend a large sum of money to clean it up and they have no recourse against this, they are unable to file a lawsuit against a dead person, why shouldn't the government mandate that you cannot cause a certain amount of damage to important ecological areas? Same argument for deforestation, especially old growth forests, or hunting endangered species, they cannot be replaced by future generations. Also, a lot of natural resources provide public benefits, ie clean drinking water, fishing, clean air, buffers against natural disasters etc so how would such a large group of people suing a polluter be any different from a government agency levying a fine? It would provide for more consistent enforcement, and keep a bunch of repeat cases out of the court system. Education: One of the downsides of a true free market is it ends up causing social stratification, ie a wealthy person can give their child a better education, and better job prospects than a poorer person. Why shouldn't some government funds go into ensuring proper facilities for those who cannot afford them? I'm not saying that we should mandate what is taught, or how it's taught (some charter schools and private schools have been getting great results), just that everyone should have at least a certain minimum (like a computer lab, proper textbooks, teachers get paid a reasonable wage, not saying that everyone's entitled to a smart board in every room or an ipad with the latest and greatest educational software) EU: Brain fart, I concede that I stuck that in there based on my cursory knowledge of modern european politics. 25 comments share save hide report all 25 comments sorted by: best formatting help [–]falldems 1 point 68 milliseconds ago Your core belief that government solves problems more efficiently than corporations in the free market is your problem. Until you let that go you will have trouble. Lack of regulation making usa into EU? The EU is failing and i debt precisely because they regulate and stop commerce. It is a myth that commerce pollutes. Pollution causes lawsuits and hurts customers. Only idiotic corporations do that. There are emotional crutches democrats use to keep you voting hope. Free market brings lower prices for same or better goods even as producers make profit so wealth increaces. permalink edit delete reply [–]Drainedsoul 4 points 12 hours ago As a libertarian who sees posts like this literally 3-4 times a day, I've always wondered how non-libertarians can't use the search feature to find answers to questions that are quite literally asked every day. I don't mean to sound asinine, but do you honestly think that no one else, ever, has had your concerns with libertarianism? How would deregulation help with reducing health care costs Regulations are a restriction on how a company may do business. Therefore, regulations necessarily increase the cost of something since that something requires extra time/effort -- in the form of regulatory compliance -- to produce/provide. Unless that regulation is a price control, in which case the regulation forces providers/producers to provide their service/good at below-market prices, which contracts the supply, and causes shortages. How would deregulation stop deforestation, and pollution? Property rights. How would getting rid of the Department of Education help poorer communities / states have access to a decent education for their families and lessen future inequality due to circumstances of birth? Getting government out of education to any level -- whether partially or completely -- will give people better access to a "decent education". The less government the better. The government does not provide a "decent education", the government uses force to waste 12 years of everyone's life. Basically, how would we not turn into the EU if we weaken our central government? Roflmfao. permalink report reply [–]nandeEbisu[S] 2 points 12 hours ago Unless that regulation is a price control, in which case the regulation forces providers/producers to provide their service/good at below-market prices, which contracts the supply, and causes shortages. Therefore, regulations necessarily increase the cost of something since that something requires extra time/effort -- in the form of regulatory compliance -- to produce/provide. So the forces of the free market don't really apply here since consumers aren't always able to be informed consumers, they can't shop around they're at the mercy of whatever hospital they end up charging. Also, is it ethical to turn away people due to inability to pay? With taxes + government assistance we can prevent that from happening, other healthcare systems are able to do this, and we spend significantly more than them on healthcare. Property Rights Property rights don't seem to help if I own the land I'm polluting, it doesn't protect future generations who are incapable of owning the land that we would be destroying. Education So I agree that current policy isn't working, but how does that lead one to the conclusion that we should just let the chips fall where they may, and how would this help in inner city areas that aren't able to pay for decent schools as it is. permalink parent report reply [–]Drainedsoul 3 points 11 hours ago So the forces of the free market don't really apply here since consumers aren't always able to be informed consumers, they can't shop around they're at the mercy of whatever hospital they end up charging. How do you figure? Just because you don't have the ability to decide what hospital you go to at the time you need to go to the hospital, doesn't mean you can't shop around and work that out beforehand. Also, is it ethical to turn away people due to inability to pay? How isn't it ethical? With taxes + government assistance we can prevent that from happening, other healthcare systems are able to do this, and we spend significantly more than them on healthcare. You're right. Other healthcare systems do it, and they do it through price controls and government takeovers, which results in shortages, wait times, and a drastic reduction in quality. The reason costs are so high in the U.S. in the first place is because of government involvement. Property rights don't seem to help if I own the land I'm polluting They don't need to help in that case. It's your land. it doesn't protect future generations who are incapable of owning the land that we would be destroying. What. how does that lead one to the conclusion that we should just let the chips fall where they may, and how would this help in inner city areas that aren't able to pay for decent schools as it is. They are able to pay for "decent schools", it's just that the money is being funneled to the government which is basically incapable of creating or maintaining "decent" anything. permalink parent report reply [–]nandeEbisu[S] 1 point 11 hours ago Just because you don't have the ability to decide what hospital you go to at the time you need to go to the hospital, doesn't mean you can't shop around and work that out beforehand. In emergencies, an ambulance would end up dropping you at some hospital, and you may not even have a chance to choose where you end up in serious cases. Also, if you are not close to your favored hospital at the time of injury then you're at the mercy of wherever you can find. They don't need to help in that case. It's your land. What I'm trying to say is who will protect land for future generations? If I use my land as a toxic dump, even if I somehow prevent leakage from entering other people property I will end up condemning that land and preventing it from being used by future generations. Same deal with deforestation. Also I could easily end up causing damage that will last generations, even if I pay through my teeth it is possible that this damage just isn't fixable (ie mountain top removal) so why shouldn't it be prevented by the government in the first place and enforced? ...government which is basically incapable of creating or maintaining "decent" anything. So by this argument we should privatize the military, I'm not talking about government running schools, just implementing minimal standards (ie teacher certification, so teachers can move from state to state without hassle) and ensuring proper funding. permalink parent report reply [–]Drainedsoul 2 points 11 hours ago In emergencies, an ambulance would end up dropping you at some hospital Not if they had instructions not to. Also, if you are not close to your favored hospital at the time of injury then you're at the mercy of wherever you can find. This is a good reason to have insurance if you're travelling then. Real insurance (not "insurance" as it's known nowadays) is a hedge against risk. Getting seriously injured while abroad is a risk. Ergo, insurance. What I'm trying to say is who will protect land for future generations? I dunno, who'll protect my keyboard for future generations? The land doesn't belong to future generations, it belongs to me, or you, or whoever else owns it. preventing it from being used by future generations. They could still use it. so why shouldn't it be prevented by the government in the first place and enforced? Because the government doesn't own it? Besides, who's to say objectively that changing the land -- say through mountaintop removal -- makes it worse? That's the problem with laws like what you're proposing, they're based on the subjective idea that there's something there worth preserving. Besides which, if people want to preserve the land, they can buy it up and fund an organization to hold and maintain it so it can't be ruined. So by this argument we should privatize the military Maybe. I'm not talking about government running schools, just implementing minimal standards (ie teacher certification, so teachers can move from state to state without hassle) I wasn't aware that private institutions were incapable of trusting one another's certifications and issuing certifications. I guess I'll chalk this one up to "function the state can perform but no one else can with no real reason therefore". ensuring proper funding. Oh so you are talking about the government running schools! permalink parent report reply [–]nandeEbisu[S] 1 point 10 hours ago It seems like we have some fundamental disagreements, I feel we don't have the right to benefit at the expense of future generations, since that general strategy is short sighted in my opinion, and isn't sustainable. Yes, in the current moment it is more beneficial to a few people to drive down the price of commodities through mountain top removal, but it is a net drain if you look at it from the perspective of 100-200 years instead of 5-6 months. Same issue with the rainforests, they provide hundreds of millions of dollars worth of water purification which affects everyone, but by cutting this off it would benefit the few in a much smaller capacity than it would affect the many, and it's kind of ridiculous to have an entire country sue an individual, how is that any different from the government levying a fine? What is the purpose of government to you, if not to protect those who cannot protect themselves? The wealthy have no need for government if they can afford to hire their own security, ensure a proper food supply etc, so what is the purpose of government if not to protect those without the ability to protect themselves? Oh so you are talking about the government running schools! No, I am just for ensuring that all school can afford textbooks, computers, salaries that will attract reasonably skilled teachers who don't need a second job to live reasonably well so they can focus on teaching students, not mandating what is taught, or ensuring that poorer areas can afford to have smart boards in every room like wealthier schools. If this is running schools to you, then i guess, from your perspective, i am pro-government running schools. by the way, thank you for taking the time to answer these questions it's been pretty enlightening as to the thought process behind a lot of these policies. permalink parent report reply [–]Drainedsoul 2 points 10 hours ago I feel we don't have the right to benefit at the expense of future generations Sure we don't, that's why we don't mortgage future generations to the hilt with sovereign debt. Using land isn't "benefit[ing] at the expense of future generations" though. "[E]xpense" implies that someone had something, and you took it away. If you mortgage future generations to the hilt with sovereign debt, they had time, they had effort, they used that time and effort to acquire money, and then had the money taken away to pay back the debt. If you blow the top off a mountain, future generations never had that mountain, definitely never owned it, and therefore you took nothing from them. what is the purpose of government if not to protect those without the ability to protect themselves? That really depends on whether you accept the legitimacy of government or not. If you're really concerned about "protect[ing]" people, you shouldn't be worried about the people who want to provide cheap goods, you should be worried about the people with guns, handcuffs, jails, and courts. No, I am just for ensuring that all school can afford textbooks, computers, salaries that will attract reasonably skilled teachers who don't need a second job to live reasonably well so they can focus on teaching students As soon as government funds something, it puts stipulations on that funding. As soon as government funds something, that money is taken from the tax base at large and therefore is a charge on everyone. As soon as government does this, schools which exercise freedom in their business models -- moving outside the government-imposed stipulations and thereby forfeiting government funding -- necessarily become more expensive and prohibitive. Therefore, by funding anything, government takes it over. Businesses are more than capable of providing supplies to execute their purpose, and are more than capable of providing competitive salaries to attract appropriately-skilled workers. It's government that's incapable of doing this, because there's no incentive linking government payouts to results, as there is in business. You're running terrified from the profit motive -- which gives consumers control -- to the government-subsidy motive -- which gives bureaucrats control. Who should be in charge of education? The consumers -- i.e. the students and their guardians (if applicable) -- or a bureaucrat? permalink parent report reply [–]hopefullydepressed 3 points 12 hours ago I think you should look into some of the history of healthcare. They've been screwing with it for a 100 years. Here's a simple one. I live in a small community and they have a small health center. Before they got federal funding prices were cheap because they wouldn't get any customers. Once they got federal funding, and if you qualified you got it for free, the ones who could pay their price almost doubled. Now that they had enough demand at full price because of gov, they had no incentive to keep prices low so most could afford it. Now the government looks like the good guy, but the reality is it screwed everyone. permalink report reply [–]nandeEbisu[S] 1 point 12 hours ago* I agree that current policy is horrendous, look at agriculture, healthcare whatever and it's been implemented horrendously, but the free market also assumes that at market equilibrium there will be people whose willingness to pay is less than market price, so they won't be able to get health care at all, couldn't the government step in and provide it for them, either through vouchers or subsidies, basically act like an insurance company and refuse to cover people in a hospital that is overcharging / abusing the system? edit: Just remembered something, if prices got so high, and profits increased so much, wouldn't that incentivize other companies to open their own health centers, increasing competition and driving down prices? It seems like some free market assumptions start breaking down when you look at certain real world examples (that or I'm not viewing them through the correct lens) permalink parent report reply [–]foerthan 2 points 12 hours ago* There are several different "branches" of Libertarianism, so you you're not going to get the same response from everyone here. How would deregulation help with reducing health care costs, where the demand is so high, healthcare is basically inelastic since hospitals can charge what they want and you will try your hardest to come up with the money to save yourself or a loved one. By directly increasing competition by removing barriers to entry. Obviously, some of this barrier is due to high cost of starting, which you can't really do anything about, but much of it is that you cannot sell insurance across state lines. If you live in California, you can't buy an insurance policy from someone in New York. By removing that restriction, the national market for health care would be significantly increased, which should trend to pushing prices down. As it stands, a small number of large firms tend to have strangleholds on areas, and can easily push out any newcomers that intend to compete on price, which would be significantly more difficult on a nation-wide scale. How would deregulation stop deforestation, and pollution? As a chemical engineer I know we're trained to cut corners wherever we can to bring processes to market, which is where the government comes in to constrain what we can and cannot cut so that we don't infringe on the quality of life of the general populace. There is a bit of a split between libertarians regarding the right to actually "own" land and natural resources... someone like Pssvr will generally give you a significantly different answer. For my part, I'd say there wouldn't be anything to stop deforestation, so long as the company has the permission of the land owner to cut. Of course, as trees become more scarce, the market price of lumber would increase, which would in turn push for more replanting. As for pollution, it would be handled via a court system. Anytime a company is causing pollution, it's damaging property it does not/cannot own. For instance, nobody owns the air, or you could say that everyone "communally" owns the air, but obviously no specific... "part", so to speak. Therefore, when a company pollutes the air, it is damaging your property, along with that of tons of other people, and you/others can seek reparations from the company. Obviously they wouldn't be able to get away with this for any significant amount of time before they would be driven bankrupt. How would getting rid of the Department of Education help poorer communities / states have access to a decent education for their families and lessen future inequality due to circumstances of birth? Getting rid of the DoE will not eliminate "free" schooling - the majority of that money already comes from local sources. Things like No-child left behind hurt schools and students by relying on standard testing and pass rates as an indicator of the success of the school, and thus additional funding. Rather than making schools up their game, they instead teach specifically what is covered in these tests (which is nowhere near all the material that needs to be covered), and causes them to balk at holding back students who aren't where they need to be for their grade level. It also limits the teacher's flexibility, which combined with teaching to pass tests rather than actually to teach material, significantly harms children. Do schools need to be accountable? Yes. But the federal government is not the one who should be doing that. It is too far removed from these schools, and test scores/pass rates are nowhere near good indicators of what children have actually learned. That accountability would be best coming from parents, but basically anything local is significantly better that what's currently in place. EDIT: Fixed an improper use of "there". Oops. permalink report reply [–]nandeEbisu[S] 1 point 11 hours ago As it stands, a small number of large firms tend to have strangleholds on areas, and can easily push out any newcomers that intend to compete on price, which would be significantly more difficult on a nation-wide scale. So what's to stop a company from beating out all of the fractured state-wide goliaths and becoming one nationwide goliath, causing the same problem as before? Basically, if it could happen on a state/region level, why couldn't it happen on a national level? The interesting thing about insurance companies is that the larger they are the more leverage they have with hospitals, and the lower they can drive their prices, so it's a catch-22 that keeps smaller companies from springing up and allowing for competition. you/others can seek reparations from the company If you look at something like old-growth forests that have been cleared, if I own the land and the trees what's to stop me from cutting them down and selling the lumber? Or from hunting endangered species on my own land (I know that current endangered species laws are idiotically enforced and screw the little guy in favor of people who can afford the impact studies, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have a policy to deal with this at all, imo). I'm cheating future generations out of these natural habitats and they have no recourse against me. Education I've believed no child left behind is bad policy since it started, and I guess I misunderstood the ultimate purpose of he DoE, but it seems like having a nationwide tax / pool of funds to help out struggling communities is a good thing that would promote education equality, and increase the supply of talented workers, which would be a good thing for the economy as a whole. permalink parent report reply [–]foerthan 2 points 11 hours ago So what's to stop a company from beating out all of the fractured state-wide goliaths and becoming one nationwide goliath, causing the same problem as before? Basically, if it could happen on a state/region level, why couldn't it happen on a national level? The interesting thing about insurance companies is that the larger they are the more leverage they have with hospitals, and the lower they can drive their prices, so it's a catch-22 that keeps smaller companies from springing up and allowing for competition. Because now instead of dealing with a single entity popping up in a local area (and being able to adjust their local - but not national - prices accordingly to drive out the newcomer), it has to do this on a nation-wide scale. If they drive down their prices to force out the newcomer, and then subsequently raise them back up, without any barriers to entry, yet another newcomer can come onto the scene to make a profit. The large firm will again have to lower prices to force it out, etc. All the time this is happening the consumer is benefiting. There's also more to look at than simply prices (since many people will pay some extra to go with a company that has better service or reputation, or things like plans specifically to fill your needs), so pushing out another competitor isn't just as simple as reducing prices. It's largely an issue of market scalability - I might not can gather enough customers on a local level to continue running when the large firm is trying to push me out, but when I have a 50x larger market... In regards to hospitals, they have no real incentive to refuse a certain insurance provider, so long as they are being paid. Why would they? If they refuse to take anything but the "large providers", they are losing a significant amount of business and are at threat of someone stealing that market. If you look at something like old-growth forests that have been cleared, if I own the land and the trees what's to stop me from cutting them down and selling the lumber? Or from hunting endangered species on my own land (I know that current endangered species laws are idiotically enforced and screw the little guy in favor of people who can afford the impact studies, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have a policy to deal with this at all, imo). Nothing is stopping you from doing that. At most, if some group was significantly invested in not having you do it, they could pay you to not cut down the forest, kill the animal, etc, but they could not use force against you to stop it. (Again, a libertarian with different views on property will give you a significantly different answer). I'm cheating future generations out of these natural habitats and they have no recourse against me. "Future generations" do not have a right to anything, or else abortion would be illegal. You cannot form a contract, explicit or implied, with something that does not yet exist. I've believed no child left behind is bad policy since it started, and I guess I misunderstood the ultimate purpose of he DoE, but it seems like having a nationwide tax / pool of funds to help out struggling communities is a good thing that would promote education equality, and increase the supply of talented workers, which would be a good thing for the economy as a whole. Again, almost all of that funding comes from the local level to begin with. People have incentives to contribute to their local schools and often do. Don't forget that things like fund raisers, sports, school events, donations, etc. can all be used to help fund a school that is struggling. permalink parent report reply [–]nandeEbisu[S] 1 point 10 hours ago Larger hospitals can bully smaller insurance companies into either paying more, or not covering their customers for that institution which reduces the quality of their service and loses them customers (this is from talking with people I know who have seen this firsthand working in hospitals). So my major argument with preservation is that the people who are willing to pay the most to prevent you from using up these resources haven't been born yet. I think we have a fundamental disagreement on whether or not things should be run sustainably, and what responsibilities and obligations we have to people that come after us. I also mentioned that a lot of these natural resources provide a public good, ie water purification, that benefits everyone and if everyone sues someone how is that different form levying a fine? If you look at current schools, people living in poorer areas clearly don't have the ability / willingness to pay (willingness to pay in an economic sense) for better schools for their children, so why should their children suffer when this can be remedied through taxation? Depending entirely on altruism in this case clearly isn't working currently, what's to imply it would work without government regulation? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. It's been pretty eye opening for me. permalink parent report reply [–]foerthan 1 point 9 hours ago and what responsibilities and obligations we have to people that come after us. I have an issue with the argument that we do because it's essentially an implied contract to someone who does not exist, which is ridiculously open-ended. I also mentioned that a lot of these natural resources provide a public good, ie water purification, that benefits everyone and if everyone sues someone how is that different form levying a fine? It's essentially not very different from a fine, other than who it is "levying" the fine (in this case consumers/citizens rather than the government). Like fines, it has the same result - regulating businesses. The point is that it can be done without the government stepping in to take care of it. If you look at current schools, people living in poorer areas clearly don't have the ability / willingness to pay (willingness to pay in an economic sense) for better schools for their children, so why should their children suffer when this can be remedied through taxation? Depending entirely on altruism in this case clearly isn't working currently, what's to imply it would work without government regulation? Essentially, there's not. However, you ask "Why should children suffer", yet I ask "Why should someone be forced to give up what they own". I know that sounds exceptionally callous, and while I agree that it is an "injustice" in a sense towards the child, I also feel that forcibly taking money or other resources from someone in order to correct that injustice is wrong. Basically everything libertarians argue is either derived from or an explicit part of the NAP (Non-aggression principle; essentially, the initiation of force against another person is illegitimate - note the qualifier of "initiation", as defense is not in violation of this). This tends to give the impression that libertarians are all about "me me me" and selfishness, but that's not really the case. It's more that we feel you shouldn't attempt to force someone to be altruistic. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. It's been pretty eye opening for me. No problem, but to be honest, I'm not really the best person to be answering your questions :P. Hopefully Pssvr will show up and attempt to answer your questions. He's a geo-libertarian, so his answer should be rather different regarding the land question. You could always attempt to PM him too. If you want an anarcho-capitalist (also known as voluntarism) opinion, you should ask throwaway-0, although I can tell you weren't "satisfied" with my answers (in the sense that they didn't sit well with you), so you probably won't find his answers any more tasteful. I personally am probably somewhere between Minarchism and anarcho-capitalism, mostly because I'm skeptical about the plausibility of the emergence of an ancap society from what we currently have now. Regardless, I'm considerably less well read than either of those two, and many others on this board. I appreciate you not being hostile here though, as many others are :) permalink parent report reply [–]nandeEbisu[S] 1 point 9 hours ago So, less of a philosophical argument, but I think things should be run sustainably, also a lot of the things we take for granted actually provide a HUGE economic benefit for us http://www.ted.com/talks/pavan_sukhdev_what_s_the_price_of_nature.html and if we intentionally start rocking the ecological boat it could cost society a large amount of money to either right it, or suffer the consequences that come with it, and since some of these consequences come to people who don't know it's kind of like that philosophical conundrum where you get a million dollars, but if you accept someone somewhere will die. You could argue that better education and less poverty will reduce crime, and actually benefit everyone, but since it's a public good everyone will benefit regardless of if they pay, so no one pays. I believe that you should be asked (or, in your words, forced) to make sacrifices commensurate to the benefits you receive from government, ie for roads, and security. permalink parent report reply [–]foerthan 1 point 8 hours ago I believe that you should be asked (or, in your words, forced) to make sacrifices commensurate to the benefits you receive from government, ie for roads, and security. And that's where we will fundamentally disagree. Roads can certainly be handled by private entities, as for security a minarchist would say that is a legitimate government function, although ancaps would say it could also be done by private entities. Regardless, it's not "asking" if the penalty for not doing it is jail time - you are threatening someone with force if they do not comply. permalink parent report reply [–]nandeEbisu[S] 1 point 5 hours ago I've never really heard of roads being handled by private entities except for toll roads, so in other words you would need to pay a private entity or you wouldn't be able to drive off of you property? People who cannot afford to would not have access to running water or proper roads, and would essentially live in a 3rd world country? That kind of sounds worse than being forced to pay for civilization if you can afford it and are taking part in it. If you wanted to you could live off of the grid and not have to pay any taxes that way. permalink parent report reply [–]tocano 2 points 11 hours ago Drainedsoul made some good points about the intervention that govt has in health care that causes problems. Let me just also add that emergencies (where choice of healthcare provider is minimal) is a minority of health care. There is little price checking currently on all sorts of medical procedures because health insurance is so prevalent and covers the vast majority of all procedures. Thus, there's little pressure pushing prices down. Insurance companies, as costs increase, simply raise their premiums on the consumer, and the cycle continues. Private property rights being strongly enforced would help curb pollution. Though this would require some changes to how property is treated now and how tort law works currently. And if a person decided to pollute his own property, the value of that property will reduce - assuming people will just massively pollute their own property, which is already unlikely - and reducing their own property value could negatively affect the property value of neighbors, which could make a case that their property value is being damaged by their neighbor's polluting actions. Things like pollution in one state can trickle into other states that would have no recourse except through pushing federal regulation. No, states could use the federal govt as an arbitrator to fix a specific situation/problem. Not to apply regulations for all situations and circumstances. Basically, how would we not turn into the EU if we weaken our central government? You realize that the EU is in trouble now because each individual member ceded authority and sovereignty to create a stronger central govt? You seem like a person with some realization of the problems that current centralization has created. So let me make you this proposal: Work with libertarians to help roll back some of the govt intervention (for example, by electing Ron Paul. Then we'll deal with the question of "who will build the bridges". For example, Ron Paul is for eliminating some of the least useful depts (Education, Commerce, HUD (helped push and create the housing bubble), Interior), would end corporate bailouts, would try to end subsidies and tax loopholes, and would strongly push for a full and transparent audit the Federal Reserve, etc and would push other social issues to the state (where they could be continued as desired), in addition to ending the wars and military intervention and bringing transparency and openness to the executive branch. This wouldn't result in a totally free market or anything. In fact, a great deal about govt wouldn't change at all. However, it would be a step back from the mess we're in now. Help get him elected and then we can start talking about just what should be left to the free market and what should be regulated and controlled by govt. permalink report reply [–]nandeEbisu[S] 1 point 11 hours ago How would one pay for certain emergencies then, such as breaking a bone, or expensive complications, some things just are expensive since they require hours of time from a skilled professional to treat, how do you get around this without insurance spreading risk amongst a group? The funny thing about insurance companies though is that the more customers they have the more leverage they have on hospitals, and the lower they can drive their operating costs, which would allow them to drive out any newcomers. They don't operate on a traditional free market basis. So plenty of corporations would have no problems purchasing land to dump waste in, since it would be much cheaper than properly disposing of it, this just ruins the land for future generations regardless. If you look at fracking, without someone paying for a non-partisan impact study people have no way of definitively tieing pollution back to industry, who would then pay for the study and keep it non-partisan? So, it seemed like some of the EU's problems were that they centralized poorly, ie they had no way to keep greece / italy from bankrupting themselves and holding the EU hostage, they obviously shouldn't have bailed them out, but they were basically damned if they did, damned if they didn't. I very much believe that we need a variety of people in government with differing ideas, since it's highly unlikely that any one political philosophy is the ideal perfect strategy. I know that a lot of our current departments are dysfunctional and need to be overhauled, but I also don't think that we should replace them with a vacuum, since the free market has distinct flaws, even Adam Smith realized that there are situations where the individual profit-maximizing strategy would end up with squandered public goods, and a lower societal well-being, which is where government comes in. permalink parent report reply [–]tocano 2 points 10 hours ago How would one pay for certain emergencies then You're missing the point. The overall cost of healthcare has gone up because of things like regulations, patents, licensing, FDA requirements, as well as almost universal healthcare coverage in which there was little downward pressure on prices. Thus I call this an artificially increased prices. So now that prices have skyrocketed due to govt intervention, and I point out that non-emergency medical procedures could still be subject to price competition, you ask how could one afford to pay the artificially increased prices? You realize that broken bones and surgeries and other complicated procedures were handled with very little insurance prior to govt overtaking the health care industry? The funny thing about insurance companies though is that the more customers they have the more leverage they have on hospitals, and the lower they can drive their operating costs, which would allow them to drive out any newcomers. Except reality challenges that view. Insurance is a growth industry - more companies offering more services - and health care prices have skyrocketed. If the pollution truly is contained within the property, and the company/companies are willing to deal with owning a worthless piece of land, you'll still have public pressure against the practice and against the company. Why does a study to demonstrate the impact of fracking have to be non-partisan? So, it seemed like some of the EU's problems were that they centralized poorly So you're saying if only the EU had MORE authority, then those pesky states couldn't have gotten out of hand? I very much believe that we need a variety of people in government with differing ideas, since it's highly unlikely that any one political philosophy is the ideal perfect strategy Perfect, then a libertarian society where each state/local community can pass the laws it wishes (or not), can test everything from anarcho-capitalism to voluntary communism and we can see how they work out without everyone being latched to the one monolithic state system. And Adam Smith is not the ultimate source on free markets. permalink parent report reply [–]evilmarscapone 2 points 11 hours ago How would deregulation help with reducing health care costs Healthcare in the US is a giant credit bubble. healthcare is basically inelastic since hospitals can charge what they want and you will try your hardest to come up with the money to save yourself or a loved one. Is that true about food and water? Other necessities which are required to live? Food prices as a percent of average income are practically the lowest they've ever been. Plus the majority of healthcare costs do not come from lifesaving procedures but from medicine and preventative care, both of which would have high elasticity in a free market. How would deregulation stop deforestation Property rights and private ownership and pollution Once again, property rights. Look at BP, they had liability caps imposed by the state. Instead of said caps, strict property rights would serve as a much better deterrent. How would getting rid of the Department of Education help poorer communities / states have access to a decent education for their families and lessen future inequality due to circumstances of birth? How has the state made education better? Spending (adjusted for inflation) and regulations have increased dramatically since the 60's and school systems are worse off nationwide. Basically, how would we not turn into the EU if we weaken our central government? Economic freedom leads to prosperity. Things like pollution in one state can trickle into other states that would have no recourse except through pushing federal regulation. Once again, property law. I know that a lot of current agencies are dysfunctional, but that doesn't mean they are unnecessary, they might even need to be replaced, but fundamentally it seems like we would need some sort of central body to sort a lot of these issues out. All government bodies should be done away with, then should plead their case as to why they should exist, and how they can preform their functions without the initiation of force/violence. permalink report reply [–]metamemetics 1 point 10 hours ago* society != government. Because libertarians don't think the government should have a monopoly on farmland and be responsible for producing our food, does not mean we think people should starve. Usually it's the opposite, we know that putting the government in charge of producing all of our food would lead to starvation and shortages down the road. We generally all agree it would be barbaric for the government to take over something as important as food production, so why do we support the government taking over other parts of the economy, when it's just as unconstitutional? Additionally, what is the nature of government? It is an institution which we have chosen to give the monopoly of violence, so that individuals do not have the right to use violence against one another. If you believe in the principle of specialization leads to efficiency gains, why do we wish to give the ONE institution to which we have already given the monopoly of violence, other monopolies which it must be tasked to carry out? And why do we not call for another institution to possess these monopolies, and instead wish them upon the one which already possesses the monopoly of violence? Is it because these additional roles it must fulfill, that we do not perform ourselves, are dependent upon the ability to threaten violence? permalink report reply [–]nandeEbisu[S] 1 point 9 hours ago I agree that food production is something that SHOULD be subjected to market forces, let farmers have private insurance or something to handle draught years or blight, and do away with protectionist tariffs and subsidies, but not every sector should be subjected to this. Healthcare is something that's very non-predicatable and can have serious detriment to society if it's mismanaged. I tend to agree that the government that governs least governs best, but I still think that there are certain things that government needs to do, as in make sure people who are not being cared for by the private healthcare sector get treatment, though this seems like a philosophical difference, since I believe that we all should be responsible for making sure that everyone at least has a certain minimum access to healthcare, which would not happen in a free market, there would always be the stragglers at the bottom. How this is to be accomplished is another question though. Gotta say, that first sentence in the last paragraph brought my back to my high school comparative politics class! So, in order for these institutions to act in the best interest of society they need to be non-biased, and the easiest way to sway an organization is through funding, if the funding is not done impartially by both parties then you might as well not have the institution. The only way, that I know of at least, for this to be done is through taxes or something similar. If you don't want to call that institution government, fine by me, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... permalink parent report reply [–]jp007 2 points 10 hours ago I don't understand how a lay-person can be expected to be educated enough to _____ We shouldn't abolish slavery because those slaves are just too darn stupid to take care of themselves without the benevolent wisdom of their masters. permalink report reply [–]nandeEbisu[S] 1 point 9 hours ago It's just not reasonable to expect someone to, for instance, look at every toy in the toy aisle and know whether they are safe or not for their child they would need to look into many different processes and be knowledgeable about many different subjects, like material stresses and physiology to properly judge whether something is safe or not, and that's IF the companies are required to disclose what is in each of their toys. This is where the government really shines in my opinion, providing public non-biased (if done properly) expertise to give the general public useful understandable information. (If you don't trust the government, you can always finance a suite of tests yourself, but that's pretty damn expensive, especially when the information has a very minimal marginal cost to disseminate) permalink parent report reply