"Freedom" thread or something

Epignosis wrote: Gerinski, could you provide a specific example of a right or liberty that needs to be regulated?

Rob, let's focus on healthcare, because that's one area where your free market gods are never going to make things better.   The fact is that if you're in healthcare for business, you're always going to have more leverage than the buyer because the buyer is willing to go bankrupt if their life is at stake.   And the fact that socialized medicine works better for the people than our free market style healthcare is easily proven.   Just look at prices - for example, if you go to Cuba (they have far less resources than we do, and yet are doing quite well with their socialized medicine), you can buy an inhaler for pennies.   In America's greed driven society, it's over $100 for the same inhaler.   But oh noes, any form of regulation from the government in this area would just be immoral and lead to Nazi Germany, right? (That was sarcasm, by the way.)

dtguitarfan wrote: Rob, let's focus on healthcare, because that's one area where your free market gods are never going to make things better.   The fact is that if you're in healthcare for business, you're always going to have more leverage than the buyer because the buyer is willing to go bankrupt if their life is at stake.   And the fact that socialized medicine works better for the people than our free market style healthcare is easily proven.   Just look at prices - for example, if you go to Cuba (they have far less resources than we do, and yet are doing quite well with their socialized medicine), you can buy an inhaler for pennies.   In America's greed driven society, it's over $100 for the same inhaler.   But oh noes, any form of regulation from the government in this area would just be immoral and lead to Nazi Germany, right? (That was sarcasm, by the way.)

So...you're not going to address anything I said in my previous post to you?  Just change the subject? 

I've answered why healthcare (at least in the US) is so expensive and it has little to do with the free market.  Here is one such place.  If you are serious about understanding the high cost of healthcare, I would encourage you to read the article I linked to in that post.

By the way, I don't think the word "fact" means what you think it does. 

But how are you going to enforce libertarian values without a police force?  Or is it advocated that those who cannot afford their private army should be left at the mercy of those who choose not to be abide by the principles that they ought to in theory.  This is the way the govt creeps into our lives.  We desire an orderly, reasonably comfortable life and to be insulated from disaster and crime to a large extent - these desires can only be fulfilled for a price.  The feudal system would appear to have left the have nots at the mercy of the elements and since that has been rejected, people find the idea of a Big Brother to look after them very tempting.   It is an indispensable part of modern life.   

Edited by rogerthat - June 17 2013 at 10:03

My native Spain is in a deep economical crisis since 2008 as some of you may have heard.

Padraic wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Rob, let's focus on healthcare, because that's one area where your free market gods are never going to make things better.   The fact is that if you're in healthcare for business, you're always going to have more leverage than the buyer because the buyer is willing to go bankrupt if their life is at stake.   And the fact that socialized medicine works better for the people than our free market style healthcare is easily proven.   Just look at prices - for example, if you go to Cuba (they have far less resources than we do, and yet are doing quite well with their socialized medicine), you can buy an inhaler for pennies.   In America's greed driven society, it's over $100 for the same inhaler.   But oh noes, any form of regulation from the government in this area would just be immoral and lead to Nazi Germany, right? (That was sarcasm, by the way.) Cuba is perhaps not the best example to use to tout socialized medicine or single payer systems.  Stick with Europe.  Hell, go with Brazil.

I deliberately chose Cuba because it's not the best example.   It's a choice that shows just how sh*tty our situation in America has become.

Rob, no.   I'm not going to answer all your convoluted points.   Here are some reasons why:
1) I am doing this from a mobile phone.
2) You are a proud, stubborn man. I realize no amount of point/ counterpoint will ever change your mind on any issue.   Therefore I have but one rule: if you disagree with a proposal I am making, you MUST give an alternate solution, and give an example of a country where this solution is being used. This is what I am making an effort to do - I am saying that government run healthcare works, and pointing to the many countries where it in fact does, such as Canada, England, France, etc.   If you cannot do the same, I will simply ignore you.   Because arguing with you is simply fruitless and exhausting, and I simply don't have time for it.

In order to be scientific, you must point to systems where your principles are being played out and work.   We're surrounded by economic systems in nature.   The human body is one.   What is it called when a small group of cells start to suck up all the resources of the body?   Cancer.   What does the body do about it?   Send antibodies.   Libertarians   like to call this tyranny, because the body is actually trying to enforce regulations.

dtguitarfan wrote: Padraic wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Rob, let's focus on healthcare, because that's one area where your free market gods are never going to make things better.   The fact is that if you're in healthcare for business, you're always going to have more leverage than the buyer because the buyer is willing to go bankrupt if their life is at stake.   And the fact that socialized medicine works better for the people than our free market style healthcare is easily proven.   Just look at prices - for example, if you go to Cuba (they have far less resources than we do, and yet are doing quite well with their socialized medicine), you can buy an inhaler for pennies.   In America's greed driven society, it's over $100 for the same inhaler.   But oh noes, any form of regulation from the government in this area would just be immoral and lead to Nazi Germany, right? (That was sarcasm, by the way.) Cuba is perhaps not the best example to use to tout socialized medicine or single payer systems.  Stick with Europe.  Hell, go with Brazil. I deliberately chose Cuba because it's not the best example.   It's a choice that shows just how sh*tty our situation in America has become.

dtguitarfan wrote: Padraic wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Rob, let's focus on healthcare, because that's one area where your free market gods are never going to make things better.   The fact is that if you're in healthcare for business, you're always going to have more leverage than the buyer because the buyer is willing to go bankrupt if their life is at stake.   And the fact that socialized medicine works better for the people than our free market style healthcare is easily proven.   Just look at prices - for example, if you go to Cuba (they have far less resources than we do, and yet are doing quite well with their socialized medicine), you can buy an inhaler for pennies.   In America's greed driven society, it's over $100 for the same inhaler.   But oh noes, any form of regulation from the government in this area would just be immoral and lead to Nazi Germany, right? (That was sarcasm, by the way.) Cuba is perhaps not the best example to use to tout socialized medicine or single payer systems.  Stick with Europe.  Hell, go with Brazil. I deliberately chose Cuba because it's not the best example.   It's a choice that shows just how sh*tty our situation in America has become. Rob, no.   I'm not going to answer all your convoluted points.   Here are some reasons why: 1) I am doing this from a mobile phone. 2) You are a proud, stubborn man. I realize no amount of point/ counterpoint will ever change your mind on any issue.   Therefore I have but one rule: if you disagree with a proposal I am making, you MUST give an alternate solution, and give an example of a country where this solution is being used. This is what I am making an effort to do - I am saying that government run healthcare works, and pointing to the many countries where it in fact does, such as Canada, England, France, etc.   If you cannot do the same, I will simply ignore you.   Because arguing with you is simply fruitless and exhausting, and I simply don't have time for it.

If am as stubborn as you claim, then how did I become a Libertarian?  I've only been one for about six years now.  What in the world did I believe prior to that? 

Sorry Geoff, but you don't get to make rules and tell me what I MUST do (such humility on your part!).  I asked you to clarify the word "works."  There are those who would say the healthcare system in Canada, England, France, etc. "don't work."  If we don't know what "works" means in this context, then I don't know what you are asking me to demonstrate. 

dtguitarfan wrote: In order to be scientific, you must point to systems where your principles are being played out and work.   We're surrounded by economic systems in nature.   The human body is one.   What is it called when a small group of cells start to suck up all the resources of the body?   Cancer.   What does the body do about it?   Send antibodies.   Libertarians   like to call this tyranny, because the body is actually trying to enforce regulations.

White blood cells mean Libertarianism is wrong.

All righty then. 

Epignosis wrote: Gerinski wrote: Epignosis wrote:   It is wrong to murder and steal because the former is aggression against one's person and the latter is an aggression against one's property.  These aren't "regulations of liberty" so much as they are violations of a core value. If murdering and stealing were the only evil things men were capable of doing I would be happy to be a libertarian. The real issue is what you consider to be evil.  That's what it comes down to, I suppose.

I don't think it's just that; I don't believe in the goodness of humanity, I think people are fundamentally sinful and that people do many evil things outside the realms of murder and theft.  I just don't think that is is the responsibility of the government to pass legislation dealing with most of the other evil things that people do.  The philandering husband is certainly doing evil to his faithful and longsuffering wife.  But should the government regulate marital unfaithfulness?  The overprotective parents are doing evil to their confined children, just as the libertine parents are doing evil by depriving their children of necessary discipline.  But should government tell us how to raise our kids?  Though these things are evil, it would be a greater evil for government to attempt to interfere.  This is because 1. Government has been proven to be incompetent at dealing with such things, 2. people have a right to govern their own  private lives, 3. government interference throws the door wide open for even greater government interference, which crushes people's liberties.  Our choices always affect others, but in cases of indirect harm to others caused by individual choices, scenarios are far too complex and far too sensitive to be effectively handled by government. 

Similarly, in the case of business, many problems could easily be solved by replacing the many regulations exerted upon businesses by the government with one simple requirement: that businesses be honest about what they are selling to their customers.  The open market would then effectively temper the greedy and exploitative tendencies of businessmen; for although businesses may not have a moral incentive to serve their customers will, they would certainly have an economic incentive to do so.

Epignosis wrote: Thanks much.  I think several critics mistakenly think that Libertarians believe "people can do whatever they want and get away with it."  That's far from the truth.  What you've listed here is mostly a far cry from what we understand to be our inalienable rights.  Libertarians defend "negative rights." If you don't mind, I'll offer a response to each of these to more specifically illustrate my meaning.  The 'liberty' to pollute the environment. Libertarians respect property rights.  Polluting the environment would encroach upon someone's property rights, would it not?  No one is allowed to dump their refuse all over your fields, just as you could not vandalize someone's car.