America's Death By A Thousand Cuts

Libertarians don't usually promise equal access and equal opportunity for everyone. To do so would be dishonest in my opinion. Most libertarians, myself included, simply realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE to provide equal access and equal opportunities for everyone, regardless of what form of government one uses. Libertarianism would provide MORE equal opportunity than, say, our current government does, because everyone would (theoretically) have equality under the law...which I think we CAN provide. Also, corporate welfare would be eliminated under a libertarian form of government.

Wealth disparity doesn't necessarily imply less opportunity. The United States has more social mobility than many European nations, even while having more wealth disparity.

I actually agree with you here...but I think our public education system is in need of a complete overhaul. For one thing, I think the federal government needs to be completely removed from the picture. Schools should primarily be run by the local governments, with some advice and consent from the state.

Eventually it might be a good idea to phase out public education, but I'd be reluctant to experiment with this at a point in time when America is already falling behind other nations in education.

Theoretically, you could start off with public schools operating something like state-colleges do. They could be partially taxpayer funded, and partially tuition funded, with the possibility of government loans to cover expenses. You could gradually change these proportions over time until students or parents were paying for their education themselves.

At least, that's the theory. Like I said, now isn't the time to experiment.

That's true, but socialized health care brings a whole slew of problems that are even worse in my opinion; inefficiency so that EVERYONE gets bad health care, a lack of medical and technological innovation in the field, inflated prices of drugs and services, and a reliance on the government.

 

Two things.

1. Can we please move away from the idea that libertarianism necessarily says there should be no public services. It doesn't.

2. Can we please get away from the idea that there is only one dimension to the debate - universal health care and education or no universal health care and education.

In practice what most libertarians are pushing for is maintaining universal education and health care but adding market elements to make them more efficient.

For example, universal health care doesn't mean universal health care provided by a giant state sector monopoly, e.g. the NHS which is the world's third largest organization, after the Chinese Peoples' Liberation Army and Indian State Railways.

Neither does universal education mean that education must be supplied by a state monopoly.

Rich people use private education and health care, and benefit from its market induced efficiency. Libertarians think people of all income should have discretion in their choice of health care and educational providers. Its called freedom of choice and empowering the individual, and it is vehemently opposed by socialists for whom bringing the top down is just as important, and of course much easier, than bringing the bottom up.

 

Hi Kan

Most libertarians, myself included, simply realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE to provide equal access and equal opportunities for everyone, regardless of what form of government one uses.

Libertarianism would provide MORE equal opportunity than, say, our current government does, because everyone would (theoretically) have equality under the law...which I think we CAN provide.


I’m sorry but I’m not catching your drift, I thought that theoretically the citizens of the US already have the same rights in relation to the law?
I also am unclear why that would equate to increased equal opportunity when you do not seem to dispute my opinion that libertarian policies would increase the power of the already wealthy powerful and influential while limiting the opportunities open to those without such resources?

**

Also, corporate welfare would be eliminated under a libertarian form of government.

Wealth in a capitalistic system brings the power to gain influence. Corporate welfare is just a symptom of wealth buying influence and power through such things as lobbying, soft and hard campaign funding, direct and indirect marketing of political issues, and even covert and overt bribery.

As I’ve pointed out a libertarian system would dramatically increase the wealth and power of such corporations while having no mechanisms to curtail the increase in their influence.

I fear that libertarians would replace a corporate welfare system with a corporately controlled system and nothing you have said so far has disabused me of that belief.



**


Wealth disparity doesn't necessarily imply less opportunity. The United States has more social mobility than many European nations, even while having more wealth disparity.

Sorry but can you tell me what you base this on?

**

You could gradually change these proportions over time until students or parents were paying for their education themselves.


Sorry but I still don’t believe what you have said addresses the concerns I have raised over this form of educational system, it would still mean a disparity of education based on wealth, and the likelihood of the a ‘poverty trap’.

(If you wish for me to explain my views again I will)

**

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus

Think about it. Health care under a libertarian system works in the same way as education, there would be no state provision. It would be the ability of the person to pay that would dictate the level of healthcare a person would receive.



That's true, but socialized health care brings a whole slew of problems that are even worse in my opinion; inefficiency so that EVERYONE gets bad health care, a lack of medical and technological innovation in the field, inflated prices of drugs and services, and a reliance on the government.

________________



It depends on your idea of what ‘socialised’ healthcare is. There are many models from a complete public funded structure without any alternative to many degrees of public and private mixed systems.


inefficiency so that EVERYONE gets bad health care

This is up to the electorate that owns the healthcare under a public funded, the NHS is always a major political issue in the UK, it has it’s problems but few in Britain would want it gone.

a lack of medical and technological innovation in the field

I’m unsure what you mean by this? If anything this is a matter of education and research and the UK again has its problems but is well respected. It also has to be said that the NHS covers a lot of things but there is a thriving private health industry here.

inflated prices of drugs and services

The UK government as the largest healthcare provider forced the drug companies to sell them cheaper drugs rather than brand name products, as far as I know that didn’t happen in the more privatised US were US firm are I believe trying to stop cheap Canadian imports.

In an unregulated privatised healthcare system the ones running the healthcare industry (or the major shareholders of them) would be the big pharmaceutical and healthcare manufactures. Do you think they will them push to sell inflated brand names or the less profitable type?




**

 

What’s your point Point?

We can have universal health care provided by the state

We can have universal health care provided by corporations

We can have universal health care provided by a mixture of public and private institutions

We can have universal health care provided by Mrs Maria Patel of 26 Acacia Avenue, Chipping Sudbury.

So what is your point that there are many possibilities?

Well I think people have worked that one out for themselves.

Isn’t the question about which system people believe is the best for the people involved?

**

It should also be remembered that left wingers are also striving for efficiency, which can be so badly lost within a consumerist system?

**

Rich people use private education and health care, and benefit from its market induced efficiency.

Which is the point isn’t it?

Wealthy people can pay for education and heath care those with less disposable income are to suffer in relation to their ability to pay which in my opinion is detrimental to them and the whole community they live in, I’ve already said that.

Libertarians think people of all income should have discretion in their choice of health care and educational providers.

But the choice that would be open to them is very much tied to how much they can afford. So a poor person is likely not to be able to educate their children to a very high standard and they are therefore likely to grow up poor as well whatever their true potential could have been. I have said this.

**
Its called freedom of choice and empowering the individual, and it is vehemently opposed by socialists for whom bringing the top down is just as important, and of course much easier, than bringing the bottom up.


Those on the left very much believe in expanding people’s choice.
If someone is given the chance of a good education by the sate that they never would have received if their parents had had to pay for it, they are more likely to fulfil their potential. They can go on to have choices to become engineers, scientists, teachers, bankers or go into business. If all they receive is a rudimentary education then that potential is lost to the detriment of the whole community.

How is blocking that potential, ‘empowering the individual’?

How is limiting that persons choices giving that person ‘freedom’?



**

 

First of all, the more government, the more regulation, the more state intervention in the economy, the more restrictions on trade and commerce, the more business sucess depends on good favor from the state. That's why your technocratic socialist state would result in more corporate welfare and provide more incentives for lobbying. There is no point in lobbying for a government which cannot and will not do anything for you. Hence small government reduces the influence of corporations.

With regards to health care, most people have not figured it out because the big lie propagated by the left, and NHS unions in particular, is that any reform of the NHS means an end to universal health care. The objective has been to pretend universal health care and monopoly provision of health care services are one and the same. Thus we have an NHS which exists to serve itself first, and the patients second, no matter how much money we shovel into it and no matter how many targets we set.

The argument over whether free markets or technocrat socialists are more efficient has long been put to rest.

This is an example of the false comparison to promote socialist bureaucrats. What about generic manufacturers? What do they want to sell? What about private insurers? What do they want to buy? I don't think you're being dishonest, its just that you are so out of your element when you try to describe any aspect of capitalism that its a bit comic.

You have said this. But this is already the case and it misses the point. What can we do - forbid people from buying private education? No? Well then why not give lower income people the same freedom - via educational vouchers - so that they can force schools to compete? I'm saying take that state budget and empower people by making schools compete for it. My version is gives people the freedom to choose and imposes market discipline. Yours relies on state bureaucrats.

You see? You are already back to pretending that a libertarian system is saying there is no universal education. Your version of "choice" is everyone being served by state monopolies. My version is actual choice.

 

**

First of all, the more government, the more regulation, the more state intervention in the economy, the more restrictions on trade and commerce, the more business sucess depends on good favor from the state. That's why your technocratic socialist state would result in more corporate welfare and provide more incentives for lobbying. There is no point in lobbying for a government which cannot and will not do anything for you. Hence small government reduces the influence of corporations.

That is an assertion based on an opinion, which is ok but your argument doesn’t seem that persuasive.

Think about it what you seem to be saying is –

If the government is so weak that it cannot impose on or restrict corporate power there would be no need for corporations to have to use their power and influence to lobby governments to stop imposing on them or restrict their power?

Well I’m sure people will feel comfortable about that?

You just confirm what I said earlier, it means handing control over to the wealthy and powerful.

**


With regards to health care, most people have not figured it out because the big lie propagated by the left, and NHS unions in particular, is that any reform of the NHS means an end to universal health care. The objective has been to pretend universal health care and monopoly provision of health care services are one and the same. Thus we have an NHS which exists to serve itself first, and the patients second, no matter how much money we shovel into it and no matter how many targets we set.

So a private health system would serves its shareholders and is organised to maximise profits it would exist to serve them and that goal before thirdly thinking of the patient and as it is private it is not open to public scrutiny or change through the public will.

**
Quote:

It should also be remembered that left wingers are also striving for efficiency, which can be so badly lost within a consumerist system?

The argument over whether free markets or technocrat socialists are more efficient has long been put to rest.

The free market is not about efficiency it is about packaging and selling more stuff, in consumerist terms the quicker something falls apart and is replaced or superseded the better, that is waste.

In libertarian healthcare terms it is about maximising profit, about getting the client to spend as much as possible, so someone with money is likely to get a lot of treatment and resources spent on them that isn’t really needed while another patient will get not enough treatment. This will be dependent on their ability to pay. Resources will be pulled from on to serve the other, that isn’t efficient.

If they both got reasonable treatment on a public financed scheme but then the richer wanted to spend more outside the system that is fine but they pay along with everyone else for the universal cover.

**

Quote:

In an unregulated privatised healthcare system the ones running the healthcare industry (or the major shareholders of them) would be the big pharmaceutical and healthcare manufactures. Do you think they will them push to sell inflated brand names or the less profitable type?

This is an example of the false comparison to promote socialist bureaucrats. What about generic manufacturers? What do they want to sell? What about private insurers? What do they want to buy? I don't think you're being dishonest, its just that you are so out of your element when you try to describe any aspect of capitalism that its a bit comic.

OH my dear Point please calm down before you burst a blood vessel, there really is no reason to get nasty.

**

Quote:

Wealthy people can pay for education and heath care those with less disposable income are to suffer in relation to their ability to pay which in my opinion is detrimental to them and the whole community they live in, I’ve already said that... the choice that would be open to them is very much tied to how much they can afford. So a poor person is likely not to be able to educate their children to a very high standard and they are therefore likely to grow up poor as well whatever their true potential could have been. I have said this.

You have said this. But this is already the case and it misses the point. What can we do - forbid people from buying private education? No? Well then why not give lower income people the same freedom - via educational vouchers - so that they can force schools to compete? I'm saying take that state budget and empower people by making schools compete for it. My version is gives people the freedom to choose and imposes market discipline. Yours relies on state bureaucrats.

I thought were talking about a libertarian system where there would be no state provision? So how is the money for the vouchers raised and in what way would they be regulated? As I’ve pointed out the libertarian system is about removing the state from provision of funds for education they would have to come from the parents and their ability to pay.

**


Quote:

Those on the left very much believe in expanding people’s choice. If someone is given the chance of a good education by the sate that they never would have received if their parents had had to pay for it, they are more likely to fulfil their potential. They can go on to have choices to become engineers, scientists, teachers, bankers or go into business. If all they receive is a rudimentary education then that potential is lost to the detriment of the whole community.

You see? You are already back to pretending that a libertarian system is saying there is no universal education. Your version of "choice" is everyone being served by state monopolies. My version is actual choice.

I say that under a libertarian system there would be no state provision of education and that it would be up to the parents ability to pay, because so far that has been my impression and none of the various libertarians here have said anything different. (see kan above)

I ask you how a libertarian system can be ‘actual choice’ when it blocks people from fulfilling their potential and so limits a person’s life choices?



**

 

Who say it cannot impose on or restrict corporate power? The fact that the government doesn't regulate prices, regulate trade, own major industries, etc, means they can stick with essential functions.

If the state decides what level of price support to offer sugar beet producers, decides on production quotas for them, and restricts imports of competing sugar products, then everybody - importers of sugar, growers of sugar beets, consumers of sugar, sugar beet farm worker unions, banks financing sugar beet growers, commodity traders... everybody has a motive to bribe/corrupt/befriend/influence the ministry of sugar beets. The wealthy, powerful entrenched interests would be locked in an embrace with the "strong" government by the nature of a system where instead of economic efficiency, lobbying effectiveness becomes a primary determinant of success. On the other hand, if there is free trade in sugar beets, who wants to bribe to the "weak" government? Nobody, because the government can't help you.

Absolutely false. Do cars get worse every year? Do computers get slower? Mobile phones more expensive? No. Yet Toyota, Dell, and Nokia exist solely to earn profits for their shareholders.

Absurd. If I don't like Nokia, I buy an Ericsson. Nokia HAS to respond to what the public wants, their survival depends on it. With a monopoly state provider (which you consider offers "freedom" and "choice") what alternative do you have if you don 't like the NHS or your school? Can you get your tax money back and go elsewhere? NO! You have no choice. One monopoly state provider for all. Furthermore, is BT open to public scrutiny? Is British Airways? Of course they are. Private enterprises are open to regulation and scrutiny and are regulated and scrutinised all the time.

No, you are again pretending that capitalism is one big entity. There is no reason a company cannot offer more durable products and drive a shoddy goods manufacturer out of business. Just don't expect the world to stop turning because some old crank driving around in his AC Petite was happy with the way things used to be.

So this is how it works - you make a false premise, I refute it, and then you just repeat it again? Nokia's objective is to spend the minimum on R&D and charge the maximum for their phones. But we all know they can't, because of competition. Private insurers do NOT have the objective of maximising hospital bills. Generic manufacturers are happy to earn $1m on a product that was earning $10 or $20 million for another company.

This doesn't actually make much sense, so its hard to respond. As I said before, either you ban people from spending money on health care privately, or you accept that health care will not be equal. Having done that, how can we change the system so that lower income people can enjoy the benefits of market discipline in increasing the standard of services they receive?

But they can't, can they. They have to pay for their own share of universal cover, not use it, and then pay all over again. How is that efficient? How is that "freedom" or "choice". Here's your state manufactured computer. You have to pay for it. If you want to buy another computer too, that's fine, but we'll take away your state computer.

You need to read post #22 again.

 

Under a libertarian system people receive services in proportion to the level at which they can pay.

Nothing has been said that seems to refute that claim although it has been asserted that that some libertarians do believe in public services although since they do not put an argument it remains nothing but an assertion.

**

It seems to be claimed by some that education and health is similar to choosing a mobile phone. First that seems like apples and oranges, that a comsumarist object like a phone or computer is comparable with healthcare and education. Second to me education is far more important and I’m sure that a person’s health is more important to them than having either a Nokia or a Ericsson. Third it comes back to the idea of the consumerist’s choice, if someone has money they can effort to have a top of the range product where as someone without that disposable wealth will have to do without it or with a very much cheaper model.

That is how the system would work in relation to education and healthcare. If someone has money they can effort to have the best treatment and the best teachers where as someone without that disposable wealth will have to do without it or very much more inferior healthcare and education.

As far as I can tell that is not in dispute.

**

Under a libertarian system the power of the wealthy and corporations would increase.

Nothing that has been said that seems to refute that claim.

**

There is an assertion that a government that has fewer powers and fewer resources would not be weak when it came to dealing with much more powerful corporations, but I think that is closer to a hope than a promise. It is then claimed that such a government would not have the ability to assist corporations.
The government would presumably be able to pass laws (or repeal them) it would also presumably be in the hands of politicians. To say that such a government could not assist corporate needs seems to be based on the belief that the politicians would not be under the same pressures as mentioned earlier “lobbying, soft and hard campaign funding, direct and indirect marketing of political issues, and even covert and overt bribery”.



So I will put my questions even more simply – Under libertarianism –

Will wealth dictate the level of services a person receives?

Will the wealthy and the corporations benefit from the introduction of a libertarian system, if not why not?

 

i feel like you are ignoring most of what i say because you can't refute it.

That's exactly how the current system works. Unless you FORBID people from investing in their education and health, higher income people will get better education and health. I pointed this out at least once, please do not continue to ignore it even if it is inconvenient for railroading the debate the direction you want it to go.

What is nothing but an assertion is you idea that that libertarians want no public services.

This is an utterly meaningless straw man argument. I never said they were the same, I simply pointed out your ridiculous distortion of how market forces work.

I regret having to repeat examples I have already made which you ignore. Which system is more prone to influence and lobbying - a free trade system or a system with quotas, tariffs, taxes, "voluntary export restraints", etc etc. The answer is obvious and you are ignoring it. A system where there is heavy and continuous government intervention in the economy as a matter of standard practice will be much more subject to bribery. Socialist, interventionist, technocrat states such as you promote fit this profile perfectly.

 

Sorry this reply has taken so long but better late than never.

You might feel like your views are being ignored but that is only because you seem to have a ‘victim complex’. That is you always seem to think you are the victim that you are always being slighted or ignored. However the threads tell another story (as this one does) your views are not ignored it is just that many of them are repeated that didn’t stand up to scrutiny the first time let alone the fifth, sixth or twentieth time you repeat them.

I mean when some argument of yours is successfully refuted or shown to be terribly flawed you often disappear (claiming boredom or some other such excuse) only then to bring up the same argument in another thread. Then when people who have already shown that particular argument of yours to be flawed ignore the repetition you claim it is being ignored because it cannot be refuted.

I’m not sure if this is a debating tactic as in that old axiom that a lie repeated enough times will get believed or is just a matter of delusion or even short-term memory loss.

**

For example -

Under a libertarian system people receive services in proportion to the level at which they can pay.

That's exactly how the current system works. Unless you FORBID people from investing in their education and health, higher income people will get better education and health. I pointed this out at least once, please do not continue to ignore it even if it is inconvenient for railroading the debate the direction you want it to go.

That's exactly how the current system works

Think about this a moment. What current system are you talking about? In the classic form of libertarianism there is no state provision. In most industrial (or post industrial) societies education is seen as beneficial, in one way because it improves the societies culture and in commercial terms because in improves the abilities of the workforce. So most have some from of state provision (as can be seen in most of Europe and the US).

As I’ve said many times under a libertarian system there would be no state provision. If a child was born to a poor badly educated family that child whatever its potential is likely to remain badly educated and therefore poor.

You for all the bluster do not seem to dispute this except to stupidly claim that since richer people can in places with state provision pay for improved services that that means it is the same as a libertarian system.

**

And another example –

I regret having to repeat examples I have already made which you ignore. Which system is more prone to influence and lobbying - a free trade system or a system with quotas, tariffs, taxes, "voluntary export restraints", etc etc. The answer is obvious and you are ignoring it.

WOW ignore and ignoring in the same paragraph

Point do you actually read other peoples posts or (dare I say it) do you ignore them?

You say the answer is obvious and I agree it is a libertarian system with a weak government would be a lot more prone to influence and lobbying just as I’ve said and explained before.

There is an assertion that a government that has fewer powers and fewer resources would not be weak when it came to dealing with much more powerful corporations, but I think that is closer to a hope than a promise. It is then claimed that such a government would not have the ability to assist corporations.
The government would presumably be able to pass laws (or repeal them) it would also presumably be in the hands of politicians. To say that such a government could not assist corporate needs seems to be based on the belief that the politicians would not be under the same pressures as mentioned earlier "lobbying, soft and hard campaign funding, direct and indirect marketing of political issues, and even covert and overt bribery".

**

Point why not stop wasting all this energy on faux indignation at supposed slights and use it to actually become engage in the debate.