[ExI] Yet another health care debate

Damien Sullivan phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu
Thu Sep 25 01:53:40 UTC 2008


On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 06:12:00PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
> Damien S. writes

> That's one reason. But having read Hayek, you will recall that he
> was keen to advance the notion that central planning cannot take
> into account the myriads of small decisions that must be made.
> The commissars simply *cannot* know what price to set for shoes

Why are you talking about commissars and central planning of shoes?
That's a dead letter.  I'm talking about real mixed economies: taxes and
safety nets and regulations about just-don't-do-that and must-inform.
And set prices on health care, which is a special case, like defense.

> Libertarianism on this narrow aspect did work for quite a number
> of years: when government was small (and still shrinking) in 1855

Shrinking?  What was to shrink?

> people in America understood that they needed to lookout for
> themselves and for their friends, families, and neighbors. There was
> no overweening state to take away this actually vital part of community
> living.

This works better if you have a stable community: most people living in
small rural communities and mobility being low -- hey, 1855 America.
Not so good with big cities and/or high labor mobility.  Also not good
if you don't fit in with the small community, on account of being gay or
atheist or the wrong race or something.

One might say "the poor shouldn't move to big cities then", except they
often want that risk for the job opportunites (labor mobility), and even
if they don't the rich will, draining the community of the resources
needed to support them...

> No, most poor people figure that the government should make
> the rich pay for it. The rich figure that the corporations should
> pay. The costs skyrocket when it's OPM.

What?

> They wouldn't generally die on the streets. This is *not* what
> laissez-faire leads to. Again, it leads to allowing the people close
> (in one way or another) to those in need (and who therefore
> have the most knowledge) to take charge.

This can sort of work with food and shelter.  Having it work for
expensive medical care... point to some examples?

> But what really riles some of the idealists on this list, evidently,
> is the *possibility* of starvation, freezing, or some other form

Wel, yes.  That's civilization.

> of death. I dare say that fewer people starved to death in
> 19th century America per capita than in almost all other nations.
> Why? Simple. It was because America was so rich. I strongly

What with the high ratio of fertile land to people, and lack of a
nobility, and whatever factors lead to industrialization.  (In
some parts of the US.  Appalachia is still really poor.)

> people would have a hard time of it. Really---nothing works
> like freedom, and it is unfortunate that most Americans no
> longer realize that. 

But lots of those social programs themselves enhance freedom.  The
freedom to move around securely, the freedom to choose not to have
children, the freedom to start a small business without being cripped by
medical costs.

-xx- Damien X-) 



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list