[ExI] Call To Libertarians

Samantha Atkins sjatkins at mac.com
Wed Feb 23 03:32:22 UTC 2011

On 02/22/2011 03:02 PM, spike wrote:
> ... On Behalf Of Richard Loosemore
> ...
>> But, do please continue your dispute with spike:  it is instructive to see
> libertarians disputing what the L word is actually>about.  Glad I could
> help by framing the debate...  Richard Loosemore
> Do trim responses please.
> There are many different kinds of libertarians, which explains why we seldom
> or never win elections.  A lot of times, we don't even vote for our own
> candidates.
> I am a libertarian who would argue that you can do a whole bunch of things
> in a publicly funded way, but do it in such a way that private entities can
> compete, and usually win against it.
> Lets take a particularly difficult one that the US is tripping over right
> now: health care.  We can set up a public health system perfectly in
> parallel with the private one, in such a way that both can compete and the
> cost is not ruinous.

Spike.  How is a public healthcare system, that is government run system 
paid for with money forcefully taken from individuals, remotely in 
keeping with the NAP which is the cornerstone of libertarianism?

Do you really think that the government can be involved in healthcare 
without grossly inflating costs?   With the government health programs 
we have now we have tens of trillions of unfunded liabilities.  So even 
on a fiscal basis, much less a libertarian one, I don't see why you 
would support this.

>   We set up a publicly funded emergency care system,
> which will try to patch you back up if you take a bad fall in your home, or
> you are shot and stabbed by the local youth organizations.  No legal
> authorities are involved in any way, no courts, no malpractice anything, you
> just go there and they do what they do.  If you aren't injured but just not
> feeling well, you have the option to go there as well, no appointment
> necessary, and if the youth organizations aren't too busy right then sending
> rival organizations' members to the hospital, they may be able to help you.
> But if you go that route, you take what you get, and you do not enter the
> lawsuit lottery.
> In parallel, the private system would still exist, with all its high-capital
> high skillset doctors.  If you have money, to them you go.  They are not
> involved in the legal system either.  If the patient wants to buy insurance
> against the medics' slaying her, then that is between her and the insurance
> company, with private arbitration being the decider.

What?  That isn't libertarian particularly either unless you are 
removing all government created law and enforcement.  Doing it only for 
medical stuff doesn't seem very reasonable or at all sound.  If a doctor 
harms you through negligence then you do have a legitimate legal grievance.

Hmm.  I may be falling for the famous spike tongue-in-cheek remarks 
again.  :)

- s

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list