It was a poorly phrased attempt at situational public policy.
How would Libertarians handle ‘A’ Typhoid Mary? Lets call it SUPER KILLER MRSA instead of Typhoid.
As I don’t know the answer - which is more important? Individual liberty or public health?
Do I have to bring up again how much charities were complete and total fail at sufficiently covering everyone during the Great Depression?
If charities weren’t up to the task, which has been demonstrated to happen, would she be left to go around infecting everyone?
Would those who couldn’t afford the vaccine, or find a charity for be left to die? If so “liberty” is cold comfort for the people libertarianism murdered.
In Libertopia, who is responsible for burying the indigent dead? Because there are going to be a lot of them.
Like I mentioned in the other thread, a lot of charities have trouble with funding and meeting the needs of their base. And this despite the fact most charitable organizations are tax-exempt and hefty donations by the rich or large corporations are attractive due to tax write-offs, or even several annual fund-raising activities.
In Libertopia that isn’t in favor of a large federal government, or income tax, how would all these charities that are now to take on the glut of the needy, ill, disabled, etc. going to be adequately funded? On top of this, what about in times of extreme disaster, such as events like hurricane and earthquake relief (or say, a pandemic due to a resistant strain of bacteria), if these charities dry up due to improper funding during the “good times”?
As Patrick Henry said, give me liberty or give me death. In Liberteria, nothing is more important than liberty. Hence the name.
You can bring it up all you want. It doesn’t change the fact of what Libertaria would be like. Am I supposed to change my answer to a straightforward question because you think it would be inadequate to “cover” everyone? I am making no claims about the effectiveness of Libertarian policies. I’m simply stating what they are.
She would be left to go around, but she wouldn’t infect everyone.
It’s not murder.
In Soviet Libertaria, the dead bury you.
It’s probably a pointless nitpick, but I think you’re misunderstanding the meaning of the aphorism “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” That aphorism means that a quest for utter flawlessness always defeats itself; it is better to seek out that which actually works in an acceptable manner than to hold out for perfect.
Not necessarily. In another thread on Libertarianism, when asked where he got some of his ideas concerning Libertarianism Terr gave this link-The Market For Liberty.
[QUOTE=Chapter 6]
Property – The Great Problem Solver, argues that most social problems could be solved through an increase in the amount and type of property owned. It claims that taxation is theft and that regulation by initiated force is slavery. It argues that it should be possible to claim ownership over the ocean floor, the surface of other planets, corridors of airspace, radio wavelengths, and so on, by being the first to occupy them or otherwise clearly stake out territory. It also argues that all public property should be privatized in order to reduce crime and pollution.
[/quote]
For some of those things, like the ocean floor or the surface of Mars, we could extend property rights in pretty much exactly the same way we do for regular old Earth land. The only reason we don’t have a legal system for ownership of land on Mars is because nobody actually lives on Mars, and there’s no point in pretending that Bob owns Mars just because he claimed Mars.
The reason we keep the ocean floor and Antarctica and Mars unowned is because those lands are worthless, or so near worthless as to make no difference. You can claim that you own a square mile in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, but what good does that do you? You can’t extract any economic value from it, so what’s the difference between it and another square mile over that way?
If we’re talking about fishing for example, even if we decide you own a part of the ocean, does that mean you own the fish in the ocean too? Or the water? Or the air above it? And down to the Earth’s core? Just because an animal wanders onto your property, that doesn’t mean you own the animal. Just because air blows over your property that doesn’t mean you own the air. Just because water flows over your property that doesn’t mean you own the water.
Look, obviously property rights are not natural rights, they weren’t handed to us by Nature, or Nature’s God. They are finite agreements between finite human beings, so we don’t have to bash each other on the head with clubs over who can put up his tent where. I own a parcel of land in exactly the same way that a wolf pack owns a parcel of land–they live there, and any other wolves who want to live there will have to fight them first. The only difference is that I’ve got 300 million of my closest friends to agree to help me out if some other two-legged wolf comes along and wants to pitch his tent in my front yard.
I was just thinking, in Libertaria, they wouldn’t use antibiotics. Because the Free Immune System™ should decide the fate of all pathogens.
Again, it’s a cross between Settlers of Catan and Monopoly, except you wouldn’t have the “collect $200 GO square” or “Free Parking.”
“We declare Liberty, down to the cellular level!”
“No son of mine is gonna miss a day of work because of leprosy! Get out of bed and walk it off, the Gift of Liberty™ and Self Determination™ is all you need!”
Rub some dirt on it. *Then *walk it off.
May as well do some cross-pollinating here, since the other thread is close to 1,000 posts.
Terr said:
Then I said:
Then Terr said:
Then I said:
And the spiral of logic goes ever outward…
"I bought some Olson’s Medicated Dirt from the pharmacy. It has good word of mouth and I recognize the marks of several drug-ratings agencies on it.
Of course I did some research at the pay library before buying it, and Olsen’s parent company is Medco, they own almost all of the drug-rating agencies, so they surely wouldn’t lie about its effectiveness.
I tried to check on the internet, but our local provider is AT&J, and they partner with Medco on some electronic medical equipment, so I can’t view anything critical of Medco unless I take the Blaron Line train to Exxonville and check on the internet there (since it’s provided by Nomsburg, and they don’t censor information about Medco, since they’re competitors). But I can’t travel to Exxonville because I can’t take time off work for another ten days. It’s not like we get paid time off anymore. That’s the bad-old days of socialism.
Anyway, I’ve got to leave for the factory, I need to spend an hour on the road to get three miles because the tolls are too high to if I take the route directly into work.
Thank Galt we’re so free, son. Rub the dirt into your bleeding eyes and get to work."
Ahh well… I was just trying to trick you into reaching over the line to grab some of *my *dirt, so I could blow you away. Better luck next time, I guess.
Praise Galt!
I don’t think that’s quite correct. In Liberteria, nothing is more important than liberty from government. Limitations on liberty from other sources (racial discrimination being the most glaring example) seem to evoke a “well that’s a shame but there’s nothing to be done” attitude.
No, that’s simply your little defense you hide behind to avoid having to think about what I quoted you on in the OP.
The argument YOU made against libertarianism is that overuse of antibiotics will lead to superbugs. Superbugs are bad, hence a political system that allows for it is also bad.
Okay, so let’s take that as true, you have scored a stunning victory against libertarianism.
Now what is the alternative?
We have a regulated system, and yet we still ended up with superbugs. This isn’t saying what you want it to say. Your argument was that lack of regulations would lead to superbugs. Yet the presence of regulations also allowed for superbugs. That is the historical reality you need to first accept **before **criticizing a hypothetical political system.
And even after all that, we have long known that improper antibiotic use causes superbugs, but what have we done about it? Obviously that shows our CURRENT system is as equally crappy as any hypothetical utopia you so fervently argue against.
Before you attempt to accuse me of anything else, remember that this is YOUR argument against libertarianism: deregulation will lead to superbugs; superbugs are bad; ergo libertarianism is bad.
If you want to use that line of reasoning, you will also have to accept that the **current **status quo of non-liberarian ALSO lead to superbugs. And even after they emerged, and the vet loop hole was discovered, NOTHING was done.
If the creation of superbugs is bad, than it’s a valid criticism of **any **system that allows for it. The best system would therefor be the one that manages to prevent it. Do you know of one?
[QUOTE=cmyk]
No system is perfect,
[/quote]
Right, no one said libertarianism was perfect, yet it is held to a different standard than all others. You admit the rest of the systems are imperfect, and they also created superbugs.
[QUOTE=cmyk]
but at least your doctor knows what’s at stake, and will only dole out antibiotics if he/she knows it’s reall necessary. If it were available OTC, people would be taking them for every sneeze and sniffle.
[/quote]
That’s good in theory, but the REALITY proved exactly the opposite. It was regulated doctors issuing them to anyone that asked, and doing nothing to make sure they took the whole dose.
[QUOTE=cmyk]
Also, last time I was issued antibiotics, my doctor drilled me to be sure I finish the 5-day course, even if I feel better. I already knew to do so, but didn’t interrupt him because I was glad he was doing his job.
[/quote]
Which could still happen with or without the regulations people think are preventing superbugs.
But that’s not the point: your doctor (and by that extension the government) knows you should be taking the full course. What have they done to ensure you do?
The misuse of antibiotics is in people that fail to take the full course. They feel better after a couple of days then stop, when in reality antibiotics need 7-14 days to work properly. We have ZERO regulations in place to actually work on that issue. None. Nadda. Zilch.
If we remove the prescription aspect (one regulations), allowing people to get it over the counter, they could still either take them properly or not.
If we remove the second regulation, allowing antibiotics bought off the shelf, again people could CHOOSE take the full course or not.
The argument that a hypothetical libertarian utopia creates superbugs fails. Not because they won’t emerge, but because superbugs were already created in heavily regulated environments.
This isn’t anti-government, or anti-regulation. I am simply pointing out a flawed line of reasoning in yet another attempt to bash libertarianism.
False. As demonstrated in Mexico, the problem is people taking antibiotics for viruses, or for no medically justifiable reason at all. Requiring a prescription reduces the indescriminate use of antibiotics. The fact that superbugs exists now is no argument at all. Less is better than more, which is what would occur in Libertopia.
