To nuts and bolts then: The Military; there seems to be a libertarian view that the military is best administered by govt. Yet it costs a lot, operates as a monopoly and is entirely socialised.
Why then the objection to public education and a public health care system? Both are significantly less socialised than the military. What is so acceptable in the administration of the military that could not be mirrored in the administration of education or health?
The alternative I see, is that the objection to govt involvement is not principled or ideological, but pragmatic. A public education alternative and public health system are significantly softer targets than a military. Even though the latter is entirely socialised and comparably costly.
In any case, I still don’t see any salient features that mark L’ism as distinct from any small-govt stream of thinking present generally in current political thought.
Finally, my thanks for the considered tone of Smartass and Dr. Love.
I have no idea what you mean by “socialized”. But the objection to health care or education through government action is the idea that government actions should be limited to those areas which require force. The military, the police, the courts all fit this bill. Education much less so. Health care even less.
Socialised means government-owned and controlled. All members of the military are employees of the govt and act under its direction. The assets used are similarly stated-owned.
Contrast this with public health and education systems, whereby the govt administers some funding, a minority of the sector is govt-owned and employed and the same with assets.
Now: Force; that is an interesting distinction, but why? It looks to me like a a post facto rationalisation.
I’ll be brief. It doesn’t look like a very sensible distinction to me. In any case it doesn’t answer my question about mirroring the acceptable parts of military administration in the health/education sectors.
The main difference is that there is no effective way to privitize the military. Aside from the potential abuses of such firepower, there would be a significant freerider problem associated with a privitized military. Imagine what would happen if millions of Americans were to suddenly realize that the US Military would protect them whether they helped pay for it or not, and that there was suddenly no punishment for not paying. Similar arguments work for things like law enforcement and court systems.
The difference here is that a free market education system or health system could work. Many argue (and I agree) that basic education is of paramount importance to a democratic society, and that everyone must have the opportunity to recieve an education. However, this only ensures that the government funds education, not administers it. This opens up the issue of vouchers. Now this is a touchy issue, so I’m not going to say much about it right now, just point out that I believe that a voucher plan could be drawn up that benefits both public and private schools. Of course, there are church-state issues present, but on the bright side, if very religious parents send their children to parochial schools, the public schools might end up with bettertextbooks (both links from recent pit threads):).
Most libertarians believe that the quality and availability of health care will increase if it is deregulated. I just finished reading Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose, so some of his ideas are fresh in my mind. Friedman argues that removing the liscensing requirement on physicians would both lower the cost and increase the quality of health care, and that it would do this in two ways: by matching the skill of the physician with the severity of the illness, and by creating a greater supply of physicians, forcing down prices. Most doctors are overqualified for many of the things they do, and allowing those with somewhat less expertise to diagnose and treat simple ailments would free up the more advanced practitioners to handle the more complex cases. In addition, the less advanced physicians would charge less for thier time, in accordance with their skills. The second argument is fairly stratightforeward, saying that the more abundant something is, the less it costs.
Now, I’ll admit that I’m a little uneasy with that idea myself, though I’m having a hard time quantifying what exactly it is that I’m uneasy with. I’m just trying to present a possible reason for desocializing medicine.
I’ve also heard it stated, from fairly pro-free market sources, that the government may eventually have to support medicine. The argument is that, due to the effects of better and better screening for being prone to certain diseases, some people may find it impossible to get insurance at any reasonable price, and the government will have to step in.
What sort of differences are you looking for? In mainstream politics, the call for smaller government tends to be associated with the Republican party, that also tends to support morality laws and less SoCaS. Libertarians tend to be as adamantly against any government involvement in the personal life as in the economic sphere. In fact, some libertarians have been known to equate the two.
And my thanks to you for being willing to entertain the ideas we put foreward.
I’m not sure that I would describe the military as “socialized”. Generally, we reserve that term for products and services that amount to a redistribution of wealth among the population. Even so, I believe what you’re asking is, what is the principle that says that government provision of national defense is acceptable and government provision of education is not? The answer is straightforward. Libertarians believe that the purpose of government is to protect individuals from having their rights violated by other individuals. If communists invade the country and take over, I think it’s fair to say that pretty much everyone would have their rights violated. Restated: The government is repsonsible for protecting our national sovereignty as part of the mandate to protect our rights to life, liberty, and ownership of property.
Education and healthcare do not protect us from having our rights violated by someone else.
Another way to look at it is this: Libertarians believe that government, in general, does things badly. We don’t approve of socializing education for the exact same reasons that we don’t approve of socializing food, TVs, cars, restaurants, or most anything else. Unfortunately, there are some functions that really and truly cannot be handled any other way–usually because they require that someone have the authority to violate someone’s rights. The military and police require power and authority to do things such as imprison criminals and kill invaders. For that reason, private citizens–who aren’t allowed to imprison or kill each other–cannot realistically serve these functions (and they certainly can’t defend against a modern army), which means that the only way to have them is to have them provided by government. Government, pretty much by definition, has the power and authority to violate the rights of citizens. Libertarians don’t believe in handing out that kind of power lightly. We believe that it should only be used when there simply is no other choice.
It is not unreasonable to think of things like police, courts, and the military as exceptions to the general libertarian attitude towards government, but there is a reason for it, and it is based on libertarian principles. The distinction is not arbitrary; at least, it isn’t to us. And the fact that we do make “exceptions” in these cases does not mean that we think it makes sense to make more of them. If we knew of another way to protect the rights of every citizen, we wouldn’t make these exceptions either.
It is all three, principled, ideological, and pragmatic. The principle is that every person has the right to live his life as he (or she) wishes, as much as possible. As has been mentioned, if everyone could accept this in practice, there would be no need for government. However, it does not follow that, since we need some government, we must need a lot of it, or that more is better. After all, we all need some salt in our diets; once we have the necessary amount, any additional salt tends to do more harm than good.
I would say that the difference lies in the principles of freedom and equal protection that we insist on.
I can say the same to you. I do try, in general, to answer in kind. Nothing in your post struck me as someone doing anything other than trying to have a legitimate debate.
The proscription of force comes from the idea that people should be free to do as they please, so long as it doesn’t negatively affect anyone else. This is the core belief of most libertarians, from which all other policies stem.
I don’t know where you live sevastopol, but in the United States at least, I don’t think you can accurately describe the government as owning under 50% of the education system, though that may be true of health care.
Ok. That’s a fair enough definition. Its what I thought you meant, but socialized means so many other things as well, I wasn’t sure.
Why does it look like that? Go back and look at the libertarian proposals you are aware of and consider that they are driven by the principle of non coercion. The non initiation of force, if you will. Read the declaration of independance. It says someting similar (although admitadly not with the same words.) When it talks about “That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among men…” Amongst libertarians the only way to infringe on another’s rights is to use force. Taking these two principles together, we have the idea that governments are only instituted to regulate the use of force. Between individuals (criminal justice) and other nations (military).
It actually does answer your question. You see the possiblitiy of a mirroring of responsibilities only because you look at the military and health care as some sort of business or service. You do not see the fundamental difference between them. Once you recognize that the military is fundamentally an institution of force and health care is not, the mirroring possiblities disapear.
But this assumes a certain sort of way to collect money. If you tried to institute a government where the only way to generate revenue were to ask for donations, you might be right. But there are many other schemes available to make taxes voluntary which avoids this “problem of the commons”. One of them, at least has been discussed earlier in the thread. Another is a lottery system.
I just want to point out that it would be possible to have licensing without having it administered by the government. I would say that reducing government involvement probably would lead to the kind of things that you proposed, but it would not likely eliminate the need for doctors to prove their qualifications–not unless the public suddenly decided that such proof wasn’t important. Many professions have member-funded organizations that do this sort of thing. And there usually is a market for third-party rankings as well. Speaking for myself, I would never use a doctor who did not have the “Good Bodykeeping Seal of Approval”.
This is pretty interesting. I hope that we can come up with a better answer than socializing the entire industry.
Thanks to pervert for pointing out the issue of taxes, and to Smartass for expanding on free market liscensing. I might also point out that under such a system, doctors would certainly advertise their qualifications, which would guarantee that the consumer wouldn’t lose the ability to tell good doctors from bad.
Also, Smartass, I don’t think such a situation would require the entire industry to be socialized. The option of getting government health insurance should cover it. Or perhaps any other solution people come up with in the meantime.
Much useful clarification here, for which I am thankful. On points I do not address take silence as assent, or absence of substantive dissent.
The sticking point is this: There are lots of occassions where a government body is the optimal purchaser. Indeed, the sole potential purchaser.
Take 2 you will know: The Hoover Dam & the Panama Canal. Whither L’ism?
There is no scope to view these purchases as exercises of coercion. So that’s out. Yet will anyone argue them to be illegitimate or ill-advised government? It is in part an appeal to prejudice, given the justified pride in these examples, but put that aside.
Having established govt as the legitimate purchaser on the grand scale how does that differ in principle from the humble infrastructure of the able person: health; welfare and; education?
With regards to the Panama Canal, that is certainly a project that has benefitted almost everyone in most first world nations. And that brings up another thing that governments are good at: really big projects. I think that most would say that projects like this are justified, so long as you can show that the benefit will be huge, and that no one but a government can accomplish it. That said, projects like this are rare, and could probably be considered on a case-by-case basis, with the requirement that the project is all but guaranteed to yield very good results. The second point is that, if or when it becomes economically feasible for private organizations do accomplish the same goals, the government should step back. This is (hopefully) happening right now with spaceflight.
I outlined above cases for government financial support of education, as well as possible reasons that health care should be privitized, and even one reason why the government might need to step in. If you have any specific questions or concerns, please ask. I will be happy to elaborate as best I can, as I’m sure everyone else in this thread will.
Now, welfare. Most libertarians believe that charity should cover as much of the need for welfare as possible. One possible objection is that charity will not be able to fully support welfare causes on it’s own. In this case, one possible solution is the Negative Income Tax. Here’s a quick summary of the idea. The advantage of using the negative income tax is that it could be easily integrated into the tax system we already support. Because of this, it would require far less bureaucracy than our current welfare systems, if it were to replace them. This means much more of the taxes go directly to helping the poor. Another advantage is that people tend to spend money on themselves much more carefully than they tend to spend on others. Because of this, the poor would have the opportunity to get more bang for the buck by buying the things they feel they need the most. The principle concern (outlined in the link) is that such a tax could provide employers of those making low wages to give them even lower wages, seeing as how they’ll have some money anyway. However, overall, the negative income tax is likely to be much more effecient than our current system.
I would say that occasions like this would indeed be rare, if they existed at all. If something is a huge benefit, isn’t it, in almost all cases, profitable? As I recall, the Panama Canal makes a pretty impressive amount of money. Given that, I would expect that in most similar cases, it would not be too difficult to line up private investors. Of course, I’m not sure how enthusiastic I would be if they were carving a great big canal through my house. Then again, if the price were right, I could be convinced to sell.
I don’t think I would go so far as to say such cases could never come up, but, speaking for myself, I think I would require a pretty impressive amount of proof that government action was necessary. My key concern is this: How do you say yes in the correct rare instances and maintain the general rule of saying no in all others?
I’m not convinced that it takes a government to build a dam, particularly the federal government. I remember not too long ago reading an article about the dam-building jag that Uncle Sam went on around that time, and they were making a pretty solid case that a lot of this dam-building did more harm than good. And I think that’s really the crux of the issue: If something really is believed to be good for everyone, why would the government be needed to get it done?
As I mentioned, I’m not absolutely sure that such a case could never arise, but I would be concerned about how a line could be drawn in the sand that makes sure that the government doesn’t become the tool of first resort for the pet projects of politicians. At this moment, I think I would rather risk going without a dam.
Actually, I would say that this is in fact a key issue. If a dam will be used to generate power or improve property, then it makes sense that people should be willing to invest in order to gain profit. A problem arises when someone doesn’t want want a dam built, or doesn’t want it built in the spot you’ve selected. If you can’t force them to sell their property, you can’t build the dam, at least not there. Also, as I recall, the Panama Canal was pretty much forced on Panama. The US definitely did some coercing, just not of its own citizens (in this case). And the thing is profitable, after all.
I guess I would say that there are two angles from which to look at these things: One is whether they really are good things to have. The other is whether it really is the case that they can only be had through government intervention. To me, if they really are good to have, the need for government action is not obvious.
Which is exactly why I would be resistant to such things: The lack of a clear location to draw the line. I tend to lean toward the position that if the only way to have something is through government action, it must not be as popular as is being claimed. In which case, why are we sure it really is the right thing to do?
Seriously, though, I have to ask why this is such a self evident conclusion. The only reason that governments are good at large projects is that they have a monopoly on the use of force. Any corporation (or any other type of organization for that matter) could produce as many massive projects if it was free to raid the pockets of a captive population. I’m certainly not advocating that, the opposite, in fact. But I still have to ask, why is it such a given that other sorts of cooperation could not provide the funds for projects like the Hoover Dam or the Panama Canal? The private economy is much larger (by definition, probably) than public coffers. If such a project were so demonstrably benificial to so many people, why would it be impossible to gather investors and fund such things that way?
Let’s say we’ve accepted it for the sake of argument shall we?
The principle difference between large projects and many many many small ones is just that. Building a large project, especially one which provides some sort of infrastructure which does not directly compete with existing private interests, is much more of a one time affair. We can get together, for instance, agree to build a road, gather funds, and then build it. Providing health care is much more of an ongoing thing. In addition to the buildings and equipment, we have to provide doctors, nurses, and technicians. Additionally, we have to continually replace old equipment with new.
I’m not sure that principle is as clear as the non coercion one, but I’ll try to clarify if you want.
Just a quick note to pervert, smartass & Dr. Love*. Infrastructure is the key to my previous post. I was comparing gross physical infrastructure with the day-to-day stuff of people getting by. I’ll respond in full tomorrow. Suffice to say there are issues.
Make sure that you define what exactly is infrastructure and what is not and, who knows, maybe you’ll convince us. Of course, theoretically the burden is on us to convince you, but keep in mind that since you are bringing up “infrastructure” as a special instance wrt our beliefs, there is somewhat of a burden on you to convince us that it is actually special.
In the meantime, I’ll try to stay as uncomfortable as possible.
That’s true, but it has nothing to do with what we were discussing.
Strawman. Nobody advanced such an argument.
But that doesn’t prove it’s not a fringe group. It’s a fringe group anyway. If you have some information to suggest that Libertarians are a significant portion of the population, whether they vote the party or not, by all means post it.
I’m not sure what your point is.
But that’s really just a platitude. There is no party that claims to be against personal freedom, so saying it is the party of “personal freedom” is not terribly helpful. To say “If one is for personal freedom, then one is a Libertarian” is the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. It’s like saying, “Women have two eyes, therefore if I have two eyes, I am a woman.”
Right. This was why I addressed the issue in two ways.
First, it may not be true at all that even very large “gross physical infrastructure” cannot be paid for voluntarily.
Second, even granting that, it is possible to draw a distinction between a one time purchase of an interstate highway system, or a dam and the continual purchasing of services such as education or healthcare.
You are right that most claiming to support personal freedom is somewhat cliche–but not for libertarians. Everything in libertarianism is built on the idea of protecting and maximizing individual freedom. If it x is not a consequence of defending individual liberty, then x is not a part of libertarianism.
As far as I know, libertarianism is, in fact, somewhat unique in this respect.
