Liberal, I hope you aren’t offended, since you have at some points been the defender of Libertarianism, but weirddave’s argument in the McCain thread really has me annoyed, and it has annoyed the hell out of me when I argue with my completely 100 percent no-government friend.
To state my position:
I think personally that the free market is a very powerful thing. It easily produces far more in terms of quantity in its rawest forms. I do believe that it is also important to provide some kinds of regulation. In general I prefer a Scandinavian-style of making the market fluid and dynamic, but also making sure that someone is there to pick up the pieces when the china gets broken, as occurs from time to time. I’m realistic though, and realize that America isn’t Scandinavia, so such an extensive situation isn’t necessary.
But one of the reasons why I strongly support Universal Healthcare is because I think it fills in another gap there. If Americans can have such a big question-mark removed from their budget, it would allow them to have far steadier incomes and allow them to pursue more financially risky things. I consider it as infrastructure. We pay for roads, ports, etc. The general consensus for business in America is that the government provides the playing field, and the people play. Isn’t ensuring a healthy workforce, just another good way to ensure that the game is as competitive as possible?
At any rate, where do these people get off arguing that if we were to allow the market to take care of healthcare that things would be better? These people advocating that the world would be so much better without government influence just confuse the hell out of me, because I’ve yet to see a single instance of where a government ever attempted such a thing. Where does government stay out of the way? Failed states, that’s where. Why aren’t these places Libertarian paradises?
Secondly, the implementation of University of Chicago economic theory in Latin America. I personally don’t see this as being a huge success either.
So I’m asking for some evidence, other than economic theory, that such claims are substantiated. I am pretty well-versed in economic theory but I also realize that a lot of things depend on the ever illustrious “perfect market.” Now perfect market conditions can nearly exist sometimes. I would argue that a lot of markets are pretty transparent, but not everything is due to physical restrictions and human interference.
Seriously, those who argue that we ought to deregulate everything and get the government out of everyone’s business (including road-building) then you are going to have to start backing up your theories with some proof that such an effort actually helps. Because to my knowledge, goverment = civilization. The less government you have the less civilization you have.
Why not go to some of the failed states of Africa? Guess who does the policing there? Roving bands of warriors. There’s little government intervention, to be sure. Who paves the roads? Nobody, surprisingly the lawlessness seems to curtail economic incentive! Now I realize that only the most hardcore of libertarians advocate abolition of government involvement in law enforcement, but it’s still interesting.
Personally, i simply wish some nation could take on the libertarian cause in the same way that Communism spread in the 20’th century, so we could finally discard it in the same bin. I seriously think it’s just as responsible. The next time someone argues that we should de-regulate everything, I think I will argue that the state should own everything. I think the argument holds just as much water. They are both idealistic extremes of what we should actually focus on.
I think personally that these things should simply be looked at as questions of where we should let the market have free-rein, and where we shouldn’t. Personally I think we should draw the line at people’s physical well-being. Saying we need less healthcare regulation rather than Universal healthcare coverage is ridiculous to me.
If it really is a better idea, then lets have some cites? I’m now calling bullshit on the “if it wasn’t so over-regulated” argument. I want proof.
There’s a huge gap missing in the arguments here. It’s a very south-parkesque
1 De-regulate everything
2 ???
3 Profit!
How do you get from A to B? That step consists of:
“Well standard free-market theory tell us that the market will take care of everything”
This worship of the invisible hand has to stop. I of course believe in the invisible hand. Only that it isn’t perfect. Sometimes it can be controlled by those who have more power. And that’s why we’ll always need government. All I’m saying is the argument that the “invisible hand of the free market would take care of it” doesn’t hold water in practice. Its true generally, but when you get down to the details it has it’s flaws.