History shows that to be wrong.
I was unaware that anyone said that any political or social system would do this.
Didn’t say that it was surprising. Only said that this is why the single word response of “insurance” to the OP is ineffectual - just as insurance by itself in the face of a disaster is ineffectual.
First of all, you would be hard pressed to find any areas which do not have risks of natural disasters. The plains get tornadoes, there are earthquake zones in the west coast, Alaska and Missouri. Blizzards strike the northern part of the country. And with climate change, things will only get worse and affect more places.
Also, the reason many people live on coasts (and over half of Americans do) is because coastal communities provide a great many products and industries that benefit people who live in the mainland including shipping, food, energy and for tourism. We need people to live in those areas and people who do not rely on them. You suggest that those people are commodities to be exploited by those who live elsewhere but as soon as they need help they shouldn’t be “subsidized?”
Which is why it is silly that a one word answer was given, huh.
This assumes that there is competition. In Libertaria, nothing except the “free market” can stop a monopoly from occurring… We know in practice that the government was often needed to break up monopolies.
So you need a lawyer to sign everything that might involve litigation down the road? Seems great… for the lawyers.
Then point is that renters are another reason why “insurance” is an woefully insufficient reply to the OP.
You’re right… Nobody ever has to fight insurance companies for legitimate claims. This has never happened ever. Insurance companies love writing checks for all claims, even anticipating claims and writing checks in advance because they’re swell that way.
Really? Emergency services are free? Sweet, nobody has to pay taxes anymore! Yay!
Are there any societies where disaster relief is privatized?
Nobody said that you couldn’t. But as I said before, natural disasters often take out the rescuers and relief agencies. And as I said, when disasters strike, those agencies are often spread very thin. Why are we to assume that when you take out the government that these agencies will be able to do the job by themselves when they cannot do it with the government?
So when you donate blood you get to say who gets it? When you donate food you get to say who eats it? When you donate money, you get to know who it is directly helping? Seems to me there are degrees of how much control you have no matter who is getting the money or donations.
Cite?
I’m not a libertarian, but I’d like to defend them against one interpretation of this trope.
The US is not Libertaria. Libertarians pay taxes, and those taxes go towards disaster relief. They’d be fools not to take advantage of a service they’ve paid for, even if it’s a service they’d rather not be forced to pay for.
Also, I suspect even many libertarians would back government responses to truly unpredictable disasters (unlike hurricanes, tornados, floods, draughts, and earthquakes). They would definitely be in favor of using the military to sustain the rule of law in the immediate aftermath of a disaster, since it’s the government’s job (and only the government’s job) to wield coercive force.
Do we know that in practice?
I’m not a big fan of Ayn Rand, but she makes a pretty good argument that monopolies don’t exist without government support. Can you cite a monopoly that government had to break up, that wouldn’t have existed without protective legislation in the first place?
I can: Microsoft/Windows. It’s an interesting counter-example to Rand’s arguments. In this case, the market wanted a monopoly of sorts, so that application developers could focus on a single platform. However, as the need for this bootstrap fades, so does the monopoly status of Windows. IMHO, this is market forces working correctly, and nearly an exception that proves the rule.
Standard Oil? AT&T?
You are claiming that monopolies will always break up regardless of the government? Even if this is true, a lot of people can potentially be screwed over until that happens.
And I think there is a distinction at the products offered: operating systems seem a little trivial compared to the life and death ramifications that search & rescue teams and even insurance companies can hold.
Yes, the American Red Cross. It is also possible in some circumstances to specify your blood is to be used for a particular medical patient (or swapped for the equivalent in a different blood type), or earmarked for a particular relief project.
Yes, I can earmark it for a particular project.
Yes, since I can usually earmark it for a particular project or purpose.
True. The degree of control is much greater for private donations.
I’ll give an example. I can contribute to a local land preservation fund and know that it will be going to purchase or maintain land in a specific area (if I so specify). If the fund does not do what they promise, they can be sued.
If I am taxed, the only degree of control over my money is to elect or defeat legislators who may or may not lean towards my personal choices. I cannot tell them what I want that money to be used for and threaten to withdraw it if they do not comply. You can’t sue a legislator if they don’t vote they way you want.
And who’s to assume the government can do the job? If you’re going to say, “they have unlimited tax powers to get the job done,” who’s to say that draining money from people who don’t volunteer it is a good thing?
nm…
Right, Rand drew SS, a right she was entitled to as an American citizen. One would think though, that since her popularity and profit stemmed from decrying exactly that type of social contraption designed to alleviate human weakness she’d had the dignity to deny it, entitled or not.
Homosexuality isn’t morally wrong and not illegal, a politician should be able to engage in such without repercussion. Though if that politician became powerful and substantially wealthy fighting against it, well…
And you know who they give it to?
ETA: I mean specifically? Seems unlikely I can tell the Red Cross where to send my blood. You trust them to make the best decisions, just as you trust the government to do the same.
I still have yet to see any citation of a society where disaster services are privatized.
Libertarianism seems to basically say “don’t forget personal liberty; it’s important.”
That’s a basic American value. I’m not sure it even needs a special name.
When it comes to addressing any real life issues, Libertarianism doesn’t really have much to contribute to the discussion.
The US is a country of 300 million and growing, and “making your own way” is not an option. There isn’t enough land, water or resources for that.
Just a brief hijack: In the great state of Iowa, they have a law that if you donate and specify what activity that donation has to be used for, the charitable organization has to use it for only that purpose, and they actually end up throwing stuff away.
In other words: you give $50 to the red cross for the floods last year in Iowa, and you specifically earmarked those funds for that purpose. The red cross goes out and buys a bunch of useful stuff to help people to deal with the floods. If they don’t use it, they have to get rid of it. They can’t repurpose it to another cause, because then they wouldn’t be using your money as you told them to do. On one hand, people who think they need to “have control” have unleashed some unintended consequences of poorly written legistlation. On the other hand, my neighbor got a bunch of wool blankets he didn’t need and some pretty nice heavy duty extension cords. Yay for “control”. :rolleyes:
Is there someplace I can go to get an “official” description of the aims/principles/beliefs of libertarians? Also, do libertarians identify themselves consistently as members of the Libertarian Party?
Sure, so most insurance companies would be happy to cover hurricane areas. They’d just have some clause hidden away that would allow them to not pay out claims if a disaster hit. Which means that the consumer would think they were covered but they wouldn’t be. Deal only with companies with good reps? That’s easy. Have a company with a bad rep re-org and rename and spend a few million to rebrand itself and give itself a new rep. Viola!
And yes, the “contract would be strictly enforced” it’s just that Insurance companies can hire better lawyers who can write contracts that have loopholes.
Surely you’re joking.
True.
I’m not arguing the libertarian case here.
It’s called a “directed donation”. I used to donate platelets regularly, and often saw the pages of info for those. Next time you give blood, read the stuff you’re supposed to read, and you’ll see it.
I assume you mean a “developed / civilized” society. There are plenty of societies where there’s no government help for anything. The rich look after themselves; the poor suffer.
There are a lot of libertarians who are not Libertarians (i.e., members of the Libertarian Party). For starters, you can google the Libertarian Party Platform. But just as there are conservatives who are not Republicans, the party platform does not speak for them all.
“Are there no workhouses? “
Shame on you, DrDeth, you have not studied the post-rational Libertarianism advocated here at SDMB. In their system, humans are filled with charity and, even though financial gain is their only motive, they forget this totally whenever they see suffering, and instead rush to share their entire fortune out of pure kindness.
Except government employees of course. These “people” are sub-humans whose highest priority is to pretend to vaccinate your children while actually sterilizing or brain-washing them.
ETA: A relatively intelligent Libertarian will show up and complain that I’m caricaturizing their “philosophy” again. Fine, but if you do show up, please (demonstrate whether your elevator goes all the way up to the top floor and) offer an opinion on the “Insurance” answer given to OP.
I’ll let someone more knowledgeable about SO speak to that, but wikipedia says that at the time of its actual breakup, its market share was down to 64% from ~90% a few years earlier. Seems like the market was already working.
Before I talk about AT&T, can you answer one question: Are you fucking kidding me?