Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Danoff]

Famine and Duke have covered this nicely, but I want to clarify.

It's still a bad and deliberately misleading example of what socialised healthcare entails. In reality, no-one would stick a gun to a friend's head in a situation like this - ever.

You do. Biggles does. Joey does. Anyone who votes for socialized medicine does. Your gun is held by police officers enforcing tax codes. You authorize them to put that gun to your friends' and neighbors' heads should they refuse to pay their taxes. Taxes which are used to fund the health care that you insist that anyone who needs it gets.

There is no way around it. Government is force. Government healthcare requires the threat of force to fund. Every time you vote for socialized healthcare you are quite literally putting a gun to someone's head. Not only have you not refuted this statement, you cannot refute this statement. People do not voluntarily pay their taxes, even though the threat of force is not particularly visible, it is real.

That situation is extremely unlikely.

That situation is the one you are in. It is not only likely, you are in it. And right now you have the gun pointed at your friend. When you say "I think we should have the government provide healthcare", you have a gun pointed at MY head. Because I'm the one who will be paying for it. Does that make it personal enough for you? You are threatening me.

Your wife is diagnosed with cancer, she needs chemotherapy, radiation and an operation in order to put the cancer into remission. You both work for meagre salaries but neither of you have health insurance. Without the treatments she has 6 months to live at best, with the treatments her life expectancy could easily be extended by many years. You can not afford treatments, subsequent medications, the operation, or the hospital stays without insurance. You have even contacted charitable organisations, who have said they would send you paper work and review your case, but you know that could take too long. Even if you sold all your worldly goods you still couldn't cover the cost. So what do you do?

I would respect human rights.

In this case, that means relying on charity to pay for my wife's operation. I would do everything I could to raise the money while staying within the confines of human rights - but you say I could not cover the cost. So charity is the only option. If there is no charity that would provide the operation, I would beg for the money. I would beg in every way I could think. I would start chain mails, I would beg family, I would beg literally everyone. I would post fliers everywhere.

But presuming that I am in the scenario that I put you in. My wife is the dying person, I have the gun, society has the money. I would put down the gun and be with my wife as she died. I will not sacrifice the rights of others to save her life. She would not want me to, and she would do the same for me.

Of course, your scenario actually is fairly ridiculous, because I have insurance and we save our money. That's what being a responsible person entails - making sure that you can handle your affairs without having to beg for others to help you.

Edit:

And once again, I will address the Deceleration of Independence here. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, these are often thought of as human rights, yes?

Yes, you are entitled to your life (no one may take it from you), you are entitled to your liberty (no one may take it from you), your are entitled to your pursuits (no one may prevent you from chasing them). You are not entitled to have someone else's pursuits - which is what you advocate here. You see, when you claim that you can take their money, you claim ownership over their pursuits - meaning you have infringed their right to their pursuits.

.conveniently neglecting to mention that the threat of incarceration (a far cry from a threat to kill) is the extreme end of a process that in itself is incredibly unlikely, and is the extreme end of a spectrum of options, the rest of which are far less draconian - for example, a fine etc. In the UK, there is no legal provision to threaten tax evasion with the penalty of death. I'd wager that only in extreme circumstances is tax evasion actually punished with jail, and that you'd be hard pushed to find someone who has been jailed for refusing to pay National Insurance.

You'd be hard pressed to find it because when faced with the option of paying their taxes, people rarely choose to lose their liberty. Can you blame them? They've been given a choice between losing one of two rights, their right to liberty, or their right to a few hundred bucks worth of property. Few people would choose to lose their liberty over that, but it's a choice that they shouldn't have to make. And it doesn't matter if the lost right is death or liberty. Liberty is more dear to me than life anyway. But just because people are willing to hand over their possessions when faced with grim alternatives doesn't mean those alternatives aren't real. What do you think would happen to you if you refused to pay your taxes?

 

[FoolKiller]

That depends on one's interpretation of the General Welfare Clause in the US Constitution.

True, which is why I previously quoted James Madison, often called the "Father of the Constitution."

With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. – James Madison

If we take his comments I guess we should look at the rest of Article 1, Section 8.

..conveniently neglecting to mention that the threat of incarceration (a far cry from a threat to kill) is the extreme end of a process that in itself is incredibly unlikely, and is the extreme end of a spectrum of options, the rest of which are far less draconian - for example, a fine etc. In the UK, there is no legal provision to threaten tax evasion with the penalty of death. I'd wager that only in extreme circumstances is tax evasion or failure to make NI payments actually punished with jail, and that you'd be hard pushed to find someone who has been jailed for refusing to pay National Insurance.

If someone refused to pay their taxes that would go toward a health care plan (or any tax), yes they would just be fined (current proposals being 2.5% of income), but if someone chose to take their protest to its extreme end the end result would be incarceration, and any resistance to that would be met with physical force. Anyone who makes a 100% refusal (meaning even refusing all penalties) to meet their government enforced tax burden will eventually see a gun pointed in their direction, as that is the final true enforcement tool of governments.

 

[Touring Mars]

Every time you vote for socialized healthcare you are quite literally putting a gun to someone's head.

No, you are not. To say so is patently false. Even as a metaphor, (and I am aware that I've said this already), it is not even close to a fair reflection of what actually happens. You may believe your own rhetoric, but until I see some evidence of it actually happening (in a country that already has a public healthcare option in place), then I won't.

Taxation obviously needs to be enforced, but this is the case with any sort of taxation. I totally reject your statement quoted above since it is literally false (and even metaphorically false), but if you insist on using it, then why not apply it to everything else: Every time you vote for government spending on defence you are quite literally putting a gun to someone's head. Every time you vote for government spending on research you are quite literally putting a gun to someone's head. Every time you vote for government spending on schools you are quite literally putting a gun to someone's head. Etc. etc.

Your beef may be with taxation in general, but so long as your constitution empowers your government to tax, then you're going to have to accept the fact that you too "hold a gun to someone's head" every time you vote. I don't deny that "People do not voluntarily pay their taxes, even though the threat of force is not particularly visible, it is real.". But I do not think it is fair to single out support for a public healthcare option as any more or less tyrannical than existing forms of taxation, let alone that by voting for such an option you are "literally" holding a gun to someone's head - you just aren't.

 

[Duke]

Strange, then, that here in the UK, I have never heard of a single incidence where someone was forced at gunpoint to pay National Insurance, nor have I heard of a case where someone was threatened with lethal force for not paying into a compulsory welfare scheme. What I am trying to emphasise here is that the libertarian cliché of men with guns breaking down your door is so far removed from reality that it isn't a fair scenario to consider, yet it has been trotted out time and time again in this debate already.

What happens if you don't pay your taxes? Fines. What happens of you don't pay your fines? More fines. What happens if you don't pay those fines? Arrest and jail. What happens if you resist arrest? Guns. Sanitize it all you want, distance yourself from it, but that is the end result - government rules by threat of force at first principles.

That depends on one's interpretation of the General Welfare Clause in the US Constitution.

I suggest you read up on what Madison, Franklin, Jefferson, and others had to say about the interpretation of "general welfare":

"I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." - Ben Franklin

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands;they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor;they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." - James Madison

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

"Our tenet ever was... that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." - Thomas Jefferson

Pretty convincing stuff there. Written by the Founding Fathers themselves.

..conveniently neglecting to mention that the threat of incarceration (a far cry from a threat to kill) is the extreme end of a process that in itself is incredibly unlikely, and is the extreme end of a spectrum of options, the rest of which are far less draconian - for example, a fine etc. In the UK, there is no legal provision to threaten tax evasion with the penalty of death. I'd wager that only in extreme circumstances is tax evasion or failure to make NI payments actually punished with jail, and that you'd be hard pushed to find someone who has been jailed for refusing to pay National Insurance.

So what happens to them? The government just says "OK, don't worry about it"...? What happens if you refuse to comply with the law as it escalates its threats against you for refusal to comply?

 

[Danoff]

No, you are not. To say so is patently false. Even as a metaphor, (and I am aware that I've said this already), it is not even close to a fair reflection of what actually happens. You may believe your own rhetoric, but until I see some evidence of it actually happening (in a country that already has a public healthcare option in place), then I won't.

Taxation obviously needs to be enforced, but this is the case with any sort of taxation. I totally reject your statement quoted above since it is literally false (and even metaphorically false), but if you insist on using it, then why not apply it to everything else: Every time you vote for government spending on defence you are quite literally putting a gun to someone's head. Every time you vote for government spending on research you are quite literally putting a gun to someone's head. Every time you vote for government spending on schools you are quite literally putting a gun to someone's head. Etc. etc.

Your beef may be with taxation in general, but so long as your constitution empowers your government to tax, then you're going to have to accept the fact that you too "hold a gun to someone's head" every time you vote. I don't deny that "People do not voluntarily pay their taxes, even though the threat of force is not particularly visible, it is real.". But I do not think it is fair to single out support for a public healthcare option as any more or less tyrannical than existing forms of taxation, let alone that by voting for such an option you are "literally" holding a gun to someone's head - you just aren't.

I agree with you about all taxation. Government is force. Any and all taxes involve forcing someone to pay. I'm singling thing thing about because it is the next use of force we are proposing heaping onto all of the other things we force people to do at gunpoint - but you are correct that all of it counts. That being said, you have yet to refute the position. In fact, you admit it...

I don't deny that "People do not voluntarily pay their taxes, even though the threat of force is not particularly visible, it is real."

...so don't claim I'm making something up here. Now that we've come to the agreement that taxation and government is force, how do you feel about the gun you have pointed at your friends and family forcing them to give their possessions to strangers?

 

[Famine]

..conveniently neglecting to mention that the threat of incarceration (a far cry from a threat to kill) is the extreme end of a process that in itself is incredibly unlikely, and is the extreme end of a spectrum of options, the rest of which are far less draconian - for example, a fine etc.

And who levies the fine?

Ultimately you must pay. If you do not pay the law threatens to put you in prison. The money is taken from you by force. In the example, the force is represented by the gun.

 

[Joey D]

After reading some of these responses I am just going to leave it at this, to me libertarian thought is not a way I wish to run my life or have my life ran. If you think allowing others to die is respecting human rights, I'll respect your opinion.

 

[Danoff]

After reading some of these responses I am just going to leave it at this, to me libertarian thought is not a way I wish to run my life or have my life ran. If you think allowing others to die is respecting human rights, I'll respect your opinion.

Libertarian thought does not propose to change the way you want to run your life. It proposes to prevent you from telling others how to run theirs. In return, they won't run yours for you.

If you think the point is that you have to allow people to die to respect human rights, then I have failed at my job here. You are always free to help anyone you wish with your time and resources - you don't have to let anyone die. And you're always free to encourage others to help with their time and resources. The point is that you're not allowed to use the threat of violence to achieve your goals.

...and yes, refusing to use violence against innocent people is respecting human rights.

 

[Touring Mars]

I agree with you about all taxation. Government is force. Any and all taxes involve forcing someone to pay. I'm singling thing thing about because it is the next use of force we are proposing heaping onto all of the other things we force people to do at gunpoint - but you are correct that all of it counts. That being said, you have yet to refute the position. In fact, you admit it...

Of course I admit it, but I don't have a problem with paying taxes for stuff that I feel is necessary for the general welfare of the state - defence, education, public services, welfare/social security and healthcare, nor do I have a problem with the fact that such taxation must be enforced if it is be at all effective. Also, where did I say that you were making stuff up? I am merely pointing out that your metaphor of pointing guns at people is inaccurate, and that your statement "Every time you vote for socialized healthcare you are quite literally putting a gun to someone's head." is literally incorrect.

If someone refused to pay their taxes that would go toward a health care plan (or any tax), yes they would just be fined (current proposals being 2.5% of income), but if someone chose to take their protest to its extreme end the end result would be incarceration, and any resistance to that would be met with physical force. Anyone who makes a 100% refusal (meaning even refusing all penalties) to meet their government enforced tax burden will eventually see a gun pointed in their direction, as that is the final true enforcement tool of governments.

... that is never used in practice. Here in Britain, the police risk criminal charges if they shoot someone who they suspect of being a suicide bomber, about to blow up a train-load of commuters. How often do you think someone is threatened with a gun for not paying their taxes, or for refusing to pay their NI contributions? However much you guys persist in using the "lethal force" rhetoric, you can't seriously expect me to believe that this is what will actually happen in practice.

Ultimately you must pay. If you do not pay the law threatens to put you in prison. The money is taken from you by force. In the example, the force is represented by the gun.

In the extraordinarily implausible example, the force is represented by the gun... but it needn't be the case in reality, nor is it actually the case in reality here. Arrest is only one option available too - seizure or freezing of assets can be done without having to arrest anyone. In any case, the police may only use reasonable force in apprehending any criminal, whether it is for a breach of the peace, or peeing on a dumpster. What makes refusing to pay a fine any different? If someone is to be arrested for non-payment of fines, they would be arrested in as reasonable a manner as practicable. But if someone decided to barracade themselves in their office and take the secretary hostage at gunpoint, then he'd have bigger problems than worrying about his National Insurance bill. But that would be his fault, not the fault of the arresting officer who came armed with nothing more than a warrant for his arrest.

I suggest you read up on what Madison, Franklin, Jefferson, and others had to say about the interpretation of "general welfare":

Pretty convincing stuff there. Written by the Founding Fathers themselves.

Indeed it is, but at the same time, there is still debate as to what a modern interpretation of "general welfare" entails, and whether or not Obama's healthcare plan is unconstitutional or not. Time will tell, but somehow I doubt that the bill would have got this far if it had no chance of ever becoming law on constitutional grounds.

 

[Famine]

I don't have a problem with paying taxes for stuff that I feel is necessary...

Not that it matters if you did have a problem, or it was for things you felt were unnecessary. You pay the taxes anyway, or else...

In the extraordinarily implausible example, the force is represented by the gun... but it needn't be the case in reality, nor is it actually the case in reality here.

Literally? No. But literally an atom isn't some protons and neutrons with an electron per proton whizzing round it. It's a simplified model to provide understanding.

Arrest is only one option available too - seizure or freezing of assets can be done without having to arrest anyone.

So, if you don't pay your taxes, we have:

1. Prison
2. Fine
3. Seizure/freezing of assets

They all look like force to me. Pay your taxes or the government comes and gets you and what you own.


The point of the example is that when someone is ill, it's not your responsibility to give them care. It's not the responsibility of any third party to take money off you or anyone else to give them care. However, there's nothing to say that if you want to help them you can't.

And that's the point. It's not that you'd leave a guy dying and walk off - it's that it should be up to you to help them or not, and it shouldn't be a third party that forces you to do either.

 

[Duke]

However much you guys persist in using the "lethal force" rhetoric, you can't seriously expect me to believe that this is what will actually happen in practice.


In the extraordinarily implausible example, the force is represented by the gun... but it needn't be the case in reality, nor is it actually the case in reality here. Arrest is only one option available too - seizure or freezing of assets can be done without having to arrest anyone.

So legalized theft is just dandy with you? Just because technology means you no longer have to send the Sheriff of Nottingham around to burn my house down and kill my wife, it's OK to "redistribute" my wealth as you (the government) sees fit?

In any case, the police may only use reasonable force in apprehending any criminal, whether it is for a breach of the peace, or peeing on a dumpster. What makes refusing to pay a fine any different? If someone is to be arrested for non-payment of fines, they would be arrested in as reasonable a manner as practicable. But if someone decided to barracade themselves in their office and take the secretary hostage at gunpoint, then he'd have bigger problems than worrying about his National Insurance bill. But that would be his fault, not the fault of the arresting officer who came armed with nothing more than a warrant for his arrest.

What if I don't take anyone hostage (which would definitely violate their rights), but I barricade myself inside my own house with whatever assets the government hasn't yet stolen frozen, and point my gun at the police who are coming onto my property to take it away?

You still think that government is not enforced by threat of violence? Again, you can sugar coat it all you wish, you can turn a blind eye, but when it comes down to the basics it is this: the law has power because they will hurt you if you don't follow it. Killing is just the most basic example, but it is not fundamentally different in concept from any step leading up to execution.

Indeed it is, but at the same time, there is still debate as to what a modern interpretation of "general welfare" entails, and whether or not Obama's healthcare plan is unconstitutional or not. Time will tell, but somehow I doubt that the bill would have got this far if it had no chance of ever becoming law on constitutional grounds.

I wouldn't doubt that at all, and doubting it is naive in the extreme, to put it bluntly. The US government has been ignoring the Constitution when it is convenient to do so for many many decades. The only reason most other countries can't be accused of the same is that they don't even have a charter that is set up in the same way to begin with.

 

[Touring Mars]

Not that it matters if you did have a problem, or it was for things you felt were unnecessary. You pay the taxes anyway, or else...

Lucky I'm not the one complaining about it. I choose to stay in this country and therefore follow the laws of the land. If I were unhappy with doing that, I'd leave.

So legalized theft is just dandy with you?

Legalized theft is something of an oxymoron, and I'm not sure what you mean by it... obviously, I don't condone theft, but I don't consider the non-payment of fines legitimate either. If someone is fined for non-payment of taxes, a tax that is endorsed by the law, then I'd consider withholding of the fine to be theft...

The fact remains that in a law-abiding society, there must be entities in place to enforce the law, and punishments for those who refuse to abide by the law. Obviously, taxation is not exempt. You may question the justice and legitimacy of any particular tax, but I don't think that a tax can be considered immoral simply because of the weight of force carried by the law enforcement agencies - especially if that force is not needed or used in practice.

 

[FoolKiller]

Indeed it is, but at the same time, there is still debate as to what a modern interpretation of "general welfare" entails,

Why do I have a suspicion that a modern interpretation would mean exactly nill to the authors if it is different from the original intent? It seems awfully convenient to say the modern interpretation is what matters. I mean, genocide could at some point meet the modern interpretation of general welfare if it was deemed the only way to completely protect the citizenry.

Really, anyone could argue against all original intent by saying modern interpretation is all that matters. For example, see how Congres has failed to declare war since WWII, despite the US sending troops into foreign countries multiple times since. Or an "independent" central bank headed by a presidential appointee controlling monetary policy, which is supposed to be done by the Congress.

and whether or not Obama's healthcare plan is unconstitutional or not. Time will tell, but somehow I doubt that the bill would have got this far if it had no chance of ever becoming law on constitutional grounds.

Considering the two things I just pointed out, I don't doubt that in the slightest.

 

[Famine]

Lucky I'm not the one complaining about it. I choose to stay in this country and therefore follow the laws of the land. If I were unhappy with doing that, I'd leave.

Something doesn't become right because it's enacted into law.

It's the justness, not the legality, that is in question.

You may question the justice and legitimacy of any particular tax, but I don't think that a tax can be considered immoral simply because of the weight of force carried by the law enforcement agencies - especially if that force is not needed or used in practice.

It's not the weight of force that's the issue. The issue is there shouldn't be any at all, because my health is not the responsibility of other people, and it's not the responsibility of a third party to take anything from them to ensure my health.

 

[Duke]

Legalized theft is something of an oxymoron, and I'm not sure what you mean by it...

I don't think that a tax can be considered immoral simply because of the weight of force carried by the law enforcement agencies - especially if that force is not needed or used in practice.

My point is that you are insistent that government is not imposed by threat of violence because it has been sanitized and is further removed from the days when the king sent the sheriff round to burn down villages that did not comply. Now that it is done by electronic means it is somehow fundamentally different than that to you.

I agree that I accept the law of the land by voluntarily remaining in this country and so I pay my taxes as a result. But I do not try to charm myself into thinking that the government is not a force of violence, be it by sword, gun, or computer.

 

[Danoff]

What if I don't take anyone hostage (which would definitely violate their rights), but I barricade myself inside my own house with whatever assets the government hasn't yet stolen frozen, and point my gun at the police who are coming onto my property to take it away?

You still think that government is not enforced by threat of violence?

This is what it eventually comes down to. My rights are violated via property theft by the government, the government comes to seize my property, I defend my rights with force, the government is authorized to shoot.

In the end, if I defend my rights to the full extent of my ability, I die. That is the final outcome, and it is why I refuse to use anything but the strongest language in this discussion - because to use anything else is to not properly weigh the gravity of the situation.

 

[FoolKiller]

This is an interesting video that I think addresses some of the stuff we are discussing in here from a purely US legal, Federal Constitution (keyword being Federal for this discussion) point of view. It is a threeway discussion (admittedly one-sided) regarding the US Constitution's 17 distinctly labeled powers of Congress vs the states' rights, and discusses the States' ability to nullify federal law, amend the US Constitution without Congress' interference (Article 5), and what can be done today to work toward returning the United States government to the limited and then localized system originally designed.



Why is the Glenn Beck show only tolerable when he isn't on?

 

[Omnis]

Probably because the Judge and everyone from the Mises institute are awesome. I still can't believe Napolitano doesn't have his own show. He is exactly what's needed as a host. Someone to invite different perspectives and call someone out when they're full of it-- the antithesis of these dime-a-dozen "actor" hosts like everyone on CNN, for example. He was a judge on the NJ state supreme court for goodness sake.

 

[Touring Mars]

My point is that you are insistent that government is not imposed by threat of violence because it has been sanitized and is further removed from the days when the king sent the sheriff round to burn down villages that did not comply. Now that it is done by electronic means it is somehow fundamentally different than that to you.

Not at all - I fully acknowledge that many laws are necessarily enforced by the threat of force. That a law is enforced by the threat of force does not make that law corrupt. The threat of enforcement is not what makes a law just or unjust, but yet this concept is being continually alluded to in this thread - that socialised healthcare is corrupt because it is "healthcare at gunpoint". The main thrust of my argument is that the threat of force is being grossly exaggerated in this instance and is being used as an emotive tool to support the view that socialised healthcare is corrupt. I readily acknowledge that the threat of force by the state is real, but I am also suggesting that this threat has to be kept in perspective. In specific regard to a public option on healthcare insurance, I live in a country where such a "threat" has existed for decades, and the fact of the matter is that the violent outcomes that are being repeatedly cited here just don't happen in reality.

Something doesn't become right because it's enacted into law.

True, but it is the law nevertheless. If you dislike the laws of the land, you can always go somewhere else where the law is different.

It's the justness, not the legality, that is in question.

Therefore what one considers "just" is of key importance. It seems that libertarians do not consider it "just" to help those who can't help themselves and who are not being helped by anyone, or are likely to be. Libertarians are seemingly convinced by the argument of Ben Franklin (see Duke's post above) that, although wishing to "help" the poor, welfare and charity to the poor actually makes the poor unwilling to help themselves, neglecting somewhat to mention those who are unable to help themselves. It is obvious that you won't encourage someone to improve their lot by allowing them to live comfortably on hand-outs. But there is also the question of what to do with people who, through no fault of their own, simply cannot act of their own volition to improve their lot e.g. the elderly, the sick, the mentally ill, the very young and the destitute for example. Hence I believe that a basic welfare state is a necessary part of a just society.

It's not the weight of force that's the issue. The issue is there shouldn't be any at all, because my health is not the responsibility of other people, and it's not the responsibility of a third party to take anything from them to ensure my health.

Which is fine when you are able to afford, are eligible for and have adequate health insurance. But if you aren't, then what? Currently, millions of Americans who want access to adequate healthcare coverage cannot get it, and that is the issue for alot of people.

 

[TheCracker]

Hence I believe that a basic welfare state is a necessary part of a just society.

Not just a necessary part of society, but the very essence of the concept of society.

"a community of people living together for their mutual benefit"

 

[Duke]

Not just a necessary part of society, but the very essence of the concept of society.

"a community of people living together for their mutual benefit"

The key word being mutual. So please explain how it is to your benefit to be forced to pay for my healthcare.

 

[Famine]

True, but it is the law nevertheless. If you dislike the laws of the land, you can always go somewhere else where the law is different.

Or you can question them and seek to change them... That is, after all, the point of democracy...

Therefore what one considers "just" is of key importance. It seems that libertarians do not consider it "just" to help those who can't help themselves and who are not being helped by anyone, or are likely to be.

No, that's not even close to the truth. Libertarians do not consider it the role of government but the role of the individual to make that decision.

Libertarians are seemingly convinced by the argument of Ben Franklin (see Duke's post above) that, although wishing to "help" the poor, welfare and charity to the poor actually makes the poor unwilling to help themselves, neglecting somewhat to mention those who are unable to help themselves. It is obvious that you won't encourage someone to improve their lot by allowing them to live comfortably on hand-outs. But there is also the question of what to do with people who, through no fault of their own, simply cannot act of their own volition to improve their lot e.g. the elderly, the sick, the mentally ill, the very young and the destitute for example. Hence I believe that a basic welfare state is a necessary part of a just society.

Again, all of which should be up to the individual, not the government.

Which is fine when you are able to afford, are eligible for and have adequate health insurance. But if you aren't, then what? Currently, millions of Americans who want access to adequate healthcare coverage cannot get it, and that is the issue for alot of people.

You're getting caught up in the receiver-side of the equation. It's the contributor-side that is the problem here.

Socialised healthcare
Taking money, by force, from people -> Healthcare = People not being ill any more

Libertarian healthcare
People contribute money voluntarily -> Healthcare = People not being ill any more

It's not that Libertarians are some evil, weird bogeymen who want everyone who is ill and can't pay for their own treatments to die. It's that they (we) want everyone to make that choice for themselves. The end result is the same - some people get better, some people don't - but it's how the money enters the system that differs.

Under the Libertarian ideal, people who can't afford or aren't eligible for health insurance don't die or get cast aside as chaff. They are helped by people who want to help them.

 

[TheCracker]

The key word being mutual. So please explain how it is to your benefit to be forced to pay for my healthcare.

Because in return you help pay for my well being from your portion of tax that goes to pay for the armed forces or police.

 

[homeforsummer]

I don't wish to get too far involved in this discussion because both sides are raising points that I'd not considered. Personally, I'd always assumed that nationalised healthcare was a good thing. That several of you (Famine, Danoff, Duke) have made me question this view leaves me unsure, but it's really interesting reading the discussion.

However, I would like to chime in on TheCracker's point that Duke responded to...

Because in return you help pay for my well being from your portion of tax that goes to pay for the armed forces or police.

Not to mention that you might be friends with the person whose healthcare you're paying for. Or they might be related. Or they might be your local baker who then goes out of business, and nobody can buy bread. Or the local Sherriff, whose absence sees an increase in crime, which affects everyone.

Extreme examples? Perhaps, but then metaphorically no less extreme than the example of someone holding a gun to your head demanding money. That was an example of a "small community" related metaphor, as was my metaphor. If you can apply one to wider society then you can apply the other.

 

[Touring Mars]

No, that's not even close to the truth. Libertarians do not consider it the role of government but the role of the individual to make that decision.

Regardless of who's role it is to decide whether something is just or not, there remains the issue of how to tackle social injustice even after charity is exhausted. If the collective action of charitable individuals still falls short of providing for the truly dependent, then what happens?

You're getting caught up in the receiver-side of the equation. It's the contributor-side that is the problem here.

I suggest that it is both.

It's not that Libertarians are some evil, weird bogeymen who want everyone who is ill and can't pay for their own treatments to die. It's that they (we) want everyone to make that choice for themselves. The end result is the same - some people get better, some people don't - but it's how the money enters the system that differs.

Under the Libertarian ideal, people who can't afford or aren't eligible for health insurance don't die or get cast aside as chaff. They are helped by people who want to help them.

Don't worry, I don't think that - but I do think that libertarian policies are inadequate to address the needs of the truly dependent. For example, Hans-Hermann Hoppe writes at mises.org that we should "Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased breed illness and disease, and promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate them, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living. In the first instance, that means abolishing Medicare and Medicaid.". I simply cannot subscribe to the notion that need is akin to lifestyle choice, or a policy that disregards the truly dependent.

There is simply no reason to believe that the libertarian ideal is anywhere near reality, or even achievable. I don't doubt that most libertarians want to and do help through charity, but yet there are millions of people in the US who are not getting the care/cover they need. The issue remains of how to provide essential care for those who have no means to pay for it (nor any realistic chance of changing their ability to pay), other than expecting them to rely on charity that is not up to the task.

 

[Duke]

Because in return you help pay for my well being from your portion of tax that goes to pay for the armed forces or police.

But I'm broke, so I don't pay any taxes. How am I benefiting you now?

Not to mention that you might be friends with the person whose healthcare you're paying for. Or they might be related.

In which case, I can just directly offer my friend/relative money, and guarantee that it goes to the person I want to help.

 

[TheCracker]

But I'm broke, so I don't pay any taxes. How am I benefiting you now?

With your sparkling personality and quick wit - or perhaps your dancing or singing skills that entertain us all on reality TV shows?

 

[Famine]

Don't worry, I don't think that - but I do think that libertarian policies are inadequate to address the needs of the truly dependent.

The question is why they need addressing at all by government.

There is simply no reason to believe that the libertarian ideal is anywhere near reality, or even achievable.

The problem won't be being there - it'll be getting there.

 

[homeforsummer]

But I'm broke, so I don't pay any taxes. How am I benefiting you now?

You're broke? I'm guessing then that you can't afford private healthcare. Here, have some funded by the taxpayer instead, it'll fix you right up...

In which case, I can just directly offer my friend/relative money, and guarantee that it goes to the person I want to help.

But that won't help the baker. Or the Sheriff. Or indeed the poor woman down the road with a poorly baby.

I'm still sitting on the fence on this one, but at the same time I'm wondering how many people here, if put in a situation where they really couldn't fund their own healthcare, would be on their moral high horse about taxpayers funding their treatment. People often change their tune when taken out of their comfort zone.

 

[Touring Mars]

The question is why they need addressing at all by government.

Maybe to fill the gaping hole that libertarians gayly assume will be filled with the milk of human kindness?