Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
whats the Libertarian view on social welfare and health?
Welfare? The view is fairly straightforward. It's not kosher to use force to take from some in order to give to others. Charities are much more efficient at providing for the needy than the government is anyway. Charity is voluntary; welfare, therefore is not charity.
It's funny, but state welfare programs were all but non-existant in the United States in the 19th century, yet people from all over the world came here in droves. I believe that freedom improves the lot in life of the average Joe much more than social welfare ever could. I also believe that many people are charitable, and I'd never bet against the good nature of humanity as a whole.
Health? Who has a bigger stake in your health than you? The government? It's hard for me to understand why people feel that the government would be inclined to provide better health services than individuals would seek out on their own. I think that there are many problems with healthcare in the United States, but a lack of state involvement isn't one of them. One example of state intervention is the government tax incentives which encourage employers to pay their employees with health insurance rather than with cash. Consequently, I believe that exploding costs are a result of a separation between the payee and the beneficiary of treatment. If you look at a less regulated medical industry like LASEK eye surgery, prices have continuously dropped, rather than risen.
Who has a bigger stake in your health than you? The government? It's hard for me to understand why people feel that the government would be inclined to provide better health services than individuals would seek out on their own.
It shouldn't be. Look at this argument...
"Who has a bigger stake in your rights than you? The government? It's hard for me to understand why people feel that the government should be there to protect the rights than individuals would seek out on their own."
Health? Who has a bigger stake in your health than you? The government? It's hard for me to understand why people feel that the government would be inclined to provide better health services than individuals would seek out on their own. I think that there are many problems with healthcare in the United States, but a lack of state involvement isn't one of them. One example of state intervention is the government tax incentives which encourage employers to pay their employees with health insurance rather than with cash. Consequently, I believe that exploding costs are a result of a separation between the payee and the beneficiary of treatment. If you look at a less regulated medical industry like LASEK eye surgery, prices have continuously dropped, rather than risen.
First of all, I agree that people should take responsibility for their own health, and by that I mean make the effort to be healthy. That much I think most people can agree on.
The healthcare issue basically comes down to one simple question: do you think healthcare is a right or a privilege? If you think it's a privilege, then we should probably agree to disagree. I think it's a right, or at least on the same level as public education: something that a citizen is entitled to. I feel it is wrong for someone to suffer and/or die from an illness because they can't pay for treatment.
I see what you mean about LASIK, but that is an elective procedure. If you can't afford it, you just keep wearing your glasses until you save up enough. That doesn't apply quite the same way when someone suffering from a treatable disease is unable to afford the medication or surgery or whatever they need to get better.
I don't think anyone is advocating a total government takeover of the healthcare system. Ultimately, I think the best situation would be for the government to extend Medicare to all Americans. That would get rid of for-profit insurance companies, which are basically expensive middle-men. The real substance of the healthcare system - hospitals, doctor's offices, pharma - would stay the way they are. The only difference would be how the services are paid for.
But you drew a parallel that demonstrated a relationship between an idiot and unregulated business. Having said that, a negligent business would be one that puts people's welfare above its own.
How is it in the company's interest for its managers or workers to go to jail for causing harm to people? I don't follow your assertion.
To clarify, I believe that in the eyes of the law, a negligent businessman who causes harm should be treated no differently than any other negligent person who causes harm through their actions.
You're using circular reasoning to incorrectly skew my viewpoints... please don't. You make the following assertion: "I believe in unregulated business" > "Negligent businesspeople who cause harm should be prosecuted in a similar fashion to idiot drivers who cause harm" > "Therefore unregulated businesses are like idiot drivers"
How is it in the company's interest for its managers or workers to go to jail for causing harm to people? I don't follow your assertion.
Why would anybody go to prison when they don't break an existing law? Now, things were quite a bit different in the early days of this nation, where corporate charters in virtually every state did their best to protect the people from the whims of businesses, that the managers/owners could face dire consequences for public harm. That doesn't happen anymore because such regulations are long gone.
Besides, my statement wasn't really an assertion but an observation from your response to a post. The person you responded to had brought up the fact that without regulation a company could spew dangerous pollutants (in his example, blind him). The person's eye sight is gone, and won't come back no matter the punishment. You quoted an idiot causing an accident as a rebuttal, hence drawing a parallel between potential consequences from unregulated industry and an out of control idiot on the road.
Quote:
To clarify, I believe that in the eyes of the law, a negligent businessman who causes harm should be treated no differently than any other negligent person who causes harm through their actions.
Let us assume that there is no regulation of emissions from a factory I own, and of underground water that is under the property. Both adversely affect a person living in his property. In absence of any law, what premise would prove me guilty of breaking any law?
"Who has a bigger stake in your rights than you? The government? It's hard for me to understand why people feel that the government should be there to protect the rights than individuals would seek out on their own."
And how do people seek out better protection of their "natural rights"? I think that people do, in fact, tend to move to countries where they may have more freedoms.
Seeking out better healthcare, on the other hand, is simply a matter of going to a different doctor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
