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.
A lot of people here tend to confuse libertarianism with anarchism. There are some anarchists in the Libertarian party, but the vast majority of Libertarians are more realistic than that, some government is necassary, that is common sense. This is a good litmus test on when & how government should act. This is Milton Friedman's view as layed out in Capitalism & Freedom. Do you agree? Here goes:
1.) When government should act:
a.) indivisible good (national defense/police/fire protection, etc)
b.) work as umpire (enforce laws and contracts)
c.) break up monopolies
d.) neighborhood effects (a third party benefits or is harmed from exchange of others)
e.) paternalistic reasons (gov't takes care of children in the absense of good parents, lunatics, and idiots)
2.) If government should act, then how can it do so most consistently with freedom?
a.) protection of private property
b.) people can still enjoy the fruits of their labor
c.) right to pursue your destiny as you understand it
This seems reasonable enough to me, and it is a demonstration that Libertarians are not for the most part anarchists. Just as not all Liberals are Marxists, and not all Conservatives religious nuts.
Doesn't it just demonstrate that Friedman isn't an anarchist?
A lot of Libertarians including Ron Paul base a lot of their ideas on Friedman's ideas. And you'll find that these are views for many, not all, but many Libertarians.
Any law on vice, preemptive war, Patriot act, any licensing for barbers, doctors, lawyers, etc.
I think licensing doctors and making sure a lawyer actually went to law school isn't too much to ask.
Most other occupations, no, but if you are cutting me open or making sure I don't end up in a place where I face a 68% chance of being sodomized against my will, I'd like some backing other than the ability to sue the bastard after accidentally having the wrong limb amputated or after spending four years as Asshammer Jack's *****.
I think licensing doctors and making sure a lawyer actually went to law school isn't too much to ask.
Licensing is a racket. It is a colloberation between powerful lobbies and the government to keep prices high, and to set quotas for how many are allowed into law school or med school. On the surface it seems necassary to make doctors are licensed to practice medicine, as it seems reasonable to require lawyers to be licensed by the state bar. But in reallity, both medical and law practices exist to be profitbale. If I was to walk up to law practice and ask for a job, I wouldn't get one. Not because I'm not licensed to practice law, but because I never graduated from Law School. Same goes as if I was to walk into a hospital and ask for a job. True, I could open up my own practice in a seedy strip mall and call it Dr. Justin's $5 lobatamies, but no one would come. If a practice of any wants to remain open and keep making money, then it is in their best interests to only hire those who are actually qualified. If a Lawyer opens a practice after not attending Law School, he will not have clients, no one will hire a lawyer (or a doctor) with no training or record of success. You could look at airline pilots, they are required to have a pilot's license. But seriously, would United Airlines hire someone who has never flown a plane before? Would you buy tickets with an airline that only has a 80% landing rate? No, nobody would, the free-market would weed out poor lawyers, poor doctors, and poor airline pilots, etc. Its not the piece of paper called a license that keeps professionals doing their job to the highest standards. A license is simply yet another scheme thought up by the bueracracy to make money, off the people.
What I don't get is why we need to call real "conservatives" libertarians and make up such a word. People like Barry Goldwater, Thomas Jefferson, and Booker T. Washington would all be consider "true" conservatives with true conservative values and thought.
However, in modern day society these people are now looked at as "liberitarians." I think it is a ridiculous hi-jacking of the term. We are the rightful conservatives not those far right religious (insert word for village idiots) that think they somehow have a monopoly on conservatism and conservative thought.
I kinda of resent that i'm 120% conservative in fiscal issues and social issues in relation to the constitution, but somehow i fall into this newly formed bs category and the religious right who are not really conservatives otherwise are now considerd modern day conservatives. When was holding to religous values namely Christian religous values considerd conservative in history? Why is holding onto religious values now all of a sudden linked to conservatism?
I just have a huge issue with the social value crowds attempting to force thier religion and values on others and then calling themselves conservative. Social Police are never conservatives ever. They abuse the power of government (by making it larger) to impose thier extremely silly social demands on others.
What I don't get is why we need to call real "conservatives" libertarians and make up such a word. People like Barry Goldwater, Thomas Jefferson, and Booker T. Washington would all be consider "true" conservatives with true conservative values and thought.
However, in modern day society these people are now looked at as "liberitarians." I think it is a ridiculous hi-jacking of the term. We are the rightful conservatives not those far right religious (insert word for village idiots) that think they somehow have a monopoly on conservatism and conservative thought.
I kinda of resent that i'm 120% conservative in fiscal issues and social issues in relation to the constitution, but somehow i fall into this newly formed bs category and the religious right who are not really conservatives otherwise are now considerd modern day conservatives. When was holding to religous values namely Christian religous values considerd conservative in history? Why is holding onto religious values now all of a sudden linked to conservatism?
I just have a huge issue with the social value crowds attempting to force thier religion and values on others and then calling themselves conservative. Social Police are never conservatives ever. They abuse the power of government (by making it larger) to impose thier extremely silly social demands on others.
Thomas Jefferson thought of himself as a classic liberal.
Licensing is a racket. It is a colloberation between powerful lobbies and the government to keep prices high, and to set quotas for how many are allowed into law school or med school. On the surface it seems necassary to make doctors are licensed to practice medicine, as it seems reasonable to require lawyers to be licensed by the state bar. But in reallity, both medical and law practices exist to be profitbale. If I was to walk up to law practice and ask for a job, I wouldn't get one. Not because I'm not licensed to practice law, but because I never graduated from Law School. Same goes as if I was to walk into a hospital and ask for a job. True, I could open up my own practice in a seedy strip mall and call it Dr. Justin's $5 lobatamies, but no one would come. If a practice of any wants to remain open and keep making money, then it is in their best interests to only hire those who are actually qualified. If a Lawyer opens a practice after not attending Law School, he will not have clients, no one will hire a lawyer (or a doctor) with no training or record of success. You could look at airline pilots, they are required to have a pilot's license. But seriously, would United Airlines hire someone who has never flown a plane before? Would you buy tickets with an airline that only has a 80% landing rate? No, nobody would, the free-market would weed out poor lawyers, poor doctors, and poor airline pilots, etc. Its not the piece of paper called a license that keeps professionals doing their job to the highest standards. A license is simply yet another scheme thought up by the bueracracy to make money, off the people.
Wow, very well said and I was always iffy on the licensing piece as i never could form a solid opinion. You're totally right it really comes down to supply and demand. However, through requiring a licence the government is definitely artifically holding down supply, which will increase prices. Great analysis.
However, the only argument i could see being made is that the cost to people for say a non-licensed bad doctor practicing or attempting to specialize may be death etc before market forces take action and shut him down etc.
However, i'm going to attempt to play devils advocate with you for a second.
The problem i see without government regulations in licensing would be the people most at risk and more likely to use the cheaper more unqualified doctor would be the poor and lower middle class.
Due to market forces the middle class and the rich would pay a premimuim to use the best qualified doctors, so all the doctors, lawyers, and etc, that had licenses from the most prestigious schools could charge the highest rates, expect the largest margins, and biggest client base.
The poor due to these market forces would not be able to afford the better qualified doctors and would thus spend what little money they had with the most unqualified doctors. Thus it goes without saying the most unqualified doctors would charge the lowest rates, have the lowest margins, and the smallest client base.
In the end you have a market that would eventually price out most (not all) of the unqualified doctors and continue to reward the more highly qualified doctors similarly to what we have today.
I it can legitimately be argued that the most qualified doctors would make significantly more money if government did not interven and raise competition by requiring everyone to be qualified to intiate such a practice.
Example Non Regulated industry with 1000 practicing doctors and 2000 available patients
40% graduated from Ivy league schools and graduated from a prestigious residency (They retain 70% of all patients and are thus able to charge extremely higher rates)
20% graduated from a non-prestigious college with no prestigious residency
(They retain 5% of all patients and are thus able to charge only a significant discount to the Ivy Grads just to get patients)
40% did not attend college
(They retain 15% of all patients, because they charge significantly lower rates than all others, because they offer the worst service of all others)
My theory is that due to killing patients, prescribing bad medicine, and other market forces the numbers of serverly unqualified doctors practing will be reduced over time to. However, the number of patients going to more qualified doctors will continue to increase until the most qualified doctors have the majority of the market. (just like we have now, but charging patients significantly higher prices for service than we have now). Perhaps once the most qualified doctors eliminate the college grads than you'll see price competition emerge that will benefit the patients?
Ivy League grads retain over 80% of the patient market (and charge extremely high rates for service)
College Grads retain over 19% of the patient market (charge very high rates, but nothing compared to what the Ivy League grads would charge, because this service is still inferior when compared to the Ivy Grads)
Did not attend College doctors retain 1% of the patient market for the poorest and most desperate (still charging the lowest rates, because they are by far offering the most inferior service)
Last edited by truthhurts; 02-08-2008 at 02:54 PM..
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.
