A Libertarian Take On Unniversal Healthcare:, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 8-11-2009 @ 05:10 PM by SantaClaus
Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by SantaClaus


But guess what? If you find out you have lukemia a year from now, you are screwed, because there is no Santa Clause for 5 years after it passes the senate, and that is IF it is not ruled unconstitutional.

It is rather odd, you calling yourself a libertarian. I was under the impression libertarians were for less government and more personal responsibility?


Of course I am. But when our responsibilities become absolutely absurd to the point of laughter I will more likely lean towards logic in terms of the current circumstance.

The way I believe the country should be run in GENERAL and the way I believe we should respond to CURRENT TIMES can certainly fluctuate or I am surely stuck up and and too full of my own ideology.

I am a libertarian, but guess what? We are so far from my ideals at this point that I am not going to sit back and just keep complaining when there are some other forms of political ideology that could work for our country right now.

Want to live in a libertarian-run government? Better grab what resources you have and get ready for a fight because it will take a violent revolution to accomplish all you believe in.

You guys are fighting this socialized medicine so much... Did you stop paying your income tax yet? Well then you're surely a hypocrite.

I will have health insurance in the next few months, but I know how hard the last four have been on me. For the life of me, I am not going allow my kids to be born in a country where I see other well-educated healthy young people are allowed to pay $60k for a burst appendix when regulated healthcare could have saved them from such catastrophic expenses. At twenty five years old, with college bills, and housing, and expenses, that is almost immediately credit-ending. Did they deserve that?

I don't know. I am looking at my family and I pray to God nothing happens to me before February. Sure I have responsibility, but I'm no trust fund baby.

I think we should all imagine ourselves at 40-50 when our young adult offspring might be released into the real world during such a bad economy.

The healthcare system is already out of control. Shut down the companies altogether or regulate them.. At this time, there really are no other options.


reply posted on 8-11-2009 @ 11:58 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Rockpuck


With all due respect, there is no agreement in disagreement and you no more need my agreement to disagree with me than I need yours to disagree with you. It strikes me that there is an Orwellian nature to phrases such as "agree to disagree" in that it seems to be modern day double speak. Why don't we agree to agree? That would allow us to find much more common ground than the idea of agreeing to disagree. Indeed, agreeing to disagree seems to be another way of simply abandoning any real effort toward finding common ground. I respect your opinion and meant no offense by challenging your suggestion that health insurance be outlawed.

We do have common ground in that we both agree the insurance industry is akin to usury. I suspect we have much that would constitute common ground. Yet, I can't help but find myself confused by your own assertions. You claim to be a strict Constitutionalist but where in the Constitution would Congress find any authority to outlaw health insurance? Finding common ground is surely the best way for those who disagree to come to some sort of agreement on what the truth is. However, that common ground can not be met if disagreement is not allowed to take its course.

In terms of "set" ideologies being rigid or fluid, a well thought out ideology will be fluid no matter how rigid those who adhere to are. A "loose" ideology is not necessarily the way to a fluid ideology. Anything fluid has the ability to obtain the shape of its container. In terms of ideology, the tenets of that ideal would be the container and how the fluidity of those ideas should be able to obtain the shape of that container...in my opinion.

I have enjoyed this thread and am glad you started it. I am new to this site and certainly don't mean to offend, but both of us being Libertarians I am hopeful you can understand my passion for liberty and that passion extends to even those who would engage in usury.



reply posted on 9-11-2009 @ 12:38 AM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by poet1b


I am aware that the word myth has increasingly become synonymous with falsehood or lie, however there is nothing about the etymology of that word that justifies such a definition. While lexicographers have obviously agreed to add the definition of falsehood or lie to the word myth it just quite simply does not gibe with the etymology of the word. This is why any dictionary that allows for the use of myth meaning falsehood or lie will list that definition as a subset to its primary definition which is quite simply; a traditional story usually steeped in historical accounts that serve to explain a world view. Do you understand how by using the word myth to denote a falsehood how it can be somewhat confusing given the primary definition of the word?

Words do matter in any quest for truth as words are the building blocks by which we communicate that truth. There is certainly truth in your assertion that there are many things governments do effectively and even efficiently. Forming and maintaining standing armies is one, creating and maintaining roads, streets, boulevards, highways and byways can be another all tough not always. Securing public parks and places of recreation, sanitation and other such services is another...all though not always. There is much that government can do effectively and should be expected to do. However, forming and maintaining some sort of health insurance scheme is not a function of government that I am willing to agree can be done effectively.

That being said, in the U.S. government does indeed run a form of catastrophic health insurance that protects families from going into debt. I had a friend years ago who died of liver cancer. She had first suffered a heart attack that kept her from working for many years but the cost of that catastrophe in no way put her or her husband in any kind of debt that prevented them from living well. When she fell ill with the liver cancer neither of them had any form of health insurance to pay for the care necessary to treat her but even so she was treated for the cancer and lived for a few more years before finally succumbing to the disease. The cost of that health care was several hundred thousand dollars but in no way did that cost ever put her or her husband in any form of debt.

Her story is not an isolated incident and many people living in the U.S. have relied upon this government funded catastrophic care in order to avoid the devastation of medical debt. These medical costs are, of course, paid for with tax dollars and when the government is the one who runs such a catastrophic care system it is the only way to pay for such care because governments are not for profit businesses and the revenue they bring in is done so through taxation. That is just the way it is.

For many years most Americans have been fine with paying the taxes necessary to run such a catastrophic care system so the current legislation and the division it has brought between people is not a matter of those who don't care for indigent families and those who do, it is a matter of liberty and controlling the scope of a governments authority.


reply posted on 9-11-2009 @ 12:55 AM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ANOK


Newt Gignrich is not a Libertarian but rather a Republican and it is not at all true to say that Libertarians protect the interests of the wealthy elite. First of all, there are few Libertarian politicians who have managed to gain access to any meaningful government office in order to protect anything at all, let alone the interests of the wealthy elite. Secondly, the notion of Libertarian-socialism is an oxymoron no matter where you live. Take your own description of socialism as an example. You have defined socialism, or more accurately libertarian-socialism as "the peoples control, you and me, with no private ownership of OUR resources". There are many contradictions brought about by your definition that don't gibe with earlier statements you made. You seem to be okay with small business which if you are is good, however small business is just as much a privately owned entity as is any large business. Indeed, the larger the business the more likely that business is to become incorporated and once that has happened that business is no longer privately owned but instead becomes a statutorily created entity that exists by grant of the people.

You also define capitalism as being necessarily an economic model that that is private ownership of "our" resources. However, capitalism is not at all about owning public resources but rather about owning private property. You have been vague in what you consider to be public resources but given the nature of this thread it would be fair then to assume that you consider medicine to be a public resource. If this is true, how is it you have come to the conclusion that medicine is a public resource in the same way that air is or waterways and highways and byways? Do you consider all real estate to be public and not open to private ownership? Do you consider the efforts made by individuals in the form of labor or other means by which to earn a living a pubic resource? Please explain your notions on exactly what is a public resource and what if anything could be considered as private property.


reply posted on 9-11-2009 @ 04:32 AM by Rockpuck
reply to post by ANOK



Because American libertarians are not the same as other libertarians in the rest of the world


I suppose like Democratic parties all over the World are vastly different? Or Labor parties, or "conservative" parties... I was speaking in the context of America, as I know of no other Libertarian parties around the World, and I am referring to an American bill passed by the American government?


You protect the interests of the wealthy elite


Some say that. The general purpose of Libertarianism is to keep Government out of our lives. Since it takes a massive government to entitle the poor and protect the rich, some would say Libertarianism serves the rich and is against the poor, which is sheer ignorance.


as apposed to the working class as libertarianism was traditionally in support of.


Working class as in? Poor? Rich? Middle Class? I have seen you over the boards many, many times and time and again you mix political ideologies with this mixed up soup of beliefs in your head.

Also Newt is NOT a Libertarian, he is a Republican .. which are often religious socialist.


reply posted on 9-11-2009 @ 03:02 PM by ANOK
Originally posted by Rockpuck
Working class as in? Poor? Rich? Middle Class? I have seen you over the boards many, many times and time and again you mix political ideologies with this mixed up soup of beliefs in your head.


Mixed up? I think it's you who doesn't understand what 'working class' means? Sorry if you don't like my use of traditional terms, it's from where I grew up and was educated on the ways of the system. I know Americans don't use those class terms the same way, but it doesn't mean you have no 'working class'. You all like to call yourselves 'middle class' but you use it as a financial label not a cultural one as I use the terms. "Working Class' does not mean necessarily poor, even though traditionally they are because they provide the labour society needs to survive. One reason America has lost site of this is most of your 'working class' these days are immigrants.
When I use the term 'Working Class' I mean those who have to work for a living, as apposed to the wealthy elite who make their money off of the labour of the 'working class'. Do you work for a living?

I don't care if it's a 'libertarian party' or not, the term they use to describe themselves is historically incorrect, and at odds with that the rest of the world consider liberalism, or libertarianism. Remember Hitler used the term 'socialist' when it's obvious he wasn't.

And yes I realise you're talking about America, that is why I suggested the title change, as this board is British and, even though you're the majority on here, this board is not just for Americans.

Also Newt is NOT a Libertarian, he is a Republican .. which are often religious socialist.


Well he was considered one at one time, maybe not now but regardless my points stand.

What is a religious socialist? I'm interested in your definition of 'socialism' here. To me it simply means 'the workers ownership of the means of production', as an American I'd assume you have a different view, as America has twisted everything to confuse you. So going by the historically correct definition of socialism what is the definition of a 'religious socialist'?
The 'worshipers ownership of the means of prayer'?


reply posted on 9-11-2009 @ 03:50 PM by poet1b
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I will keep it in mind that you don't like my use of the word myth to point out an elaborate lie that is repeated constantly as the truth. Do you have a suggestion for a better word?

I know a woman who got sick while she was unemployed. Yes, he was able to get medical treatment through medicare, but once she got back to work, she was forced to pay back over ten thousand dollars.

From my understanding that is how current government medicaid works for U.S. citizens. If you have nothing, they can take nothing back, but if you have property, they will take it to pay your medical bills. This is not a good deal for anyone who has had any level of success.

People shouldn't loose everything they have worked for because they came down with some terrible disease. That is just plain wrong.

As far as government involvement in insurance, it has been going on for a very long time. Considering the mess that the private sector has made out of health insurance, it is time something is done to change the system.



reply posted on 9-11-2009 @ 04:25 PM by TheWalkingFox
Originally posted by Rockpuck
With the whole country seemingly abuzz with the latest news: Congress has officiall approved their version of the Health Care Reform bill; I find it a little concerning that the bill that was passed followed such a strict party line. We were basically given two options, overhauling or no reform at all .. no middle ground.

I my self, am a Libertarian, and as a Libertarian I see several major problems.


Every post by a self-avowed Libertarian promises a stream of giggles for me. Bring it on!

1. Anything run by the Government automatically fails.


You and Republicans both. The rest of us keep wondering why people who insist the government fails, and can do no right, and should be abolished... have political parties and run in elections in order to be in charge of that government. I know Republicans want to be in charge in order to make the government fail, but what's the libertarian angle? We'll likely never know, as you'rre all completely unelectable.

2. The healthcare system in America is defunct and works against lower income families and individuals.

This will be amusing later in the post.

3. Mandatory health insurance goes against my God given right to not care about my health care (im being dead serious)


That may be. But you don't have to pay into the mandatory health care. In fact you, and millions of others, can, and likely will just skip that. You'll technically be "breaking the law" but hey, that never stops you guys.

Outlaw Insurance. Lasic Eye Surgery is not covered by medical insurance, however it is one of the cheapest major operations you can have done. Why? Doctors compete with one another for customers. If it's to expensive, Dr. Joe down the street might do it $500 less, so Dr. John lowers his price to $100 bellow Dr. Joe's. I know what you're all thinking: But Rockpuck, that sounds like CAPITALISM!?!?

Take Insurance out of Capitalism and it runs smoothly. Doctor visits won't be outragiously expensive, simple things like blood tests and checkups would be Walmart cheap. If no one can afford the medical services, medical service won't exist.. so prices WILL lower.. it's a fact, Captialism proves it, just look at Lasic eye surgery!


Medical issues are not like novelty sunglasses, cars, and pizza, Rockpuck. if I have a gunshot in my stomach, I'm not going to shop around for the cheapest emergency care, I'm going to the closest place I can to get treatment as fast as I can.

The idiotically simplistic market model you're using here simply does not work when it comes to necessities such as medical care, food, and fuel. People will pay. It especially breaks down on medical care, since it's honestly a very limited resource that everyone needs.

And yes, let's talk about Lasik surgery. Know how much it costs? on average, $2000 per eye. I suppose that's cheaper than going blind, but it's not exactly small change for a lot of people.

Here's the funny thing. You're probably talking about Lasik's cheapness because you've seen ads promising prices "as low as $299, 0% down!" This is a bait and switch tactic. First, the low, low price is conditional... namely it's conditional on you not needing Lasik surgery. if you go in there needing surgery, your price is going to be substantially higher. Next, their interest rates are as high as 25%, meaning that in the long run, you pay more for the cheap eye surgery than you do for the expensive eye surgery, and, very often, you get a lower-quality product.

Yes, come to think of it, that does sound like capitalism. The idea of capitalism is to get the most money out of the consumer at the least cost to the supplier. it naturally leads to high prices for inferior products. This is why inflation always skyrockets in countries that have decided to convert to a Friedman-style economy.

Since I know this is impossible (to much money) .. If there HAS to be some form of major overhaul, the only services that should be 100% free is if you develop some serious disease. if someone comes down with cancer, or MS, or is put in a Coma, it's not their fault, and their lives shouldn't be ruined. I'd have no problem seeing the State pay for these individuals health care cost.. I DO have a problem with paying for lower income families simply because they are poor and have a ton of children. Why should we pay for them?


So if you come down with lung cancer because you smoke like a furnace in order to emulate Ayn Rand, it's not your fault, and I should pay for your medical care. But if a poor family happens to come down with H1N1, eh, screw 'em!

Your logic is seriously flawed here.

Two things are absolutely certain: One, Government should NEVER be an option .. by making Government the cheap alternative it will force people onto the program, within 10 years only the upper middle class and wealthy families will have decent private health care (like Canada and Britain)


Erm... Canada and britain have very good-quality health care for their citizens. I know being a Libertarian means pretending everything you make up is true, but seriously, look it up. The rich in those countries can buy "gold plated" insurance packages from private companies (who are, interestingly, very well-regulated and have lower rates due to government competition) but the poor get coverage that's just fine.

It's still a damn sight better than the self-cannibalizing "free market" system you're talking about, where prices would skyrocket, quality would drop, and the poor would have no coverage at all and the middle-class would be scam-shopping.

By making insurance MANDATORY you are forcing a huge tax increase on the middle class, then forcing said taxed people to buy insurance.. many middle class families lost their health insurance in this economy, because it's way to expensive. Now they will be taxed (estimated 10% increase) and will have to then turn around and buy private health care. I can see it, a family being taxed into the ground, on the verge of loosing everything, and when they try to get government subsidized insurance they get denied because they make to much money.


I do believe that mandatory PRIVATE INSURANCE is the most idiotic thing ebver. But you know what? That comes from your conservative compadres. You know, the people who also believe government always fails and so we should bend out knees to private "industry"?

The Government should be as little part of our lives as seemingly possible.. the more intrusion the more they will take from us. If we must have the government dictating our health care, it should only be for those who are ill beyond their own cause, the cancer patients, the chronically ill, the children.. but to make it universal, then make it mandatory opens the door for a flood gate of corruption, abuse and taxation.. there is a smart way of doing things, and a dumb way. This bill thus far is the most idiotic Ive seen yet.. I am truly afraid to see what this country will become in the next few years.. to demand such financial burdens on families in the middle of an economic depression is mind bogglingly stupid..

Nothing is free.. just remember that..


And the invisible hand isn't real. remember that.


reply posted on 10-11-2009 @ 12:04 AM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ANOK


Your insistence that Americans use of the term Libertarianism is wrong is in itself misguided. You have equated the libertarian to the word liberal and here is the fundamental difference between yourself as a so called libertarian socialist and the libertarian movement in America. It is true that there has been for at least a hundred years a movement that that has identified themselves as libertarian socialists but it is telling how willing you were to equate libertarianism to liberalism. Since you are the one who has insisted on clarification of the word and gone as far as to insist that the American usage of the word is wrong then it would be prudent to clear up the confusion by attempting to define the words Liberal, Liberalism and Libertarian and Libertarianism.

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary offers for the first definition of Liberalism: The Quality or state of being liberal.

As the first definition of Liberal that very same dictionary states: a.) of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts...and b.) archaic of or befitting a man of free birth.

Webster's New Ninth offers for a second definition of Liberalism: a.) a movement in modern Protestation emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity...and b.) a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the regulating market, and the gold standard...and c.) a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of civil liberties.

Wordnetweb offers two definitions for the word Liberalism the first being: a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution and the second being: an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market.

Webster's New Ninth Collegiate Dictionary does not have a separate entry for the word Libertarianism which is counted with in the definition of Libertarian which states: 1: an advocate of the doctrine of free will...and 2: one who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action.

Wordnetweb offers for a definition of Libertarianism quite simply this: an ideological belief in freedom of thought and speech.

In terms of etymology Webster's does not offer any nor does the Online Etymology Dictionary but both do offer etymology for the word Liberal. Websters is as follows; Middle English from Middle French from Latin liberalis which is defined as being suitable for a freeman or generous. This comes from liber which means free and is akin to the Old English word leodan which means to grow and finally suggests that the Greek word eleutheros meaning free also had a hand in the development of the word Liberal.

The Online Etymology Dictionary offers close to the same etymology but it is worth mentioning that they make the point that the word eleutheros probably originally came from the phrase "belonging to the people" but also makes clear that the precise semantic development of that is obscure.

I wish I had access to the Oxford English Dictionary as I would love to know how they have defined both of these words however, based on the definitions supplied above it is not justified to say that Americans are wrong in how they use the term Libertarian and indeed, it is your own willingness to equate libertarian with liberalism that suggests not so much that you are wrong in your understanding of the words but that your political beliefs are more akin to liberalism than they are libertarianism. In fact the Online Etymology Dictionary's suggestion that the Greek word eleutheros probably originally meaning "belonging to the people" sounds a lot like you


reply posted on 10-11-2009 @ 12:04 AM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ANOK


In its simplest terms the word liberal is most commonly used as doing something without restraint. This is why liberals and conservatives are so closely linked with each other as conservatives do use restraint. One can butter their toast or muffin either liberally or conservatively and it is clear what is meant by this and it should be equally clear what is meant in the political sense. In the political sense liberalism is a political movement that takes a liberal and unrestrained view. Conversely a conservative takes a restrained and traditional view of the same politics. Thus, in American politics where the government was established by a Constitution that was Ordained by the People to protect those peoples rights it is the Constitution that restrains a government from doing anything other than protect the rights of the people. The American liberal will take an unrestrained view of the Constitution and find ways to progress beyond the restraints of that document in order to push forth their political agendas while the conservative will use the Constitution to restrain those progressives.

That the liberal/conservative paradigm in the U.S. became hijacked by both the Democratic and Republican parties became problematic when so called Republican Conservatives began colluding with so called Liberal Democrats in order to expand government. Regardless of the political assertions of conservatives made by the Republican part and even the vaunted and adored Ronald Regan who is often considered a paragon of conservative values presided as President over an increasingly expanding government and did little to restrain that progression. In many ways this is how the Libertarian party in America got started.

When progressive politics or liberal politics means the ever expansion of government then the maximization of individual liberties and the minimization of state becomes obscured. It was the agenda of progressing with social programs that demanded an expanded government and this is why "American Libertarians" have a hard time understanding how one can be both a libertarian and a socialist. How is it possible to implement socialist programs with out expanding government? Surely private individuals can create their own communities by which they adopt socialist principles but I am not aware of any private individual communities in Europe that do this. If they do exist I would love to know more about this.

In America there are private individuals who have created communes or communities that have adopted socialist ideals and some of them seemed to have thrived and done well. What separates them from the socialist movement of American politics is that they are not shoving their ideals down the throats of everyone and demanding everyone pay more taxes in order to have their ideals implemented. This thread, after all, is one based on a so called "Libertarian take on Universal Healthcare". Universal "healthcare" seems to be across the world in some form or another a government run system and if it is government run then it is funded by taxes and run by bureaucrats which means tax dollars are not just spent on "health care" but also on the bureaucracies set up to run that system. Whenever that system finds itself under political attack the proclivity is always towards creating more bureaucracy to fix the problems. How does such a system avoid maximizing individual liberty while minimizing state authority?

It is also categorically false to claim that "most" of America's "working class" are immigrants. It is just plain hogwash to assert that most of the working class in America are people who just arrived here suggesting that the rest of the country is part of some imagined leisure class. Furthermore this whole "working class" meaning nothing more than Marxist ideals whereby the workers own the means...


reply posted on 10-11-2009 @ 12:05 AM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ANOK


....production" is the worst kind of intrusive governmental socialism. If the worker wants to own the means of production then let that worker or more wisely those workers invest their own wealth in creating that system instead of declaring the wealth that others have earned as theirs so that they may profit from the work of others in order to have a job. If a factory worker believes that the factory owner is not entitled to profit then let that or those factory workers walk away from that factory and start their own damn factory! Let those workers invest in that factory the necessary capital to build the factory and purchase the materials necessary to make the product and let those workers pay the bills generated by overhead and then let those workers sell the product they have made through marketing and then and only then will those workers know the true value of labor.

How arrogant can people be that they would be so cavalier in their dismissal of venture capitalism and the wealth that it creates? Henry Ford began as a working class laborer who transformed himself into a venture capitalist and he did well for it but so did many of the working class who worked for him. There are countless stories, (particularly in America) of working class, (many of them immigrants) people who rose up from the menial labor positions they held to develop their own companies and flourished and prospered for it and why should they be vilified for such actions? Did they do this on the backs of others? They certainly did not conscript people to work as their laborers. They paid those workers and paid them before they themselves got paid for the product those workers were paid to make. That is the contract made between an owner of a company and the working class he hires. In exchange for their labor they do not have to invest their own capital nor do they assume any of the risks that come with such an investment but are instead paid a flat rate or salary for the work they do.

That is known as freedom and if any working class person is tired of doing menial labor in would rather invest their own capital and assume the risks that come with such an investment they have the same opportunity as any other person to flourish and prosper. The working class own their own labor and are free to contract how they see fit and if they are not happy with their current contract they can attempt to renegotiate that contract or walk away and find a better deal. If they continually fail to find that better deal perhaps it would be wise to look inward and question what they are doing wrong to cause such a tragedy rather than attempt to create a group of thugs who would attempt to steal form their employer the company that was built simply because they believe brute force is a justifiable means of production.

You asked the O.P. if that person works for a living and without knowing anything about that poster I am willing to wager that he or she most certainly does work for a living and works damn hard for the income he or she makes. Maybe not and perhaps that person is unemployed and collecting socialized unemployment checks but I doubt it and suspect he or she is of course working for a living. That the O.P. does in many ways believe in Libertarian values also suggests that that person will not only continue to work hard but will do what he or she can to flourish and prosper and if so then those efforts should be applauded and respected and not ridiculed and dismissed as attempts to become a part of the "wealthy elite". As if you yourself are not an elitist. Just look at your own language and how dismissive you are of Americans with your elitist attitude.

The truth of the matter is that we are all to one degree or another elitists. Whether we ever develop any kind of wealth depends upon one of two things...


reply posted on 10-11-2009 @ 12:05 AM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ANOK


...either we will inherit the wealth or we will earn through hard work and clever enterprise but even if we never earn or inherit wealth we will, the vast majority of us, remain elitist in our attitudes.

Whether or not it is true that over there in your country Newt Gingrich was considered a Libertarian the FACT of the matter is that he was and still is a Republican meaning he is as he always has been a member of the Republican Party. Maybe just you may consider his politics to be "libertarian" but given that you have insisted that the proper view of libertarianism is a socialist form of the idea then it is clear that you know nothing of Newt Gingrich and his politics. It is amusing that you insist that was considered to be libertarian "at the time" since what he is best known for his being the leader of the so called "Republican Revolution". What time are referring to?

In fairness to you, there is certainly a movement not just in Europe but in America as well that considers itself to be a libertarian-socialist movement but the two terms just don't seem harmonious with each other and it is the staunch belief of socialists that they will never gain freedom for the "working class" until the freedom of others has been successfully restrained. In that regard and given the clear dogmatism of socialist they are hardly liberal and closer to conservatism in that they adhere to a set ideology that declares that labor is entitled to the ownership of other peoples property simply because they own their own labor. It is disingenuous at best to suggest that a movement that advocates restricting the freedom to pursue property and to freely contract with labor as a party for maximization of individual liberty and minimization of state authority.



reply posted on 10-11-2009 @ 12:45 AM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by poet1b


What dictionary are you using that defines myth as being "an elaborate lie that is repeated constantly as the truth"? You ask what word I suggest and I have offered my suggestions. Those words being falsehood or lie. Furthermore when you first used the word myth in this thread it was in regards to the belief that governments can't do anything effectively or efficiently. It is not an elaborate lie repeated constantly to point towards all of what government does ineffectively or inefficiently to question the prudence of relying upon government to manage health care.

Your own understanding of politics and Newt Gingrich is muddled at best. It is, however, telling you use the word "neo-con" to describe him. "Neo-con" is nothing more than a liberal Republican. Liberal because that Republican is taking a liberal view of the Constitution in order to push forth their political agenda. It is even more telling that you would equate communism with American Conservatism in order to attack the beliefs in a free market principles. What has communism got to do with free market principles? Have you read either the Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital? Do you know what communism is? Have you read Adam Smith's A Wealth of Nations and do you understand what free market principles are?

Communism is not an ideology that embraces free market principles. Quite the opposite communism believes that the market must be controlled by a centralized government. A free and unregulated market place is not a new concept and the latin phrase caveat emptor meaning let the buyer beware only underscores the antiquity of free and unregulated market principles. The fallacy, (another word better suited to describe political beliefs that one holds skepticism towards or believes to be wrong, instead of myth), of a belief that regulated markets better protect the buyer is illustrated by the simple fact that in today's undeniably regulated market place the buyer should still very much beware.

The belief that the "powers that be" are free market advocates is also another fallacy. Multi-national corporations and the oligopoly they have created is not all in favor of free market principles and gladly engages and invests capital through lobbyist to ever expand regulation. It is the corporate mentality that has insisted that all businesses whether they be incorporated or not be licensed. It is the corporate mentality that insists that agencies such as the FDA and USDA expand their scope of jurisdiction and regulate the actions of small businesses. The "powers that be" want to control the populace and they could never do so under a truly free and unregulated market place.


reply posted on 10-11-2009 @ 07:41 PM by poet1b
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I am sorry you don't grasp the concept of a myth, and that you must insist in such strict definitions. I suspect that imagination is not one of your gifts.

Let's start with Adam Smith and "The Wealth of Nations".

www.pcdf.org...

THE BETRAYAL OF ADAM SMITH
Excerpt from
When Corporations Rule the World
2nd Edition
by David C. Korten

WCRWII.gif (222731 bytes)It is ironic that corporate libertarians regularly pay homage to Adam Smith as their intellectual patron saint, since it is obvious to even the most casual reader of his epic work The Wealth of Nations that Smith would have vigorously opposed most of their claims and policy positions. For example, corporate libertarians fervently oppose any restraint on corporate size or power. Smith, on the other hand, opposed any form of economic concentration on the ground that it distorts the market's natural ability to establish a price that provides a fair return on land, labor, and capital; to produce a satisfactory outcome for both buyers and sellers; and to optimally allocate society's resources.

Through trade agreements, corporate libertarians press governments to provide absolute protection for the intellectual property rights of corporations. Smith was strongly opposed to trade secrets as contrary to market principles and would have vigorously opposed governments enforcing a person or corporation's claim to the right to monopolize a lifesaving drug or device and to charge whatever the market would bear.

Corporate libertarians maintain that the market turns unrestrained greed into socially optimal outcomes. Smith would be outraged by those who attribute this idea to him. He was talking about small farmers and artisans trying to get the best price for their products to provide for themselves and their families. That is self-interest, not greed. Greed is a high-paid corporate executive firing 10,000 employees and then rewarding himself with a multimillion-dollar bonus for having saved the company so much money. Greed is what the economic system being constructed by the corporate libertarians encourages and rewards. [See An Economic System Dangerously Out of Control .


Then here is some education on Marx and Communism.

rationalrevolution.net...

Marx pointed out that capitalism was progressive because it represented an improvement in production. Marx hailed capitalism's triumph as a victory over feudalism.

Marx said that industrialization was a good thing and that it should be embraced, that instead of opposing the progress of industrialization the goal should be to end wage-labor, and that the new industrial systems should be converted to communal property, much like the lands had been communal property just some 50 or 100 years prior.

The "state of communism" is described by Marx and Engels as the condition in which "the State" no longer exists and people live and work together in harmony in a society based on equality where the fruits of labor are shared with all members of society and no one is exploited.


Both communists and free market beliefs believe in eliminating government, and having society ran on natural laws, or at least economics. Both are extremely unrealistic ideologies that do not exist as viable systems in the real world, and never will. Both system wind up achieving exactly the opposite of what they are intended for, playing completely into the hands of PTB.

Neocons are extreme conservatives who ideals come from an extreme liberal point of view, and their ideological child is the free market, which would be accurately labeled as neo-communism. Newt is a neocon, a neo-communist.


reply posted on 10-11-2009 @ 08:37 PM by poet1b
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Furthermore this whole "working class" meaning nothing more than Marxist ideals whereby the workers own the means production" is the worst kind of intrusive governmental socialism.


You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, the original market system, the cottage industry that helped drive the Renaissance, was a system where the workers owned the means of production.

With the new free market style of communism, corporate elites have taken the role of the communist party leaders, or feudal lords, running a corrupt system which only serves the people in control who steal all the wealth away from the people who produce the goods and services.


reply posted on 11-11-2009 @ 02:40 AM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by poet1b


It may seem to be off topic to debate what a myth is or isn't in a thread titled A Libertarian Take On Universal Healthcre, however the importance of mythology is evidenced in their universal appeal and how those myths from time immemorial have survived today. Whether it be creation myths or myths that tell the tale of the hero's journey, they are tales intended to act as life lessons for the individual. Even though myths across the world since time immemorial all tend to show a remarkable similarity in their structure and elements they remain deeply personal to each individual who posses the imagination to understand the message relayed by them. Whether they are fictional accounts such as Star Wars, Spiderman, Batman or Superman or they are embellishments on supposed historical figures such as Jesus, Heracles, Sisyphus and Prometheus, these myths serve as inspirations, (and indeed, those who lack imagination are less inclined to be inspired than those who have "the gift of imagination".), for the individuals who these tales are intended for. To reduce these myths as nothing more than a falsehood or as being fallacious is to undermine the message behind them. Particularly the mythic tales that chronicle the journey of the hero.

The hero myths are the highest praise of individual effort and herein lies the fundamental difference between how a collectivist will use the word myth and an individualist will use the word and even more so, here is how the subjects of myths and how the collectivists have hijacked that word to serve their own purposes relates to this thread. While this thread is, on the one hand about "universal healthcare", on the other hand it is about a Libertarians take on such an idea, if Libertarians are not about the maximization of individual freedom and minimization of government authority then what are they about? A collectivist is not one who holds much respect for the individual as a collective can not flourish if all the individuals in that collective view themselves as one who comes before the collective.

It should be noted that there is a fundamental difference between collectivism and being interconnected with everyone else. That we are all interconnected to each other is, if not a given, an idea that many hold to be self evident. Indeed, what collectivist would argue that we are not interconnected to each other? There are individuals who may dismiss such a notion but that we as individuals tend to do better when we co-operate with others seems to be yet one more truism that is self evident. In fact, many myths across the world spread a message of interconnectedness. "Whatever you did unto one of the least, you did unto to me.", being just one example of that message. However, such a message is intended for the individual and how we as individuals should act. Collectives will act in certain ways but whether that collective has fallen prey to group think or whether they have evolved into a highly efficient group capable of taking risks and accomplishing much good, those collectives are dependent upon leadership and leaders are individuals.

It is ironic that those who advocate collectivism will attack individuals and say things such as "I suspect you lack the gift of imagination", given that most who tend to advocate collectivism seem incapable of thinking for themselves. When debating a collectivist if an individual confronts the collectivist on, say their Marxist ideology and asks them if they have actually read Marx, they will rarely show that they have and instead point to writings by others who have, presumably read Marx, to defend themselves. They will point to web sites such as rationalrevolution.net and instead of expressing their own views on Marx quote someone else who has interpreted Marx.


reply posted on 11-11-2009 @ 02:40 AM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by poet1b


Or they will say things such as "Let's start with Adam Smith and The Wealth of Nations" and then, instead of actually quoting Adam Smith, they will instead quote someone else, such as an excerpt from writings by David C. Korten, in order to show that they have read A Wealth of Nations! While there is nothing inherently wrong with reading books and essays written about Marx's or Smiths' writings, and indeed it is good to read what others have to say about the subject, if one has never gone to the source material itself, then what those people know about the source is merely what others have told them about it. And here in lies yet another flaw with the advocates of collectivism. They think what others tell them to think. Thinking for themselves would, it would seem, be contrary to collectivism.

Of course, the excerpt by Korten seems to be an attack on "corporate Libertarianism, whatever that is. Corporatism is not capitalism and anyone who has read A Wealth of Nations or advocated a free market system knows this. Corporations are enemies of the free market system and have done more to advocate intrusive governmental regulation than any individual politician ever has. The corporation is not an individual it is a statutorily granted license by the state, the state being the people, to operate as a business. An individual person does not require statutory permission to exist but the corporation does. Corporate charters are granted and more importantly they can be taken away. Corporations have a long history of lobbying for regulation into the market place. It doesn't take a MBA to understand that a regulated market is not at all the free and unregulated market advocated by Adam Smith.

These corporations lobby for regulation because they themselves are by definition regulated. Since they are entities that exist by whim of the state, they do not possess the freedom that individuals do in terms of competition. That is in a free and unregulated market they do not possess that freedom, in a regulated market which insists that all individuals along with corporations attain license to do business then it is quite clearly the corporation, (yet another collective) that has the distinct advantage. Corporations show an obsessive adversity to massive competition and take great measures to eliminate competition primarily through massive and costly regulations to the small or midsized businesses. No Libertarian in their right mind would advocate governmental policies that endeavor to limit the actions of the individual and this is why Korten is very careful to use the phrase "corporate Libertarian" instead of libertarian. It is a shoddy example of smoke and mirrors and if Korten were a magician the poor attempt at misdirection would be easily seen by his audience and any reader who reads Korten's words can easily see this misdirection as well.

It is the disingenuous misdirection of Korten that only serves to make my point about collectivists. They can not argue the facts of a matter without exposing their own agenda so they must rely upon misdirections and inventions of terms such as "corporate libertarians". Either a person is a libertarian or they are not. Either a person is for free markets or they are not. Freedom is a powerful ideal and appeals to most people so when terms such as free markets exist those who are against such economies can not compete with freedom itself and instead create "elaborate lies" told over and over again in the belief that if a lie is told loud enough and long enough it will finally be regarded as truth.

It is yet a further irony that a collectivist will accuse those who argue that governments are not effective enough to handle market economies as engaging in "elaborate lies" and then deem themselves as authorities and self appointed educators on Marxist theory...
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^