I'm sure I'll catch some heat from my libertarian friends for this, but someone has to say it.. Right now I'd estimate 99% of all who consider themselves libertarian are so out of touch with reality it disappoints me, because they have a strong case to make in theory. Where the majority fail is that they try to apply a rigid theory to any circumstance and consider it a solution. Any economic/political problem you can imagine, libertarianism is the simple solution. Well, not really. Libertarians do not factor in present circumstances or simple human psychology, they see things in black-or-white (this is literally a psychological symptom). With libertarians, there is no compromise, a free-market can only work when it's 100% free. Ok, let's apply this to health care. Libertarianism can explain better than any other ideology the root cause of our present health problem, the libertarian problem? The only way to fix it the way they want it to be fixed is to do things we KNOW will never get done. Why? Because America is not going to accept ANY ideology completely, especially right away, and especially not such an unknown idea. Further still, most libertarians refuse to factor in present circumstances and bullrush any argument with the same theory. Using the same example, health care.. Not only is it impractical for us to go the libertarian route on this issue, but it also would not end in smiles and sunny skies the way libertarians think. How many are willing to look at the countless in America who are in bad health and can't get a job because of it (an endless, viscous cycle that doesn't help the economy)? It is not something any legitimate person can ignore. Of course, we didn't just wake up with the problem, it's a symptom of a larger insidious problem. In my opinion, it's because America got soft, our parents were not very intelligent, and people stopped believing in self-reliance. It's important people realize effects have a cause and that stuff doesn't just HAPPEN. This is a unique situation we're in and to believe any ONE ideology is going to solve it as simple as clicking your fingers only shows that you spend too much time in your head and not enough being aware of your surroundings. It is practical however to have some goal or a vision for the libertarian principles to be reestablished, but it takes time and it takes a lot of compromise. This is the next big libertarian problem, compromise and working with others, they can't do it. The problem is so bad that they struggle to even work with like-minded folks, that's why nothing significant has come out both during AND after Ron Paul's run! To speak plainly, libertarianism won't get anywhere until it's base learns to compromise and think long-term. Read up on the Fabian Society perhaps. The more rigid, absolute and extreme we are, the faster we go to nowhere.
Far be it for me to jump in on a conversation directed to and for libertarians. However with the op's reference to health care here is an article with an amazing interview with someone who was in the health care industry and has since reversed directions. Part of the interview that stunned me was where he described the strategy of merging the interests of this industry with a particular political perspective. http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/16/former_insurance_exec_wendell_porter
I guess you also agree with the fed there Nate? Print, print print print. Pretty soon we can start playing monopoly with real money, and if that fails we can all start reading on the new patriot act 4.0.
Just because I'm realistic doesn't suddenly mean I'm not a libertarian anymore. What it means is that I believe we can't get to our desired destination without first dealing with current problems in a realistic fashion. Libertarians like yourself deny everything that's going on in the country right now, deny how it effects people, and just want a big crash so that things will magically get straightened out the libertarian way. Dude, be realistic. Even if we did somehow let it all crash (which would never happen, America does not accept one ideology), do you think everyone, especially government would finally say, "oh, well, I guess the libertarians were right and we should just let it all play out". People would panic and run to government even more. Just "letting it be" right now WOULD NOT help libertarianism by any means. It would destroy both the country and any chance of libertarianism having a legitimate future. This country is on the edge right now and we have to do whatever possible to keep it stable, before we can begin thinking about long term change. Running in as if we have the easy answer is only going to give us more strange looks. It's like flying a plane, when the pilot is in the air he eventually has a goal of putting the plane on the ground. He doesn't go, "oh shit we gotta get this sh!t on the ground right now" and turn the plane vertically into the ground.. he stays in the air for awhile longer and eases into to it. You guys are looking for the one-hit KO punch that never happens. You're one-dimensional.
Nate, you seem to have come to a much more sophisticated understanding of what is really required to get to your eventual goal. There is an accepted concept in the law with regard to government acts. When the government moves to solve a problem, but they only tackle part of the problem, some people sue saying that the government is only doing part of the job and they could do it much better. Anyway, it has become an accepted principle that the government can take small steps and does not need to act in a way that solves a problem in one step. The logic is just what you have stated, which is that an All or Nothing approach usually results in nothing, whereas incremental improvements, while not the final goal are steps in the right direction. (I don't know if I explained that clearly, but I was trying to do it quickly and the example is a little more complex that I am allowing for)
Nate, I think you've made an extremely apt post, and thanks for the thread. One of the things I've long thought about comes from the opening to Thomas More's Utopia - somewhere on this site, I remember discussing this with someone....anyway, you might enjoy the read, an interesting discussion on the very thing you've eloquently raised. Many thanks - great thoughts. Paul
Thanks guys, and I will look into that NPT. I'm optimistic about the future of America for a change, I don't think the president is as bad as some say. Sure, what he's doing is the opposite of economic libertarianism but at this point it's crucial. I know what we're doing is necessary only through experience with chronic problems myself. As a believer in natural medicine, it is sometimes necessary to use conventional medicine to save a person's life. When someone has a deadly brain tumor for instance, surgery and other advanced technologies are required to keep the person alive. Natural medicine is great for natural problems, but it can only go so far in treating "artificial problems", or those problems that result from a poor, unnatural lifestyle. Natural medicine is preventative medicine, and so too I believe are the principles of libertarianism. We're in an "artificial" situation so bad that the recommended exercise and vegetables won't cut it, we need surgery.
Hi Nate, you are using a pretty broad brush with your sweeping generalizations, but I will address a couple points. I'm perfectly willing to take baby steps in the right direction. I think you have a lot of assumptions in your assertion that do not ring true. libertarian philosophy does not attempt to create a utopia where everyone is happy. It attempts to create an environment of honesty and fairness where those who are willing and able can live as they please. The crux of the problem as I see it is that folks who do not subscribe to the libertarian philosophy have a fundamental disagreement on whether the able have a moral obligation to support/care for the unable. Unfortunately, all other systems that attempt to care for the unable enable the unwilling. History shows that once you start down this road, government scope creep inevitably leads to enslavement of the able. I do not believe that health care is a right. Heath care is a business/service and no one is entitled to another's labor IMO. It takes a cold, heartless libertarian bastard like me. No one ever told me that life was fair and equitable. If they had, I would have rejected their wooden nickle too. Serious question for you, et. al. - What would the medical industry in the USA be like today if there were no medicare/medicaid? Understand that billing practices and the current state of the insurance industry are all predicated on that foundation. It's hard to really evaluate the question because there are a lot of downstream ripples (unintended consequences) to the medi programs not only for the health care industry, but tax burdens, and the economy at large.
Where do we disagree then? There's no disagreement here. My beef with libertarians is implementing the philosophy not the philosophy itself. If someone is dependent on a drug or substance do you suddenly restrict them from that drug to end their addiction? I don't think it's a right either. The whole "is health care a right" debate is absolutely 100% pointless. Moral arguments are also 100% worthless, since government is inherently immoral. The situation is what ultimately matters. I'm pretty sure you're only restating one of my earlier points, it took a lot of bad decisions to get where we are now, but we're here and have to deal with the problems realistically.
Not entirely. I simply believe in limited government. I don't have the education myself to say just how limited government should be, but I do believe that the internet will be the medium for such a discussion to take place and for us to find out. The truth will emerge eventually, the people will immerse themselves in this controversial topic until the best system is hammered out and refined. We haven't had anything like this in the past, such topics were left to the intellectuals and the ruling class. Education is the long-term solution, and I promise the principles of libertarianism will soon be a large part of that. Personally, my own vision of where I want the country to be in the future can be summed up like this: self-reliance. No more dependence on government or even commerce for that matter. Everyone should have their own garden and dehydrate/can their food. The way we're headed, people are going to have to do this eventually anyways, as technology replaces jobs, people will become less and less valuable to each other. We'll be overwhelmed with all of our toys and luxuries, they'll be so easy to get and make that we'll eventually look around and realize there's nothing left but to go back to farming. More of a fantasy, science-fiction thought than anything.. Anyways, I see hope for local governance, a return to the powers of the states. The best vision libertarians can have is that we influence the people in a positive way, through both a superior argument and reasonable approach.
Some of you can't handle criticism as I've observed in recent events, which really proves everything I've been saying here. It may be because it was coming from one of your own and you felt betrayed, but to even believe this makes you a hypocrite (if you believe rigidly in this philosophy); what group do I belong to? I'm simply an individual capable of self-thought. I also want to restate how unfortunate it is, because you have one aspect of the game nailed down. What good does food do if you don't have teeth to chew it with? You lack a crucial element that is necessary for what we need. I'd rather have a little food and most of my teeth than a bunch of food that can't be digested. Otherwise you're a starving fool. Let me know when you guys are ready to get real and join me in making libertarianism a legitimate alternative.
thats true but Even if we did somehow let it all crash (which would never happen, America does not accept one ideology), do you think everyone, especially government would finally say, "oh, well, I guess the libertarians were right and we should just let it all play out". People would panic and run to government even more.
cricketer, you merely copy and paste others' posts. Please stay out of the thread if you don't have anything substantive to say. *sends heat round at nate* nate, I agree with you. IMO, the end goal should be a smaller fed, give more governance back to the states and local governments, and let the fed do what it was originally deigned to do, as spelled out in the Declaration of Ind. and Constitution. It seems people have forgotten exactly what the Constitution says. I know one of those pesky amendments says something about anything not specifically stated in the Constitution to be congress/fed's responsibility is left up to the states. Or have I been studying the wrong one for 10+ years? I think, unfortunately, we are going to have to accept a larger government for the time being until the economy starts recovering, then we can start the push towards a smaller government. But the problem with that is, the 50% of sheep in the country that just go with the flow will see that the government in fact was providing for them, and we will end up having this crappy economy come back, quickly. I don't know if I would classify myself as a Libertarian so much as a Constitutionalist.
What in history leads you to this conclusion? DC = sausage factory Your posts on this thread are really abstract, so it's difficult to respond in any meaningful manner. What do you mean by letting you know when I'm "ready to get real"?