the cato institute explains why young people should be pissed off

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
You won't find any real examples there either - you WILL find a defender of authoritarianism, though.

I don't really see it that way. Hobbes' work reads like a backhanded defense of liberal democracy to me.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So, we got Dr. S down for universal payer. Excellent.

Actually what I was trying to say is that I'm just tired of treating poor people. I'd like to branch out into serving rich folks, you know, the kind of people who pay for sevices rendered. Medicare and Medicaid look at the bills we send to them for our services, giggle hysterically, then send us whatever the heck they feel like paying. We get only about half of what we should be paid. They change fee structures and fileing procedures willy-nilly and without notification. Medicaid even got a little scam going in which they try to force us to pay them to treat their patients.

It would be interesting to have a physician in the white house.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker

People aren't free to dump their trash on my lawn in a competitive market.

I'm talking about air pollution. You want to try to establish a market based on who owns what piece of air, be my guest.

This is the problem with your position, you don't understand libertarianism and the result are illogical PD's.

I seem to understand it a whole lot better than you do.

Remember, self-interest cannot include murder et al when arguing against libertarianism since freedom does not include every possible behavior dreamed up by man... only those that qualify as acts of freedom.

If you'd bothered reading you would have seen that I made special mention of the Libertarian justification of state enforcement when it comes to contracts. Even they believe Hobbes to that extent.

But collective action problems still arise for a whole swathe of things that Libertarians believe should be entirely voluntary. Like funding the police, or army, or other voluntary funding schemes.

Your position is this: libertarianism or freedom (self-interest) is self-destructive because Joe wants to pollute his neighbor's property. Well, Joe doesn't have that right under libertarianism or freedom...

That's not my position at all. My position is that rational self interest in a wide variety of cases leads to bad outcomes. Libertarians are vulnerable to this because they believe that coercion is immoral and collective action problems arise in just those situations where we need to be coerced in order to stop us from falling back into a state of nature.

Libertarians recognise this in the case of contract enforcement but refuse to recognize the same principle elsewhere.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I don't really see it that way. Hobbes' work reads like a backhanded defense of liberal democracy to me.

Finally it's been a year and I agree with DD.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Medicare and Medicaid look at the bills we send to them for our services, giggle hysterically, then send us whatever the heck they feel like paying. We get only about half of what we should be paid.

If Medicare and Medicade pay providers so little, why do they cost the taxpayers so much? Do they have trouble controling utilization? What does this say, if anything, about the prospects for a single payer system in the US?

[Promethus]

Only if it was a 401k where you invested most of the money into the company's stock. Japher's 401k is diversified, so he's ok. He also has a pension, which he is vested in, on top of that, and even if the company tanks, he is entitled to that money (of course it may be a bit difficult in finding the money, but he still gets 100% of it if vested).

Wrong Like A Big Dog

My grandfather worked for a company for 30 years and when they got into fisical trouble they used the pension money to try to keep alive. When they went under there was no money in the pension fund. At age 68 he had to start over.

[Lord Merciless]

401K and traditional IRA are not tax free, they are merely tax deferred. When you start distributing them after your retirement, you still have to income taxes on the distributions.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

I'm talking about air pollution. You want to try to establish a market based on who owns what piece of air, be my guest.

It's still pollution and subject to public scrutiny and/or civil remedy for those polluted by the actions of polluters. Since we all pollute we accept certain levels of pollution, but that doesn't make polluting a right and immune to civil or even criminal action. I'm still waiting for prisoner's dilemma proving your point...

I seem to understand it a whole lot better than you do.

I'm not the one claiming we have a right to pollute. If you accept that we have no such right, then your PD about pollution is illogical. If you believe libertarians advocate a right to pollute, then you don't understand libertariansim.

If you'd bothered reading you would have seen that I made special mention of the Libertarian justification of state enforcement when it comes to contracts. Even they believe Hobbes to that extent.

Then what's your point? No one here is claiming that self-interest resulting in murder should be legal, so your PD's are irrelevant if you cannot come up with one within the framework of freedom/rights.

But collective action problems still arise for a whole swathe of things that Libertarians believe should be entirely voluntary. Like funding the police, or army, or other voluntary funding schemes.

Either you have PD's indicting libertarianism or you don't. You've never shown that if taxes were voluntary wrt police and military people wouldn't fund them, that's your assumption, not proof. You see, virtually everyone would still see funding as being in their self-interest even if voluntary. Besides, many libertarians support coerced funding for the police and military.

That's not my position at all. My position is that rational self interest in a wide variety of cases leads to bad outcomes.

You didn't say occasional "bad outcomes", you said poverty, anarchy, and destruction (or whatever).

Libertarians are vulnerable to this because they believe that coercion is immoral and collective action problems arise in just those situations where we need to be coerced in order to stop us from falling back into a state of nature.

Do you see how ironic that is? What do you find objectionable about this "state of nature"? People running around using coercion against others with relative impunity? And your solution? We should coerce each other "collectively" with impunity. Well, looks like people will use coercion either way. But let's get real... it isn't this "state of nature" you find abhorent, it's the end of the welfare state. Libertarians don't advocate this "state of nature", that's just how welfare statists like to perceive libertarianism because their goal is protecting the massive "re-distribution" of other people's money.

Libertarians recognise this in the case of contract enforcement but refuse to recognize the same principle elsewhere.

Examples of this "elsewhere"?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Promethus
My grandfather worked for a company for 30 years and when they got into fisical trouble they used the pension money to try to keep alive.

Which IIRC is illegal.

[Sava]

Young people should be pissed off... but more pissed off at ultra-right wing think tanks and politicians trying to destroy the social programs that have worked for decades.

Government programs would be working a lot better if they weren't being sabotaged from the inside. Even now, Medicare has lower overhead than every private plan.

But the Cato institute wants things to be like the 19th Century, where robber barons and corrupt trusts ran things without laws or government regulation. No Thanks.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Actually what I was trying to say is that I'm just tired of treating poor people. I'd like to branch out into serving rich folks, you know, the kind of people who pay for sevices rendered. Medicare and Medicaid look at the bills we send to them for our services, giggle hysterically, then send us whatever the heck they feel like paying. We get only about half of what we should be paid. They change fee structures and fileing procedures willy-nilly and without notification. Medicaid even got a little scam going in which they try to force us to pay them to treat their patients.

It would be interesting to have a physician in the white house.

Dr. Dean...

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
If Medicare and Medicade pay providers so little, why do they cost the taxpayers so much? Do they have trouble controling utilization? What does this say, if anything, about the prospects for a single payer system in the US?

They tend to cover the sickest portions of the population, the disabled and the elderly. These groups tend to use the most expensive items of healthcare: intensive care units and institutional care - nursing homes, psychiatric hospitals, rehabilitation, etc. A week in an ICU can cost several hundred thousand dollars.

Utilization coverage tends to be a problem for both public and private insurers in the US. In our society we disdain having the government or a corporation tell us what we can and cannot have. You and I might think it a waste of money to put a seventy year old woman wiith incurable heart disease in an ICU for a half million dollars worth of treatment just to prolong her life for two weeks, but if that's what she wants the hospital will have to answer to her family's lawyers if they refuse her.

If you keep up with healthcare news in the US you'd be aware that even private insurers have a great deal of difficulty enforcing utilization rules. When an insurance company makes rules that patients and doctors disagree with the conflict soon reaches the news, and then eventually makes its way to the court room. Publicly sponsored insurance is no different. Unlike some European governments, the US government is not immune to lawsuits.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Which IIRC is illegal.

Unless of course the company goes to its workers and proclaims that without the cash infusion everyone will be without a job. At that point most workers will sacrifice their pensions.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Agathon -

It's still pollution and subject to public scrutiny and/or civil remedy for those polluted by the actions of polluters. Since we all pollute we accept certain levels of pollution, but that doesn't make polluting a right and immune to civil or even criminal action. I'm still waiting for prisoner's dilemma proving your point...

Oh really, so you think this can happen without state intervention. You can't have an accurate market for air pollution because it is too cumbersome to measure who's responsible for what.

I'm not the one claiming we have a right to pollute. If you accept that we have no such right, then your PD about pollution is illogical. If you believe libertarians advocate a right to pollute, then you don't understand libertariansim.

In no way is my argument about rights at all, it is about what happens when people act in their own self interest.

Then what's your point? No one here is claiming that self-interest resulting in murder should be legal, so your PD's are irrelevant if you cannot come up with one within the framework of freedom/rights.

That excessively voluntary schemes like Libertarian attempts to fund the police through voluntary donations and many other collective action problems we face would fail.

Either you have PD's indicting libertarianism or you don't. You've never shown that if taxes were voluntary wrt police and military people wouldn't fund them, that's your assumption, not proof. You see, virtually everyone would still see funding as being in their self-interest even if voluntary. Besides, many libertarians support coerced funding for the police and military.

Then they aren't real libertarians.

It is in my self interest for me not to pay for the police, since if others do I'll be better off, and if they don't I won't lose. Them's just the facts. If my self interest is defined as what benefits me, then it follows that it isn't in my self interest to pay, nor is it in anyone elses. If we can convince a few saps to pay, so much the better, but that's not going to do nearly enough.

You didn't say occasional "bad outcomes", you said poverty, anarchy, and destruction (or whatever).

That's what would happen with no police.

Do you see how ironic that is? What do you find objectionable about this "state of nature"? People running around using coercion against others with relative impunity? And your solution? We should coerce each other "collectively" with impunity. Well, looks like people will use coercion either way. But let's get real... it isn't this "state of nature" you find abhorent, it's the end of the welfare state. Libertarians don't advocate this "state of nature", that's just how welfare statists like to perceive libertarianism because their goal is protecting the massive "re-distribution" of other people's money.

Of course Libertarians don't advocate a state of nature, but they'll get us there anyway

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
Young people should be pissed off... but more pissed off at ultra-right wing think tanks and politicians trying to destroy the social programs that have worked for decades.

Government programs would be working a lot better if they weren't being sabotaged from the inside. Even now, Medicare has lower overhead than every private plan.

But the Cato institute wants things to be like the 19th Century, where robber barons and corrupt trusts ran things without laws or government regulation. No Thanks.

Go, Sava, Go. You got this leftist rhetoric down better than I do -- and you are serious about it to boot!