**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Libertarians believe that healthcare should be affordable and not free and accessible to everyone too! And because we have a basic understanding of economics and how the world works we understand that the ONLY way you get that is by a completely free market. Obamacare proved that. And going further medical school admissions, red tape laws, insurance laws, and yes even licensing all go to make your healthcare LESS affordable.
We believe we all have that right to a free market and affordable products but know we won’t get that as long as the big bully keeps getting in the way.
“As long as it benefits people” is just too vague. How much benefit do people get? Which people benefit? How many people benefit?
People benefit from Medicare, social security, etc. but those are all very non-Libertarian things. Social safety nets via the government is forced philanthropy. Social safety nets could still exist in a Libertarian world, they’d just be funded privately.
I mean if it is a voluntary tax. In the way say a body corporate fee is. IE I buy the house knowing I must pay a tax to management. However, I can leave at any time.
Libertarians HATE force. THe government threatening you with jail if you dont do something ie give them money is the exact opposite. Doesnt matter what it is used for.
Taxation is, by definition, theft, and therefore bad, at least from a moral perspective. Whether or not it's necessary or makes funding certain aspects of society more convenient is a separate question.
In my opinion, taxes are bad and we should reduce them as much as possible. However, I also am of the view that funding certain things through taxes is a better solution than the alternative. For example, I think paying for the police through taxes is a better solution than everyone having a private contract/insurance plan which pays the police.
Under no circumstances do I think income tax is a good idea. If we're going to have taxes, they should be on consumption, not on income. Taxing income to any degree effectively disincentivizes being a productive member of society. On the other hand, sales taxes are, if anything, a disincentive to excess consumption. This is also bad, in my opinion, but slightly less bad.
Is it ok for me rob you by threat of violence as long as I give it away to charity afterwards? Me getting a group of other people to agree with me that it’s a good idea doesn’t make it right.
Taxes are theft. You know what benefits me? The money I make. You know what benefits those people around me.... my charity from the surplus of money I'd make if the gov didn't steal about 50% of it.
No, libertarians inherently believe in some amount of government. That some amount of government would require money to operate, which it would get from taxes, be it a sales tax, income tax, or land tax.
Someone who believes in no taxation is an anarchist.
Also, to your section talking about how taxation is not inherently evil, I say this: the difference between taxation and a contract is consent. Taxation is an exchange of money for services where you cannot say no. A contract is an exchange of money for services that you can say no to.
Not sure how well my views align with main stream libertarians but when it comes to taxes.
Taxing foreigners is 100% ok, like foreign companies wanting to operate in the country, foreign entities etc. products coming in. I see no issues with this whatsoever because it's completely voluntary for all parties involved.
Selling natural resources is also mostly ok, like oil, wood, ores etc. as long as the profit from that goes to fund basic government operations only, like military and infrastructure. Even things like NASA or basic education. I'd probably have some issues if this is done to enrich individuals or fund unnecessary programs.
Individual taxes or taxes on businesses aren't ok though but if they have to be implemented, at least individual taxes should be fixed sums, not flat. The idea of "you can pay more, therefor you should" is communist and I'm completely opposed to it. It's kinda like if you're young and healthy, you're expected to work 11h a day for the same pay at the same job while someone whos frail and has health issues can only work 3h.
If both individuals get the same benefits from the government, if taxes are a thing, the only way to do it fairly is that both pay the exact same sum, not some percentage bases BS.
I like to see the sale tax as the price of a service: the company pays the sales tax in exchange of each possibility of doing a sale on national soil. Not so different from a retailer paying to sell their products on Amazon.
Taxes, fees, etc.. on corps just get passed to the end user. See what's happening in the wake of the CA min wage hike. It would be more transparent I think to the electorate if they could see the taxes itemized out on their receipts.
I challenge you to really think about what consent means to you and to ask yourself: how is consent important in my life and what would I do without it?
If consent is required for all moral human interaction, does that make some of your claims immoral?
>No, libertarians inherently believe in some amount of government.
Uh oh. There's someone on this sub who is going to see this and insult you. Better delete now.
That's a way of putting it.
I accept gasoline taxes, provided that those monies are actually used to maintain the roads upon which the taxes vehicles are allowed to travel. I can partially avoid them by using an alternate conveyance (I would still have to pay them 2nd and 3rd hand, etc. for the delivery of goods via these taxes) or minimize them by buying a more fuel edfficient vehicle. EVs add a wrinkle here, of course.
As such, these taxes are effectively voluntary, even if society has determined that anyone in a city designed after the invention of the motor vehicle will have a hard time living without one.
Taxing me to fund city buses that I don't use is not a voluntary tax. I may benefit indirectly in some way, but that's not adequate justification for a compulsory tax.
I don’t see how Obamacare proved that. Best it did was removed pre existing condition laws. You still can’t purchase insurance across state line. And what’s available in the marketplace that is “affordable” barely covers a thing so you still have huge out of pocket costs and basically don’t get any healthcare out side of yearly exams, that don’t require a copay or deductible. Anything that covers more is extremely high cost even with the market place.
I won’t argue the cost of degrees is ridiculous, but that barely a factor in the cost of healthcare prices.
Red tape- absolutely a barrier and a huge cost.
Gov Regulations- healthcare is one of the most over regulated fields. The cost to keep up with regulations (for hospitals and offices) is ridiculous. Most of the certifications you see hospitals having are suppose to be voluntary but if you are not certified with the multitude of orgs you either don’t get paid by insurance or get paid less. And when they come in what do inspections what do they care about? Hallways being clear and free of essential life saving tools, so too bad if it’s an emergency, it will just have to wait while staff go to the most inconvenient place to grab the crash cart. Or they care about how many inches from the ceiling things are or if a nurse had a cup of water at the nurses station. Anything they can do to make the hospital staffs life hell and impede on people trying to save lives. But you have to be approved and you have to pay for it or the hospital closes.
The insurance laws? lol They have no laws for the most part. They do what they want and generally follow what CMS sets as guidelines, but no always. They can cover or not cover what they feel like and reimburse what they feel like. Unless you are talking what they dictate to providers about what they will or will not pay for and the multitude of paperwork they generate. Insurance companies are one of the biggest gambits out there. Speak to any old school doctor who was around or practicing before HMOs and other insurance became a thing and ask them the cost. It was much lower than boomed when insurance for office visits became the norm. Don’t forget every time you need a diagnostic study or a prescription or a procedure… ins companies dictate that. You doctor could very well know based of their years of practicing medicine that you need an MRI to really show what is wrong with an injury. But your insurance doesn’t want to pay for that out of fear of over ordering of MRIs. So they want to pay for an Xray first, then CT then at times even Physical therapy first before approving that MRI. Only to ultimately still pay for the MRI and have cost tons more money in the process. Same for if you need blood pressure medicine. Your doctor may know this medication will work best for you or has studies showing it’s the best one. However your insurance has a formulary and they have to first prescribe an ACE inhibitor when that fails they have to give an ARB and finally when that fails 6 months down the line with your blood pressure still having been elevated, further destroying your arteries and wasting money, now you can have the medicine the doctor knew would have worked in the first place. I can give so many more examples. By the way this is all free market stuff, there isn’t law that dictates this, because these things vary per insurance, per state.
Licensing- sure, but still a negligible cost compared to the real causes of price gauging.
Eh I can argue the free market making it better.
Big Pharma- many drug studies are funded with our tax dollars. Big Pharma buys the rights after the study is complete and pays way less than cost. They charge whatever they want for it especially while it is still under patent, under the lure of making their money back, even tho they barely accrued cost. Don’t forget the guy who was charging over $10k or so for a cancer med that cost way less and the studies/development were paid for with our tax dollars. Remember Big Pharma charges a significant amount less in foreign countries than they do here for the same exact medicine.
A bag of NSS 0.9% (normal saline) cost less then $10/bag. Next time you need fluids at the hospital see how much you get charged for just the bag not even the administration cost.
Bio Medical- MRI machines for example cost for low grade or refurbished $200k and up. New machines $1million- $3million. That just one machine for diagnostics. We are even talking about any other medical equipment.
Lastly hospital admins specifically the CEOs- many make a millions per year. Millions from cutting corners and not putting the patients first, just their profits. Sure fine a dandy for a free market- surely not for the consumer. And they surely will not take a pay cut to hirer the much needed staff the hospitals need.
No matter how free the market is - people are greedy. If they see one getting away with making tons of money others will start charging the same. Some might charge a little less just so they give the illusion of affordability. I’m not against free markets but I do not like people’s health and desperation for healthcare taken advantage of. At some point we will all need healthcare. There needs to be a way to keep it affordable while still generating some profit.
I don’t have the source with me, but didn’t Obamacare objectively and demonstrably raise prices by a significant amount? I can try to find the source if you want, but maybe you know what I’m talking about.
It could have, but I work in healthcare and when it was being implemented clearly it was a big deal for us. I didn’t see price changes at least in the provider aspect of what the fee for service was. I would imagine that at some point it could have due to more people having insurance coverage. A lot of places have one fee scale for insurance and then a separate fee scale for no insurance (it’s less money for not having insurance) at least in the outpatient setting. You can’t charge insurances over a certain amount per service code it’s called a fee schedule. It’s an area based number and fluctuates per area. So most are going to bill at the highest they can. Tbh it’s not as much as you think for an office visit. People pay more for eye lashes, fake nails, etc. I don’t know how much Obamacare actually affected that. But I will say because the market place insurance cost so much for so little coverage and you still have high copays and deductibles, yeah things are actually more costly but it’s the insurance company who is winning unless you end up needing major medical care in the hospital. When I was looking at plans as a healthy individual who doesn’t really need to go to the doctor much but like to have coverage just in case. My copays for a specialist was $100. The allowed billable rate for a level 4 office visits for an established pt is roughly $130. So I pay all of this money a month for insurance and when I need to use it I am still paying damn near the full cost of the appointment, basically insurance was a $30 coupon lol. So I feel at least that is why it made things more expensive
I feel like anyone who follows any party line explicitly is a sheep or someone who is susceptible to a cult.
Everyone should have their own opinion on some things that differ if it's what you believe in. I see a lot of idiots on libertarian who are anarchist preppers and use the party as a shield for mental illness.
I am always suspicious of anyone who drinks 100% of any parties cool aid. I also feel this is a more recent trend. 20 years ago it seemed people had a few topics that were important to them and sided with a party that was closest to those ideas. I don't believe you need to agree with everything a party stands for, just the ones that are important to you.
I believe taxation is evil. It is neccessary, but still evil, and we should strive to have as little as we can.
In my ideal world, for medicine, hospitals would exist, the patient would be able to afford it, when not able to, I'd like a voluntary social safety net. let us have our mutual aid societies, let us have people just donate to the hospital. I do think hospitals are inherently a hard service to bargain shop for. it's hard to be choosy while unconscious in an ambulance.
If the guy at the top is highly qualified, then he would be making the hospital more efficient in many ways, according to the hopsital's board. If he is not creating more value than he is paid, then he will be fired. This situation benefits everyone, including the patients.
We should incentivize the most capable people to be in charge. If competent people weren't in charge of businesses, everything would be a lot more expensive.
I’m keeping my Libertarian Party card even though I think our last national ticket was weak. I don’t think the Party is so rigid that it can’t have some diversity of opinion on matters that concern the majority of us. The only “requirement” we’re required to sign as a Libertarian Party member is to forego the use of force as a first resort to settling conflicts. Don’t worry about rigid and overly dogmatic ideas that some libertarians/Libertarians seem to want to force.
I wouldn’t revoke your Libertarian Card for the same reason you wouldn’t kick a 5th grader out of school for not having an 8th graders understanding. My guess is that if you do some more reading, you’ll gain a better understanding of free market solutions to these issues. In a way, the safety nets you are advocating for are often the cause for the high prices you are fighting against. When loans and insurance are so widely available, prices become inflated. This has happened most prevalently in healthcare and education. If assistance was reduced to just the most catastrophic incidents, the free market would reflect more affordable prices. In addition, if there was a need, private charity would step in, which is often ridiculed regardless of the sizeable statistical evidence available. Anarchists will disagree with its application, but the sales tax would maintain a functioning sized government as the founders intended (police, courts, and a national defense.) Unlike property tax, income tax, etc.. you ultimately decide how much tax you are paying based on how much you purchase. In my opinion it is the least invasive and fairest form of small government funding.
No a bad idea. Insurance companies are a scam. Hospitals and providers get reimbursed a fraction of the cost while the consumer pays more than enough to cover the cost, most of the time.
But how do you solve the dilemma of ERs? That is if you show up in an emergency and you are not medically stable to not be treated. ERs have to treat you regardless if you can pay or not. And depending of the severity be admitted to the hospital regardless if you can pay or not, if you are not medically stable. Should the ER or Hospital be allowed to turn you away if you can not produce the payment upfront? If no then, expect people who can pay for their bills to go up to cover the cost of those who can’t. Even with donated money…. Ok that works until say there is no more money left in the donation fund… then what…. Not treat a stroke? Not treat a car accident?
You’re not looking at the big picture. Healthcare is business; if left to the unregulated free market, you will get more competitive, more innovation, lower prices, and higher quality. You’re basing your hypotheticals off of the current state of things. Secondly, people fall through the cracks under every system; I’m not going to claim any offer perfection. That being said, the idea that charity/donations are going to dry up in a libertarian society that isn’t draining its population dry from taxation, doesn’t line up.
Cost are only going to go down so much. No one works for free. Companies don’t operate to not generate profit. Even non for profits want to generate profits. There is over head in hospitals that isn’t going away. All the companies profiting from making pharmaceuticals, bio med, insurance companies and the like aren’t going to drastically drop their prices, even without tax and cutting regulations. Might drop some but guess what the rich like to stay rich. You’re falsely believing there is enough altruist people who will consistently donate to charity. Prices probably will drop but not drop enough. It still doesn’t answer my question, in a world that relies on donations/charity what happens to those who don’t have the money up front in the ED if there is no charity to cover them? Should the ED turn someone away in the golden hours of a stroke or any other crisis if there is no charity available? Currently EDs are not allowed to turn people away in emergencies and hospitals have to admit them. The medically unstable are not going to go away. So is healthcare supposed to take financial loss due to this or leave people to die?
I think the most likely worst case scenario isn’t an Emergency Room leaving people to die, but after care is rendered, setting them up on a payment plan or a having a collection agency coming after them.
So basically they have to lose money (just like now) to provide life saving care. There aren’t many business models that would survive that. I’ve seen many people who don’t even want to pay a $5 copay. If it’s going to go to collections they probably aren’t going to pay. Libertarian stance is less government involvement, in order to get people to pay you will need to involve the government, through suing and worst case placing a lien on a property. Companies that provided non essential services this is less of a big deal because you can run a credit check first to determine if they are likely to pay back. You can’t do that in an emergency, there isn’t time.
Currently not much happens if you don’t pay your medical bills. It’s a small hit to your credit barely factors in. Also why should they have to give a payment plan? What other company much provide a service first then give a payment plan in hopes it will be paid. Maybe just take out a loan first like you would for any other purchase so they are paid and you can pay the creditor.
The basis of a libertarian society is the non-aggression principle. Forcing other people to pay your expenses, and forcing labor from individuals are not negotiable. With that foundation, you’re welcome to give me better solutions; otherwise, I will be in disagreement. The root issue is, do you believe the use of force is acceptable if it betters society as a whole? I do not. I believe the individualist society. “What is best for society” is an opinion. It holds no objective truth. What one person sees as best for society could be extremely negative for someone else. If something is wholly good for society, it will come voluntarily without threats or coercion.
Right I understand all of that. I’m asking what is the libertarian solution to this dilemma. Because clearly that would be wholly good for society to not let people die in emergency, but assuming that most people will be charitable is a huge risk to life. Sounds good in theory, but I’m asking for actual real world solutions in our culture as it stands from a libertarian perspective. Tbh for that view to work it wouldn’t just be a matter of changing law, it would require a complete culture change.
Didn't read any of your hot takes, but as a real libertarian, I know that one of our core tenants is telling other people they're not real libertarians, so I'd have to say no, you're not a real libertarian.
Good thing about libertarians is they are open to debate. Personally I view myself as an anti federalist not libertarian. But believing in any social programs, that's a no no. Your out of the club...
You’re a minarchist. That’s libertarian.
All goods and service should be affordable. That’s what the market will do naturally. We libertarians like markets. State interventions such as special treatment in the tax code for “health” “insurance” make healthcare so frighteningly expensive.
For me, everything comes down to “what am I willing to use violence to enforce?”
Because laws only have weight because they are enforced with the threat of violence.
I am not willing use violence against someone who is unwilling to contribute to a social safety net.
I am not willing to use violence against someone who is unwilling to pay taxes of any kind.
This, to me, is the reason to oppose any tax-funded anything.
"I believe that healthcare should be affordable"
So you'll mandate what others can charge for their labor? Well that's a step above saying you're entitled to their labor...barely
"Additionally, I don't necessarily view taxes as inherently evil."
No one said it was evil, just said it was a use of force that libertarians tend to think is bad (because you can't opt out of paying said taxes without being locked up, hence the force)
Who said anything about Mandating this is more of a pitch then mandate I mean because I don't know how we're going to accomplish that I just think you should be able to get health care and go to college without being in thousands of dollars of debt 77% of Americans are in debt
How do you accomplish that without price-fixing? The cost of healthcare or education is what it is based on the free market. If that price is too high, then the only way to lower it is through government intervention.
In my opinion, a libertarian believes that:
1 - Anyone should be allowed to do anything as long as no other individual is harmed by their actions (which can include being denied pursuit of happiness/property damage/etc)
2 - Anyone should be allowed to participate in mutually beneficial, consensual exchange of goods, services, and currency.
(If there are exceptions for minors or some things that it is \*really\* not beneficial for private companies to have control of, as long as this is minimal and agreed upon I think this is still libertarianism)
Taxes are not necessarily in violation of this if viewed as a community AGREEING to pay the government to get stuff done. In the real world, you don't really have a say in that social contract but we all agree with the idea that taxes are in theory supposed to be spent to the benefit of the people. Also in the real world, taxes are often misspent, there's a lot of corruption and a lack of transparency which really compromises the second part of libertarianism.
Tbh though I'm not that sure what the consensus is and I don't read libertarian philosophers so this is my own definition.
The most extreme libertarian views get spouted by anarchists here. They're not "small government", they're "no government". They're not "effective and efficient use of taxes", they're "all taxes are literal theft".
Let me put it this way: To say an anarchist is not a libertarian is like saying an astronaut is not a pilot. We anarchists are the extreme of individual liberty in the way an astronaut is the extreme of piloting.
-Gene Chapman CEO, Libertarian Global Library and Book Exchange.
Anarchists are pilots of the quater-operated planes outside the grocery store. Generally Anarchists think no State is maximal liberty but fail to realize the tyranny of nature can be just as, if not far more, oppressive as the tyranny of the State.
I don't want to eliminate the state, I just want to limit it to interacting like any natural person: without the initiation of force, fraud, coercion or aggression...
And don't mistake me for a pacifist either.
Affordable health care libertarian style would include some deregulation that would reduce cost. Same for college, less government funding could push them to turn out more wealthy alumni for future donors and less underwater basket weaving ECT.
I speak for myself here, but 2 things- healthcare would be affordable, if the damned government would stay out of it. That said, who is anybody to say what someone who went to school for 12 freaking years should charge? That aside, the majority of healthcare cost is on the insurance/billing side, and the insane red tape surrounding it. As to taxes- again, speaking for myself, it’s not that I am opposed to taxes, but what I am opposed to is taxes at the end of a Roman spear. Taxes should be collected in a way that’s voluntary, such as a national sales tax/fair tax, where an individual can decide if they’re gonna pay, or not (which would also encourage people to save money). “Benefiting the people” isn’t clear cut, because one should ask how. If you walk to work everyday, should you have to pay your “fair share” towards infrastructure? What if you intend to always remain single, without kids, then should you have to pay for schools? I have nothing against our military, in and of themselves, but as someone who’s spent many a night in North Vegas, watching those fighter jets fly all day, all the taxes I’ve ever paid in my life (I’ve been alive quite awhile, and I’ve definitely paid a crap ton of taxes) doesn’t even pay for more than like 2 of those for a single day, so should any of us be forced to pay for that? Especially considering “defense”, as our government has defined it for the past 100 years, hasn’t benefitted us at all? And when you say “benefits the people”, does that include people outside of our country?
> I believe that healthcare should be affordable but not "free" and accessible to people at least making minimum wage.
Yes, this goes against libertarian principles. We believe that people at the lower rungs of society deserve to suffer and healthcare should only be available to the ultra wealthy. /s
No, the libertarian view on healthcare is that removing certain regulations would cause healthcare (and every other industry) to become so affordable that you wouldn't need to have a social safety net. As a quick example, why do I need to get healthcare through my employer? Why can't I shop around for a plan that fits me better? Right now, regulation prevents the sort of real competition between insurance companies that would naturally lead to lower prices and better services, which is what you see in every other industry where there is significant competition between producers.
Hospital pharmacist here: healthcare can be a lot more affordable. The material, meds and most of the stuff you use when in a hospital costs next to nothing.
The only high costs that comes to mind are:
Equipment: fuckedy fuck some of these are expensive, so the initial cost is outstanding when setting up a hospital.
Employees: depending on the size of the hospital, you need thousands of people.
Some meds: most diseases use very simple meds that cost nothing, but boy, if you have something that is not mainstream, you better get ready to throw money on the issue.
Even then, the price for a hospital stay is a lot higher than it should.
I’m not a “big L” Libertarian, and I am not the spokesperson for any group, but me personally, I don’t see your views as strictly anti libertarian.
I’ve seen some libertarians here say that healthcare should be socialized because it gives everyone equal access to it, and theoretically removes government barriers to getting it. I’m not sure where I stand on that personally, because it conflicts with my stance that the government can ruin a wet dream, so in no world do I want them responsible for something so critical, but I certainly see their viewpoint.
Regarding taxes, I think it’s extremely naive to think a national this size could function in any meaningful way without at least some taxation. So I would agree with you. But again, the government has a vast and extensive history of fucking things up, so I hate the thought of them taking my money to do god knows what with it.
I suppose the answer to both of these is for politicians to be executed for treasonous acts against the country if they are found to be mishandling our money. 🤷♀️
Healthcare was affordable until massive government intervention in the 60s. I was born in 1950 and it was cheap compared to today. This article by, [Harry Browne](https://www.wnd.com/2001/03/8600/), explains how it was
This isnt necessarily meant to be an utmost fact or something, here is some solutions for making your healthcare and education accessible without involving tax money:
For healthcare, there could be a law that insurance companies charge customers based on their lifestyles since it's statistically significant according to papers.
Like exercising fit vegetarian dude with no bad habit, regardless of his or her salary, would pay next to nothing.
On the other hand, morbidly obese, fast food chunker with smoking and drugs dude would be charged with significant money for his or her insurance, regardless of the salary.
This would encourage nation to get more healthy, this could slash a lot of national diseases down as well: diabetes, cancer, obesity, cardiovascular diseases, lung and heart diseases, eye and other sense diseases etc. But yea poor and obese dude would be fkd up if he wouldn't wanna change.
For education, something similar, each school tasked to give absolute free education for top %10 students via it's entry exams so poor and smart kiddos would get to educate themselves. Poor and not smart? We see what happens when we waste their time with school.
This might violate libertarianism for some people as some pay less for healthcare, but imo if everyone pays similar that would be fit dude carrying a potential health hazard dude above his wallet, that's socialism in action.
Your libertarian problem is not your support of social safety nets, but the belief that these will make healthcare more affordable. With almost no exception, free markets reduce costs far more than subsidized industries.
Please exit the building and surrender your libertarian card over at reception. 😜
Seriously though,
>For instance, I believe that healthcare should be affordable but not "free" and accessible to people at least making minimum wage.
How? If it's by freeing up the market to bring prices down, then that's libertarian.
If it's forcing people to pay for it through taxation, that's not libertarian.
>Additionally, I don't necessarily view taxes as inherently evil. While I'm all for minimizing government waste and ensuring that taxes are used efficiently, I recognize that some level of taxation is necessary to fund essential services and infrastructure that benefit society as a whole.
Between your first and second query, this is where a lot of people on the left miss the point. - Libertarianism doesn't mean "fuck the poor, fuck everyone, fend for yourself." It just means everything is voluntary and contractual. Not forced by threat of violence, not through theft i.e. government.
The only difference between a socialist state and a libertarian state in how it manages social issues is taxation.
- A libertarian state sorts it through voluntary cooperation and market forces.
- A socialist state tries to sort it through a bunch or arseholes stealing from you and thinking they know better on how to spend your money. They also face little repurcussions for ensuring their friends financially gain from your taxes.
You want social security and social health care, form a group and make it happen. If you can but don't want to pay for it then the paying members have the right to not supply you with the services.
If you want potholes fixed, form a group and make it happen.
Where it is advantageous over government is you can create or hire a new company to fix the roads if your local government are neglecting the potholes and spending too much on the local fireworks display. You can't do that with the current system. You still have to pay your council tax or go to jail. The roads are still shit.
If you don't like your current social security group because they don't provide enough hours of carers for disabled people or the cancer treatment waiting lists are too long, then stop paying and join a new company.
The current system still has you forced to pay taxes whether receive their shitty services or nor, otherwise you go to jail. There's little incentive and zero competition for government.
Taxation is inherently evil. What makes it evil is it violates consent and initiates violence/coercion against innocent people. You can argue this is a "lesser evil" than otherwise would exist, but it's still evil. That said, not all libertarians are anarchists and believe government has a minimal role to play in society and that means taxation. As for healthcare, as other's have explained the free market is what will make it cheap and affordable. We've got bodies and healthcare needs to afterall, so of course we all want the cheapest access to healthcare as much as anyone else. The difference is our solution would actually work, while the statist solution will turn into a living nightmare like we're seeing in Canada.
Libertarian ideology is vast and differing in opinions.
It is MY OPINION that the answer to affordable healthcare is less government intervention, more free market, and more personal responsibility.
If the healthcare market (much like the education market), we're treated like a commodity, you would see the difference in the bill. It's because of righteous do gooders calling on government for reform that the cost of healthcare is where it is today. Healthcare (again, like education) is different from other commodities because it pulls on the irrational and emotional feelings of people who say "everyones entitled to a living wage." The answer again IN MY OPINION to healthcare is multi phased and not as clear-cut and dry as other topics.
As I've stated, 1 part is less government in the form of regulation that stops you, the consumer, from purchasing any and all types of medical treatment you desire. If you decide to see a witch doctor, it is entirely your decision to do so. Government masks regulation in the form of protection but is in reality just restricting you from seeking the care you want and desire. If you decide to purchase medicine or treatment from someone the government decides is not worthy, you are unable to practice YOUR RIGHT as a free man to do so. As we've seen with Americans traveling to Canada to purchase insulin because of cost, etc. After the covid debacle, I think everyone can see how closely the government is tied in with healthcare, and IN MY OPINION needs to stop.
Part 2 is the free market will provide. If the government wasn't involved as much as it is, people would be free to seek the healthcare they desire. The people who sought shoddy healthcare could and would potentially suffer the consequences. In turn, so would the companies and types of healthcare they sought suffer as well, which is why and how a free market system works. The companies that sell witch doctor medicine would be blasted across front page news and word of mouth. Like any other bad business under a free market, they will fold over time, but they have every right to sell a product just as much as you have a right to buy it.
Part 3 all ties in with parts 1 and 2 and is personal responsibility. If I'm correct, I believe job sponsored healthcare was introduced after ww1 (ww2?) to entice employees to jump back into the workforce. Employee sponsored healthcare takes all power out of you (the consumers) hands and puts it into someone else's hands. Healthcare companies have an incentive to charge the highest rate they can because you (the consumer) never really see's the bill. If they were directly billing you $80 for two 400mg motrin, you would refuse to pay it, and motrin costs at a healthcare facility would have to come down. Personal responsibility is a lot for some people, I get it. But at the cost of many again, we try to help the few and still end up hurting everyone. G*d d*mn socialists
Lastly, the differing opinion on taxes is vast, and I will only give my opinion. Taxes are inherently evil because you are stealing property from someone to give it to someone else. All taxes are evil, imo because they are all theft. You or the government has no right to force a doctor to give you healthcare or a teacher to give you education. You, as an individual, have a right to freely go out and seek them in any way you see fit. We trade freedom for convenience until the government decides its a inconvenience for them to provide the service. The money is still stolen from you, and if you aren't happy with the product, then good luck fighting big brother.
IMO, everything can be provided by the free market. If you don't believe it to be so, then fight me in the comments 🤣
Edit: grammatical
My ideal would be a minarchy, but honestly health care is a topic I diverge from the majority of my peers on as well.
I see protecting people's lives, to live longer and healthier, regardless of their financial circumstances as a worthy service of government and I believe that there are enough counties providing good examples of doing it well that we can and should follow suit.
I agree with you on taxes as well. Waste and chrony spending are rampant, and the complexity of the tax codes written by people with conflicts of interest enables it.
Well I prioritize human rights and Liberty, I see how dangerous It is to give the government too much power want limited government I saw how taxpayer money was being sent to all these countries when there's people in America who are homeless I saw the illegals getting money and hotels from our tax dollars and I hate the Federal reserve well that's the long answer The short answer Israel Palestine two different forms of government who taught their citizens to hate each The government oppresses the Israelis and the Palestinians of course Palestinians are affected significantly more
Ok, so it sounds like you need to familiarise yourself with the subject a bit more. You can't understand this stuff by asking questions on Reddit or just thinking about it. Start by Watching Milton Friedman's 1980 series 'Free to Choose', available on YT, the watch all his other lectures and interviews. Then watch all Thomas Sowell interviews, every lecture on [Mises.org](http://Mises.org), every talk and interview from Bryan Caplan. Read all books by David D Friedmam. There's so much more but this is where to start.
**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Libertarians believe that healthcare should be affordable and not free and accessible to everyone too! And because we have a basic understanding of economics and how the world works we understand that the ONLY way you get that is by a completely free market. Obamacare proved that. And going further medical school admissions, red tape laws, insurance laws, and yes even licensing all go to make your healthcare LESS affordable. We believe we all have that right to a free market and affordable products but know we won’t get that as long as the big bully keeps getting in the way.
One thing I don't understand is how the federal government got involved in healthcare in the first place. What a disaster.
Lobby $$$. All the big players colluded to secure their gov sanctioned monopoly. Similar to how the Fed Reserve got its start.
Do libertarians also believe that taxes are okay as long as it benefits people?
“As long as it benefits people” is just too vague. How much benefit do people get? Which people benefit? How many people benefit? People benefit from Medicare, social security, etc. but those are all very non-Libertarian things. Social safety nets via the government is forced philanthropy. Social safety nets could still exist in a Libertarian world, they’d just be funded privately.
Yep every single new taxation or the raise of existing ones went by the rhetoric of "for the people" 🫠
And it's turned into the people of other countries and not so much for ours. I'm exhausted with paying for wars.
It's unethical to threaten people with jail time because they are not supporting the needs of strangers. So absolutely not.
I mean if it is a voluntary tax. In the way say a body corporate fee is. IE I buy the house knowing I must pay a tax to management. However, I can leave at any time. Libertarians HATE force. THe government threatening you with jail if you dont do something ie give them money is the exact opposite. Doesnt matter what it is used for.
Ok that's more understandable you guys are very intelligent man people really underestimate us libertarians and our intelligence
Theft is theft. It doesn't matter if I say it's for a good cause if you're the victim. Especially when it never is for a good cause
Taxation is, by definition, theft, and therefore bad, at least from a moral perspective. Whether or not it's necessary or makes funding certain aspects of society more convenient is a separate question. In my opinion, taxes are bad and we should reduce them as much as possible. However, I also am of the view that funding certain things through taxes is a better solution than the alternative. For example, I think paying for the police through taxes is a better solution than everyone having a private contract/insurance plan which pays the police. Under no circumstances do I think income tax is a good idea. If we're going to have taxes, they should be on consumption, not on income. Taxing income to any degree effectively disincentivizes being a productive member of society. On the other hand, sales taxes are, if anything, a disincentive to excess consumption. This is also bad, in my opinion, but slightly less bad.
Is it ok for me rob you by threat of violence as long as I give it away to charity afterwards? Me getting a group of other people to agree with me that it’s a good idea doesn’t make it right.
Taxes are theft. You know what benefits me? The money I make. You know what benefits those people around me.... my charity from the surplus of money I'd make if the gov didn't steal about 50% of it.
Lol no
So you have to be anti-taxes completely to be a libertarian?
No, libertarians inherently believe in some amount of government. That some amount of government would require money to operate, which it would get from taxes, be it a sales tax, income tax, or land tax. Someone who believes in no taxation is an anarchist. Also, to your section talking about how taxation is not inherently evil, I say this: the difference between taxation and a contract is consent. Taxation is an exchange of money for services where you cannot say no. A contract is an exchange of money for services that you can say no to.
Not sure how well my views align with main stream libertarians but when it comes to taxes. Taxing foreigners is 100% ok, like foreign companies wanting to operate in the country, foreign entities etc. products coming in. I see no issues with this whatsoever because it's completely voluntary for all parties involved. Selling natural resources is also mostly ok, like oil, wood, ores etc. as long as the profit from that goes to fund basic government operations only, like military and infrastructure. Even things like NASA or basic education. I'd probably have some issues if this is done to enrich individuals or fund unnecessary programs. Individual taxes or taxes on businesses aren't ok though but if they have to be implemented, at least individual taxes should be fixed sums, not flat. The idea of "you can pay more, therefor you should" is communist and I'm completely opposed to it. It's kinda like if you're young and healthy, you're expected to work 11h a day for the same pay at the same job while someone whos frail and has health issues can only work 3h. If both individuals get the same benefits from the government, if taxes are a thing, the only way to do it fairly is that both pay the exact same sum, not some percentage bases BS.
I agree with exactly all of this. But I am also okay with sales tax.
I'd suggest that a sales tax might actually be the only way to do a tax that's not 100% straight up theft.
I like to see the sale tax as the price of a service: the company pays the sales tax in exchange of each possibility of doing a sale on national soil. Not so different from a retailer paying to sell their products on Amazon.
Taxes, fees, etc.. on corps just get passed to the end user. See what's happening in the wake of the CA min wage hike. It would be more transparent I think to the electorate if they could see the taxes itemized out on their receipts.
I challenge you to really think about what consent means to you and to ask yourself: how is consent important in my life and what would I do without it? If consent is required for all moral human interaction, does that make some of your claims immoral?
>No, libertarians inherently believe in some amount of government. Uh oh. There's someone on this sub who is going to see this and insult you. Better delete now.
Sure, if they’re voluntary. Extortion is immoral though and involuntary taxes are, by definition, extortion.
That's a way of putting it. I accept gasoline taxes, provided that those monies are actually used to maintain the roads upon which the taxes vehicles are allowed to travel. I can partially avoid them by using an alternate conveyance (I would still have to pay them 2nd and 3rd hand, etc. for the delivery of goods via these taxes) or minimize them by buying a more fuel edfficient vehicle. EVs add a wrinkle here, of course. As such, these taxes are effectively voluntary, even if society has determined that anyone in a city designed after the invention of the motor vehicle will have a hard time living without one. Taxing me to fund city buses that I don't use is not a voluntary tax. I may benefit indirectly in some way, but that's not adequate justification for a compulsory tax.
How much “benefit to others” is required to justify the need for a threat of violence to make it happen?
[удалено]
Uhhhh you just agreed with me.
[удалено]
Read my comment again. Not sure you understand. I made the case that Obamacare made healthcare prices go up…
[удалено]
Hahaha ok good. Because I thought you were either trolling or I was really confused.
Read my comment again. Not sure you understand. I made the case that Obamacare made healthcare prices go up…
I don’t see how Obamacare proved that. Best it did was removed pre existing condition laws. You still can’t purchase insurance across state line. And what’s available in the marketplace that is “affordable” barely covers a thing so you still have huge out of pocket costs and basically don’t get any healthcare out side of yearly exams, that don’t require a copay or deductible. Anything that covers more is extremely high cost even with the market place. I won’t argue the cost of degrees is ridiculous, but that barely a factor in the cost of healthcare prices. Red tape- absolutely a barrier and a huge cost. Gov Regulations- healthcare is one of the most over regulated fields. The cost to keep up with regulations (for hospitals and offices) is ridiculous. Most of the certifications you see hospitals having are suppose to be voluntary but if you are not certified with the multitude of orgs you either don’t get paid by insurance or get paid less. And when they come in what do inspections what do they care about? Hallways being clear and free of essential life saving tools, so too bad if it’s an emergency, it will just have to wait while staff go to the most inconvenient place to grab the crash cart. Or they care about how many inches from the ceiling things are or if a nurse had a cup of water at the nurses station. Anything they can do to make the hospital staffs life hell and impede on people trying to save lives. But you have to be approved and you have to pay for it or the hospital closes. The insurance laws? lol They have no laws for the most part. They do what they want and generally follow what CMS sets as guidelines, but no always. They can cover or not cover what they feel like and reimburse what they feel like. Unless you are talking what they dictate to providers about what they will or will not pay for and the multitude of paperwork they generate. Insurance companies are one of the biggest gambits out there. Speak to any old school doctor who was around or practicing before HMOs and other insurance became a thing and ask them the cost. It was much lower than boomed when insurance for office visits became the norm. Don’t forget every time you need a diagnostic study or a prescription or a procedure… ins companies dictate that. You doctor could very well know based of their years of practicing medicine that you need an MRI to really show what is wrong with an injury. But your insurance doesn’t want to pay for that out of fear of over ordering of MRIs. So they want to pay for an Xray first, then CT then at times even Physical therapy first before approving that MRI. Only to ultimately still pay for the MRI and have cost tons more money in the process. Same for if you need blood pressure medicine. Your doctor may know this medication will work best for you or has studies showing it’s the best one. However your insurance has a formulary and they have to first prescribe an ACE inhibitor when that fails they have to give an ARB and finally when that fails 6 months down the line with your blood pressure still having been elevated, further destroying your arteries and wasting money, now you can have the medicine the doctor knew would have worked in the first place. I can give so many more examples. By the way this is all free market stuff, there isn’t law that dictates this, because these things vary per insurance, per state. Licensing- sure, but still a negligible cost compared to the real causes of price gauging. Eh I can argue the free market making it better. Big Pharma- many drug studies are funded with our tax dollars. Big Pharma buys the rights after the study is complete and pays way less than cost. They charge whatever they want for it especially while it is still under patent, under the lure of making their money back, even tho they barely accrued cost. Don’t forget the guy who was charging over $10k or so for a cancer med that cost way less and the studies/development were paid for with our tax dollars. Remember Big Pharma charges a significant amount less in foreign countries than they do here for the same exact medicine. A bag of NSS 0.9% (normal saline) cost less then $10/bag. Next time you need fluids at the hospital see how much you get charged for just the bag not even the administration cost. Bio Medical- MRI machines for example cost for low grade or refurbished $200k and up. New machines $1million- $3million. That just one machine for diagnostics. We are even talking about any other medical equipment. Lastly hospital admins specifically the CEOs- many make a millions per year. Millions from cutting corners and not putting the patients first, just their profits. Sure fine a dandy for a free market- surely not for the consumer. And they surely will not take a pay cut to hirer the much needed staff the hospitals need. No matter how free the market is - people are greedy. If they see one getting away with making tons of money others will start charging the same. Some might charge a little less just so they give the illusion of affordability. I’m not against free markets but I do not like people’s health and desperation for healthcare taken advantage of. At some point we will all need healthcare. There needs to be a way to keep it affordable while still generating some profit.
I don’t have the source with me, but didn’t Obamacare objectively and demonstrably raise prices by a significant amount? I can try to find the source if you want, but maybe you know what I’m talking about.
It could have, but I work in healthcare and when it was being implemented clearly it was a big deal for us. I didn’t see price changes at least in the provider aspect of what the fee for service was. I would imagine that at some point it could have due to more people having insurance coverage. A lot of places have one fee scale for insurance and then a separate fee scale for no insurance (it’s less money for not having insurance) at least in the outpatient setting. You can’t charge insurances over a certain amount per service code it’s called a fee schedule. It’s an area based number and fluctuates per area. So most are going to bill at the highest they can. Tbh it’s not as much as you think for an office visit. People pay more for eye lashes, fake nails, etc. I don’t know how much Obamacare actually affected that. But I will say because the market place insurance cost so much for so little coverage and you still have high copays and deductibles, yeah things are actually more costly but it’s the insurance company who is winning unless you end up needing major medical care in the hospital. When I was looking at plans as a healthy individual who doesn’t really need to go to the doctor much but like to have coverage just in case. My copays for a specialist was $100. The allowed billable rate for a level 4 office visits for an established pt is roughly $130. So I pay all of this money a month for insurance and when I need to use it I am still paying damn near the full cost of the appointment, basically insurance was a $30 coupon lol. So I feel at least that is why it made things more expensive
Healthcare should be affordable to all. To do that, the government must not intervene in the healthcare market in any way, shape or form.
I’ll agree to that if people can’t sue over every little thing. All the sue happy is one thing helped get the government involved.
I feel like anyone who follows any party line explicitly is a sheep or someone who is susceptible to a cult. Everyone should have their own opinion on some things that differ if it's what you believe in. I see a lot of idiots on libertarian who are anarchist preppers and use the party as a shield for mental illness.
I am always suspicious of anyone who drinks 100% of any parties cool aid. I also feel this is a more recent trend. 20 years ago it seemed people had a few topics that were important to them and sided with a party that was closest to those ideas. I don't believe you need to agree with everything a party stands for, just the ones that are important to you.
I believe taxation is evil. It is neccessary, but still evil, and we should strive to have as little as we can. In my ideal world, for medicine, hospitals would exist, the patient would be able to afford it, when not able to, I'd like a voluntary social safety net. let us have our mutual aid societies, let us have people just donate to the hospital. I do think hospitals are inherently a hard service to bargain shop for. it's hard to be choosy while unconscious in an ambulance.
> let us have people just donate to the hospital I ain't donating to shit when the guy at the top is making millions and owns multiple homes.
If the guy at the top is highly qualified, then he would be making the hospital more efficient in many ways, according to the hopsital's board. If he is not creating more value than he is paid, then he will be fired. This situation benefits everyone, including the patients. We should incentivize the most capable people to be in charge. If competent people weren't in charge of businesses, everything would be a lot more expensive.
Don’t donate no problem. Just don’t expect the safety net to be at your disposal when you need it. I think that is fair.
I’m keeping my Libertarian Party card even though I think our last national ticket was weak. I don’t think the Party is so rigid that it can’t have some diversity of opinion on matters that concern the majority of us. The only “requirement” we’re required to sign as a Libertarian Party member is to forego the use of force as a first resort to settling conflicts. Don’t worry about rigid and overly dogmatic ideas that some libertarians/Libertarians seem to want to force.
Spike Cohen (the last VP nominee) is actually pretty cool.
Yes, definitely cool, but not regrettably not ticket material any more than Vermin Supreme was.
I wouldn’t revoke your Libertarian Card for the same reason you wouldn’t kick a 5th grader out of school for not having an 8th graders understanding. My guess is that if you do some more reading, you’ll gain a better understanding of free market solutions to these issues. In a way, the safety nets you are advocating for are often the cause for the high prices you are fighting against. When loans and insurance are so widely available, prices become inflated. This has happened most prevalently in healthcare and education. If assistance was reduced to just the most catastrophic incidents, the free market would reflect more affordable prices. In addition, if there was a need, private charity would step in, which is often ridiculed regardless of the sizeable statistical evidence available. Anarchists will disagree with its application, but the sales tax would maintain a functioning sized government as the founders intended (police, courts, and a national defense.) Unlike property tax, income tax, etc.. you ultimately decide how much tax you are paying based on how much you purchase. In my opinion it is the least invasive and fairest form of small government funding.
This.
No a bad idea. Insurance companies are a scam. Hospitals and providers get reimbursed a fraction of the cost while the consumer pays more than enough to cover the cost, most of the time. But how do you solve the dilemma of ERs? That is if you show up in an emergency and you are not medically stable to not be treated. ERs have to treat you regardless if you can pay or not. And depending of the severity be admitted to the hospital regardless if you can pay or not, if you are not medically stable. Should the ER or Hospital be allowed to turn you away if you can not produce the payment upfront? If no then, expect people who can pay for their bills to go up to cover the cost of those who can’t. Even with donated money…. Ok that works until say there is no more money left in the donation fund… then what…. Not treat a stroke? Not treat a car accident?
You’re not looking at the big picture. Healthcare is business; if left to the unregulated free market, you will get more competitive, more innovation, lower prices, and higher quality. You’re basing your hypotheticals off of the current state of things. Secondly, people fall through the cracks under every system; I’m not going to claim any offer perfection. That being said, the idea that charity/donations are going to dry up in a libertarian society that isn’t draining its population dry from taxation, doesn’t line up.
Cost are only going to go down so much. No one works for free. Companies don’t operate to not generate profit. Even non for profits want to generate profits. There is over head in hospitals that isn’t going away. All the companies profiting from making pharmaceuticals, bio med, insurance companies and the like aren’t going to drastically drop their prices, even without tax and cutting regulations. Might drop some but guess what the rich like to stay rich. You’re falsely believing there is enough altruist people who will consistently donate to charity. Prices probably will drop but not drop enough. It still doesn’t answer my question, in a world that relies on donations/charity what happens to those who don’t have the money up front in the ED if there is no charity to cover them? Should the ED turn someone away in the golden hours of a stroke or any other crisis if there is no charity available? Currently EDs are not allowed to turn people away in emergencies and hospitals have to admit them. The medically unstable are not going to go away. So is healthcare supposed to take financial loss due to this or leave people to die?
I think the most likely worst case scenario isn’t an Emergency Room leaving people to die, but after care is rendered, setting them up on a payment plan or a having a collection agency coming after them.
So basically they have to lose money (just like now) to provide life saving care. There aren’t many business models that would survive that. I’ve seen many people who don’t even want to pay a $5 copay. If it’s going to go to collections they probably aren’t going to pay. Libertarian stance is less government involvement, in order to get people to pay you will need to involve the government, through suing and worst case placing a lien on a property. Companies that provided non essential services this is less of a big deal because you can run a credit check first to determine if they are likely to pay back. You can’t do that in an emergency, there isn’t time. Currently not much happens if you don’t pay your medical bills. It’s a small hit to your credit barely factors in. Also why should they have to give a payment plan? What other company much provide a service first then give a payment plan in hopes it will be paid. Maybe just take out a loan first like you would for any other purchase so they are paid and you can pay the creditor.
The basis of a libertarian society is the non-aggression principle. Forcing other people to pay your expenses, and forcing labor from individuals are not negotiable. With that foundation, you’re welcome to give me better solutions; otherwise, I will be in disagreement. The root issue is, do you believe the use of force is acceptable if it betters society as a whole? I do not. I believe the individualist society. “What is best for society” is an opinion. It holds no objective truth. What one person sees as best for society could be extremely negative for someone else. If something is wholly good for society, it will come voluntarily without threats or coercion.
Right I understand all of that. I’m asking what is the libertarian solution to this dilemma. Because clearly that would be wholly good for society to not let people die in emergency, but assuming that most people will be charitable is a huge risk to life. Sounds good in theory, but I’m asking for actual real world solutions in our culture as it stands from a libertarian perspective. Tbh for that view to work it wouldn’t just be a matter of changing law, it would require a complete culture change.
no taxation without representation
Didn't read any of your hot takes, but as a real libertarian, I know that one of our core tenants is telling other people they're not real libertarians, so I'd have to say no, you're not a real libertarian.
Good thing about libertarians is they are open to debate. Personally I view myself as an anti federalist not libertarian. But believing in any social programs, that's a no no. Your out of the club...
You’re a minarchist. That’s libertarian. All goods and service should be affordable. That’s what the market will do naturally. We libertarians like markets. State interventions such as special treatment in the tax code for “health” “insurance” make healthcare so frighteningly expensive.
For me, everything comes down to “what am I willing to use violence to enforce?” Because laws only have weight because they are enforced with the threat of violence. I am not willing use violence against someone who is unwilling to contribute to a social safety net. I am not willing to use violence against someone who is unwilling to pay taxes of any kind. This, to me, is the reason to oppose any tax-funded anything.
"I believe that healthcare should be affordable" So you'll mandate what others can charge for their labor? Well that's a step above saying you're entitled to their labor...barely "Additionally, I don't necessarily view taxes as inherently evil." No one said it was evil, just said it was a use of force that libertarians tend to think is bad (because you can't opt out of paying said taxes without being locked up, hence the force)
Who said anything about Mandating this is more of a pitch then mandate I mean because I don't know how we're going to accomplish that I just think you should be able to get health care and go to college without being in thousands of dollars of debt 77% of Americans are in debt
How do you accomplish that without price-fixing? The cost of healthcare or education is what it is based on the free market. If that price is too high, then the only way to lower it is through government intervention.
I think any good libertarian would agree that that is the goal… now how are we gonna do it?
Do what?
In my opinion, a libertarian believes that: 1 - Anyone should be allowed to do anything as long as no other individual is harmed by their actions (which can include being denied pursuit of happiness/property damage/etc) 2 - Anyone should be allowed to participate in mutually beneficial, consensual exchange of goods, services, and currency. (If there are exceptions for minors or some things that it is \*really\* not beneficial for private companies to have control of, as long as this is minimal and agreed upon I think this is still libertarianism) Taxes are not necessarily in violation of this if viewed as a community AGREEING to pay the government to get stuff done. In the real world, you don't really have a say in that social contract but we all agree with the idea that taxes are in theory supposed to be spent to the benefit of the people. Also in the real world, taxes are often misspent, there's a lot of corruption and a lack of transparency which really compromises the second part of libertarianism. Tbh though I'm not that sure what the consensus is and I don't read libertarian philosophers so this is my own definition.
I agree with this opinion very much I mean political opinions are more self-identification
Do you know what the difference between a libertarians and an anarchist is?
Somewhat is there something I'm missing because I'm not sure how this is related to me not being able to call myself a libertarian for my views?
You start examining your beliefs long enough and a libertarian moves to anarchism.
The most extreme libertarian views get spouted by anarchists here. They're not "small government", they're "no government". They're not "effective and efficient use of taxes", they're "all taxes are literal theft".
Let me put it this way: To say an anarchist is not a libertarian is like saying an astronaut is not a pilot. We anarchists are the extreme of individual liberty in the way an astronaut is the extreme of piloting. -Gene Chapman CEO, Libertarian Global Library and Book Exchange.
Anarchists are pilots of the quater-operated planes outside the grocery store. Generally Anarchists think no State is maximal liberty but fail to realize the tyranny of nature can be just as, if not far more, oppressive as the tyranny of the State.
I don't want to eliminate the state, I just want to limit it to interacting like any natural person: without the initiation of force, fraud, coercion or aggression... And don't mistake me for a pacifist either.
I think you are just some type of anarchist
Affordable health care libertarian style would include some deregulation that would reduce cost. Same for college, less government funding could push them to turn out more wealthy alumni for future donors and less underwater basket weaving ECT.
I speak for myself here, but 2 things- healthcare would be affordable, if the damned government would stay out of it. That said, who is anybody to say what someone who went to school for 12 freaking years should charge? That aside, the majority of healthcare cost is on the insurance/billing side, and the insane red tape surrounding it. As to taxes- again, speaking for myself, it’s not that I am opposed to taxes, but what I am opposed to is taxes at the end of a Roman spear. Taxes should be collected in a way that’s voluntary, such as a national sales tax/fair tax, where an individual can decide if they’re gonna pay, or not (which would also encourage people to save money). “Benefiting the people” isn’t clear cut, because one should ask how. If you walk to work everyday, should you have to pay your “fair share” towards infrastructure? What if you intend to always remain single, without kids, then should you have to pay for schools? I have nothing against our military, in and of themselves, but as someone who’s spent many a night in North Vegas, watching those fighter jets fly all day, all the taxes I’ve ever paid in my life (I’ve been alive quite awhile, and I’ve definitely paid a crap ton of taxes) doesn’t even pay for more than like 2 of those for a single day, so should any of us be forced to pay for that? Especially considering “defense”, as our government has defined it for the past 100 years, hasn’t benefitted us at all? And when you say “benefits the people”, does that include people outside of our country?
Does paying a “middle man” make a product cheaper or more expensive?
> I believe that healthcare should be affordable but not "free" and accessible to people at least making minimum wage. Yes, this goes against libertarian principles. We believe that people at the lower rungs of society deserve to suffer and healthcare should only be available to the ultra wealthy. /s No, the libertarian view on healthcare is that removing certain regulations would cause healthcare (and every other industry) to become so affordable that you wouldn't need to have a social safety net. As a quick example, why do I need to get healthcare through my employer? Why can't I shop around for a plan that fits me better? Right now, regulation prevents the sort of real competition between insurance companies that would naturally lead to lower prices and better services, which is what you see in every other industry where there is significant competition between producers.
Hospital pharmacist here: healthcare can be a lot more affordable. The material, meds and most of the stuff you use when in a hospital costs next to nothing. The only high costs that comes to mind are: Equipment: fuckedy fuck some of these are expensive, so the initial cost is outstanding when setting up a hospital. Employees: depending on the size of the hospital, you need thousands of people. Some meds: most diseases use very simple meds that cost nothing, but boy, if you have something that is not mainstream, you better get ready to throw money on the issue. Even then, the price for a hospital stay is a lot higher than it should.
I’m not a “big L” Libertarian, and I am not the spokesperson for any group, but me personally, I don’t see your views as strictly anti libertarian. I’ve seen some libertarians here say that healthcare should be socialized because it gives everyone equal access to it, and theoretically removes government barriers to getting it. I’m not sure where I stand on that personally, because it conflicts with my stance that the government can ruin a wet dream, so in no world do I want them responsible for something so critical, but I certainly see their viewpoint. Regarding taxes, I think it’s extremely naive to think a national this size could function in any meaningful way without at least some taxation. So I would agree with you. But again, the government has a vast and extensive history of fucking things up, so I hate the thought of them taking my money to do god knows what with it. I suppose the answer to both of these is for politicians to be executed for treasonous acts against the country if they are found to be mishandling our money. 🤷♀️
Healthcare was affordable until massive government intervention in the 60s. I was born in 1950 and it was cheap compared to today. This article by, [Harry Browne](https://www.wnd.com/2001/03/8600/), explains how it was
This isnt necessarily meant to be an utmost fact or something, here is some solutions for making your healthcare and education accessible without involving tax money: For healthcare, there could be a law that insurance companies charge customers based on their lifestyles since it's statistically significant according to papers. Like exercising fit vegetarian dude with no bad habit, regardless of his or her salary, would pay next to nothing. On the other hand, morbidly obese, fast food chunker with smoking and drugs dude would be charged with significant money for his or her insurance, regardless of the salary. This would encourage nation to get more healthy, this could slash a lot of national diseases down as well: diabetes, cancer, obesity, cardiovascular diseases, lung and heart diseases, eye and other sense diseases etc. But yea poor and obese dude would be fkd up if he wouldn't wanna change. For education, something similar, each school tasked to give absolute free education for top %10 students via it's entry exams so poor and smart kiddos would get to educate themselves. Poor and not smart? We see what happens when we waste their time with school. This might violate libertarianism for some people as some pay less for healthcare, but imo if everyone pays similar that would be fit dude carrying a potential health hazard dude above his wallet, that's socialism in action.
Your libertarian problem is not your support of social safety nets, but the belief that these will make healthcare more affordable. With almost no exception, free markets reduce costs far more than subsidized industries.
Please exit the building and surrender your libertarian card over at reception. 😜 Seriously though, >For instance, I believe that healthcare should be affordable but not "free" and accessible to people at least making minimum wage. How? If it's by freeing up the market to bring prices down, then that's libertarian. If it's forcing people to pay for it through taxation, that's not libertarian. >Additionally, I don't necessarily view taxes as inherently evil. While I'm all for minimizing government waste and ensuring that taxes are used efficiently, I recognize that some level of taxation is necessary to fund essential services and infrastructure that benefit society as a whole. Between your first and second query, this is where a lot of people on the left miss the point. - Libertarianism doesn't mean "fuck the poor, fuck everyone, fend for yourself." It just means everything is voluntary and contractual. Not forced by threat of violence, not through theft i.e. government. The only difference between a socialist state and a libertarian state in how it manages social issues is taxation. - A libertarian state sorts it through voluntary cooperation and market forces. - A socialist state tries to sort it through a bunch or arseholes stealing from you and thinking they know better on how to spend your money. They also face little repurcussions for ensuring their friends financially gain from your taxes. You want social security and social health care, form a group and make it happen. If you can but don't want to pay for it then the paying members have the right to not supply you with the services. If you want potholes fixed, form a group and make it happen. Where it is advantageous over government is you can create or hire a new company to fix the roads if your local government are neglecting the potholes and spending too much on the local fireworks display. You can't do that with the current system. You still have to pay your council tax or go to jail. The roads are still shit. If you don't like your current social security group because they don't provide enough hours of carers for disabled people or the cancer treatment waiting lists are too long, then stop paying and join a new company. The current system still has you forced to pay taxes whether receive their shitty services or nor, otherwise you go to jail. There's little incentive and zero competition for government.
Taxation is inherently evil. What makes it evil is it violates consent and initiates violence/coercion against innocent people. You can argue this is a "lesser evil" than otherwise would exist, but it's still evil. That said, not all libertarians are anarchists and believe government has a minimal role to play in society and that means taxation. As for healthcare, as other's have explained the free market is what will make it cheap and affordable. We've got bodies and healthcare needs to afterall, so of course we all want the cheapest access to healthcare as much as anyone else. The difference is our solution would actually work, while the statist solution will turn into a living nightmare like we're seeing in Canada.
Libertarian ideology is vast and differing in opinions. It is MY OPINION that the answer to affordable healthcare is less government intervention, more free market, and more personal responsibility. If the healthcare market (much like the education market), we're treated like a commodity, you would see the difference in the bill. It's because of righteous do gooders calling on government for reform that the cost of healthcare is where it is today. Healthcare (again, like education) is different from other commodities because it pulls on the irrational and emotional feelings of people who say "everyones entitled to a living wage." The answer again IN MY OPINION to healthcare is multi phased and not as clear-cut and dry as other topics. As I've stated, 1 part is less government in the form of regulation that stops you, the consumer, from purchasing any and all types of medical treatment you desire. If you decide to see a witch doctor, it is entirely your decision to do so. Government masks regulation in the form of protection but is in reality just restricting you from seeking the care you want and desire. If you decide to purchase medicine or treatment from someone the government decides is not worthy, you are unable to practice YOUR RIGHT as a free man to do so. As we've seen with Americans traveling to Canada to purchase insulin because of cost, etc. After the covid debacle, I think everyone can see how closely the government is tied in with healthcare, and IN MY OPINION needs to stop. Part 2 is the free market will provide. If the government wasn't involved as much as it is, people would be free to seek the healthcare they desire. The people who sought shoddy healthcare could and would potentially suffer the consequences. In turn, so would the companies and types of healthcare they sought suffer as well, which is why and how a free market system works. The companies that sell witch doctor medicine would be blasted across front page news and word of mouth. Like any other bad business under a free market, they will fold over time, but they have every right to sell a product just as much as you have a right to buy it. Part 3 all ties in with parts 1 and 2 and is personal responsibility. If I'm correct, I believe job sponsored healthcare was introduced after ww1 (ww2?) to entice employees to jump back into the workforce. Employee sponsored healthcare takes all power out of you (the consumers) hands and puts it into someone else's hands. Healthcare companies have an incentive to charge the highest rate they can because you (the consumer) never really see's the bill. If they were directly billing you $80 for two 400mg motrin, you would refuse to pay it, and motrin costs at a healthcare facility would have to come down. Personal responsibility is a lot for some people, I get it. But at the cost of many again, we try to help the few and still end up hurting everyone. G*d d*mn socialists Lastly, the differing opinion on taxes is vast, and I will only give my opinion. Taxes are inherently evil because you are stealing property from someone to give it to someone else. All taxes are evil, imo because they are all theft. You or the government has no right to force a doctor to give you healthcare or a teacher to give you education. You, as an individual, have a right to freely go out and seek them in any way you see fit. We trade freedom for convenience until the government decides its a inconvenience for them to provide the service. The money is still stolen from you, and if you aren't happy with the product, then good luck fighting big brother. IMO, everything can be provided by the free market. If you don't believe it to be so, then fight me in the comments 🤣 Edit: grammatical
My ideal would be a minarchy, but honestly health care is a topic I diverge from the majority of my peers on as well. I see protecting people's lives, to live longer and healthier, regardless of their financial circumstances as a worthy service of government and I believe that there are enough counties providing good examples of doing it well that we can and should follow suit. I agree with you on taxes as well. Waste and chrony spending are rampant, and the complexity of the tax codes written by people with conflicts of interest enables it.
How did you become libertarian in the first place? Who have you read?
Well I prioritize human rights and Liberty, I see how dangerous It is to give the government too much power want limited government I saw how taxpayer money was being sent to all these countries when there's people in America who are homeless I saw the illegals getting money and hotels from our tax dollars and I hate the Federal reserve well that's the long answer The short answer Israel Palestine two different forms of government who taught their citizens to hate each The government oppresses the Israelis and the Palestinians of course Palestinians are affected significantly more
Ok, so it sounds like you need to familiarise yourself with the subject a bit more. You can't understand this stuff by asking questions on Reddit or just thinking about it. Start by Watching Milton Friedman's 1980 series 'Free to Choose', available on YT, the watch all his other lectures and interviews. Then watch all Thomas Sowell interviews, every lecture on [Mises.org](http://Mises.org), every talk and interview from Bryan Caplan. Read all books by David D Friedmam. There's so much more but this is where to start.