The irrational nature of Libertarianism

[RandomGuy]

I believe all laws attempting to regulate markets should be repealed.

I do not believe attempting to analyze a government distorted industry of cartels and monopolies can produce information that reflects upon anything but these distortions.

How convenient for you that anything that might call into question your preferred solution is unfalsifiable.

There is a market for people who want other people killed.

Supply and demand exists for that service.

There is a market for child sex slaves along the same line.

When you say "all laws" attempting to regulate markets, do you mean this, or are there limits to the amount of free market even you will tolerate?

[Poptech]

How convenient for you that anything that might call into question your preferred solution is unfalsifiable.

In this case it is because you are starting from a flawed premise.

There is a market for people who want other people killed.

Supply and demand exists for that service.

There is a market for child sex slaves along the same line.

When you say "all laws" attempting to regulate markets, do you mean this, or are there limits to the amount of free market even you will tolerate?

Those have nothing to do with market regulations. Where did I suggest laws should not exist protecting human life and property from the aggression of others?

[RandomGuy]

In this case it is because you are starting from a flawed premise.


Those have nothing to do with market regulations. Where did I suggest laws should not exist protecting human life and property from the aggression of others?

I didn't say you did suggest such.

I just wanted to know how much free market you want, as you seemed to balk at discussions of morality for some reason.

"Protecting human life and property from the aggression of others" seems pretty subjective to me.

What if I am really wealthy and want to use the creek on my property to dump my sewage that flows into the poor community downstream.

Do we regulate that?

What if that land owner wants to dam up the stream and sell the water?

[RandomGuy]

In this case it is because you are starting from a flawed premise.

A flawed premise according to you. Let's leave it at that.

[RandomGuy]

Charity hospitals providing these services for free is not socialism.

Cost shifting is cost shifting, free market or goverment.

You still haven't told me how you would prevent costs from being shifted by a non-charity hospital that spends $200,000 treating an elderly heart-attack victim that staggers in the door, and can't pay.

Will you penalize a hospital that chooses not to accept such a person? What if the hospital loads up that person in an ambulance to ship them to a charity hospital, and the delay kills the person?

What penalty do you propose for that hospital? finger wagging?

You think that a hospital that watches costs by these subtle things would really face all that much ostracism?

[ElNono]

With healthcare you are making me financially responsible for the bad lifestyle choices of my neighbor.

This is a terrible take. Even the healthiest person gets sick and eventually dies.

Your neighbor chooses to have cancer? That's a new one.

[RandomGuy]

I kind of wanted a system of governance fleshed out with some concrete proposals fleshed out for how a libertarian system would handle important issues.

I haven't gotten anything that approaches that.

While I am generally sympathetic to libertarian ideals, they are just that. Ideas with no substance.

Honestly it seems like the economic version Christian Scientists to me.

Hand-wavy "free market will fix it" doesn't really seem like a way to organize a society that would work.

[RandomGuy]

This is an economic fallacy.

Hand waving.

He who asserts must prove.

If you can't prove, then the only logical thing is to reject it.

Can you show how/why anything you have claimed to be an "economic fallacy" actually is?

Other than circular reasoning or tautologies?

[RandomGuy]

Managing cost shifting is a part of doing business and in some cases can only be minimized. Medicare and Medicaid are a form of cost shifting that is making healthcare more expensive for everyone else,

Why is Medical Care so Expensive? (Hans F. Sennholz, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)

I would thus also eliminate medicare and medicaid.

Not reading the link. Can you explain it in your own words?

So, you just want to replace government cost-shifting with free-market cost shifting.

That doens't really solve the problem of having to pay for other people, does it?

What would you do about people who can't afford health insurance?

Is charity is going to pick up the tab for 25% of our GDP?

[RandomGuy]

Dammit. Read the link, despite not wanting to bother.

It is vacuous hand waving.

No solutions or viable working alternatives, just propaganda/cult literature. Shocker.

[RandomGuy]

A cartel of sufficient resources would have the ability to sue in civil avenues any potential rival. It seems this statement is not really reasonable.

This would only require enough goverment to enforce the courts' determination.

Do you want to get rid of the courts?

Sue for what?

Any kind of lawsuit. The bar for torts is not all that high to file lawsuits. Does it matter?

Again, how do you prevent cartels and monopolies in a purely free-market system?

They are inevitable results of capitalism.

[Wild Cobra]

What I "want" in this case is not really relevant as it turns out.

But:
I do happen to support denying life-saving care to people being made illegal.

I agree that emergency life saving procedures should not be denied. I would think you may want to clarify "life-saving care" as this can be construed to mean so much more than emergency care. Am I right?

I know people have a hard time with me calling myself a conservative libertarian, but is anyone really just one of anything? I am mostly either conservative or libertarian with my viewpoints. I believe most of my viewpoints are tempered with both disciplines.that doesn't mean I cannot agree with limited socialized system. I don't think anyone here will deny I have stated numerous times I am all for helping the elderly and handicapped with tax dollars. By the same token, I'm perfectly fine with emergency services.

[Wild Cobra]

Laissez-faire has nothing to do with anarchism. Laissez-faire still include a cons utionally limited government that provides for defense and the court system.

Thanks... I guess... for a term I had to look up.

I acknowledge that we need a certain degree of regulations, I guess your response means you do also. Looks like we are going to disagree where that line needs to be set. I believe a nearly unlimited free to do as one pleases at ude is as bad as the communist or socialist concept. May as well be anarchy in my view. People will do what's best for them at the time. I think we need enough laws and regulation that make a point of protecting one persons freedom from the unethical conduct that others do in the name of their freedom.

I do understand your point, and agree with it in general. I will contend that emergency care in hospitals are different. Emergency transport services need to take someone to the closest available care. Now... What if... a person is unconscious, can pay, has no idea, and there is no means to know if they will get paid?

Do you deny care to an unconscious John/Jane Doe? Still, a choice the hospital can make under a right of freedom. I will make the contention that emergency care is a different cir stance than most trade related interactions.

[Wild Cobra]

Using this argument, non-poisoned food is directly supportive of life but again you are changing the argument. Pay for what treatment exactly? Why should a hospital be forced to treat those who's conditions are caused from overeating and not exercising? Why should I pay for my neighbor's irresponsible behavior?

LOL...

Random, see what I mean by "life saving care?"

I wonder if by the time I read the rest of this thread, if you changed it to emergency care?

[Wild Cobra]

Your historic facts all involve government intervention. So I take it you also support the Post Office?

I have to start wondering about you. The Post Office is one of the few organizations required under our cons ution.

[RandomGuy]

I agree that emergency life saving procedures should not be denied. I would think you may want to clarify "life-saving care" as this can be construed to mean so much more than emergency care. Am I right?

I know people have a hard time with me calling myself a conservative libertarian, but is anyone really just one of anything? I am mostly either conservative or libertarian with my viewpoints. I believe most of my viewpoints are tempered with both disciplines.that doesn't mean I cannot agree with limited socialized system. I don't think anyone here will deny I have stated numerous times I am all for helping the elderly and handicapped with tax dollars. By the same token, I'm perfectly fine with emergency services.

By that I mean emergency room services where someone will most likely die within a day or so.

It is, to be sure, a complex issue.

[RandomGuy]

I was kind of hoping for a bit more here.

I have asked some serious, albeit predictable questions, that would seem to merit some concrete policy solutions.

What I have gotten looks nothing so much like religious dogma.

A: "that idea is wrong because it is an economic fallacy"

B: "oh really, why is that?"

A: "It is an economic fallacy, because it contradicts what I say economics is"

Uh-huh. Where have I heard this kind of stuff before...? Oh yeah.

"That idea is wrong because it goes against God"

"oh really, why is that?"

"because it goes against the bible, and the bible is what God says"

------------------------------------------------

"if we just lived our lives according to libertarian principles everything would be great, see here is a website all about it"

"um, ok, so how would you apply those principles in these real world scenarios? it would be nice to have some concrete working solutions"

"we would apply libertarian principles, and not accept any ideas that contradict them as valid, see read this essay about how good those principles are"

***

"if we just lived our lives according to Christian/muslim/hindu principles everything would be great"

"um, ok, so how would you apply those principles in these real world scenarios? it would be nice to have some concrete working solutions."

"we would apply Christian/muslim/hindu principles, and not accept any ideas that contradict them as valid, see here is a passage from my/our holy book"

***



Once again, I give up.

It is just too hard to have meaningful discussions about irrational dogmatic beliefs.

If libertarianism were an actual working way of organizing society, it would be able to present solutions to these things, and its proponents would be able to do a bit more than hand waving and saying "LOOK OVER THERE" when you ask them about these things.

[RandomGuy]

In this case it is because you are starting from a flawed premise.


Those have nothing to do with market regulations. Where did I suggest laws should not exist protecting human life and property from the aggression of others?

Laws against murder for hire has everything to do with limiting what can be bought or sold on a free market.

[Poptech]

Laws against murder for hire has everything to do with limiting what can be bought or sold on a free market.

Strawman argument, as no free market proponent supports removing laws protecting human life and property from aggression by others. This also has nothing to do with market regulation or free markets.

[Th'Pusher]

^ lol @ poptech's google alerts

[RandomGuy]

Strawman argument, as no free market proponent supports removing laws protecting human life and property from aggression by others. This also has nothing to do with market regulation or free markets.

Strawman argument.

I didn't say that was the position of any free market proponent, merely that some laws can be said to limit free markets.

Why do you feel it necessary to lie about what I say?

[RandomGuy]

Perhaps I can get an honest answer now.

A cartel of sufficient resources would have the ability to sue in civil avenues any potential rival. It seems this statement is not really reasonable.

This would only require enough goverment to enforce the courts' determination.

Do you want to get rid of the courts?

Sue for what?

Any kind of lawsuit. The bar for torts is not all that high to file lawsuits. Does it matter?

Again, how do you prevent cartels and monopolies in a purely free-market system?

They are inevitable results of capitalism.

[RandomGuy]

^ lol @ poptech's google alerts

I am sure he googles it daily.

[RandomGuy]

Monopolies are an irrational boogie man, the irony being that government regulation create monopolies.

Monopolies are historical facts.

You can't say they are boogie men, without telling me how they would be avoided in a purely free market system.

Large companies that got large enough to corner any market would be large enough to do quite a few things that would be anti-compe ive without any govermental regulation at all.

Hiring away key players from a small company, for example.
Accepting prices at deep losses where smaller rivals are operating to drive them out of business.

How would your system keep this from happening?

I have no idea how to keep economic fallacies from happening.

He who asserts must prove.

If you can't prove, then the only logical thing is to reject it.

Can you show how/why anything you have claimed to be an "economic fallacy" actually is?

[Poptech]

I didn't say that was the position of any free market proponent, merely that some laws can be said to limit free markets.

If it is not a position of a free market proponent than it is a strawman argument <- go look up the definition of the phrase.