Just curious, but why is it that the US is so punitive in overall social mentality? There are so many prisons, filled to the rafters; the military outfits are so ubiquitous, not only here, but also in other territories - whereas there are much fewer social corner stones such as educational institutions and elderly care programs. Not to say that I believe in socialist fundamentalism, but it seems that education and the stimulation of learning how to *think* would be more useful than the feeding of the military machine? An educated population would be more inclined to think for itself and therefore be more Libertarian? And, when you get old, would you not want a compassionate environment where you can sit out your Alzheimers collectively with a few other friendly folk? Or is self-euthanasia the answer?
Not sure if it fits in the Libertarian philosophy, but I'm only asking. Insurance companies seem to already have become government, as they dictate what you can and cannot do. They obviously follow the money trail - their business model has nothing to do with safety and the best interest of their customers, but with optimizing a return on the product they sell. Is that bad in itself, that a privately held organization wants to optimize its bottom line? Where do Libertarians draw the line? How would you propose erecting a competing government? Large corporations have this type of structure - departments are competing with each other, driving the tip of the pyramid to be the most rewarded. From what I've seen, this internal competition was not particularly conducive to obtaining excellence. To the contrary, it often resulted in mayhem and failure. Just asking...for the sake of insight. -M. On Apr 19, 2010, at 5:24 PM, gary popkin wrote: > > Thank you, Zev, for your thoughtful contribution to this discussion. > > Even if, as you say, insurance companies become governments, the > public would at least have access to competing insurance companies. > Companies with money on the line are likely to arrive at better > tradeoffs than bureaucrats with nothing to lose. > > If we had truly competing governments, government might not be as > bad as is it. The United States were once competing governments. > (Before Lincoln, the United States were referred to in the plural; > after, in the singular.) > > > > --- On Mon, 4/19/10, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote: > > The big problem, however, is how to judge when you are recklessly > endangering others, and when you are simply taking a rational risk. > Who determines this, and by what standards. In the statist model of > government it's simple: the government decides, and everyone has to > obey its rules, or else. The infallible wisdom of dedicated public > servants who were hired by the wise statesmen elected by the majority > will always hit on the best balance between risk and liberty, set the > most rational standards, and enforce them with scrupulous > impartiality. > You can stop laughing now. > > The libertarian approach starts with pointing out how absurd the > statist > one is. The problem is that it doesn't go much further. What *is* > the > solution? *Someone* has to set standards, and there will always be > people unhappy with them, who will have to be forced -- yes, by > force of > arms, if necessary -- to abstain from taking what they think is a > perfectly acceptable risk. In some versions of anarcho-capitalism, > the > standards are set by agreement between the insurance companies, and > they then enforce them not only on their own clients but also on > everyone > else, for their clients' safety. Nozick points out that this turns > them > into a government. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
