Good evening again, Bill!
Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Gilliland...
Frank Gilliland, writing in response to Frank Reichert, wrote:
I agree. And along those lines, the solution is simple: a dual-mode healthcare system. There's no reason why a government-run socialized healthcare system can't co-exist with a free-market system.
To which, you replied:
Yes, there is. Multiple reasons, actually. 1. The government system takes money away from the would-be consumers 2. The government can (and does) make participation mandatory 3. The government can, and does, make rules that benefit it's "service" while inhibiting the development of competing services 4. The government (currently) licenses the would-be competitors.
There are at least two different ways of looking at this, both of which involve retrospection into the basis of philosophic views pertaining to the nature and proper role of government, at least as I might understand it.
Many Libertarians, myself included within this mix, claim that 'government' is necessarily and institution of force. It is hardly suited under such parameters to run a health care programme without the use of force or at least cohersion to form a monopoly and penalize others performing similar functions in the private sector, which is properly restrained under the confines of 'volunteerism'.
In that, your above makes some reasonable sense. At least, most of us might claim that the government, using tremendous power at its disposal, could never be trusted to operate a voluntary system that would NOT impinge upon taxing those who would otherwise opt out, or not volunteer to join a public system in Health Care.
On the other hand, I have heard various arguments, including on other subjects, made by Harry Browne and others, suggesting that similar types of government social services might be performed in such a maner where the government restrains itself from using or exerting 'power' to establish a monopoly.
I don't buy into this argument either, but certainly it is tempting often to do so. It is similar to one of my campaign planks in 2004 to offer EVERYONE state vouchers and tax credits for elective parental choices in educating their own children.
I also know there are many inherent dangers in anticipating that the government will keep its word, and offer such incentives promising NOT to use force for those opting out of the public sector on social matters such as education, and operating a public system on a voluntarily accepted basis.
And, to be honest, I cannot in my own judgement find a way to promise that the government will really keep its word and abide by legislation that could not be modified or reversed in a subsequent legislative session. In all probability, the government can never make such a promise insofar as legislators can change any prior legislation and render it vertually void later on.
So, I believe this might be a really great challenge to all Libertarians running for public office, myself NOT excluded either. How do we get from "A to Z" here, that is, (let's take parental choice in Education as an example, and there are certainly scores of other issues here in the same light), without resorting to gradualism in terms of the government NOT using force that is certainly available anytime the urge develops?
Can we expect to make immediate change, across the board, on every issue that we believe is fundamentally flawed and should be changed immediately if possible?
I doubt that would honestly be realistic either. Although, the alternatives many of us propose are also laced with the inherent danger that government can NEVER be trusted to keep its word. At least in Idaho, fundamentally legislators are replaced every two years, and usually such legislators operate under the imperative that no holds are bared, since they can either uphold prior legislation, or they also have the choice to abolish it, and in most cases modify it.
There are no guarantees here folks. Government is, still, the agent of 'force'. The government is seeking to become the operative agent in Health Care today. It already is the operative agent in Education, as you pointed out above.
The distinction here is instructive, and enormous really. The government has the power to visit your home, inspect your intentions, and if they don't like your intentions, put you in jail, fine you, and when or if you resist, shoot you! The government is not really by nature very well suited to fit into the climate of voluntary choices.
That definition alone is enough to suggest that the government should NEVER be allowed to even talk about such things as your choices for Health Care, but also for your own children's Education!
Maybe, if we really want to make a real impact and make social changes, we need to address the real political climate today, and all in which that currently entails! The real question that every Libertarian activist has to ask today is this: "HOW DO WE FIND A WAY TO TAME THE TIGER?" The 'Tiger' isn't going away anytime soon.
The sad part of this question is that the 'Tiger' cannot be tamed. The tiger's inherent nature is to be the 'Tiger' that he is. By nature a predator is a predator, and I am talking here only insofar in discussing the nature of government itself, not addressing other issues such as whether or not child molesters can be reformed and taught not to molest children anymore.
Government is an institution, and government is by necessity based and predicted upon the use of power, law, and enforcement. Individuals are not really in this category at all, since individuals have choices to make, but government does not.
Anyway Bill. I want to get back to you on this, because mainly the issues above that you raised are at the forefront for most of this discussion. Since I've gone this far down the pike, maybe we ought to take a look again to what you just wrote, namely:
> Yes, there is. Multiple reasons, actually.
> 1. The government system takes money away from the would-be consumers
> 2. The government can (and does) make participation mandatory
> 3. The government can, and does, make rules that benefit it's "service"
> while inhibiting the development of competing services
> 4. The government (currently) licenses the would-be competitors.
Let's itemize what you just wrote, and again, I don't pretend to have exacting answers than qualify to answer much of anything here except what I have written just above. The questions that follow aren't necessarily endorsed by me, but I'd like to know what some of you folks are thinking about this, because I believe this is just about as real as it possibly gets these days!
First. Can anyone realistically expect that government can be made to keep its word and not tax everyone for the sake of any those choosing to opt into a public government programme?
Second, is there a way to 'force' government to comply with the notion of free choice and volunteerism to keep and maintain such programmes that it have been agreed upon binding ONLY by those signing on, excluding all others?
Third, is there a way to 'force' government to comply with the notion that it is open to free choice, and admit and support all other choices individuals make without forcing penalties upon such parties for doing so in any way? In other words, operating competitively, without cohersion in a competitive environment?
Forth, is there a way to 'force' the government to recognize the right of individual private choices without government regulation and control in such areas?
Well, that's about as good as it gets from me tonight.
Bill, I hope you are not the only one to try and answer these questions, because I'll admit I don't have the answers exactly either. But at the same time, politically, these are the questions we must deal with, also recognizing somewhat the nature of government as the absolute power, that at least appears to me, we have to find a way to control.
As a sidebar to this, most Libertarians, and Constitutionalists point to the US Constitution in establishing the protections for these rights of individuals. Unfortunately, that hasn't seemed to work very well either over the last 100 years or so, as statistically at least, we have far less protection than we certainly did when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were originally ratified and codified as the law of the land.
I suppose we have to face the obvious here. We live in a day where 'Statism' appears to be the norm. And 'Statism' is the axiom for absolute power, security, and control over everything we do, or wish to do as individuals.
Personally, I do not feel all that secure that my individual rights are being protected under such a government when most individuals in our land today seem to sign on to the notion of restricting such rights on the altar of public safety, security, and whatever excuse can be given to take such rights away.
Kindest regards,
Frank
--
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe or unsubscribe: http://www.liberty-northwest.org/Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org Admin matters: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost _____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
