Famous libertarian Friedrich Hayek supported universal basic income. As a libertarian myself, I always ask myself: “Will this make people more free?” If the answer is yes, then I support it because that’s what true libertarianism is. In the case of UBI and universal healthcare, both of those would unequivocally make people more free. People will be more free to choose a profession they like rather than one that merely keeps a roof over their heads. America already has a form of limited universal healthcare. It just happens to be restricted to the military and maybe some other government servants. Those members don’t have to worry about their healthcare and it allows them to focus their attention on more important matters, as their healthcare needs are met. Clearly the government has seen that universal healthcare is beneficial.
The sovereign citizens and the right wingers masquerading as Libertarians have given the ideology a bad name.
I recently got out of the military and it’s been a complete shock how bad the private healthcare system is. So much red tape, so many charges, so much money being spent on both ends: to the insurance company, again to the insurance company (copays), and then to the provider when the insurance company won’t cover things.
With Tricare? “Hey doc, I need this med for my migraines.” “Alright, here you go.” No charge.
The American health system is a complete scam keeping people under the boot of their employers and of the for-profit insurance companies.
Libertarians are a bunch of myopic cunts.
Because they really just don’t want to pay taxes, which are needed to fund universal healthcare.
Also most people who say they’re libertarian have no clue what the word means, and are morons.
They don’t want to pay taxes because they don’t like how government uses taxes and don’t trust the government to do a good job. Plus, it’s an additional layer of bureaucracy at the top which costs more money and is less efficient.
If you think private healthcare is more efficient than single payer healthcare when EVERY PIECE OF DATA WE HAVE says the opposite then I think that says more about you than it does about the government.
That graph is relating cost of healthcare to quality. Not necessarily comparing cost of countries with universal healthcare to America. Additonally, most of the healthcare spending in America is already by the government and look how that’s going. America is also significantly larger than any of those countries listed. Overseeing healthcare for a country so large requires way more overhead.
Every graph of healthcare costs vs privatisation with the US in it is necessarily a comparison between private and public healthcare systems since most countries have single payer as most of their healthcare.
The US government healthcare programs are by far the most cost effective offering in the US but it’s hampered by regulations such as not having the ability to negotiate prices (until the recent tiny concession on a handful of drugs that has paid off in spades).
Finally, other large countries including India and China may have lower life expectancy, but they’re close and rising rapidly compared the stagnant US trends. Of course the bang for the buck they get is at least 5x what the US gets with its ridiculous system
No, that’s saying too much. They don’t want to pay. Full stop. That’s it.
There is zero thought beyond being mad about paying something.
Why the hell do you think that libertarians don’t believe in universal healthcare?
It’s not the idea of healthcare being provided to everybody that’s the issue for libertarians. Generally, the issue revolves around how funds are raised for the healthcare. Namely, taxes.
And since when did libertarians oppose taxes?
The relationship between libertarianism and taxes is rather complex, imo. The main issue with taxes that a libertarian would have typically revolves around the interpretation of the NAP. It could be argued that the enforcement of taxes is an aggression that has not been consented to, so, since a libertarian is more in favor of negative liberties, they would take the position that they want freedom from being compelled to pay them. Do note that, like many things, there is a spectrum of this belief — not all libertarians completely oppose taxes. Many libertarians recognize that some amount of taxation is necessary for a properly functioning society. What is essentially universal among libertarians, however, is the minimization of taxes.
I think we seem to have different understandings of what “libertarian” means. I think that libertarian is simply the opposite of authoritarian and has little to do with taxes or other economic stuff.
I think we seem to have different understandings of what “libertarian” means.
From my experience, it certainly feels common that people tend to have different definitions and/or misunderstandings of libertarianism.
I think that libertarian is simply the opposite of authoritarian
I take issue with the usage of the word “simply” — I advise against such types of reductionism. That being said, the comparison gets kind of tricky when one considers the different variants/offshoots of libertarianism, or other freedom/liberty oriented political philosophies. It’s tempting to try and reduce political philosophies to a point on a 2D plane, like the political compass, or, worse, a 1D line, like the left/right dichotomy, but it’s often quite a bit more complex — thinking in terms of absolute “opposites” can lead one down the wrong path. That being said, without being overly pedantic, libertarianism can be thought of as in opposition to authoritarianism.
little to do with taxes or other economic stuff.
While it may be possible that a definition of libertarianism doesn’t directly reference economic topics, they still arise as a dependency or result. Economics and politics are often tightly intertwined.
I’d argue we should give voice to actual libertarians instead of trashing them here.
Like, otherwise you at least don’t help people find how actual libertarians respond.
Removed by mod
I consider myself a libertarian and I believe in free healthcare. I think certain industries should not be run for profit. It creates perverse incentives that harm the common man. For example healthcare.
If there’s a profit incentive in bealthcare, there is incentive for drug companies or hospitals to raise their prices. This would mean less people getting treatment or more people in medical debt.
Another industry I think shouldn’t be for profit is education. We want an educated population. It should be encouraged, so it should be free for anyone who wants it.
In my view, libertarianism is a perspective that the government should interfere with the personal liberties of the individual as little as possible.
Every single government action should be heavily scrutinized and challenged. Some actions are justified. For example regulating healthcare I think is justified. You are taking away the liberty of starting a hospital - but the benefits outweigh the costs.
I believe that cooperatives should be encouraged if not explicitly mandated for large companies.
I think to Chomsky’s conception of anarchism. Look at all hierarchies of power and challenge them. Some are justified - the power a father has over his child. Some are not - the power a cash advance place has over their customer base.
I think governments often make mistakes and through heavy handed actions end up screwing the average person. By dramatically limiting government action, you help prevent this.
Remember the government is not your friend.
Removed by mod
It seems like you have an interesting definition of liberty. Liberty (to me) is freedom from authority. Libertarians core value is not having government force individuals to do anything. If people want to opt into a universal healthcare private system they are free to do so (kind of like insurance). A big motivation for this is lack of trust in government to handle the job well. Libertarians see government as inherently prone to corruption and thus want to limit their power as much as possible. The extent to which a given libertarian wants to limit government varies. By appointing government authorities to the system the cost of everything rises as in addition to health care you also have to pay the government workers who oversee the system and it’s not very efficient. Not to mention politicians get to decide how much money goes to these programs etc etc. do you really want politicians involved in your health? With all the inefficiency and corruption in politics why do you trust them to handle your health?
Liberty (to me) is freedom from authority.
The term for this is “negative liberty”: the freedom from something; whereas, “positive liberty” is the freedom to do something. Libertarianism, generally, aligns with the idea of negative liberty.
If there is freedom from a governing authority then there is no one to take away my freedom to do what I like. Sounds like two ways of saying the same thing. Maybe I miss your point.
The distinction between positive and negative liberties is, indeed, a rather blurry one, but there is generally a difference in mindset between the two. That being said, libertarianism seeks to minimize the size and influence of the government, but they don’t seek to abolish it — those that seek to abolish it are anarchists (I’m not sure if I am reading your comment correctly, but it seems that you are advocating for anarchism rather than libertarianism when you said “freedom from a governing authority”). It’s important to note that negative liberty is a concept that distinguishes a certain class of liberties — it doesn’t require the presence of a government.
Well said, I probably wasn’t very clear, but I am not an anarchist. There are certain critical functions that the government must control. When I say freedom from authority I refer to specific government agencies that can exert force on individuals. Government roads don’t force users to do anything but rather empower citizens.
Government roads don’t force users to do anything but rather empower citizens.
Another argument for why government roads are ethical is because they fight off monopolization — property ownership is at high risk for monopolization. I’m not sure if the Georgist idea of taxing the land value that a private road would be on is enough.
Right, government should provide oversight to public goods that, by their nature, require monopolies such as roads or utilities. Government also needs to have a judicial branch that mediates conflicts between individuals and entities.
I agree with both statements.
Used to think I was libertarian. But now I think it’s too absolute of an ideal to be any good for humanity. I definitely think free healthcare, housing, food, and education should be guarenteed for everyone.
Removed by mod
Except the ones that truly understand liberty… That comes with age
Removed by mod
Libertarians don’t give a flying fuck about liberty. It is an authoritarian movement that aims to eliminate any force standing in the way of their organizing society into a rigid hierarchy predicated upon wealth. A government that is answerable to the people is a countervailing force against the formation (or re-formation I suppose) of such a system. That was indeed the whole reason such a government was invented in the first place.
I don’t think it’s quite so organized as this mindset leads to extremely self-absorbed and selfish people who arent good at organizing en masse. Multiple times now, libertarians have tried to form their own communities on land and sea and it always falls apart once they actually try to form the communities as it just turns into government rules and taxes like we have now. They don’t even want to live by their own group’s authority.
Libertarians are political extremists who hate anything related to the government but don’t care about being oppressed by private businesses, or they think that it simply won’t happen in their utopia. Libertarians are everything they hate about the woke left, only applied to the government.
Tldr non partisan answer: Libertarian philosophy favors negative rights over positive rights.
Negative rights oblige others to not impede (like not censoring free speech).
Positive rights oblige others to provide something (like healthcare).
Imo, it would be better worded as follows:
- Negative liberty: freedom from something.
- Positive liberty: freedom to do something.
That’s probably the more popular way, but I think it’s easier to misinterpret. For example the freedom of speech, one could think of it as the freedom to speak instead of the freedom from undue censorship. But that right is usually considered a negative one.
For example the freedom of speech, one could think of it as the freedom to speak instead of the freedom from undue censorship.
As I currently understand it, freedom of speech is regarded as a negative liberty because it is purely focused on freedom from the government imposing restrictions on what you can and can’t say. It’s not, however, the government giving you the freedom to say whatever you want, whenever you want, under any circumstance — e.g. people are free to trespass you from their establishment if they don’t like what you are saying.
I agree that it’s a negative liberty. It’s just the from/to language can be misconstrued IMO, the not impede/oblige others framing is more clear without additional information. It’s, again IMO, targeting the core of the differential. Asking of others for inaction vs asking for action.
IIUC, I just think that the intent/mentality is somewhat altered in what you described in this comment. For example, you said “Positive rights oblige others to provide something (like healthcare).” — positive liberty isn’t necessarily about forcing people, in an authoritative manner, to do things for, or to, another person. It’s essentially taking the position that people should have the freedom to experience life on a level playing field, if you will — it is interested in lowering the amount of barriers preventing people from doing what they want. I don’t think your wording is necessarily incorrect, I’m just not convinced that the connotation is the same.
I think this cleared up our disconnect. I chose oblige to indicate that they require others to do something for them to occur. Most often paying taxes, to pay the provider of a service. This typically isn’t a ‘at gunpoint’ interaction. But negative rights will never require another to do something for it to be practiced.
I agree with your highlighting of the philosophy behind them. I was more concerned about a short rememberable way to differentiate the two.
So I chose oblige vs force to make sure it had the connotation of a civil concession.
American “Libertarians” consider liberty as self-sufficiency, not just freedom from a government, but from being required to contribute to society as a whole.
Removed by mod
Libertarians want all the benefits of libertarianism AND socialism, but they don’t want to pay for any of it.
That’s it. That’s the entirety of the political belief.
Libertarians want freedom from government force. They want to be able to fund healthcare by choice. They want the freedom to not have taxes being used to send weapons oversees. Libertarians are for social and economic freedom.
Libertarians want freedom from government force.
So where were you “libertarians” when BLM and other leftists were calling to defund and abolish the police?
Probably defending their shops from BLM rioters
Just be honest about how badly you want to see black people lynched in the streets, white supremacist.
Don’t hide behind dog-whistles.
I don’t.
non-socialist ≠ necessarily racist
Man whatever drugs you on, pass them
I’m not doing white supremacism sprinkled with liberal handwringing - so curb your enthusiasm.
At this point it’s hard to tell
Until they get a tooth ache I guess.
Is it morally right to make you pay ten times more when you need it (at the dentist /hospital/…) because you didn’t want to pay before?
I’m not sure what you are implying. An individual can pay for insurance or not. They are free to choose. Or they can pay for the entire cost upfront when problems arise.
Exactly!
So I pay my taxes for decades, and you don’t?
Just going to the doctor for the first time at say 30 (imagining you started working at 20 but “decide” to not pay taxes) would cost you houndred of thousands of missed back pays before you get let into the building.
Is that your libertarian thing? Or do you think you just would never go to the doctor/hospital/dentist/need an ambulance ride, … ?
Or worse, you get it basically free?
Libertarians are, to an individual, categorical idiots who don’t seem to have the mental capacity to seriously and rigorously analyze and understand what a true “free-for-all” hypercapitalist society would imply. They just want to not pay taxes.
There is no need to be rude. OP asked for libertarian views.
Yeah, but libertarians are antisocial asshole idiots by simple virtue of the fact that they think libertarianism is a viable concept. It’s just not, nor will it ever be going forward.
I can put it another way: I find the ideology offensive and societally caustic in the extreme. We do not live in a vacuum. We live in a society (in a literal sense - not going for the meme here). To pretend that we don’t is incredibly dumb.
As an American man I only have a 40% chance of developing cancer in my lifetime, but with universal healthcare there’s 100% chance I will have to pay for it.
Do you have health insurance? Well guess what, then you are paying for it already, only more than with universal health care.
No, I don’t believe in gambling.
Strange, as you’ve clearly laid out the odds, risks, etc. and you’re betting your life on your supposed “beliefs”.
Sure sounds like gambling to me…
No that’s just risk assessment.
Gambling is things like blackjack, slots, poker or any kind of insurance.
A risk assessment is a normal part of gambling. You’re just describing games, like the one you’re playing now to rationalize your gambling with your own life by avoiding getting any sort of health insurance.
A deck of cards or a die are normal parts of gambling too but they aren’t intrinsically gambling either.
They are when you bet something on the outcome— ya know, gambling… like how you risk both your financial future and your life when you choose to not have health insurance.
Insurance is by definition not gambling. It is only indemnity. The reality is that without insurance you are gambling that you’ll get to keep the money you didn’t spend on insurance and not be financially ruined.
Insurance is gambling because I’m betting that if I get cancer I get a payout larger than the amount I wagered by buying insurance.
That’s not how health insurance works. You would never get more than your medical costs and would almost always get less.
Because you can only implement universal healthcare through violence/theft. Doctors need a motivation to work, right? So you either
- Force people to pay tax under threat of violence or find some other way to steal money.
- Force doctors to work under threat of violence.
There’s a legal obligation to provide defense lawyers to defendants and it obviously isnt done by holding lawyers at gunpoint. The “force doctors to work under threat of violence” argument is so bad faith and imaginary you might as well have just posted “I will make up fake reasons to object to this”
real markets need choice and transparency to operate and there’s no way to have those things in emergency care.
Realistically, universal healthcare doesn’t intrude on doctors it intrudes on insurance companies.
There’s a legal obligation to provide defense lawyers to defendants and it obviously isnt done by holding lawyers at gunpoint.
Yes, it’s covered by the first point of my post.
Force people to pay tax under threat of violence or find some other way to steal money.
People are downvoting you for giving the actual reasoning.
I’m used to it, thankfully downvotes don’t change anything :)
