Flaws in libertarianism

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
ThisDinosaur
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by ThisDinosaur »

the sad truth about health care is that it doesn't matter if single payer, free market, or ACA, it's expensive and it sucks. the different systems just shift the cost around
A healthcare system in a completely free market, libertarian country would look like this:

Cost of an ER visit, an MRI, or medications would be market driven. People would mostly pay out of pocket so the most expensive services would be cheaper than in our system. Some future-minded people might join up into Mutual Insurance companies and pool the risk of catastrophic illnesses. But, if you couldn't afford to pay, there would be no government-enforced consequences for refusing care to the poor and uninsured. Doctors and hospitals wouldn't fear losing licensure and accreditation for telling broke poor people with hemorrhaging knife wounds to get lost.

I think its worth asking why we don't have a system like that.
Last edited by ThisDinosaur on Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by jacob »

@brute

First paragraph: It's a combination thereof. If there's only one provider of the $700/pill option, then that's a monopoly. It'll go as high as it needs to until someone else steps in with a supply because someone can afford the demand. If any of that isn't happening, the market is inefficient and someone will find themselves under the bus. Easy as that. Libertarianism would argue, then, that it's not the responsibility of some overeducated medical worker to commit Karoshi to alleviate that particular market inefficiency until some other random person or persons with genetic or behavioral issues can afford to pay them. And socialism or some other motivated ideology would argue otherwise. Or maybe optimistic millenials would argue this as a case of reading a book resulting in building an app that just 3d-prints the required pill via express shipping.

Second paragraph: Totally agree. I just offered health care as an example of really wanting round pegs but insisting that they be squared and hammered into square holes. IOW, ideology.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by BRUTE »

brute's hate-thing about health care is that the word entangles all kinds of things. for example, humans seem to love "coverage", not actual services provided. coverage means nothing, it's monopoly money.

the health care system needs to disentangle subsidies and insurance. these are different things. the whole "pre-existing condition" circus is ridiculous - insurance against something the patient already has? proverbial house on fire insurance, only lifetime medical costs are in many cases more expensive than houses.

brute isn't against subsidizing group X (where X is the poor, the elderly, the veterans, the children, the sick, whoever) in principle. brute would certainly appreciate help if he fell on hard times, and he's ok with spending some extra money while he's got it.

but confusing the subsidy part with the insurance part is a terrible idea. now, healthy humans need to be forced by law (individual mandate) to participate in a losing system (for them). they'd only need the insurance part, yet the system would crash if they didn't subsidize the other humans. the subsidized humans feel entitled because they "paid in", even though they're effectively siphoning money off the healthy ones.

in the end, this doesn't lead to more health for anyone. it leads to a polarized society where half the humans accuse the other of death panels or hating the poor and sick and elderly.

the insurance part of health care would be extremely cheap, as the really expensive treatments are very rare. treatments that are required by 10% of the population (type 2 diabetes) the premiums would be VERY high or it would be uninsurable, especially with risk markers present.

medical establishment and individuals have zero incentive to actually fix health problems like sugar consumption if they don't have to pay for them. they know they'll be subsidized, and so they swallow the lies that the medical establishment tells them. yes, almost anyone with type 2 diabetes could bring the condition completely under control with diet within one month, unless they've injected insulin for years and have taken permanent damage. yet it counts as a miracle if it happens.

brute does not care to subsidize lung cancer treatment for smokers, and he does not care to subsidize insulin for sugar junkies.

brute is actually in favor of the new Republican health care bill, just because it deregulates a few things and decentralizes the whole affair to the states via block grants (if that's making it through). the system before ACA was shit, ACA is a band-aid on top of shit.

brute is aware nothing major is ever going to happen, but he can't sympathize with these emotionally manipulative health care bullshit stories the liberals love to spout. just as inane as when religious nut jobs go on about abortion being murder.

tl;dr: libertarians have the best answers to almost all problems, but they're never going to get implemented because humans are dumb and greedy.

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by Dragline »

Spartan_Warrior wrote:*Puts quarter in laptop to activate keyboard.* :D


Capitalism is the only force consistently improving the lives of common men.
Yeah, this crown really goes to sanitation and antibiotics, but mostly sanitation. Modern sanitation is only made possible by the post 1800 industrial complex, though.

This is why for most of the world, this is truly a Golden Era, as poverty and starvation has declined over the past few decades almost to the point of eradication in areas not afflicted by wars. Brought to you by a combination of world health organizations, charities and cooperative governments.

Libertarianism is definitely a "First World" issue if there ever was such a thing. And because it is based entirely on theoretical constructs (praxeology), it offers little or nothing to anyone who values evidence and data.

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by Dragline »

jacob wrote:The way I've come to think about such brands ... or frameworks is ... to apply them where they're pragmatic; and in the instances where they aren't I apply another framework.
To quote Ed McMahon: YOU - are correct, SIR!

The best system is simply one that looks at the current results an adapts appropriately, and with a different model if the current one is not working so well.

We should demand that our systems be run like gardens (variable -- weeding and watering) and not buildings (set down edifice and demand compliance around pre-existing structure). This is the basic consequence of taking complexity theory to heart.

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by Dragline »

ThisDinosaur wrote:

Libertarianism is best understood as part of that third category. 1)The universe at large doesn't care how you came to "own" something. Either you stole it, someone gave it to you, or you got it in exchange for currency that you obtained through labor. 2)You "should" get to keep what you earn so long as you didn't hurt someone or take something they didn't want to give you. But, if you have eminent domain, it still could be yours. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
3)If we didn't agree somehow that individuals have certain property rights, no functional economy could exist. Why would anyone manufacture anything or provide any service to strangers if there was nothing to *exchange* because neither party owned anything to exchange?

Libertarianism is, like money, a very practical fiction. Useful, but not Universal.
I think its better understood by its fundamental Aristotlan assumption, which is that "man is a rational animal", and therefore should be held to that standard in all places and at all times.

So it becomes what amounts to the Just World hypothesis, which blames people for bad outcomes when they do not act completely rationally. But discounts random factors as meaningless and bad judgement or mistakes as essentially immoral.

Which is, of course, highly appealing to the rationally focused beings that inhabit this forum.

Libertarianism is built on the fiction of praxeology and the idea that empirical data DOES NOT MATTER. Von MIses said so himself. If you do not believe in the ABSOLUTE TRUTH in the Aristotlian assumptions about human nature, it has very little value.

This is why Ayn Rand said repeatedly that her philosophy was based on on Aristotle and nothing else.

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by Dragline »

ThisDinosaur wrote:
the sad truth about health care is that it doesn't matter if single payer, free market, or ACA, it's expensive and it sucks. the different systems just shift the cost around
A healthcare system in a completely free market, libertarian country would look like this:

Cost of an ER visit, an MRI, or medications would be market driven. People would mostly pay out of pocket so the most expensive services would be cheaper than in our system. Some future-minded people might join up into Mutual Insurance companies and pool the risk of catastrophic illnesses. But, if you couldn't afford to pay, there would be no government-enforced consequences for refusing care to the poor and uninsured. Doctors and hospitals wouldn't fear losing licensure and accreditation for telling broke poor people with hemorrhaging knife wounds to get lost.

I think its worth asking why we don't have a system like that.
What is worth asking is why this system does not exist anywhere in the world. And the answer is obvious -- there is no demand curve on DEATH. When you are going to die or think a loved one will, then you spend everything. And probably die anyway and everyone who participated goes broke.

Health care is not a "good" that can be modeled in the traditional supply/demand curve model, which means the model fails.

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by Dragline »

BRUTE wrote:
jacob wrote:Basically a system where individuals don't have to pay $50/pill for aspirin or $700/pill for rare diseases once some fratboy manages to corner the patent market, nor $10000 for an MRI
this has zero to do with free markets but with patents and other IP. these are state-imposed monopolies on thought that are rejected by serious libertarians.
This assertion is ill-informed and wrong. In fact, companies seek to monopolize old drugs that are not popular to increase profits. (See Valeant business model).

I have this problem which colchicine, a medication for gout which is one of the oldest ever created. It used to cost cents a pill. Now it costs dollars, because control has been monopolized. And the old drug is being taken off my insurance. I may just start growing the damn plant myself.

Excuse my french, but you really don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Do some research, boy, and prove me wrong. Or admit you are wrong and simply ignorant.

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by ThisDinosaur »

I think its better understood by its fundamental Aristotlan assumption, which is that "man is a rational animal".
And that humans have mainly "purposeful" behavior, as opposed to the reflexive, thoughtless behavior of *lower* organisms. I agree completely with you Dragline, that this is not a description of reality.

My assertion is that the OP's cognitive dissonance comes from using Libertarian principles as an explanation for reality, as opposed to a useful model like brute and Jacob are discussing. Jean dislikes violence, but thinks people have inalienable rights. This causes cognitive dissonance because "rights" are a subjective opinion that have to be enforced. Enforcement is force. Once you accept that "rights" are a useful model of society, and not an inherent component of the universe, its easy to understand how people can come to violently disagree about who owns what and on what authority.

Spartan_Warrior
Posts: 1659
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by Spartan_Warrior »

bryan wrote:It certainly seems like the capitalist equivalence of the two terms is more logical. For instance, how to classify 1) my brain 2) my hands 3) my computer 4) my energy/thermal storage (e.g. full batteries). Obviously I used the personal possessive here... but all of these could be seen as means of production..
1 and 2 would be extensions of a human body, which is never considered property (at least not in leftist thinking, capitalism notwithstanding). 3 and 4 would be considered personal property in almost every circumstance unless your ownership of the computer and batteries somehow exploits the labor of someone else. The critical difference IMO between personal vs. private property is the relationship between the owner and any other people who work, maintain, or use the resource.

Example A:
Personal property: You own a computer in your house which you personally paid for and maintain, and you use it to produce T-shirts or something.
Private property: Additionally, you set up a second computer in the town square, activated by quarters, libertarian-style. Others in town can use it, but only on the terms you set, which may include paying you a premium for anything produced with it, etc.

Example B:
Personal property: A garden that feeds you and your family that you cultivate directly. You keep or sell all the produce you picked yourself, gaining only the fruits of your own labor.
Private property: Acres and acres of productive farm land cultivated by wage laborers. You keep all the produce they picked for you and pay them a wage less than the value of that productivity, allowing you to also keep the overhead (aka profit) from their labor.

As can be seen from these examples, "means of production" typically has a more specific connotation than merely, say, a work bench or set of personal tools (e.g. computer), although those can indeed produce things. There is some ambiguity here, naturally, and varying opinions as to where the line is drawn. As Jacob said, real life is typically shades of gray, not absolutes. Here at ERE for instance we talk about substituting "consumption with production" typically in the context of self-sufficient homesteading. Well, I personally wouldn't consider a homestead to be means of production or private property in the leftist sense of the terms. A factory farm, though? Absolutely.

I don't want to digress too far into socialist theory in this thread. I only wanted to counter or give context to what I perceived to be a few examples of misinformation. Besides, libertarianism ought to be able to stand on its own feet rather than being solely defined as oppositional to toothbrush-thieving killer commies.

Spartan_Warrior
Posts: 1659
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by Spartan_Warrior »

@Brute: Out of curiosity, how can you believe in determinism and praxeology at the same time? To me it seems contradictory, unless I'm misunderstanding something. Praxeology requires "that humans engage in purposeful behavior, as opposed to reflexive behavior like sneezing and inanimate behavior." Meanwhile, determinism posits that there is no free will and all human actions are pre-determined, and IIRC you accept a strictly nihilistic implication from this that humans have no influence whatsoever over their own futures. That sounds a lot like "reflexive... inanimate behavior". How do you reconcile the two concepts?

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by BRUTE »

Dragline wrote:Excuse my french, but you really don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Do some research, boy, and prove me wrong. Or admit you are wrong and simply ignorant.
brute has long given up arguing with humans that love to hear themselves talk. Dragline isn't even wrong on most of these issues, and brute has had these arguments too many times and doesn't care enough about humans any more.

User avatar
Jean
Posts: 1890
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am
Location: Switzterland

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by Jean »

ThisDinosaur wrote:
I think its better understood by its fundamental Aristotlan assumption, which is that "man is a rational animal".
And that humans have mainly "purposeful" behavior, as opposed to the reflexive, thoughtless behavior of *lower* organisms. I agree completely with you Dragline, that this is not a description of reality.

My assertion is that the OP's cognitive dissonance comes from using Libertarian principles as an explanation for reality, as opposed to a useful model like brute and Jacob are discussing. Jean dislikes violence, but thinks people have inalienable rights. This causes cognitive dissonance because "rights" are a subjective opinion that have to be enforced. Enforcement is force. Once you accept that "rights" are a useful model of society, and not an inherent component of the universe, its easy to understand how people can come to violently disagree about who owns what and on what authority.
To make it clear, my position before posting was that nobody has rights. I still believe so. To me, rights are mutually granted between entities, and it should be done only when this right granting is mutualy beneficial for both entities.

My question was more that libertarian principles are often presented to lead to no violence if respected by everyone, I used to believe so, I haven't for a long time because of the points I mentioned in the OP. So I asked if anyone had arguments concerning those issues, and everyone seems to have the same opinion has me on those subjects. That's enough for me to dismiss libertarianism as a miracle solution for every problem a society can have. It still seems to be the best approach for many of those.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by BRUTE »

Spartan_Warrior wrote:Praxeology requires "that humans engage in purposeful behavior, as opposed to reflexive behavior like sneezing and inanimate behavior."
brute thinks there's a subtle difference in how Mises uses "rational" in Human Action to define Praxeoloy. this is what trips up haters that don't read further than the word "rational", like Dragline, and they keep bringing up the Homo Economicus strawman ("HUMANS ARE NOT RATIONAL ZOMG").

if Spartan_Warrior reads Human Action, he'll discover that Mises uses a very pragmatic approach to define rational. it goes something like this:

- given a human in a certain situation, with X different ways of action, the human chooses exactly 1 type of action
- therefore, something about that action must have struck the human as preferable
- were someone to take that action away in the same situation, the human would have a next-best favorite, and so on
- therefore, for any given human in any given situation, it can be said that there's an "internal ordinal preference scale", i.e. favorite option is 1, second favorite is 2, ..
- Mises is big on this scale being inconvertible and incomparable between humans. it's not "Steak has 10 utils and pork has 5 utils", it's "steak first, then pork". and it's meaningless to say something like "brute likes steak better than Spartan_Warrior likes his grandmother". these things cannot be intrinsically compared, as they exist in different situations (brute doesn't have the option to like Spartan_Warrior's grandmother like a grandson).
- for Mises, money and free-market prices are therefore the only option to regulate how much humans want certain things. if brute is willing to pay $10 for the steak, but Spartan_Warrior is not, then brute "likes it more", in effect.

none of these observations ("humans seem to pick SOMETHING, so there has to be some kind of preference scale") break down in the face of determinism. in fact, even a thoroughly deterministic computer program could be said to have an ordinal internal scale, hard coded by its programmer. the only requirement for these observations to be valid is that the subject is somehow an "agent".

Mises only writes about humans in Human Action (maybe his sequel, Animal Action, would've been a huge hit!). but brute doesn't see a reason not to apply these concepts to animals or robots or AI, if they seem to fit.

for brute, reading Human Action was a similar revelation to reading ERE (only it came before ERE for him). suddenly, a veil was lifted, and brute understood humans much better. so much better, indeed, that it was not merely a quantitative difference, but a qualitative one. brute could now see humans (and animals) as preference-resource-matching-automatons. and not in a derogatory way, but in a loving way. ever since then, brute has much better empathy for humans and their actions: no matter what action a human takes, at that moment, it seemed like the best option. by definition, as otherwise, he'd have taken a different action.

edit:

for clarification maybe, a counter example. brute doesn't remember if Mises actually gives this in Human Action, but that might be where brute got it from.

for Mises, "rational" means that given a human desires X, and believes that action A will lead him to X, the human will take action A. this is not an assumption, it's a derivation - if the human picked another action B that led to Y, then the human obviously either wanted Y more than X, or was misinformed about the result of actions A and B.

what would it mean to be irrational, then? it would mean that a human desires X, and knows action A would take him to X, but decides to take action B that leads him away from X. say, a human desires chocolate, and has the option to buy a chocolate bar or a fruit bar. knowing that chocolate bars contain chocolate and fruit bars contain fruit, the human then chooses the fruit bar. this doesn't mean the human is acting irrationally, it means the original description of the setup was incorrect. obviously, the human desired fruit more than chocolate.

there is also no Descartes' Error (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes%27_Error) here: Mises doesn't say that the human "really" wanted chocolate but saner heads prevailed and he decided to go for what he believed was the healthy option. Mises treats the human as a black box. if the human picked fruit, the human wanted fruit.

it is therefore by definition impossible for humans to be irrational as described by Mises, because he defines it differently than most humans think about it. this is because most humans make Descartes' Error, or have some kind of thinking/emotions duality in their theories of mind, where "rational" means thinking in numbers and liking money, whereas going with the flow and taking a year off and eating chocolate are "irrational".

brute strongly sides with Mises on this.
Last edited by BRUTE on Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by BRUTE »

Jean wrote:To make it clear, my position before posting was that nobody has rights. I still believe so. To me, rights are mutually granted between entities, and it should be done only when this right granting is mutualy beneficial for both entities.
depends a lot on the definition of "should" and "beneficial". for example, the agreement between black colored humans and white colored humans in the US to not hold each other as slaves could be seen as mainly benefiting the black colored humans, historically, and might therefore not be "mutually beneficial". still, brute would argue it's a "should". maybe "beneficial" here means that brute prefers to live in a world without slavery, even if he has to give up the option of having slaves.

brute still believes it's very important to explicitly remind humans that rights don't come out of a magic lamp, but are granted by entities to each other. they are a luxury that civilized humans have the option of granting each other, just like indoor plumbing and sous-vide. when humans fall on hard times, rights go right out the window.
Jean wrote: My question was more that libertarian principles are often presented to lead to no violence if respected by everyone, I used to believe so, I haven't for a long time because of the points I mentioned in the OP. So I asked if anyone had arguments concerning those issues, and everyone seems to have the same opinion has me on those subjects. That's enough for me to dismiss libertarianism as a miracle solution for every problem a society can have. It still seems to be the best approach for many of those.
many libertarians seem to make this mental journey, brute included. it went like this for brute:

1.zomg libertarianism, if all humans believed this there would be world peace and prosperity and Ron Paul!
2.zomg these guys have logical, natural, rational, whatever reasons why libertarian rights are "true"
3.zomg all these reasons are bullshit, therefore libertarianism is bullshit
4.maybe libertarianism still has a lot of pragmatic answers to a lot of problems, even if it isn't the divine word of jesus himself, and some of the rationalizing is absurd (<--- brute is here)

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by Riggerjack »

4.maybe libertarianism still has a lot of pragmatic answers to a lot of problems, even if it isn't the divine word of jesus himself, and some of the rationalizing is absurd (<--- brute is here)
Riggerjack is here too. Lots of good ideas, and not bad for a default starting point, but there are better solutions in some cases.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by Riggerjack »

This assertion is ill-informed and wrong. In fact, companies seek to monopolize old drugs that are not popular to increase profits. (See Valeant business model).

I have this problem which colchicine, a medication for gout which is one of the oldest ever created. It used to cost cents a pill. Now it costs dollars, because control has been monopolized. And the old drug is being taken off my insurance. I may just start growing the damn plant myself.

Excuse my french, but you really don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Do some research, boy, and prove me wrong. Or admit you are wrong and simply ignorant.
OK, let's talk about colchicine. I was recently diagnosed with gout, so I looked into this. From Wikipedia:
As a drug antedating the FDA, colchicine was sold in the United States for many years without having been reviewed by the FDA for safety and efficacy. The FDA reviewed approved colchicine for gout flares, awarding Colcrys a three-year term of market exclusivity, prohibiting generic sales, and increasing the price of the drug from $0.09 to $4.85 per tablet.
The FDA gave URL Corp a patent on colchicine in exchange for URL doing the research for it to be proven to the FDA. So, your drug is more expensive, because a Federal agency gave a sweetheart deal to a corporation, granting them a government enforced monopoly. And yet you link this somehow to libertarianism, and free markets. Dragline, we have danced this dance many times, and I often thought you were having problems with separating cause from effect, but this just seems like you are failing to even understand the cause.

From a practical standpoint, colchicine is not an ideal long term treatment for gout. Talk to your doctor about allopurinol. If you want colchicine, currently, you can pay too much for it. In a few years, that exclusive marketing deal will expire, and the price will drop again. In the meantime, you can grow your own crocus. Be aware that it is toxic, and can be harmful to the kidneys.

For clarity, I'll address Valeant in another post.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by BRUTE »

for what it's worth, brute has heard many humans in the keto community say that their gout got much better or went away after cutting out carbs. something with fructose and chronic insulin and inflammation of the joints. maybe worth a try for the old timers here.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by Riggerjack »

If you Google Valeant business model, you will get lots of results like http://www.businessinsider.com/valeant- ... del-2014-6

Disapproving authors complaining about a corporation buying up small Pharma Corps, slashing their R&D budgets, and just treating them like cash cows. Then there is the criticism that this isn't sustainable. Then the projection that if this continues, drug R&D will stop completely.

Hogwash. The investors who paid for the R&D at those small corporations just got cashed out. Small startups do the reseach and product development. Then big corporations buy out the little guys. This model is similar to the startup model in software. And we all know how silicon valley has killed software innovation.

If there's a lesson to be learned here, it is how little journalists at business insider know about business.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by Ego »

Riggerjack wrote: From a practical standpoint, colchicine is not an ideal long term treatment for gout. Talk to your doctor about allopurinol.
A libertarian would say that you have the right to do with your body as you wish, but from a practical standpoint, neither colchicine nor allopurinol are ideal long term treatments for gout. Listen to this doctor about the ideal treatment. He mentions both drugs specifically in this short video.

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/prevent ... with-diet/

Locked