This is a bit of a loaded question and very poorly written. Bad troll is bad.
The problem stands that modern “Libertarians” have been corrupted by corporations and conservative bigots to mean “elimination of government and regulation” and not “government to uphold liberty” like it originally did. A correctly Libertarian government would write laws that solely uphold the power of the individual’s self determination, which inherently requires restriction of the power of capital.
I consider myself Libertarian, but I feel there now has to be a distinction made between “Capital Libertarians” and “Individual Libertarians”. One wants the liberty of capital, the other wants the liberty of the individual. I find myself in the latter. Corporations can go fuck themselves, the individual is paramount.
“Socialist” things like public infrastructure, and yes, public healthcare, would be supported by individual libertarianism. Social support structures like these support individual liberty but restrict capital liberty by requiring taxes to support them, whereas supporting capital liberty by making it “pay as you go” does nothing but remove the individual liberty of the population that finds themselves without any capital through no fault of their own. I absolutely support universal healthcare.
I feel there now has to be a distinction made between “Capital Libertarians” and “Individual Libertarians”.
You might be interested in Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts of Liberty”.
Basically, there is no absolute thing called “liberty”, because anything you do changes the material world and the state of the material world also shapes what you’re able to do. So you can’t talk about simply “liberty”, and must always describe it in terms of those two relationships. What Berlin calls “freedom to” and “freedom from”.
For instance, I might consider my liberty to mean that I have the “freedom to” shoot a gun in the air. My neighbors might consider their liberty to mean that they have the “freedom from” falling bullets.
We can’t create a policy which guarantees both “freedom to” and “freedom from” for all people. But we can create a policy that guarantees both for some people. We just have to allow that some people get to enjoy both the rights and the protections, while other people lack the rights and must suffer the consequences of others’ actions.
And that might be why the contemporary conservative version of so-called “libertarianism” plays so well with a notion of a superior social class, whether that’s economic, religious, or racial. You can invoke the word “liberty” in support of your attempts to bully others, and then you can invoke it again as a protection against others’ attempts to bully you.
“Socialist” things like public infrastructure, and yes, public healthcare, would be supported by individual libertarianism.
Huh???
A capital libertarian government would not fund public roads. You would need to pay a toll to drive on every privately built road, because your capital is free to move. But roads to certain places would cost more than others, thus restricting the individual’s liberty to their ability to pay.
A individually libertarian government funds public roads. Individuals then retain the right to self-determination to decide where they want to go without restriction. How they go on those roads might be subject to their capital restrictions- whether they walk, bike, drive, rollerskate, or whatever. But they are at least allowed to use those roads.Certain things will always be needed in our society for humans to function. If humans are not functioning correctly, they are not free to self-determine their path. Gating such a simple thing as healthcare, which again, humans absolutely need to function, behind the ability to pay is inherently restricting their individual liberty in an immoral way.
100% Libertarianism originated as a left wing movement in the 19th century. Right wing libertarianism didn’t ooze out of the swamp till nearly a century later. In the mid 20th century. Post red scare when actual leftist were keeping their heads down due to fascist witch hunts. And unable to really call out the posers.
Real libertarians don’t have a problem with government. They just believe that it should be focused on maximizing freedom, and access to it. Where the larpers are all about maximizing their personal freedom (privilege) and don’t care if others have access.
Right wing libertarianism didn’t ooze out of the swamp till nearly a century later.
Like any good system that is a threat to those in power, it was co-opted and corrupted to remove the threat and turn public perception against it.
“Left wing”, and “right wing” are far too nebulous to really have any continuous historical use. Even in current parlance they are borderline useless terms.
Only to people who don’t understand the difference.
The issue is that most people have slight differences in how those terms are defined, and they morph substantially and continuously over time
My bad…
I consider myself Libertarian, but I feel there now has to be a distinction made between “Capital Libertarians” and “Individual Libertarians”. One wants the liberty of capital, the other wants the liberty of the individual. I find myself in the latter. Corporations can go fuck themselves, the individual is paramount.
It may be better to stick with existing terms like positive and negative liberty.
This is also known as “Libertarian Socialism.” Interestingly enough, this idea predates the current definition of Libertarianism by decades.
Interesting! I didn’t know this existed, but I can align myself pretty well with this terminus. Thank you :)
This is probably where I align economically, but I support statist mandates that are inconsistent with “individual libertarianism” or “civil libertarianism.”
For example, we should decriminalize drug use, but there should absolutely be a strong statist intervention where people are forced to stop using drugs.
deleted by creator
I am not THE libertarian to fully hold this argument and as others have mentioned there are libertarian arguments for universal healthcare, but I will present the best case I can from those I’ve heard be against it.
The primary case is the idea of negative rights vs positive rights. Where the idea that the state should protect you from others wanting limit your rights vs providing you the ability to do something.
So using the state to punish someone for who is trying to stop you from providing healthcare service is justified use of violence as it protects your negative rights and define and preserves you and the violators boundary. Whereas using state violence to force you to provide healthcare someone you don’t want to would not as it violated your negative right.
This is primary argument against any positive right, is that since it requires a service to be fulfilled the state would be use violence (the basis of state power) to enforce it. Making it tantamount to slavery.
Now the reality of it though is that most libertarians do support this slavery at least in service of giving the state the monopoly on violence (police, military, etc) in order to protect their defined negative rights. And because of our current material abundance we are able to have a fractionalized slavery extracting wealth from people to small enough degree that most people don’t find as aborrent full servitude of an individual.
Because someone needs to be enslaved to provide universial health care. If even one person wants to opt out, no matter how wrong their reason you if you allow don’t allow it they are enslaved. (note that there have been many different systems of slavery, but even the best still remones choice from someone). as such I prefer other options if they exist.
There are other options and so I oppose universial health care. Do not confuse that with approving of the system we have.
Because someone needs to be enslaved to provide universial health care. If even one person wants to opt out, no matter how wrong their reason you if you allow don’t allow it they are enslaved.
Congratulations, you just said the dumbest thing I’ve read on the Internet in a very long time. That’s impressive!
I pay for the military, for roads, for schools, for police, for fire departments…and I can’t opt out of any of that. So am I already a slave? If so, then I might as well get some healthcare out of the deal.
If I’m not already a slave then universal healthcare isn’t making me a slave either. No one would be forcing you to use your healthcare either.
You are a slave and should opt out of those things.
Your proble is you know what is and cannot imangine what could be.
I’m not a libertarian, but from what I’ve seen of their positions on this, they don’t think that it’s possible in an effective way. There’s two possible versions: the government pays for everything, or there’s public and private health care. A lot of countries have both, which is probably the best option since driving out competition is going to make everything go to crap.
The problem is that there are some arrangements that simply can’t work or the existing system would implode in the transition.
There are also a lot of people who don’t want to pay because someone who refused to get insurance for years finally decided to sign up for public health care because they suddenly got a serious health problem. In some possible arrangements, it would be necessary to force people to have health insurance, which is its own rabbit hole.
Do they not realize that universal health care has been done successfully and at a lower cost than privatized healthcare, in many other countries? Seems like a weak argument when there’s so much proof against it
I want there to be a viable public option that exists. The alternative would be to require that everyone get coverage.
“The problem is that there are some arrangements that simply can’t work or the existing system would implode in the transition.”
can you even cite a real world example of this or is this another runaway hypothetical?
There’s two possible versions: the government pays for everything, or there’s public and private health care. A lot of countries have both, which is probably the best option since driving out competition is going to make everything go to crap.
There’s a potential third option through cooperatively run hospitals.
deleted by creator
If there’s no competition, then providers can just make up any price that they want and the government has to pay it.
When there’s an entirely planned economy, there’s no possibility for alternatives to be created.
deleted by creator
Libertarians are Republicans that smoke weed. They are identical at their core.
I disagree. Libertarians are more evil and stupider than Republicans.
Republicans are pretty awful all round, yes. But have you tried selfishness-extreme, our new flavor? Now with less self-awareness!
Little of what the republican party seems to support aligns with libertarianism.
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.
With the general state of health in America, it’s probably better for the fit 0.1% if they don’t have to share healthcare resources with the rest.
Do not be deluded by the abstract word Freedom. Whose freedom? Not the freedom of one individual in relation to another, but freedom of Capital to crush the worker.
– Karl Marx, On Free Trade
So far, outside of a classroom, the only “Libertarians” I’ve seen in real life are people who vote republiQan and refuse to take accountability for it.
Or people who don’t vote, and allow republiQans to rule while taking no accountability for it.
So, they don’t support universal healthcare because republiQans don’t, and that’s what they really are.
So far, outside of a classroom, the only “Libertarians” I’ve seen in real life are people who vote republiQan and refuse to take accountability for it.
This is, imo, most likely a symptom of a first past the post voting system. It results in people not voting for whom they believe in, but, instead, to vote strategically in the very general direction of what is actually wanted.
Actually, not voting is one of the most ideologicaly consistent things someone who is extremely libertarian could do. Because if you voted for something and got it passed. Technically your will could be used to infringe against perceived rights of others. So by rights any true ideological libertarian should never vote. But you’ll almost never see that on the right.
Yeah. Lots of fake or failed Libertarians then?
A shit ton. Enough that most people have no idea there are any other kind.
This is the problem with "ism"s. At whatever point you decide that philosophy X is the answer to everything, you start being wrong about a lot of the world, because whatever it is, there’s at least like 30% of situations (and potentially a lot more) that your particular ism actually isn’t the answer to.
Libertarianism or anti-imperialism or ACAB or socialism or pro-the-Democrats or anarchist or whatever it is, it’s never always the answer. Trying to hold a debate about, well is it philosophy X or philosophy Y that’s always right about everything, or any other discussion that feeds into the basic wrong premise, is just compounding the imaginary non-situation-dependent way of looking at it.
Although yes some of them are wrong a lot more of the time than some others.
Before applying any of these so-called “isms” to the collective, the most important step, imo, is to ensure that there is synchronization on the collective’s ideals and principles. In general, understanding all extremes, their benefits and drawbacks, is the best approach forward. One must be rooted in their ideals and draw from diverse pools of experience to round out one’s beliefs.
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.
Because they really just don’t want to pay taxes, which are needed to fund universal healthcare.
That is rather reductionist — it is more complicated than that.
Also most people who say they’re libertarian have no clue what the word means, and are morons.
I would be very hesitant to say “most” but there is indeed a faction that misappropriates the term.
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.
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.
The opposition to taxes is generally due to a power imbalance resulting in compulsion through the use of force. Taxes are in opposition to negative liberty, which is what libertarianism generally aligns with.
No, that’s saying too much. They don’t want to pay. Full stop. That’s it.
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
I’m not a Libertarian, but I sympathize with some of their economic viewpoints – significantly more so than tends to be welcome here. Unlike some of you, I don’t speak to the motives and attitudes of all libertarians, only my own. I’m not a Republican. I don’t smoke pot. I did vote for Jo Jorgensen in 2020. I do give a flying fuck about liberty. I don’t confirm or deny being a myopic cunt.
Oddly enough, I do support some form of public healthcare. I’m well aware that most libertarians don’t. A hundred years ago, maybe even 50 years ago, I wouldn’t have either. The problem is that medical science has advanced to where a free market insurance model doesn’t work as well as it used to. Health insurance used to be a luxury when lung cancer would kill a rich man almost as quickly as it killed a poor man. That’s no longer the case, and the costs have accelerated to where the treatment can bankrupt an uninsured middle class man.
The real sinker however is pre-existing conditions. You can’t insure a house that’s already on fire, and we don’t ask homeowners policies to do so. Waiting periods for costly conditions sometimes almost work, except for patients born a pre-existing medical condition. If the insurer had the choice, they’d just refuse to write the policy, even if treatment is cost-effective from a public policy standpoint.
So I support free market solutions where they exist. Health insurance may be one of the few situations where it doesn’t.
I always assumed it was impossible for a free market to exist in healthcare. One important tenant of a free market is being able to freely enter and exit the market at will. Exiting the healthcare market is impossible. You can’t reasonably choose to leave the market when life is forcing you to engage in it, or choosing to leave the market would lead to death. It’s the equivalent of having a gun put to your head.
The main issue with healthcare, imo, is that it is a leonine contract. Because of that, it is incompatible with capitalism.
Exactly. To me all the basics of life, the bottom tiers of Maslow’s pyramid can’t be privatised. Healthcare, utilities, education, infrastructure, social safety nets, you need those things as a PREREQUISITE to participation in the market. The market can’t provide its own prerequisites. If you don’t provide these things you simply cannot have a competitive free market in the first place.
So I support free market solutions where they exist. Health insurance may be one of the few situations where it doesn’t.
The main issue with healthcare is that it is a leonine contract. Because of that, it is incompatible with capitalism.
As a socialist libertarian that access health care, yes I think is a great step forward, I see all this social services that benefit the proletariat given by a government as positive part of the transition, but it’s also a double edge sword if people become too dependent or get use to it once stops been an urgent matter people stop demanding it because they forget that’s even there and end up voting for politician that would take it away, I’m thinking about Sweden or the uk. The correct way is demand these services to become more decentralized, f.e. having fully equipied clinics everywhere instead of just big hospitals
Don’t expect unbiased learning about politics on Lemmy.
I like the idea of universal healthcare. I have zero trust in the US federal government to implement it properly. I think it would be a clusterfuck and make things worse for everyone, especially with Republicans on the warpath doing everything they can to sabotage it.
I can’t really understand the tradition of never trusting the government in the US. The government is designed in a way that enables, even requires public oversight, public opinion. If that is not the case, you are not living in a democracy. Many Americans trust private initiatives, charity more than taxes and a working public system. People have no say in what corporations do. If people don’t trust the government the attitude should be towards fixing it and enabling trust, not to accept it as is. I am not judging, maybe a little bit but not really. I live in a middle eastern country. We really don’t trust the government but we keep working on steering it in the right direction. We are many times smaller than the US but we have minimum income, universal healthcare, unions are the norm, etc.
I can’t really understand the tradition of never trusting the government in the US
I used to trust them, before 9/11 when I was young and naive. Then the attack happened. We ended up with bipartisan legislation to strip our civil liberties, torture captives, spy on citizens in direct violation of the bill of rights, and invade 2 countries that had nothing to do with it. Never again.
People have no say in what corporations do
Shareholders do. They get a vote. The government is essentially a mutual fund you’re legally obligated to buy into.
If people don’t trust the government the attitude should be towards fixing it and enabling trust, not to accept it as is.
I agree. I also believe we should take care of that before we go granting them vast additional powers.
We are many times smaller than the US but we have minimum income, universal healthcare, unions are the norm, etc.
Thats a good example of why universal healthcare doesn’t need to be at the federal level here. States like New York and California are larger than many countries which have universal healthcare. What’s stopping them from passing it themselves?
I agree. I also believe we should take care of that before we go granting them vast additional powers.
completely agreed
Shareholders do. They get a vote. The government is essentially a mutual fund you’re legally obligated to buy into.
yes but they vote to maximize profit not overall social benefit
but they vote to maximize profit not overall social benefit
They’re the same people that are voting in elections.
They are a very small subset of those people, and they are not a proportional representation of all types of people.
But corporations hold each other accountable. They have to compete for your trust. If corporation A does something shady then it’s im their competitors interest to call them out in order to raise people’s trust in themselves. There are also countless charities and third party sites to grade them. I can choose which programs I fund. I don’t get any say in what government gets my taxes or what the government does with my taxes. What if I don’t want to fund war but want my money to go to charity to help the poor? How effective is universal healthcare where you are?
Wow, you seriously still believe that corporations compete with eachother in the healthcare sector despite the fact that most insurance companies have a “network” specifically so that they don’t have to compete with eachother? How is healthcare a competitive market that drives towards efficiency exactly? The more you privatise healthcare the lower life expectancy you get and the higher you all pay!
93% of stocks are owned by just 10% of people… They own all the companies, and are diversified… They aren’t really competing with each other in any meaningful way
Then don’t shop at those companies? Go buy produce at your local farmers market etc etc. You get to choose what you spend money on. Or you can start your own business if you feel there is a market gap. You cant start your own government.
Most people are not “free” enough under current system to shop at farmers markets haha
The reason the government is garbage is because most of them are working for the corporations. If we heavily regulated the corporations and made it so they couldn’t interfere with politics, the government would be better… They’d actually be working for the people and our interests, like they’re supposed to
The problem isn’t government, it’s corporate control of the government
Privatizing things will always cost more because then you need to account for profits as well. Publicly controlled=x cost, privately controlled=x costs+profit for the rich
Even the most corrupt government employee is only getting a pay check (no profits). They make their corruption money by colluding with corporations and rich people
Well said.
I should go to my local farmer’s market to sign up for Internet service, or to buy a cell phone? The big industries are so heavily dominated by massive colluding corporations that “don’t shop there” is not a tenable solution.
But corporations hold each other accountable. They have to compete for your trust.
Yes, but only if there is competition. In an anti-competitive market (thus a non-capitalist system), this balance breaks.
The government is designed in a way that enables, even requires public oversight, public opinion.
If one trusted their government, then, arguably, none of these checks would be required.
Many Americans trust private initiatives, charity more than taxes and a working public system.
The trust in private enterprise is predicated on one’s ability and ease to opt out of such a system. The same cannot be said for the government.
