Some ponderances i have

[Cornetto97]

This is just some general ponderamces i have had about libertarianist thought, and private provision of all services, and also one about the nature of the state, and the public sector.

 

So first of all, i was having a debate with my dad yesterday about the idea that public provision of health should be abolished and be privatised. He was very taken back in hearing this from me, and a good back and forth debate ensued. So i made the point that, privatisation of health care would be a much better alternative, as it would create a competitive health market, with a strong profit motive. His main basis was that if you privatise health care, it would be too expensive, and people may not be able to afford it. He used the strawman of retired people, and unemployed, or just the poor. So he said what if a child was denied service and was left sick because his parents couldn't afford the visit to the doctors. Standard argument, but a very relevant one at that. Of course i recovered with a persistent line of reasoning that private healthcare now is expensive only because of the existance of public health, and a medicare system will subsidise private hospital and GP visits, thus creating artificial demand, and the ability for the private hospitals to raise prices with minimal impact. He still persisted that poor people will not be able to afford it, so i said, it would be in the best interests of a private hospital to accomodate people that can't afford treatment, in order to be seen as compassionate and generous. He never really countered this adequately, and went on insisting that it wouldn't be profitable, and that you can't compare the market forces of consumer goods and services in the private sector to the forces that would apply to health services. I also countered this. This lead him to a rebuttal i couldn't counter. He mentioned that in Australia, in particular Melbourne we have multiple hospitals with some of the leading country, and even world facilities, and innovation - all of which are public hospitals. So it took me back a little in the thought that the public sector is much less efficient and effective, and with this private hospitals should have better facilities. So why would this be? Why do many public hospitals have some state of the art technology, and facilities in many fields of treatment. Can anyone help me understand why this could be a reality? Is it because the state has a monopoly on force and tax, and a monopoly on currency printing? Is it because the existance of seemingly free health care in public hospitals attracts the type of customers who may need the very intricate and complicated procedures and treatments that advanced technology and facilities are used for, thus taking away the need for private hospitals to have such facilities in the status quo?

 

 

Second thing is, with regard to the operation of the state, and the fallacy that public sector employment drives economic expansion.

The fallacy of the broken window pertains to a situation analogous to a whole town breaking their windows so as to help the local glaziers. But this is wrong because it diverts wealth that could possibly be used in the purchasing of new goods, to the maintenance of an already purchased good (the window). Thus in pursuit of supporting the glaziers, you have left producers with less wealth.

 

So could it be said that, the operation of the state is essentially this fallacy. And if you substitute the glazier with the state then it can be said that, any line of reasoning that attempts to support a conclusion that public sector provision of goods and services, leads to employment, which leads to economic expansion is simply fallicious. Because the state in its tax diverts wealth that can be used in the consumption and or investment of a new good, and uses it for maintenance. Maintenance of public services which tend not to generate much re-investent or capital in itself and actually appropriates wealth. Also because majority of tax revenue is used to maintain payments to the national debt, it is still not being used in the production of a good. Furthermore, the state prints money for the provision of public services, thus diverting the purchasing power of individuals, intergenerationally, and subtracting from the amount one can purchase of new goods and services, in the interest of maintenance. It can be said that the state provision of services helps produce, as they can contract their projects out to private sector businesses. However this is still wealth diverted from the private sector, and used generally for a fixed asset that needs maintenance. This stops the wealth being diverted by the state to the business taking the contract from being invested by individuals in consumer goods, or an asset that can produce capital and generate more wealth for the individual. Thus it is still effectively diverting potential wealth from being transferred to other producers, and is therefore not prosperous for the economy, much like perpetual window breaking is not good for the town. So if the fallacy of the broken window is generally supported in the field of economics, the public sector can't be supported, and thus points to a cognitive dissonance in so far as they both believe in and support the fallacy of the broken window.

Does this have any validity, and strength as an argument, and counter consideration? Is my reasoning sound, or have I missed something?

 

The next is just a question about Rothbard's theory of natural rights. I have not read much of rothbard's actual writings, but have read a little into his theory around natural rights, again not very much. In the theory of natural rights, (at least from what i have read of it) it is said that a parent can't be forced to feed, clothe, bathe, or take care of his child at all, because to force them to do so would be a violation of an individual's private property. The baby still however has some self-ownership, and can't have the use of force initiated on him, and therefore can't be murdered, can't be forced out of eating or clothing. So is the addressed by Rothbard at all? Like if basically you own your child in so far as people can't initiate force to take it off you, or do something with it, but you can't initiate force against it and murder it however, can neglect it completely, how would this be addressed? Or is it addressed by Rothbard, or ancap theory as a whole? This is not in any way me discrediting or rebutting against ancap theory, it's just that i have seen this used on 2 occasions now to discredit his natural rights theory and would like it if someone can give me some clarity on it.

[Sima]

my thoughts on Rothbard's theory : parents were raised by some people as well. If everybody would stop caring for their babies, would the human species survive? Its suicidal. Parents usually have an incentive to spread their genes, they can call it an investment. Otherwise don't get babies. Contraception is cheap.

[Thus_Spake_the_Nightspirit]

I can only answer the first post of your post about the public vs private hospitals...

 

My husband works at one of these premier public hospitals in Melbourne and he says the reason they have these state of the art facilities is because of taxpayer money, essentially.

 

There are only two trauma hospitals in Victoria, both public. Private hospitals don't have trauma centers because they simply can't compete against the public hospitals. Facilities for treating these patients are expensive and the hospital would never recoup the cost of the equipment, for one. Public hospitals don't have to worry about these costs. They get tax dollars, grants, etc. They are guaranteed a steady stream of patients. They don't have to worry about making a profit. Fact is, they're often operating in the red and employees aren't paid anywhere near private sector wages, but they prioritise spending on state of the art technology. I mean, Royal Melbourne now has a robotics surgery theatre, ffs.

 

Private hospitals do have to worry about costs and profits and running a sustainable business model. Sure, they get grants, but they're not able to do any research. They can't afford it.

 

On the flip side, private hospitals in the US do run trauma centres, conduct research, or teach. And they do a far better job in being global leaders than any Australian hospital. Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins, for example, are world renowned. But they don't have to compete against taxpayer funded hospitals, so they can do this.

 

And having been a patient at both Mayo and Royal Melbourne, let me just say, I wouldn't send my worst enemy to get treatment at Royal Melbourne. You get what you pay for...

[chromanin]

Howdy,

 

1. From my experience here in Canada and observations of Europe, I would suggest that public funding is not an automatic fail. It largely depends on the composition of the public doing the funding. When Canada was more culturally homogenous, the healthcare system worked better and appeared to be under less strain. Our technology wasn't the tops, but waiting times were somewhat reasonable and facilities were clean. Now we have unreasonable strain and artificial demand placed on the system, by large cohorts of people who view healthcare as an entitlement. They don't think of it as insurance, something to be used in emergencies only... So more funding must go to people who use the system for every little hiccup, and don't take care of themselves because they feel no responsibility. Some people are getting rich in this system, but at the expense of productive taxpayers.There is also an awful mental health epidemic, which I believe has its roots in the break down of social cohesion. So, instead of investing resources in R & D we're mostly coping with disproportionate and artificial demand from the new culture of dependence. If you look at largely homogenous populations like Switzerland, Iceland, New Zealand, and yes Australia, things seem to work out there. Lots of white people, what a shocker. Teaching hospitals / big city hospitals get extra funding from government so that they can offer more advanced services... Competition would still produce better results, and would ensure proper investment. Think of the preponderance of medical technology the the for-profit U.S. health care system has exported to the world. Add in debt spending and an aging population which has ponzi-schemed its youth and things are getting dark indeed.

 

I've also wondered if ethnicities which didn't evolve in northern climates experience more disease there than native populations (not enough Vit.D in winter etc.)? Of course they're still better off because of our advanced standards, but it does shift the actuarial costs if you will.

 

2. That is a strong argument. Mal-investment is a central problem economically & culturally. It appears to me to be the result of short-term, instant gratification psychology and the collectivist state policies which enable it. Essentially, we are spoiled. We don't consider the long term costs, we just want our feel good fairy-tale. Again though, the ratio of productive independent activity relative to unproductive public demand is crucial. Eventually the burden is just too great, and whatever efficiencies are created supply side will be immediately matched demand-side if there are no participation requirements.

 

3. I would say that by producing a child you have sort of entered into a unilateral contract with them. The child has no choice but to be born, you made the choice for them and so you are also responsible for their care until they can care for themselves. Essentially the child's property rights are in your stewardship. I believe this interfaces nicely with common law principles.

[Cornetto97]

my thoughts on Rothbard's theory : parents were raised by some people as well. If everybody would stop caring for their babies, would the human species survive? Its suicidal. Parents usually have an incentive to spread their genes, they can call it an investment. Otherwise don't get babies. Contraception is cheap.

Yeah so, basically in evolutionary terms, you wouldn't do that as you'd wish for your gene set to survive in your child. And also i guess if this principle occurs in an anarcho society, people wouln only have a baby when they're withing their means, and actually can care for it, because the welfare state is non existent, and neither are taxes, meaning it won't subsidise the stupid people, and the dependent class to have babies when they can't properly care for it.

[Cornetto97]

I can only answer the first post of your post about the public vs private hospitals...

 

My husband works at one of these premier public hospitals in Melbourne and he says the reason they have these state of the art facilities is because of taxpayer money, essentially.

 

There are only two trauma hospitals in Victoria, both public. Private hospitals don't have trauma centers because they simply can't compete against the public hospitals. Facilities for treating these patients are expensive and the hospital would never recoup the cost of the equipment, for one. Public hospitals don't have to worry about these costs. They get tax dollars, grants, etc. They are guaranteed a steady stream of patients. They don't have to worry about making a profit. Fact is, they're often operating in the red and employees aren't paid anywhere near private sector wages, but they prioritise spending on state of the art technology. I mean, Royal Melbourne now has a robotics surgery theatre, ffs.

 

Private hospitals do have to worry about costs and profits and running a sustainable business model. Sure, they get grants, but they're not able to do any research. They can't afford it.

 

On the flip side, private hospitals in the US do run trauma centres, conduct research, or teach. And they do a far better job in being global leaders than any Australian hospital. Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins, for example, are world renowned. But they don't have to compete against taxpayer funded hospitals, so they can do this.

 

And having been a patient at both Mayo and Royal Melbourne, let me just say, I wouldn't send my worst enemy to get treatment at Royal Melbourne. You get what you pay for...

Oh nice, i was hoping to possibly get a weigh in from a fellow melbournian, and i not only got a melbournian, i got someone who has a husband who works in a public hospital, thanks for the insight.

 

So yeah it's as i was thinking, for the very serious ICU situation and such, public hospitals are used, because medicare takes care of the bill. Meaning it creates a sort of artificial vacuum, that makes it a bad investment for private hospitals to have such equipment.

 

So does America have only private hospitals? Or are there public hospitals but enough demand for privaye hospitals to warrant state of the art r&d?

[Cornetto97]

my thoughts on Rothbard's theory : parents were raised by some people as well. If everybody would stop caring for their babies, would the human species survive? Its suicidal. Parents usually have an incentive to spread their genes, they can call it an investment. Otherwise don't get babies. Contraception is cheap.

 

So it sort of plays to the fact that seen as all genes wish to survive, and all humans therefore have a sort of instinctive desire to pass their genes on so that they can continue to live, not many people who have children would actually neglect them. And given the idea that ancap society would not have a welfare state or taxes, people who can afford, and can take care of a baby will have babies, and stupid people or the dependent class won't be having as many children. 

[Cornetto97]

Howdy,

 

1. From my experience here in Canada and observations of Europe, I would suggest that public funding is not an automatic fail. It largely depends on the composition of the public doing the funding. When Canada was more culturally homogenous, the healthcare system worked better and appeared to be under less strain. Our technology wasn't the tops, but waiting times were somewhat reasonable and facilities were clean. Now we have unreasonable strain and artificial demand placed on the system, by large cohorts of people who view healthcare as an entitlement. They don't think of it as insurance, something to be used in emergencies only... So more funding must go to people who use the system for every little hiccup, and don't take care of themselves because they feel no responsibility. Some people are getting rich in this system, but at the expense of productive taxpayers.There is also an awful mental health epidemic, which I believe has its roots in the break down of social cohesion. So, instead of investing resources in R & D we're mostly coping with disproportionate and artificial demand from the new culture of dependence. If you look at largely homogenous populations like Switzerland, Iceland, New Zealand, and yes Australia, things seem to work out there. Lots of white people, what a shocker. Teaching hospitals / big city hospitals get extra funding from government so that they can offer more advanced services... Competition would still produce better results, and would ensure proper investment. Think of the preponderance of medical technology the the for-profit U.S. health care system has exported to the world. Add in debt spending and an aging population which has ponzi-schemed its youth and things are getting dark indeed.

 

I've also wondered if ethnicities which didn't evolve in northern climates experience more disease there than native populations (not enough Vit.D in winter etc.)? Of course they're still better off because of our advanced standards, but it does shift the actuarial costs if you will.

 

2. That is a strong argument. Mal-investment is a central problem economically & culturally. It appears to me to be the result of short-term, instant gratification psychology and the collectivist state policies which enable it. Essentially, we are spoiled. We don't consider the long term costs, we just want our feel good fairy-tale. Again though, the ratio of productive independent activity relative to unproductive public demand is crucial. Eventually the burden is just too great, and whatever efficiencies are created supply side will be immediately matched demand-side if there are no participation requirements.

 

3. I would say that by producing a child you have sort of entered into a unilateral contract with them. The child has no choice but to be born, you made the choice for them and so you are also responsible for their care until they can care for themselves. Essentially the child's property rights are in your stewardship. I believe this interfaces nicely with common law principles.

 

1. Yeah, in Australia we still have multiculturalism, it has been drilled through my head for basically all my school years. Difference is we make it just a little harder for illegal immigrants and those who can't afford it to come and drain the public purse. Granted we still have problems with crime hot spot areas, which tend to mostly have ethnic people living there, but it's not nearly as bad as Canada, UK and indeed nothing in comparison to Europe. I can definitely see the correlation that can happen when you have a mixed bag of incompatible cultures all clamored into the country sucking off the welfare state - a massive back log and overuse of the public health system - even still in Australia we have long waiting times for our public system, and we are much more homogeneous.   

 

2. oh yes, basically socialist policies are all culminating to a disastrous collapse, this broken window fallacy of inability to defer gratification, and draining the public purse to have the state subsidise everything for you, is going to grind to a halt and become like japan with a perpetually fading middle class, and a literally dying population (they aren't that crazy on kids it seems). They can maintain and reinvest into that broken window that creates no capital, and actually appropriates it, but the demographic curb in so many developed countries is going to be disastrous for the socialist welfare states, the public sector and the middle class. there will simply be way too many dependent on government unemployment benefits or pension in particular, and now with Europe's introduction of "peaceful" (regressive cultured) "refugees" (welfare vacuums) they have just accelerated this impending collapse, and made the collapse that much more dangerous. 

 

3. well the child is your property and you retain property rights to it in so far as you are its carer, and its guardian, however the babay still retains self ownership in some form and the use of force is not allowed to be initiated against them by anyone. so it can bea sort of unilateral contract that is implied, but really can't be enforced to certain extents. no one can force care of the babies upon the parents and the parent can't force the baby, so it is different to the unilateral contract you have by virtue of being born in a country with the state, i think it may be more a sort of you had the baby so by virtue of having the baby, you would want to take care of it. And if it was an accident, then abortion would be used. 

[chromanin]

Another thing that shouldn't be discounted is the psychology involved. I worked in public hospitals here for many years (ahh, can't get clean! *scrub scrub*) and although they obviously do important work, they're not especially concerned with the best possible experience & quality of care. There is no profit to be obtained by being efficient, or courteous, or competitive with costs. They are not beholden to the customer, only the government. It is actually in their interests to spend every cent they get and then point to the artificial demand and say "Look, we need more money!" Oh and union hospitals are even worse, poor workers are very well protected.

 

 

3. well the child is your property and you retain property rights to it in so far as you are its carer, and its guardian, however the babay still retains self ownership in some form and the use of force is not allowed to be initiated against them by anyone. so it can bea sort of unilateral contract that is implied, but really can't be enforced to certain extents. no one can force care of the babies upon the parents and the parent can't force the baby, so it is different to the unilateral contract you have by virtue of being born in a country with the state, i think it may be more a sort of you had the baby so by virtue of having the baby, you would want to take care of it. And if it was an accident, then abortion would be used. 

 

I don't think the child really is your property if we're going by natural law... They are a separate being, and so the choice to bring a child into the world is to accept stewardship of another human being's property rights until they develop certain faculties. Enforcement is always a problem, I don't think that tells us anything about the morality of an action. We can assume that the child would want to be treated well until they understand such things. 

[Cornetto97]

I don't think the child really is your property if we're going by natural law... They are a separate being, and so the choice to bring a child into the world is to accept stewardship of another human being's property rights until they develop certain faculties. Enforcement is always a problem, I don't think that tells us anything about the morality of an action. We can assume that the child would want to be treated well until they understand such things.

I see so it's like a duty of care, the child can't take care if itself, and so in having a child you naturally accept the care that the baby can't provide itself. And so if one can assume the child would want to be cared for, then by accepting stewardship over the baby's property rights, one should take care of that baby.

[Thus_Spake_the_Nightspirit]

Oh nice, i was hoping to possibly get a weigh in from a fellow melbournian, and i not only got a melbournian, i got someone who has a husband who works in a public hospital, thanks for the insight.

 

So yeah it's as i was thinking, for the very serious ICU situation and such, public hospitals are used, because medicare takes care of the bill. Meaning it creates a sort of artificial vacuum, that makes it a bad investment for private hospitals to have such equipment.

 

So does America have only private hospitals? Or are there public hospitals but enough demand for privaye hospitals to warrant state of the art r&d?

Yes,only private hospitals in America at this stage (though some do get government funds, particularly research or teaching hospitals). The best hospitals draw patients from all over the country and the world.

 

 

You're right that there is an incentive for public hospitals to use all of their funds. For example, my husband's department is going to let him hire a new assistant because if they don't, they'll be told they didn't actually need all the money they were allocated and will get less next year. Private hospitals would never recoup the cost of all that high tech equipment. Public hospitals don't either, but it doesn't matter since they don't have to function like a profitable business.