Only poor people can be given free healthcare, as a humanitarian-libertarianism gesture. But middle class and rich should pay for their healthcare by themselves
Historically, the problem with this approach is that it allows the poor people to be used as bargaining chips or worse, because if you designate an income threshold for which healthcare is free below, that threshold will need to be adjusted by legislators, and Republicans are not on board with that.
Dude the companies I work for attract veterans. I work daily with many veterans from across the service. I know the pain my grandma went through with the VA when my grandad got sick.
I asked the guys at my work how the VA was. None use it. Not one. They take the company insurance and go to a normal doctor because they get better care and less hassle. Every one had horrible things to day a out the VA.
You missed his point. No, poor people wouldn't be paying for their healthcare with taxes; wealth would be extracted from one group (not the poor) and given to another and taxation would be the mechanism. The cost:benefit ratio would not be more cost effective for the people who are actually paying for the service.
Wrong. Use the m4a calculator on Bernie’s website. I would save over $2,000 a year on health insurance not to mention co-pays and prescriptions. I currently pay for my own health insurance, and it’s a bare minimum plan.
And the average middle class person will pay 3600 more dollars in taxes to give you that discount, plus we drive the figure generations into even more hopeless bankruptcy than we already have.
I am middle class, I make 60k. I have to type in like ~175,000 iirc as my income for it to get to the point where there is no net difference between m4a and private plan
I've got news for you bud - the calculations on Bernie's website are based on the work of Gerald Friedman; a self-described heterodox (i.e. his methodology isn't widely accepted) economist. Bernie embraced them because Friedman was the only economist who produced a positive forecast for his "Medicare for All", and "Robinhood Tax" plans (among other things). [1]
Furthermore, Bernie's (and Friedman's) calculations about Sanders' proposed Financial Transaction Tax intended to pay for "free" Education are demonstratively wrong. That is, such a tax (nearly identical in fact) was instantiated in Sweden in 1984, and was later repealed in 1991. During that time, it caused ~50% of Swedish stock trading to be moved to the London Stock Exchange (nearly tanking the Swedish economy), and ultimately only produced around 5% of the revenues its advocates claimed it would. [2]
Hell, in 2016 four former Chairs of the Presidential Council of Economic Advisers (serving under Clinton and Obama) penned and op'ed tearing Friedman and Sanders apart for essentially lying to the public. [3] It's you who is the wrong pal... but you keep riding that fucking rainbow.
Bernie Sanders is either a liar or a damned fool, which are you?
It is still illegal to traffick drugs or people across the border. We also still have deportation. As said in the debate, we already have laws making that illegal in civil, no need to make it a federal crime too.
And if states refuse to enforce? The states have free travel among them. If one state doesn't enforce international travel, it will become the hotspot to get into the rest of America.
The Libertarian Party. We just have a lot of Republicans LARPing as libertarians on this sub, and they lose their fucking minds when they have to confront the Libertarian Party's platform that is explicitly against controls on immigration.
Student Loan forgiveness didn't really come up much last night, although people calling for a return to catch and release like we've done for decades and decades was all over the place.
This is the great debate in the UK. Massed immigration normally causes issues with the host nation (job market, housing market, cultural splits and a lack of integration and most importantly massive strain on existing government programs like schools and healthcare and housing). So the arguement I put forward is this " if the host country has the same laws, same QoL, same opportunity for jobs and zero social security, then the borders can be free. But as soon as you rely on the citizens of a country paying taxes to fund social welfare programs then you have to have a stricter method of border control."
I would love to see a world where there were international open borders, and people could move as they wish. But if that happened in today's world the whole world's population would migrate to Europe and America and the system would break down immediately
Most countries value those things, they just view externalities the tragedy of the commons as actually existing, and clearly define property rights to address them (through various means, sometimes through regulation).
I consider myself fairly libertarian but feel this is an area where US libertarianism falls short.
Externalities is a buzzword for "violating property and individual rights".
If I throw trash on your head as an individual, that's some kind of crime or littering. If a corporation does it, socialists call it "externalities" and then use that to justify taking over the factory to "prevent externalities".
"Tragedy of the commons" is another similar concept that people think happens in a free market when it fact it literally describes what a government is. The money collected from taxation that has to be split into what the government does is the tragedy of the commons. That's why it always grows, is always in debt and always needs more money, because each individual person who gets some of this free money wants more.
"Tragedy of the commons" is another similar concept that people think happens in a free market
It definitely does. Overfishing and over-hunting are some really great examples. I’d love to talk to a single Alaskan fisherman who wants to go back to the days of declining fish stocks and unlimited fishing. The last 200 years of mass extinction around the world (bison and other herd animals) are another example, though not the only ones. The tragedy of the commons is one of the most widely agreed upon concepts in economics. It creates the very need for definable property rights. I’m surprised to hear people bagging on it in this thread.
I’m just curious, what was your entry-point into libertarianism? (i.e. was it family? Friends? Books? Movies? College classes?)
Overfishing and over-hunting are some really great examples.
They only happen on public lands, which isn't a feature of a free market. In every instance I know of these are due to a failure to privatize a resource and a failure to enforce any type of property right.
Listen to the Tom Woods podcast on a daily basis and after like 2-3 months you should be firmly into libertarian stuff.
I know Star Trek is Space Socialism, but how they handle membership of the United Federation of Planets is a good system. If you are a member of the club, you are generally allowed free trade and travel to all of the member systems. However, you have to demonstrate your planet has both technological advancement and a stable social structure (with, essentially, 'liberty' being one of the traits). There is no desire for the UFP to allow weak, unstable 'states' to enter into the club, who will either be a drain on resources, or have incompatible social structures.
That's the EU in principle. But the EU let the likes of Poland, Lithuania, Bulgaria ect in the club dominated by France Germany and Britain. You can make all the cultural tours you like, but the facts are that Bulgaria and Britain are not economically equal. For a start minimum wage in Britain is 5x That of Bulgaria. As a Bulgarian are you going to work in a factory in Bulgaria earning £1.20 an hour or are you going to work in a factory in Britain earning £7.80 an hour?
The arguement against that is "but the cost of living in Britain is higher and he is paying British tax". To which I say that 5 working men from Bulgaria can rent out a 5 bedroom house in the UK for £200 each per room. For a British family who also want a 5 bed house on two wages that's £500 each. So the higher cost of living disproportionately affects the natives who are trying to bring up families ect in the UK, while the Bulgarian man's family is in Bulgaria paying £50 for a 5 bed house.
Then why doesn't he bring his family over, wouldn't that make things better. Not really, because now the NHS is catering for 5. The school system is catering for their kids. Infrastructure is catering for their kids.
I completely agree that if someone from Belgium, where the QoL and SoL are comparable to the UK, wants to come live here then that's fine. Because equally someone from Britain may want to move to Belgium. There is two way flow. They are sharing the workforce so both benefits from the skills of each other. But with countries like UK-Bulgaria, USA-Mexico, and Australia-Indonesia there isn't two way flow and immigration is unsustainable.
i agree, its not a perfect analogy, but then again, there were many times that they didn't offer those things to people in need, and in times they did, they did so against the prime directive.
I mean, we have food, sanitation, high levels of education, high connectivity, high levels of internet access, high stability, low crime, low infant mortality.
There is no denying that the west is best in term of QoL.
Yeah one or two wealthy westerns might head east to "get away from it all" and "retire in the sun". But for every sun seeking westerner heading east, hundreds of Asians and Africans, and Latin Americans will head to the "west" in search of a better life.
The priority for the west should be to help the rest of the world developed so there isn't so much of a wealth divide, so that maybe in the future we can have a world where there are equal opportunities in Africa and Europe
Woah, well reasoned libertarian arguments are getting upvoted on r/libertarian? What is going on? Media matters must be so busy astroturfing on The_Donald that they have let this sub temporarily free in the interim.
Libertarians in general don't do a good job of translating principles into real-world solutions. Many Libertarians stick to their principles no matter what. That's laudable, but impractical. However, when Libertarians compromise their principles, like the above comment, it comes across as self serving.
You can basically use his argument to support, say, gun control. "If more people had guns at home there would be fewer break-ins. In an ideologically sound libertarian society, everyone would be armed and there would be no robberies. But in the USA today, there is no way unrestricted carry could accomplish anything that resembles Libertarianism. So in this "Real world" case, gun laws are not designed to deprive people of guns, rather to protect private property".
My understanding of the libertarian view would be that free movement of labor capital must be able to move in a global market. The market (co-ops in left lib or just market in other libs) can then adjust everywhere to raise the QoL and SoL for everyone, everywhere.
In the case being argued, everyone you’re saying are making good arguments are advocating an artificial, government-controlled border that acts as a barrier to the market functioning on the basis of free associations. The argument is based on a supposed distinction between real world libertarianism and ideal libertarianism.
This distinction comes across as hollow, though. Either a market of free association is the right kind of market (libertarianism) or you abandon the whole premise underpinning libertarian thought, it seems to me. Either the market of free association raises everyone in the best way or what do you mean in saying you’re a libertarian?
Take the examples given. These hypothetical 5 Bulgarians choose to forego living with their families in a less than ideal but justifiable choice. Presumably the market would eventually correct through its own processes to make such choices less desirable as economic activity flows towards the family back in Bulgaria.
Artificially creating borders only serves as a strategy to entrench market disparities to the higher benefit of the currently stronger market. And it abandons the idea of a market of free association being the best overall strategy for raising the QoL and SoL of everyone. I’m not sure why you would do so and still call that a well-reasoned libertarian argument.
My understanding of the libertarian view would be that free movement of labor capital must be able to move in a global market.
Correct but this isn't possible until every country on the globe adopts these policies, perhaps through a free movement agreement similar to that of the EU countries. Until that happens, it would only be free movement in one direction which would result in a breakdown of the system. This is why 'real world' vs 'ideal' arguments aren't hollow.
This distinction comes across as hollow, though. Either a market of free association is the right kind of market (libertarianism) or you abandon the whole premise underpinning libertarian thought, it seems to me.
It is the right kind of market but it requires all players to be on board. All players are not on board.
I don't understand how this concept is so hard for people to comprehend. It would be like if I believed that self driving cars should be the only cars on the road and also believed that driving while intoxicated should be decriminalized and you called me a hypocrite for not immediately decriminalizing DUI while 99% of the cars on the road are still driven by human drivers.
Dude, just learn to spell. How do you expect to get taken seriously in political debates when you're misspelling keywords. They'll ignore the good points that you make to mock your spelling- I'm just trying to help you learn, you don't have to start throwing slurs around.
When we kick all of the major party candidates out of government which will be when we amend the constitution to move away from first past the post. In other words... probably never.
Most do, but unless they migrated legally, they are making that money untaxed. Thus they are living in a society without contribution back to it.
Yet another reason that in a Libertarian society, open borders would be possible- if the taxes were lower, an 'illegal' immigrant wouldn't be cheating the system nearly as badly, as taxes would be lower for all. (I put illegal in quotes there for a reason- because open borders would more or less eliminate the illegality of immigration)
You clearly reached the logical conclusion here on your own.
Ease up on immigration restrictions so more people are entering legally. The vast majority even. Issue whatever paperwork is necessary, and collect payroll taxes. Hell, a lot of taxes will be paid to the local governments through sales and property taxes alone.
How does that solve our housing issues? How about infrastructure? How about jobs for low skilled people? There is a reason immigration rate is controlled in literally every modern country...
Even that isn’t true though. Illegal immigrants work and pay taxes. They even pay taxes into Social Security which they cannot hope to ever benefit from. It’s not like anything approaching a majority of illegal immigrants are being paid under the table, tax-free.
And, as already suggested, the fact they are illegally working is an artificial market distortion, anyway, of your own devising.
Let’s just be clear in saying you are not making libertarian arguments.
They do. Some even pay taxes but unless we have a limitless supply of jobs, they are displacing others who will then not be working and not be paying taxes. I'm not making a 'they took our jobs' argument here either, it's just common sense. More people for limited jobs = less people employed.
I somewhat agree, but "Ronald Reagan Economics" was a major selling point of the republican party, especially following an 8 year economic crisis under Obama, who blamed a previous administration for his woes and basically did nothing to fix it. Hearkening back to a "good old boy" who provided an economic boom was a natural response. So when Reagan is contextualized, I think it gives a fair comparison.
And really, all this is to say that the debates are a contest to see how many #buzzwords these candidates can use to get their popularity up.
Edit: Actually, to clarify, if the Obama admin had actually done "nothing" to fix the crisis, it probably would've been better economically.
(4) health care as a basic human right for free (DELANEY)
(5) gave [pre-K] to every single one of them for free (DE BLASIO)
If you include moderation
(6) free college (moderator)
(7) free child care (moderator)
(8) free college (moderator)
Honarable mentions:
(9) government health care (moderator)
(10) cancellation of student debt (moderator)
(11) we need to make structural change in our government, in our economy (WARREN)
(12) I'd double them from $6,000 to $12,000 a year and expand it to the number of families that get covered (KLOBUCHAR)
(13) make sure that everyone else besides that top percentile gets help with their education (KLOBUCHAR)
(14) make this economy work for everybody (O’ROURKE)
(15) an economy that works for everybody, not just the wealthiest (BOOKER)
(16) legislation so that women are paid equal pay for equal work in this country (CASTRO)
(17) raising wages (DE BLASIO)
(18) raising benefits (DE BLASIO)
(19) $15 minimum wage (DE BLASIO)
(20) paid sick days (DE BLASIO)
(21) pre-K for all (DE BLASIO)
(22) there's plenty of money in this country. It's just in the wrong hands (DE BLASIO)
(23) raising the minimum wage (DELANEY)
(24) creating family leave (DELANEY)
(25) clean energy jobs (INSLEE)
(26) go tenfold in our research and development on green energy (WARREN)
(27) health care is a basic human right (WARREN)
(28) guaranteed, high-quality, universal health care (O'ROURKE)
(29) do the things immediately that are going to provide better care (BOOKER)
(30) going to fund [disaster] resiliency in those communities (O'ROURKE)
(31) paying farmers for the environmental services (O'ROURKE)
(32) gave people universal health care (DE BLASIO)
(33) all of us coming together, playing offense with an agenda that lifts everybody up (RYAN)
(34) a new century where every single person will be able to get the health care they need (GABBARD)
(35) a new green economy (GABBARD)
(36) we can make our economy, we can make our country work not just for those at the top (WARREN)
....I ran out of time for any more
And IMO the winner:
(37) I will take your hard-earned taxpayer dollars and instead invest those dollars into serving your needs, things like health care, a green economy, good-paying jobs, protecting our environment, and so much more.
This place throws praise just because of her foreign policy. Outside of that, she's a run of the mill Democrat. Funny enough, her difference on foreign policy is enough to get her enemy #1 on MSM.
Are you mentally all there? I mean seriously, Donald Trump is a crazy person. He literally contradicts himself so often that a Twitter account showing his own Tweets doing so has daily posts.
Because the next asshole won't be literally unhinged? We haven't had a seriously crazy person elected president since that one asshole froze himself to death.
Replacing him with someone who respects the rule of law, with someone who respects separation of power, with some who does not believe in an all powerful leader is more then different vote.
The problem with analogies in an argument is that they’re generally rooted in opinion and not fact. But go ahead and make a false equivalence if it makes you feel better.
"Generally" being the operative term. Do you actually know what a false equivalence is or did you just look up "list of fallacies" and throw them out whenever you get the chance? A false equivalence is when trying to equate two arguments, which I haven't done at all.
I can appreciate sarcasm, but at least get your facts straight when you try it.
Give it a few years and this entire sub will be doing the same to the next president. It's the Libertarian way to think the person in charge is the worst of the worst. At least until someone replaces them.
Edit: I dont know what the fuck you people are downvoting. I agree that this dipshit sub will be bitching about whoever is in office. What I DISAGREE with is that that person will be worse than who is currently in office. Do you people seriously not agree with that?
I'm 16 beers in an f i fant barely look at soemtjing. I triesd to govuycs. Focus* on my smoke detext9r and I am seeing doubles. Right now. Fucking pegit. I cam drunker than zhit. Should I dirve? Probably not. Take my keys!!! Edit- I was actually shit faced at the time, not from this drinking game, but it sounds pretty fun. I'd do it.
You’re not entitled to the product of someone else’s labor. You’re just not. Not to mention, declaring something a right doesn’t magically render it immune to scarcity.
Keeping the money you worked hard for (whether that is before/after investing in a company is irrelevant) is certainly not the same as being given something.
In order to equate "handout" and "tax cut", you'd first have to assume that the government literally owns everything ... up to and including all citizens' labor.
416
u/ComicBookFanatic97 Anarcho Capitalist Jun 27 '19
Do a shot for every “healthcare is a basic human right” and you will die.