CDZ A middle way between libertarianism and statism

[grbb]

Libertarian says that individuals should decide what's good or bad for him.
Statists would say that society, government, and people as a whole should decide what's legal or illegal.

Libertarian says that individuals deserve merit and demerit for his productivity.
Statists say that society should decide that.

You know, I am thinking of middle way.

Rather than saying something right should be fully for individuals or fully decided by government, why not somewhere in the middle. Those right, are decided, by local governments.

A very successful sample of these is US government. It has states and federal government. You don't like rules in one state you go to another state.

Some "regional state", be it province, states, countries, or whatever, can choose meritocracy, free market, bla bla bla. Call that state A.

Some other can choose socialism, command economy, bla bla bla.... Call that state B.

Who knows which one is right? I am a libertarian. I will think A is the way to go. But I may be wrong. After all, who am I, a mere one person, decides what's right for every body. Of course, the decision where my state will go should be decided by reasonable political process, such as voting, among populations/citizens.

Then what?

Say I am right. State A will prosper. State B will be less prosperous. Look at North Korea and South Korea for example. Then people in state B will want to move to people in state A. Many mexican want to move to US. Many north korean wants to move south.

Then?

Think about it. You are a citizen in state A. You vote for free market all the way. That means mexican will come and compete with you. So you got lower salary. You did the right thing. You vote for free market libertarian party. But you are worse off. Is it fair? Well, fair or not, it doesn't work that way. You won't vote for libertarian party. You will vote for Trump.

A libertarian will say you're an asshole. I would say you're reasonable. After all, why aren't Mexico as rich as you? That's because they're even less market friendly than yours.

There should be some rewards for citizens in society, that as a whole, collectively, choose the right thing. What's the reward is up to the local society to collectively decide. Currently it comes in the form of welfare, infrastructure, free protection, free cops, and job protection. I'd propose that some of that can be replaced with straight forward cash dividend for each citizen.

A person can come from state B to state A and enjoy higher salary. Economy of A will improve. And all citizens in A will get more cash dividend. That gives incentive for more citizens of A to allow more cheap workers/robotic workers, etc.

The same way, a citizen in state A can enjoy retirement in state B and sell his citizenship to a citizen in state B that wants to move.

It's like corporation. You choose who you partner up with. You reap dividend based on your collective success. If you want to own another corporation and relinquish ownership of your current corporation you just have to pay some price different.

In fact, the incentive doesn't have to be that big. Workers in US hate mexicans. However, I am pretty sure South Korean won't mind accepting many of their brothers from North Korea. Nor will west germany mind having influx of east germany.

So some racial/ethnic similarity may actually improves your individual happiness. And your state may provide it. Something that pure libertarian-ism will never accommodate. I don't know what to say about this. I do not like state sponsored racism.

But I think people like me should go to pure meritocratic countries like Singapore. Or tolerate whatever strange behavior my state have. We do know that many people like to hang out with those similar to them.

So we have it both way. There is no pure libertarian country. Currently individuals cannot choose a pure libertarian country. Fine. The world is not perfect. But under this arrangement, if you like drugs, you can go to a state that legalize it. If you hate drugs, you can go to a state that criminalize it.

Who knows whether legalizing drug is a good idea or not. However, the more well governed state will be more prosperous and attractive to more people. The valuation of their citizenship will go up. Other states will either mimic the better rules or move to that state and have to follow whatever terms the more successful state demand.

It's already happening. Most asian countries are westernized. And that's awesome for both asians and whites. Asians enjoy greater prosperity. White guys have somewhere to go and invest and build factory too in case their government start being asshole.

If US government raise minimum wage, then jobs can simply move to China. This is as libertarian as it goes. Yes, true libertarianism means there is no minimum wage. However, the fact that jobs can move to China means that incentive to raise minimum wage at US will be smaller either.

Donald Trump can tax import. However, that means US will actually make less money as China will trade with more and more nation. Isolationism isn't a good idea as we all know.

 

[WheelieAddict]

I am not a Libertarian, I agree with much of their stance of personal liberty but believe government is needed to regulate capitalism to an extent, and that some things like health care would be better administered by the govt than the free market, as although govt is not perfect, I believe the free market is worse in that capacity as profiting from sickness is immoral.

So I would want a strong federal govt. in certain ways that I consider important for national welfare, and would leave most everything else with the libertarian philosophy of personal freedom. Of course this is simplistic and there would be much to argue about with states rights, for example should a state be able to do whatever they want in industry or energy extraction? There should probably be at least some federal guidelines for that.

 

[grbb]

I see. The thing with health care is some states may think that it's awesome to have completely free market health care. Another state may think it's awesome to have completely nationalized, or maybe stationalized healthcare. Obviously it isn't fair to have one state to be taxed for government provided health care to pay for patient in another state.

Both have good argument. And actually that's the problem. There are good arguments for really really shitty strategy. I would say for free market health care, price would drop. That's because customers are price sensitive. US healthcare cost is way more expensive than Indonesian health care cost. I have no idea why and I've heard it's a lot to do with government actually making it more expensive.

The meat in Indonesia is way more expensive "despite" various government's "effort" to "reduce price". Simply opening import would fix the problem.

You want a strong federal government. I see. But then again, we can see that US too is a "state" among "states". You got Canada, and you got Mexico, and you got so many other countries in the world.

Here, instead of debating whether we should have health care or not, perhaps we should encourage a simpler immigration policy. Something along, you want citizenship? Pay up. You're a citizen, got paid. I would say that's a good enough step toward libertarianism.

So, an ideal world, is not far from the way we have right now. I think another think libertarians can do is to be a digital nomad. It's the closest thing you have to libertarianism.

 

[WheelieAddict]

I love capitalism it has made our world great. Capitalism is about profits though and I think profit motive should be removed from healthcare on moral grounds. That leaves the govt to administer it.

 

[norwegen]

I love capitalism it has made our world great. Capitalism is about profits though and I think profit motive should be removed from healthcare on moral grounds. That leaves the govt to administer it.

Profit is the moral incentive in the healthcare industry. The alternative is coercion, which is immoral.

 

[Votto]

Libertarian says that individuals should decide what's good or bad for him.
Statists would say that society, government, and people as a whole should decide what's legal or illegal.

Libertarian says that individuals deserve merit and demerit for his productivity.
Statists say that society should decide that.

You know, I am thinking of middle way.

Rather than saying something right should be fully for individuals or fully decided by government, why not somewhere in the middle. Those right, are decided, by local governments.

A very successful sample of these is US government. It has states and federal government. You don't like rules in one state you go to another state.

Some "regional state", be it province, states, countries, or whatever, can choose meritocracy, free market, bla bla bla. Call that state A.

Some other can choose socialism, command economy, bla bla bla.... Call that state B.

Who knows which one is right? I am a libertarian. I will think A is the way to go. But I may be wrong. After all, who am I, a mere one person, decides what's right for every body. Of course, the decision where my state will go should be decided by reasonable political process, such as voting, among populations/citizens.

Then what?

Say I am right. State A will prosper. State B will be less prosperous. Look at North Korea and South Korea for example. Then people in state B will want to move to people in state A. Many mexican want to move to US. Many north korean wants to move south.

Then?

Think about it. You are a citizen in state A. You vote for free market all the way. That means mexican will come and compete with you. So you got lower salary. You did the right thing. You vote for free market libertarian party. But you are worse off. Is it fair? Well, fair or not, it doesn't work that way. You won't vote for libertarian party. You will vote for Trump.

A libertarian will say you're an asshole. I would say you're reasonable. After all, why aren't Mexico as rich as you? That's because they're even less market friendly than yours.

There should be some rewards for citizens in society, that as a whole, collectively, choose the right thing. What's the reward is up to the local society to collectively decide. Currently it comes in the form of welfare, infrastructure, free protection, free cops, and job protection. I'd propose that some of that can be replaced with straight forward cash dividend for each citizen.

A person can come from state B to state A and enjoy higher salary. Economy of A will improve. And all citizens in A will get more cash dividend. That gives incentive for more citizens of A to allow more cheap workers/robotic workers, etc.

The same way, a citizen in state A can enjoy retirement in state B and sell his citizenship to a citizen in state B that wants to move.

It's like corporation. You choose who you partner up with. You reap dividend based on your collective success. If you want to own another corporation and relinquish ownership of your current corporation you just have to pay some price different.

In fact, the incentive doesn't have to be that big. Workers in US hate mexicans. However, I am pretty sure South Korean won't mind accepting many of their brothers from North Korea. Nor will west germany mind having influx of east germany.

So some racial/ethnic similarity may actually improves your individual happiness. And your state may provide it. Something that pure libertarian-ism will never accommodate. I don't know what to say about this. I do not like state sponsored racism.

But I think people like me should go to pure meritocratic countries like Singapore. Or tolerate whatever strange behavior my state have. We do know that many people like to hang out with those similar to them.

So we have it both way. There is no pure libertarian country. Currently individuals cannot choose a pure libertarian country. Fine. The world is not perfect. But under this arrangement, if you like drugs, you can go to a state that legalize it. If you hate drugs, you can go to a state that criminalize it.

Who knows whether legalizing drug is a good idea or not. However, the more well governed state will be more prosperous and attractive to more people. The valuation of their citizenship will go up. Other states will either mimic the better rules or move to that state and have to follow whatever terms the more successful state demand.

It's already happening. Most asian countries are westernized. And that's awesome for both asians and whites. Asians enjoy greater prosperity. White guys have somewhere to go and invest and build factory too in case their government start being asshole.

If US government raise minimum wage, then jobs can simply move to China. This is as libertarian as it goes. Yes, true libertarianism means there is no minimum wage. However, the fact that jobs can move to China means that incentive to raise minimum wage at US will be smaller either.

Donald Trump can tax import. However, that means US will actually make less money as China will trade with more and more nation. Isolationism isn't a good idea as we all know.

Human nature trends towards collectivism, that is, power constantly being funneled to the top.

That is the history of man and the US is no different. The US started out with the Articles of Confederation, but it did not empower the federal government enough. So then they drafted the Constitution, where the Federal government had the power it needed to function.

Then the Progs came and amended the Constitution with the Federal Income Tax and created a national bank. This empowered government even further. Now we are to the point that Congress has ceded pretty much all their power to the Executive branch via regulations instead of laws, and states now do the bidding of the Federal government or lose that much depended upon funding.

Now the Federal government just prints money at its leisure, cuz it's all monopoly money now, and throws it at every man, woman, and child on the planet so that they do their bidding or lose their much depended upon funding.

That is why I support the Article V movement. States need to rise back up and take back their power by amending the Constitution to fix what Progs destroyed when they amended it at the turn of the 20th century. The US is $20 trillion in debt with nothing to show for it other than a hopelessly divided nation, much like during the time of Lincoln.

Speaking of Lincoln, it was he who supported the Corwin Act, which would have made slavery Constitutional if only the Southern states would come back to the union. Luckily, they declined so he sent in the troops.

That is the power of collectivism. You will sell your very soul just to gain power over other states. That is why the only way states get back their power in a lawful and civil manner is through the Article V movement.

 

[Votto]

I love capitalism it has made our world great. Capitalism is about profits though and I think profit motive should be removed from healthcare on moral grounds. That leaves the govt to administer it.

Profit is the moral incentive in the healthcare industry. The alternative is coercion, which is immoral.

I think what Dims want is for American health care into the VA.

That way, those that are at deaths door or those who are very sick get sidelined and left to die cuz they are too expensive to treat. We saw this in the VA in Arizona where patients were put on secret no treat lists.

Soon Obamacare will go belly up, which it was designed to do, and we will have socialized health care like those in the VA.

 

[WheelieAddict]

I love capitalism it has made our world great. Capitalism is about profits though and I think profit motive should be removed from healthcare on moral grounds. That leaves the govt to administer it.

Profit is the moral incentive in the healthcare industry. The alternative is coercion, which is immoral.

Profit is a moral incentive?

 

[norwegen]

I love capitalism it has made our world great. Capitalism is about profits though and I think profit motive should be removed from healthcare on moral grounds. That leaves the govt to administer it.

Profit is the moral incentive in the healthcare industry. The alternative is coercion, which is immoral.

Profit is a moral incentive?

Indeed, when all parties act as free agents.

 

[WheelieAddict]

I love capitalism it has made our world great. Capitalism is about profits though and I think profit motive should be removed from healthcare on moral grounds. That leaves the govt to administer it.

Profit is the moral incentive in the healthcare industry. The alternative is coercion, which is immoral.

I think what Dims want is for American health care into the VA.

That way, those that are at deaths door or those who are very sick get sidelined and left to die cuz they are too expensive to treat. We saw this in the VA in Arizona where patients were put on secret no treat lists.

Soon Obamacare will go belly up, which it was designed to do, and we will have socialized health care like those in the VA.

Libertarians are always interesting. So the VA and our military should be for profit as well correct?

 

[WheelieAddict]

I love capitalism it has made our world great. Capitalism is about profits though and I think profit motive should be removed from healthcare on moral grounds. That leaves the govt to administer it.

Profit is the moral incentive in the healthcare industry. The alternative is coercion, which is immoral.

Profit is a moral incentive?

Indeed, when all parties act as free agents.

Should there be any regulations, or would you an alternative healer for you cancer? No license but someone told me he cures people sometimes.

 

[norwegen]

I love capitalism it has made our world great. Capitalism is about profits though and I think profit motive should be removed from healthcare on moral grounds. That leaves the govt to administer it.

Profit is the moral incentive in the healthcare industry. The alternative is coercion, which is immoral.

Profit is a moral incentive?

Indeed, when all parties act as free agents.

Should there be any regulations, or would you an alternative healer for you cancer? No license but someone told me he cures people sometimes.

Laissez-faire is self-regulating. Competition is the anodyne to coercion, and absolutely is moral.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Since Votto isn't answering he seems to be for a free market military, we can save money by using russian units and maybe a few american ones here and there to try and keep that patriotic thing going. Also there is no VA buy health insurance wherever. That will be a $10,000 dedutable since as a soldier you are in a high risk profession.

 

[WheelieAddict]

You all didn't think this through did you.

 

[grbb]

How regulated doctor should be?

No clear answer.

Let the market regulate? Too many would die before government step in. Let government regulate and we will have an effective kartel.

Again, this is not something that free market take care by itself. At least not yet. I know libertarians would theorize about private police, private army, private protectors, bla bla. Could work. Not yet.

But a bunch of local states competing against each other? That's as good as private army, private police, private protectors, private regulators, etc.

 

[grbb]

And no. So many people say that profit motives should be eliminated from healthcare, politics, court, bla bla bla bla....

on "moral ground"

Again. May work. May not.

Humans are always selfish. It's our nature. What happens when you eliminate selfish motives is that people are still secretly selfish.

 

[WheelieAddict]

And no. So many people say that profit motives should be eliminated from healthcare, politics, court, bla bla bla bla....

on "moral ground"

Again. May work. May not.

Humans are always selfish. It's our nature. What happens when you eliminate selfish motives is that people are still secretly selfish.

I'm a bit confused by your reply, I'm going to guess you disagree with me that health care should not be for profit.

 

[Votto]

I love capitalism it has made our world great. Capitalism is about profits though and I think profit motive should be removed from healthcare on moral grounds. That leaves the govt to administer it.

Profit is the moral incentive in the healthcare industry. The alternative is coercion, which is immoral.

I think what Dims want is for American health care into the VA.

That way, those that are at deaths door or those who are very sick get sidelined and left to die cuz they are too expensive to treat. We saw this in the VA in Arizona where patients were put on secret no treat lists.

Soon Obamacare will go belly up, which it was designed to do, and we will have socialized health care like those in the VA.

Libertarians are always interesting. So the VA and our military should be for profit as well correct?

The military is a collectivist invention. The idea is to centralize power around one figure who takes in all the money and is able to draft whom they will to fight.

This is why the great Progs Wilson and FDR had to take steps to create a collectivist nation. It was to help create a collectivist military machine that was seen in Europe from the likes of Hitler and company.

The only problem is, be careful of becoming what you are fighting. The US has troops in over 70 countries around the world. Hitler never could boast as much.

As for genocide, the US has killed off over 50 million unborn children.

Meanwhile, you can pay a fine for thousands of dollars for destroying an eagles egg cuz they are protected.

It's sheer insanity.

 

[WheelieAddict]

I love capitalism it has made our world great. Capitalism is about profits though and I think profit motive should be removed from healthcare on moral grounds. That leaves the govt to administer it.

Profit is the moral incentive in the healthcare industry. The alternative is coercion, which is immoral.

I think what Dims want is for American health care into the VA.

That way, those that are at deaths door or those who are very sick get sidelined and left to die cuz they are too expensive to treat. We saw this in the VA in Arizona where patients were put on secret no treat lists.

Soon Obamacare will go belly up, which it was designed to do, and we will have socialized health care like those in the VA.

Libertarians are always interesting. So the VA and our military should be for profit as well correct?

The military is a collectivist invention. The idea is to centralize power around one figure who takes in all the money and is able to draft whom they will to fight.

This is why the great Progs Wilson and FDR had to take steps to create a collectivist nation. It was to help create a collectivist military machine that was seen in Europe from the likes of Hitler and company.

The only problem is, be careful of becoming what you are fighting. The US has troops in over 70 countries around the world. Hitler never could boast as much.

As for genocide, the US has killed off over 50 million unborn children.

Meanwhile, you can pay a fine for thousands of dollars for destroying an eagles egg cuz they are protected.

Cool the russians fight cheap we can use them for our military, Americans ask for too much money and benefits.

 

[Votto]

I love capitalism it has made our world great. Capitalism is about profits though and I think profit motive should be removed from healthcare on moral grounds. That leaves the govt to administer it.

Profit is the moral incentive in the healthcare industry. The alternative is coercion, which is immoral.

I think what Dims want is for American health care into the VA.

That way, those that are at deaths door or those who are very sick get sidelined and left to die cuz they are too expensive to treat. We saw this in the VA in Arizona where patients were put on secret no treat lists.

Soon Obamacare will go belly up, which it was designed to do, and we will have socialized health care like those in the VA.

Libertarians are always interesting. So the VA and our military should be for profit as well correct?

The military is a collectivist invention. The idea is to centralize power around one figure who takes in all the money and is able to draft whom they will to fight.

This is why the great Progs Wilson and FDR had to take steps to create a collectivist nation. It was to help create a collectivist military machine that was seen in Europe from the likes of Hitler and company.

The only problem is, be careful of becoming what you are fighting. The US has troops in over 70 countries around the world. Hitler never could boast as much.

As for genocide, the US has killed off over 50 million unborn children.

Meanwhile, you can pay a fine for thousands of dollars for destroying an eagles egg cuz they are protected.

Cool the russians fight cheap we can use them for our military, Americans ask for too much money and benefits.

What would be nice is to only create the collectivist beast in times when the nation was threatened instead of perpetual war, which is what the US has had since the days of Wilson and FDR.

Instead, they don't even declare war anymore. In fact, Obama did not consult Congress for his war in Libya that was in violation of the War Powers Act. His defense was that it was not really a war. Well then, tell that to Gaddafi.