10 ms·

The problem with his thesis is most rational disagreements in government revolve around things that are either impossible or can only be done by the government.

The problem with his thesis is most rational disagreements in government revolve around things that are either impossible or can only be done by the government. So inefficiency isn’t really the issue. Take health care as a perfect example. Having studied the issue I personally think it’s impossible to have quality universal health care. Others disagree. But what we can both agree on is that only Government could do it if it is possible. So the question isn’t inefficiency because both sides concede government is inefficient. But if government is the only power that can do it than inefficiency isn’t the issue. The conflict lies in what can be accomplished not in whether government could do it efficiently. (People like me would argue the question is whether the private sector could provide better quality health care to more people but as long as the other side believes universal health care is possible the point is moot to them)

drcode 16y ago
> But what we can both agree on is that only Government could do it if it is possible. How so? The government could mandate health insurance, and provide a health care option for those who choose not to get it from somewhere else. If enforced, this would make health care (of some sort) universal to everyone. > So the question isn’t inefficiency because both sides concede government is inefficient I agree with you that this is a central weakness in John C's argument: Libertarians (like myself) spend a lot of time trying to convince others that the government is inefficient, when the argument can only be resolved by quantifying exactly _how_ inefficient it is, whether the costs override the benefits. This is a much harder proposition to prove, though I suspect that John C is right that the costs almost always are greater than the benefits.
- secretasiandan 16y ago
  Re : costs almost always are greater than the benefits Perhaps you can argue this on a case by case basis, but do you think this is still true if you have to take or leave all service at once? As evidence that the costs are worth the benefits I submit the fact that you (perhaps not you in particular but any citizen of a country who makes this claim) haven't renounced your citizenship for that of another, better cost-benefit ratio, country. Incidentally, I think that if many government functions were privatized you would be paying a (much) higher rate than you are now since you've already shown the willingness to pay the current rate. That combined with the fact that there rarely if ever is competition in large scale services like those the government provides. As evidence, take a look at any large scale private contractor industry like construction or defense/aerospace.
  - dpatru 16y ago
    There's something offensive to me about the idea of renouncing citizenship to protect your own property. It's like abandoning your house and moving away to avoid burglaries. I have a right to my own labor and property. The thieves and robbers should be the ones to leave.
    - secretasiandan 16y ago
      Does that mean you never have a similar experience doing business with private companies? I think booking a hotel room or flight can be a comparable experience if it goes poorly.
  - drcode 16y ago
    > As evidence that the costs are worth the benefits I submit the fact that you haven't renounced your citizenship... That's actually a good argument. Though of course I'd incur huge expenses moving to another country than the one I was born in (new language, no contacts, maybe fewer legal rights, etc) so it only works up to a degree. > I think that if many government functions were privatized you would be paying a (much) higher rate than you are now since you've already shown the willingness to pay the current rate. That makes no sense... Are you saying I wouldn't buy an umbrella for $2.99 at Walmart because I bought an umbrella for $12.99 at a mom-and-pop store before Walmart came to town?
    - secretasiandan 16y ago
      The huge expenses you incur for moving are part of what the private companies would extract from you. While the company may be able to "efficiently" provide you a service for for 1/10th the equivalent government price, they will charge you something like 95% of the "total cost" of you switching, whatever that may be. The issue is that you won't have 10 or 20 providers for roads, water, electricity, landlines. Anything where infrastructure costs are high or where its nearly impossible for two providers to have identical, commoditized services as with roads will not be competitive. For things like getting a passport, driver's license, etc you will have some competition, but there are plenty of private companies that provide crappy service as well. How many people who buy cheaper merchandise later think "what a piece of crap"?
eru 16y ago
> Take health care as a perfect example. Having studied the issue I personally think it’s impossible to have quality universal health care. Just out of curiousity: Do you mean impossible in the US, or in general?
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  In general. At least in the terms most people define Universal Healthcare. The problem with Universal Healthcare is you're taking a limited resource (doctors, medicines, equipment, etc...) and trying to treat it like an unlimited resource. I mean, In the U.S. there isn't a big problem with doctors being unemployed or an overflow of surplus meds right now yet universal healthcare is unquestionably going to add a lot of new customers to the existing health system. If that's the case in the U.S. imagine countries like China or poor African countries with even fewer resources. I'm not happy with that reality from a humanitarian perspective but I don't see how it isn't the case. Being a doctor is hard and there are only so many raw materials out there so I don't see a way around it. (But the important point here is that it is debatable and that's where the problem comes in)
  - martythemaniak 16y ago
    > "The problem with Universal Healthcare is you're taking a limited resource (doctors, medicines, equipment, etc...) and trying to treat it like an unlimited resource" No, that is a lie. What Universal Healthcare is about is about a better distribution mechanism. The market is a mechanism for efficiently distributing a limited resource based on people's ability to pay. Universal healthcare aims to distribute a limited resource based on need not ability to pay. Proponents like this because it is fairer and doesn't leave people suffering. Capiche?
    - TomOfTTB 16y ago
      I'm sorry but your argument boils down to you not wanting to see the other side of the debate. What you're saying doesn't change the fact that the resource is limited. The question is can the limited resource be stretched to accommodated everyone and if so can government create a more efficient distribution method to harness that resource. Because if either of those things aren't true than your "need-based" distribution is going to leave as many if not more people without treatment (it will just be richer people) That's the debate: Is it possible to give high quality health care to everyone? You stating that there are enough resources as a certainty is just arrogance on your part.
Dove 16y ago
But what we can both agree on is that only Government could do it if it is possible. Hell no. A combination of private charity and vigorous markets have provided quality universal food and entertainment. Government is presently attempting quality universal housing and education -- and its failing miserably on the "quality" point, and ain't doing that great on the "universal". If quality universal health care comes from anywhere, it will be from Silicon Valley & Red Cross. The most government will ever do is mandate it, try to implement it, fail, and claim it's doing its best and just needs a little more money.
- decode 16y ago
  A combination of private charity and vigorous markets have provided quality universal food and entertainment. I can't think of a single country where there is no government food assistance and no one starving to death. Where are you thinking of?
  - Dove 16y ago
    I was thinking of the US. I'm aware that the government helps on the food front, but I don't think that's why food is abundantly available and cheap. Folks who have nothing go to soup kitchens before they apply for EBT, and they eat pretty well. Some might disagree that EBT is not a major contributor, though. Point retracted. I guess I just have 'entertainment'.
    - foldr 16y ago
      I think you're just misinformed about this issue. http://feedingamerica.org/faces-of-hunger/hunger-in-america-2010/hunger-report-2010.aspx http://feedingamerica.org/faces-of-hunger/hunger-in-america-...
- bad_user 16y ago
  About universal health care, go to France sometimes.
- zzzeek 16y ago
  people below the poverty line in the US consume extremely low quality food. And most wouldn't even have that if it weren't for government food stamps.

drcode 16y ago

> But what we can both agree on is that only Government could do it if it is possible. How so? The government could mandate health insurance, and provide a health care option for those who choose not to get it from somewhere else. If enforced, this would make health care (of some sort) universal to everyone. > So the question isn’t inefficiency because both sides concede government is inefficient I agree with you that this is a central weakness in John C's argument: Libertarians (like myself) spend a lot of time trying to convince others that the government is inefficient, when the argument can only be resolved by quantifying exactly _how_ inefficient it is, whether the costs override the benefits. This is a much harder proposition to prove, though I suspect that John C is right that the costs almost always are greater than the benefits.

secretasiandan 16y ago
Re : costs almost always are greater than the benefits Perhaps you can argue this on a case by case basis, but do you think this is still true if you have to take or leave all service at once? As evidence that the costs are worth the benefits I submit the fact that you (perhaps not you in particular but any citizen of a country who makes this claim) haven't renounced your citizenship for that of another, better cost-benefit ratio, country. Incidentally, I think that if many government functions were privatized you would be paying a (much) higher rate than you are now since you've already shown the willingness to pay the current rate. That combined with the fact that there rarely if ever is competition in large scale services like those the government provides. As evidence, take a look at any large scale private contractor industry like construction or defense/aerospace.
- dpatru 16y ago
  There's something offensive to me about the idea of renouncing citizenship to protect your own property. It's like abandoning your house and moving away to avoid burglaries. I have a right to my own labor and property. The thieves and robbers should be the ones to leave.
  - secretasiandan 16y ago
    Does that mean you never have a similar experience doing business with private companies? I think booking a hotel room or flight can be a comparable experience if it goes poorly.
- drcode 16y ago
  > As evidence that the costs are worth the benefits I submit the fact that you haven't renounced your citizenship... That's actually a good argument. Though of course I'd incur huge expenses moving to another country than the one I was born in (new language, no contacts, maybe fewer legal rights, etc) so it only works up to a degree. > I think that if many government functions were privatized you would be paying a (much) higher rate than you are now since you've already shown the willingness to pay the current rate. That makes no sense... Are you saying I wouldn't buy an umbrella for $2.99 at Walmart because I bought an umbrella for $12.99 at a mom-and-pop store before Walmart came to town?
  - secretasiandan 16y ago
    The huge expenses you incur for moving are part of what the private companies would extract from you. While the company may be able to "efficiently" provide you a service for for 1/10th the equivalent government price, they will charge you something like 95% of the "total cost" of you switching, whatever that may be. The issue is that you won't have 10 or 20 providers for roads, water, electricity, landlines. Anything where infrastructure costs are high or where its nearly impossible for two providers to have identical, commoditized services as with roads will not be competitive. For things like getting a passport, driver's license, etc you will have some competition, but there are plenty of private companies that provide crappy service as well. How many people who buy cheaper merchandise later think "what a piece of crap"?

eru 16y ago

> Take health care as a perfect example. Having studied the issue I personally think it’s impossible to have quality universal health care. Just out of curiousity: Do you mean impossible in the US, or in general?

TomOfTTB 16y ago
In general. At least in the terms most people define Universal Healthcare. The problem with Universal Healthcare is you're taking a limited resource (doctors, medicines, equipment, etc...) and trying to treat it like an unlimited resource. I mean, In the U.S. there isn't a big problem with doctors being unemployed or an overflow of surplus meds right now yet universal healthcare is unquestionably going to add a lot of new customers to the existing health system. If that's the case in the U.S. imagine countries like China or poor African countries with even fewer resources. I'm not happy with that reality from a humanitarian perspective but I don't see how it isn't the case. Being a doctor is hard and there are only so many raw materials out there so I don't see a way around it. (But the important point here is that it is debatable and that's where the problem comes in)
- martythemaniak 16y ago
  > "The problem with Universal Healthcare is you're taking a limited resource (doctors, medicines, equipment, etc...) and trying to treat it like an unlimited resource" No, that is a lie. What Universal Healthcare is about is about a better distribution mechanism. The market is a mechanism for efficiently distributing a limited resource based on people's ability to pay. Universal healthcare aims to distribute a limited resource based on need not ability to pay. Proponents like this because it is fairer and doesn't leave people suffering. Capiche?
  - TomOfTTB 16y ago
    I'm sorry but your argument boils down to you not wanting to see the other side of the debate. What you're saying doesn't change the fact that the resource is limited. The question is can the limited resource be stretched to accommodated everyone and if so can government create a more efficient distribution method to harness that resource. Because if either of those things aren't true than your "need-based" distribution is going to leave as many if not more people without treatment (it will just be richer people) That's the debate: Is it possible to give high quality health care to everyone? You stating that there are enough resources as a certainty is just arrogance on your part.

Dove 16y ago

But what we can both agree on is that only Government could do it if it is possible. Hell no. A combination of private charity and vigorous markets have provided quality universal food and entertainment. Government is presently attempting quality universal housing and education -- and its failing miserably on the "quality" point, and ain't doing that great on the "universal". If quality universal health care comes from anywhere, it will be from Silicon Valley & Red Cross. The most government will ever do is mandate it, try to implement it, fail, and claim it's doing its best and just needs a little more money.

decode 16y ago
A combination of private charity and vigorous markets have provided quality universal food and entertainment. I can't think of a single country where there is no government food assistance and no one starving to death. Where are you thinking of?
- Dove 16y ago
  I was thinking of the US. I'm aware that the government helps on the food front, but I don't think that's why food is abundantly available and cheap. Folks who have nothing go to soup kitchens before they apply for EBT, and they eat pretty well. Some might disagree that EBT is not a major contributor, though. Point retracted. I guess I just have 'entertainment'.
  - foldr 16y ago
    I think you're just misinformed about this issue. http://feedingamerica.org/faces-of-hunger/hunger-in-america-2010/hunger-report-2010.aspx http://feedingamerica.org/faces-of-hunger/hunger-in-america-...
bad_user 16y ago
About universal health care, go to France sometimes.
zzzeek 16y ago
people below the poverty line in the US consume extremely low quality food. And most wouldn't even have that if it weren't for government food stamps.