4 ms·

The hospital example he ends with is strange. It's my understanding that under libertarian philosophy, children would not have access to any care in that socie

The hospital example he ends with is strange. It's my understanding that under libertarian philosophy, children would not have access to any care in that society unless their parents happened to be able to afford it.

tokenadult 15y ago
It's my understanding that under libertarian philosophy, children would not have access to any care in that society unless their parents happened to be able to afford it. Libertarians are very happy to see philanthropists devoting their own money to helpful causes. They are also happy for voluntary private associations to work for their mutual benefit. They can point to many examples of people doing just that in history. http://www.amazon.com/Market-Education-History-Studies-Philosophy/dp/1560004088/ http://www.amazon.com/Market-Education-History-Studies-Philo... Indeed, historically, most hospitals that treat poor children and most schools that educate poor children were founded without government support, all over the world.
- doomlaser 15y ago
  Before the public education system in the United States, schools were localized and constrained to the wealthy class. Edit: Why am I being downvoted? Am I wrong?
  - alan-crowe 15y ago
    You are indeed wrong > High and Ellig sum up the experience of the 18th and 19th centuries by noting that "the available evidence strongly indicates that Americans of the period took an active interest in education. ... The private supply was extensive, not only in the number of children served but in the spectrum of social classes involved." http://www.sntp.net/education/school_state_3.htm http://www.sntp.net/education/school_state_3.htm
    - doomlaser 15y ago
      I'm not so sure that's true. "Still, the opportunity to attend schools was limited. Formal schooling was largely restricted to those who could afford to pay. Even "free" schools often required payment of tuition, and primary schools required entering students to be literate, barring children who had not been taught to read by their parents." Here's a link with period testimonials from actual early 19th century private school instructors. http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=38 http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cf...
- doomlaser 15y ago
  OK, so a poor child in a libertarian society would only receive care if his parents could afford to pay for it at a private hospital, or if he happened to have access to a theoretical charity hospital that a theoretical philanthropist may or may not have chartered. You can't get around the fact that the basic tenets of libertarianism rank the right for the rich to live in luxury above the right of poor people to obtain basic needs.
  - JoshTriplett 15y ago
    Ignoring your choice of phrasing for the moment, you've still missed half the story there: they also want to remove all the barriers that make it difficult for the poor to become rich, as well as eliminating the existing programs that remove all motivation to want to. (Consider, for instance, the common case where unemployment pays more than getting a job; people have learned how to satisfy the unemployment office without actually trying to get a job. Beware what you incentivize.) Regarding your choice of phrase: "the rich" versus "poor people" makes the former impersonal and the latter "people". Similarly, "live in luxury" versus "basic needs" misses the entire point.
    - danssig 15y ago
      >remove all the barriers that make it difficult for the poor to become rich So... they want to remove barriers to market entry and the overwhelming power of corporations?

tokenadult 15y ago

It's my understanding that under libertarian philosophy, children would not have access to any care in that society unless their parents happened to be able to afford it. Libertarians are very happy to see philanthropists devoting their own money to helpful causes. They are also happy for voluntary private associations to work for their mutual benefit. They can point to many examples of people doing just that in history. http://www.amazon.com/Market-Education-History-Studies-Philosophy/dp/1560004088/ http://www.amazon.com/Market-Education-History-Studies-Philo... Indeed, historically, most hospitals that treat poor children and most schools that educate poor children were founded without government support, all over the world.

doomlaser 15y ago
Before the public education system in the United States, schools were localized and constrained to the wealthy class. Edit: Why am I being downvoted? Am I wrong?
- alan-crowe 15y ago
  You are indeed wrong > High and Ellig sum up the experience of the 18th and 19th centuries by noting that "the available evidence strongly indicates that Americans of the period took an active interest in education. ... The private supply was extensive, not only in the number of children served but in the spectrum of social classes involved." http://www.sntp.net/education/school_state_3.htm http://www.sntp.net/education/school_state_3.htm
  - doomlaser 15y ago
    I'm not so sure that's true. "Still, the opportunity to attend schools was limited. Formal schooling was largely restricted to those who could afford to pay. Even "free" schools often required payment of tuition, and primary schools required entering students to be literate, barring children who had not been taught to read by their parents." Here's a link with period testimonials from actual early 19th century private school instructors. http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=38 http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cf...
doomlaser 15y ago
OK, so a poor child in a libertarian society would only receive care if his parents could afford to pay for it at a private hospital, or if he happened to have access to a theoretical charity hospital that a theoretical philanthropist may or may not have chartered. You can't get around the fact that the basic tenets of libertarianism rank the right for the rich to live in luxury above the right of poor people to obtain basic needs.
- JoshTriplett 15y ago
  Ignoring your choice of phrasing for the moment, you've still missed half the story there: they also want to remove all the barriers that make it difficult for the poor to become rich, as well as eliminating the existing programs that remove all motivation to want to. (Consider, for instance, the common case where unemployment pays more than getting a job; people have learned how to satisfy the unemployment office without actually trying to get a job. Beware what you incentivize.) Regarding your choice of phrase: "the rich" versus "poor people" makes the former impersonal and the latter "people". Similarly, "live in luxury" versus "basic needs" misses the entire point.
  - danssig 15y ago
    >remove all the barriers that make it difficult for the poor to become rich So... they want to remove barriers to market entry and the overwhelming power of corporations?