Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: LSD Libertarians  (Read 12400 times)

Hank Rearden

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 8615
  • Zurich is stained
    • View Profile
Re: LSD Libertarians
« Reply #230 on: July 17, 2007, 02:19:00 PM »
Not sure if it has been addressed, but I'd still like someone to resolve what I see as a discrepancy in what Graphite/Andrew/etc are saying...how can you have a service enshrined as a "right" (healthcare in this instance) without ordering one set of people to serve another set of people?  What if all doctors just decided not to practice medicine anymore?  The "right" to their services could no longer exist.  Mind you, I'm not presenting this as a realistic possibility--I just think there is a problem in how you're defining the concept of "rights."  Normally you would think of a right as a restriction on others, i.e., I have a right to privacy, right to property, etc.  You wouldn't think of a right as a claim on another person's work, i.e., I have a right to healthcare, a right to vacation, etc.  Saying people have a right to things necessary to live (as I think Keno did) doesn't solve the problem either since you would still be defining rights in terms of demands on the works of others.    
CLS '10

The appropriateness of Perpetua would probably depend on the tone of the writing.  When I used it, I (half playfully) thought the extra space made the words sort of resonate.

Captain

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3366
    • View Profile
    • http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/5526/thumbid5.jpg
Re: LSD Libertarians
« Reply #231 on: July 17, 2007, 02:21:56 PM »
In response to the earlier comparison to auto insurance, I would say that when you hit another driver and your rate goes up, it is your own fault for being a poor driver.
VIP.

thedudebro

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: LSD Libertarians
« Reply #232 on: July 17, 2007, 02:25:09 PM »
joseph stiglitz - globalization and its discontents. read.

Captain

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3366
    • View Profile
    • http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/5526/thumbid5.jpg
Re: LSD Libertarians
« Reply #233 on: July 17, 2007, 02:29:12 PM »
Not sure if it has been addressed, but I'd still like someone to resolve what I see as a discrepancy in what Graphite/Andrew/etc are saying...how can you have a service enshrined as a "right" (healthcare in this instance) without ordering one set of people to serve another set of people?  What if all doctors just decided not to practice medicine anymore?  The "right" to their services could no longer exist.  Mind you, I'm not presenting this as a realistic possibility--I just think there is a problem in how you're defining the concept of "rights."  Normally you would think of a right as a restriction on others, i.e., I have a right to privacy, right to property, etc.  You wouldn't think of a right as a claim on another person's work, i.e., I have a right to healthcare, a right to vacation, etc.  Saying people have a right to things necessary to live (as I think Keno did) doesn't solve the problem either since you would still be defining rights in terms of demands on the works of others.    

Good point. I believe that MOST doctors get into the field for altruistic purposes, rather than monetary, but money does have an effect, and the single-payer system would limit what the doctors are able to earn. When you limit the field in that way, you risk pushing people out of the field.
VIP.

GraphiteDirigible

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1163
  • Hey there fancypants.
    • View Profile
Re: LSD Libertarians
« Reply #234 on: July 17, 2007, 02:29:26 PM »
In response to the earlier comparison to auto insurance, I would say that when you hit another driver and your rate goes up, it is your own fault for being a poor driver.

True. But the outcome would be the same. Raised rates/likelihood of being dropped.
Happy colored marbles that are rolling in my head
I put 'em back in the jacket of the one I love
Carry that velvet sack full of pretty colored marbles
And I'll ask you for 'em back, when I'm ready and done

awesomepossum

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 900
  • Playing possum can go too far
    • View Profile
Re: LSD Libertarians
« Reply #235 on: July 17, 2007, 02:32:36 PM »
So the idea is that if doctors were paid a bit less, doctors would quit being doctors?  For what?

I don't think so.  Even if a few did quit, I'm sure that the system would quickly equilibrate.
U.Michigan 2011 (deferred from '10)


GraphiteDirigible

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1163
  • Hey there fancypants.
    • View Profile
Re: LSD Libertarians
« Reply #236 on: July 17, 2007, 02:34:38 PM »
Not sure if it has been addressed, but I'd still like someone to resolve what I see as a discrepancy in what Graphite/Andrew/etc are saying...how can you have a service enshrined as a "right" (healthcare in this instance) without ordering one set of people to serve another set of people?  What if all doctors just decided not to practice medicine anymore?  The "right" to their services could no longer exist.  Mind you, I'm not presenting this as a realistic possibility--I just think there is a problem in how you're defining the concept of "rights."  Normally you would think of a right as a restriction on others, i.e., I have a right to privacy, right to property, etc.  You wouldn't think of a right as a claim on another person's work, i.e., I have a right to healthcare, a right to vacation, etc.  Saying people have a right to things necessary to live (as I think Keno did) doesn't solve the problem either since you would still be defining rights in terms of demands on the works of others.     

Okay. What if all police decided to stop being police, or the same for firefighters, public defenders, etc.? All of these give services as a right and if all stopped performing those services somebody would be forced to.
Are you saying you are against any and all kinds of public service which is given as a right of being a citizen?
Happy colored marbles that are rolling in my head
I put 'em back in the jacket of the one I love
Carry that velvet sack full of pretty colored marbles
And I'll ask you for 'em back, when I'm ready and done

Hank Rearden

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 8615
  • Zurich is stained
    • View Profile
Re: LSD Libertarians
« Reply #237 on: July 17, 2007, 02:37:05 PM »
Not sure if it has been addressed, but I'd still like someone to resolve what I see as a discrepancy in what Graphite/Andrew/etc are saying...how can you have a service enshrined as a "right" (healthcare in this instance) without ordering one set of people to serve another set of people?  What if all doctors just decided not to practice medicine anymore?  The "right" to their services could no longer exist.  Mind you, I'm not presenting this as a realistic possibility--I just think there is a problem in how you're defining the concept of "rights."  Normally you would think of a right as a restriction on others, i.e., I have a right to privacy, right to property, etc.  You wouldn't think of a right as a claim on another person's work, i.e., I have a right to healthcare, a right to vacation, etc.  Saying people have a right to things necessary to live (as I think Keno did) doesn't solve the problem either since you would still be defining rights in terms of demands on the works of others.    

Good point. I believe that MOST doctors get into the field for altruistic purposes, rather than monetary, but money does have an effect, and the single-payer system would limit what the doctors are able to earn. When you limit the field in that way, you risk pushing people out of the field.

That's not what I'm saying.  While we guess that there would be fewer doctors if doctors are paid less, I don't really care to prove that point or argue about it.  I'm saying that it is problematic to classify the services of a group of people as a "right."  A service is not a right.  


Okay. What if all police decided to stop being police, or the same for firefighters, public defenders, etc.? All of these give services as a right and if all stopped performing those services somebody would be forced to.
Are you saying you are against any and all kinds of public service which is given as a right of being a citizen?

Those are all problematic as well, but when it comes to police I think there is a difference in that the service police provide could only rightly be provided by government--monopoly on legitimate use of force and all that. 
CLS '10

The appropriateness of Perpetua would probably depend on the tone of the writing.  When I used it, I (half playfully) thought the extra space made the words sort of resonate.

The F-cktard Express

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: LSD Libertarians
« Reply #238 on: July 17, 2007, 02:49:32 PM »

Those are all problematic as well, but when it comes to police I think there is a difference in that the service police provide could only rightly be provided by government--monopoly on legitimate use of force and all that. 

Your problem here is one of perspective - you say that the difference is that one service, the police, could only be rightly provided by government, yet for some reason you think that the other service, health care, couldn't or shouldn't.

You don't explain why. But let me help you - you don't need to. You're just used to police being a function of the state, and health care being a private and individualized endeavor. Try thinking a little outside the box.

Captain Emory has still dodged every question asked of him.

GraphiteDirigible

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1163
  • Hey there fancypants.
    • View Profile
Re: LSD Libertarians
« Reply #239 on: July 17, 2007, 02:58:13 PM »

That's not what I'm saying.  While we guess that there would be fewer doctors if doctors are paid less, I don't really care to prove that point or argue about it.  I'm saying that it is problematic to classify the services of a group of people as a "right."  A service is not a right. 


Those are all problematic as well, but when it comes to police I think there is a difference in that the service police provide could only rightly be provided by government--monopoly on legitimate use of force and all that. 

A) Except when it is.

B) So police is not completely congruous. But, what about the others (include teachers, judges, and prosecutors as well)? And on the basic notion of a public service that concept applies. We would have to force them to do it if everyone decided they didn't want to.
Happy colored marbles that are rolling in my head
I put 'em back in the jacket of the one I love
Carry that velvet sack full of pretty colored marbles
And I'll ask you for 'em back, when I'm ready and done