• HANN@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    It seems like you have an interesting definition of liberty. Liberty (to me) is freedom from authority. Libertarians core value is not having government force individuals to do anything. If people want to opt into a universal healthcare private system they are free to do so (kind of like insurance). A big motivation for this is lack of trust in government to handle the job well. Libertarians see government as inherently prone to corruption and thus want to limit their power as much as possible. The extent to which a given libertarian wants to limit government varies. By appointing government authorities to the system the cost of everything rises as in addition to health care you also have to pay the government workers who oversee the system and it’s not very efficient. Not to mention politicians get to decide how much money goes to these programs etc etc. do you really want politicians involved in your health? With all the inefficiency and corruption in politics why do you trust them to handle your health?

    • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Liberty (to me) is freedom from authority.

      The term for this is “negative liberty”: the freedom from something; whereas, “positive liberty” is the freedom to do something. Libertarianism, generally, aligns with the idea of negative liberty.

      • HANN@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        If there is freedom from a governing authority then there is no one to take away my freedom to do what I like. Sounds like two ways of saying the same thing. Maybe I miss your point.

        • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          The distinction between positive and negative liberties is, indeed, a rather blurry one, but there is generally a difference in mindset between the two. That being said, libertarianism seeks to minimize the size and influence of the government, but they don’t seek to abolish it — those that seek to abolish it are anarchists (I’m not sure if I am reading your comment correctly, but it seems that you are advocating for anarchism rather than libertarianism when you said “freedom from a governing authority”). It’s important to note that negative liberty is a concept that distinguishes a certain class of liberties — it doesn’t require the presence of a government.

          • HANN@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Well said, I probably wasn’t very clear, but I am not an anarchist. There are certain critical functions that the government must control. When I say freedom from authority I refer to specific government agencies that can exert force on individuals. Government roads don’t force users to do anything but rather empower citizens.

            • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              Government roads don’t force users to do anything but rather empower citizens.

              Another argument for why government roads are ethical is because they fight off monopolization — property ownership is at high risk for monopolization. I’m not sure if the Georgist idea of taxing the land value that a private road would be on is enough.

              • HANN@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                Right, government should provide oversight to public goods that, by their nature, require monopolies such as roads or utilities. Government also needs to have a judicial branch that mediates conflicts between individuals and entities.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Libertarians want all the benefits of libertarianism AND socialism, but they don’t want to pay for any of it.

    That’s it. That’s the entirety of the political belief.

    • HANN@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Libertarians want freedom from government force. They want to be able to fund healthcare by choice. They want the freedom to not have taxes being used to send weapons oversees. Libertarians are for social and economic freedom.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Libertarians are, to an individual, categorical idiots who don’t seem to have the mental capacity to seriously and rigorously analyze and understand what a true “free-for-all” hypercapitalist society would imply. They just want to not pay taxes.

          • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yeah, but libertarians are antisocial asshole idiots by simple virtue of the fact that they think libertarianism is a viable concept. It’s just not, nor will it ever be going forward.

            I can put it another way: I find the ideology offensive and societally caustic in the extreme. We do not live in a vacuum. We live in a society (in a literal sense - not going for the meme here). To pretend that we don’t is incredibly dumb.

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Libertarians want freedom from government force.

        So where were you “libertarians” when BLM and other leftists were calling to defund and abolish the police?

  • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    As an American man I only have a 40% chance of developing cancer in my lifetime, but with universal healthcare there’s 100% chance I will have to pay for it.

    • barelys@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Do you have health insurance? Well guess what, then you are paying for it already, only more than with universal health care.

        • gregorum@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Strange, as you’ve clearly laid out the odds, risks, etc. and you’re betting your life on your supposed “beliefs”.

          Sure sounds like gambling to me…

            • gregorum@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              A risk assessment is a normal part of gambling. You’re just describing games, like the one you’re playing now to rationalize your gambling with your own life by avoiding getting any sort of health insurance.

                • gregorum@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  They are when you bet something on the outcome— ya know, gambling… like how you risk both your financial future and your life when you choose to not have health insurance.

            • roofuskit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Insurance is by definition not gambling. It is only indemnity. The reality is that without insurance you are gambling that you’ll get to keep the money you didn’t spend on insurance and not be financially ruined.

                • gregorum@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  That’s not how health insurance works. You would never get more than your medical costs and would almost always get less.