In the ideal, minimum government role we seek, where do we stand on the following:
Health?
Primary Education?
Prevention of alcoholism & drug addiction in case of legalization of drugs?
Art transcends ideology.
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/ruben
Who's "we"? The "minimum government role" I seek is zero...
Rubén: Health?
Private
Rubén: Primary Education?
Rubén: Prevention of alcoholism & drug addiction in case of legalization of drugs?
But I hear, for example, that Canadians are very proud of their socialized medicine and Americans wish they had something like it. How can you manage such a transition?
And a country's population could be decimated quickly due to heavy drug abuse if the citizens of that country were granted the right to freely consume heAVY drugs without simultaneously giving them the tools to explore multiple other freedoms that will enable them enjoying their lives without having to waste themselves.
I do not believe in a limited government utopia.
So? The responsibility for their actions falls solely upon them... Charity/assistance in free societies would in all likelihood be directed at people worth helping. If you're an unproductive leech out of choice, there's not going to be much aid for you.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
Jon:
How would you or the market in any case determine which kind of people are worth helping and which are not worth helping?
Personally, I couldn't care less so I would not be determining it. As for the market, that's an incredibly broad term. Different people have different criteria. Some may require for instance one makes an active effort to get a job or they won't see a dime out of their would-be benefactors. Stuff like that.
Rubén: Jon: How would you or the market in any case determine which kind of people are worth helping and which are not worth helping?
Every person would decide for themselves.
Thats what the market is: individual actors.
Ruben: And a country's population could be decimated quickly due to heavy drug abuse if the citizens of that country were granted the right to freely consume heAVY drugs without simultaneously giving them the tools to explore multiple other freedoms that will enable them enjoying their lives without having to waste themselves.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Rubén: But I hear, for example, that Canadians are very proud of their socialized medicine and Americans wish they had something like it. How can you manage such a transition? And a country's population could be decimated quickly due to heavy drug abuse if the citizens of that country were granted the right to freely consume heAVY drugs without simultaneously giving them the tools to explore multiple other freedoms that will enable them enjoying their lives without having to waste themselves.
The reason people won't do heavy drugs in a free society, are the same reason most people don't do them now nor in the past when they were legal. Besides, the dangers of drugs are mostly myths. The dangers of most drugs come from the drugs being produced by criminals. Extremely dangerous and addictive drugs simply wouldn't be economic to produce in a free society. while some illegal drugs could be healthy alternatives to modern legal drugs, such as marijuana use instead of alcohol. Also, in a free society drug-users could be seen as victims of illness rather than criminals and could more easily seek treatment without legal action. Also, how is putting someone in prison, tearing apart families, creating criminal records that destroy their ability to get jobs, and stealing their money (in legal fines) for doing nothing to anybody else suppose to benefit society. There is no reason why heavy drug use would become a norm. individual economic incentives encourage people not to do drugs.
Rubén:But I hear, for example, that Canadians are very proud of their socialized medicine and Americans wish they had something like it. How can you manage such a transition?
I'm not proud of it, those Americans haven't really seen the system in action (or lack of action)
Rubén:And a country's population could be decimated quickly due to heavy drug abuse if the citizens of that country were granted the right to freely consume heAVY drugs without simultaneously giving them the tools to explore multiple other freedoms that will enable them enjoying their lives without having to waste themselves.
Could be, doesn't mean will be, definitely doesn't mean will be. But if they want to waste their lives, meh.
Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même
Perhaps it would be a good idea in another post an explanation of the shortcomings of the Canadian health system. Elsewhere it has been presented as the eighth wonder of the earth!
What about education? A population that is not highly educated will not tend to enroll their children in good schools. This could potentially widen a country's income and opportunity gap over the years.
What about police to guard private property? or to prevent crime? should prisons be abolished? Prisons nowadays return to society criminals far worse than when they got in the first place, I am sure few of you will argue that. But how can a totally private society with minimum government safeguard the rights of the weak, of the handicapped, of the ones who honestly and productively earned their wealth?
Rubén:What about police to guard private property? or to prevent crime? should prisons be abolished? Prisons nowadays return to society criminals far worse than when they got in the first place, I am sure few of you will argue that. But how can a totally private society with minimum government safeguard the rights of the weak, of the handicapped, of the ones who honestly and productively earned their wealth?
You point out a severe flaw in government's production of security. That is why government must be entirely abolished and security produced entirely by markets.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Rubén: What about education?
Someone might not want an education because he might believe he can invest his time in what he predicts to be more profitable endeavors.
Rubén:What about police to guard private property? or to prevent crime?
Empirically, it seems that police far more often destroy private property than protect it and are the create crime than prevent it.
Rubén:should prisons be abolished? Prisons nowadays return to society criminals far worse than when they got in the first place, I am sure few of you will argue that.
If the victim of a crime receives some satisfaction from seeing his aggressor (who cannot make amends for his crime) locked in a cage for some period of time, then there might be some use for prisons, but otherwise, yes, prisons should be abolished.
Rubén:But how can a totally private society with minimum government safeguard the rights of the weak, of the handicapped, of the ones who honestly and productively earned their wealth?
By defending themselves, paying someone else (private defense agency) to defend them, or by a neighbor's excess security.
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
Government claims in capitalist & communist countries alike that it is the most suited for education, health and safety. This kind of propaganda has been impressed upon most of the world population as a belief or act of fait or act of god.
My intention in starting this post is to expose this contradictions out into the open so that we can analyze then and refute the wrong claims. And also to see if the bright minds out there can propose viable strategies on how private hands can creatively provide education to the daughter of a junkie who happens to live in a hovel but who happens to have an IQ of 130... or how can private hands creatively invent a way that ensures that a town's population is healthy and vaccined so that their benefactors can later benefit from their labor, etc.
Unless specific such proposals are sorted out, there is no way to expect the slightest retreat from Big Government.
Drugs are plentiful, relatively cheap and easily available. The percentage of drug users under prohibition would not be significantly different than that under a total legalization. The main difference is that drug addiction could then be treated as the disease that it is by the health field instead of a criminal problem by the cops, who are totally unprepared to deal with the problem.
A certain portion of society will have substance abuse problems regardless of the legal status of the substance.
Thank you Hardway.
You are getting much closer to my point, which is...
how can the health field, in private hands, succesfully deal with drug treatment and prevention (an area where governments have utterly failed), taking into account the initial difficulty that those drug addicts are stone broke (they have already spent all their income, wealth & health on drugs). This means that some incentive must entail the health field to provide that treatment while the results will be evident in a healthy, productive population only in the long run.
Rubén:My intention in starting this post is to expose this contradictions out into the open so that we can analyze then and refute the wrong claims. And also to see if the bright minds out there can propose viable strategies on how private hands can creatively provide education to the daughter of a junkie who happens to live in a hovel but who happens to have an IQ of 130...
You would take her in, wouldn't you?
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap