Page 3 of 5

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 23:13
by JasonL
Answers to the above questions would shed light.

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 23:31
by Ellie
Warren wrote:
08 Jan 2019, 22:50
There is no consensus on what "pure" libertarianism looks like. I reject yours.
I dunno, I feel like the purest example of libertarianism IS one libertarian rejecting another libertarian's ideology :lol: :lol: :lol:

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 23:45
by Eric the .5b
JasonL wrote:
08 Jan 2019, 22:43
For clarity I don’t subscribe to the avalanche metaphor. I’m more saying that in aggregate taken at their word on policy after policy what ideologically consistent and pure libertarianism looks like is burning it all down.
Then why do you associate with such monsters?

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Posted: 09 Jan 2019, 09:32
by JasonL
Because I don't think they actually intend to have that effect. It's like - say there's some wonkish discussion about whether consumption taxes are better than income taxes liberty wise. Someone says taxation is theft all of it is immoral neither of these options is acceptable you are participants in an oppressive status quo. Okay. If I take that person at their word, their view of a moral world is a fairly extreme deviation from the current state and they would support on moral grounds, over any modification of taxation, burning down the ability of government to collect tax revenues at all. That's a position. If I think that person actually holds that position, the position is subject to analysis as if it is a serious view.

Or, I don't think that person actually would pursue that path knowing everything else we might anticipate would result - so, in that case that person is just being snarky and is not meaningfully contributing to the discussion - not as a beacon of morality or principle nor anything else, they are just saying things they don't actually believe.

I can digest that sentiment as something like "taxation is theft like, our choices here should to a very great extent respect the moral implications of seizing earned wealth", but man that isn't what is actually said there. So yeah, I share sentiments about liberty with lots of more ideological purist types, but I'm often forced not to take them very seriously when they draw these lines in the sand.

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Posted: 09 Jan 2019, 09:57
by Warren
I've lost patience with the "taxation is theft" true believers. I'm convinced they're sincere about it though. They have a consistent anarcho-capitalist vision of libertopia. I'm a big fan of the invisible hand, wisdom of crowds, and even a common law approach to judicial theory, but the whole anarcho-capitalism project breaks down quickly when you start talking about crime in my analysis. That said, I've been known to fight on the "taxation is theft" line when trying to make a point about individual rights and the proper role of government. As a way of "taking it back". Like the monocle.

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Posted: 09 Jan 2019, 10:01
by JasonL
That's a bit what I'm saying, except I think there are a number of issues like that that's a bit larger than the set of issues you'd probably accept as similarly problematic.

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Posted: 09 Jan 2019, 10:08
by Aresen
Warren wrote:
09 Jan 2019, 09:57
I've lost patience with the "taxation is theft" true believers. I'm convinced they're sincere about it though. They have a consistent anarcho-capitalist vision of libertopia. I'm a big fan of the invisible hand, wisdom of crowds, and even a common law approach to judicial theory, but the whole anarcho-capitalism project breaks down quickly when you start talking about crime in my analysis. That said, I've been known to fight on the "taxation is theft" line when trying to make a point about individual rights and the proper role of government. As a way of "taking it back". Like the monocle.
Mostly, I agree with this.

WRT 'taxation is theft' I am most inclined to go that route with leftists who go on about tax reductions as a 'gift to the rich.'

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Posted: 09 Jan 2019, 10:32
by JasonL
The memes are good tho.

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Posted: 09 Jan 2019, 10:34
by Warren
They give me glee

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Posted: 09 Jan 2019, 18:30
by lunchstealer
Warren wrote:
09 Jan 2019, 09:57
I've lost patience with the "taxation is theft" true believers. I'm convinced they're sincere about it though. They have a consistent anarcho-capitalist vision of libertopia. I'm a big fan of the invisible hand, wisdom of crowds, and even a common law approach to judicial theory, but the whole anarcho-capitalism project breaks down quickly when you start talking about crime in my analysis. That said, I've been known to fight on the "taxation is theft" line when trying to make a point about individual rights and the proper role of government. As a way of "taking it back". Like the monocle.
Mostly this.

I think you can be semi-serious about taxation as theft and still choose a better-or-worse taxation method and better-or-worse uses for taxes. If you accept that bad things happen in the world, then okay yes taxation is theft but we can't quite have a functional society without taxation so ... just understand that you're stealing to fund your pet project so make sure it's something worthwhile and have some goddamned shame about it.

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Posted: 09 Jan 2019, 18:55
by Mo
Team DAR

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Posted: 09 Jan 2019, 19:48
by Eric the .5b
JasonL wrote:
09 Jan 2019, 09:32
Because I don't think they actually intend to have that effect. It's like - say there's some wonkish discussion about whether consumption taxes are better than income taxes liberty wise. Someone says taxation is theft all of it is immoral neither of these options is acceptable you are participants in an oppressive status quo. Okay. If I take that person at their word, their view of a moral world is a fairly extreme deviation from the current state and they would support on moral grounds, over any modification of taxation, burning down the ability of government to collect tax revenues at all. That's a position. If I think that person actually holds that position, the position is subject to analysis as if it is a serious view.
Sure. And even while you're treating such a stance seriously, you can blow it off as outside of the scope of what people are talking about. "That's fine, but we're talking about dealing with the current taxation regime." Even if it's ultimately as irrelevant to what will happen in the real world as the taxation-is-theft guy's stance, conversations have subjects. It's like blowing off someone who jumps into a libertarian discussion and demands a first-principles debate.

Ultimately, it's just like those guys who respond to an ought-argument by squinting at the speaker and trying to primly correct their entirely accurate understanding of the status quo. Doesn't matter if they're sincere or not, it's not useful to the conversation in that case.

It seems like a narrow complaint, though.

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Posted: 09 Jan 2019, 23:57
by Hugh Akston
JasonL wrote:
08 Jan 2019, 16:01
Hugh Akston wrote:
08 Jan 2019, 15:44
JasonL wrote:
08 Jan 2019, 11:02
Hugh Akston wrote:
08 Jan 2019, 10:54
Think of it more as being in the Friend Zone with the status quo. Once you show them how reasonable and level-headed you are by going along with whatever they do, they're bound to start respecting your views.
Are you actually willing to burn it all down? If not, you're right in there too. If so ... the costs of revolution are high.
It doesn't matter what I'm willing to do, it matters what I'm able to do. Not much, as it turns out. So why not be a radical?
Thin soup. You aren't a radical if you won't even stake out a position. What do you want to happen to healthcare, go crazy say whatever you want to happen.
Off the top of my head: End the tax structures that incentivize employer-provided health insurance, change the FDA mandate to testing drugs for safety rather than safety+efficacy, eliminate certificate of need laws, break Bane-style the AMA licensing cartel, allow NPs and PAs to open clinics and write prescriptions without an attending physician, lower the requirements of the insurance mandate so real catastrophic insurance can be a thing, lift insurance-style cost-controlling regulations on non-insurance setups like pre-paid group practices or mutual aid societies.

There's probably more, but basically anything that breaks the regulatory-capturing, market-distorting power of the AMA and Big Insurance companies would be big steps in the right direction.

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Posted: 11 Jan 2019, 09:36
by Warren
Hugh Akston wrote:
09 Jan 2019, 23:57
JasonL wrote:
08 Jan 2019, 16:01
Hugh Akston wrote:
08 Jan 2019, 15:44
JasonL wrote:
08 Jan 2019, 11:02
Hugh Akston wrote:
08 Jan 2019, 10:54
Think of it more as being in the Friend Zone with the status quo. Once you show them how reasonable and level-headed you are by going along with whatever they do, they're bound to start respecting your views.
Are you actually willing to burn it all down? If not, you're right in there too. If so ... the costs of revolution are high.
It doesn't matter what I'm willing to do, it matters what I'm able to do. Not much, as it turns out. So why not be a radical?
Thin soup. You aren't a radical if you won't even stake out a position. What do you want to happen to healthcare, go crazy say whatever you want to happen.
Off the top of my head: End the tax structures that incentivize employer-provided health insurance, change the FDA mandate to testing drugs for safety rather than safety+efficacy, eliminate certificate of need laws, break Bane-style the AMA licensing cartel, allow NPs and PAs to open clinics and write prescriptions without an attending physician, lower the requirements of the insurance mandate so real catastrophic insurance can be a thing, lift insurance-style cost-controlling regulations on non-insurance setups like pre-paid group practices or mutual aid societies.

There's probably more, but basically anything that breaks the regulatory-capturing, market-distorting power of the AMA and Big Insurance companies would be big steps in the right direction.
HUGH 2024

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Posted: 11 Jan 2019, 14:12
by Jennifer
Hugh Akston wrote:
09 Jan 2019, 23:57
JasonL wrote:
08 Jan 2019, 16:01
Hugh Akston wrote:
08 Jan 2019, 15:44
JasonL wrote:
08 Jan 2019, 11:02
Hugh Akston wrote:
08 Jan 2019, 10:54
Think of it more as being in the Friend Zone with the status quo. Once you show them how reasonable and level-headed you are by going along with whatever they do, they're bound to start respecting your views.
Are you actually willing to burn it all down? If not, you're right in there too. If so ... the costs of revolution are high.
It doesn't matter what I'm willing to do, it matters what I'm able to do. Not much, as it turns out. So why not be a radical?
Thin soup. You aren't a radical if you won't even stake out a position. What do you want to happen to healthcare, go crazy say whatever you want to happen.
Off the top of my head: End the tax structures that incentivize employer-provided health insurance, change the FDA mandate to testing drugs for safety rather than safety+efficacy, eliminate certificate of need laws, break Bane-style the AMA licensing cartel, allow NPs and PAs to open clinics and write prescriptions without an attending physician, lower the requirements of the insurance mandate so real catastrophic insurance can be a thing, lift insurance-style cost-controlling regulations on non-insurance setups like pre-paid group practices or mutual aid societies.

There's probably more, but basically anything that breaks the regulatory-capturing, market-distorting power of the AMA and Big Insurance companies would be big steps in the right direction.


I'd also add: ALL drugs except for antibiotics should be available sans prescription and over the counter. (I make an exception for antibiotics because misuse of those can lead to the growth of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which is a legitimate commons issue worthy of regulation. And there might be similar rules for anti-fungal medications, I don't know. But for any other non-antibiotic drug, misuse only harms the user, nobody else, and thus should not be the government's business.)

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Posted: 11 Jan 2019, 15:58
by Hugh Akston
I'd be down with that too.

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Posted: 12 Jan 2019, 06:55
by Tuco
Warren wrote:
11 Jan 2019, 09:36
Hugh Akston wrote:
09 Jan 2019, 23:57
JasonL wrote:
08 Jan 2019, 16:01
Hugh Akston wrote:
08 Jan 2019, 15:44
JasonL wrote:
08 Jan 2019, 11:02
Hugh Akston wrote:
08 Jan 2019, 10:54
Think of it more as being in the Friend Zone with the status quo. Once you show them how reasonable and level-headed you are by going along with whatever they do, they're bound to start respecting your views.
Are you actually willing to burn it all down? If not, you're right in there too. If so ... the costs of revolution are high.
It doesn't matter what I'm willing to do, it matters what I'm able to do. Not much, as it turns out. So why not be a radical?
Thin soup. You aren't a radical if you won't even stake out a position. What do you want to happen to healthcare, go crazy say whatever you want to happen.
Off the top of my head: End the tax structures that incentivize employer-provided health insurance, change the FDA mandate to testing drugs for safety rather than safety+efficacy, eliminate certificate of need laws, break Bane-style the AMA licensing cartel, allow NPs and PAs to open clinics and write prescriptions without an attending physician, lower the requirements of the insurance mandate so real catastrophic insurance can be a thing, lift insurance-style cost-controlling regulations on non-insurance setups like pre-paid group practices or mutual aid societies.

There's probably more, but basically anything that breaks the regulatory-capturing, market-distorting power of the AMA and Big Insurance companies would be big steps in the right direction.
HUGH 2024
I'd go for that.

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Posted: 12 Jan 2019, 13:08
by D.A. Ridgely
I'd add permitting health insurance plans to compete nationwide and automatically approve any drugs that have already been vetted by Germany, but that's an otherwise excellent list.

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Posted: 12 Jan 2019, 14:10
by JasonL
I too like that list a lot. I suspect universal provision for catastrophic care will also ultimately be needed. It's the niskanen plan.

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Posted: 12 Jan 2019, 14:29
by Warren
But what is really needed put market forces to work in health care is to eliminate 3rd party payer. Even if you could stick it into some omnibus bill, I'm not sure how to craft it. I'm absolutely sure nobody wants to hear that. Any attempt to so much as mumble it out loud would be political suicide.

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Posted: 12 Jan 2019, 15:01
by Hugh Akston
I think eliminating employer-provided coverage would go a long way toward doing that. People will be much more aware of the cost/service curve when they have to shop for themselves. And I suspect that doctors would offer cash discounts for routine procedures, up to the point where the only time you deal with your insurance company is when you're facing an acute or debilitating condition.

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Posted: 12 Jan 2019, 15:14
by Warren
Hugh Akston wrote:
12 Jan 2019, 15:01
I think eliminating employer-provided coverage would go a long way toward doing that. People will be much more aware of the cost/service curve when they have to shop for themselves. And I suspect that doctors would offer cash discounts for routine procedures, up to the point where the only time you deal with your insurance company is when you're facing an acute or debilitating condition.
No, that would represent a complete overhaul of the current regime. Even with high deductible plans, your care provider bills the insurance company, the insurance company says "No you can't charge $600 for an x-Ray" and you get a bill for 80 bucks. No doctor's office will tell you how much anything costs. They don't even know themselves. All they know how to interface with the bureaucracy. If you spent a thousand hours trying to get a straight answer on how much getting a mole removed is going to cost you, it would be a thousand hours wasted.

I really don't think it would even be possible for a doctor to offer "cash discounts" without scrapping medical regulations entire.

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Posted: 12 Jan 2019, 16:05
by D.A. Ridgely
Warren wrote:
12 Jan 2019, 15:14

I really don't think it would even be possible for a doctor to offer "cash discounts" without scrapping medical regulations entire.
My physician's medical practice does offer a discount for cash but only for non-insured patients. I believe it is illegal for medical practices and hospitals to discuss insurance negotiated prices otherwise, but I may be wrong about that.

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Posted: 12 Jan 2019, 16:25
by Warren
D.A. Ridgely wrote:
12 Jan 2019, 16:05
Warren wrote:
12 Jan 2019, 15:14

I really don't think it would even be possible for a doctor to offer "cash discounts" without scrapping medical regulations entire.
My physician's medical practice does offer a discount for cash but only for non-insured patients.
No shit? That actually gives me a seed of hope.

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Posted: 13 Jan 2019, 10:26
by Mo
Warren wrote:But what is really needed put market forces to work in health care is to eliminate 3rd party payer. Even if you could stick it into some omnibus bill, I'm not sure how to craft it. I'm absolutely sure nobody wants to hear that. Any attempt to so much as mumble it out loud would be political suicide.
As long as their are medical treatments that cost multiples of people’s houses, you’ll need 3rd party payer.