Famous libertarian Friedrich Hayek supported universal basic income. As a libertarian myself, I always ask myself: “Will this make people more free?” If the answer is yes, then I support it because that’s what true libertarianism is. In the case of UBI and universal healthcare, both of those would unequivocally make people more free. People will be more free to choose a profession they like rather than one that merely keeps a roof over their heads. America already has a form of limited universal healthcare. It just happens to be restricted to the military and maybe some other government servants. Those members don’t have to worry about their healthcare and it allows them to focus their attention on more important matters, as their healthcare needs are met. Clearly the government has seen that universal healthcare is beneficial.
The sovereign citizens and the right wingers masquerading as Libertarians have given the ideology a bad name.
I recently got out of the military and it’s been a complete shock how bad the private healthcare system is. So much red tape, so many charges, so much money being spent on both ends: to the insurance company, again to the insurance company (copays), and then to the provider when the insurance company won’t cover things.
With Tricare? “Hey doc, I need this med for my migraines.” “Alright, here you go.” No charge.
The American health system is a complete scam keeping people under the boot of their employers and of the for-profit insurance companies.
Famous libertarian Friedrich Hayek supported universal basic income
That’s a lie people love to repeat. Hayek was in favor of helping people who needed help, he explicitly was against money for freeloaders.
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.
Or they delude themselves into thinking everyone will pay their fair share voluntarily, forgetting that rich people exist who don’t give a fuck about the common good.
“Bb-but… I w-wanna… !”
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.
Because they really just don’t want to pay taxes, which are needed to fund universal healthcare.
Also most people who say they’re libertarian have no clue what the word means, and are morons.
They don’t want to pay taxes because they don’t like how government uses taxes and don’t trust the government to do a good job. Plus, it’s an additional layer of bureaucracy at the top which costs more money and is less efficient.
If you think private healthcare is more efficient than single payer healthcare when EVERY PIECE OF DATA WE HAVE says the opposite then I think that says more about you than it does about the government.
Libertarians only care about 2 things: lowest taxes possible and legal weed, and they would gladly sacrifice the latter in favor of the former. Anything else is nothing more than lip service.
Universal healthcare means taxes, and that is the one thing Libertarians hate above all. Never mind that it would be cheaper than private insurance. They relish in the fact they can skip buying insurance, and if they get hurt, ERs are required to treat them anyway.
That’s not fair. They also really care about getting rid of age of consent laws!
Libertarian care about maximizing social and economic liberties. Liberty being defined as freedom from authority. Taxes are forced on citizens so libertarians generally want to limit taxes to a minimum. I see no reason to believe that universal healthcare would be cheaper than insurance. The government is an inefficient monopoly where private insurance companies have to compete for the lowest rates.
I think there are roughly three subgenres of libertarian; the two you identify (wants hierarchy with warlords and wants public heroin use without jail time) but then there is also a third group that has focused a lot of rage on age of consent laws for some reason.
Disclaimer, I am not a libertarian by a long shot.
But - there is a difference between freedom to and freedom from. I think in general libertarians believe in freedom to, not freedom from. So you are free to yell, but not free from noise. You are free to walk in traffic, not free from being run over.
It almost makes sense, I don’t think people should be free from seeing things that offend them, right? Or free from consequences. So no, they don’t think freedom from sickness is a right.
You’re right especially in that it almost makes sense - the only people I’ve seen who are more allergic to nuance than libertarians are Trumpists
Tldr non partisan answer: Libertarian philosophy favors negative rights over positive rights.
Negative rights oblige others to not impede (like not censoring free speech).
Positive rights oblige others to provide something (like healthcare).
Libertarians are people who imagine living in their idea of personal, fictional, utopia. Their utopia is one where they pay for only what they want, nobody else gets any of their money, corporations will do no harm, and somehow, magically, they have all the conveniences of modern life.
They just completely ignore that their miserly financial outlook undoes centuries of understanding that an educated society reduces poverty, crime, and unrest, hence the need for public education. Corporations still cause environmental ruin and poison the land, sea, and air…as if giving them minimal or free rein would improve that. Usually their solution to anyone intruding on their ideal world is to shoot them, no need to pay for cops.
In other words, they’re all about their Liberty to do what ever they want. Their version of liberty for you is “You’re free to sink, swim, or die on your own.” They just assume they’ll always be fine or have enough money to do whatever they need. No need to chip in for anyone els’s health care if a) they can’t pay for their own or b) they have their money to pay for theirs, and you’re not getting any of it.
Libertarians are the right wing version of 20 year old socialists who want free stuff and have no understand of what really drives and motivates people.
I tend to lean left but I’m incredibly disappointed with the state of the political landscape.
Libertarians are, typically, just republicans who dont want the label or baggage, at least from every single one I’ve ever seen or interacted with.
In my experience, libertarians tend to be extremely moderate conservatives who don’t want to submit to God.
I imagine it’s a “negative liberty vs positive liberty” conundrum.
American libertarianism seems to consistently skew towards negative liberty, which is complete autonomy to anything but without any power or resources. I believe this predilection came from Ayn Rand and Reaganism, and that It now manifests mostly as anarchocapitalist sentiments.
I’m a bigger fan of positive liberty - possessing the resources and power to do what you desire within a constrained system.
Unfortunately we live in a society which provides neither. The amazing results of constant compromise.
The problem is defining what acceptable positive rights involves. There are people who think that having to “work to survive” is somehow a major human rights abuse. I don’t think that anyone should be entitled to not have to work unless they are severely disabled and can’t work. At the same time, expecting people to work multiple jobs is corporate oppression.
I really like your answer but to me this is what motivated me towards libertarianism. We have been voting between two parties that both are authoritarian in different ways and the result stinks. Let’s try the other half of the compass for a change. If government sucks then don’t vote for more government to fix the corrupt system. Vote to limit government and give power back to the people.
This is a bit of a loaded question and very poorly written. Bad troll is bad.
The problem stands that modern “Libertarians” have been corrupted by corporations and conservative bigots to mean “elimination of government and regulation” and not “government to uphold liberty” like it originally did. A correctly Libertarian government would write laws that solely uphold the power of the individual’s self determination, which inherently requires restriction of the power of capital.
I consider myself Libertarian, but I feel there now has to be a distinction made between “Capital Libertarians” and “Individual Libertarians”. One wants the liberty of capital, the other wants the liberty of the individual. I find myself in the latter. Corporations can go fuck themselves, the individual is paramount.
“Socialist” things like public infrastructure, and yes, public healthcare, would be supported by individual libertarianism. Social support structures like these support individual liberty but restrict capital liberty by requiring taxes to support them, whereas supporting capital liberty by making it “pay as you go” does nothing but remove the individual liberty of the population that finds themselves without any capital through no fault of their own. I absolutely support universal healthcare.
100% Libertarianism originated as a left wing movement in the 19th century. Right wing libertarianism didn’t ooze out of the swamp till nearly a century later. In the mid 20th century. Post red scare when actual leftist were keeping their heads down due to fascist witch hunts. And unable to really call out the posers.
Real libertarians don’t have a problem with government. They just believe that it should be focused on maximizing freedom, and access to it. Where the larpers are all about maximizing their personal freedom (privilege) and don’t care if others have access.
“Left wing”, and “right wing” are far too nebulous to really have any continuous historical use. Even in current parlance they are borderline useless terms.
Only to people who don’t understand the difference.
This is also known as “Libertarian Socialism.” Interestingly enough, this idea predates the current definition of Libertarianism by decades.
This is probably where I align economically, but I support statist mandates that are inconsistent with “individual libertarianism” or “civil libertarianism.”
For example, we should decriminalize drug use, but there should absolutely be a strong statist intervention where people are forced to stop using drugs.
Interesting! I didn’t know this existed, but I can align myself pretty well with this terminus. Thank you :)
Am I the only one?
My bad…
“Socialist” things like public infrastructure, and yes, public healthcare, would be supported by individual libertarianism.
Huh???
A capital libertarian government would not fund public roads. You would need to pay a toll to drive on every privately built road, because your capital is free to move. But roads to certain places would cost more than others, thus restricting the individual’s liberty to their ability to pay.
A individually libertarian government funds public roads. Individuals then retain the right to self-determination to decide where they want to go without restriction. How they go on those roads might be subject to their capital restrictions- whether they walk, bike, drive, rollerskate, or whatever. But they are at least allowed to use those roads.Certain things will always be needed in our society for humans to function. If humans are not functioning correctly, they are not free to self-determine their path. Gating such a simple thing as healthcare, which again, humans absolutely need to function, behind the ability to pay is inherently restricting their individual liberty in an immoral way.
I’m not a Libertarian, but I sympathize with some of their economic viewpoints – significantly more so than tends to be welcome here. Unlike some of you, I don’t speak to the motives and attitudes of all libertarians, only my own. I’m not a Republican. I don’t smoke pot. I did vote for Jo Jorgensen in 2020. I do give a flying fuck about liberty. I don’t confirm or deny being a myopic cunt.
Oddly enough, I do support some form of public healthcare. I’m well aware that most libertarians don’t. A hundred years ago, maybe even 50 years ago, I wouldn’t have either. The problem is that medical science has advanced to where a free market insurance model doesn’t work as well as it used to. Health insurance used to be a luxury when lung cancer would kill a rich man almost as quickly as it killed a poor man. That’s no longer the case, and the costs have accelerated to where the treatment can bankrupt an uninsured middle class man.
The real sinker however is pre-existing conditions. You can’t insure a house that’s already on fire, and we don’t ask homeowners policies to do so. Waiting periods for costly conditions sometimes almost work, except for patients born a pre-existing medical condition. If the insurer had the choice, they’d just refuse to write the policy, even if treatment is cost-effective from a public policy standpoint.
So I support free market solutions where they exist. Health insurance may be one of the few situations where it doesn’t.
I always assumed it was impossible for a free market to exist in healthcare. One important tenant of a free market is being able to freely enter and exit the market at will. Exiting the healthcare market is impossible. You can’t reasonably choose to leave the market when life is forcing you to engage in it, or choosing to leave the market would lead to death. It’s the equivalent of having a gun put to your head.
This is the problem with "ism"s. At whatever point you decide that philosophy X is the answer to everything, you start being wrong about a lot of the world, because whatever it is, there’s at least like 30% of situations (and potentially a lot more) that your particular ism actually isn’t the answer to.
Libertarianism or anti-imperialism or ACAB or socialism or pro-the-Democrats or anarchist or whatever it is, it’s never always the answer. Trying to hold a debate about, well is it philosophy X or philosophy Y that’s always right about everything, or any other discussion that feeds into the basic wrong premise, is just compounding the imaginary non-situation-dependent way of looking at it.
Although yes some of them are wrong a lot more of the time than some others.
Itt, people being downvoted for answering the question.
Gotta love Lemmy. Lol
I like the idea of universal healthcare. I have zero trust in the US federal government to implement it properly. I think it would be a clusterfuck and make things worse for everyone, especially with Republicans on the warpath doing everything they can to sabotage it.
I can’t really understand the tradition of never trusting the government in the US. The government is designed in a way that enables, even requires public oversight, public opinion. If that is not the case, you are not living in a democracy. Many Americans trust private initiatives, charity more than taxes and a working public system. People have no say in what corporations do. If people don’t trust the government the attitude should be towards fixing it and enabling trust, not to accept it as is. I am not judging, maybe a little bit but not really. I live in a middle eastern country. We really don’t trust the government but we keep working on steering it in the right direction. We are many times smaller than the US but we have minimum income, universal healthcare, unions are the norm, etc.
I can’t really understand the tradition of never trusting the government in the US
I used to trust them, before 9/11 when I was young and naive. Then the attack happened. We ended up with bipartisan legislation to strip our civil liberties, torture captives, spy on citizens in direct violation of the bill of rights, and invade 2 countries that had nothing to do with it. Never again.
People have no say in what corporations do
Shareholders do. They get a vote. The government is essentially a mutual fund you’re legally obligated to buy into.
If people don’t trust the government the attitude should be towards fixing it and enabling trust, not to accept it as is.
I agree. I also believe we should take care of that before we go granting them vast additional powers.
We are many times smaller than the US but we have minimum income, universal healthcare, unions are the norm, etc.
Thats a good example of why universal healthcare doesn’t need to be at the federal level here. States like New York and California are larger than many countries which have universal healthcare. What’s stopping them from passing it themselves?
But corporations hold each other accountable. They have to compete for your trust. If corporation A does something shady then it’s im their competitors interest to call them out in order to raise people’s trust in themselves. There are also countless charities and third party sites to grade them. I can choose which programs I fund. I don’t get any say in what government gets my taxes or what the government does with my taxes. What if I don’t want to fund war but want my money to go to charity to help the poor? How effective is universal healthcare where you are?
Wow, you seriously still believe that corporations compete with eachother in the healthcare sector despite the fact that most insurance companies have a “network” specifically so that they don’t have to compete with eachother? How is healthcare a competitive market that drives towards efficiency exactly? The more you privatise healthcare the lower life expectancy you get and the higher you all pay!
The government is designed in a way that enables, even requires public oversight, public opinion.
If one trusted their government, then, arguably, none of these checks would be required.
Many Americans trust private initiatives, charity more than taxes and a working public system.
The trust in private enterprise is predicated on one’s ability and ease to opt out of such a system. The same cannot be said for the government.
You will know the answer if you look more specific at what exactly different people understand as “liberty”
Libertarians usually define liberty narrowly as “freedom from government”.
Freedom does not mean the ability to do as you please, but rather the ability to not be told what not to do, or to be made to do something you do not wish to do.
A libertarian usually does not object to wage slavery, and would disagree with the concept of wage slavery entirely, on the grounds that you were not forced to work a job you dislike, since you could always choose to starve instead.What you’re looking for is one of the schools of anarchism.
Although usually painted as “anti-government, anti-society”, it actually derives from being against hierarchy, and is characterized generally (there are many schools) as being opposed to involuntary power hierarchies.
Sometimes government is the best way to reduce the total amount of coercion in the system, since forcing a lot of people to pay a little can free many, many people from being forced to do stuff they loath to survive.Libertarians aren’t pro-liberty they’re anti-government, and anarchists aren’t pro-chaos they’re anti-coercian. They’re both entire political schools of thought, so I’ve obviously not encapsulated them entirely in two paragraphs.
This is exactly right.
However, you are on Lemmy where the vast majority of users are from the US which means they have their own weird skew on libertarianism and liberalism, thanks to their media and social media. Somehow it’s distinctly Republican, conservative (lol, yes), and pro-capitalism, which obviously isn’ correct because of their many, many, many, anti-liberal views.
Only in the US can socialists be mad about a school of thought that values social equality and welfare, because a form of media informed them it’s pro-capitalism and the red-cap redneck that cries “Liberty!” with their AR-15 must be liberalism or libertarian.
