Sometimes the practical application of Libertarianism seems extreme, I agree, but I still choose a Libertarian bent than a leftist one.
The question that this article seems to ask is "Is Libertarianism morally wrong?" That question seems to be answered as well by the article--if you do not assist your fellow man, then you are immoral. This is quite a reductive argument and, taken further (as in healthcare), suggests that when our fellow man doesn't know what's best for him, we should "help" him by forcing him to take what he needs.
The idea that my government knows what's best for me when most of their government programs are failing and not providing anywhere near the quality of service provided by the private sector seems more foolish. Why, at this moment, would they suddenly be able to run healthcare (when their sponsored health programs are not solvent)?
The question that this article seems to ask is "Is Libertarianism morally wrong?" That question seems to be answered as well by the article--if you do not assist your fellow man, then you are immoral. This is quite a reductive argument and, taken further (as in healthcare), suggests that when our fellow man doesn't know what's best for him, we should "help" him by forcing him to take what he needs.
The idea that my government knows what's best for me when most of their government programs are failing and not providing anywhere near the quality of service provided by the private sector seems more foolish. Why, at this moment, would they suddenly be able to run healthcare (when their sponsored health programs are not solvent)?
Also, didn't he burn barrels of TRASH in his backyard? Because that's smart. Don't get me started on THAT.
Me:
My interpretation of the article is this. The practice of Libertarianism creates a situation in which immoral actions are more likely to occur. That is, it is the systematic framework that is at fault and the question morality doesn't really apply on an individual level. For example, the fire fighters who let the house burn, if you assume they are rational and empathetic human beings, probably wanted to put the fire out. But because of the Libertarian framework in which they were operating, they more or less encouraged or obligated to do nothing.
Even the fire chief or the mayor, who supported the decision not to put the fire out, said something along the lines of, 'if you haven't paid, tough luck,' while we can probably agree that they empathized with the house owner and didn't want to see it burn to the ground. As for the article, it is not a question about whether people become immoral because they hold Libertarian values, but rather a critique on the extent to which what I believe is an idealistic view of human behavior can undermine the very goals it seeks to accomplish. Perhaps, Libertarians prioritize too much the purity of their arguments (i.e. freedom from government, etc) and forget that the results are often negative.
As a human being, we empathize with one another's struggles. So if for example I know there's a widow down the street who's supporting three kids by working night and day, my first instinct is to help her out. But much of the Libertarian argument, such as the one about individual liberty, encourages me to think, 'it's not my fault that she's like that, so why should I help her? Why should I pay more taxes for a person like that who probably got that way because she was lazy.' That is why there is the government, through which we can realize and satisfy what is at the core of human behavior, empathy and the desire to aid others. The private sector cannot do this.
And to respond to your last paragraph, which asserts that most government programs are failing in comparison to its private sector counterpart, I have to disagree. Social security, despite its criticism often unfounded and ideologically biased, is very successful and popular. People by and large still use the Postal Service. Same goes for the fire department, the police, libraries, etc. And a big reason why Medicare will go in the red soon is because of the concessions it has to make to the private sector-- to Big Pharma and the private insurance industry.
I've definitely failed to answer you in depth and in more detail, but the core of my argument is this. Libertarianism in theory looks appealing, but in practice, the results are quite negative to the common good.
Even the fire chief or the mayor, who supported the decision not to put the fire out, said something along the lines of, 'if you haven't paid, tough luck,' while we can probably agree that they empathized with the house owner and didn't want to see it burn to the ground. As for the article, it is not a question about whether people become immoral because they hold Libertarian values, but rather a critique on the extent to which what I believe is an idealistic view of human behavior can undermine the very goals it seeks to accomplish. Perhaps, Libertarians prioritize too much the purity of their arguments (i.e. freedom from government, etc) and forget that the results are often negative.
As a human being, we empathize with one another's struggles. So if for example I know there's a widow down the street who's supporting three kids by working night and day, my first instinct is to help her out. But much of the Libertarian argument, such as the one about individual liberty, encourages me to think, 'it's not my fault that she's like that, so why should I help her? Why should I pay more taxes for a person like that who probably got that way because she was lazy.' That is why there is the government, through which we can realize and satisfy what is at the core of human behavior, empathy and the desire to aid others. The private sector cannot do this.
And to respond to your last paragraph, which asserts that most government programs are failing in comparison to its private sector counterpart, I have to disagree. Social security, despite its criticism often unfounded and ideologically biased, is very successful and popular. People by and large still use the Postal Service. Same goes for the fire department, the police, libraries, etc. And a big reason why Medicare will go in the red soon is because of the concessions it has to make to the private sector-- to Big Pharma and the private insurance industry.
I've definitely failed to answer you in depth and in more detail, but the core of my argument is this. Libertarianism in theory looks appealing, but in practice, the results are quite negative to the common good.
It will go a little like this: Libertarianism doesn't stop the individual from helping another, but it does suggest that it's not the government's job to do so. It does NOT remove the agency from the individual, whereas the a public service does. It would then become illegal for you to provide any assistance that has been allocated as a government service--thereby making you at the mercy of those services.
Me:
I agree that it doesn't remove agency from the individual, so in theory that seems appealing, understandably. But often that is not enough to solve significant problems, or even those on an individual level. Because while I understand the argument that agency will not be taken away on an individual level, my argument concerns the institutional framework of Libertarianism, which will pose many problems in the modern in which we live.
Healthcare is a good example. If you get sick, you go see a doctor, whose services are understandably quite expensive. Or if you break a leg and need surgery. And this is where government works well, as opposed to the private system which has a legal obligation to make profits for shareholders and therefore has to 'ration' services by rejecting customers based on pre-existing conditions, etc. The public sector isn't required to make profits, therefore it does not discriminate and costs are cheaper due to the lack of administrative costs.
In this case, people are not at the mercy of the service the government provides but depend on it because it works. I'd argue that we are even more at the mercy of private insurers, whose malpractices and high costs needlessly victimize people in need and cannot do anything about it. And the only institutional force able to keep these the private sector in check is the government. Right now, we live in a society where government is expected to function democratically ALONG with the private sector (mostly big business, excluding small businesses, which are often ignored).
Maybe it's time for the government to function democratically IN SPITE OF big business. Furthermore, anti-propaganda, which Libertarians proudly spread, is not helping economic discourse, at a time when the government is the only force that can lift us out of the recession.
Healthcare is a good example. If you get sick, you go see a doctor, whose services are understandably quite expensive. Or if you break a leg and need surgery. And this is where government works well, as opposed to the private system which has a legal obligation to make profits for shareholders and therefore has to 'ration' services by rejecting customers based on pre-existing conditions, etc. The public sector isn't required to make profits, therefore it does not discriminate and costs are cheaper due to the lack of administrative costs.
In this case, people are not at the mercy of the service the government provides but depend on it because it works. I'd argue that we are even more at the mercy of private insurers, whose malpractices and high costs needlessly victimize people in need and cannot do anything about it. And the only institutional force able to keep these the private sector in check is the government. Right now, we live in a society where government is expected to function democratically ALONG with the private sector (mostly big business, excluding small businesses, which are often ignored).
Maybe it's time for the government to function democratically IN SPITE OF big business. Furthermore, anti-propaganda, which Libertarians proudly spread, is not helping economic discourse, at a time when the government is the only force that can lift us out of the recession.
The debate continues....
No comments:
Post a Comment