Libertarianism and autism
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,697
Location: the island of defective toy santas
Too much of either is going to be a bad thing
So basic services including health and transport yes
Interfering and micro managing no
I'm not so sure about health and transport, they cost too much and there is always mismanagement from the state because there is no incentive to save. There is nothing the state can do that the private can't do better and at a lower cost.
I'm not an ableist personally. And I don't think libertarianism (classical liberalism) comes from "ableistic" concerns. Libertarianism's main concern is the possibility of a tyranny raising out of an overly expanded state.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,461
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
I'm not an ableist personally. And I don't think libertarianism (classical liberalism) comes from "ableistic" concerns. Libertarianism's main concern is the possibility of a tyranny raising out of an overly expanded state.
Then why would Libertarians point to Texas as an example of liberty when basically half the population there doesn't have bodily autonomy anymore due to government interference? That is confusing.
_________________
We won't go back.
Deciding what should be personal / government responsibility comes down possibly to natural profit industries. Speaking from the UK where certain things that were nationalised became privatised which were probably a mistake
So privatising the railways led to a huge rise in rail fares (highest in world i believe) and a relatively still poor service.
Privatising BP (oil company ) however was probably the right thing to do.
I cant see any profit in disability or healthcare , unless reliant on health insurance which costs a fortune and can have some nasty get out clauses leading to people being financially ruined to save their own life.
Its only fictional movie portrayal i know but probably goes on - i seem to remember one of the saw movies depicting an unscrupulous health insurance company looking for get out clauses to deny people essential treatment
_________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."
- George Bernie Shaw
I'm not an ableist personally. And I don't think libertarianism (classical liberalism) comes from "ableistic" concerns. Libertarianism's main concern is the possibility of a tyranny raising out of an overly expanded state.
Then why would Libertarians point to Texas as an example of liberty when basically half the population there doesn't have bodily autonomy anymore due to government interference? That is confusing.
Body autonomy is indeed a Libertarian argument. Those who oppose it are mostly concerned with the possibility that the baby is not part of the body of the mother but consists another individual and therefore an abortion would mean to kill that individual. Personally I find it a difficult topic. Both sides have good arguments. I find myself unable to form a definite opinion for either side. I don't know what to tell you about this honestly.
Too much of either is going to be a bad thing
So basic services including health and transport yes
Interfering and micro managing no
I'm not so sure about health and transport, they cost too much and there is always mismanagement from the state because there is no incentive to save. There is nothing the state can do that the private can't do better and at a lower cost.
As someone who has worked many times at the crux between state and private services for decades, I do not agree.
There is no money to be made providing services to people with disabilities because what many need is not only expensive, but lasts a lifetime. How do you propose to provide services for someone with cerebral palsy, with high physical needs that last a lifetime?
When healthcare, even for "able" people is privatized, services are restricted and cut drastically.
_________________
The river is the melody
And sky is the refrain - Gordon Lightfoot
Too much of either is going to be a bad thing
So basic services including health and transport yes
Interfering and micro managing no
I'm not so sure about health and transport, they cost too much and there is always mismanagement from the state because there is no incentive to save. There is nothing the state can do that the private can't do better and at a lower cost.
As someone who has worked many times at the crux between state and private services for decades, I do not agree.
There is no money to be made providing services to people with disabilities because what many need is not only expensive, but lasts a lifetime. How do you propose to provide services for someone with cerebral palsy, with high physical needs that last a lifetime?
When healthcare, even for "able" people is privatized, services are restricted and cut drastically.
So ok, there is no money to be made providing health care services to people with disabilities because there is no profit. Providing these services must be an act of charity since there is no profit. Using the state to provide those services is not a charity. Because in order to access the resources it takes to provide those services, the state takes peoples money under threat of incarceration and other penalties. If the individual refuses arrest and choses to confront the low enforcement officers in order to preserve their freedom, then the officers are entitled to shoot them dead, possibly. Therefore the state takes peoples money under threat of their lives. It doesn't sound fair to me. This sounds like serfdom.
Too much of either is going to be a bad thing
So basic services including health and transport yes
Interfering and micro managing no
I'm not so sure about health and transport, they cost too much and there is always mismanagement from the state because there is no incentive to save. There is nothing the state can do that the private can't do better and at a lower cost.
As someone who has worked many times at the crux between state and private services for decades, I do not agree.
There is no money to be made providing services to people with disabilities because what many need is not only expensive, but lasts a lifetime. How do you propose to provide services for someone with cerebral palsy, with high physical needs that last a lifetime?
When healthcare, even for "able" people is privatized, services are restricted and cut drastically.
So ok, there is no money to be made providing health care services to people with disabilities because there is no profit. Providing these services must be an act of charity since there is no profit. Using the state to provide those services is not a charity. Because in order to access the resources it takes to provide those services, the state takes peoples money under threat of incarceration and other penalties. If the individual refuses arrest and choses to confront the low enforcement officers in order to preserve their freedom, then the officers are entitled to shoot them dead, possibly. Therefore the state takes peoples money under threat of their lives. It doesn't sound fair to me. This sounds like serfdom.
Healthcare including disabilities costs 100`s of billions for a large country so cannot be a charity. Why stop at health care what about the army or police, would that be a charity too?.
Also private companies with a monopoly control that replace national companies just end up ripping off the government. So what's the point in making it private in the first place. Nationalise the NHS and pay 100 billion a year to run it, or make it private & pay the private company 100 billion to run it, what's the difference?
Private companies rip off governments also, i saw a documentary on US troops in Iraq a few years ago. They had something in place called cost plus i believe it was called, where they paid private contractors to do a lot of the non combat military jobs like transport.
They said when a big truck had a flat tyre they didn't change the tyre rather they blew up the truck & got a new one all paid by the US government with profit because they could no questions were asked.
So that's what private running can look like
_________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."
- George Bernie Shaw
Too much of either is going to be a bad thing
So basic services including health and transport yes
Interfering and micro managing no
I'm not so sure about health and transport, they cost too much and there is always mismanagement from the state because there is no incentive to save. There is nothing the state can do that the private can't do better and at a lower cost.
As someone who has worked many times at the crux between state and private services for decades, I do not agree.
There is no money to be made providing services to people with disabilities because what many need is not only expensive, but lasts a lifetime. How do you propose to provide services for someone with cerebral palsy, with high physical needs that last a lifetime?
When healthcare, even for "able" people is privatized, services are restricted and cut drastically.
So ok, there is no money to be made providing health care services to people with disabilities because there is no profit. Providing these services must be an act of charity since there is no profit. Using the state to provide those services is not a charity. Because in order to access the resources it takes to provide those services, the state takes peoples money under threat of incarceration and other penalties. If the individual refuses arrest and choses to confront the low enforcement officers in order to preserve their freedom, then the officers are entitled to shoot them dead, possibly. Therefore the state takes peoples money under threat of their lives. It doesn't sound fair to me. This sounds like serfdom.
Healthcare including disabilities costs 100`s of billions for a large country so cannot be a charity. Why stop at health care what about the army or police, would that be a charity too?.
Also private companies with a monopoly control that replace national companies just end up ripping off the government. So what's the point in making it private in the first place. Nationalise the NHS and pay 100 billion a year to run it, or make it private & pay the private company 100 billion to run it, what's the difference?
Private companies rip off governments also, i saw a documentary on US troops in Iraq a few years ago. They had something in place called cost plus i believe it was called, where they paid private contractors to do a lot of the non combat military jobs like transport.
They said when a big truck had a flat tyre they didn't change the tyre rather they blew up the truck & got a new one all paid by the US government with profit because they could no questions were asked.
So that's what private running can look like
Police and army are probably the only reason why we need a state at all. As John Locke said (paraphrasing here) police is necessary for preventing a state of anarchy where certain individuals use violence in order to extort others. While the army is needed for protection against foreign aggression. All the rest is unnecessary really. As for the corporation's that get contracts by the state, that's not free market. That is cronyism generated by an enlarged state. All these are abuses that need an expanded state in order to exist.
Too much of either is going to be a bad thing
So basic services including health and transport yes
Interfering and micro managing no
I'm not so sure about health and transport, they cost too much and there is always mismanagement from the state because there is no incentive to save. There is nothing the state can do that the private can't do better and at a lower cost.
As someone who has worked many times at the crux between state and private services for decades, I do not agree.
There is no money to be made providing services to people with disabilities because what many need is not only expensive, but lasts a lifetime. How do you propose to provide services for someone with cerebral palsy, with high physical needs that last a lifetime?
When healthcare, even for "able" people is privatized, services are restricted and cut drastically.
So ok, there is no money to be made providing health care services to people with disabilities because there is no profit. Providing these services must be an act of charity since there is no profit. Using the state to provide those services is not a charity. Because in order to access the resources it takes to provide those services, the state takes peoples money under threat of incarceration and other penalties. If the individual refuses arrest and choses to confront the low enforcement officers in order to preserve their freedom, then the officers are entitled to shoot them dead, possibly. Therefore the state takes peoples money under threat of their lives. It doesn't sound fair to me. This sounds like serfdom.
So how would you suggest ensuring that the millions of people with severe developmental disabilities be cared for?
It’s not a matter of no profit. It’s a huge expense.
_________________
The river is the melody
And sky is the refrain - Gordon Lightfoot
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,697
Location: the island of defective toy santas
then why haven't they? it is because there isn't enough profit doing things that actually help the working class, that is not where the money is at.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,697
Location: the island of defective toy santas
I'm not an ableist personally. And I don't think libertarianism (classical liberalism) comes from "ableistic" concerns. Libertarianism's main concern is the possibility of a tyranny raising out of an overly expanded state.
what about tyranny coming from regular citizens gotten too rich and big for their britches to where they feel invulnerable when they exploit those with less money and power? libertarianism has nothing to say about that.
I'm not an ableist personally. And I don't think libertarianism (classical liberalism) comes from "ableistic" concerns. Libertarianism's main concern is the possibility of a tyranny raising out of an overly expanded state.
what about tyranny coming from regular citizens gotten too rich and big for their britches to where they feel invulnerable when they exploit those with less money and power? libertarianism has nothing to say about that.
Tyranny that comes from rich individuals, while possible theoretically, it's either impossible in reality or very rare because I can't recollect such an instance. On the other hand, tyranny that comes from a government with expanded jurisdiction, seems to be quite common. See the 20-th century.
Too much of either is going to be a bad thing
So basic services including health and transport yes
Interfering and micro managing no
I'm not so sure about health and transport, they cost too much and there is always mismanagement from the state because there is no incentive to save. There is nothing the state can do that the private can't do better and at a lower cost.
As someone who has worked many times at the crux between state and private services for decades, I do not agree.
There is no money to be made providing services to people with disabilities because what many need is not only expensive, but lasts a lifetime. How do you propose to provide services for someone with cerebral palsy, with high physical needs that last a lifetime?
When healthcare, even for "able" people is privatized, services are restricted and cut drastically.
So ok, there is no money to be made providing health care services to people with disabilities because there is no profit. Providing these services must be an act of charity since there is no profit. Using the state to provide those services is not a charity. Because in order to access the resources it takes to provide those services, the state takes peoples money under threat of incarceration and other penalties. If the individual refuses arrest and choses to confront the low enforcement officers in order to preserve their freedom, then the officers are entitled to shoot them dead, possibly. Therefore the state takes peoples money under threat of their lives. It doesn't sound fair to me. This sounds like serfdom.
So how would you suggest ensuring that the millions of people with severe developmental disabilities be cared for?
It’s not a matter of no profit. It’s a huge expense.
I would say that charity would be the best way. There are plenty of people who voluntarily want to give their money for a good cause. Those with severe disabilities should be prioritised and then it should be expanded. This way is so much better because nobody gets coerced and there is a sense of personal involvement and togetherness.
You're a libertarian???
You seem more like a moderate on economic issues.
_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.
- My Twitter / "X" (new as of 2021)
Last edited by Mona Pereth on 31 Dec 2022, 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Autism |
13 Mar 2024, 7:44 am |
Autism |
31 Jan 2024, 12:58 am |
best books on autism |
06 Mar 2024, 3:45 pm |
Autism Question. |
10 Mar 2024, 6:30 pm |