Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wildstar who wrote (5423)	4/16/2003 11:20:55 AM
From: Gulo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

Does justice absolutely have to be provided by a central govt? No, of course not. But there are (gulp) advantages to socialized justice. All the arguments for why private services can be more efficient and can evolve faster to suit society's needs probably hold true for justice as well. Unlike economics, however, efficiency is not necessarily the most important point. Although most of us bristle at the thought of government intrusion into our lives, we don't want to have to sweat the details. As for tort reform, I have always thought that legislated limits, standards, etc, should be subordinate to private contracts. There is a place for, say, a default liability formula, which is assumed to form part of any medical services contract unless otherwise specified. It is impractical to argue the fine points of a medical services contract every time one gets services from a different doctor or facility. The same could be applied to safety standards, etc. If I want to buy a car that disintegrates on impact, I should be allowed to do so assuming I am willing to explicitly accept the responsibility that entails (e.g., warning passengers that the car does not meet the default standards). That largely works in the amateur-built aircraft industry, where the owner simply has to put the marking "Experimental Aircraft" where passengers can see it. Amateur-builts are now the majority of new aircraft registrations (what does that tell you about the regulations around certified aircraft?). The concept of private standards is fine, but I think it would be useful to democratically incorporate (by referendum, or by legislation) a reference to a single standard in the default law-of-the-land. That way, everyone can know the rules they are playing by, and can change them as they see fit for a particular transaction. -g

To: Wildstar who wrote (5423)	4/21/2003 11:43:18 AM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 13056

The problem with your argument, IMO, is that even most libertarians don't accept that medicine should be regulated by the free market. If we had a medical system truly regulated by the free market, I would agree with you. Doctors would be free to contract with patients either for them to pay more and retain the right to sue if something went wrong, or to pay less but give up the right to sue for a bad outcome. Doctors would be entitled to charge their fair costs to cover malpractice insurance, and if people couldn't afford those fees, they just wouldn't get to see the doctor. But most people today, including most libertarians, won't accept that outcome. They see medical care as an entitlement, not a right. The problem comes in when we mix an entitlement with the free market remedy for a right.