A critique of socialism from a true libertarian perspective

The universal critique of libertarian capitalists by libertarian
socialists holds its basis in semantics.  The libertarian fundamental
that one is free to do whatever one chooses so long as it does not
constitute an act of aggression upon another is set against their
economic beliefs.  They then say that accruance of personal wealth is
considered an act of economic aggression against another and therefor
is a contradiction.

This is built on a false piece of logic; that all resources belong to
society, and that when one accrues resource it comes at the expense of
someone else.  I'm not saying that there aren't lots of examples of
economic entities that do this, in fact there are, but libertarians find
these actions crimes.  The reality is, resources are in the possession
of nature, and if man does not create material resource, it does not
come into his possession at all.

Their argument holds no distinction between a large private company that
provides a great service at a low price and a constitutionally illegal
corporation that exists in the public sector.  Surely, publicly traded
corporations, insurance companies, venture capitalists definately take
opportunity and productivity away and then financially profit on it.
This is no doubt the truth, I agree with that wholeheartedly. However,
without corporate welfare and corrupt legislation, limited liability
corporation would not exist, changing the entire face of the market.

This is something libertarian capitalists and socialists agree on, where
they part ways, however, is that a libertarian believes that when a
legal, uncorrupted liable private business increases its productivity in
order to provide more goods and services, it serves a dual purpose of
assigning wealth to the company and its workers, and lowering the cost
of the product they sell due to increasing the supply in the market.
This, a libertarian belives, makes the quality of life for the working
class much better.

It is public, social institutions that do the robbing.  Publicly traded
corporations, which are limited liability entities not connected to a
private individual pool enormous wealth, enabling them to artificially
deflate prices to destroy competition, then to raise them in the end
when they get a monopoly.  Then the workers, with no other option, are
forced to unionize, driving the price even higher still, which passes
the cost right back to the worker, especially the unskilled workers who
can't unionize.

The main point of debate here is that accruance of wealth does not have
to come at the expense of someone else.  In the event that one persons
gain of private property requires stealing anothers, this is a crime.
On this I agree, however to say that increasing your production of items
to accrue more wealth is tantamount to venture capitalism is where these
well-intentioned thinkers slide off track.

The concept that the workers will then be paid less while the business
owner profits is a failing business model.  In a situation where limited
liability corporations are not allowed to profit(19th century america),
private companies who refused to pay a great wage would see a suffering
in the quality of goods, resulting in a decline in profits.  The market
would destroy such a company, and he would be liable for all the risks
involved.

Ultimately, this argumental flaw comes from semantics, not intent.
Anyone who believes a libertarian is "pro-corporation" has not read any
of the fundamental readers assigned to the movement.  It is one sketchy
ruling on applying the 14th ammendment to corporations that makes this
possible, which any libertarian would like to see overturned.  Big
businessmen need the ability to fail when they are not productive, which corporate
liability loopholes do not allow.

When you consider that application of socialism requires statism of the
highest order, let not the libertarian socialist debate semantics to the
point of confusing him into agreeing with the totalitarian statist.

health care - socialized medicine(if only it were that easy)

How wonderful would it be if healthcare was an inalienable right. In fact, if protection, preservation, and prolongation of life is the goal of civilized society, then we should as a group take care of it! It is this good-hearted mindset that has opened the floodgates for the filthy disaster that is managed healthcare.

When a person falls ill in America today without proper healthcare(which by the way, I am one of, most touring musicians don't have a health care plan), the first thing to blame is the market. This stems from the fact that someone somewhere out there started a vicious false rumour that we are in a free market health care system. The grisly truth is we haven't had a free market system in over 50 years. Its regulated, and by the government. The initial myth is that government regulation of health care will result in higher quality care. If our government was lead by a team of the worlds greatest doctors, then yes, this could be possible. However our government is run by career politicians, and lobbyists in the health care industry lobby for regulations that give them monopolies over services via certification, or government handouts to insurance companies to help them 'cover the poor'(or a number of other self serving interests). Well after years of corruption, now the system is so well regulated, that after I had heart failure at 16, I read my bill, and the insurance that I had at the time charged 45$ for a pair of rubber gloves and 9500$ for a doctor I never saw.

Why is this happening? Because I wasn't paying for it. Insurance companies are. Ergo I don't shop around, noone does. Of course this is a gross oversimplification of the process, and the problems, excluding a lot of jargon and technical language you might not know. There's a learning curve to it, but the jist rings true.

Socialized medicine is looked at by the 'michael moore' politics newbies as the way out. The problem here, is you don't have history of a functional government universal service lasting or being productive, it simply isn't possible. Socialism promotes slovenly work, and no advancement, as you can't earn more for harder work. In Canada this failed attempt to create universal socialized medicine created a schism between the public and private sectors. Private sector pays doctors handsomely, public not so much. This causes a mass exodus of skilled doctors to the private sector. Therefor, you get what you pay for. Public treatment? 6 month waiting list for an MRI. Private? Specialists on demand. The less skilled doctors work for less pay in the public sector, meaning that the "free" health care is riddled with errors and waiting lists.

Socialism is a long dead paradigm.

Recognizing that we are nowhere near a free market health care system is key, and that actually switching to one would even seem like a somewhat frightening and radical change. (albeit foolishly, as the outcome would be lower prices and better quality of care).

For example, creating super tough qualifications and laws as to who can perform which tasks causes an education wedge on the front end of the cost of healthcare. This can be done away with. I'm a fan of pretty hardline free market. Many of the tasks can be done by someone with just apprentice training. Do we really need someone having 26 years and 200,000$ worth of education to do stitches, bacterial tests and give influenza shots? The market deals with credentials via word of mouth and trade magazines. If someone goes to a clinic and comes out sick, word would spread fast that the clinic doesn't do the trick. This would quickly drive it out of business. You definately need highly trained specialists at emergency medical facilities or doctors offices, but paying 250$ to get a dr to do the test proving you have strep throat and give u a prescription is robbery. That's a 15$ test and 10$ prescription, the rest of that money goes to pay someones education you didn't use, that they're forced to have by regulation on who can provide what health care services.

This is but one of a myriad example of how the free market would cut costs, and this one alone would save millions

You can't cut the free market out of health care via socialism however, or you'll lose access to its incentive for advancement in medical science; its what drives men to cures.

Take a moment to get your head out of the idealism bullshit cloud that is michael mooria and give the free market a chance. Do a little research! It could save your life some day. Ron Paul or your friendy neighborhood libertarians are a good starting point in mainstream politics, and some more advanced research of free market economy can show you the more intimate underpinnings of how this can work.

It does. It did, until the government stepped in.