I figured that it would be in my best interests to provide a little background in regards to my basic opinions before I started going rapid-fire on this blog. Many will notice that, as the title states ever so clearly, that I consider myself a "Progressive Libertarian." However, many probably either have no clue as to what it means to be a "Progressive Libertarian" (or even a Libertarian) or do not know what that is going to mean for me.
For those that do not know, a Libertarian is one who advocates for personal and economic freedom for each person, as long as it does not intervene in the personal or economic freedom of another. This normally leads to limited government interference and a system of law that does not designate something as a crime unless it has inflicted harm upon another. In extension to foreign policy, this means that one does not enter into war or interfere in the free trade of goods unless one has been provoked to do so.
Upon adding the "Progressive" descriptor to this, however, I find this means something much different. I define "Progressive Libertarianism" as limiting government interference in the public sphere, but also using economically sound methods to provide for "Progressive" solutions to problems. This, in and of itself, is not a very good description of my views, so as a few examples, I will share my opinions (in brief) on taxation and healthcare.
Taxation
On the subject of taxation, I believe that we should switch our tax system to one that is more simplified and has no loopholes. Our current tax system is a mess, with loopholes popping up for many people in the upper tiers of our society to avoid paying any taxes at all, whilst simultaneously having those least able to pay taxes do so at seemingly all too high rates. At the same time, our system is unable to collect taxes from those that receive their income illegally, like illegal immigrants and drug lords.
I feel that the best way to amend these problems is to switch over to the Fair Tax system, or a system of taxation that eliminates the income tax and places a large tax on all purchases. In order for this tax system to not overburden the poor, however, there would be a rebate check sent out to each person that is equivalent to the tax rate multiplied by the poverty line. This would eliminate the tax burden on the poor (while also acting as a form of welfare) while also removing any loopholes (as the tax would be applied to all spending) and freeing up people's paychecks.
Healthcare
Our healthcare system should be one of the finest in the world, considering how much we spend on it. However, considering how much we spend on it, we receive very little bang for our buck. There are many who lack any healthcare coverage at all, and (due to government interference) sometimes the healthcare that people do receive can be denied on the spot. We are the only industrialized nation in the world that does not have some form of universal healthcare.
Our system would benefit greatly from a universal healthcare voucher plan, paid for by a small addition to the fair tax policy discussed earlier. This would not require socializing any of the hospitals or the healthcare system as a whole, but instead would provide a universal health insurance plan to everyone paid for by everyone. One could then pay for additional insurance for extra coverage. Due to the universal nature of the basic coverage plan, hospitals would be forced to accept it, preventing anyone from being denied care at a hospital for not having proper insurance in the case of an emergency.
I know that both these plans as described above are incomplete, to say the least, as explained here. I will write later on these subjects and others in order to more fully explain my view, as well as to provide documentation that would lend credence to my claims. But for now, I feel that these examples will help give a preview of what is to come from my writings.
There is nothing libertarian about socialized medicine.
Ross Kressel
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/rosskressel
A fews ago socialists used to be called Liberals. They so befouled that word that it became nearly toxic. They ran from it and started calling themselves Progressives. Now I guess they are wanting to pretend like they are Libertarian as they advance the cause of Socialism.
Why can't socialists just be honest and describe themselves as socialists?
There is nothing socialist about a universal health care system. There is a difference, mind you, between socialized health care and universal health care. Socialized health care does not necessarily need to be universal, and vice versa. Socializing health care would be to socialize the hospitals themselves.
Under a socialized health care system the hospitals would be owned by the government. Government ownership and management of hospitals is the absolute last thing that we need for our system. To socialize the hospitals themselves would be disastrous, as it would increase wait times and decrease quality. The consumer needs the ability to choose between private hospitals and doctors in order to create competition between them, increasing productivity and bringing down costs.
I understand that providing a basic universal insurance policy would be "socialism," to an extent, but this is necessary in order to provide health care to those that need it. The extent of the coverage could be debated (although it would be best to keep it at a minimum), and private insurance would still be available. This "socialized" voucher plan would allow the patient to choose the doctor and/or hospital, leaving the health care industry in the private market. The voucher system would simply allow for people to afford basic health care (for the sake of argument, we'll leave it at emergency care and basic checkups).
If you want socialism, you are looking in the wrong direction. Understand what you are talking about before you make a claim.
---
In a world of darkness, science and reason provide the light of truth.
For this health care system, where do all the doctors come from?
Where do the tax payer dollars come from to pay for such a system?
When did the government become responsible for the health care of the people?
Limited government is a part of being a libertarian, but nationalized health care increases government.
Ross Kressel
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/rosskressel
No, we don't have to socialize the doctors and the hospitals to provide universal healthcare. If we provide for a universal healthcare insurance policy, like a voucher program (like one suggested by Mike Gravel) that is paid for by a sales tax tacked onto the fair tax, we can provide some form of basic coverage. As it is, many people cannot afford to buy insurance (I know many, me included) and this would provide for emergency healthcare. This is a perfectly reasonable and free market solution (as the hospitals themselves are kept within the private sector) to the growing healthcare problem. If we couple this with a deregulation (not complete) of the healthcare industry, we can provide more affordable healthcare to the populace.
I don't think a single person should go without some basic healthcare, and I feel that this would be a free market solution to the problem. There are bound to be other solutions to the healthcare problem that would provide for universal coverage whilst keeping the industry itself private. Hell, there are probably more efficient solutions than that which I have outlined, and I wouldn't be opposed to it. But there is no reason to spend so much on healthcare without seeing results. Some deregulation and a basic universal health insurance would help to ease the financial burden of healthcare on the people.
And as I stated in my post, I am not a complete Libertarian (if this is not completely clear, I am sorry). I view myself as a Progressive Libertarian and define that as using the free market to provide for solutions to problems that our society faces. And I admit, sometimes this would require creating some form of a government program, and I am not opposed to it if it is managed properly.
Some examples of government run programs that do work (albeit, some could be managed better, much, much better) would be public schools, police, fire stations, and public transportation. I would definitely not remove these institutions, as completely stripping government would lead to the equivalent of Anarcho-Capitalism. As much as I feel the concept of Anarcho-Capitalism is more novel and well thought out than Anarcho-Communism, I don't think it would work out very well.
Government is there to guarantee our civil rights, but it is also there to act upon the wishes (but hopefully no the direct will) of the people. As an example of this, say the people want to end abortion. If the government acted directly on that will and made abortion illegal, it would be nearly catastrophic, forcing people who medically need an abortion to go to the black market. However, if the government took steps to reduce abortion (like make it more available, provide incentives for more safe-sex education, etc.), then it could reduce the rate of abortion while keeping it legal and safe, rather than driving it into the black market by banning it completely, leaving it in a dangerous and unregulated state.
Being a Libertarian (or, in my case, a Progressive Libertarian) does not necessarily mean never increasing government. It simply means keeping it efficient and limited to what is necessary. If the people deem universal healthcare necessary, then the government should take steps to do so in an efficient and economically viable manner.
---
In a world of darkness, science and reason provide the light of truth.
I don't think a single person should go without some basic healthcare, and I feel that this would be a free market solution to the problem.
It is fine for you to be in favor of universal healthcare. But lets call things what they are.
This is not a free market solution. You are going to compell (the opposite of freedom or libertarianism) me in the form of taxes to pay for health insurance for other people who for one reason or another are not providing it for themselves. I am being forced to take responsibility for the health of others over whom I have no control. I lead a healthy life. Why should I pay anything towards the cost of insurance for people who smoke or choose to be obese and lazy, or ride motorcycles without helmets, or skydive, ski or any other high risk sport? A free market solution would allow me to get low premiums based on my lifestyle and let others who choose high risk lives to choose to have expensive insurance, or die without it. A lot of the people who claim they can't afford health insurance are just choosing not to buy insurance. They bought a computer or a car or a house instead. Or they went on a vacation or they eat fast food twice a week. Their choices should not be my problem.
As soon as wealth is redistributed from the people who earn it by compulsary taxes to people who did not earn it whether it comes as a cash handout, or a direct benefi, or a voucher which can be cashed in for a benefit, it is socialism.
We already have a minature version of what your are talking about. It is called Medicare and all senior citizens get basic socialized health insurance funded by compulsary taxes on the rest of us. Medicare provides a pretty good case study and a lot of insight into what you are talking about. It is horribly expensive, destined for insolvency and has introduced huge distortions into the market and provides crappy coverage that fails to keep abreast of technology. In an effort to control costs, Medicare limits what they will pay for any particular procedure or illness. The result is that costs get shifted to people like me with private insurance our insurance rates go up and people like you cannot afford private insurance . We essentially have to pay twice" once with taxes and again with higher insurance rates.
It turns out that the government has never done ANYTHING efficiently except waste tax dollars. Healthcare and health insurance were both cheap in this country until the government got involved and started solving problems.
The result of government coverage will just be more distortion of the market. The coverage will be crappy, and everybody who wants decent coverage will be forced to buy supplemental insurance and the costs from the crappy coverage will get shifted to these people driving up the costs so that less people can afford decent coverage. Everybody will get terrible healthcare. Thanks but no thanks.
Socialism, failing wherever and whenever its tried.
You make a good point on this, with regards to Medicare as a comparing agent. Before I delve more deeply into this subject I will do research and present my results in another posting. I still feel that our current healthcare system is in shambles and that something must be done to make it more affordable and more efficient. Nobody should have to face the horror stories that me and many of my friends have experienced.
---
In a world of darkness, science and reason provide the light of truth.