Steve CoxKonto zweryfikowane

I agree for the most part, but left-libertarianism is possible if its always precursored by volunteerism. It plays on the bet that people gain a high amount of utility from giving.

*Everything* should be voluntary. That’s the flaw in the “free market” point above yours. *We* are “the market” and to be a free market, we must be able to enter or leave the marketplace at will. 1/

That means you not only need competition in the marketplace, but you have to be able to say “no” to *all* of the options and leave the marketplace. If you can’t leave, you’re a captive market, not a free market. 2/

“Free market” as used by right-wing Libertarians actually means “laissez-faire” capitalism. They aren’t the same things. If you’re diagnosed with cancer, and the hospital says “that’ll be $500,000 or you die” you’re a captive market. And that is theft. 3/

It’s no different than being at the ATM and someone putting a gun in your back “give me all your money.” It’s a threat of death. It’s not a *voluntary* exchange. Which is why I said Libertarians tend not to understand economics. 4/4

If that's the only place you're allowed to go, but if a hospital can open up next door and charge less then you have choice and there's potential the price will drop. Even when it comes to extreme prices having some option is better than none. A poor and alive is better than dead

I’ll say it again, if you cannot say “no” and leave the marketplace, you’re a captive market. And there’s no reason for a hospital to dramatically lower rates if they know you *must* pick one. Gas stations across the street from each other are always max 1-2 cents off.

You can always say "no" you just die. Which is not good for the hospital's business either. If we're talking about cartel collusion with natural barriers to entry then that's a different story, but those issues in this day and age are almost non-non-existent in most markets.