I don't believe in something like an ideal or perfect ideology, however, as far as I can tell, libertarianism (and also classical liberalism) ticks many boxes for me.

✅ The war on drugs is stupid
✅ Criminalising sex work is stupid
✅ "Intellectual property" is an oxymoron
✅ People should take responsibility for their own actions
✅ Free exchange of goods and services between people is better than coercion
✅ People should be free to choose whatever form of money they wish to use

As an outsider living in Germany, I'm quite surprised at how much the Germans still believe in the utility and benevolence of the state.

You'd think that they'd be more wary of the dangers that the state poses, given the history of the 3rd Reich and the GDR.

Instead, the thinking seems to be that we just need to "fix" the state, then everything will be fine.

Show thread

In South Africa (where I'm from), Apartheid was also a state-based institution.

In a libertarian society, Apartheid on a grand scale would not be possible.

Individuals and groups would be able to discriminate against others, but they would not have the monopoly on violence that the state possesses to force the entire society to disenfranchise and oppress other groups.

Show thread
Follow

Businesses would be free to serve whoever they want (which was not the case during Apartheid) and out of self-interest and/or competitive pressure they would most likely serve everyone instead of discriminating based on race (or whatever else).

If there were ones who chose to discriminate on race, others would fill the gap in the market left by their discrimination.

· · Web · 2 · 0 · 0

Competition is the best bottom-up and distributed mechanism we have to ensure that people have different options and the freedom to choose.

For example, in Germany there are people who say that the unvaccinated should have to pay for their own Covid-based health care.

If there was unimpeded competition between health-insurers, then the insurers could decide for themselves whether they'd like to pay for such treatment or not.

Show thread

Some insurers could then decide to lower their premiums by not paying for Covid treatment for their unvaccinated clients, while others would recognise that there is money to be made by attracting those customers who don't want to vaccinate and still want to be covered for Covid treatment.

People would have the freedom to choose, and if your premiums are slightly higher because you don't want to vaccinate yourself, well that's the market in action. At least you know you'll get treatment.

Show thread

@jcbrand
If it was decided that COVID treatment for the unvaccinated was not paid for by the public healthcare system, this doesn't prevent the private healthcare system from providing it as part of their health insurance packages or as a non-substitutive/supplemental health insurance. Those already exist for various other services that are not part of the public health insurances, see de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_

@laramarina
Also, there's nothing to guarantee that these unvaccinated people will be offered insurance, ore that they can afford either the insurance or the vaccine. So more people could be walking around spreading the virus, helping it mutate, and increasing the risk to everyone.
@jcbrand

@hutchinsonmini @laramarina

A pretty good argument can be made that vaccination itself puts evolutionary pressure on the virus to mutate in order to bypass the limited protection the vax gives you (the vax gives 1 protein, the virus itself has 29).

In any case, it's been known for a long time already that coronaviruses mutate very quickly (like flu) and that this is why there won't be a vax that works long term. Just like the flu vaccine is generally a hit-or-miss in any given flu season.

@jcbrand
@laramarina
Good point. But I still think the free market approach will reduce who can and will get treatment and vaccines.

@jcbrand I would say that private businesses should be able to discriminate however they like as an extension of the owner’s right of association, but corporations can be legally prohibited from discriminating without violating any person’s rights.

@mcduquesne

AFAIK corporations in part are afforded their "personhood" and limited liability through the existence of the state which affords them those rights.

So given that they need the state in order to exist, I think it makes sense that they be more regulated than for example private businesses.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!