As you know in the U.S there is currently a crisis and controversy about Health insurance and Social Security. Some experts say privatise it to increase competition which in effect would drop prices due to competition. Others say the best solution would be to nationalise these services, in their view these services are a “right”, and for the government to provide these services, in their opinion, would be a step forward to a more equal and just society. And finally there are some who just say “leave it too the next generation to handle”. My question is how would an Austrian economist handle this problem? And what would are the “mechanics” of his solution? (also I apologise if I sound noobish. I’m still learning about economics.)
Thank you! [:D]
My solution is quite simple. I just love stating it!
social security: eliminate it
healthcare: eliminate all health policy at the federal level, eliminate mandates, leave to states. at the state level, deregulations, no mandates, no lawsgoverning medicine
“Right Guard. Anything less would be uncivilized.” ~ Charles Barkley [;)]
Hmmn interesting…but how would you respond to the main criticism that the rich would get all the benefits, while the poor would suffer tremendously? Also who are the main political and economic thinkers you base your beliefs on this given issue?
I formulated it on my own. haven’t even read any economic or libertarian books. Well, just a few, but they were ancap books by Stefan Molyneux, had nothing to do with this subject. I guess he’s one guy I base some of my beliefs around.
Benefits? What benefits? Don’t the rich retire as well? ss is nothing but wealth redistribution, it’s robbery, it’s threat of aggression, because if you refuse to pay your taxes, you go to jail. That’s not right. What you do with what you make is your own business. We worry about overpopulation, yet we want to try and collectively subsidze older [useless] folk so that they can live longer with the money of productive society? That’s senseless. Let the free market work it out. Eliminating ss creates an incentive for people to SAVE once again, instead of indulging in the debt society that we have now.
Even just one “safety net” creates problems down the road.
This would create the incentive to save INSTEAD of spend and spend and spend. Will old people starve on the streets for being fscaly retarded all of their lives? No. That’s where charity comes in. People would keep more of their own money, therefore, would have more money to give to charity, to homeless people, to whatever. That’s what it’s all about.
It’s like asking an anarchist why we shouldn’t have a central banking system. While I’m not the best at articulating with words [undisclosed problems] I researched alot of things in the past and came to the conclusion that all involuntary taxation, unless you are able to opt out of said society, is evil. You’re basically walking up to someone ad saying: give me $20 a week or you’re going to prison.
Ohh it might seem like a better idea to tax the rich, right? But they, unlike the poor, have the ability to move away, to take their productive businesses elsewhere, resulting in the loss of jobs for the working man. That’s just one example. More taxes on rich also means less private charity and private charity has been proven to be more productive than tax payer funded charity. Are you pro-choice? I am. What do you think of Rudy Giuliani’s support of tax payer funded abortions? That’s sick. The same goes for welare. I support welfare, just not tax payer funded welfare. If I were rich I would give to charities, it makes people feel good. Does april 15th make people feel good?
Be very careful mentioning Molyneux in any remotley positive context around here </end half sarcasm>
I don’t particulary care for Molyneux. But you are an AnCap, so you must be intelligent, so I’d recommend some Murray N. Rothbard. The little that I’ve read of him (and I plan on reading much more) is simply amazing! With that said, I do agree with you that taxes are theft.