First of all you need to realize you’re probably never going to convince her. You need to assess how important her agreeing with you actually is, because relationships of all kinds have been destroyed over a lot less.
I’m aware that I don’t know you, or her, or your relationship…but I’m telling you, you can quite easily come out of this debate with a lot less than what you went in having…and not to mention waste a lot of time doing it.
I’ve spoken on this here, and kind of here and here. ThatOldGuy shared a personal experience here. You have to really understand just how much you can really even talk about these things, let alone debate or try to convince someone of something. How worth it is it, really? Do you really need that friend to agree with you? You’ll need to know that because there may very well come a point when you have to decide what’s more important to you…having them agree, or having them as a friend.
That being said, if you still want to pursue it, you can let her know that what she’s been through is not a free market in health care. Far from it. What you advocate would be light years better.
That is really the main issue that most people have with libertarianism. They don’t understand economics so they just assume that libertarians simply don’t care about other people, and that it’s “well, you get what you get…If you’re in a bad spot, sucks for you. It’s probably your fault anyway. You know where your boot straps are. Good luck.”
They determine that simply because someone doesn’t see a need for, and doesn’t want people being forced to give up their money under threat of being thrown in a cage or even killed, or forced to do this or that, that that must mean he is heartless and has no compassion and simply cares more about money or “being right” or something else, than actual flesh and blood people.
Obviously the reality is it is they who just don’t know any better. They don’t see how their system is not only the immoral one, it is also the one that yields worse results.
Like Friedman here so masterfully shows this young woman who is advocating “equal pay for equal work” laws that “he’s on her side…but she’s not.”
That is the key. They need to understand that your values are not at all dissimilar from their own. You very much care about other people. The only disagreement between you is (A) what is an ethical way in which to provide the care, and (B) which system provides the best results. You win on both counts. They however think you lose on count B, so therefore it is okay to ignore the ethics in A so that “the greater good” might be served.
You can attack either one. For A, you can very quickly (through usually a Socratic Method) get them to admit that majority rule (i.e. democracy) is a bad idea (i.e. that the 51% should be able to vote away the rights of the 49%)…just bring up slavery, or the notion of a “free rape” law or other extremely obvious violation of basic individual rights. They will speak out and say “no”, and you can come back and say: “but we voted on it. Democratic process. This is a democracy, right? We voted. You had your say. Everyone got their votes counted. That’s how democracy works. And the 51% voted in favor of free rape of women. I thought we were living in a democracy? Are you now saying democracy’s not that great?”
This is a very easy segue into the notion of individual rights, as nicely presented in bitbutter’s George Ought to Help.
For B, you can present the economic case, and illustrate that indeed freedom actually produces the best outcomes. (This can be a harder case to make, simply because of all the indoctrination and the years of economic fallacy ingrained in the average person.) But the case is there.
You can give quite a few examples, and if you know the economics well enough, you can actually quite efficiently turn it around on them, and make the case that it is they who do not care about other people. I actually have a lot of fun doing that. That’s actually a good thing to keep in mind as you engage in these discussions. Always remember…it is they who are advocating a gun in your face. It is they who are advocating that force be used to enact their vision, and it is they who are advocating a system of violence and coercion that literally kills people…directly at the point of a gun, and indirectly through economic hinderence.
For resources on this topic specifically, see Health care.
(from The Ultimate Beginner meta-thread)
:EDIT:
As for the “not enough people care” nonsense, for one thing, you could show her those WWYD videos. ABCNews channel has some (here’s one of my favorites), and here’s a channel that has a ton of them.
And then you can even just go from a logic perspective:
It’s always as if the people who make that argument are suggesting that the money and the resources to handle such a situation would not exist save a government. (Or that people would not be willing to help such individuals, save being forced to by a government.)
It seems as though they’re saying that only a minority of the population cares enough to help other people…a minority too small in number to be able to provide adequate care for the seriously ill or handicapped…So this small benevolent minority must put into power an even smaller benevolent group (called government) that will force everyone to contribute to take care of such people. And of course, this benevolent minority will install such a government through a majority vote.
My question is, how exactly does that work? If the percentage of people who actually care enough to help others is so small that they cannot actually provide the necessary help without coercing others to contribute, how exactly is it that these people are going to be able to coerce the rest of the population? If they don’t have the numbers, how are they going to elect the government into power in the first place? And better yet, how would they ever hope to enforce their dictates on the rest of the population? They are simply a tiny dot in the scheme of things.
And if the vote is in favor helping such people, this would necessarily mean at least more than 50% of the public is in favor of it (or at least doesn’t mind paying for it.) If that’s the case, then how is it exactly that all these people who are in favor of it or don’t mind paying for it would not be able to provide care without installing a coercive regime?