Sure I would, but how do I, or rather a suitable private organization created for that humanitarian purpose, locate such people in order to finance their health & education.
These kinds of questions must be conclusively solved to the satisfaction of the socialists if we ever wish to convincingly have a system superior than theirs.
Then it should be demonstrated in action. No plan will convince them, however sound.
-Jon
Thank you, Jon.
Here are the seeds and roots of the ideas of the actions that can be taken.
Probably most won’t work out, but maybe a few will.
What I mean is, libertarians, if they want to convince socialists that their ideas will work, need to form libertarian communities or even actively aim at secession and the like. Once that is done, these ideas can be implemented in practice (I say this because even if you give them sound theoretical arguments or historical examples, they’ll just dismiss them, usually the latter as anachronisms, even if they aren’t.) There are definitely enough libertarians out there to get this going, and many people so fed up with socialism they’d give it a try. What you really need to argue against a socialist or statist more generally is why they have the right to coercively inhibit you from undertaking such an endeavour. How are you supposed to demonstrate how your society would function when you’re not even allowed to attempt it?
-Jon
That is a good question and the heart of the issue. How does a government know that, if it is made up of ordinary people who are not omniscient?
Remember Hayek’s The Use of Knowledge in Society?
Untrue.
If you want to replace big government with private institutions that serve the same functions you can count me out. You may not have yet realized this but the state does evil things that should not be imitated. Prohibition, mandatory druggings, mandatory schooling, minimum wage, penitentiary system, conscription. The only thing that we need to replace the state is a spirit of volunteerism.
To answer:
That’s a tough question, I can imagine market based solutions to the problem, but none seem like a slam dunk, easily applicable across the board solution; maybe there isn’t one.
Maybe the addicts would sign up with the rehab and essentially get financed for it. Or the rehab could also be a jobs program and have the recovering addicts work off their bill and learn a trade. Companies could contract the recovery center to perform work, which could pay for the treatment.
Like I said, nothing is coming to me that seems like an obvious, grand solution, but that’s the case with most social issues; you just have to be pragmatic and go with what works, even if it is ad-hoc.
Another thing to think of is that a certain percentage of people will always be drug addicts, you can’t cure them, that’s what they want to be. They love the drugs so much or they’re so broken inside that they can’t handle life without them. You can only help the people who want help, and if people want something they’re willing to work or pay for it.
If there was some huge wave of drug addiction or something, to where it was a real problem for the whole community, there’s always the option of community action to help too, for the greater good. All motives aren’t monetary, and just because the government isn’t taking money from everyone and trying to solve a problem doesn’t mean that the people won’t pay or work to solve it themselves.
Private Charitable Health Organizations would fill the void of Government run programs. Or better yet, Private Individuals would fill that void as well.
I want to go back to Jon’s point
ACTION
ACTION
There is a lot to be done.
We have lots of ideas but if we just passively sit around in a short run profit-maximizing scenario we will never support those private charitable health organizations.
Government is an utter failure for drug rehabilitation.
And a lot of people can be saved and want to be saved. Not all drug addicts wish to remain that way. When they recover they can become a fantastic asset to society.
By the way, now that I am using the word society, am I to be labelled a socialist because of that? I live in a country that calls itself socialist and is failing miserably. Oil is still above $60 a barrell so we haven’t felt the crash yet. But humans are a social animal.
How does an economic school so opposed to socialism understand the concept of society?
Just because the two words share their roots does not mean they are the same thing.
Socialism means the State owns the means of production. But Government and Society are antithetical. Society is the sum of voluntary, peaceful human interaction. Those people who chose to exploit others instead of engaging in voluntary exchange are branded anti-social.
States do not engage in voluntary exchange, and they are not members of society. As State power grows, social power must diminish. As the state taxes in order to provide government welfare, both the ability and will to engage in private charity diminishes.
There are two available methods with which humans can acquire what they desire: The economic method and the political.
The economic method is voluntary exchange. We convince others to give us what we desire by giving up something ourselves.
The political method is exploitation. Someone has something you want, so you take it. It is theft, slavery, rape.
The political method is institutionalized in the State.
The (austro-)libertarian conception of society is informed from the perspective of methodological dualism (you may find it helpful to read some articles about this; see also methodological individualism, praxeology, and crusoe economics).
Let me throw a few key ideas at you:
(I hope these aren’t too vague).
The important difference between the socialist and libertarian conceptions of society is that the former tends to view it as one would an individual, rather than as an abstraction consisting of individuals.
Returning to the drug addicts, it’s fine to say that ‘recovered drug addicts are an asset to society’, insofar as it means they are an asset to a few people, and as a result indirectly benefit many others. (Of course, from what I understand, addicts can often function perfectly well as long as they get their daily fix, which is fairly affordable at a market price).
There would be organizations that help the broke addicts for free. I’m sure some exist today.
As for incentives, there’re plenty of incentives not to use drugs (or at least, not to the point of becoming an addict):
… to name a few.
I suppose they work today, otherwise, given the availability of drugs, everyone and their brother would have been a addict by now.
Define the “ideal, minimum government role” first, and the stand on those issues will be obvious. Coming from a deontological libertarian perspective, individuals have rights, and if governments have any legitimate function, that function is the protection of rights. Thus, the minimal government role in health, education, and drug use and abuse is the same as any other: to come to the aid of those whose rights have been violated through aggression or fraud. Otherwise, there is no legitimate government role on these issues.
Of course, the above assumes that a minimal government can exist without in itself violating rights. This is a dubious prospect, and leads me to believe that the appropriate role for government is non-existence altogether. In which case, it would have NO role in these or any other issues.