The first argument as a Voluntarist

Economics Economics Questions
1

I finally feel comfortable enough to test my knowledge of Austrian thought in the real world with colleagues. One in particular, Alex, proclaims to be both a Progressivist and a Social Democrat. It is only natural that we talked about the healthcare question. I have paraphrased and quoted this conversation, which follows:

Alex:

"…as a nation we should care about the health of our citizens, and not the revenue it brings in

and the current system has already proven itself to be out of control in the way of costs."

(unrelated details about the American Letter Mail Company)

"…so what’s wrong with a public option that will lower private insurance costs?

isnt that what you want? competition?

for someone who wants a free market, you seem pretty afraid of a gov healthcare agency competing

Me:

"firstly, if the general population advocated for a less cutthroat approach to competition for healthcare, they would naturally lean towards a company that provided them with secure and humane care. The state does not have to force a new company into this industry, at the expense of the taxpayer, in order to solve this problem.

what stops the government from working for purely income and profit? wouldnt that be a main source of motivation, since the government usually struggles with paying for its budgets?"

Alex:

"see what you are saying would generally make sense and i would agree,

but it’s healtchare,

healthcare*

so it’s something important enough that the gov should step in and regulate.

i mean, would you let private businesses run police forces and fire departments?

umm i’m sorry sir, you’re house would cost more for us to extinguish so we are just gunna let it burn down. but you still have to pay us 5000 dollars a month!

i’m just saying that the current system isnt working and i’m a firm progressive,

in which i mean, i think if it isnt working, we should try something new."

Me:

“Then I’m a firm progressive as well. prove me wrong.”

Alex:

"aren’t you in support of maintaining the old system though? that isnt progressiveness, that’s conservative ism "

Me:

“The free market can never become “old.” However, companies that work in this capitalist market system may eventually become obsolete. In definition, the capitalist system is developed by whoever makes an organization without the presence of compulsory force. That means a company can structure itself in an infinite amount of ways (the only action they can’t structure is to proclaim compulsory centralization on an industry, lest the voluntarist market becomes damaged by aggression.”

The argument didn’t really progress any farther after that point?

How am I doing as an advocate for AE? Could I get some advice on what to do next time? (please don’t suggest new colleagues)

2

I had a friend whom I had almost an identicle debate with. He told me that healthcare didn’t follow typical market laws, that somehow it was an exception. He told me they did a study which showed that increasing the number of doctors in an area did not lower price as per supply/demand.

I called him on the two points. He was unable to tell me why Healthcare was an exception good, and I asked him to provide me with the article he was sourcing. He conceded the first point and was unable to provide the article,

He than attacked me that I was supporting status quo. Be carful with this. Our current system is definitely not free market. I made it clear to him that I would also radically adjust healthcare in this country, moving back to a market system.

3

You didn’t really answer his question about being for the “old” system - it seems like Alex is talking about the current system. Tell him all the ways that the current system is the product of big government. Talk about licensing, FDA, patent monopolies, how it was tied to employers in ww2, medical device regulation, no insurance competition across state lines, insurance mandates, etc.

4

I would say you might as well find a wall to bang your head against. I was a “progressive” and a “Social Democrat” years ago. No one was able to convince me that my views were not in sync with reality. I had to discover this for myself. You might want to explain that “profit” is not evil (he mentioned “revenue”, but I think he really means that it is immoral to make a “profit”. Socialists are all mixed up with the labor theory of value, etc…)

Explain that “profit” is a signal, like a traffic light. It directs capital into the areas within the economy where it is needed. And, new capital drives productivity because the capital is being deployed for a reason; to compete. Healthcare is not “special” any more than food production or anything else. With lives at stake, the moral thing to do is for government to step out of the way and let scarce capital be driven into wherever it is needed. But he won’t understand this. Good luck.

5

I was too. I also discovered it myself. But he’s going to be quite the hard nut to crack. I can tell we have very different sets of economic assumptions, which makes it hard to exchange actual productive thoughts. It’ll take time, I’m sure

6

Yep, typical. My advice: Never lose your cool. Never raise your voice. Staying calm conveys confidence in what you believe. Try to stay focused on one point at time. There is so much to untangle, his mind must be mess. Everything he knows about capitalism is wrong. The conversation is really not about healthcare, it’s about political and economic ignorance.