Hacker News Reader

Comment by drcode | Hacker News Reader

> But what we can both agree on is that only Government could do it if it is possible.

How so? The government could mandate health insurance, and provide a health care option for those who choose not to get it from somewhere else. If enforced, this would make health care (of some sort) universal to everyone.

> So the question isn’t inefficiency because both sides concede government is inefficient

I agree with you that this is a central weakness in John C's argument: Libertarians (like myself) spend a lot of time trying to convince others that the government is inefficient, when the argument can only be resolved by quantifying exactly _how_ inefficient it is, whether the costs override the benefits. This is a much harder proposition to prove, though I suspect that John C is right that the costs almost always are greater than the benefits.

View on HN

Re : costs almost always are greater than the benefits

Perhaps you can argue this on a case by case basis, but do you think this is still true if you have to take or leave all service at once?

As evidence that the costs are worth the benefits I submit the fact that you (perhaps not you in particular but any citizen of a country who makes this claim) haven't renounced your citizenship for that of another, better cost-benefit ratio, country.

Incidentally, I think that if many government functions were privatized you would be paying a (much) higher rate than you are now since you've already shown the willingness to pay the current rate. That combined with the fact that there rarely if ever is competition in large scale services like those the government provides. As evidence, take a look at any large scale private contractor industry like construction or defense/aerospace.

> As evidence that the costs are worth the benefits I submit the fact that you haven't renounced your citizenship...

That's actually a good argument. Though of course I'd incur huge expenses moving to another country than the one I was born in (new language, no contacts, maybe fewer legal rights, etc) so it only works up to a degree.

> I think that if many government functions were privatized you would be paying a (much) higher rate than you are now since you've already shown the willingness to pay the current rate.

That makes no sense... Are you saying I wouldn't buy an umbrella for $2.99 at Walmart because I bought an umbrella for $12.99 at a mom-and-pop store before Walmart came to town?

The huge expenses you incur for moving are part of what the private companies would extract from you. While the company may be able to "efficiently" provide you a service for for 1/10th the equivalent government price, they will charge you something like 95% of the "total cost" of you switching, whatever that may be.

The issue is that you won't have 10 or 20 providers for roads, water, electricity, landlines. Anything where infrastructure costs are high or where its nearly impossible for two providers to have identical, commoditized services as with roads will not be competitive.

For things like getting a passport, driver's license, etc you will have some competition, but there are plenty of private companies that provide crappy service as well. How many people who buy cheaper merchandise later think "what a piece of crap"?

There's something offensive to me about the idea of renouncing citizenship to protect your own property. It's like abandoning your house and moving away to avoid burglaries. I have a right to my own labor and property. The thieves and robbers should be the ones to leave.

Does that mean you never have a similar experience doing business with private companies? I think booking a hotel room or flight can be a comparable experience if it goes poorly.

A country and its government are not the same thing. The cost-benefit balance can be made positive by benefits that are independent of government, such as cultural attitudes or proximity to specific private institutions.

Incidentally, I think that if many government functions were privatized you would be paying a (much) higher rate than you are now since you've already shown the willingness to pay the current rate.

If you don't pay your taxes, you'll get put in a cage or shot. That's not a "willing" payment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com