So recently I've been in a series of debates with a friend of mine who is liberal. We've agreed on everything on the social level, but on other areas, we most certainly disagree (she is fully liberal, I'm a libertarian so I'm only socially liberal).
Anyway, she thinks that we should nationalize healthcare immediately, and I, of course, disagree. The thing is though, at one point she had cancer, and she says that she went through hell to pay her bills because her family is in a tight fiscal situation, and she wants to know how, in a free market, could she ever support herself if the cancer came back, because she is still paying her bills from the last cancer fiasco.
Normally I could debate my way through a debate about healthcare, but if you are trying to convince somebody that free market healthcare works who has had a bad experience and went through something that I can't possibly imagine, how could I still convince her?
Thanks!
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.
See here.
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?
I would suggest making sure she understands that the current system is NOT free market health care.
One thing you might mention is how government enforced monopolies in the health market limit competition, reduce innovation, and raise prices.
In that case you'll find plenty of ammo here:
The Ultimate Beginner meta-thread
Guides and Knowledge for your Intellectual Journey
Introduction to economics
Introduction to political philosophy
I believe Wheylous has posted this before but i cant find the post-
Argument by argument
Basically if alot of people who you debate with, care about the poor, then it is undeniable that in a free market with private charities there will be alot of resources for the poor- since obviously alot of people care about the poor.
Ill try to find the post....
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
Here-
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/30266.aspx
You should also note that before the state took control of the medical industry, services in that industry were cheaper and mutual aid organisations existed to cheaply provide such services for 'the poor'. You should also note that doctors generally were happy to help those in need and without the means to pay, but that the current legal environment makes this too costly for doctors. All this is even before discussing charitable organisations!!
Have a read of these articles:
http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html
http://mason.gmu.edu/~ihs/s92essay.html
Also note that 'healthcare' isn't even better in countries with price-controls - the key difference between what exists in the USA and the more 'socialised' countries. Remember to note constantly that the USA system already is hugely 'socialised' and that is in fact the problem: the restriction of supply and subsidisation of demand. The only result that is different between the USA system and the others is that the former has more supply at higher direct cost to users and with more innovation, while the latter has shortages at lower direct cost to users and less innovation. You should point out the long waiting times for surgery in all the countries with a crappy monopolised price-control medical industry.
I would put it to her this way. Let's say the Earth was rapidly becoming uninhabitable and scientists had worked out every detail of migrating to the Moon. The only obstacle is getting there. Now, we all agree we need to get people to the Moon. In fact, it's such an urgent matter that even libertarians set aside their balking about taxes and just agree to wait until we all get to the Moon to continue the utopian project of a voluntary society. For now, we need to work together as quickly as possible.
But let's say we're about to build a rocket when someone bursts through the doors, shouting, "We must re-design this rocket with a democratic committee to be chosen through popular election!" You point out that the rocket has already been designed, prototyped and tested by expert engineers. But this will not do because the opinions of everybody have not been heard. Everybody should have a say in how the rocket is to be designed.
The problem with your friend's objections is that she's making a technical, economic argument about how to get from here to there when the experts have already weighed in on the matter. While you can, of course, line up "red" and "blue" economists on a cross-fire show to take both sides of the health care issue, the fact is that there is very little disagreement among economists on virtually every point which will lead to the conclusion that nationalizing health care is probably a bad idea, at least, if your goal is to provide the highest quality health care to as many people and as affordably as possible.
She and other supporters of Obamacare are like the guy bursting in and shouting that we have to go back to the drawing boards on the Moon rocket. We all agree on the goal (highest quality care provided to as many people and as affordably as possible), but the experts have already worked out the solution to this problem. It's called a free market.
Bryan Caplan addresses this attitude (anti-market bias) as a side-issue to a lecture here. I would also recommend for your own benefit that you watch this lecture by Hoppe.
Clayton -
Okay, thanks. The problem is though, she's stuck on the whole thing about "what about the poor." I have a hard time answering that, because when I talk about compassionate, caring people intervening, she seems to think that 98 percent of the world's people don't give a crap, and that the remaining percentage are either people who do care who advocate for national healthcare, or government officials who enforce it.
Thanks very much for the info, John. I don't think I really have to worry about losing her as a friend, because she is very much willing to listen and is pretty open minded, and we are both liberal in the social regard. I think it's just a matter of giving her all of the information, because I think the only reason she is indeed a progressivist/liberal is because she was brought up with the typical no-middle-ground mentality, like there's nothing beyond the liberal vs. conservative argument. For example, despite the fact that we have polar opposite views on something like guns, I don't think our debates have ever been heated.
Wow, thanks for the great stuff everyone. This helps a LOT.
Yay! Wheylous is talked about!
Also, I do agree with JJ - pick your battles. You're not gonna convince everyone, and you have scarce time, so choose the ones you really should convince.
As to healthcare articles,
http://candlemind.com/projects/progclub/file/michael/getEducated.php?listID=29
I'm curious. What is this...Candlemind place you...speak of?
He is constructing a website.
Are you writing your website from scratch or using a software?
Don't try to get her agreement. State your case but don't push.
"Life would be more harmonious if people were more interested in seeking mutual respect than mutual agreement. Who needs agreement? The religious zealot, the fanatic nationalist, the doctrinaire professional. Civilized man is satisfied with respect. His credo is 'Live and let live.'" -- Thomas Szasz