Thanks, Ron, Now Shut Up

Ronald Bailey over at Reason is talking about the need for consumer-driven health care. Well and good. He mentions the problems of the current healthcare – which are legion – and says that a solution is needed. His solution?

My advice to President Bush on how really to jumpstart consumer-driven health care: mandatory private health insurance. Poor Americans would be offered a voucher with which they would buy private health coverage. Such vouchers could be paid for by abolishing Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Programs.

But they won’t be, Ron, and you know it, because you know what underlies all of this: the barrel of a gun. Why you think the solution is to point the gun in everyone’s face is beyond me, but you’re either clearly ignorant or clearly evil about this.

10 thoughts on “Thanks, Ron, Now Shut Up”

  1. It seems like the remark could be interpreted as saying money already stolen but currently being used to finance Medicaid etc would be used. I haven’t read the piece however.

  2. I once asked Mr. Bailey on Reason’s blog re a piece he did on lawsuit “reform” if he ever had any ideas that didn’t involve the State getting bigger, never got a reply.

  3. Well, I’m a rabid anarchocapitalist, but I’m also a gradualist. This means that I don’t believe in gaining liberty in a momental, rapid event; I totally denounce the violent revolution and I fear of chaos that may spring once the state is destroyed. Therefore, I think that the best way to achieve freedom is to gradually limit the state: it IS possible and you know it (after all, abolition of communism in the Eastern and Central Europe is a VERY HUGE decrease of statism; abolition of slavery in Americas should be counted as a great achievement for freedom, too).
    Therefore, I really don’t give a damn whether you’ll call me “stupid” or “evil”. I’m just doing my own task, you may do yours (if your task isn’t to prove “why liberty and libertarianism will never work” ;) and I hope it isn’t)

    Cheerz,
    Critto

  4. …I’m also a gradualist. This means that I don’t believe in gaining liberty in a momental, rapid event;

    funny, because the major supposed increases in liberty you cited were achieved not through gradualism, but catastrophe. if your goal is to recommend, in the cause of freedom, that a society become so totalitarian it collapses and resorts to increased liberty (or, in the case of the “abolition of slavery”, imagined liberty) out of desperation, you seem to be making the right argument. or did i miss something? i don’t think so.

  5. can you give some examples where “gradualism” has been something other than passivity during gradual expansions of the state? based on what that poster said, i don’t know what he’s talking about, in that “gradualism” isn’t offered except as a word that apparently means “not for rapid change in a positive direction”. okay, then where’s the slow change in a positive direction, other than in places that have suffered a major collapse? i’m most interested in how “gradualism” applies to the US right now? the only trend i see is a rapid one toward totalitarianism, so what’s the “gradualist” view in light of this disaster?

  6. Critto:

    Well, I’m a rabid anarchocapitalist, but I’m also a gradualist. This means that I don’t believe in gaining liberty in a momental, rapid event; I totally denounce the violent revolution and I fear of chaos that may spring once the state is destroyed. Therefore, I think that the best way to achieve freedom is to gradually limit the state

    That’s all very interesting, but what has it got to do with forcing people to carry “private” insurance? How is implementing more State coercion than presently exists supposed to gradually advance the cause of liberty?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *