Wisdom of Anarchy

The libertarian solution to every problem — starting with slavery.

  • Home
  • About
  • Influences
  • Articles/Comments
  • Contact

April 24, 2021 by SC Striebeck

The Patient is the Customer

Last week, during my preparation for a general medical exam, I requested that my blood test include a test for Coronavirus antibodies; however, the attending administrator/nurse said that I needed my physician’s permission to get the test – a test for which I was fully ready to pay. Perplexed, I asked why. She indicated that was the hospital’s policy.

I understand that some may believe the test is inaccurate or have other motives for dissuading people from taking it i.e., to increase rates of vaccination, etc. But the problem with this thinking (or lack thereof) is many people wish to understand their health from a number of perspectives and are plenty smart enough to factor in various forms of risk and decide for themselves. And, they should be allowed to do so even if they may be wrong – not only is this inextricable from living in a free society, it should be encouraged and taught. The accumulation of such efforts in life is what gives us experience, better judgment, and ultimately wisdom.

But like many industries, the medical profession has become heavily infused with governmental intervention and its associated groupthink where increasingly doctors and nurses have become bureaucrats in white coats – many can perform great medical feats, but can hardly otherwise think for themselves – the learned ignoramus syndrome.

And to boot, they are gleeful if not smug about toeing the line for medical correctness, even when it is clearly counterproductive, if not completely ridiculous – a symptom of too much governmental largess that breeds increased unaccountability, inefficiency, waste, and expense. This cancer kills in droves.

These trends have created more of a one-size-fits-all medical system that has deemphasized personal care, active listening, and common logic. Many medical providers have forgotten their roots – that the patient is the customer, not vice versa. Surely, that’s in a libertarian’s version of the Hippocratic Oath.

Back to my administrator/nurse: I submitted to the “hospital policy” and walked up to my physician’s office where I requested him to authorize the test. He refused and is now my ex-physician. He wanted me to schedule an office visit in a couple of weeks to discuss the matter – for a blood test? Seriously? Relating to Covid?

Later that day, looking for a new doctor, I called one of my medical specialists of over 30 years, who could not see fit to provide me with three references for a new ….wait… “PCP” – not the drug, but a primary care provider. I guess HIPAA now has a CYA policy in lieu of giving the traditional three references to avoid the potential for conflicts of interest. Great help.

Does this sound like superlative patient care and treatment? Not even close – just officious and arrogant behavior wasting a ton of time. Now you may be thinking, hey, you just had a bad day. Suck it up – you win some you lose some.

And that is true if it was only a one-off. But when these types of inconveniences accumulate and are seemingly everywhere, whether, through your own experience or that of family, friends, and even the news, it is a telltale sign of far deeper trouble.

In a free market for healthcare, these systemic ills would be cured by others better willing to serve. Yet presently, there is no such market so we’ll be getting more of the same and then some. This is the nature of government and special interests – both are always getting bigger, enriching the political class and the connected, at the expense of choice, quality and value to the patient.

Whether the government is giving cover to Big Pharma, Big Medicine, Big Payers, or Big Providers – in truth all of the above – far fewer folks will receive the attention, care, compassion, and expertise they desire and need. It’s not an opinion; it’s an economic law. Stand up and start somewhere to stop it.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: Accountability, Big Medicine, HIPPA, Socialized Medicine, Sustainability

September 3, 2019 by SC Striebeck

Do Consumers Know What’s Best for Them?

Do Consumers Know What’s Best for Them?

Source: Do Consumers Know What’s Best for Them?

Human nature is largely human nature regardless of culture, upbringing, etc. We all suffer from the many and various flaws of being human.

But over time, on the whole, for justice to prevail, for peace to follow, for prosperity to accumulate, to weave a common strength between us, we all need to be on the same proverbial playing field because we are all human, except for the reptilians and greys …just kidding!

If we want justice, it starts here with this concept – not some program drafted by bureaucrats in a governmentsl agency to somehow balance benefits or redistribute money for equalizing the general well-being of millions of people. Someone once said justice is consistent if nothing else – which by the way, begs the question: what is social justice? I’m still struggling with that one.

But I digress, back to the need for a level playing field. There is more than a grain of truth to that statement. It is the basis for what the true rule of law stands. It is what we are currently missing in most cultures and countries, including the United States. It should be respected, if not revered, not circumvented by excuse and subterfuge.

Rothbard, as only he so often crystalizes, wrote the following quoted from the above piece published by mises.org – very likely the finest organization devoted to educating all about the best and most equitable forms of economic thought and freedom.

“Thus, the privately hired expert flourishes in proportion to his ability, whereas the government expert flourishes in proportion to his success in currying political favor. Moreover, what incentive does the government expert have to care about the interests of his subjects? Surely he is not especially endowed with superior qualities by virtue of his government post. He is no more virtuous than the private expert; indeed, he is inherently less capable and is more inclined to wield coercive force. But while the private expert has every pecuniary incentive to care about his clients or patients, the government expert has no incentive whatever. He obtains his revenue in any event. He is devoid of any incentive to worry about his subject’s true interests.”

He does not say that a given governmental official cannot care, only that there is an inequality of incentive and accountability. That’s an unavoidable fact. And, over time, the lack of incentive and accountability, over time, over individuals, makes itself known.

Ultimately, it is about accountability. Those in the free market are always held to a higher standard of accountability because the “beneficiary” a/k/a customer is free to not avail themselves of such free market products or services. That’s choice which is the same as power.

Obviously, this is not the case with government where the “beneficiary” is the constituent. We are not always free to choose. In fact, we are very often forced. Mob rule controls. We go with the program or we are penalized – regardless of our agreement or acceptance of the program. That is less choice and therefore less power.

Is it any surpise we see the polarity in modern politics?

Some are willing to relinquish their power in favor of more government and some won’t – that’s a problem.

When one gains consent of another, the bar is higher for each and for the good of both. Both consent. Both agree. Both must trust. Both must win. Contrary to what we were taught in public school and often through private universities, force involves no trust. It is simply a smaller group of persons operating through one type of human organizatin known as government to bluntly force its agenda upon the non-consenting constituents.

Contrary to many a modern academic, we don’t need PhDs to fathom what are typically fundamental truths or actions of human nature – what Ludwig von Mises defined as praxeology. It really is that simple. For those of us who are a bit older and presumably wiser, the hard part is unwinding years of indoctrination and separating the good (becuase it wasn’t all bad) from the …really bad, for which there always seems to be some super arbitrary excuse by government or its priveleged interests.

Arbitrariness and justice are mutually exclusive.

What do you see in government that is arbitrary?

Can an unjust organization provide justice?

And, in turn peace?

And, by extension sustainable prosperity?

Is it so hard to understand the disparity in distribution of wealth when government provides cover to Big-Everything?

Can we expect it to change?

And, if not, what can we do?

Ultimately, the consumers will decide because they do know what is best for them.

Note: The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.
Video/Image source: mises.org
Source:  mises.org

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: Accountability, Action, Anarcho-capitalism, Anarchy, Austrian economics, Capitalism, Central Planning, Checks and Balances, Choice, Class Struggle, Decentralization, Diversification, Force, Free market, Free market anarchism, Freedom, Government, Graft, Justice, Murray N. Rothbard, Peace, Politics, Power, Principle, Rothbard, Self-Ownership, Sustainability

January 1, 2018 by SC Striebeck

Investors Still Wary of Bitcoin

Investors Still Wary of Bitcoin

Bitcoin is established, but many investors are still wary according to industry experts.

Source: Investors Still Wary of Bitcoin

If you are wondering about the bewildering array of cryptocurrencies, its new financial language, the recent surges and volatility in Bitcoin value, etc., then consider following Cointelegraph. It has shown to be an informative daily newsletter for covering the advancement of cryptocurrencies, ICOs, Blockchain technology, and much more.

Could the recent surge in cryptocurrencies be explained by Gresham’s Law? For more, also see this article by BTCTheory.com

Note: The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.
Video/Image source: Cointelegraph
Source:  Cointelegraph

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: Uncategorized

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 7
  • Next Page »

Recent Posts

  • The Patient is the Customer
  • Do Consumers Know What’s Best for Them?
  • Investors Still Wary of Bitcoin
  • We’re Spending Too Much on Defense
  • Money Markets Are Going Haywire, Blame the Government
  • Home
  • About
  • Influences
  • Articles/Comments
  • Contact

Copyright © 2022 · Generate Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.