Libertarian Solutions to Addiction

[dalebert]

http://www.twitchguru.com/2006/08/08/world_of_warcraft_players_addicted/

I love this personal contradiction at the end of the article.

I don't think we have a right to make Blizzard or other game companies change their products, but that may be what this comes to, down the road.

So I have several thoughts on this that relate not just to video games, but anything which has addictive properties.

1) I believe in personal freedom and personal responsibility. Above all, I believe Blizzard and other companies should be able to make addictive products and individuals should be able to partake of them. Afterall, where does one draw the line between something that's so much fun you want a lot of it and something that's addictive? I certainly don't want a government entity to step in and draw that line.

2) This is just one of many reasons why it's so important that the government not take responsibility for healthcare. The financial incentive becomes an excuse to pry into our personal decisions about what's healthy or unhealthy behavior.

3) So where does this put insurance companies? Covering something as an illness that can be induced on a mass scale with effective marketing certainly will have an impact on healthcare costs and will undoubtedly raise everyone's rates.

OK, stepping through that thought process was actually very helpful. As long as insurance companies are open and clear about what they cover, it's perfectly reasonable for them to decide not to cover treatment for addictions. Liberals will whine about it and try to get government intervention (until they can get government healthcare) but what's new? I think this is where charity should step in. As the level of concern raises, people can respond with charitable solutions in terms of treatments and preventative education campaigns.

Your thoughts?

[Kat Kanning]

When's Diablo III coming out?   

[aries]

Penn and Teller did an episode on addiction

[tracysaboe]

There was a book that came out a few years ago that basically argued that addiction was a choice. It was like a libertarian psychologist that wrote it. It really made a rounds a couple years ago on the internet. Don't remember the name now though. Perhaps somebody here does.

Tracy

[Transition Force]

When's Diablo III coming out?   

Bah. I want StarCraft II first!

[firsty]

2) This is just one of many reasons why it's so important that the government not take responsibility for healthcare. The financial incentive becomes an excuse to pry into our personal decisions about what's healthy or unhealthy behavior.

is an otherwise good idea rendered useless because of the excuses it provides govt for breaking the law? i'm not being snarky, i'm seriously wondering.

excuse me please for asking some questions that may be considered stupid. but i'm trying to approach these ideas philosophically, because otherwise i cant get myself to buy into them.

i mean, there are plenty of things that happen on a daily basis that can provide a law-breaking govt with an excuse to commit crimes against individuals. but, from a standpoint of personal freedom, isnt it more important to focus on the crime itself rather than the things that may or may not (depending on one's point of view) encourage a crime?

my uninitiated mind sees a parallel: isnt not supporting socialized healthcare because of the opportunity it provides the govt for breaking the law just like trying to ban sale of adult pornography because it might encourage child molestation?

or does the break occur because govt is inherently more powerful than the individual / because the govt can only create some necessary restrictions on individuals' actions and nothing more?

[Braddogg]

my uninitiated mind sees a parallel: isnt not supporting socialized healthcare because of the opportunity it provides the govt for breaking the law just like trying to ban sale of adult pornography because it might encourage child molestation?

or does the break occur because govt is inherently more powerful than the individual / because the govt can only create some necessary restrictions on individuals' actions and nothing more?

I tend to agree.  Socialized medicine isn't evil because of some slippery slope, "The government could use it to do something EVIL" kind of argument.  Socialized medicine is ipso facto (by its very existance) evil.  It is theft.  No need to go beyond that into speculation about future abuses.  Stick to the strong moral points that are easier to argue and harder for people to dismiss.

[dalebert]

I tend to agree.  Socialized medicine isn't evil because of some slippery slope, "The government could use it to do something EVIL" kind of argument.  Socialized medicine is ipso facto (by its very existance) evil.  It is theft.  No need to go beyond that into speculation about future abuses.  Stick to the strong moral points that are easier to argue and harder for people to dismiss.

Agreed. That's why I said "one of many reasons".

[Follow]

my uninitiated mind sees a parallel: isnt not supporting socialized healthcare because of the opportunity it provides the govt for breaking the law just like trying to ban sale of adult pornography because it might encourage child molestation?

or does the break occur because govt is inherently more powerful than the individual / because the govt can only create some necessary restrictions on individuals' actions and nothing more?

I tend to agree.  Socialized medicine isn't evil because of some slippery slope, "The government could use it to do something EVIL" kind of argument.  Socialized medicine is ipso facto (by its very existance) evil.  It is theft.  No need to go beyond that into speculation about future abuses.  Stick to the strong moral points that are easier to argue and harder for people to dismiss.

The problem with that argument alone is that people are generally too stupid to understand it.  They've paid for these things all their lives and believe everyone has the "right" to healthcare, even though they can't quantify that "right" into what it will cost the rest of us in "rights."

But when you take examples from other places and show them the effects of social medicine (no super-sizing or ice-cream trucks in England, and the overweight aren't permitted surgery with questions to smokers and drinkers coming up); they tend to grasp it a little better.  They'll start to understand the very real illustration that doing this will cause a very real rights violation on their everyday lives.

Hence the use of a multi-pronged argument. 




Follow 

[dalebert]

All I can say is "Good grief". We are rapidly approaching the status of being incapable of free will. We are machines. We do not control the substances. The substances control us. 

Blackberry Addiction

[Minsk]

We do not control the substances. The substances control us. 

Was pretty much a given when "addiction" became synonymous with "habit". By the modern definition I have more addictions than a leopard has spots...

[firsty]

i agree that addiction is a choice (usually), and i also believe that we should be fully in control of our own health care and how trained physicians apply their medical skills to our bodies (including the patient having the final say on what medication he or she is prescribed, s'long as he or she is informed).

if that can be accomplished via socialized health care, great. if it cant, then something else is required. but i certainly cant afford a system where i have to shell out real cash dollars if my kid has a bone sticking out of his leg.

i'm not educated on the details of libertarian health care platforms. i'll have to check that out.

[dalebert]

if that can be accomplished via socialized health care, great.

Translation:

If that can be accomplished by enslaving someone else to care for me, great.

Uh, no.

[firsty]

slavery is bad, altho i can think of a few doctors i've met who could use a few years at a slave camp.