Libertarians

[Reccesoldier]

Liberal:  Anything which the elected majority* deems as being for the betterment of the whole should be done and any legal coercion applied by the Liberal welfare state is justifiable to that end.

Elected Majority* = The votes that elect a particular party: due to FPTP, a plurality only and 99.9% of the time less than a majority of the population.

Libertarian:  Nothing which infringes on individual freedom of choice or market autonomy should ever be legislated by government.  All civil legislation must be in accordance with the harm principal.

My question.  Is there a way of compromising? 

Take Health Care for example.

Libertarianism refutes the need for public health care.  They want the right to provide for and pay it free of the interference of the state in an open and free market.

Liberalism calls health care a right and demands not only that EVERYONE pay for it but that ANYONE who circumvents the system or operates outside of the system is in contravention of the legislation and liable to be prosecuted either legally or in the court of public opinion.

There is an ideological blindness at work here. The Liberal can not see where the welfare state begins to intrude on the private lives of citizens and the Libertarians can not see where the state should intrude for the good of citizens. 

I can see both.

Is there no room for a system under which as a citizen you could be able to choose whether you want to have your personal health care and those of your legal dependents provided for either through a publicly funded health insurance program or a private one? 

Under the ‘public’ system all participants would pay a percentage of their wages toward the service.  Ex.  In the public system Bob earns $1000/month and 10% ($100) goes toward healthcare. Jim earns $10,000/month and 10% ($1000) goes toward healthcare.  If either Jim or Bob get sick they both get exactly the same care.  Bob and Jim would use publicly funded facilities and services, if they wanted better service they would have to pay for it or if the services they needed weren’t covered they would have to pay more for it.

Under the private system a participant could pay a market price for what he thinks he needs or comes up with another plan. Ex. Randy earns $1000/month but can, if he decides, pay 25% toward a health insurance plan of his own, put a portion of his pay in the bank to save in case of a health emergency or do nothing and hope he doesn’t get sick.  Randy would go to private facilities and his health care would cover whatever he paid for.  If he decided not to save Randy would still be treated under the principals of the Hippocratic Oath but would be on the hook for the actual cost of treatment once he recovered or his estate would be garnished in the case of his death

What is wrong with this idea?  If the only point that can be argued is that the public system would not be able to support providing health care then:
a. It’s administration is ineffective and should be changed to become effective
b. It tries to provide too much service for to little money and the participants must pay more or expect less
c. The citizenry is not willing to support the ‘public’ system and it should be dismantled

For anyone to argue that EVERYONE must pay into a system, in spite of the obvious failure of that system, just to notionally satisfy the ideological imperative of equality of opportunity is a few fries short of a happy meal.

So this offers the citizen the choice, it also offers governments the opportunity to provide services and develop a ‘just society’. 

In the ‘public’ provision of healthcare, the citizen becomes a willing participant in the system.  This would be a rational choice made of their own free will.  For a middle class or upper class citizen it would speak to their moral citizenship as it would directly benefit the poorer in a society.  Of course for the poor it would be (or could be) a no brainer.

I believe that this sort of compromise could be applied to any of these ideological differences, the trick would be to ensure that the government could not/would not renege on the voluntary nature of both the public and private solutions.

As I said before, moderation in all things.

 

[a_majoor]

The story so far:

Libertarianism is a political philosophy which asserts that people are sovereign over their own persons, and should conduct transactions between themselves and governments by mutual consent, rather than coersion or force. Libertarianism is a development of classical liberalism, as espoused by enlightenment philosophers such as Adam Smith and John Locke. Libertarian philosophers include economists such as Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek, and philosophers such as  Robert Nozick and Murray Rothbard. Libertarians may be subdivided into two groups: consequentialists and rights theorists. Rights theorists hold that it is morally imperative that all human interaction, including government interaction with private individuals, should be voluntary and consensual. Consequentialist libertarians do not have a moral prohibition against "initiation of force," but believe that allowing a very large scope of political and economic liberty results in the maximum well-being or efficiency for a society - even if protecting this liberty involves some initiation of force by government. (Definitions from Wikipedia)

As a practical matter, the increasing personal and economic freedoms available as societies approach the Libertarian ideal result in increases in wealth and (generally) cultural achievements. Looking at historical examples ranging from Classical Greece, Republican Venice, Elizabethan England, the United States and the growth of the Tiger economies in Asia all show that these societies, having greater personal, political and economic freedoms than their rivals, outperformed them despite great disparities in population and access to resources.

While Libertarianism is a philosophy which teaches self reliance and mutual respect, opposing philosophies such as Socialism have taken firm root in the body politic. The primary reason is Socialism taps the deep rooted human emotion of greed: people support the idea of the State in their desire to live at the expense of others. (Market incentives always work). This also explains the appeal of Socialism to "Limosine Liberals", the costs to poor and middle class people are hightened opportunity costs, foregone opportunities and narrowing of options, results which allow "Limosine Liberals" to maintain their position in society. Libertarians thus have to overcome deep seated human emotions in order to convince people of the efficiency and desirability of their cause.

 

[FrenchAffair]

Libertarianism is a development of classical liberalism, as espoused by enlightenment philosophers such as Adam Smith and John Locke.

The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The goal of taxation should be to remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.  - Adam Smith


And you have still yet to answer my question, in a Libertarian nation how would the government collect taxes?

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The goal of taxation should be to remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.  - Adam Smith


And you have still yet to answer my question, in a Libertarian nation how would the government collect taxes?

You have taken this quote so wildly out of context that it is essentially meaningless.  Adam Smith believed that the only legitimate functions of government are national defense, justice, education and roads and communications: because the rich have more to gain or lose by government function, they should pay proportionately more.  He also felt that the only fair means of levying taxes is by way of consumption (like the GST, although Smith felt it should apply to luxury goods only) and property taxes.  One of the (many) BIG LIES of socialism is that progressive taxation redistributes wealth ... it doesn't: it redistributes income from the productive to the unproductive, thereby preserving wealth.  I'm sure any economic historian with two brain cells to rub together would tell you that the notion of progressive income taxes would be anathema to Mr. Smith's ideals

Once again, you completely misunderstand (or are purposely ignoring) the fundamental difference between Libertarianism and Anarchy/lawlessness. Anarchism argues that all forms of state are immoral: Libertarians feel that  individual choice is the highest priority and that mechanisms (such as a constitution and attached bill of rights, a functioning justice system, and an army for national defense) must be in place to protect fundamental rights and freedoms from those that would take them away.  Taxes (income taxes particularly) are morally wrong, but a necessary evil (usually in the form of land or consumption taxes), in order to ensure proper functioning of government.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>And you have still yet to answer my question, in a Libertarian nation how would the government collect taxes?

The same way it does today.  Libertarianism isn't required to have only the purest possible incarnation if it is to have any at all, any more than any other -ism.

 

[a_majoor]

For people interested in finding out more about Libertarianism (or better yet; helping out!) you can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
http://libertarianwiki.org/Main_Page
http://www.libertarian.ca/
http://www.libertarian.ca/english/writings/article-kempster-power.html

The vast number of links in the Wikipedia article are a source of inspiration, obviously a great many people ARE giving thought to the problems of governance and see incrimental changes to the present situation are unlikely to generate a better society for all of us. There is hope for us and our children yet........

 

[FrenchAffair]

You have taken this quote so wildly out of context that it is essentially meaningless.

You know this for a fact or are you just saying what works to your advantage best? Do you even know where this quote is from?

Adam Smith believed that the only legitimate functions of government are national defense, justice, education and roads and communications

I suggest you read Adam Smiths "The Theory of Moral Sentiments", "An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" and of course his collected essays "Essays on Philosophical Subjects".

Maybe after reading these you will have a better undstanding of what Adam Smith actually wrote and belived (even though he does controdict himself quite often).

Libertarians have long hijacked his teachings picking and chooseing which parts of his belifs to public on their website and which party to deny even exist.

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. - Adam Smith

Adam Smith was a supported of the free market, there is no secret in that. But he supported regulations on businesses, he supported the right of the goverment to use taxes to support social insitutions. If Adam Smith was alive today he would see that his ideals have suceffully been insituted in nations like Canada, the US or other western nations that ballance the free market with resonable regulations and social insitutions.

One of the (many) BIG LIES of socialism is that progressive taxation redistributes wealth

I agree, flat tax rates seem far more rational than progressive taxation.

Taxes (income taxes particularly) are morally wrong, but a necessary evil (usually in the form of land or consumption taxes), in order to ensure proper functioning of government.

So you as a Libertarian still support the goverment puting a gun to the heads of the citizens and robbing them of their money to support the goverment?

 

[edgar]

The conditions forced upon these workers is one of the most despicable acts in the world. These corporations commit atrocities and commit crimes just as bad as the Taliban. 

Tens of millions of people around this world are “enslaved” by these corporations, thousands die each day because of cooperate greed and their motives are no less selfish, evil and barbaric than the Taliban.

Evil takes on all forms in this world.

Yeah, I remember when Walmart fired mortars into a schoolyard full of little girls. I did my christmas shopping there anyway because they got the lowest prices eh?

-Pop! goes the credibility.

 

[KwaiLo]

-Pop! goes the credibility.

I haven't taken much of what FrenchAffair has said in this thread with less that a sea full of salt, but this is one that to my mind is close to reality.  Corporations around the world have, as far back as they have existed, tried to make profits at any cost.  That cost is often paid for in lives.  That is not to say that all companies do this, or that all countries allow it to happen, either within their borders, or without.

Below are a few examples, some that make a mortar seem humane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_Disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westray_Mine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars      (specifically the East India Trading Co.)

Obviously there are many more examples out there, and I hope that just as obviously there are examples of corporations working to make money while looking after the lives of their stakeholders.

The idea of a corporation as a person under the US 14th amendment has certainly not helped corporations stay honourable, bu that might be best left to a different thread.

 

[a_majoor]

Corporations, like people, work to maximize their advantages. There is NOTHING WRONG with this, so long as they do not use force or fraud in order to do so. Most of your examples are perfect illustrations of corporations using force or fraud, and thus would be considered in an equally bad light in a Libertarian society. You note that government regulation failed to stop any of this, indeed for a long time it wasn't clear that Enron had broken any rules, since the company specialized in working where various regulations overlapped.

A blogger provides another example of how government programs work in counterintuative ways:

mostlyfree.blogspot.com/2007/04/on-tattoos-and-liberty

Monday, April 09, 2007
on tattoos and liberty

I'm considering getting a tattoo of ama-gi, the earliest known writing of the word "freedom" and was trying to find out if the Ontario tattoo industry was regulated or not, since if it was I would go to Michigan, where the industry is unregulated.

I texted my friend, who has a bunch of tattoos, is best friends with the girlfriend of a tattoo artist and worked in a tattoo parlour for a while, to ask her if the industry was regulated. She responded to say that she didn't know, but, being the caring friend that she is, gave me a list of questions I should ask anywhere I go to verify that their equipment is safe.

She asked why I was asking, and I told her that, on principle, I wanted to get my freedom tattoo in an unregulated tattoo parlour. She responded, "So, on principle you want to get hepatitis?"

I couldn't help but laugh, half out of amusement and half out of sadness.

Let's face it: it's a very sad thing that people, even people who have been working in and using an industry that is not regulated by the government, assume that a lack of government regulation implies a lack of safety.

We went back and forth for a while on whether or not government regulation discourages people to ask the questions about safety, whether or not it would cause someone concerned about safety to stop asking those questions, whether or not government regulation stops the (already very rare) infection of hepatitis through dirty tattoo parlour needles, and such.

Finally, I had an epiphany. I texted her: "It's important to me that where I go is being safe because they think it's important to be safe, and not because they're doing the absolute minimum the government says they have to do."

And I think that's at the heart of the libertarian argument against regulation.

Government regulations take away our vigilance for our own well-being and the rewards that should be enjoyed by people who are willing to go the extra mile with their business through a declaration that all businesses are acceptable in their eyes. It's a terrible injustice; in fact the epiphany probably put me one step closer to a pro-tattoo decision.

 

[KwaiLo]

You note that government regulation failed to stop any of this

I am not trying to make a comment about how a corporation would handle itself in a Libertarian run state, I was showing a few examples of how corporations fired analogous mortars into schoolyards.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

You know this for a fact or are you just saying what works to your advantage best? Do you even know where this quote is from?

I suggest you read Adam Smiths "The Theory of Moral Sentiments", "An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" and of course his collected essays "Essays on Philosophical Subjects".

Maybe after reading these you will have a better undstanding of what Adam Smith actually wrote and belived (even though he does controdict himself quite often).

Libertarians have long hijacked his teachings picking and chooseing which parts of his belifs to public on their website and which party to deny even exist.

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. - Adam Smith

Adam Smith was a supported of the free market, there is no secret in that. But he supported regulations on businesses, he supported the right of the goverment to use taxes to support social insitutions. If Adam Smith was alive today he would see that his ideals have suceffully been insituted in nations like Canada, the US or other western nations that ballance the free market with resonable regulations and social insitutions.


I agree, flat tax rates seem far more rational than progressive taxation.

So you as a Libertarian still support the goverment puting a gun to the heads of the citizens and robbing them of their money to support the goverment?

*sigh*

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Three quotes taken from the Adam Smith Institute's website (although I suspect you are going to tell us they have hijacked and twisted his memory, too: funnily enough, they list Hayek and Friedman as the "ASI Heroes") http://www.adamsmith.org/ ... they are all from The Wealth of Nations, which if you want people to think you are knowledgeable on the subject, you should probably learn is alternatively known as "The Wealth of Nations" or just "Wealth of Nations" but never "An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations," except in history books):

According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to; three duties of great importance, indeed, but plain and intelligible to common understandings: first, the duty of protecting the society from violence and invasion of other independent societies; secondly, the duty of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice; and, thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain...

The Wealth of Nations Book IV Chapter ix

[Public officials], as they themselves produce nothing, are all maintained by the produce of other men’s labour… Those unproductive hands… may consume so great a share of their whole revenue, and thereby oblige so great a number to encroach upon their capitals, upon the funds destined for the maintenance of productive labour, that all the frugality and good conduct of individuals may not be able to compensate the waste and degradation of produce occasioned by this violent and forced encroachment.

The Wealth of Nations, Book II, Chapter III

It is the highest impertinence and presumption… in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense… They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will.

The Wealth of Nations, Book II, Chapter III

 

[FrenchAffair]

the Adam Smith Institute's website (although I suspect you are going to tell us they have hijacked and twisted his memory, too

Adam Smith died in the late 18th century. Just because a "Free market think tank" has taken it upon themselves to use his name in their title does not mean that they represent what Adam Smith himself expressed in whole in his lifetime. His views changed quite a bit and he refuted and contridicted what he wrote in many of his eairlyer works with what he wrote in his later works.

funnily enough, they list Hayek and Friedman as the "ASI Heroes"

What does that have to do with Adam Smith? Both these men were born a good 100 years after the death of Adam Smith. He never knew their philosophys, let alone their existance. Adam Smith never endorced either of these men.

The Wealth of Nations, which if you want people to think you are knowledgeable on the subject, you should probably learn is alternatively known as "The Wealth of Nations" or just "Wealth of Nations" but never "An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations," except in history books

Well call it what you want, but the title of the book i have sitting beside me, the title of the book i read and the title Adam Smith gave the book is "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations". If you were to cite the book "Wealth of Nations" on any paper the professor would deduct marks for not properly sourceing the title of the book.

According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to; three duties of great importance, indeed, but plain and intelligible to common understandings: first, the duty of protecting the society from violence and invasion of other independent societies; secondly, the duty of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice; and, thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain...

The Wealth of Nations Book IV Chapter ix

Includeing corpreations.

And your own quote illistrates that he supports public insitutions.

 

[TCBF]

The elementary truth is that the Great Depression was produced by government mismanagement [of money]. It was not produced by the failure of private enterprise.
Milton Friedman

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.
Barry Goldwater

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge."
    Daniel J. Boorstin

 

[Reccesoldier]

I’ve been reconsidering my position vis a vis Libertarianism and especially this comment

That said, there are fantastic ideas in it [libertarianism], it's just that these ideas must be separated from the rabid selfishness that permeates so much of the libertarian message.

I now realize that this is wrong.  There is nothing within Libertarianism that could or would prevent someone, anyone from acting in favor of true Liberal ideals.  If freedom is the yardstick by which we measure the success of our society then Libertarianism beats all comers hands down.

I can not fully support the libertarian ideology on other matters but as far as the institutions of the welfare state are concerned I’m all in.

Some may ask how I could say such a thing.  After all, Libertarians would dismantle a social safety net upon which hundreds of thousands, possibly millions in this country rely.  But would they really? 

Let’s use healthcare as an example.

Certainly a libertarian government would eliminate government involvement in healthcare but consider this, all the money paid through taxes to the government to administer the healthcare system (including provincial and federal duplication of effort) would no longer be required, giving each and every taxpaying Canadian more money in his pocket.  So what does that mean?  Well business would take over the healthcare system.  From the administration to the hospitals, from Doctor to insurer, the private system would cover it all. And we would have to pay for it if we wanted it.

This is where the lovers of the nanny state remind us (and rightly so) about those in our society who cannot afford to pay.  They claim that these people will be forgotten, cast aside by a system that cares only about money.  But within that argument lies the fallacy of liberal thought. 

If a company only wants to create wealth for itself and its shareholders then they will, out of that imperative attempt to expand their market to reach as wide a consumer base as possible.  Business has proven time and again that it will seek to lower costs, and provide any product as long as there is a market for it.

Also, in keeping with the libertarian ideal of the harm principal refusing medical treatment would most likely be illegal under a libertarian system.

But let’s get back to the business portion.  Now Libertarians would not, actually could not prevent any business, or citizens group from developing a healthcare insurance system under which all the members paid what they could afford, however little, and were covered equally.  Now before you discount the possibility of this developing I would like to remind you of the stock markets so called “ethical funds” which have been mentioned here before.  There are people; good decent people who would as a matter of charity, morality or pure kindness enter into such a scheme within a private system and do so willingly.

Now let’s look at the current healthcare scheme.  The SCC already made it abundantly clear that our current system is flawed.  As a matter of fact it goes further than that, and the SCC statement that “Access to a waiting list is not healthcare” implies, flawed has turned to broken.

Within our current system we all pay for this non-healthcare, but when a human being is forced by the system to wait for 9 painful months for a hip replacement then it is not helping it is hurting.  Our provincial and federal governments will not or cannot invest sufficient money into the system to fix it.  The infrastructure is dilapidated or non existent, there are not enough doctors, and our hospitals are reduced to administering lotteries and charity events to fund new vital equipment which our public monies can not or will not be spared to purchase.  Some people, in spite of the money they are forced to contribute to the system spend even more to circumvent the system and travel to a place where they can purchase prompt and effective private care. 

Is this right?  Is it right for an insurer (in this case the government) to take your hard earned money to provide a service and fail to provide that service in a timely fashion?  It’s worse than that though, the “public” system has more of a Mafioso tendency to it because we pay for the protection of the system but when it fails us we as individuals have little or no recourse.  Yes if we have the time and money we can sue the government for failing to provide the service but most of us do not and even if we could, a promise for change from a bureaucracy so large isn’t worth the paper it is written on. 

However, take the same scenario and apply it to a company and see what happens.  Bad press is nothing for a government; we as citizens cannot refuse to pay our taxes because the government does not live up to its commitments nor can we take our business elsewhere.  For a business on the other hand, such a situation could very well mean the loss of revenue, market share, consumer confidence and possibly costly legal battles.

To (finally) sum this up the Liberal ideal is that everyone must pay for one system, regardless of if they want to or not.  Liberals tout this as the realization of their principal of equality of opportunity, but what is achieved is actually not equality of opportunity but communism’s equality of outcome, and with similarly poor results I might add.

The Libertarian ideal gives the power to the individual, not the state.  It allows any permutation an individual can imagine in order to allow that individual to achieve his aims.  It doesn’t download the responsibility for action, choice or the final outcome on anyone but the individual and thereby ensures that the individual continues to look after his own best interests.

Unfortunately even after all this I know there are some who will not, or can not, see the difference between best interest and selfishness.  However, even if you can’t you aught to at least be able to see the difference between Libertarianism’s intended outcomes of; individual liberty, freedom of choice and human equality, and the pale comparisons of the liberal welfare state namely; legislated rights, mandatory participation and equality of outcome.

 

[FrenchAffair]

Recce, how then do you explain the tens of millions (close to 1/3) of the American population who do not have health insurance. If what you were saying is true why was there a necessity for medicare? Why does the American government spend more per person on health care then Canada does?

 

[a_majoor]

Between Medicare and Medicaid most Americans are covered. A great many young and healthy Americans choose not to purchase private health insurance since they consider the odds work in their favor (i.e. they can save and invest more for their other interests if they do not spend the money on health care premiums). Charitable institutions also cover a lot of medical treatments.

The reason the American health care system is in such disarray can be traced back to government medical insurance. The analogy is people are being invited to a restaurant with someone else picking up the cheque, so consumers of public health care splurge on more tests, more procedures, more everything. HMO's distort the market further, since the consumer never directly pays for their own health care. A cartel of insurance companies "wargames" the system to maximize premiums and government payments while minimizing payouts. Since consumers are usually not in a position to shop under a cartel (the efficient market theory requires transparency of information and free movement of capital), costs are not constrained in the usual way. Throw in an aggressive and predatory tort law system, and you have the makings of a disaster. BTW "full service" American institutions like the VA hospital system resemble the Canadian health care system (long waits, dreadful service and much of the money is siphoned into administration), so be careful what you ask for.

IMO, the best solution would be to eliminate the middleman and have consumers pay their doctors directly. No one seems to think this concept is wrong when you pay for any other goods or services. A Registered Medical Savings Plan (similar to an RRSP) would allow the consumer to set aside monies for health care, pay for services rendered and invest for long term care later in their lives as they age (using monies they didn't expend on health care in the here and now). The consumer has incentives to shop for the most cost effective medical services, and indeed to take steps to maintain their healthy lifestyle (in order to maximize the RMSP's value).

There will still be a market for catastrophic care insurance, and Reccesoldier has pointed out there will be lots of alternative avenues for care as well. One thing this scheme does not cover is stupid or insensitive people who believe they can take risks with their lives and offload the resulting costs on you and I. You are free to ride a motorcycle without a helmet or eat excessive amounts of junk food, just don't ask me to clean up your mess.

 

[edgar]

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1985 (EMTALA) requires American emergency rooms to treat people without insurance. This means free health care for even the most squalid American proletarian, paid for by the those who do have insurance. It distorts their free enterprise system much the way our system does, even to include closing hospitals, and all because the evil heartless libertarian capitalists don't like to see people suffer either.

Adam Smith is an intellectual hero, but he probably wrote his treatise with a quill pen under the bright clear light of a whale oil lamp. Things are different now. We'll keep him in mind as we move along.

Let's put Libertarianism in its proper place by demoting it from an ideology to a principle.
"The central claim of a libertarian philosophy is that the state has no role to play in the conduct of the lives of individuals."
  -Jeremy Stangroom, The Little Book of Big Ideas: Philosophy. A & C Black, 2006. 

It is impossible to conceive of a government that plays no role, it wouldn't be a government. This is even less likely to work than true communism. It's never been done, and it never will be. Instead, let us include the principle of libertarianism as we debate the legislation which sanctions each fresh intrusion into our lives. Example questions include: Is this the best way to solve this social/financial/moral problem? Is there actually a problem? Is the problem serious enough to justify limiting freedoms? Will this regulation be politically marketable, in terms of the self interest of enough Canadians, to get me reelected?
This is exactly what does happen, come to think of it.

I don't think freedoms are zero sum win/lose things. In WW2 Britons submitted to food rationing. Many, if not most of them actually had their standard of living raised by this (according to Calvocoressi, Wint, and Pritchard in the Penguin History of the Second World War). Only the wealthy felt their freedom was curtailed. So the freedoms of the wealthy were sacrificed to the poor, but it created the society which destroyed fascism. A big plus for libertarians you should agree.