A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

Libertarianism is about the most basic pragmatic view of life. There simply isn't enough variance in human intelligence for a few people at the top to be able to make effective decisions for everyone else. Libertarians believe in three basic rights - life, liberty, and property. All government should do only/everything necessary to preserve those rights. It follows then, that Libertarians are strongly against regulation unless it is absolutely necessary (as this leads to corruption, monopolies, etc).

From the perspective of environmental issues, the government is not doing ENOUGH to protect people from corporations that violently destroy citizen's rights to life and property. The corporations do not own the air in the sky, they don't have a right to pollute the river you drink from, and they certainly don't have a right to cause you to be diseased by Mercury poisoning.

European health care systems are a double edged sword for startup founders. I have lived in several european countries and researched the matter for some others as well because I like to move around. I'll spare you the details because they are mind boggingly complicated.

The issue is that in most countries there is no separate health care system. There is an integrated social security system, including pensions, etc. The problem is that there is a minimum charge that you have to pay irrespective of your actual income.

This "standing charge" varies a lot. It's negligible in the UK ($15 per month) and (I believe) in Ireland. But it's awfully high in most of continental europe ($300 per month). That increases the burn rate for self funded startups by about a third.

The reason why it's so high in some countries is that you don't get to choose what kind of risks you want covered. The assumption is that you pay for the older generation so that the next generation pays for you.

It's one size fits all, decoupled from individual choices. You must pay into the retirement system even if you decide (as I have) that you are never going to stop working unless you're unable to (which should be covered by a basic disability insurance which is much cheaper)

As a result, many people (including myself at this moment) have no health coverage at all. Either because they cannot afford it or because the rules are so complicated, inconsistent and inflexible that people with unusual CVs slip through the net.

How much time did you spend in Europe to get the idea that the health care systems are good?

Having lived there for 25+ years and now 10+ in the US I can discern no difference. Both systems are broken with a capital F.

I consider myself a libertarian so I would love to see a simple health care option e.g. provides low level emergency care, low level preventative measures.

So you get a busted bone set, colds/infections treated, child birth and pre/post natal, annual check up etc.

But major stuff is not covered e.g. you have a heart attack you're on your own, you need a lifetime of expensive drugs no chance, hip replacement nope.

The idea being that costs are minimized and a clear directive can be written. Like all things you want better treatment you need to put your hand in your pocket.

On the other hand, there /is/ enough variance in human intelligence (or at least human capability) for huge disparities in wealth even in social democratic societies. How much more pronounced must this difference be in a libertarian society?

But then why is it that Europeans fly to the US for cutting-edge (no pun intended) surgical methods that aren't available here?

Also minimal government is not the same as weak government. A libertarian government wouldn't do much, but the things it would do (such as operating the courts) it would do with absolute authority. What we have now - in most of the Western world - is large, weak governments.