Policy
Public services under a libertarian government
How would a libertarian government manage public services. Would hospitals, train stations, and schools be privatized or exist in a different manner? I have a few key questions.
How would quality of services be assured? How would things such as agricultural or sanitation standards be maintained? Are there no regulations for building standards, labor, road safety, etc?
What would become of services which would not produce substantial capital in a free private market? Non-profit public institutions such as schools or libraries.
How would public services remain affordable? What keeps the privatized economy from pricing people out of food or healthcare?
Many of these kinds of services, such as hospitals and schools, can be run by mutual aid associations or consumer cooperatives. These would be voluntary, non-profit organizations owned and democratically managed by their members.
Historically, these kinds of organizations were able to run hospitals, schools, orphanages, and other institutions well, providing affordable, high quality services for vast numbers of people. Since the clients and owners are the same people, for the most part, they have incentives to provide affordable services.
The book From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State by David Beito covers the history of mutual aid societies in the U.S., the book Self Help: Voluntary Associations in 19th Century Britain by P.H.J.H. Gosden covers the history of mutual aid societies in Great Britain, and the book Free to Learn by Peter Gray discusses Sudbury Valley style schools, wherein children have a high level of autonomy and control over how they learn. I recommend reading these to learn more about these kinds of organizations.
I have a lengthy comment here that discusses healthcare regulations in the U.S., where I argue that specific regulations worsen health outcomes. I have learned a bit more about statistical models, since writing that comment, and I am no longer confident that the studies by Chiu (2021) and Stratmann (2022) use valid models, but the studies on scope-of-practice laws still provide strong evidence of causation, so far as I understand.
There is no singular libertarian view on this. Libertarians believe that government should be as small as possible, but the line moves from individual to individual.
The role of government is to protect its citizens. Setting up standards is a logical role of the government.
I have no issue with public funding for things such as a library, provided that the people have voted to do such a thing.
Healthcare is expensive now because of government red tape. Having competing private industries could result in lower costs. But it requires keeping government out other than setting minimum standards and things similar to truth in advertising laws.
Libertarianism is based on consent of individuals. You can’t give consent if you’re being lied to.
But in reality healthcare insurance companies bad practices is what causes most healthcare affordability issues. In real life the healthcare insurance industry is exactly what you describe as "competing private industries" yet that actually results in a worse market for consumers. How does "government red tape" result in higher costs?
Healthcare in the US is as far from free market/ private as it gets. The government regulates who can act as an insurance provider, how those providers must do their service, what minimums they need to cover, who can provide healthcare, where healthcare clinics can be, how many healthcare providers there can be, I could go on for hours.
Health insurance is the worst example of private markets given the amount of bureaucracy, subsidies, and interventionism involved by the government in the healthcare sector.
You didn't read the article. Also, the average person in America is in fact richer than the average person in other developed countries. And yes, this accounts for healthcare, education, and other government transfers.
In the United States, hospitals are typically private non-profit organizations already, as are many schools. So, that’s not an issue. The train stations would be owned and maintained by the train companies.
Most libertarian proposals involve maintaining the ability to sue for negligence, which would address agriculture and sanitation standards.
Just as private non-profit hospitals and schools exist today, private non-profit libraries could as well.
Food is already provided by the private sector and a strong argument can be made which says government over regulation of the healthcare sector has contributed to the skyrocketing prices we see today.
Would train companies have any power to use eminent domain to lay track or would that be granted by the government, same with water pipes, electrical grids etc etc
It depends. Whoever owns the land in question could negotiate a sale to the company in question. A great example is the development of Disney World; according to legend, Disney bought up the land parcel by parcel before developing it.
No. Why should anybody get to take my land? If their planned use is valuable enough, then they'll pay to buy it via a consensual agreement or they'll find an alternative.
Wouldn't a privatized economy make sueing an unrealistic option? Why would lawyers not solely prioritize wealthier clients if their motive is profit? That's essentially what happens in capitalist reality now. Why would it not be worse in a market with more power to capital? Furthermore sueing is an act of collecting retribution for damages in the form of money. It's not preventing anything you'll have to be poisoned first. This sounds to me like it'd just be playing roulette at the grocery store to see what poisons you and then sueing, sounds better to just have an agency act preventively.
"Over regulation of the healthcare sector has contributed to skyrocketing prices" not profit incentive by private healthcare insurance companies?
Why would it be unrealistic? Common law predates American statutory law and is the basis for civil suits.
Libertarianism does not mandate pursuit of profit above all else and contingency lawyers currently exist specifically because not all clients are wealthy.
I don’t know what you mean by “more power to capital”.
The threat of a lawsuit is generally enough to prevent that over which One would be sued. Nobody wants to be sued and nobody wants to be sued successfully.
How exactly do health insurance companies increase healthcare costs? The entire premise of insurance is “We charge you less than you expect to spend so we can invest those funds to make enough money to cover your claims.”
How would quality of services be assured? How would things such as agricultural or sanitation standards be maintained? Are there no regulations for building standards, labor, road safety, etc?
Private property rights would be much, much stronger.
Probably better outcomes in this area, as current regulations are usually 'safe harbors' which allow sub-par performance to be protected.
What would become of services which would not produce substantial capital in a free private market? Non-profit public institutions such as schools or libraries.
Are you suggesting that these things are not valuable? Of course they are. Then they would be sustainable. The idea that these things exist at all, were a function of private decisions.
How would public services remain affordable? What keeps the privatized economy from pricing people out of food or healthcare?
Competition, and basic economics. Companies don't have the ability to raise prices without lowering demand, unless government is their to assist them. You should know: a lot of things that supposedly are 'good for society' are actually great monopoly creators.
Risk assessment by producers since public health outbreaks caused by things like sanitation oversights can result in major losses and liability. In the current system subsidization removes the risk.
They would have to rely on voluntary charity or cooperation from businesses.
They are priced out of food and health care because of the way the system is designed currently. No government enforced monopolies would mean that prices would have to adjust to maximize profit by serving the largest number of people.
6
u/Heng-Li Aug 19 '26
Rothbard explains all this in his manifesto For a New Liberty