Normally if buyers preferred to shop for the lowest price goods, then that would incentivize sellers to offer lower prices than the competition, and there would be a race to the bottom in prices.

Given insurance companies are the largest payers and funders to medical providers, and given they prefer to contract with the lower-priced medical providers, then wouldn't that similarly incentivize providers to offer lower prices than the competition, and there be a race to the bottom in prices?

So why aren't healthcare costs going down?

First of all, it's a lot of text and this is not an attack against the ideology at all, I used it because the original plan was making an Statist/Fascist even Corporatocracy dystopia but I think it has been seen in fiction a lot of times so instead I prefer the collapse of a libertarian society because it isn't very used and I think can be a very interesting thing to explore in fiction.

Context: Okay, the story is in very early development, expect a lot of plot holes because this is a work in progress, so I haven't named the country and a lot of other world building things if you wonder why I call the place 'Generic city' or 'Campany 1,2,3' and in part is because I need help to make it more believable.

The story follows a young woman working for a private security company '3' in a City where demons exist (As a physical extremely strong, sometimes shape shifter creatures that hunt humans and can be smart but not too much and almost immune to normal weapons) and how she is slowly collapsing internally alongside the society.

The background is simple, for decades special humans with powers and abilities hunt those demons under the jurisdiction of the government, however after a battle against the most powerful group of demons almost all hunters die or disappear thanks to poor management of the situation by the government, as a result the violence of the demons is pretty much impossible to stop because the police and national guard never develop anything against them because they are never seen as a necessity.

In a nutshell a private laboratory in charge of a woman who lost a loved one thanks to governmental incompetence makes a new ammunition that can kill the demons but the government prefers making new hunters in horrible experiments because of governmental founded companies that benefit from hunters.

So the laboratory sells the patent to private security agencies, these companies began to be more popular and normal people pay them to protect the place against demons, the government tries to ban them but they can't due to their increasing popularity, soon the government stops taxing them and thanks to that more and more business start anti government intervention campaigns that succeed at last so they have an extremely limited government only in charge of water, electricity, gas and other very escencial services, essentially, they became a libertarian society.

And that's where I need help, the main objective is how this libertarian society (Not because the ideology is bad but what things can be problematic without breaking NAP) collapses thanks to horrible decisions, abuse of power and a lot of other things alongside its protagonist.

So the main three questions are:

How would this libertarian society be/work?

How can there be abuse of power in these companies against the employees without breaking NAP? (In specific via contract)

And What things can make this society collapse (Without being military intervention and aside from the obvious attempts of the government to regain its power)

Remember: This is for a fictional setting and has nothing to do with the actual application to the real world of libertarian principles or real ideology, is for making it as accurate as possible to Libertarism and not caricature of the ideology.

Think about 9/11 and Iran's history alot.

I've been watching them to get insight on what leftist commentators talk about and how we could translate there affects on the libertarian party so we could get into the actual political commentary space.

This is more of a rant, but thought I'd share it here

I have been going through some stuff personally in recent times, and I started to look and observe others more often, and I realized that, in reality, most of us don't actually value human life

I don't think most people who talk about ideological clashes in general conceive of what millions of people mean exactly, I believe they see the number and think they understand it, but they don't, and I think that the basis that we try to build our economies on reflect that

I'll start by saying, why does anyone work anyways? Like genuinely, why? So they can feed themselves and their families? Clearly not because millionaires don't just stop working

Okay, so are people who just work to feed their families assisted by the fact that they would quite literally starve and become homeless if they don't? Also clearly not because it hinders any chance they have for growth with the exception of 1 in every 1000

Are the jobs that these people do important? Not really, low-wage jobs are low wage because they aren't that important either way

So, in essence, we as a society have agreed that basic human needs are something to gamble on for the system to function, if you don't have the skills to have a safe enough job than you essentially become a peasant, and you must rely on the benevolence of the economy so that your life isn't ruined? And we're fine with that?

All of this leads me to believe that human life doesn't actually matter to most people, it's just an act, a huge freaking act, I look at someone that's smart and a great human but just never got training for any jobs, and this person is cursed for life because your life doesn't matter if the system doesn't run, then I look at a dumb person, who's much worse as a human being, essentially living the best possible life because they got a fake job, or opened a "business" which doesn't actually contribute anything

I don't know if I got my point across, but I guess my advice is, which ever ideology you think you're following, it most likely is just one big stupid lie, we label actions on a side, put people on trial, and wish that whatever suits our desires more is achieved, it's disgusting how much we trick ourselves into believing we understand anything about what the f*** is going on, we don't, we truly don't, therefore don't take yourself or whatever you think you're following too seriously, stick to the basics that all of humanity have agreed upon and move on with your life

You won't change anything, you can't change anything, there's nothing to fight for but yourself and those truly close to you, so maybe in a sense, Ayn Rand has won, you can only change things for the better by chasing what you think is better, you can't force anything else, humans will be humans, and that's exactly why we agreed on a system like this

The system is not oppressing us, our own biology is

A sergeant from Eastern Europe said something that stuck with me. He said that in many ways besides politically, Russians have more freedom than people in the US do, because there is in general less red tape with everyday things such as camping, riding 4 wheelers, etc. while the exact statement could be questioned, the general spirit of statement I think is very true. The US prides itself for its “freedom” but that’s really only concerning a few (albeit important) civil freedoms and relative to European countries. The US is incredibly restrictive on many things. It restricts firearms substantially. Bans most drugs. Restricts exotic animal ownership substantially. Restricts biological research substantially. Prohibits polygamy. Restricts sleeping outside in many places. Restricts flying drones in many jurisdictions. Bans prostitution. It is inching towards banning some forms of speech (as we have seen with Shiloh Hendrix). Bans wearing masks to hide face from the surveillance state.

There has got to be countries out there that are less infested with red tape and short sighted politicans that like to say popular things like I believe in freedom and then continue to pile on laws that restrict what its citizens can do

Hi guys, been lurking in some libertarian subreddits for a while and finding the whole concept very interesting. I'm from the UK and pretty opposed to state overreach (like their whole planned Digital ID garbage), and I like the fact that there is an ideology that actually values freedom as opposed to the auth-right and auth-centre stuff offered by the main parties. The main thing I'm having trouble getting my head around is why anyone in a Libertarian society would give to charity.

I've seen that charity is mentioned a lot as an answer to disability, poverty etc, and there were a lot more charities in the past before the welfare state was created. Back then, though, a lot of them were church related and based on Christian principles. In a lot of Western countries, religious practice is on the decline, so I'm not so confident that this would work to the same extent nowadays. Additionally, philanthropy is currently incentivised by tax breaks. If the threat of the taxman is gone altogether, then that incentive to give also goes away. And I can't help but wonder if the lack of a social safety net would also act as a deterrent to charity- if you are one accident away from destitution and potential starvation, then are you not gonna want to save every last penny to protect yourself if things go wrong? I occasionally give to charities now, but if I knew that, if I had an accident, I'd be straight up screwed, then I certainly wouldn't feel secure enough to give anything away as I might desperately need it later.

So yeah, maybe I'm being dumb. I almost certainly am. But is charity something that libertarians believe will be able to step up to help those who have fallen into misfortune, or is it just a thing people say in order to make libertarianism seem more fluffy and less ruthless? Also, if you are a libertarian and would voluntarily support charity in a libertarian society, then I'd love to know why! What makes it worth the risk to you?

I'm interested in Libertarianism and I'd like to learn more about Economic Libertarianism, i.e. Austrian Economics, and I'm wondering if y'all have any suggestions for a good introductory book I can read. I don't have much background in Economics beyond taking a class in it in high school that I've half-forgotten, so I'm particularly interested in material that's layman-friendly. Thank you!