Our local libertarian party draws its influences both classical liberal scholars like Adam Smith and Austrian School economists like Hayak. Both schools of thought advocate less government, the Austrian school was just 150 years more up to date, so I don't think that you can really make that much of a distinction between a libertarian and a classical liberal upon that basis. In any case Australia and many other countries including the US have seen considerable economic liberalisation since the early 1980's, hence my comment. Of course it hasn't gone "all the way" and gotten rid of government completely as many liberatarians might like, but there has been an undeniable influence of free market ideologies.

We simply have a disagreement here though that may be because my original use of the term classical liberal was incorrect. However if one wishes to consider liberal in the libertarian sense the politics of parties such as the Liberal Party in Australia or the Republican party in the United States then one has to also answer the question as to why those parties' politics is so fundamentally at odds with libertarian principle. The freer trade of modern "liberal" parties (only in the sense that the trade policies are freer than those of their political opponents) is not free trade.  Socialist Yugoslavia was not libertarian (or liberal in the libertarian sense) because it was more liberal than the Soviet Union.

As I have previously outlined, ensuring that people have access to primary healthcare doesn't necessarily mean that the service has to be provided or funded by the government. It might just mean that having a private insurance policy that incorporates primary care to a certain value is made compulsory, with the type of care that this includes being agreed between the individual and insurance company. 

Compulsory insurance is a dangerous concept. Many persons, given the option, make the rational choice of not paying for insurance but opting instead to pay for healthcare when it is necessary. Many of those not insured in the United States simply choose not to be insured. The role of government, in my view, ought not to be one of compulsion. What is to be the consequence of not buying compulsory health insurance - government appropriation of income or a prison sentence?

However, I still contend that people won't donate as much of their time and money volentarily as they provide through taxation. That is fine with other social services but I am not prepared to take the risk that bases aren't covered because of inadequate donations with something as important as healthcare. Basically I'm prepared to accept some loss of liberty and some inefficiency to ensure

that it is provided.

Actually though it is not merely that you are willing to forgo some loss of liberty of your own (of which I have no problem), but also you are willing to forgo the liberty of someone else. You argue this to be valid on account of the importance of healthcare. But then what type of healthcare should be compulsory? Will the government make the choice of whether conventional, homeopathy, acupuncture, naturopathy, Chinese medicine or a combination is to be compulsory? 

Quote    Reply

We simply have a disagreement here though that may be because my original use of the term classical liberal was incorrect. However if one wishes to consider liberal in the libertarian sense the politics of parties such as the Liberal Party in Australia or the Republican party in the United States then one has to also answer the question as to why those parties' politics is so fundamentally at odds with libertarian principle. The freer trade of modern "liberal" parties (only in the sense that the trade policies are freer than those of their political opponents) is not free trade.  Socialist Yugoslavia was not libertarian (or liberal in the libertarian sense) because it was more liberal than the Soviet Union.

The reality is that the Republican's and the Liberal Party of Australia exemplify libertarian theories because they are just that, theories. They provide useful insights into directions that societies might like to take and they have done so in many instances over the last two hundred years. However, they ignore basic realities about our nature as social animals and therefore haven't, can't and won't predominate. 

Actually though it is not merely that you are willing to forgo some loss of liberty of your own (of which I have no problem), but also you are willing to forgo the liberty of someone else. You argue this to be valid on account of the importance of healthcare. But then what type of healthcare should be compulsory? Will the government make the choice of whether conventional, homeopathy, acupuncture, naturopathy, Chinese medicine or a combination is to be compulsory? 

Yup, I am arguing that elected governments have the right to make decisions that involve a loss of liberty for everybody in order to achieve a greater social good. Those sorts of decisions are in fact why governments exist and if people don't like that then it that is basically tough. However, I lean towards keeping this intrusion to an absolute minimum and therefore my answer to your second question is that there should be the maximum flexibility for people to choose what type of care they are insured for within the bounds of being insured to an adequate value.

 Yet is nourishment not equally important as health? Does that not mean that there is a valid argument for the government provision of food to those who cannot afford it? What about the correct types of food and who will make that decision? Will the government also determine which type of food is valid and in which proportions?  Who is going to provide the food and will they also be compelled to do so at a compelling price? How much liberty to sacrifice for how much food?

That argument has been made many times here and it is still as lame as ever. People in modern countries like Australia and the US are generally not having trouble affording food ... even those on low incomes prioritise it because hunger is an immediate reminder to go to the shop and buy their roceries. It is far easier to put aside paying for health insurance until it is too late, at which time most people can't afford the consequences. They really are entirely different examples.