Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!mcnc!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Libertarian position on certain 'law - (nf)
Message-ID: <1681@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Aug-84 00:44:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.1681
Posted: Wed Aug 22 00:44:23 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 14-Aug-84 00:44:20 EDT
Lines: 28

#R:ccieng2:-47100:inmet:7800118:000:1060
inmet!nrh    Aug  7 09:58:00 1984

>***** inmet:net.politics / tty3b!mjk /  4:42 pm  Aug  2, 1984
>Libertarian position on medical regulation:  if you go to a quack and
>his surgery results in you losing a leg, you'll know not to go back
>to him again.  If his surgery results in your death, that's OK: you
>can sue.
>
>Disclaimer: I am not a libertarian.
>
>Mike Kelly
>----------

Statist position on medical regulation: if you go to a surgeon, and he knows
how to help you, but his ideas are out of favor with the state, he won't 
operate, and if you die as a result, you can't sue the state -- and
people think you're crazy if you try.

Disclaimer: I am not an idiot.

[For those curious, there would still be people like Ralph Nader, and
the American Medical Association in a libertarian society.  They
just would not have the power to forbid others from working.  The AMA
in particular could "certify" people, but one would be free to go to
a non-certified doctor (although the AMA would probably try to sue
anybody that advertised themselves as "AMA certified" even though
they weren't).