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).