true laissez faire libertarianism is dangerous

Thanks the debate dairygirl4u2c!" i dont have much evidence other than my common sense ideas, but then again enither do you offer evidence that no one would die. "First of all, I'd like to remind voters that Pro has the burden to show laissez faire is dangerous. I don't have to prove that NOBODY would die unexpectedly under laissez faire. Life is dangerous and millions died directly from the hand of governments in the 20th century. I did provide evidence in the last round that the only mortality increase during the great depression was from a slight increase in suicides. This was prior to LBJ's great society, and a time with little government involvement in health care. Keep in mind the graph from the last round that showed how low welfare spending was at that time. Also remember the generous amount of charitable giving I showed in the last round, which I'm sure would be much higher if not for the crowding out affect of government welfare. With the levels of wealth we have today, which would be even higher under laissez faire, it is hard to imagine anyone dying of malnourishment. And only in a Utopian world of endless resources can we afford to give everyone all the health care they ask for.Pro tries to show again that lack of health insurance affects mortality, but I've already shown there is no such link. Pro's first link is interesting, showing that some people don't fill their prescriptions. News flash! Even though I can generally afford them, I almost never fill my prescriptions and I won't unless the doctor tells me I'm in danger unless I do. All that article says is that people will buy more of something that costs less. No kidding - it's an a priori economic truism. If I could spend 10 million dollars lifetime on every person in the U.S. I bet I could raise mortality rates (although likely only marginally). "you have a heart attack and cant afford a bypass or a stent, you get aspirin"Government health insurance does not make health care a non-scarce resource. We can't dedicate 75% of our economy to health care and even if we did, we still may not be able to provide every single person every bit of treatment they would ever want. Simply stating "you can't afford X you die" implies a world were scarcity does not exist and that world only existed in Karl Marx's dreams of communism. "only because of laws do many doctors operate when the patient has no money"Doctors have been put in a position where they aren't allowed to make decisions about much of anything. They have essentially become employees of insurance companies, and this has occurred because of regulations and costs spiraling out of control because there is no free market to control prices. Doctors don't even discuss price with patients (if they even know the prices) Besides, this statement is just wrong. I'll remind Pro of the 358$ billion a year donated by Americans to charity. Americans also do substantial voluntary work. Pro must think that none of this includes those who work in health care, but Pro would be wrong:"With the conviction that healthcare is the right of all and must be provided regardless of socioeconomic or health status, three New York University (NYU) medical students established the NYU Free Clinic Project in the fall of 1999."http://nycfreeclinic.med.nyu.edu...Here is the form 990 for Beth Israel Medical Center that includes work from over 1000 volunteers and over 10$ million in contributions and grants. And this is despite the current environment where we all know about all the government welfare available.http://www.cirseiu.org...This debate has referenced in passing the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986, which obligates emergency care regardless of insurance. Pro assumes both that doctors would not care for indigent patients and that no such law would exists under laissez faire. I don't think either of these assumptions can be made without justification. Certainly I have showed cases where the first assumption is false."he also says if you are stupid enough to buy from a mom and pop you get what you deserve"No, what I said was you assume that people are stupid enough to do this. You also assume, given that such stupidity exists, you can solve the problem with government. Given the FDA Vioxx scenario (and many othes) or the huge problems with consumers abusing pharmaceuticals, clearly this is not true."if they were too fast, unsafe drugs and food would be allowed. "I'm not sure how you can believe this. I can only assume you didn't read my arguments are chose to ignore what FDA insiders say about the culture there."also the problem, is even bigger companies will sell what they can make money on, even if people get sick or die"Pro clearly doesn't understand the ideas behind laissez faire and the meaning of private property, properly backed by law. Pharmacy companies have not only their reputations at stake but also the threat of law suits. I remind voters of my Sam Peltzman arguments from the last round that showed the Kefauver-Harris act of 1962 had no positive affect on the introduction of unsafe drugs. I have shown not only specific cases where the FDA has failed (and thousands of died), along with systemic cultural problems within, but also how it's monopoly privilege protects it from being held accountable. The best solution to these problems is to break the monopoly and allow free competition. Pro says that my tragedy of the commons example is unrelated. So either Pro thinks the deepwater horizon oil spill isn't related to the environment or thinks this was not an example of the tragedy of the commons. I'll leave it to voters, but my position is clear.Pro says I dropped an argument from round 1: Decreases in pollution have been brought about increases in wealth and improvements in technology. Ok, in round 2 Pro says:"the problem is they had no reason to use their wealth or technology unless the government told them to. "Although I did not specifically state how my arguments link to this, I did provide a reason why businesses would do this: private property. Under laissez faire, a business cannot pollute onto another's property without legal repercussions. Remember, there is no public property except for a limited resources owned by government. Pro says:" he ignores that i stated that peopel are allowed to die with the current pollution allowed"Well, that's interesting. Pro admits that the EPA is allowing people to die by their own current standards. Keep in mind that the EPA, like the FDA, is a government entity with monopoly privilege. I don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine the wrath that would come down on a private entity with such an allowable death rate compared to the sort of reaction we get with government entities: "Oh, well. That's government. Can't live without out! Take the good with the bad!". Pro says there is no need to state or prove anything. "See, the EPA has allowable death rates so laissez faire would be worse!". I don't get it. The EPA is a monopoly beholden to nobody. When the screw up, there is no recourse. But somehow I'm to believe that with no government involvement, and all property owned privately, that people would not come up with away to protect their property. I don't think so.