# Libertarians answer me,  should covid 19 vaccine be free



## blam (Dec 10, 2020)

Should covid 19 vaccines be free, or should those who want it pay for it?

Yes, trying to prove to you how wrong you are about your theory on economics and wonder why you didn't get to chapter 10 where the economics textbooks talks about externalities, market failures, non perfect information and free rider problems.


----------



## N00B (Dec 10, 2020)

I think I understand Libertarian philosophy.

I would venture the answer is those that want it should pay for it.

So... moving on to Economics 101, Chapter 10:

Please explain how that statement proves your point.  I’ll respond from my understanding of a Libertarian perspective

You seem to have an ipso facto point to make.


----------



## Grace T. (Dec 10, 2020)

blam said:


> Should covid 19 vaccines be free, or should those who want it pay for it?
> 
> Yes, trying to prove to you how wrong you are about your theory on economics and wonder why you didn't get to chapter 10 where the economics textbooks talks about externalities, market failures, non perfect information and free rider problems.


You can't answer this question without knowing if the government is going to mandate it.  If it's a mandate, a libertarian would argue there shouldn't be a mandate but if there is one it should be free.  If it's not a mandate, if the government is going to buy the vaccine, it's up to it whether they want to make it free or not (wanting more people to take it probably means they'd want to make it free).  The question then falls to whether government should be involved in producing vaccines in the middle of a pandemic....even the most hard core libertarians don't believe the state should dissolve the army, the police or the firefighters (ANTIFA anarchists would be closer to that)....this would arguably be in that exception, though they might differ on that between them.  If the government doesn't buy the vaccine, then of course a libertarian would say you should pay for it....it's not government's role to tell corporations they must produce vaccines for free (that's socialism).


----------



## Grace T. (Dec 10, 2020)

Grace T. said:


> You can't answer this question without knowing if the government is going to mandate it.  If it's a mandate, a libertarian would argue there shouldn't be a mandate but if there is one it should be free.


I should note even this is not 100% true.  A friend Megan McArdle, a writer for the Washington Post, self labels herself a libertarian and is all in with a vaccine mandate.  She is, however, a very squishy libertarian and has more in common with Romney white shoe Republicans or Governor John Kasich.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Dec 15, 2020)

blam said:


> Should covid 19 vaccines be free, or should those who want it pay for it?


If Yes, what does chapter 10 say about free stuff in regard to "externalities, market failures, non perfect information and free rider problems"
If no, what does chapter 10 say about paying for stuff in regard to  "externalities, market failures, non perfect information and free rider problems"  

Money the Root of All Evil


----------



## blam (Dec 16, 2020)

Bruddah IZ said:


> If Yes, what does chapter 10 say about free stuff



Nothing is truly free, just free to you or paid for by the government. What chapter 10 says is that market allocation is sometimes not an efficient way to allocate resources.  For example, burning garbage. If we use the market to determine how and when to dispose of waste, many factories would burn their garbage because it is "free" to dispose dirty air into the environment. The market fails to capture the "cost" that is borned by the others who have to live with dirty air.


----------



## blam (Dec 16, 2020)

Grace T. said:


> If the government doesn't buy the vaccine, then of course a libertarian would say you should pay for it....it's not government's role to tell corporations they must produce vaccines for free


This is classic example of what would be the free rider problem, another example of market failure. If vaccine is not free, then we would have free riders of people who chooses not to pay for it, and hoping others will pay for it to create herd immunity.  People who pay for the vaccine are only consider private cost/private benefit. But they also contribute to a social benefit - which is adding to the herd immunity - and this benefit is not captured by the market which only considers private cost/benefit in his decision making.


----------



## N00B (Dec 16, 2020)

blam said:


> This is classic example of what would be the free rider problem, another example of market failure. If vaccine is not free, then we would have free riders of people who chooses not to pay for it, and hoping others will pay for it to create herd immunity.  People who pay for the vaccine are only consider private cost/private benefit. But they also contribute to a social benefit - which is adding to the herd immunity - and this benefit is not captured by the market which only considers private cost/benefit in his decision making.


The issue with calling this an example a demonstration of the free rider problem Is the definition of the cost/benefit and in the context of this thread, not acknowledging a Libertarian’s views as would relate to cost vs benefit.

If this is just an economics question, ie librarian =Laissez-faire approach to market dynamics I could see your point, though that would be only if you constrain market dynamics to fiscal input/output.

A Laissez-faire capitalist would be in favor of less government, so make those that want it pay.  However a Laissez-faire capitalist (now we’re incorporating social/political views) would assume that principles of market dynamics extend beyond fiscal markets to other aspects of society.  Social dynamics would also be an incentive to buy the vaccine or to buy the vaccine for others.  Employers might find it more cost effective to pay for vaccines for their  their employees (liability, lost productivity). Insurance companies may find it cheaper to pay for vaccinations as routine to avoid costs of care. Heck... the free market might band together to buy the vaccine.  The stock market valuation today, where the net present value of future earnings reacts to vaccine news, is an example of the fiscal benefit to equity and earnings of herd immunity. Obviously a bit of ‘what-if-ism’, but I think that would be the gist of a response from that perspective.

If you’re talking about Libertarian in political terms, ‘socially liberal’ and ‘fiscally conservative’, then we’re back to the cost/benefit definitions.  Valuing freedom and liberty... an individuals right to choose, while oppositing social welfareas a role of government.  They would say if you want a vaccine you should pay for it.  The cost of getting the vaccine is fiscal, the benefit is likely fiscal (ability to engage in commerce), social (freedom to associate without risk to yourself or those you value), and health.  None of which do the free rider in this example benefit from until herd immunity is reached.  A libertarian would value those things highly and the perceived benefit would likely outweigh the cost, even factoring in the proposed eventual free rider problem.  Of course, they’d also be fine with those that tried to be free riders or for other reasons did not see the benefit as worth the cost (or even perceived risk, aka anti-vaccine cloud) should they get COVID and any consequences of that individuals choice.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Dec 17, 2020)

blam said:


> Nothing is truly free, just free to you or paid for by the government. What chapter 10 says is that market allocation is sometimes not an efficient way to allocate resources.  For example, burning garbage. If we use the market to determine how and when to dispose of waste, many factories would burn their garbage because it is "free" to dispose dirty air into the environment. The market fails to capture the "cost" that is borned by the others who have to live with dirty air.


All market inefficiencies are created by government intervention$.  Creating more dollars out of thin air increases demand without increasing supply.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Dec 17, 2020)

Grace T. said:


> You can't answer this question without knowing if the government is going to mandate it.  If it's a mandate, a libertarian would argue there shouldn't be a mandate but if there is one it should be free.  If it's not a mandate, if the government is going to buy the vaccine, it's up to it whether they want to make it free or not (wanting more people to take it probably means they'd want to make it free).  The question then falls to whether government should be involved in producing vaccines in the middle of a pandemic....even the most hard core libertarians don't believe the state should dissolve the army, the police or the firefighters (ANTIFA anarchists would be closer to that)....this would arguably be in that exception, though they might differ on that between them.  If the government doesn't buy the vaccine, then of course a libertarian would say you should pay for it....it's not government's role to tell corporations they must produce vaccines for free (that's socialism).


Mandate = Subsidy


----------



## blam (Dec 18, 2020)

N00B said:


> A libertarian would value those things highly and the perceived benefit would likely outweigh the cost, even factoring in the proposed eventual free rider problem.


And that is exactly the reason why the libertarian view does not achieve the optimal results of the market. 

The socially beneficial allocation of resource is to pick the consumption of the resource of the society to maximize the :

net Benefit  = Total Benefits - Total Cost.  -------------------(1)

Solving this equation, one will find that this occurs at the same point as when Demand = Supply. It can also be found by taking the first derivative of this and setting that = 0, the solution colloquially known as Marginal Benefit = Marginal Cost. This is why from Chapters 1-5 of a micro economics text book, the market allocates resources efficiently. Mathematically proven.

Total Benefits = Total  Private Individual Benefits + Total Social Benefits and externals     ----(2)
Total Cost =Total  Private Cost + total Social Costs + externals ----------------(3)

However, the problem is getting the first equation in the first place. If individuals are left to make the decision them selves, then only private benefit vs private cost is considered. Therefore the equation that is being maximized by society is:


Benefit = Total Private Benefits - Total Private Cost  ------ (4)   Libertarains maximizing this

Because equation (1) and (4) are different in general and more so when social benefits and costs are not negligible , and (1) is the equation that leads to efficient allocation of resource by the market, equation (4) is the incorrect policy decision.


----------



## blam (Dec 18, 2020)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Creating more dollars out of thin


And you are going to back the money by gold? That's a scheme to create slavery and promote wars.

So let's say we borrow 100 oz of gold. Interest rate is 10% (for ease of calculation). So next year we need to pay 110 oz. of gold. If we add up all the debts in the world, in 100 years, we would run out of gold to repay all the debt. 

So you just created a mathematical trap where a class of society is always enslaved by debt because you can mine all the gold in the world and there wouldn't be enough gold to repay all debt. Countries would go to war to get gold. Ah! Didnt' we see this in history? Welcome back to the middle ages. All these happened and money was backed by precious metal then.


----------



## N00B (Dec 18, 2020)

blam said:


> And you are going to back the money by gold? That's a scheme to create slavery and promote wars.
> 
> So let's say we borrow 100 oz of gold. Interest rate is 10% (for ease of calculation). So next year we need to pay 110 oz. of gold. If we add up all the debts in the world, in 100 years, we would run out of gold to repay all the debt.
> 
> So you just created a mathematical trap where a class of society is always enslaved by debt because you can mine all the gold in the world and there wouldn't be enough gold to repay all debt. Countries would go to war to get gold. Ah! Didnt' we see this in history? Welcome back to the middle ages. All these happened and money was backed by precious metal then.


Are you presenting an argument against deficit spending in policy?  Just insert GDP and revenues in lieu of gold and I think libertarians would agree with your point.

To the perceived actual the intent of your post, you’re discussing a gold standard, not the value of a commodity with a finite supply. Setting a fixed value or redemption rate is the problem with that policy and creates your described mathematical trap.

Unfortunately, it does not illustrate your point.  Unless you are just arguing about a fixed valuation system (gold or otherwise) imposed by governmental intervention... which libertarians would likely oppose.  Just as much as they would oppose currency devaluation by artificially increasing supply (printing money).


----------



## N00B (Dec 18, 2020)

blam said:


> And that is exactly the reason why the libertarian view does not achieve the optimal results of the market.
> 
> The socially beneficial allocation of resource is to pick the consumption of the resource of the society to maximize the :
> 
> ...


If I understand you correctly, you’re just defining benefit as net benefit in equation 1 and personal benefit in equation 4?  Ok, you defined your results in the framing.

I believe a Libertarian would agree with equation 4 as a means of establishing value and subsequently price in terms of market demand.

equation 1 being the net benefit, does not exclude the personal benefit derived from consumers.  Personal benefit being a portion (subset) of the net benefit.


----------



## notintheface (Dec 18, 2020)

Bruddah IZ said:


> All market inefficiencies are created by government intervention$.  Creating more dollars out of thin air increases demand without increasing supply.


Somebody's not a bitcoin fan!


----------



## N00B (Dec 18, 2020)

blam said:


> And that is exactly the reason why the libertarian view does not achieve the optimal results of the market.
> 
> *The socially beneficial allocation* of resource is to pick the consumption of the resource of the society to maximize the :
> 
> net Benefit  = Total Benefits - Total Cost.  -------------------(1)


Which form of Libertarianism are you referring to?

 It seems like you’re arguing against laissez faire capitalism, but ascribing that principle as a fixed (and guiding) constant in all libertarian thought. It certainly does not apply to socialist libertarians (yes they do exist).

If we’re talking present day politics, then adherence to the social contract (consent of the governed) will invariably impact policy and considerations of net benefit will come into play.

 The guiding principle of ‘modern’ political libertarians is limited governance, not the lack of governance.


----------



## Grace T. (Dec 18, 2020)

blam said:


> And that is exactly the reason why the libertarian view does not achieve the optimal results of the market.
> 
> The socially beneficial allocation of resource is to pick the consumption of the resource of the society to maximize the :
> 
> ...



The problem with your equations is that you regard them as being static.  The moment you introduce an outside actor (such as a government) which doesn't have a cost weighted against it, you introduce a new cost or external....the unintended consequence....because the outside actor (the government) cannot efficiently direct an outcome.  It's always a moving target which is never static because each action creates another consequence.

I've shared this story before.  My son and I many years ago participated in a LARP at Disneyland called Legends of Frontierland.  It was a game where there were 2 teams from 2 towns that were trying to buy up the most land on the landboard by the end of the day.  The game broke down within the first week.  People are clever and they responded to incentives by holding onto their money until the end of the day and then rushing in at the last minute to flip ownership of land plots on the landboard.  Disney responded by adding the concept of inflation to the land prices, but then people just started bidding up the price of land early to prevent the other side from earning enough money to buy land at the end game.  People just responded by accusing each other of fake crimes so they could get a hold of the bail money which further broke the game because vast sums of people were just being rounded up and sent to jail.  Every time they tweaked something, something else went wrong and by the end the game as a game was just broken (despite their being only 2 towns it got so ridiculous a 3rd faction emerged which Disney didn't even create with its rules).

The minute you try to correct an externality by introducing a third party non-incentivized actor, you'll create a new unintended consequence that further increases the costs and might in fact exceed the cost of the problem you are trying to fix.  For example: the problem is we have a bunch of rich kulaks sitting around letting farm land go unplanted because they are trying to maximize their prices but not maximize crops....solution: shoot the kulaks.....result: Ukrainian famine.  It doesn't help that non-incentivized actors like government are really really really bad at making these decisions because they are corrupted by things like corruption, ideology, religion, political power and cronyism.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Dec 19, 2020)

blam said:


> And you are going to back the money by gold? That's a scheme to create slavery and promote wars.
> 
> So let's say we borrow 100 oz of gold. Interest rate is 10% (for ease of calculation). So next year we need to pay 110 oz. of gold. If we add up all the debts in the world, in 100 years, we would run out of gold to repay all the debt.
> 
> So you just created a mathematical trap where a class of society is always enslaved by debt because you can mine all the gold in the world and there wouldn't be enough gold to repay all debt. Countries would go to war to get gold. Ah! Didnt' we see this in history? Welcome back to the middle ages. All these happened and money was backed by precious metal then.


The Romans proved that their monetary policy of devaluing Gold coins by clipping, shaving, and mixing other metals with gold to be reissued as a lighter or less pure coin caused market failures and the fall of an 800 year Empire.  Today the Federal Reserve does the same thing by creating more dollars to pay for the same amount of goods and services.


----------



## crush (Dec 19, 2020)

I need a job bruddah.  This is me trying to find work.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Dec 19, 2020)

notintheface said:


> Somebody's not a bitcoin fan!


On the contrary.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Dec 20, 2020)

Grace T. said:


> The problem with your equations is that you regard them as being static.  The moment you introduce an outside actor (such as a government) which doesn't have a cost weighted against it, you introduce a new cost or external....the unintended consequence....because the outside actor (the government) cannot efficiently direct an outcome.  It's always a moving target which is never static because each action creates another consequence.
> 
> I've shared this story before.  My son and I many years ago participated in a LARP at Disneyland called Legends of Frontierland.  It was a game where there were 2 teams from 2 towns that were trying to buy up the most land on the landboard by the end of the day.  The game broke down within the first week.  People are clever and they responded to incentives by holding onto their money until the end of the day and then rushing in at the last minute to flip ownership of land plots on the landboard.  Disney responded by adding the concept of inflation to the land prices, but then people just started bidding up the price of land early to prevent the other side from earning enough money to buy land at the end game.  People just responded by accusing each other of fake crimes so they could get a hold of the bail money which further broke the game because vast sums of people were just being rounded up and sent to jail.  Every time they tweaked something, something else went wrong and by the end the game as a game was just broken (despite their being only 2 towns it got so ridiculous a 3rd faction emerged which Disney didn't even create with its rules).
> 
> The minute you try to correct an externality by introducing a third party non-incentivized actor, you'll create a new unintended consequence that further increases the costs and might in fact exceed the cost of the problem you are trying to fix.  For example: the problem is we have a bunch of rich kulaks sitting around letting farm land go unplanted because they are trying to maximize their prices but not maximize crops....solution: shoot the kulaks.....result: Ukrainian famine.  It doesn't help that non-incentivized actors like government are really really really bad at making these decisions because they are corrupted by things like corruption, ideology, religion, political power and cronyism.


Who is John Galt?


----------



## blam (Dec 22, 2020)

Grace T. said:


> he moment you introduce an outside actor (such as a government) which doesn't have a cost weighted against it, you introduce a new cost or external....the unintended consequence....because the outside actor (the government) cannot efficiently direct an outcome.


Wait...you are assuming that when the government makes a decision, it will always be the wrong decision? I am asserting that some kind of intervention (if done correctly) will lead to a more efficient outcome.

Of course, if you have Trump making all the decisions, then yes I agree, better to leave it to the market.

Also politics appears to get involved. It looks like USA is limiting itself only to Western based vaccines when if we look at all available ones, the Russian vaccine seem to be the best.

According to Russian Empress source: 




3:16,  Sputnik V only requires a storage temperature of 2-8 C (compared to -70C for Pfizer, and -20C for Moderna).

4:02  Sputnik V cost $20 compared to Pfizer $40 and Moderna $66.

And in terms of effectivity is 95%.

Question: When will we buy Sputnik V from the Russians? It looks like the most cost effective and cheapest and easiest to handl.

Or should I ask, "Why are we not told about Sputnik V by our news media?" 

In fact, the news media claimed that the vaccination by Pfizer in the UK few weeks ago was the "first" in the whole world. Why are we being fed with all these bullshit?


----------

