I find the tendency of people to label the intentions of individuals entering certain professions as ironic amongst libertarian types.

If we understand that a motivator is self-interest then the amount of time we spend dwelling on the intent of a professional collective is excruciatingly asinine.

The object of the game is not to focus on the intent or purpose of collective groups - that is the job of people who hold the convoluted view that a state can pre-determine the the net economic worth of a sector and what quota that collective should meet.

Not everyone choosing to enter a high-risk profession - see medicine - are out there to maximize gains. Though we would hope that this is a motivator to all individuals to some extent. There is little impetus to assure quality work or innovation without concern of gains, especially in a system where malpractice suits are prevalent.

“Capitalistic medicine,” which is hilarious nomenclature by the way, works under the premise that a private practitioner must meet the needs of patients while managing to account for a practice’s upkeep, assure that practice is not dated, etc.

The costs of drugs, insurance (tort concerns issues are a factor) and the complications of suits are not particularly helpful things to a private practitioner - if anything it complicates their ability to maximize profits.

Droning on about profiteering medical professionals is a huge joke when we consider the fact that doctors are not currently operating within a free market system and they are legally bound to procedure, practice and their patients.

This post has 5 notes.
  1. roxygen posted this