Thoughts on Freedom

I found the idea expressed in this review somewhat intriging. An extract;

These two dimensions come together to provide a simple 2×2 matrix: high grid and high group is hierarchy; low grid and low group is individualism; high group and low grid is egalitarianism; low group and high grid is fatalism. This simple model turns out to be a powerful tool for understanding social relations, and for making sense of how people see the world. We may like to believe that we choose and shape our own beliefs—but Douglas, drawing on the work of Emile Durkheim and others—suggested that it is much easier to understand societies by turning that assumption on its head: societies and institutions think through us much more than the other way around.

Within a hierarchical culture, the world is seen as controllable so long as the right structures are in place. Most governments tend towards hierarchy. It is the natural worldview of civil servants, political leaders and of most of the consultants working in and around big business and governments. To every problem there is a solution—so long as it is firmly enough implemented by a sufficiently powerful leader or elite.

In an egalitarian worldview, problems usually arise from too much hierarchy and inequality, and not enough bonding and solidarity. More discussion with more people is an unmitigated good, and any measures which widen inequalities are to be resisted. In an individualistic worldview, the answer to problems is more freedom—let people determine their own choices and things will come right. Dissent is to be celebrated; rebels are heroes, and the world is made, and remade, by the imagination and energy of individuals. The fatalistic worldview is most common among people with little power or experience of power.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9600

Proponents of a private health care market often promoting compulsory private health insurance as some form of free market solution. It would only be a free market solution if you were free to go without insurance. Given an end to public health care I would not willingly take our private health insurance. It is a rip off and I’d rather pay my own way. I’m also unconvinced that making us pay for private health care via compulsory health insurance is hugely different from making us pay for public health care via compulsory taxation. The choice between compulsory private insurance and compulsory public insurance is only a marginal improvement.

The Rudd government has been criticised for lifting the threshold at which the tax system essentially compels private health insurance via the medicare surcharge. However if anybody really needs health insurance it is not high income earners. My family has been paying private health insurance for years but we still always use the public system and we always fib so that we get admitted as public patients. We do occassionally use private services (including a rather expensive private heart specialist) however these are still costs we could pay for ourselves. Rudd should not have just lifted the threshold at which the medicare surcharge applies, he should have abolished it outright.

If we must mandate a method of payment for healthcare under a system with less public sector provision then we should use some methodology similar to HECS. And yes I know that I’m guilty of repetition having essentially said this all before.