PDMP made into law will have Missouri joining the other 49 states in attempting to reduce drug overdoses and addiction through enforcement. However, it will also have Missouri joining other states around the country in a ridiculous contradiction.

The Contradiction

Missouri is one of many States with a Drug Court program, a voluntary but costly alternative to incarceration available to non-violent drug offenders. In Missouri, completion is rewarded with expungement of the drug offense related to a person’s participation in the program. Essentially, it’s the state’s way of acknowledging not all drug offenders are violent. It also acknowledges that non-violent offenders don’t deserve to be burdened with a criminal record, and kept in a system of incarceration and probation that negatively alters their future in society.

PDMP, on the other hand, is a state-run program specifically targeting non-violent drug offenses. Here we have two conflicting government systems—one criminalizing non-violent drug offenses with a subsequent system asserting non-violent drug offenses shouldn’t be criminal. Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right one is doing.

The Hypocrisy

So which is it? Is non-violent drug use criminal? Or are only violent actions criminal? The state says both—unless the non-violent prove themselves worthy of not being treated as criminals by jumping through challenging hoops and paying large sums of money to the courts, strung out over a period of one to two years. Effectively, non-violent drug users are offenders because MONEY. And the revenue collected doesn’t even come close to alleviating the tax burden funding these wasteful programs.

If Missouri really wished to make a dent in addiction and overdose cases, it could at least try NOT to contradict itself. Sending mixed messages is the wrong message. In this wildly spun web of hypocrisy, only one message is clear—the War On Drugs is alive and well. PDMP is just a thinly veiled escalation, doomed to fail just as the rest of the Drug War has.

The post Government Fail: Missouri Legislature Contradicts Itself in the War on Drugs appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

What essentially happened here? Hawley was canceled by proxy. Although he arguably played no role in what happened on Capitol Hill on January 6, his intentions to object to the Electoral College results certifying Joe Biden’s win over President Trump, and more importantly Hawley’s association with Trump, was used to paint him as a key figure in what the Left refers to as an act of sedition. Guilt by association.

I find it ironic that the Senator’s political career could come skidding to a halt in the same fashion that his time in the US Senate started. You see, in my opinion, Josh Hawley was ELECTED by proxy as well.

During his senatorial campaign in 2017-18 (launched less than a year after becoming Missouri Attorney General), Hawley was criticized by his fellow Republicans for his lackadaisical approach to the campaign, sluggish fundraising numbers, and even called out by US Rep. Ann Wagner for failing to appear at a primary debate event.

By July of 2018, the State GOP took matters into their own hands and authorized the party to begin spending fundraiser monies on Hawley’s campaign before the conclusion of the state primary, in which 10 other Republicans were vying for the seat. The party had previously authorized this action only two other times in 12 years. President Trump had already endorsed Hawley in the election at this point, and the state GOP was just responding in kind. Grassroots opinions be damned, the establishment had already made their choice, and their “Golden Boy” was it.

Hawley didn’t even make it to a Lincoln Days campaigning dinner event in his own hometown of Columbia, despite his campaign knowing ahead of time that campaign staffers wouldn’t be allowed to speak on his behalf. That’s when then Lt. Governor Mike Parson, a keynote speaker at the event, used up some of his speech time stumping in Hawley’s stead.

But amazingly, it worked for Hawley. Most conservative voters in Missouri were won over with nothing more than President Trump’s endorsement. Some didn’t even know there were other Republican candidates in the primary. Trump endorsed Hawley and that was all they needed to know. Score one for populism.

Josh Hawley mailed it in for political gain. Now his detractors are doing the same. What goes around comes around, I guess.

Image: Hawley campaign ad, YouTube

The post Josh Hawley: Elected By Proxy, Canceled By Proxy appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

But we can’t deny it any longer. Irrefutable evidence stares us in the face when we turn on the news and log onto social media. It’s time we libertarians accept the truth as everyone else already has. Libertarians are the most powerful force for political and societal change this continent has ever seen!The political opposition expose their belief in this all the time. Remember when Ronald Reagan claimed the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism? Republicans, in response, wasted no time dragging conservatism away from limited government and free market principles. That was just too radical an idea for them, and we needed to be marginalized for the GOP to retain their control. You wouldn’t react like that to an irrelevant group that barely registers as a minor nuisance, would you?

When libertarians got involved in the Tea Party movement, the Obama administration pressured the IRS to harass affiliated groups and organizations. FreedomWorks, which had libertarians working within, was a target. Democrats wouldn’t stand for any societal change they didn’t engineer, and moved quickly to suppress libertarian influence before it expanded. Likewise, GOP cronies couldn’t sit idly by and used their resources and influence to sabotage the movement.

But that didn’t stop us! Instead, we’ve since moved the needle even further to the point that Tucker Carlson admitted libertarians (unbeknownst to us) practically own and operate Washington, DC. Most recently, we’ve even earned vitriol from a former CIA spook who claims “even libertarians” are part of an “unholy alliance!”

Last but not least, the mother of all proofs which demonstrate the raw power we command—libertarians are solely responsible for the outcome of every major election! For decades, our voter base (arguably the smallest demographic in the nation) has held the keys to the Oval Office, where just a simple nod or frown from us has the power to vault a major candidate to victory or devastate a campaign and lay it to waste.

So I’ve decided to drop denial like a bad habit, and accept our rightful place as rulers of the political galaxy. Fear us. Hate us. Or simply bow before us. Just know that we now know what you have already accepted— Libertarians run this show!

The post Libertarians: Movers, Shakers and Kingmakers in American Politics appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Three bills filed in Jefferson City, this year, take aim at ensuring and expanding 2nd Amendment rights within the state. Two, if passed, will inhibit federal agencies from infringing on Missourians’ gun rights, and one would expand those rights to individuals otherwise prohibited by current state law.

The Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) seeks to restrict federal agencies from commandeering local and state law enforcement officials for the purpose of enforcing federal gun control laws. The bill, introduced both in the House (HB 85) by Rep. Jered Taylor and in the Senate (SB 39) by Sen. Eric Burlison, would among other things make it a state violation for local law enforcement to do so. Law enforcement officers who violate the new state law would be subject to lawsuits and would be excluded from ever holding a state position in the profession again. Basically, if the Feds want to take Missourians’ guns or gun rights away, they are going to have to do it themselves.

The second bill, HB 501 introduced by Rep. Nick Shroer, would prohibit disclosure of medical marijuana patient registry information to federal agencies and third parties. Currently, the ATF says being a medical marijuana card holder excludes a citizen from purchasing firearms. But in Missouri, we believe a person can have their pot brownies and ARs, too.

Third, HB 895, introduced by Rep. Michael Davis, would restore Second Amendment rights for non-violent felons after they’ve completed their sentences. Talk about pulling out the viper’s fangs…

So far, SAPA has passed both House and Senate committees, while the other two await scheduling on the House calendar. SAPA, having been introduced multiple times in the state legislature, is moving more quickly than in previous years. It is still very early in the legislative session, so don’t count the others out.

Any one of these monster bills becoming law would be a tremendous step forward in the gun debate, but one can only imagine the amount of liberty unleashed if all three were to be signed by Governor Parson. Here’s hoping for a freedom trifecta in Missouri this year!

The post Show Me The Way – Missouri Goes for a Gun Rights Trifecta appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Now just imagine that scenario for a moment  – Rothbard accused of not being Rothbardian. How could that come to be? Murray didn’t elaborate on the story – at least not that I know of – leaving the “how” up to speculation.

Judging by what I have experienced in open discussion amongst many of the libertarian-minded today, this scenario most likely came to be when this individual compared how Rothbard spoke to what he wrote. In many of the speeches I have found and listened to, Murray tended to focus more on practical application of libertarian principles in the real world rather than theoretical purity in a static environment, which to me is what his writings tend to examine. So when Murray espoused something that didn’t strictly adhere to the doctrine as it is written in the Book Of Rothbard, they cried “heretic.”

Sadly this phenomenon, in my opinion, has only escalated in the realm of Libertarianism over the years. Strict adherence to theoretical purity has become a barrier preventing entrance to and banishing heretics from the libertarian sphere. Only those espousing the most pure form of the sacred Non Aggression Principle (NAP) are positioned as gatekeepers, to whom all others must answer before they can enter the gates to Libertarian Heaven. 

When someone points to some perceived flaws in the philosophy (which should be examined and corrected), the archangels swoop in raining fire and brimstone down upon the nonbelievers.

I don’t make these analogies without merit. In my experience, one cannot even use the term “state” without strictly adhering to what is considered to be the only anarcho-whatever approved definition of the word, and to use it in a context other than what the Rothbard Almighty hath decreed is largely met with disdain and vitriol. Passages found in the Sacred Texts have been chiseled in stone, the prophets deified, and interlopers cast out in their name.

Nothing exemplifies this dogmatism, often at the expense of delegitimizing core libertarian tenets, more so than the treatment of Austin Petersen. Ever since his infamous words “you should not be able to sell heroin to a 5 year old,” the philosophical purists have spurned him and continue to search for purely philosophical evidence to discredit his brand of libertarianism. In the most recent onslaught spawned from Austin’s assertions regarding World War II and continuing today over his fearless criticism and rejection of the NAP, some Libertarians have even gone so far (unwittingly, I presume) as to again denounce libertarian tenets, such as free association and justification of immoral acts, in defense of the Sacred Words. It’s become eerily similar to Gary Johnson and his supporters in the “Bake The Cake” debacle, among other instances.

 I have even seen Libertarians describe Austin as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” Aside from the fact that Petersen isn’t even a member of the LP anymore, how can one be a preying wolf among sheep without insinuating the Libertarian Party are sheep to be preyed upon? Doesn’t that suggest members to be a flock needing to be watched over and cared for by a pastor?

It appears to me increasingly more advocates of libertarianism are falling prey to the same mentality so many of them criticize in matters of party politics and organized religion. As Thomas Jefferson once put it,”I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.”

Rebellion is the vehicle that transforms ideas, societies, and governments. Just as government has stagnated and turned to poison, so too will libertarianism stagnate and turn to poison if it becomes too stringent and closed to change or refinement.

The post Have Libertarians Become Too Dogmatic? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

It shouldn’t be any surprise that this turn of events was on the horizon. After all, social justice warriors have been viewing social issues in America through the lense of race since before ‘SJW’ became a trendy acronym. Identity politics, especially when focused on racial identity with an intersectional hierarchy reaffirming a perception that white men retain the highest privilege, has thus far proven to move people toward voluntary segregation in social life.

The NYU students are simply trying to reform the public university in the same image as that social structure. That’s just the kind of thinking a racist would gravitate to—more so when the already established philosophical structure would place them at the top of a social ladder, peering down on the other self-arranged classes which inadvertently view themselves as less-than through their own philosophical assertions. They would no longer need to force their views onto others when the views of others already mirror their own. It takes all the work out of beating people down when the people do it themselves, leaving a racist to just enjoy the fruits of others’ labor. History has shown that is what they want to do in the first place.

Spencer’s move isn’t something that just came to him out of the blue. Since I first heard his name, I’ve seen how closely his own politics align with a leftist agenda. He has championed abortion from the beginning because, as he puts it, “the people who are having abortions are generally very often black or Hispanic or from very poor circumstances.” Leftists use a nearly identical justification for their support in maintaining the legality of and expanding access to abortion.

Spencer doesn’t call himself a white nationalist either. Instead he uses a cryptic term, ‘identitarian’, to explain his views. Identity politics on the Left, Identitarianism on the “alt-right.” Both leading to segregation of races and classes in one form or another. Sounds a little too coincidental. He also started showing his support for Universal Basic Income and National Healthcare, products of the Democrat agenda, while he was still heralding himself as a Trump supporter; even attempting to appeal to the President to give them serious consideration.

For the time being, it almost seems as though woke leftism and identitarian racism were fated to be together, given their myriad commonalities. Will it end in the destruction of either philosophy, or the marriage of the two into one fluid philosophy? Perhaps time will tell.

The Left’s continuing trend to infuse racism into their political ideology is arguably why alt-righters would feel a familiar vibe congruent to their own. Spencer has already shown this vibe is attractive enough to try to join the leftist ranks once again, encouraging others to follow.

The post Woke Leftism Attracts Racists appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

[Missouri Is Fighting Alone Against Drug Monitoring (And Why The Entire USA Should Thank Them)]

Although not a new problem in our society, drug overdose seems to have received a lot more attention since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, with state governments scrambling to come up with viable solutions to curb what is being called an opioid epidemic. Their strongest push for creating a government-related program to fix a government-related problem comes in the form of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMP). These programs promise to help prevent drug-related deaths by somehow curbing drug addiction – a feat not yet achieved despite decades of government intervention.

These attempts by governments to thwart addiction will continue to fail, as they have ever since New York implemented the first PDMP in 1918. If you think I sound overly sure of myself in making this claim, rest assured there is good reason – I am a recovering addict. On December 21, 2019, I celebrated 13 years being clean. This anniversary was especially momentous because it marked more years being clean than the years I spent in active addiction.

My experience with addiction comes not from studying from afar and in textbooks, but from firsthand experience dealing with my own addiction as well as my interactions with fellow addicts. The following is what I consider to be the top four reasons PDMP can’t battle addiction.

1. Chemical Dependence Does Not Equal Addiction

Conflating chemical dependence with drug addiction is, in my opinion, the most common misstep advocates of PDMP continue to make. You can find myriad sources stating that chemical dependency is the same as substance abuse; however, I would argue that is a misunderstanding.

There are many medical reasons why a person may develop a chemical dependence to a regimen of drugs. A common example is management of chronic pain which cannot be treated with a medical procedure. Many of these people don’t like their choices for pain management, and are always searching for alternative courses of action to take other than being chemically dependent on a substance. I would not call an individual in this situation an addict. After all, an addict would justify their drug use with medical necessity (among other reasons) rather than search for alternatives to substance use.

Another medical reason is a circumstance one of my own family members went through: treatable physical injury. Suffering from multiple degree burns in a house fire, this family member underwent several stages of treatment in the hospital – skin grafts to repair areas of their body too damaged to heal, followed with inpatient monitoring while the healing process ran its course. They were in severe pain the entire time, and pain management was required for the months they remained in the hospital.

This family member developed a chemical dependence on demerol, the drug chosen for pain management as they healed. A final stage of weaning off the drug was needed before treatment was complete, which was also done in the hospital under supervision. Sadly, this weaning process is more often not done in an inpatient setting, and this lack of medical supervision is where this form of chemical dependency can progress to substance abuse.

Herein lies a key difference, in my experience, between chemical dependence and addiction. Chemical dependence to drugs like Doxycycline 100mg seems to largely stem from medical necessity, whereas drug abuse and addiction, for the most part, does not have its origins with a physical medical purpose. PDMP laws are unable to acknowledge this distinction. They can only view all individuals in the same light. This is a disservice to medical patients and addicts alike, and it can push both away from safe medical treatment.

2. Dual Diagnosis Treatment

Dual diagnosis is a term describing a person with both a mental illness and a drug abuse problem. A preexisting mental illness, if left untreated, can lead to drug and alcohol addiction, and addiction can manifest a mental illness. In these situations, an addict needs to overcome their addiction and may need to be prescribed medication to treat the symptoms of their mental illness, which is a conundrum in itself without being exacerbated by government controls.

In a recent paper, researchers shed some light on how these individuals fall through the cracks of the US healthcare system, due in large part to drug policy and programs focusing on criminalization and incarceration rather than treatment. PDMP  is one such program which enables law enforcement in this endeavor, leaving these people untreated for both their addiction and their mental illness.

3. The Drug Of Choice Fallacy

Proponents of PDMP  also fall prey to another misunderstanding of addiction when advocating for these laws; the fallacy that addicts are addicts because of the drugs they use. Nearly every argument favoring PDMP I’ve encountered asserts that drug monitoring is effective in fighting addiction because it can be used to limit or restrict access to an abuser’s “drug of choice.” I can assure you, when in active addiction, I had no “drug of choice.” There were certain drugs I preferred, but I would have settled for whatever I could acquire soonest or easiest.

For an addict, the substance used is not as important as the craving to appease our addiction. I have known plenty of recovering drug like Accutane addicts who relapsed on alcohol, and even substances that aren’t considered drugs. I can relapse with what I can find in a grocery store, hardware store, gas station, or on the street corner. PDMP can’t do anything to address that. In fact, the very nature of this law will drive an addict to riskier, more dangerous substances.

4. Addiction Recovery Is Voluntary

This is going to be the hardest pill for drug control advocates to swallow. Seeking recovery from addiction is a voluntary choice. An addict cannot be compelled to quit. This renders legislators’ attempts to force addicts clean through required treatment and drug restriction by PDMP ineffective.

Nothing exemplifies this truth more plainly than the success of voluntary recovery programs. For more than half a century, a smattering of anonymous 12-step support groups have aided more people in recovery from addiction than all the government funded programs to date. Countless millions worldwide find solace from private community organizations, churches, and institutions that don’t even actively recruit. Just letting people know they are there is enough to attract those in need on a voluntary basis.

Perhaps that is part of the reason legislators think they need to compel individuals – so they can legitimize an ever-encroaching government co-opting what society can handle on its own when given the chance. Addicts don’t need government programs to hinder them. They need government out of the way so they can succeed.

The post Why Prescription Drug Monitoring Can’t Battle Addiction: An Addict’s Perspective appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Justice was served as Guyger was found guilty of murder by a jury of her peers.  But it wasn’t without some concerning tactics employed by the defense that could have potentially slighted the right to self-defense in Texas homes.

I’m speaking of the attempt made by the defense to cite the castle doctrine to justify Guyger’s actions.  The defense’s argument was that since Guyger thought she was entering her own apartment, stand your ground laws (aka ‘castle doctrine’) would apply, making a case that she acted in self-defense. Although it seemed like a stretch to use a stand your ground law to justify otherwise unlawful intrusion, the presiding judge allowed it.

Prosecutors pounced, arguing that castle doctrine didn’t apply to her actions because, not only was she not the resident, she was also not in a situation where there was no alternative but to use deadly force for protection.  The latter point is questionable, but the former is right on target.

As one of the prosecuting attorneys, Jason Fine, appropriately stated, “It [castle doctrine] protects homeowners against intruders and now all of a sudden, the intruder is trying to use it against the homeowner….  This law is not in place for her, it is in place for Bo.” It seems as though the defense was counting on her status as a police officer to bolster their argument and help gain a sympathetic ear.

Had this defense worked, would it have opened a Pandora’s box, any home intruder a defense, or even a new avenue for members of law enforcement to escape future prosecution?  Although Guyger was technically off duty, she was still in uniform, still a representative of law enforcement, and used her service weapon. Many state statutes already offer limited exceptions for law enforcement in their castle laws, and one can only shudder at the possibility of a precedent being set which may empower police officers to treat their entire jurisdiction as “their castle.” 

There is already a questionable level of accountability for officers using deadly force in the line of duty. It does not serve the public, nor does it help struggling relations between law enforcement and the communities they serve to excuse otherwise unlawful acts.

I, for one, am thankful to the prosecution and jurors for making a clear statement in this case – that the property owner or resident is unequivocally the king of their castle and the only ones for whom castle doctrine stands in defense. 

Although I am not a resident of Texas, I can see the potential for negative ramifications in other states had this case turned out differently.

You can find the current statutes for ‘stand your ground’ laws and ‘castle doctrine’ in your state here.

The post Sorry Officer, My Castle Is Not Your Castle appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Remember learning about the Dark Ages in World History, when superstition superseded rational thought and reason?  When ritual practices had the potential to protect a person from dark forces, and most tragic or unfortunate events could be explained away with the existence of evil spirits?

If not, don’t worry. One only need look at modern politics to see Old World myths at play in real time. Arguably, the most widespread is the superstition fueling the gun control agenda.

The reasoning behind gun control seems to point to a superstitious presumption that the object is inherently evil. That something about it corrupts the moral compass of the proprietor and causes otherwise good persons to behave immorally.  Almost as if people are being possessed by evil spirits inhabiting the items. How else can we explain the belief that if the objects were removed from society fewer people would act violently?

This superstition is easily comparable to the Old World practice of deodand forfeiture, wherein an object that was used to commit a crime would be declared deodand and forfeited to the church or king, regardless of the owner’s guilt or innocence. Originally, these deodands (which throughout the centuries have included any object you can think of – even rocks and animals), were taken by authorities to a temple and destroyed.  Even the job of coroner has its origins in determining what object had caused a death and finding that object for confiscation, so it couldn’t offend or corrupt any person ever again.

Of course, the practice of destroying the deodand evolved to include, in some cases, selling it after confiscation or collecting a fine equivalent to the value of the object from the owner.  Somehow it was believed that transferring the ownership of the offending item to a representative of the law canceled out the evil contained within it.

Strangely though, as society has advanced, the belief of deodands has remained and even expanded.  In the old days, specific items were confiscated because of its relationship to an offense committed.  Today, the superstition has grown to the point that any item which looks like the offending object (such as guns or MAGA hats) must also be removed.  In a supposedly enlightened age, some have come to believe that appearance determines the amount of evil contained within an object….

These same people have also accepted that through some sort of magic, certain members of society are protected from the evil the objects contain and cannot be corrupted or tempted to use the same items in evil ways.  But how do they explain this immunity from possession? Perhaps these individuals have received special training in defense against the dark arts, making them incorruptible….

Or maybe these modern-day magi possess an enchanted artifact, like an item of clothing or a talisman, that protects them and empowers them with the ability to handle these items of evil free from the threat of being corrupted by the demons within….

Sound ridiculous?  So does the notion that violent acts can be diminished by confiscating objects.  So does blaming political figures for natural disasters. So does claiming the end of world is upon us in 12 years.  Remedies from the Dark Ages are trendy again, and we as a people need to reclaim our rationality before we resort to splashing holy water on everything and burning witches at the stake again.

The post Exorcising The Demons: The Superstition Behind Gun Control appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

by Ian Tartt

Healthcare is a hot topic in the US. Nearly everyone recognizes that it’s in need of a major overhaul, but can’t seem to agree on how that overhaul should look. This article will examine some of the problems with US healthcare and offer solutions for fixing it. If the politicians would adopt even a few of these measures, then healthcare would become more affordable for everyone.

1. Reform Health Insurance

Many people think that health insurance should cover most or even all of their medical expenses. But is that the purpose of insurance, or should it be the purpose? After all, car insurance doesn’t cover every oil change, tire rotation, or fill-up, and almost nobody thinks that it should. Most people recognize that car insurance is reserved for unforeseen catastrophic events. Yet so many think that health insurance should cover every doctor’s visit, prescription drug, and medical device. Changing that mindset, part of which involves making healthcare more affordable (more on how to accomplish that later), is a necessary factor in reforming health insurance.

Something that’s already being done that can help with changing that mindset is healthcare providers bypassing insurance altogether and accepting payments in cash. Because insurance companies have access to so much money, having insurance as a middleman offers no incentive for healthcare providers to negotiate for lower prices. Getting insurance out of the way as much as possible and returning it to its proper role as emergency coverage will incentivize providers to cut costs and lower prices wherever they can.

Rather than fixing existing problems, the Affordable Care Act has made an even bigger mess by getting insurance more involved in healthcare. In addition to costing jobs (especially for small businesses), it has also caused many people to have to pay enormous premiums or resulted in them losing their insurance altogether. Proponents of the plan will point to those who’ve benefited since it went into effect while almost always ignoring those who have been harmed by it. For the harm it’s done as part of even more government intervention into healthcare (more on that later in this article), the Affordable Care Act should be repealed.

2. Change Drug Policy

There are many things to change as far as drug policy is concerned, but the first change should be to end the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs has been an enormous waste of human lives and resources. Drug prohibition, just like alcohol prohibition, has not stopped people from obtaining or abusing drugs; it has resulted in an increase in violent crime. Countless people whose only crime was the use, possession, or sale of prohibited substances have been locked up. Violent criminals have been released to make room for all the peaceful drug users. People who’ve never done anything with illegal drugs get shot and killed when police show up at the wrong house. This has all come at an outrageous cost to the American people.

With all that in mind, what would happen if the War on Drugs were ended? For one thing, taxpayers would no longer have to fund an expensive government program that’s hurt countless people and failed to accomplish any of its stated goals. They would then be able to keep the money that’s currently being taken from them to support drug prohibition and use it instead to take care of themselves and their loved ones. They could use that money to shop for better insurance policies, save it for a rainy day, or invest in a healthier lifestyle. Violent crime would go down, drugs could be held to higher standards for quality so fewer people would get sick or die from using them, anyone could use any drug they find helpful for medical purposes without fear of criminal penalties, and drug users who want to quit would be able to seek effective treatment. All of this will make many people less likely to need healthcare in the first place.

Many people were upset at the rising price of EpiPen over the last several years. In response, information about a generic version was spread to help increase awareness of a low-cost alternative. In this case, that helped people who couldn’t afford EpiPen get what they needed. But what would they have done if that hadn’t happened? The problem ultimately boils down to a lack of competition.

The FDA, which many think of as protecting us from harmful substances, actually hurts a lot of people and plays a role in restricting competition. To get a new drug approved takes on average 12 years and costs over $2 billion. Due to the high costs and complexity of the process, some drugs are never approved at all. In some cases, the FDA is slow to approve drugs that have already been approved in other countries, if it approves them at all.

Additionally, smaller companies have a much harder time meeting the FDA’s requirements and are more likely to fail than larger companies with more resources. Nobody should have to suffer or die because the burdensome requirements of the FDA delayed or entirely prevented a drug from hitting the market. If someone thinks a drug would help them in some way, whether that comes in the form of pain relief or goes as far as saving their life, how cruel is it to prevent them from trying it? Unless barriers to entry are lowered and the role of the FDA is drastically changed (one possible change could be to make it into a review board rather than an approval board), drug prices will remain high, innovation will be stifled, and the playing field will be tilted in favor of those with more resources.

As a result, people over time have looked to the government for assistance instead of looking to their family members, friends, neighbors or alternatively you can sign up for an HSA, to learn more visit Lively.Me

3. Reduce Government

The final part of this article will focus on two separate but related steps: reducing the government’s role in healthcare and reducing government as a whole. Doing both will help lower healthcare costs, expand options, and ultimately make life better for everyone.

Over the past fifty years, healthcare costs have gone through the roof. This is largely because the federal government has greatly increased the demand for healthcare far faster than the supply can fulfill that demand. For any commodity, when demand increases substantially while supply doesn’t keep pace, prices go up. Medicare and Medicaid, two government programs created in 1965, have facilitated the rising costs of healthcare. Prior to these programs, healthcare costs kept pace with the Consumer Price Index. Since their introduction, costs have risen far faster. While it’s true that healthcare overall has improved and gotten more complex over time, the same can be said of electronic devices. Yet electronics, which have had far less government intervention than healthcare, cost much less now than they did decades ago despite being far more advanced than they used to be.

Further, as more government healthcare regulations have been added, healthcare providers have had to spend more time and money understanding and following those regulations; this ultimately leaves them with less time and fewer resources to help people in need. While healthcare in the US was not a pure free market service prior to the 1960’s, it was much closer to a free market than it’s been since. The increasing costs that have accompanied increasing government intervention demonstrate that the further away from a free market in healthcare, the higher healthcare costs will be.

But what will happen to people who can’t afford healthcare even in a free market? Contrary to the conventional narrative that poor people simply died out before government welfare programs, people formed communities and took care of each other. They did this very effectively through mutual-aid societies, which were voluntary organizations by which members provided each other with health insurance, unemployment relief, children’s schools, and other benefits. Most people are unfamiliar with this concept nowadays; increasing government welfare programs, as well as regulations which squeezed out mutual-aid societies, are to blame for the decline in community-based aid. As a result, people over time have looked to the government for assistance instead of looking to their family members, friends, and neighbors. So if more government has resulted in fewer people helping each other, then less government will reverse that trend.

Private charity is also a way to help those in need. A well-known example of a charity-run medical organization is St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. Americans are incredibly generous about helping people in need. In the US, total charitable giving in 2016 was $390.05 billion. Imagine how much more people would give if the income tax were eliminated so they got to keep their entire paychecks, could start businesses more easily because of the removal of excessive and needless regulations, and didn’t have the purchasing power of their money drained through continuous inflation. There would likely be far fewer poor people in the first place if these changes were made, and those who still needed help would find it in abundance.

EDITOR’s NOTE: The views expressed are those of the author, they are not necessarily representative of The Libertarian Republic or its sponsors.

The post Three Ways to Truly Reform US Healthcare appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.