Jacob Sullum offers his thoughts on the supposed right to health care. A snippet:
While liberty rights such as freedom of speech or freedom of contract require others to refrain from acting in certain ways, “welfare rights” such as the purported entitlement to health care (or to food, clothing, or shelter) require others to perform certain actions. They represent a legally enforceable claim on other people’s resources. Taxpayers must cover the cost of subsidies; insurers and medical professionals must provide their services on terms dictated by the government.
A right to health care thus requires the government to infringe on people’s liberty rights by commandeering their talents, labor, and earnings. And since new subsidies will only exacerbate the disconnect between payment and consumption that drives health care inflation, such interference is bound to increase as the government struggles to control ever-escalating spending. Rising costs will also encourage the government to repeatedly redefine the right to health care, deciding exactly which treatments it includes.
I wrote about this topic here.
Showing posts with label Positive Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Positive Rights. Show all posts
Capitalism and Rights
Rob and I are having a bit of a back and forth concerning the subsidization of higher education. I'm having some difficulty following his argument, though, so I want to move it over to a post and get a little more philosophical.
Rob, as you stated earlier, you think capitalism is an amoral system. Yet you believe that the benefits of a capitalistic society establish specific moral standards. Take the case of higher education. Modern, mainstream higher education is made possible by capitalism. Mass production of study materials, construction of buildings and campuses, coordinating of dining services, the instant, all-encompassing spread of ideas around the world and historical amounts of leisure time are just a few indications and example of how capitalism has paved the road for millions to receive a low cost, high quality higher education that they never would have received under any other economic system.
This amoral system, thus, is doing a great deal of good. And you think that individuals have an inherent right to the benefits of this amoral system.
So my question for you is how can an amoral system be the parent of moral standards? In other words, how can higher education be a moral good every citizen has a right to if its creation was the result of amoral forces?
My answer is that it can't, but those in power pretend it can and most people like the simple utopian appeal and buy into it. This, in my opinion, is the essence of politics.
But before I say any more though I am interested in hearing what you have to say.
Rob, as you stated earlier, you think capitalism is an amoral system. Yet you believe that the benefits of a capitalistic society establish specific moral standards. Take the case of higher education. Modern, mainstream higher education is made possible by capitalism. Mass production of study materials, construction of buildings and campuses, coordinating of dining services, the instant, all-encompassing spread of ideas around the world and historical amounts of leisure time are just a few indications and example of how capitalism has paved the road for millions to receive a low cost, high quality higher education that they never would have received under any other economic system.
This amoral system, thus, is doing a great deal of good. And you think that individuals have an inherent right to the benefits of this amoral system.
So my question for you is how can an amoral system be the parent of moral standards? In other words, how can higher education be a moral good every citizen has a right to if its creation was the result of amoral forces?
My answer is that it can't, but those in power pretend it can and most people like the simple utopian appeal and buy into it. This, in my opinion, is the essence of politics.
But before I say any more though I am interested in hearing what you have to say.
Thoughts on Health Care, Part I: A Right to Health Care Access?
Over the next few months I wish to weigh in on the health care debate with a series of short essays. Here is the first:
One of the most relied upon arguments of proponents of socialized medicine is that health care access is an inherent right all human beings possess. I wish to challenge this assertion.
There are numerous practical arguments one can make against this claim. For instance, who will pay for the costs? How will perverse cost incentives be dealt with? How will the distribution of effective services be done efficiently? How will information be shared? The list goes on and on. But I wish to deal with one distinct issue: the fundamental contradictory nature of a so-called "right" to health care access.
Claiming health care is a right is to give credence to the notion of positive rights; rights which are based on action, or require one party to give and another party to receive. Examples are access to health care, as mentioned, or access to public education. Contrast this with negative rights, which are based on inaction, or the freedom "from" something. Popular examples are the rights of freedom of speech and assembly (freedom from coercive measures). Negative rights are a one party system; positive rights are a two-party system. To clarify, take crime as an example. A negative right application of crime in society would be "freedom from crime." If this right were to be violated, society would take ex post measures to compensate the victim for any damages suffered. A positive right application of crime would be the "right" to be served by a public police force, security cameras, etc... to prevent such violations from occuring in the first place.
The key difference between these two types of rights is that positive rights comes at a cost to some party to maintain the right of another party, whereas negative rights do not come at a cost to any second party. I am free to say what I wish, but no one is required to listen. I am free to assemble with others, but I cannot coerce others to assemble with me. On the other hand, if I have a right to health care access, I do not have to endure any cost to attain the benefits of the services of health care. But because health care is a limited resource, to receive it, it must come at some cost to another party. In this simple scenario, that party would be the provider. The cost would be endured in forms of lack of monetary compensation due to time spent, skill applied, effort applied, emotional capacity spent and others.
At its core, a right to health care access is a violation of property rights. The consequence of this would be the extreme perversion of The Law. Frederic Bastiat writes in The Law, "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose - that it may violate property instead of protecting it - then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or use it for plunder." A right to health care access legitimizes the idea that The Law exists not to protect, but to provide. The consequences of such thinking can only lead to totalitarian ends.
As Michael Cannon and Michael Tanner write in Healthy Competition, "Fundamentally, creating a legal "right" to health care is incompatible with the idea of individual rights. People cannot legitimately claim a right to something if that claim infringes on the rights of another." A right to health care is a seductive idea that thrives in the minds of reality-deluded utopian thinkers. All it will provide is a subtle avenue for government to seize individuals' liberties under the guise of paternal altruism.
Do not be fooled.
One of the most relied upon arguments of proponents of socialized medicine is that health care access is an inherent right all human beings possess. I wish to challenge this assertion.
There are numerous practical arguments one can make against this claim. For instance, who will pay for the costs? How will perverse cost incentives be dealt with? How will the distribution of effective services be done efficiently? How will information be shared? The list goes on and on. But I wish to deal with one distinct issue: the fundamental contradictory nature of a so-called "right" to health care access.
Claiming health care is a right is to give credence to the notion of positive rights; rights which are based on action, or require one party to give and another party to receive. Examples are access to health care, as mentioned, or access to public education. Contrast this with negative rights, which are based on inaction, or the freedom "from" something. Popular examples are the rights of freedom of speech and assembly (freedom from coercive measures). Negative rights are a one party system; positive rights are a two-party system. To clarify, take crime as an example. A negative right application of crime in society would be "freedom from crime." If this right were to be violated, society would take ex post measures to compensate the victim for any damages suffered. A positive right application of crime would be the "right" to be served by a public police force, security cameras, etc... to prevent such violations from occuring in the first place.
The key difference between these two types of rights is that positive rights comes at a cost to some party to maintain the right of another party, whereas negative rights do not come at a cost to any second party. I am free to say what I wish, but no one is required to listen. I am free to assemble with others, but I cannot coerce others to assemble with me. On the other hand, if I have a right to health care access, I do not have to endure any cost to attain the benefits of the services of health care. But because health care is a limited resource, to receive it, it must come at some cost to another party. In this simple scenario, that party would be the provider. The cost would be endured in forms of lack of monetary compensation due to time spent, skill applied, effort applied, emotional capacity spent and others.
At its core, a right to health care access is a violation of property rights. The consequence of this would be the extreme perversion of The Law. Frederic Bastiat writes in The Law, "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose - that it may violate property instead of protecting it - then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or use it for plunder." A right to health care access legitimizes the idea that The Law exists not to protect, but to provide. The consequences of such thinking can only lead to totalitarian ends.
As Michael Cannon and Michael Tanner write in Healthy Competition, "Fundamentally, creating a legal "right" to health care is incompatible with the idea of individual rights. People cannot legitimately claim a right to something if that claim infringes on the rights of another." A right to health care is a seductive idea that thrives in the minds of reality-deluded utopian thinkers. All it will provide is a subtle avenue for government to seize individuals' liberties under the guise of paternal altruism.
Do not be fooled.
Roman Deininger on Healthcare
Roman Deininger comments in a recent The Philadelphia Inquirer op-ed, "if there is to be an honest discussion about universal health care - as provided by nearly every industrialized nation - we must dispel the myth that it infringes on individual rights."
As many of us have come to realize, the term "universal health care" means different things to different people. The difference between the modern liberal's definition of the term and the classical liberal's is not that the classical liberal believes reaching such a goal is impossible, but he believes only that to achieve it through government coercion and against the will of the individual is immoral. Deininger would most likely make the opposite argument, claiming that it would in fact be immoral not to do such a thing; that we have the moral imperative to help others in this vastly important area.
And i do believe we who are more fortunate should help others who are less fortunate. But I think that only should be done through our own voluntary action. To mandate morality, in my eyes, is inherently contradictory and immoral (if one views liberty as a moral principle and end in and of itself).
Deininger's argument is based on the idea of positive rights, that all human beings have the right to basic necessities such as food, water, shelter, health care, education, etc... It is a wonderful notion and one I think we all impulsively believe to be true. But it forgets a fundamental truth: these amenities (yes, as the modern liberal describes they are amenities, not necessities) all come at some cost to other parties. And a right, which is something that cannot be denied, cannot come at a cost to others. If such a system existed then the world would be a system of constant debt where everyone perpetually owe everyone. Individual determinism would have no place in such a world and liberty would cease to exist.
I understand Deininger's sentiment and from reading his well-written article I believe he has his heart in the right place. But I do think he needs to think the issue through on a deeper level.
As many of us have come to realize, the term "universal health care" means different things to different people. The difference between the modern liberal's definition of the term and the classical liberal's is not that the classical liberal believes reaching such a goal is impossible, but he believes only that to achieve it through government coercion and against the will of the individual is immoral. Deininger would most likely make the opposite argument, claiming that it would in fact be immoral not to do such a thing; that we have the moral imperative to help others in this vastly important area.
And i do believe we who are more fortunate should help others who are less fortunate. But I think that only should be done through our own voluntary action. To mandate morality, in my eyes, is inherently contradictory and immoral (if one views liberty as a moral principle and end in and of itself).
Deininger's argument is based on the idea of positive rights, that all human beings have the right to basic necessities such as food, water, shelter, health care, education, etc... It is a wonderful notion and one I think we all impulsively believe to be true. But it forgets a fundamental truth: these amenities (yes, as the modern liberal describes they are amenities, not necessities) all come at some cost to other parties. And a right, which is something that cannot be denied, cannot come at a cost to others. If such a system existed then the world would be a system of constant debt where everyone perpetually owe everyone. Individual determinism would have no place in such a world and liberty would cease to exist.
I understand Deininger's sentiment and from reading his well-written article I believe he has his heart in the right place. But I do think he needs to think the issue through on a deeper level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
