“No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.”
Facebook users will no doubt recognize the above quote, which was recently posted as a “wave” by some supporters of socialized medicine. Evidently they just wanted everyone to know how deeply they care about the plight of the less fortunate who, for whatever reason, cannot afford health insurance. I have no doubt that all those who posted the aforementioned status update to their Facebook page also contacted their favorite health-related charity that very same day to make a sizable donation. Otherwise the more cynical among us might have thought that their public display of concern for the downtrodden was really nothing but a shallow demand for the government to spend everyone else’s money.
Granted, scanning my friends’ Facebook pages is not exactly a scientific survey, but it does at least offer an opportunity to see what some of the people in my network are thinking. As health care seems to be the one and only issue being discussed in the media these days, it is naturally a hot topic on social networking sites as well. In addition to the pro-government medicine wave, there are also various Facebook polls concerning health insurance, such as the one that asks, “Should health care be considered a basic human right?” At the time of this writing, the results were 72% Yes, 28% No.
As sad a commentary as those results are, the poll question itself reveals how poorly most people understand fundamental concepts. Rights, in the classical liberal tradition upon which the US government was founded, derive from our nature as human beings. The Facebook poll question, however, asks whether health care should be a right or not – the implication being that what is or is not a right is subject to change at any given time, like the menu down at the corner deli.
As libertarians and a few others understand, however, something is either a right or it is not. “Should” doesn’t enter into the equation. In a recent episode of his online show “Freedom Watch,” Judge Andrew Napolitano stated (correctly) that “health care is not a right, it is a good.” Many people (at least 72% of Facebook respondents, anyway) would obviously take issue with Judge Napolitano’s position, but I suspect the disagreement is primarily a semantic one. Perhaps we should define our terms – especially fundamental terms like “rights” – before getting bogged down in the details of any particular proposal. Only then will we be able to make some progress in the national health care debate.
In the modern vernacular, the term “right” seems to mean “anything I might like to have.” Health care is (or for those of you on Facebook, should be) a right because everyone wants it, or needs it, or thinks it’s really nifty. The same goes for education, a minimum wage, a three-bedroom house with a view, or whatever else people want to throw on the government wish list at any given time.
The fallacy underlying this popular definition of rights shouldn’t be too hard to disprove. And when it comes to the issue of universal health care, it would behoove the liberty-minded individual to do so as quickly as possible. If the popular definition goes unchallenged, the proponents of socialized medicine will inevitably claim that health care is a basic human right, and will consider that to be the end of the argument – their “get out of the debate free card,” if you will. As the concept of rights in the traditional American sense is now so poorly understood, you may have to work a bit to educate those who haven’t been exposed to the foundational principles of our fair republic. Nevertheless, it’s an important task that should help clarify the issues at stake. What follows are a couple of strategies that may help illustrate the difference between the legitimate rights of the Lockean tradition and the illegitimate positive rights that seem to dominate the discussion these days. No doubt the reader knows of other approaches that are equally effective.
When confronted with the claim that X, Y, or Z is a “right,” the first question we should ask is, “Does everyone have the same rights, or do different people have different rights?” If we can agree that all people have the same rights, then we can probably move forward with the discussion. If our opponents claim that some people have more rights than others, then we should probably just back away slowly and not make any sudden moves until we have reached a minimum safe distance. Life’s too short to argue with pinheads.
Assuming we do agree that all people have the same rights, then it follows that rights must be universal. That is, they must apply equally to all people, at all places, at all times. This is merely a restatement of the already agreed-upon proposition. One way to determine whether something meets the universality constraint is to use the “desert island” test.
Let’s imagine that I’ve been shipwrecked on a desert island. After I wash up on shore, do I have a right to my life? Yes. Do I have a right to whatever property I have with me, or am able to create using the resources available to me on the island? Yes. Would I have these rights no matter when I got stranded on the desert island, be it the year 1609, 2009, or 3709? Yes. Would I have these rights without regard to my race, color, national origin, religion or creed, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability? Yes. So it seems that these rights – life and property – satisfy the universality constraint. They apply equally to everyone, at all places, at all times.
Now let’s continue the test. If I’m stranded on a desert island, do I have a right to health care? If no one is around to provide health care to me, then how can I have a right to it? Would I have the right, as some claim, to health care regardless of when I wash up on shore? Would I have the right, for example, to a CAT scan if I were shipwrecked in the year 1609? Clearly, health care fails the universality criteria for basic human rights. It cannot apply equally to all people, at all places, at all times.
Another way to conceptualize the distinction is to describe a right as something for which one would be morally justified in using force to obtain. I have the right to use force against someone who is trying to kill me because I have a right to my own life. I do not have a right to anyone else’s life, and therefore I would not be morally justified in using force against those who do not attempt to harm me first. Hopefully most people would agree to that proposition without the aid of any long, drawn-out logical proofs.
Let’s imagine that Joe is trying to kill Frank for no other reason than the voices in his head told him to. In this example, Frank would be justified in shooting Joe if need be because Frank has the right to his own life.
Now let’s say that Joe is not trying to kill Frank. Instead, Joe is sitting at home, minding his own business. If Frank falls ill, would he be morally justified in shooting Joe if Joe doesn’t pay for Frank’s medical treatment? Most sane people would say no. Nevertheless, if the proponents of socialized medicine who claim that health care is a basic human right wish to be logically consistent, they would have to say that Frank would be within his rights to use force against Joe in this case. To my knowledge, few proponents of Obamacare have been quite so forthright.
There are many things in this life that are necessary for mankind to survive and flourish, and health care is certainly one of them – along with food and water, clothing, shelter, and countless other goods and services. People have the right to desire whatever they want (an Aston Martin, cable TV, sunshine and puppy dogs), but this does grant them a right to the thing itself, no matter how much they may want or even need it. To suggest that we have a right to the goods and services that others must provide us is to claim that we can legitimately impose contractual obligations on those other people with or without their consent. There’s a term for that kind of forced labor, and as far as I know, slavery is still considered très déclassé.
As important as this semantic discussion of rights may be, I don’t imagine for a second that it will halt the drive toward universal health care in this country, even if we are successful in restoring the true meaning of the term. Most people just want what they want, and they’re not going to let some egg-headed notions of rights and ethics stand in the way. But at least it would help to strip away the false virtue that proponents of socialized health care have used to cloud the debate. Perhaps then more people would see Obamacare for what it really is – gun-run medicine.
If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day…
(Desert island photograph from here).
No comments:
Post a Comment