Here, my friends at Socrates' Academy make their case against Universal Health Care. Simply stated, they make the classic conservative argument that the only rights are those things the government is not allowed to take away. This is a fun game I learn while reading William F. Buckley in my youth. I can play it with police protection, education, sewage treatment, road construction, even zoning laws.
The Case Against a Right of Universal Fire Protection
- Rights are things you already have, not things provided to you by government.
- You are free to own a hose.
- Private fire brigades are available to anyone willing to pay for them.
- While the government cannot take away your life, liberty, or property without due process it is not the government's responsibility to protect these things for you. (For example, the government is not responsible for sewing up holes in your breeches to keep coins from falling out.)
- You do not have the right to the free use of someone else's labor.
- Ergo, the government has no responsibility to provide fire protection; it is the individual's responsibility to provide his own. Reductio ad Absurdum
Universal health care is not a right, it is a responsibility. Disease does not always inquire into ones social status before invading a body. The social contract that doctors had with the public defined by the Hippocratic Oath is breaking down in this era of Corporatized Medicine. As a result, diseases that require a reservoir of untreated souls, such as tuberculosis, are making a comeback. My health improves when everyone else is healthy.
Universal health care is a responsibility that society has towards itself for the well-being of all. It is no different than police protection or education. Government, as the instrument of society, is the tool society uses to serve itself.
3 comments:
Thanks, KE, for the argument.
Our nation's founding documents are explicit in saying that the government is not the People. The government likes to claim that it is the people, but it isn't so. Of the people and by the people, certainly, but not the People.
The talk of shared responsibility and shared risk is fine, except when you start to come at me with a gun and say "You will pay for this whether you want it or not." But as long as you are honest and say that you are collectivizing the health care industry against my will because you know best, I really can't argue. Argumentum ad baculum may not be a valid rhetorical technique, but it does tend to win a lot.
Thank you. I have always known that is a right and just thing, but have never even looked at it from this perspective. Thank you.
Whether it's a right is obvious. It's not. The notion that it is our responsibility as a society begs the question: why? Why is it the "society's" responsibility when there is no "mind" or "soul" to society? What about individual rights to our own property and the fruits of our labor? I've worked very hard to save for medical emergencies. Why should I be taxed higher just because some others cannot afford it? (I'll give you those who are in poverty. Let's discuss those who are not.)
In any case, at least your thoughts are well-reasoned.
Post a Comment