From libertarian Michael A. LaFerrara:
Rights are moral principles sanctioning every individual’s freedom of self-advancing action, not an automatic claim on material benefits that others must be forced to provide. Healthcare does not just happen in nature. It must be produced by the individual efforts of human beings, and that fact of nature cannot be arbitrarily wished away. For a government to guarantee a right to healthcare beyond what one can acquire through voluntary dealings with others, the government must force others to pay for and/or provide it. To do that, the government must have the power to commandeer the efforts and property of productive citizens: i.e., the government must enslave those citizens.
“Unconstrained capitalism” is an interesting package deal, since capitalism is the only social system that banishes aggressive force from human society by constraining the government to the task of protecting every individual’s inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, which necessarily includes the right to the product of one’s own, not others’, work. Once we accept the notion of a right to healthcare or any other material benefit that others must be forced to provide, we have abandoned the basic principle of capitalism—a society in which each person is free only to deal with others by voluntary, mutual consent. Then we’re left with the basic principle of socialism, the society of masters and slaves, in which material need makes one a master and the ability to satisfy that need makes one a slave—“from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” with the government as the tool of the masters rather than the institution to secure equal rights.
In response to “the preposterous idea that our well-being should be tied to unconstrained capitalism – that healthcare is a product rather than a right – is dead.”
Mr. LaFerrara writes:
“If so, then so is the Declaration of Independence and any chance of a free and moral society.”
1) Doesn’t actually attempt to prove this assertion at all in the article and just regurgitates the same “Libertarian” Buzzwords he uses to justify all his points and 2) What the heck is with this guy always bringing up the Declaration of Independence? Our government is based on the Constitution, not the breakup letter we wrote to George III.
““Unconstrained capitalism” is an interesting package deal, since capitalism is the only social system that banishes aggressive force from human society by constraining the government to the task of protecting every individual’s inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, which necessarily includes the right to the product of one’s own, not others’, work.”
As many of my Middle School teachers would have scribbled in the margins if I wrote this sentence in a report I would have written: How?
“Once we accept the notion of a right to healthcare or any other material benefit that others must be forced to provide, we have abandoned the basic principle of capitalism—a society in which each person is free only to deal with others by voluntary, mutual consent.”
See? Once we believe healthcare should be treated as a basic right it’s all over. I guess healthcare doesn’t fit into the whole right to life or pursuit of happiness expressed in the aforementioned breakup letter. See, once we accept the notion it’s a right, than we have completely abandonned the basic principle of capitalism. Of course he makes up his own definition of what that is. ‘A society in which each person is free only to deal with others by voluntary, mutual consent’? And here I thought Capitalism was all about trade and industry being in the hands of private owners.
“Then we’re left with the basic principle of socialism, the society of masters and slaves…”
That escalated quickly. So ensuring through governmental action (A government of the people, by the people mind you) that every man, woman, and child in our Great Nation has healthcare, we’re essentially creating a society of masters and slaves. If nothing else, if this was even remotely accurate, you’d think Mr. LaFarrera would relish this idea. The man who wrote that aforementioned breakup letter lived in exactly such a society.
“Christopher Dale claims that slavery is now a “core value” of the “American spirit.” If so, America is dead.”
Actually, Christopher Dale did not make this claim. He claimed healthcare was a right. That’s it. This guy really must reign in his hyperbole, living in the world he thinks he lives in must be Hell on Earth.
“Healthcare is a product”
How is Healthcare produced? Can I go straight to the factory and pick out my own Healthcare? Does it come with options? Can I change the paint color? Add the mood lighting or racing stripe? Can I extend the manufacturer’s warranty? Just cause you say something is one thing, it doesn’t make it that thing. Reality isn’t Wikipedia. Products are something I can buy and trade.
“The ultimate choice is clear: Unconstrained capitalism or unconstrained socialist government—that is, A Society of Inalienable Rights or a Society of Masters and Slaves.”
No. It’s not clear and Mr. LaFarrera’s word salad did nothing at all to clear it up. I get it. The man has accepted his notion on unconstrained capitalism. He failed at being remotely convincing as to why his notion or belief is the correct one.
Lawyers, judges, juries, and confrontation with witnesses in trials are mandated by the Constitution. This both theoretically and actually requires that the state compel “free people” to provide a service. (If this isn’t a problem because the state pays judges and public defenders, then surely it wouldn’t be a problem if the state paid doctors.) Such a system could also fall apart if no one wants to be a lawyer or judge anymore.
Therefore, both standard libertarian objections to granting people a right to some other product or service must be dismissed. Libertarians would do better to focus on the negative effects that guaranteeing health care might have on the market, costs, etc. than on meaningless abstractions.