This derives from Libertarian’s challenge to me on the Canada/U.S. thread. But I want to take it a bit broader than that.
In quick summary, obviously leaving out a lot of details, I suggested that some minimal universal health care that functioned to preserve life and “adequate” health (without spelling that out) is an appropriate government function. Lib., though I believe he does not disagree with me that assistance to those of our fellow men without adequate resources to provide for themselves is a part of our Christian duty to love others as ourselves, called the idea of taxes to support such a program “stealing from him to give to others.” And from his libertarian viewpoint I can see his point, though I would disagree and at first took offense at the term stealing.
But as I thought about the question, I realized it was one small piece of a greater puzzle. Granted that most people want the maximum freedom for themselves, and that most decent people realize that this is bounded by the equivalent desires of their fellow men, who are equally entitled. But given this, in an imperfect world where “peaceful honest people” (Lib’s catch phrase, which I do not mean to parody) must deal with people who are sometimes dishonest and/or unpeaceful, some means of dealing with these other people must be found.
It would be my suggestion that, with all its imperfections, the U.S. is founded on the principle of maximal freedom in a social contract where the government acts, functioning as if it were a separate entity of greater power (though not greater powers than its individual members) to ensure that freedom vis-a-vis those who would impede it. So that I can buy a product knowing that laws ensure that honest dealers are selling honest products, and that those who would cheat me in some way can be dealt with. That I can walk down the street knowing that most people will not assault me and that those who would can be dealt with by the police and judicial authorities.
The general questions would be, Do you agree with my premises? and What is the proper way, in an imperfect world, to come the closest to your ideals of freedom (which you may want to spell out)? Are there moral grounds for taking tax money to provide help for others? What are the bounds of such help? Where does one draw the line? And why?
find someone who grew up in a crummy neighborhood with bad public schools and knows he is living in a country where the land was stolen but has to come up with the money to pay rent, and explain to him why he should give a damn about your moral ideals.
BUILD MORE PRISONS! hope he doesn’t kill you if he decides to rob you.
Dal Timgar
p.s. there were too many other things i could have said but i’m covering some of them in ECONOMIC WARGAMES. tried to be short and sweet.
why should those with the means be enslaved to those without the means because they feel that everything should be equal?
Laws should be in place to stop people from things like attacking each other and such, but a government sanctioned tax to pay for people of lesser means so they can live like those of greater means is not an “entitlement” of life. If people wish to have greater means and rewards, it’s up to them to do what a great many of us “working stiffs” have done, find a way to meet their needs.
I don’t believe that there is a moral reason for provision of things that are not a requirement to sustain life.
Some people may argue, medical care is needed to sustain life. For these purposes there are free (or reduced costs) of vaccinations for people who qualify, and hospitals are required to take twrite-offs for patients who require emergency care but cannot pay for it.
However, I do not feel that everyone deserves the same quality of health care, mainly because, in a system like Canada’s, where the healthcare is paid for by everyone’s taxes, many times less effectual medicines are used in lieu of more expensive ones. Many times the beurocratic red tape to get treatments is extreme just to ensure no money is wasted.
As a consumer paying for my healthcare i have the ability to deem whether i want to pay extra for my treaments, to recieve the best care possible. I feel no Mooral imperative to spend money on someone I don’t know to ensure they are healthy.
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
I would say that a strong argument could be made that universal health care would help fulfill our fundamental principle of “promoting the general welfare,” and probably also assist in achieving “domestic tranquility” and “a more perfect union.” Those are the “moral grounds for taking tax money to provide help for others” in an American (er, US) context.
I realize that you were responding to the thrust of the OP, which generalized from health care, but if you will note, ironically, I was taking a vaguely libertarian stance in the particular sentence you extracted the quote from. Maximum freedom. Not maximum benefits.
Quite simply, I see a dilemma in the strict rhetorical sense here: that we as a people guarantee each other the right to life, liberty, and property, but focus on the freedom to manipulate our means without significant government intervention and thus those without may effectively lose those rights. I am not advocating a particular solution in this post; I’m asking a question. As Dal noted in some strong words, many people who feel themselves handed the short end of the stick would feel that the “right” of the economically better off to keep his/her money and not provide help is hateful. On the other hand, you have reactions like Lib.'s that taking money to provide that help is theft. And neither position leaves a lot of room for a happy medium. Is there one? What is it?
Kimstu, a beautiful job of defining a Constitutional basis for health care, and for other government intervention that would offend our libertarian coposters.
Precisely. Reality, as you noted, has to enter into it.
There is a new and pretty interesting little book called A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution and Cooperation, by Peter Singer. In it, he talks about why the political left should abandon socialist and Marxist tendencies and adopt a more Darwinian viewpoint – not like social Darwinism, but more in terms of the cooperation found in evolution. However, one major point he makes is that the left (and, indeed, everybody) should realize that we will never create a utopia. I think this goes for Libertaria as well. We must recognize human nature and work with it. And, unfortunately, human nature includes the fact that some people will cheat. It’s not just part of human nature, but all of nature. There will always be cheaters – those who try to do less work but gain more reward. This is one of the things that brings down socialism, and also one of the things that brings down pure libertarianism.
Anyway, I don’t have time right now to further discuss your OP, but I did want to point out how true it is that you have to approach concepts like this with the real world in mind.