Overheard on Facebook
September 8, 2009Jon Brooks Comments Off
As we’ve already seen, courtesy of the health care debate: Ideologies are colliding within people’s very own Friends List on Facebook. Another such interaction:
FREE-MARKET GUY: It is contradictory to claim that a person has a right to a good or service that requires the violation of someone else’s rights. If the exercise of a patient’s so-called “right” to healthcare imposes obligations on taxpayers to pay for it and healthcare practitioners to provide it, then it is not a right, but an attempt to enslave one part of the population for the benefit of another part.
HEALTH CARE REFORM FAN: All rights within a society come at the expense of some limit of freedom on other members of that society. We choose to participate for the greater good. Using words like “enslavement” is just inflammatory. What’s next? Only people with school-age children should be taxed for public schools? I can see a lot of benefits to me personally in having other people’s children educated.
FREE MARKET: It’s not my intention to be inflammatory, just stating the facts. I didn’t say rights cannot infringe on freedoms. I said (essentially) rights by definition cannot infringe on the rights of others. As in, it’s your right to practice your religion so long as doing so doesn’t involve killing me. That would be a violation of my rights. So in the case of human sacrifice, you do not have the right to that religious practice.
You also do not have the right to steal my money in order to pay for any expense you may incur. “Need” isn’t a part of the equation. It’s my money, you cannot rightfully take it by force. You also cannot rightfully hire your buddy to steal my money. And of course, you cannot rightfully elect your politician to steal my money.
And taxes which are spent on constitutional government programs are a completely separate and necessary evil. Just in case you were thinking that I’m arguing for some form of anarchy.
FAN: As I suggested above, a member of a society does not have the right to not be taxed (fairly). No one has suggested that money be forcefully removed from individuals. There are a number of ways to avoid paying taxes including not making any money and going off the grid, neither of which is more extreme than your suggestion that anyone is “stealing” your money. “Constitutional government programs?” That sounds like the traditionalists who argue that marriage has “always” been between a man and a woman or that African Americans have “always” been chattel. I believe healthcare should be part of the evolving Constitution.
FREE MARKET: That’s your right, but comparing me to right-wing partisan hack who believes same sex marriage is wrong is where I draw the line. You imply that my rational argument somehow compares to advocating slavery and removing human rights (marriage). I specifically said that taxes and government are necessary in order to avoid this exact conversation. If this is the extent of your reasoning then I’d prefer not to continue this conversation.
FAN: I’d be shocked if you supported either of those things. My point is that the Constitution has evolved to include more protections (although we’re still working on some things). Your endorsement that “constitutional government programs are a… separate and necessary evil” implies that the Constitution is a static dogma. Healthcare technology is not only far more advanced than it was in 1776, but many of those advances are denied to people based on economic class. The Declaration of Independence names “life” as the first inalienable right of mankind. Should this be amended to mean “life, for those who can afford it, but leeches and willow tea for the rabble?”
Back to necessary evils, are you saying then, that you’re willing to pay for public schooling, but not for life-saving medical care? Should emergency rooms change the long-standing policy of providing life-saving care before ascertaining the patient’s ability to pay? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. Please clarify.
FREE MARKET: Government is necessary because there can be no freedom without law. Governments expand and infringe upon liberties thus we need a constitution which protects us from government.
It’s a common fallacy to confuse technological progress with principles. Don’t make that mistake. (http://mises.org/story/3490) To use taxes for my protection against aggression is not stealing. This is in fact the job of government. But coercing me to pay for your surgery is stealing. There is no better word to define it. There’s no magic which occurs when the state steals it for you.
My statements attribute no “static dogma” to the constitution. What you are advocating is pure democracy, or “mob rule”. Luckily we don’t live in a democracy and you can’t change the law based on your whims.
I want health care for everyone just like you. Please don’t assume otherwise. Arguably, I want it more, as I’m advocating the method which can actually attain that goal.
FAN: Wow. I’m not going to respond, but my silence does not equal consent.
