As
the healthcare debate heats up, I get bombarbed by libertarian
activists on my FB postin all sorts of links to this video or that
cafehayek.com post; through out it all, the posts advocate a
laissez-faire approach. You're the conspicuous aberration on my
newsfeed and so I take particular interest in your posts. I'm
interested in shared understanding so I hope to find some time to see
and to discuss my reactions.
"It is a mortal sin to deny care for profit."
In
looking at this post, I am reminded of a lengthy debate on ethics with
a fellow atheist who belongs in the "atheists for jesus" camp, a fellow
who would like to be thy brother's keeper so to speak. In other words,
he's an unconditional altruism guy. Here's a long quote (yikes)
from Ayn Rand concerning altruism that might help to illustrate my view
for you. (I have speculated that this view in particular provided
Chomsky the impetus to condemn Rand as the evilest philosopher.
I'm ready for disagreement!)
(formatting messed up going from vim to kompozer.) forget MLA. quote lies between --
-------------------------------------------
What
is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that
man has no right to exist for his
own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his
existence, and that
self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for
the rights of others. These are
not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes
impossible. The irreducible
primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice-which means:
self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial,
self-destruction- which means: the self as a
standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.
Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or
should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the
issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right
to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is
whether you must keep buying your
life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach
you. The issue is whether the
need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose
of your existence. The issue is
whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any
man of self-esteem will answer: "No." Altruism says: "Yes."
--------------
That
view puts me in a stranger camp than most universal healthcare
nay-sayers. Despite this, there are those that agree with private
charity yet disagree with universal healthcare. Congressman Ron
Paul, an OB GYN who votes against universal healthcare, for example,
has delivered babies at lesser prices and in more lax payment schedules
for those in need. His opposition lies in natural rights and
utilitarian arguments underpinned by political and economic
claims. A quote concerning natural rights that I imagine Paul
is sympathetic with is provided by Walter Williams.
---------------
Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give
to poor people. Conservatives
disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and
give them to farmers and
insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and
liberals is not whether it is legitimate for
government to confiscate one's property to give to
another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage.
----------------
Lastly,
a semantic strife I carry is the calling of the healthcare market a
"healthcare system." It lends itself to a planned economy lexicon
where society at large builds a system that can be planned out as
opposed to a market where, as Hayek put it, "orders emerge." Thus,
I will be using "healthcare market," "patients," "consumers," "firms,"
etc.
Lastly lastly, a memorable quote that we all can agree on from Alan Greenspan's book The Age of Turbulence.
"Business economists are not exactly party animals." (Good read.)