The US Senate sets to vote on a health care bill over Christmas this Tuesday after what have been months of fierce political debate. As the opposition warned of “socialized medicine” and “death panels”, public support for “ObamaCare” and the president himself understandably plummeted.
Although America’s health care is among the most expensive yet one of the most restricted systems in the world, people began to fear that under the Democrats’ plans, they would face a further decline in quality against ever rising costs. Strangely enough, people also indicated that by majority that health care today is too costly on the whole and that it placed a serious burden on the already fragile US economy. President Obama repeatedly stressed that America’s health care is in desperate need of reform but critics seem to have a point when they say that the Democrats will only make it more expensive.
Unfortunately, Republicans prefer instead to devise little doomsday scenarios and warn people that their elderly will soon be put to death if the Democrats have their way. They point at countries as Canada and the United Kingdom and say, “look how bad things are over there.” In fact, health care in these both countries is far from terrible.
In spite of the rather communist qualities of the British National Health Service, it operates at a lower cost per capita ($2,560, compared to $6,096 for the US in 2007) while providing better care (PDF). Canada on the other hand, while much cheaper per capita than the American system, provides an approximately similar quality of care. It would appear then that a collectivization of health care doesn’t necessarily make things better or worse. A lot of other factors are in play.
Rather than denouncing “socialized medicine” as being impractical therefore, opponents should point out that it is immoral.
The NHS in Britain was established after the end of World War II, in 1948, with the express purpose of providing health care to all, “regardless of wealth.” Its principles were that the service should “meet the needs of everyone,” “be free at the point of delivery” and “be based on clinical need, not ability to pay.” This gave all Britons a right to proper care, no matter whether they were able to afford it or not. Need, not ability became the standard according to which care would henceforth be distributed.
This is a strange twist of ethics. Imagine that the law were to give people a right to much more basic needs than health care such as food and shelter. No such laws exist of course, for if people indeed are entitled to such rights, others must inevitably provide for them at their own expense.
Granting people a right to health care demands that others provide such care, for free if necessary. Only a government can allocate care under such conditions for few individual doctors and nurses would go about their work unpaid any more than a supermarket would remain in business for long if it is to meet peoples’ “right to food”.
Even the Republicans, supposedly the champions of the free market, dare not question the alleged right to health care in the United States. Probably because they know how most people would respond to such criticism: “Should we just stand by then and let people die?” they’ll ask
Perhaps proponents of collectivization are only more than willing to pay so that others need not insure themselves but as long as they can’t answer the simple question, “Why shouldn’t we?” to their own charge without speaking of non-existent rights and undeserved charity, no man should be held responsible for the health and care of others against his own choice.
That is what opponents of “ObamaCare” should have argued. Because they didn’t, collectivized health care is now likely to become a reality in the United States.
“So whatever the majority of a given group of people finds is what is moral? ”
Essentially, yes. Or rather that is what the consensus is. Your or me can disagree with them but on the whole that’s what holds for morals.
Put it this way. If you read a study on the historical morality of say, the Roman Empire, it will chronicle the changes in morality for the whole empire in macro perspective. Other studies may show that individuals disagreed with this but on the whole it is possible to reconstruct a general moral. It cannot for further then generalities because people have their own morals as well. the moral consensus is all-powerful, far from it. Rather it can be described as a massive, ongoing debate on the values presented at various levels of society. This is why it’s futile to try and reconstruct a single moral code beyond some very basic generalities, since all always is in a state of change.
I’m not a nihilist. I simply believe that what moral we have is given to us by our forbearers, many which we might see as immoral from our perspective. I’m quite certain that our descendants will find us immoral in some way as well.
“I was referring to the whole recession-thing. ;)”
That is a temporary setback, no matter what catastrophes it has wrung.
“As I see it, that is the cause of progress.”
So the world was standing still up and until this moment when these people appeared? As I was trying to show in my comments about the slaveowners progress has been ongoing since we have discovered fire. The various technological and philosophical advances made by the Romans lay the foundation for the middle ages, which lay the foundation for the renaissance and so on. The factors you are referring to have certainly quickened the process but you cannot claim that progress is due solely to them.
“By what right—other than the “need” of others?”
By what right should they keep them? They may not have earned that money. Or even if they if they are fantastical entrepreneurs they could have never become such in a vacuum. Society, as I chose to call, enabled their success. In the long run, everyone profits from the system. I can make the same argument with defensive; a rich man can easily move his assets around and as such do not necessarily profit from defense.
“But is that enough reason to force the television-buyer to give up part of his money for the sake of the poor bugger? And who is to make that choice—if not the owner of that money?”
Why not the man dying of pneumonia? Now if there was a way to ensure that the poor bugger got his medicine and the television owner keep his enormous phallus…I mean television then I would be aboard in a jiffy ;)
I’m afraid that’s another point on which we’ll have to agree to disagree then.
And what do you suppose invented fire? An individual—or “society”?
Yes, the world was standing still, until man started to use his mind.
Individual innovators naturally built on the innovations made by people in the past. Virtually no one truly “starts from scratch” in any endeavor.
Sure, by voluntary choice. No one is forcing you to buy product you don’t like to accept any service you don’t need. No enterprise forces its products or services upon you. You have the choice to “enable” the success of any business. Yet you aren’t giving them any choice in demanding that they “repay” for that.
Heh :D My answer’s the same as to this question:
By the right that it’s their property, of course! Whether they produced it or earned it, it’s theirs.
“And what do you suppose invented fire? An individual—or “society”?”
A freak lightning strike :) But seriously, without the group it would have been meaningless in the long term.
“Yes, the world was standing still, until man started to use his mind.”
The world has been going on just fine without us. Just because there’s no human to observe doesn’t mean that there isn’t progress. And yet man used his mind despite being immoral slaveowners by your reckoning. So once again your rigid definition of rights is far from necessary for progress.
“Virtually no one truly “starts from scratch” in any endeavor. ”
Thank you. Hence, while the individual is important the surrounding society is also necessary.
“No one is forcing you to buy product you don’t like to accept any service you don’t need. No enterprise forces its products or services upon you.”
If they have the patent or monopoly on something critical like a certain drug then they can do that.
“By the right that it’s their property, of course! Whether they produced it or earned it, it’s theirs.”
I still say that life is more important than property and hence the right to life is more important than the right to property. But I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree there.
Sure. My point is though that the group didn’t make it happen in the first place. Of course, once an invention’s been done, it becomes of great benefit to a great many people, and many others are able to use that invention to create even better things. But the source of all progress is an individual mind.
That’s rather a different sort of progress then, eh?
First, distinct between a slave and a slaveowner. The latter is an immoral man, no doubt, but he isn’t the one being forced to do anything. As such, there is no reason why he can’t be productive.
Which virtually never happens in a free market.
If I may give it one more shot.. ;) You can’t have the one without the other.
From Ayn Rand, “Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness (1964).
“Everything changes, always.”
You mean including the speed of light in a vacuum, or the law of supply and demand, or basic human nature?
“without the group it would have been meaningless in the long term.”
A group of what exactly? A group presupposes a group of something.
“And yet man used his mind despite being immoral slave owners by your reckoning. So once again your rigid definition of rights is far from necessary for progress.”
This is a matter of degree. A person including a slave owner may be immoral in some respects but moral in others and thus society still progresses. Imagine how much progress might occur if people acted in a moral fashion most of the time rather than just some of the time.
“If they have the patent or monopoly on something critical like a certain drug then they can do that”
True, thugs from Pfizer beat up my family the last time I refused to buy but now that it is off patent this doesn’t happen anymore. Now the thugs are too busy beating each other up to see who gets to force me to buy their drugs! Yah!
“I still say that life is more important than property and hence the right to life is more important than the right to property.”
It seems to me that the answer
“You can’t have the one without the other.”
Is pretty much correct so long as he means the ‘right to‘ part of your sentence. Yes, life (per se) is more important than property but the right to life is impossible without the right to property. See what happens when you put the words ‘right to’ in front?
“how your ideology thus threatens the right to life.”
Here is the question, Johan. What does your ideology require of Nick and what does his require of you? Seems to me from reading the comments that you would require at least some percent of his luxuries but not much more. Is that correct?
whoops.
“the last time I refused to buy”
should read, “the last time I refused to buy Lipitor (or another patented drug)
“But the source of all progress is an individual mind. ”
I do not disagree with you exactly but I would like to amend your definition with resources. While cavemen may have been able to create ethnical progress on their own, modern technological advancements typically need A) more than one mind and B) resources created by other individuals. As the source of progress would be an individual mind somehow possessing the resources to carry out its ideas.
“As such, there is no reason why he can’t be productive. ”
Exactly! Hence there is no reason why such a society can’t be productive, if not as productive as ours.
“You mean including the speed of light in a vacuum, or the law of supply and demand, or basic human nature?”
The laws of nature don’t change but our understanding of them does, it changes and evolves. But I was mainly referring to human society, technology and other more or less tangible things constructed by man. Basic human nature doesn’t change which is one of the reasons why you can’t construct an objective morality.
“A group of what exactly? A group presupposes a group of something. ”
A group consist of more than one entity, in this case individuals.
“You can’t have the one without the other.”
I have never claimed that you can. What I claim is that you cannot impose them rigidly without threatening them. If you give too much focus on the right to life then the right to property will be threatened. The result would be communism. So while I’m not to sure what to call when you do it the other way around as you are suggesting the result will still be negative. What I am trying to argue for is some sort of harmony between the two rights.
“True, thugs from Pfizer beat up my family the last time I refused to buy but now that it is off patent this doesn’t happen anymore. Now the thugs are too busy beating each other up to see who gets to force me to buy their drugs! Yah!”
Oh quit the silliness. They don’t need to force you to do anything, its pay up or die without a single thug in sight. Now I assume that you can afford to pay for these drugs but many people can’t, both in western countries and in developing ones (but that’s a whole different ballgame). Drugs cost money so naturally the manufacturers will demand payment, that’s only fair. But what isn’t fair is when people who cannot afford them, in many cases through no fault of their own, suffer and die.
“Here is the question, Johan. What does your ideology require of Nick and what does his require of you? Seems to me from reading the comments that you would require at least some percent of his luxuries but not much more. Is that correct?”
More or less yes. I’m not a socialist Steve. I believe in a free market and in cutting government spending. But I do not believe in the Randian utopia, I find it silly and unrealistic. It’s an ideology that holds people responsible for things that are not their fault; who their parents where, where they were born, what school they went to, what diseases they get simply by standing on the subway one morning. People are not equals and no Randian morality will change that. And that isn’t necessarily a totally bad thing, because to a certain extent it breads healthy competition. But it’s also breeds injustice and that’s what I think should be addressed.
The whole morality derives from consensus bit is not an ideology; it’s simply an historical analysis
Yes, there is. As I pointed out before, it’s the difference between the slave and the slaveholder that’s of the essence here. Both can be productive; but the slave can only be productive under threat—and under constant threat with that.
This, I don’t understand. Communism values the right to life?
When you write “injustice” don’t you mean “inequality”?
Is it just to deprive those “favored” by nature or circumstance (the talented, the intelligent) of the right to the rewards they produce (or, the right to life) and grant them to the incompetent, the inable, the stupid; rewards these people could never themselves produce?
I understand where you’re coming from. There is inequality and probably always will be because people are not equal. One man may be more intelligent than the other; the other may be more able in a given field than the next.
When you start to try to remove those inequalities, you stumble upon two objections of mine: 1) by right right may you deprive men of their property in order for others to prosper—other than their “need”? And 2) where’s the end? Where do you stop trying to level out any remnant of inequality and is whatever limit you chose not an arbitrary one and therefore, proof that such a morality is inconsistent?
“Both can be productive; but the slave can only be productive under threat—and under constant threat with that.”
So? Its still a productive society. I wouldn’t want to live in it but there it is. On the other hand, slavery might make it possible for the owner to use his mind on a level he wouldn’t be capable of if he was forced to harvest his own crops. And since the slave is obviously inable and stupid by your own definition, whets the harm in letting him go on with his work?
“This, I don’t understand. Communism values the right to life? ”
The original marxian version valued the right to life, although from a macro perspective (or at least that was the general idea). Then the semi fascistic soviet union came along and removed even that.
“Is it just to deprive those “favored” by nature or circumstance (the talented, the intelligent) of the right to the rewards they produce (or, the right to life) and grant them to the incompetent, the inable, the stupid; rewards these people could never themselves produce?”
You seriously mean believe that? That those in need are naturally incompetent inable and stupid. Nick, I’m saying this as an old friend, are out of your goddamned mind! You think these things are biological? Education, family conditions, medical conditions etc etc and etc. You think people are out of a job because they are incompetent? You think they are poor because they’re stupid? You think everyone has an equal chance? They don’t and that’s not decided by their ability, its decided by their birth or social surroundings. It’s the inequalities that I find troublesome, not that someone is ‘more intelligent’ (which is often just code for better education) then someone else.
“by right right may you deprive men of their property in order for others to prosper—other than their “need”?”
By what right to you remove the possibilities for people to lift themselves from conditions that are not their own fault? By what right do you draw the lines deciding who’s worthy to belong to your great utopia?
“2) where’s the end?”
I have already answered that. The end comes when the attempt to bridge these inequalities becomes outright harmful, for the state, for society and for the individuals. When helping becomes suffering. But until then you really don’t need that 52 inch widescreen.
It can be, yes. But look at another sort of “slave society” like Soviet Russia (not quite slavery, I know, but workers deprived of rights) and you see that by enslaving people, you don’t necessarily bring about productivity and certainly not greater productivity than in a capitalist society.
If he’s able enough, he doesn’t need slavery for that!
I beg your pardon? The slave is forced to do what he does. He has no choice in the matter. His ability and his intelligence are of no significance here.
Marxism valued the right to life of some—at the expense of the rights of others, from the very start.
That’s not what I wrote! Not all “in need” are naturally incompetend and stupid; but those who are incompetend and stupid are always in need.
Certainly not! But that is not enough reason to disadvantage those who happen to have “more chance”. You say, a child can’t help what family he’s born into. True—but it works both ways.
Note, again, that I don’t object to helping people—as long as it’s done by choice. I’m not going to stop anyone from donating to charity or setting up a free clinic for the poor. What I’m arguing against is that people are forced to participate in such.
Which is an inequality. ;)
I’m not denying them any rights—except the right to the charity, the generosity and the money of others. If you consider that “removing their possibilities” then we have a fundamental disagreement on the matter of property rights. My money does not belong to anyone else because to them, it might represent the “possiblity” of improving their livelihood.
Define “harmful”. (I’m not trying to be picky I’m; I’m trying to show you that such a system would be completely arbitrary and fundamentally unjust.)
“Not all “in need” are naturally incompetend and stupid; but those who are incompetend and stupid are always in need.”
How do you define stupid and incompetent anyway? Everybody has something they can do. And anyway, these people you are describing hardly constitute the majority or even close to it.
“I beg your pardon? The slave is forced to do what he does. He has no choice in the matter. His ability and his intelligence are of no significance here.”
There is a lot of significance to his abilities. In roman society, for instance, not only was there possibilities to advance on the command ladder within the slave society, there also existed the opportunity to buy one’s own freedom. Naturally these rights applied mainly to the household slaves and not the chain gangs on the fields but they were still there.
“I’m not denying them any rights—except the right to the charity, the generosity and the money of others”
And as such you are denying them the right to live, the right to be healthy and, if we take your argument long enough, the right to education. Because why should we waste your precious money on stupid people?
“Marxism valued the right to life of some”
Some? Are you referring to Marx proletariat or Lenin’s revolutionary elite?
“I’m not denying them any rights—except the right to the charity, the generosity and the money of others”
Which is great, marvelous even. Unfortunately that money will never be enough hence why taxes are needed.
“If you consider that “removing their possibilities” then we have a fundamental disagreement on the matter of property rights.”
Yes we have. To me the right to life (in which I include healthcare) is far more important than an overly strict definition of property rights. To me forcing those who won’t suffer by paying to be a bit empathic and pay for the healthcare of others is really no different from enforcing other laws. In both cases they help selfish people from hurting others.
“Define “harmful”. (I’m not trying to be picky I’m; I’m trying to show you that such a system would be completely arbitrary and fundamentally unjust.)”
And as I have tried to show you every system on planet earth is arbitrary. In the west we call it democracy. These is not about taxing some small group, the majority of taxpayers are middleclass. What is harmful is decided by popular vote (though personally I say when it starts to actively damage the economy). Anything else would be outright undemocratic.
Besides, I still don’t get why it is moral to force people to pay for militaries that may fight wars that have absolutely nothing to do with their security but immoral to force to pay for healthcare.
Quite right, and everybody has the ability to excell at what they do. A lot of people seem to lack the will to do so however.
I certainly hope not, no.
I’m sorry, I was thinking about the more recent instance of slavery in the Caribbean and the US. Slavery was different in Antiquity indeed.
How? I deny them the right (!) to “the charity, the generosity and the money of others”. How does that make it impossible for people to live?
Both. Both encompass only a certain group of people.
So what you’re saying is that, like me, most people put their own interests first. I’d like to remind you here of our little discussion on majority rule. ;)
And I say they can’t properly exist without one another…
What’s wrong with being selfish? And how are they “hurting” others, by refusing to pay for another man’s health care? They are not responsible for the fact that that man needs care. They are not to blame. They are not hurting that other person. They only refuse to help.
On the matter of “harmful”, you wrote, harmful, “for the state, for society and for the individuals.” (Emphasis mine.) It’s specifically the latter I’m interested in. When, in your opinion, does the leveling out of wealth inequality become to harmful to the individual? When he can no longer afford a plasma TV? When he can no longer afford to see a movie twice a week? When he can no longer afford orange juice with his breakfast? Where you do you think it’s proper for a state to draw the line when it comes to luxuries?
Democracy can’t be its own moral justification. Saying that something is right because a majority of the people say so equals moral bankruptcy—and the denial that any objective truth is within reach of human knowledge.
I never said it’s moral to pay for fighting wars. Quite to the contrary, I have stated, IIRC, that the initiation of force is wrong no matter what. It is moral to pay for the defense of a state, for the protection of its citizens is the very purpose of having goverment.
“A lot of people seem to lack the will to do so however.”
You know, I here allot of people claiming this and yet I have ever seen any proof. Besides, while does who attempt to live of the government without valid reason are criminals they hardly constitute a reason to shut down the system.
“Both. Both encompass only a certain group of people. ”
Yet Marxian ideology eventually strives to make everyone equal, not out another group above the other permanently. And anyway, the point of the example is the Marx’s work statred out after seeing the plight of the 19′th century worker class. Unfortunately he drove his ideals into extremism (and let’s not event talk about the people who came after him).
“How? I deny them the right (!) to “the charity, the generosity and the money of others”. How does that make it impossible for people to live?”
Subject A has a disease. Subject A can’t afford medicine. Charities can’t cover since the lack the monetary means. Subject A dies. Meanwhile benefit from the low taxes and buy a new 52 inch television. Subject A is now dead because you cannot se how your moral claims kills people.
Clear enough?
“And I say they can’t properly exist without one another… ”
And I have never disputed this.
“They are not responsible for the fact that that man needs care. They are not to blame. They are not hurting that other person. They only refuse to help.”
Let’s say you have a child. That child one day falls of a pire and drowns. When you arrive you find me there, hands in my pockets, casually explaining how I watched you’re child drown. Would you say I’m completely free of responsibility for your child’s death?
“and the denial that any objective truth is within reach of human knowledge.”
Which, simplified, is what I have been doing, at least in regard to social sciences.
“Where you do you think it’s proper for a state to draw the line when it comes to luxuries?”
First of all it’s not the state but the voters who make that the decision. They don’t like current policy they vote for another party. The only line the state apparatus should draw is when they see the economy being actively harmed by to high tax levels.
“It is moral to pay for the defense of a state, for the protection of its citizens is the very purpose of having goverment.”
But since people will always find uses for a military apparatus apart from territorial defense, it will still be used. And once again defense of the state is far from clearcut, unless you define it as nothing but territorial defense. Since military power is naturally coercive, wouldn’t this be a greater threat then spending money on healthcare?
I doubt there’s any scientific research, for it’s rather difficult a matter to investigate. I can only relate from personal experience for that reason and I have come across many people who complain about their work, about their lives, about their unhappiness—yet they never do anything about it. They seem to be under the impression that life is somethin that happens to them, without human beings having any ability to shape or control it.
Making everyone “equal” is not the same as recognizing everyone’s individual right to life.
True. He should have been more thorough and stopped for a moment to consider the plight of the 18th century working class, or the 17th century working class for that matter, and then write a critique of capitalism.
(Because both examples come down to the same issue, I hope you’ll agree that I picked the more difficult to respond to.)
It depends. If you value me and you know that I value my child, and saving it from certain death will do you no harm, then there’s little reason why you shouldn’t. If, however, you don’t know me and saving that child you don’t know either might even come at a person risk to yourself, there is little reason why you should.
In the end, the most important thing, as far as I’m concerned, is your person choice. No one can force you to save that child—certainly not if it leaves you worse off.
Then how should I interpret:
You are saying that one of these two rights is “far more important” than an “overly strict”, i.e.: consistent definition of the other. How can these two rights exist in conjunction when one of them is rendered practically insignificent in the face of the other?
OK, then where do you think it’s proper for them to draw the line?
Let’s put it in more simpler form: To what extend to you think it’s proper for your neighbor to decide what level of luxury you may enjoy?
That’s not necessarily true and even if it were, it is rather a weak argument. Imagine that we were discussing the police instead. In almost every country, police brutality occurs, if only rarely. Yet no clear-headed individual would therefore propose that the police be abolished altogether.
“But I do not believe in the Randian utopia, I find it silly and unrealistic.”
It seems to me that the closer a society is to this so called Randian utopia the more productive and happier the people are. Why is it silly to extrapolate to a society even closer to it than our own?
“More or less yes. I’m not a socialist Steve.”
I don’t see anyway to fairly draw this line. What is it, more or less? What if instead of having to give up my 50 inch TV for the other guy’s medicine I have to give up my car? What if it means I have to put my son in a less expensive and not as good school. What if it means I can not save the money in my bank account as a hedge for when he needs medicine. ‘More or less’ covers a lot of ground. Are you going to say that you will take 10% of what I earn and after that NO MATTER WHAT you won’t take any more? I might actually be able to live with that. What I cannot live with is someone telling me after the fact how much I owe or changing the rules as they go along.
“In your opinion how are we doing in regards to this. Is the US at exactly the correct point – or should we move a bit in one direction or the other?
“But what isn’t fair is when people who cannot afford them, in many cases through no fault of their own, suffer and die. ”
Of course that is not fair. But why is it fair to force me to pay for them? Why does the fact that they cannot pay for them make me a slave?
“They don’t need to force you to do anything, its pay up or die without a single thug in sight. “
What if the drug didn’t exist? Now what are the choices? I see only one.
” It’s an ideology that holds people responsible for things that are not their fault;”
No, it is NOT. It simply states that their bad luck shouldn’t impose obligations on me. It is not my fault either. It works both ways. You CANNOT say that their bad luck is my fault, or societies fault or anyone’s fault.
“Let’s say you have a child. That child one day falls of a pyre and drowns. When you arrive you find me there, hands in my pockets, casually explaining how I watched you’re child drown. Would you say I’m completely free of responsibility for your child’s death?”
If this happened you would not be responsible but in most cases you would still be described as a big jerk. However, should not helping the child be a crime? I would give the same answer for “its pay up or die”. Wow! The people who make these drugs are not very nice are they?
The vast majority of people, especially in a free society would help. I would and your question implies that you would. I am guessing that Nick would as well. Do you know anyone that wouldn’t help, especially if it cost them nothing or very little? I would be hard pressed to name someone. Most of the drug companies have programs to help people who cannot pay.
I repeat: Should not helping the child be a crime? Should not giving someone the drug be a crime?
“To me the right to life [...] is far more important than an overly strict definition of property rights.”
This is the core issue of disagreement I think. I comes down to the fact that my property derives from the work I do. This is not so much my money as my time. If you take this (time) away from me for what ever reason you have stolen part of my life. Then the question you have to answer is what part of my life you are willing to take. Can you state a straight percentage (10, 15 %) or is there some other way to determine this? This was the point of my last question about what your ideology will require of me.
How can you separate my life from my time? I have a limited amount of time on this Earth and it should be mine to use as I want.
“True. He should have been more thorough and stopped for a moment to consider the plight of the 18th century working class, or the 17th century working class for that matter, and then write a critique of capitalism. ”
Yes he should have. However, the reason I dragged him up is to show what happens when focus too much on one right at the expense of the other.
“In the end, the most important thing, as far as I’m concerned, is your person choice. No one can force you to save that child—certainly not if it leaves you worse off. ”
And there another fundamental difference between us. To me the end result is what matters; that the child lives. Let’s say you could save the child without any form risk to yourself (and what risk do you take by paying your taxes?). You choose to stand at the sidelines. In this case, you have killed, just as surely as if you pushed it in front of a bus or drove it over while speeding. Its manslaughter, if not outright murder.
“You are saying that one of these two rights is “far more important” than an “overly strict”, i.e.: consistent definition of the other. How can these two rights exist in conjunction when one of them is rendered practically insignificant in the face of the other?”
In isn’t practically insignificant. When I say overly strict I mean your definition, that all taxes that don’t go to defense and lawenforcement are immoral. That I do not think that paying a small percentage of your income in taxes is a burden does not mean that I think the right to property insignificant.
“Why does the fact that they cannot pay for them make me a slave?”
It doesn’t. Taxes and slavery are to widely different things.
“It seems to me that the closer a society is to this so called Randian utopia the more productive and happier the people are. Why is it silly to extrapolate to a society even closer to it than our own?”
It’s silly because it is based on the idea that there exist a singular reason to why people are enjoying a higher living standard; namely capitalism and free enterprises. And those things are important. Yet how can we be sure that labor laws, union, historical coincidences, government funded research and education, social security and so on did not play a part. Its an extremist ideology. Historically, those tend to be wrong almost by default.
Anyway, how do you measure happiness?
“Should not giving someone the drug be a crime?”
Yes it should be. Of course, outright taking the drug doesn’t work either. Hence why is suggest a road in the middle.
“I comes down to the fact that my property derives from the work I do. This is not so much my money as my time.”
This is not necessarily true. You can inherit money, win the lottery, happen to find a goldmine in your backyard and sell it, etc.
But I do get your point. I still disagree with it however. You make a certain amount of money working. Someone else may make less money despite working for longer hours then you and still not be able to cover their medical bills. And yes that is not your fault, not directly. But still, if taking a small percentage of your income to level out the most critical parts of this difference (that is those that relate to life, death and education) then I think its justified to ask for small part of your income.
And I can’t say how much that would be. I can’t. It depends on how much money is needed, how much money can be taken from other sources (like unnecessary government porkbelly programs) and how high taxes people are willing to accept. It’s arbitrary, as you say. Yet I still say it’s folly to believe one can construct a system not controlled by these changes in policy. Democracy, to certain extent, is like Russian roulette. If you are unlucky you lose big. And the only real way to abolish this problem goes in even worse directions.
As I said, if there’s no risk involved, and you think the child deserves to be saved (and why shouldn’t it?), you should save it.
No. To kill is an action. Standing at the sidelines watching someone die is inaction.
First, note that “capitalism” implies and requires personal liberty.
Second, I do believe that with the exception of historical coincidence and government-funded research, the factors you mention have been of little to no consequence to bring about the prosperity enjoyed in the Western world today. In fact, I think they’re harmful to said prosperity.
What is happiness to you? To me, it means the enjoyment I find in fulfilling my goals. That can be measured.
You can’t base a moral principle on this. Either it’s right to take part of someone’s wealth for the sake of others, or it’s wrong.
“As I said, if there’s no risk involved, and you think the child deserves to be saved (and why shouldn’t it?), you should save it.”
But it’s still okay to let it die?
“No. To kill is an action. Standing at the sidelines watching someone die is inaction. ”
A differences that matters little to the dead.
“In fact, I think they’re harmful to said prosperity. ”
Possibly. Yet they have proven instrumental in making sure that people at large, apart from those investing in industry, can take part in the fruits of capitalism (even if their modern incarnations doesn’t always work that stellar) especially in its earlier incarnations when industyraliasation serves (unwitignly) as a tool of alienation and decrease in personnal property. As for social secruity, well that’s something I consider to be a part of our prosperity.
“To me, it means the enjoyment I find in fulfilling my goals. ”
Can you fulfill those goals if you’re sick?
“You can’t base a moral principle on this. Either it’s right to take part of someone’s wealth for the sake of others, or it’s wrong.”
A) you can base moral principles on essentially everything, from objective observation to a man talking to a burning shrubbery
B) It is right, at least in my view. Once again we here come to our disagreement about the existence of an objective morality.
It depends on your reasons. Let me give you two examples to illustrate why I think it’s immoral to demand that no matter what, you save someone’s life when they’re in danger.
Say, the child isn’t drowning but caught on the third floor of a burning building. Firemen daren’t even go in, for the building is about to collapse. Would it be immoral to “stand by” and let that child die?
Say, the person drowning isn’t a child but the rapist of your daughter who managed to escape a jail sentence over some legal technicality. Would it be immoral to “stand by” and let him die?
Quite—but it makes all the difference for the question of moral responsibility.
Nathaniel Branden has written an interesting piece on the effects of labor unions, quoting economist Ludwig von Mises, in his article “Common Fallacies About Capitalism” later published in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (1966). You can read it online here if you like.
Note, on this topic, that the American auto market was one of the most regulated in the entire economy—and one in which labor unions enjoyed exceptional pull. Basically, no man could work for one of the Big Three if not a member of the same union, and neither of the automanufacturers were allowed to employ non-union workers.
No, that’s why I have health insurance.
OK, I should have written “a logical, objective moral principle.” ;)
Then we’re back to the question: where is the end. If it’s right and morally justified to take part of another man’s wealth, the inevitable implication is that no man’s wealth is his and his alone.
“Say, the person drowning isn’t a child but the rapist of your daughter who managed to escape a jail sentence over some legal technicality. Would it be immoral to “stand by” and let him die? ”
Yes. Understandable and I wouldn’t send a man to prison for it but yes, technically it would be, by this moral code.
As for the other example the person is risking his life. Of course you can’t demand such a thing from it in this situation. Yet let us return to the drowning child. Assume it’s a relatively calm day so there little to no risk to one’s life (you may even be able to stand in the water). Now the choice becomes one between someone’s life or wetting your new suit.
And here’s the main part. Both of you are saying that risking one life and risking ones suit are one and the same, just as paying taxes and having government goons drag you into the street and shot you are one and the same. I dispute this. The level of threat are different, the risks are enormously different, the methods are different and in the end the goal is different. They are not the same situation.
“No, that’s why I have health insurance.”
Good for you. How about if you couldn’t afford it? Or if you’re say ten years old and your parents couldn’t.
“Nathaniel Branden has written an interesting piece on the effects of labor unions, quoting economist Ludwig von Mises, in his article “Common Fallacies About Capitalism” later published in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (1966). You can read it online here if you like. ”
A very interesting read. Of course, even he agrees (albeit grudgingly) that unions have a role to play;
“Unions can have value as fraternal organizations, or as a means of keeping members informed of current market conditions, or as a means of bargaining more effectively with employers—particularly in small, isolated communities. It may happen that an individual employer is paying wages that, in the overall market context, are too low; in such a case, a strike or the threat of a strike, can compel him to change his policy, since he will discover that he cannot obtain an adequate labor force at the wages he offers.”
Naturally he then continues to describe them as having little effect in general. Personally I think he underestimated their influence although he is right that many modern union are becoming more of a hindrance then a help.
But once again its the narrow view of progress that ails me:
“Economic progress, like every other form of progress, has only one ultimate source: man’s mind—and can exist only to the extent that man is free to translate his thought into action.”
No. Human freedom is important. But so are resources, social stability (because you can’t invent if someone bashes your head in), geographical and historical coincidences and what not. There is no single source of progress.
“OK, I should have written “a logical, objective moral principle.” ”
And as I have pointed out, no such thing is ultimately attainable.
This is the main reason why I talk about needs. Need are tangible. They’re real, they are objectively provable. They are not morals, which are consensus based social principles nor rights, which are abstract pseudo legal encoding of said principles. I suppose it’s another difference between us.
“If it’s right and morally justified to take part of another man’s wealth, the inevitable implication is that no man’s wealth is his and his alone.”
Yes it would be wouldn’t it? Yet no mans wealth is his and his alone. Practically speaking it can of course be taken at any time. Less practically, even your objective moral demands him to pay the state, pay for policies he might not agree with. Now I believe that if a society can demand him to pay for some wholesale killing somewhere else, it can demand that he pay’s for healthcare for those who cannot afford and should he need it himself.