More views on socialised healthcare
2:41 am on Sat 7th Mar by TheMoosra
Rep. Zach Wamp (Republican- Tennessee)recently came under fire for stating that healthcare is a privilege, not a right. Most people disagree with him, however I do not.
We have to consider "right" as meaning fundamental, unshakeable and inalienable natural rights. Under this umbrella, I will not include human rights, as they are convoluted rights that are granted by legislation, and thus are not really natural rights.
Rights only exist so long as the method of enforcing that right does not conflict with the natural rights of any other person.
For example, everyone has a right to free will and to do whatever they want. However, if they "want" to kill someone else, then they cannot as it interferes with the other person's right to life. The only scenario where natural rights can be breached is when one man is in the process of breaching the natural rights of another (ie escalatory retaliation in self defence, or to prevent theft is acceptable).
So how does socialized healthcare come into this? Well to provide a "right to healthcare", the government would undeniably have to tax other people. Taxes take earned away money from others, therefore infringing their natural property rights.
To make money for the most part requires effort and time, and since time is a measure of how long a person has spent of their life, if you take away someone's property that they have worked for, then you are taking away a part of their life. This is why theft and taxes are tantamount to fractional murder.
The "right" to healthcare cannot be enforced without committing fractional murder on some other person (ie the rich man), therefore it should be unenforceable, and therefore cannot exist. (There are rare exceptions, such as states rich in oil money).
This is not a question of humanity. On the face of it, it does appear that way... but only on the surface. To simply wash away all discussion of the issue is anti-intellectual. It is plebian. It is the nature of the uneducated and the inconsiderate.
Humanity doesn't mean imposing upon others. Where is the humanity of liberals not to steal from me via oppressive levels of taxation?
True humanity always has been, and always will be, charity. Charity is the highest of actions; the best of humanity. Forcing a rich man into paying for a poor one's medicine is not humanity, it is faceless collectivism. I am not a member of any collective. I am one man, existing in nature with inalienable natural rights; and I should never, ever be forced to help another man against my will.
We must ask the proponents of socialised medicine: Do you want socialized healthcare? Do you really want to pay for cancer treatment for smokers? Quadruple heart bypasses for the hyper obese? Insulin for the man who didn't want to control his doughnut habit?
Healthcare is not an inalienable right. By taking certain actions, the right is negated because there is no element of "bad luck". A smoker knows that he may end up with lung cancer, and he should bear the brunt of the consequences.
There are people in bad situations, through no fault of their own. Charity ought to exist only for these people.
Universally accessible socialised healthcare is not the moral solution, nor has it ever been. It works to the extent that the top bracket taxpayers suffer it silently in the misguided idea that they are performing an act of humanity; when in reality their money would be infinitely more usefully and efficiently utilized by a charity.
We have to consider "right" as meaning fundamental, unshakeable and inalienable natural rights. Under this umbrella, I will not include human rights, as they are convoluted rights that are granted by legislation, and thus are not really natural rights.
Rights only exist so long as the method of enforcing that right does not conflict with the natural rights of any other person.
For example, everyone has a right to free will and to do whatever they want. However, if they "want" to kill someone else, then they cannot as it interferes with the other person's right to life. The only scenario where natural rights can be breached is when one man is in the process of breaching the natural rights of another (ie escalatory retaliation in self defence, or to prevent theft is acceptable).
So how does socialized healthcare come into this? Well to provide a "right to healthcare", the government would undeniably have to tax other people. Taxes take earned away money from others, therefore infringing their natural property rights.
To make money for the most part requires effort and time, and since time is a measure of how long a person has spent of their life, if you take away someone's property that they have worked for, then you are taking away a part of their life. This is why theft and taxes are tantamount to fractional murder.
The "right" to healthcare cannot be enforced without committing fractional murder on some other person (ie the rich man), therefore it should be unenforceable, and therefore cannot exist. (There are rare exceptions, such as states rich in oil money).
This is not a question of humanity. On the face of it, it does appear that way... but only on the surface. To simply wash away all discussion of the issue is anti-intellectual. It is plebian. It is the nature of the uneducated and the inconsiderate.
Humanity doesn't mean imposing upon others. Where is the humanity of liberals not to steal from me via oppressive levels of taxation?
True humanity always has been, and always will be, charity. Charity is the highest of actions; the best of humanity. Forcing a rich man into paying for a poor one's medicine is not humanity, it is faceless collectivism. I am not a member of any collective. I am one man, existing in nature with inalienable natural rights; and I should never, ever be forced to help another man against my will.
We must ask the proponents of socialised medicine: Do you want socialized healthcare? Do you really want to pay for cancer treatment for smokers? Quadruple heart bypasses for the hyper obese? Insulin for the man who didn't want to control his doughnut habit?
Healthcare is not an inalienable right. By taking certain actions, the right is negated because there is no element of "bad luck". A smoker knows that he may end up with lung cancer, and he should bear the brunt of the consequences.
There are people in bad situations, through no fault of their own. Charity ought to exist only for these people.
Universally accessible socialised healthcare is not the moral solution, nor has it ever been. It works to the extent that the top bracket taxpayers suffer it silently in the misguided idea that they are performing an act of humanity; when in reality their money would be infinitely more usefully and efficiently utilized by a charity.
No comments yet!
Comments have been disabled. You can probably comment on this post on Geek On A Bicycle.
"The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun." - R. Buckminster Fuller