An Open Letter to President Obama

I agree professor. However I would take it one step beyond your points. If our President really is concerned about equality why not have everyone earn a million dollars a year. Just a million no more no less. Then everyone will be equal.

...c@feh@yek...

I am interested in your idea that the only right should be to property, and I take your approach as a variation of a libertarian view on these matters.

The argument does on first viewing appear to have some appeal, particularly to someone who favours functioning systems that are somewhat neat and ordered, however I think that it fails to recognize the fundamentally social nature of many of the concepts that are embodied in a document like the US constitution. For example, if there is a disagreement over the owner of a particular piece of property that needs to be settled by a judiciary system, then we expect that some common concept of fairness is adhered to when these rights are being interpreted. We cannot define this fairness perfectly, but we know that some common concept exists and that it matters to most people most of the time. This might mean that I need a lawyer (again, which costs!) to represent me if you are more articulate than I in presenting your case, or vice versa. Additionally, it might seem reasonable to ensure that all the inarticulate individuals in a society have recourse to a similar service, again in deference to the concept of fairness which is innate to the majority of humans. I think that it is difficult to conceive of a totally individualistic system that could both reliably preserve what are desirable social ideals, without having to compromise some of the logical simplicity of the overall system.

I concede that as one starts to follow this line of thinking, the instinct to construct an ever expanding menu of rights can take hold. I would sympathize with those who, like yourself, are suspicious of this instinct. However, the proposal that we can get by with the bare minimum of rights that can be neatly defined in logical terms I think is a) ahistorical and not supported by empirical observation, and more importantly, b) underestimates the poorly evolved nature of our primate cortex.

I would point out to anyone who is seduced by highly ordered philosophical theories that humans are one half of a chromosome away from a chimpanzee, and I am sorry to say that sometimes it shows.

I have to admit to being a little confused by what you mean, so maybe I’m off track, but when you say…

“For example, if there is a disagreement over the owner of a particular piece of property that needs to be settled by a judiciary system, then we expect that some common concept of fairness is adhered to when these rights are being interpreted.”

...my “equality” alarm starts going off. Not that you are advocating this, but what a lot of folks tend to do in the face of a difficult dispute is to try and split things equally and call it a day.

Of course, I recognize there are situations where it seems to be more of a grey area as to who is right and wrong in a dispute. Intellectual property can get pretty messy and has a lot of useful examples of this.

But I think times like these are where having our “rights” most clearly defined as absolutes is most important. These types of situations need to be left to “interpretation” as little as possible in my opinion. The law works best when it is not a social issue, but is blind to the swings of social norms and preferences.

Rights should be absolutes. They should be clear and objective. Yes, a Constitution should be subject to amendments and updates so that we can fix it when need be. But if “rights” defined in our Constitution conflict with each other, we need to revisit them and probably abolish one or more of them.

When you say :

“I would point out to anyone who is seduced by highly ordered philosophical theories that humans are one half of a chromosome away from a chimpanzee, and I am sorry to say that sometimes it shows.”
I completely agree. I think my ideas of how I would like to see a Constitution be put into effect are unlikely to ever be a reality. It is possible that our neurobiology overpowers our attempts to stick to concretes and absolutes, compelling us to pick solutions using social means. So, I just do what I can to try and persuade others in an effort to minimize that behavior, but I try not to delude myself into thinking that it can or even should be eradicated.

this is an absurd reduction. yes, obviously in markets where information is widely available and therefore, the market is competitive, rationing is crucial. yes, president obama is politically posturing.

but the healthcare market is not like this. citation: every goddam brookings institution study on healthcare in the last decade.

but, way to go mr. bourdreaux, pat yourself on the back for scoring a rhetorical victory. im glad that your economics education isn't just cute econometric tricks, but is true critical thinking. bravo.

I love the last point. The government ALSO rations according to who pays and who doesn't.

What do they ration? Freedom and services.

How do they do it? Force!

What a wonderful world!

I would be willing to bet that Donald J. Boudreaux has never paid insurance as an individual, but has always had his coverage subsidized by his employer. The experience of purchasing an individual policy for health insurance from ANY insurance company would leave him demanding a "quid pro quo".

Seems to be that if a rich guy pays for his $20 supermarket purchase with a $100 bill, the change should be given to the poor guy in line behind him. I mean, obviously the pooor guy needs it more.

Sorry. That's "Seems to me..."

Love the leter to the prez.
Your brother
Ryan

Who can pay? Who can afford to pay these outrageous premiums? Nobody! Rich or Poor! Let's cut out all the "greasing" of the 'middle" opportunists, and let's get Americans access to affordable health care. It will happen in the next few weeks! Thank you, President. AND, thanks to our leaders who care about our fellow Americans. Let's continue to work to help people live a life with access to health care! Amen and Amen! Yes, praise God on this issue!

Thank goodness. Please, post more of this.

I think Judge Andrew Napolitano does a great job defining what is a right and what is a good at
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/25/...

I am wondering if his law school background contributes to his lack of understanding of even basic economics. Does anyone know what percent of the US congress have law degrees? That would be interesting to know.

See also www.StopTheLooters.com

I remain confused.

If Obama and Dame Sebellius know so much about the health insurance business; moreover, if they've concluded that some health insurance companies are charging a premium price that is not "justified" by present and future assumed costs, why don't they but together a group of investors, start a competing firm, and drive those egregious malefactors out of business?

But, do it with their own and their investors' funds freely contributed by those who agree with their business plan. Why do these know-so-muches need the coercive power of the state to garner the funds necessary to "compete"? What if the insurance companies' cost assessments are correct, but they're not in business any longer? Who's going to pay what to whom so that the incentives are in place to treat patients with the optimal health services? Perhaps, in the future, hospitals and doctors won't provide weekend service, as is proposed by another government service that misestimated costs of doing business. Or, perhaps worse than that---

It's pretty simple really. It's what entrepreneurs do every day, without the threat of police and standing army. Done by dint of good ideas and confidence in them. That's why I'm confused. Why won't these "smarties" do it?

When they deign to answer that question at all, the response is that the pool must be made up of the entire population (and their financial contributions) in order for the system to work. This ignores the fact that other countries with much smaller populations have been able to impose socialized medicine with wonderful results, like the UK.

Why won't these "smarties" do it?

Ever had an annoying neighbor who always has unsolicited advice?
Sure the person means well, but most of the time their ideas are just plain dumb. They don't realize it. They think their ideas are wonderful, and they honestly cannot understand why others don't think the same way.

They are stuck with a problem. They have all these (they think) wonderful ideas, but nobody will follow them willingly. They really think that their ideas can make things better, but nobody else can see the light. The problem is not with them and their ideas, it's with those rubes who just can't see things their way.

So they seek public office.

Now people will follow their advice or face consequences, for what was once a suggestion is now law.

That is why it is important to insult people like this frequently and publicly.

And that only works on some people.

Professor Boudreaux is absolutely right - the whole problem with Obama's arguement is that he believes we should have a cradle to grave entitlement system. There is no reward anymore for working hard, doing without, saving & trying to get ahead. When you do that, you are the"enemy". According to the Obama Admin. - How dare you have more than me - if you do, you have to pay even more into the "system" so everyone, including those who choose not to work or save or try hard, gets the same as you!

A brilliant (and hilarous) letter - it must have made Bastiat chuckle

Frederic Bastiat alive and kicking

People seem to be conflating insurance with actual health care.

If any of us, with coverage or without, go to the hospital we will be treated. People can argue if medical treatment is a right all they want but the current system, and law, demands that everyone is taken care of should they require it.

What this means is that we have a system in which those that are uninsured and oftentimes incapable, or unwilling, to pay for treatment or coverage are treated and the cost of which is then transported to those of us that do pay. The cost for health care is already shared amongst those that can and do pay.

Furthermore, we have an economy that is further encouraging younger people with few chronic conditions (such as myself) to drop their health insurance which then further increases the costs of those that do need coverage, especially older people, to the point where it is unaffordable. These people who then can't afford coverage anymore either lose their home, are incapable of starting their own business, or just simply drop their coverage. Of course once someone loses their health insurance it doesn't mean they lose their ability to be treated which then just furthers the cycle.

What I'm trying to say is that the current system is a system by which those that do have the ability to pay for coverage are already paying for the coverage of those who are unwilling or incapable of paying for coverage.

Unless people are willing to deny care to everyone who can't pay and are willing to do such in emergency situations we must find a way in which we can more equitably pay for the care of those that do not pay for it themselves. I personally think that while the current legislation has many flaws it does go in this direction. I've yet to see an actual proposal from the Republican Party or from a libertarian that actually achieves this goal, which is fine as they don't agree that there is a problem but they must at least acknowledge that if we're going to continue caring for all that need it we must find a method of paying for this coverage.

I think when the question is defined in such a way as to make it sound as though government is to get larger to pay for deadbeats (which is how many see it) instead of the more realistic manner in which we discuss how the uninsured are increasing the costs for those of us with insurance we can have a more civil discourse. Then again I don't see how the magical force of the marketplace is able to solve all the world's problems.

Furthermore, we have an economy that is further encouraging younger people with few chronic conditions (such as myself) to drop their health insurance which then further increases the costs of those that do need coverage, especially older people, to the point where it is unaffordable.

"Unaffordable" is a relative term. I see a lot of people driving really nice cars, taking great vacations and spending thousands of dollars on other leisure products who then turn around and say that health insurance is just not "affordable". Yet the brand new BMW? Totally affordable.

Of course, state mandates go a long way to increase health insurance. How about getting rid of those?

Or, here's a Republican proposal - insurance portability and allowing you to buy from insurance from a company in any state in the Union. That increases competition among insurers and decreases the effect of state mandates, leading to lower premiums. But, the Dems wouldn't hear of it.

Unless people are willing to deny care to everyone who can't pay and are willing to do such in emergency situations we must find a way in which we can more equitably pay for the care of those that do not pay for it themselves. I personally think that while the current legislation has many flaws it does go in this direction.

The current legislation puts healthcare decisions in the hands of government. That's a big change from the way it is now.

The current legislation relies on the very wealthy to foot the entire bill. Is that what you're calling "equitable"? They won't and there's not enough of them anyway. You could take away every dollar of wealth of the top 10% and you'll still end up with a deficit. As soon as the tax revenue comes in below budget, guess what's going to happen? Middle class taxes will have to go up. And when that giant voting block's taxes go up the hue and cry will be astounding. They really hate paying taxes and they usually have the least flexibility as all of their income comes from wages. The response will be to cut medical treatment to keep taxes from going higher. So, we will have denial of treatment for anyone who isn't paying out of pocket and it will be widespread. This is what happens in European countries and citizens respond by paying out of pocket. No pay. No service.

Nobody said that the market (which, let's remember, is merely individuals making decisions for themselves) solves all worldly ills. But, because it is flexible and uncoerced, it comes the closest to delivering to humanity what humanity wants. Why? Because the only way to survive in such an environment is by pleasing your fellow man. No such incentives exist for government.

If you are unimpressed by the market's (individual human beings) ability to solve problems, then you'll surely be awed by the government's deft skill in creating them.

What I'm trying to say is that the current system is a system by which those that do have the ability to pay for coverage are already paying for the coverage of those who are unwilling or incapable of paying for coverage.

Welfare by another name...

kudos professor

Isn't the real point here that the insurance companys and in general, big business making it difficult for people to "afford" real health care? The price we pay in some cases by going through our employers is a lower rate then an individual would pay, but with this the company has decided what ins co they will choose to cover what the ins co has decided is "good enough". We, in most cases don't have much of a choice due the the expence. If, god forbid we have an actual "affliction" we could be dropped from the program. Just think about it from the other side for a minute. I know of a person who has very limited insurance and it doesn't cover dental...unless you have an abscessd tooth. Isn't an abscessed tooth proof that you needed a dentist before there was the possibility of bone loss and perminent damamge? The pain this person suffers from time to time is excruciating. How about a person with a very rare disease (only 6000 people in the entire world have this) and with even the top end medical insurance via gov ins..the bone marrow transplant she needs, including getting people tested for a match and the familys stay with her if she does get a match, etc. will only cover certain things. I won't bore you with the details but my point is...there is a need for "affordable" insurance that would include people with mental disability's. If a mentaly diabled person needs their "DR." they are allowed 6 visits per 6 mths or 1 yr..don't remember the digit....but someone who needs to see the dr. regularly for high blood pressure can have many and sometimes unlimited visits.That does not mean that their care and treatment, including many of the latest drug treatments will be offered to them because their ins won't pay, or the ins doesn't pay enough to cover the newest, only things that are now in generic form..Generics are good but they are not cutting edge, they are out dated and have been out done by new, better products. Mentaly ill people are very stigmatized by our society and there doesn't seem to be any help in sight. We could even go as far as equal housing or job discrimination...NOPE.. their out!! Insurance benifits should be affordable and should be on a scale that ALL could afford according to their circumstance. Maybe a reduced rate while "temporarily" unemployed, or unemployable...just give it a thought. Not everyone is even in a place where they could go online to see the resources available to them...We were just able to connect via the www...some don't even know there are options.

"Almost four in five people around the world believe that access to the internet is a fundamental right, a poll for the BBC World Service suggests."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8548190.stm

Forget healthcare, give me free internet. (/sarcasim)

Then clearly the access to internet porn is a right too.

Of course. Isn't everything except profit a right?

I think we should make that a right too. Maybe everything is guaranteed a 15% profit margin? That seems fair.

Who wants their heath insurer to OK every claim no matter how questionable the treatment?

What most people seem not to realize is that not only are private insurers' claims denials uncommon, but they are less common than Medicare claims denials, and claims denials are reflected in lower premiums.

Sure, and a lot of the time denials are related to fraud, which Medicaid Medicare is terrible at addressing.

I was fairly outraged this morning when I went to buy a cup of coffee and realized it was being rationed. People trading in paper currency were receiving a warm beverage, and when I asked politely for a cup of coffee they seemed to expect me to give them something in return. Here were all these people getting priority over me because they were giving the establishment money in return.

Crazy.

What is it with these "open letters to Obama" that we know no one will read but us?

That's what open letters are all about.

Yeah but it seems kind of useless. As if Obama reads Cafe Hayek.

"Yeah but it seems kind of useless."

I enjoy them immensely. So, they are not useless.

Oh but wouldn't it be a better place in the world if he did. :-)

He could start by reading Milton & Rose Friedman's "Free to Choose".

Wouldn't make any difference. This is a guy who described his stint working for a private company as being in "enemy territory". He's a thug. A common street thug who will never find Jesus.

um.....open letters aren't really written for the person to whom they are addressed most of the time.

You mean open letters aren't written by people who can't find a mailing address? :)

As if Obama reads….

Lets just assume that health care IS a right. Now, lets assume that nobody wanted to be doctors, nurses, dentists, etc in the government run ObamaCare program. Whats happens then? The government forces people into health care jobs so they can give other people their "right".....????

Yeah that's such a good point because that's exactly what they have to do in every other country that provides universal health care. Yeah it's a real problem. Glad you thought of it.

What countries would you say have most fully implemented socialism? How do you measure that?

How would you characterize the lifestyle in those countries? What measures do you believe are relevant?

Why do you come here?

Chris was making a point. Of course the reality is not that nobody becomes doctors. It is instead a matter of WHO becomes doctors. As medicine become a less attractive life for those who are capable of other things, you get less of the competent, intelligent, well-mannered, professional physicians, and more of...well you know who.

Even the Soviets, fully willing to and regularly literally enslaving people, couldn't achieve this. Slave labour is very very inefficient.

Even when people WANTED to be doctors in the Soviet system (doctors did and still do make a pittance), the doctors wouldn't treat without bribes. There is no practical way to force people to become doctors and then to actually force doctors to then treat and even less possible to force effective treatment.

So, you end up with a meaningless "right". Just like your right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is pretty much a meaningless right in the United States and becoming more meaningless with each piece of legislation passed in Washington.

We give up our real rights for the unfulfilled promise of false ones. The result is no rights of any kind.

Brilliant!

I have a simple solution for the health care problem.

If Obama believes that reckless, inefficient profit-motivated insurance companies are to blame for our woes, then they would seem to be easy targets for private competition. Why doesn’t he and Paul Krugman for that matter, set up their own private insurance company to compete. They could call it OK Insurance Co. Coverage would be cheap since OKIC would be far more efficient (eliminating all of the obvious waste), would have small or no profit margin and could elect to pay physicians and other providers less for their services. They could even offer the best no pre-existing condition coverage and not deny their coverage to anyone. OKIC would attract all the patients away from the current abusive insurance companies and all of our hopes would be answered.

Another answer, from the liberal side, would be that if they set up their own company in such a way it would fail. This happens because if they do it for profit but they don't try to greedily steal from their poor customers, they'll go out of business.

Easy response: No, they'd go out of business because they're wasting resources, and the pricing mechanism is telling them to cut it out before they can't personally afford to do so. Unless of course they have come up with a perfect business model for healthcare, but if they managed that, Steve's hypothetical would become truth.

The simple answer, of course, is that Obama doesn't give a fig about insurance companies.

What he cares about is power over your and your children's lives. He wants to be Chavez.

Didn't you Mugabe?

People think healthcare is a right? The dastards! If someone has a badly broken leg and can't pay for it then he can wait until his leg falls off. (That'll learn 'im!)

Perhaps a similar thought is notion of a fair trial for a crime. Suppose someone can't afford their own lawyer. Isn't the Libertarian notion if you don't have a lawyer then you can have a crack at defending yourself? However it's wrong for the State to provide a 'free' lawyer.

Gil,

I think you raise a fair point. How would a libertarian reconcile the right to a fair trial (which includes legal expertise) with the lack of a right to healthcare? Off the top of my head, I could imagine two possible approaches to the question. First is the pragmatic libertarian argument of societal costs. A pragmatic libertarian will grant some amount of social spending, but would prefer less costly and less invasive spending. Providing lawyers isn't particularly costly on net, as very few people ever have need of them, as a percentage of the population.

Another argument could be that laws are specifically written to be so complex as to require special interests (lawyers), and a libertarian society would have much more simplistic laws whereby self representation would be far more practical. This is more a utopian libertarian argument.

I'm much more of a libertarian leaning moderate-pragmatist myself, and my particular views of healthcare is that we aught to adopt a system along the lines of Singapore, whereby mandatory contributions to HSA are coupled with basic government or private catastropic coverage. Those with devestating chronic conditions, would be rolled into a medicare program. These HSAs would be entirely tax free for medical uses, but could also be borrowed from at a tax penalty for other uses; it could be bequethed upon demise to family members. In my view this addresses multiple issues.

First, it restores the price mechanism which is greatly destorted by our current insurance schemes by making routine stuff greatly overused and overpriced. Secondly, it assures all contributions remain property of the contributor, giving an incentive to engage in healthy activities (less medical deductions out of the account means more you could withdrawl for other purposes, or donate to that charity working on CF, MS, or your sick nephew, whatever.)

It restores insurance to its intended function, which is to provide against the risk of a fortuitious event. Lastly it addresses socially desirable aims of covering those who are truly unfortunate, and unable to reasonably cover the costs of their care.

My view is that we are too rich of a country to dismiss the idea that everyone can receive a reasonable amount of care, but we have to provide the right incentives to do this without overburdening and potentially destroying the system.

What is a reasonable amount of care, and who decides?

Doctors? Nurses?

That would be supply. The other parties are the patients. That would be demand. If all are allowed to veto their mutual interactions, then (and only then) reasonable arrangements will be found.

Well, obviously, NOT YOU!

Some concern, though I don't know if it's ever been quantified, lies with the tax expemption of HSA's, etc. in that because it's less costly money (go easy on me) people will consume still more than if it were post-tax income. i.e. the tax exempt HSA does not go far enough to persuade a reduction in consumption.

Another way to solve this problem is to create a multi-use account. A combined retirement, health care & unemployment account. Opportunity costs would limit overspending on health care somewhat and I would not have to decide how much to put in each account.

I like that idea SMV.

The tax-deductibility incentive to consume health care is already present with employer-provided insurance. HSAs don't change that, but don't add to it either. HSAs take an intermediate step of reducing the pro-consumption incentives of third-party financing, by having individuals directly pay for most of what they consume. That is an improvement, and a major improvement. It creates an actual market where virtually none existed before.

The final step is an easy one--simply replace the tax-deductibility of health care spending with a general income tax cut.

Private arbitration is a big and growing business precisely because government courts are slow, expensive, and unfair. Even at justice, the government does a lousy job.

Uh...no, Gill. That's completely off base. One of the areas that small-govt. or libertarians generally see as a legitimate area of state involvement is crime prevention/detection and punishment.

The leg falling off example is really silly. You might try reading the original post and the comments again. Or perhaps for the first time.

"If you cannnot afford a lawyer then one will be provided for you . . . "

Why? Who has to pay instead?

"If you cannot afford medical treatment then you'll get it anyway . . ."

If this is wrong then "if you can't afford x it will be provided to you by the taxpayer . . ." is always wrong.

If the government is forcing you to go to court, then offering to provide you with a lawyer seems fair. You're presumed innocent until you're convicted, so it's the least they could do. They put you in the situation.

However, if you break your leg, it's not the government's responsibility to make it right, unless they actually broke your leg. If you broke my leg I could try to get you to pay, too, & that would hardly be inconsistent with my opposition to government-provided health care.

That's a straw man that, no matter how often you point it out, will always be erected by certain defenders of The State.
If you say you want to limit government they'll argue as if you want no government.
If you do not want the government to do something they'll argue as if you oppose it being done at all.
Bastiat put it best when he said "It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

It seems like the real issue of contention here isn't rationing of various commodities, but Obama's (baseless) insistence that "health care" is a fundamental human right.

I imagine that when Obama reads this open letter later today (surely he will), that will be his justification for dismissing it ... that clearly this Mr. Boudreaux doesn't have an enlightened view of what human rights truly are.

I think that everyone's making the big assumption that Obama actually believes in what he preaches; personally, I rather doubt that. He's just spouting bullshit in order to gain the support of the dumb masses and to pass legislation that will increase the size of government, which is his real agenda, so that his puppetmasters on Wall Street and at the Federal Reserve can have a tighter grip on our society and economy.

Correct, and the question arises does he even understand what he’s advocating.

I contend he does not, otherwise we would have seen manifold different reactions over the past year, especially after the Mass Senate election, showing that he understood incentives and performance.

All economics, what little he knows anyway, is top-down to him – mandate the objective, throw in various restrictions and guardrails, and the rest will follow.

And there’s a lot of that in this disastrous bill.

Unfortunately, That’s Not The Way It Works (henceforth TNTWIW).

I agree with you 100%.

Obama doesn't care. Health care reform has nothing to do with health care. the stupid things he says are just for public consumption.

Those people who don't understand what Don is saying are not going to be prepared for what's coming.

They are going to pay a lot more for a lot less and any real health care will have to be purchased out of pocket. Unfortunately, the tax increases they've piled into this bill will make it difficult for anyone to pay out of pocket.

So, ironically, those people who complain about not being able to pay (mostly because they won't give up either the big house, the second car and the entertainment) will have to give up all of those things if they want to live and they'll have a lot less to give up to begin with.

I'm with you. I was unemployed for a year and paid $200/month for a pretty nice Blue Cross/Shield private PPO. That's less than my car insurance costs....

I pay $110/mo for a BCBS HSA, and the tax deduction nearly covers that premium.

Yeah, but when polling healthy folks they will proclaim extreme satisfaction with a system in which they have been promised future cheap access to health care.

Without a doubt you are correct.

Not a bad point. If it were a human right, we'd have it without government. Gov't doesn't provide us with our rights, they protect them.

Health care is a product, pure and simple, of people who learn to sell it, i.e. doctors, nurses, etc.

Your right is in buying what you can afford.

In a twisted way, we do have a right to health care......that we can afford. If it is said without that caveat, then the person is a statist, a collectivist, and is out to control you.

But, you know this already:-D

"they protect them."

You mean they are SUPPOSED to protect them. In reality the preponderance of rights violations are at the hands of government.

I was using from my understanding of the POV of the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution in regards to "right" and "protect them". It would seem those would be the correct meanings to reference when discussing the defined role of government in our country.

To do consider other meanings, one would have to demonstrate that a) I have an incorrect understanding of the Founders' POV or b) that we decided, within the framework of who can make those decisions, to change the Constitution.

I agree with your second statement. Letting government have the power to do more is Pandora's box.

"I was using from my understanding of the POV of the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution"

I know. But it is not insignificant that most of what the Federal government does, and most of what people mean when they refer to "rights", is not to protect rights, but to violate them.

Agreed. I understand how they view it. I was once one of them.

They think in terms of what "feels right" and "sounds good". I did too. I changed my view as I gained an appreciation for the idea that there really aren't many good reasons for forcing someone else to do something they don't want to do.

One of the ways I gained such an appreciation was through better understanding of what this country was founded on and why. When I've shared that understanding with them and not given ground on the definition of the terms - it gets them to think, some, just like it did me.

Guys,

Protecting rights and not infringing on them are two different concepts.

There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that says government will protect your rights. The constitution says that government will not infringe on your rights.

SCOTUS has stated exactly that in its rulings.

Your rights are your job.

And, no where is knowing this more critical then when you are compelled to enter their courts.

You are right. I stand corrected.

Unfortunately, common usage of the word "right" includes so many contradictory concepts that isn't even a useful means of communication. You might as well say it like it is...there are things that we have, things we peacefully or violently get for ourselves, and things that are peacefully or violently provided for us. Then let people consider if it is better to have a society of peace or violence; and of independence or dependence.

Unfortunately, I think what we see is that when we rely on government to protect our rights, it robs us of them.

Thank God for the second amendment.

Yeah, thank God for the National Guards.

"Thank God for the second amendment."


Maybe you didn't notice but the second amendment IS a government creation and it IS enforced by governments.

So basically when you say thank God for the second amendment you are thanking him for government you BoZo. That's funnu... YOU... thankfukl for government. But then again I realize you guys are all talk and never turn down a government service when it'soffered to you as it is 10 times a day. ( and that's a pre-emptive name call because I know you are incapable of discussing with outdoing so.) Plus I was practicing my govenment granted protection of free speech.

I believe most of the people here support the government carrying out it's prescribed functions. Defense, protection of private property, and enforcement of contracts.

It is the things that fall outside of those domains that we object to.

Your logic is based on categorical imperitives.
If I like Scarlet Johansen, I must like her in all ways under all conditions. I do in fact like Scarlet Johansen, but not if she is poking me in the eye or setting fire to my house. No categorical imperitive. Context matters.

Maybe you didn't notice but the second amendment IS a government creation and it IS enforced by governments.

A negative liberty is guaranteed by government inaction, not government action.
When you say enforce that implies action.

So I'm not following you when you say that the second amendment is enforced by the government.
The second amendment is a restriction on government, for only through restricting government can that right be guaranteed.

"Government will protect your rights" is a sales pitch.

The kicker in the fine print is: "You must give government power over you."

If it were a human right, we'd have it without government.

Depends on what kind of rights your talking about.

If you mean negative liberty, then yes.
Nobody is obligated to do anything for you, and you are not obligated to do anything for anyone else.
That was the entire foundation of this once great nation - everyone is (was) free to do whatever they heck they want to do as long as it doesn't affect anyone else.
Keeping and bearing arms for the purpose of self defense is an example.

If you mean positive liberty, then no.
Positive liberty puts an obligation upon others.
Those rights require forcing someone to do something on your behalf, and because of this those rights do indeed come from government.
An example would be the right to feel safe by forcing people to disarm themselves - or the right to health care by forcing other people to pay for it.

JohnK,

You are correct in your explanation of the details but I believe incorrect in your labels.

Positive freedom is freedom of choice and action.

Negative freedom is freedom from choice and action.

Negative liberty is what socialism promotes, you should not have to think, be responsible, make a choice, or act....negative.

You're right. Positive and negative rights are what I was thinking but I wrote liberty instead.

I don't see in the Constitution where government was empowered to provide positive liberty. That is Pandora's box.

No Pandora's box my friend, not at all. You are correct, the constitution has nothing in it that would be considered as providing any kind of freedom or liberty. It is strictly a document that describes how the corporation will select its officers, terms of office, duties and responsibilities of officers, and operation of the corporation.

What the constitution does address is that the government is prohibited from infringing the rights you have.

The SCOTUS has told you that your rights are your responsibility, not the governments.

The entire Constitution can be reduced to seven words - "general welfare", "regulate commerce", "necessary and proper" - which mean whatever the imagination of a lawmaker can conjure.

Thanks for identifying key to Pandora's box.

Unfortunately, too many people have believed what you wrote without doing the homework on what the people who wrote those words had to say about them.

They don't care.
They just want, and they just don't care.
They feel that they "deserve", or that they are "entitled", or that they have been "denied".
It's all emotion. There's no rational thought involved.

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." -- Bastiat

Google up some Bastiat and Mises. There were a couple of hoopy froods who really knew where there towels were.

That quote is prominently displayed in large letters on the wall of my office.

Such action would guarantee my unemployment.

OMG, John. That's just pathetic.

I'm the boss, so my wall content is largely my choice. I've got Hayek quotes up too. You'd like my office :)

Is it pathetic to get fired for disrespecting your employer's number one customer?

Yes, I would like your office.

didn't know that the government is your number one customer. yikes.

Please respect that.

I always respect work, John. Plus, I don't think it's your job to take some moral stance against government at your own expense any more than I expect the hosts of this blog to turn down tenure or for congressmen to turn down earmarks.

By "yikes", I meant that having government as your client (employer's client - same diff) is usually pretty annoying. I've been in that situation and the BS factor was enormous - for both me and some of the people working directly for the government.

BS factor is putting it mildly.
After seeing how things work within government I firmly believe that anyone who thinks that the government can do anything efficiently either has never seen how government works, is completely insane, or is a liar.

Not mine, my employer's.

I'm not in a point in my life where I can choose my employer based upon politics.

I agree. No doubt. It's "cosmic justice." It just feels right. But, that's no reason to have let them have that for free. Make them justify it.

Only a lawmaker who refuses to acknowledge the clear elucidation of those words by the men who wrote them. The Founders did their due diligence in providing supportive explanatory documentation. It is not their fault if future lawmakers and jurists deliberately ignore them for nefarious ends.

If the Founders are to blame for anything, it is in not appreciating the challenge of creating and maintaining a limited government. They were fanatically obsessed with the challenge, but still under-appreciated it. Perhaps their failing was in the hope that it could be achieved at all.

Agreed. Having recently re-read The Federalist--- my first reading, obligatory, for Constitutional History in undergrad some thirty years ago--- I was astounded at the naievity of Hamilton and Jay and disapointed in Madison who, I think, should have known better. That said, I suspect even the statist oligarch Hamilton, would blush at what's transpired.

Agreed, I just finished Chernow's biography of Hamilton. Although it was hero worship for the most part, my perception of Hamilton at the end of the day was that he was fairly pro-liberty. His flaw seemed to be his arrogance that he and his were best suited to be the keepers of the liberty, immune from corruption.

Evidently, every generation must suffer "the best and the brightest." In the case of the Founders---and specifically Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams--- we had gatherings of "the smartest guy in the room", perhaps the smartest guy in the history of rooms, and yet they were unable to foresee the extent to which the state, even one so cleverly constrained, could be made wholly invasive by something as inoccuous as Wickard v. Filburn (1934).

A counterfactual analysis might conclude that the actions of the detestable Aaron Burr, in disposing of the less detestable Hamilton, might have saved the republic from a very ambitious aristocrat, but I leave such pursuits to the likes of Gore Vidal, comfortable in the opinion that such attempts are, at best, rubbish. Chernow's interpretations may seem sycophantic but he manages the order of things well, something Vidal's efforts, as regards the Founders, sorely lacked.

Perhaps their failing was in the hope that it could be achieved at all.

Laws have unintended consequences, some of them are pretty ugly. There are two responses to such laws: repeal them or make more laws. When the latter choice is taken it creates a cycle which, when taken to a logical extreme, results in a totalitarian state.

It is human nature to not want to be wrong, too hold on to what you have, and to want more of it.
That makes repealing of laws the unattractive solution for someone who is in the business of making laws and gaining power from them.

The Founders tried, but I believe that a permanently limited government is an impossible dream. In fact I believe that a totalitarian state is the inevitable end of any government.

Yes sir they tried, but even the founders had a blind spot, too much faith in their fellow man.

Art 1, Sec 5, para 2, 1st phrase, "Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings" is such a place, too much faith in the honor and integrity of their fellow man. That is so open ended and allows for so much official corruption that sometimes I find it hard to believe it could have been an accident.

Could the government be forced back from totalitarian rule? No, not until that part of the constitution is amended to put congress back under our thumbs. Change that part of the constitution, make rules of proceedings be publicly approved, any future changes submitted for public approval, regular random audits by randomly selected firms, and yes we could regain control.

vidyohs, you're tilting at windmills. "Could the government be forced back from totalitarian rule?" You should have stopped at "No." What this government needs - what all governments need - is a dagger in the heart. Who's gonna lead that tea party?

Just crack the cult of statism and start a massive privatization program. Whatever is left over of the state will wither without notice--or regret.

How about a 'no harm no penalty rule'. Harm to another citizen must be shown, or all charges dropped, regardless of the law.

Too many people define "harm" to mean "not voluntarily help." I would be "harming" people by not paying for their schools or doctor's visits. We'd be back to square one, but they'd have some newer excuse to justify compelling me to serve them. They would point to your rule & say I'm breaking it.

History has shown that there can be nothing written so explicitly & plainly that they can't find some way to twist it into the opposite.

While you're throwing randomness into the mix, I propose that we replace elections with lotteries.

JohnK, are you a fellow anarchist? Welcome to the team, Brother John!

JohnK, are you a fellow anarchist?

No.
I do believe that there is a place for organized force, but in a very limited fashion.
I have yet to find much of anything written by Bastiat with which I strongly disagree.

Organized force isn't anathema to statelessness. I mean, if violent thugs can't vent their hatred of humanity through the leviathan state monopoly, they won't all just repent. Many will join the ranks of common criminals.

But there is a point to be made about not legitimizing the coercive monopolization of force--and particularly the use of force as an instrument of social change.

Economics has a lot to say about monopolies. There is no good reason to think that the way to make a monopoly work is by allowing it to claim a legitimized monopoly on the use of violence. People will always want a measure of personal security. It doesn't follow that eliminating competition and forcing the monopoly security service on everyone, provides the best set of incentives to achieve that goal.

Ah, you replied. Not the answer I was hoping for, but that's okay. I'm curious how you can believe there is a place for organized force (by which I assume you mean a government), while at the same time you believe there is a totalitarian state as the inevitable end of any government. Aren't those contradictory sentiments?

On a friendlier note, I love Bastiat too. He's great! Probably my second favorite behind Albert Jay Nock.

In a state of anarchy people will form groups to use force against each other, and one of those groups will eventually crowd the others out becoming government.
Government is merely the most powerful organized crime syndicate.
I'd much rather start with something like the constitution than let something evolve out of anarchy. That's how you get kings.

But then how is possible that there is more than one nation state? Be careful about any claims of natural tendencies to monopoly. They are myopic in theory, and factually shown to be extremely highly overstated.

I'm replying to your other post here to avoid the margin.
there is no kind of state that will save you.
Of course not. But there will always be some kind of state.

Now that's begging the question. Which means we've come full circle.

I'll conclude only by asking that you look at all of the voluntary interactions in your life. Look at all the voluntary interactions throughout the world, particularly in complex markets. It is a rich experiment, since just as every state has legal and illegal violence, even the most totalitarian state has some voluntary interactions.

Look into that world of voluntary actions. I think you will find that there is no solution provided by a state, that has not, in some small way at least, also been provided without using violence against peaceful people.

And then of course, make sure your gold standard is not a false utopia, but merely the best the world has offered to date.

You misunderstand me. I do not advocate for the state. In fact I agree that we'd all be better off without it. However there will always be a those who would rather use force than engage in voluntary interaction. In the past this has always given rise to some sort of institutionalized violence to combat it, and I see no reason why the future will be any different.
Death an taxes an unavoidable part of life.

As I alluded to before, the stateless free market program isn't utopion. It is about stateless ways to live in the real world. With real bad guys.

A previous post of mine had multiple references to "muirgeo". I think you might have missed that one.

Well that's certainly one way of looking at anarchism. "Anarchy is chaos" is the way the statists of this world want you to see it. And apparently you have bought into that view hook, line and sinker. But there is another concept that says anarchism represents a stateless society. There is a virtual library of literature about it.

Now let me see if I understand what you're saying. The poor, helpless masses must be protected from wandering gangs of marauders who will fight with each other until one of them emerges as the most violent and brutal, and that gang will become the government, and its leader will become a king. And the way to protect them from these thugs is to establish a government - which will be the most powerful crime syndicate - and will inevitably lead to a totalitarian state. Is that the way you see it?

Keep reading, my friend! You're very close to joining the good side; you just don't know it yet.

I'm off to work, and won't be able to respond for another 10 - 12 hours, so don't feel that you need to continue this conversation. Unless you want to. I'll be back this evening. Peace.

And apparently you have bought into that view hook, line and sinker.

No, it's a view I came up with all by myself.

Anarchism cannot work because it denies that some people will use force to get what they want. Such force can only be stopped with force, so force becomes organized. Once force is organized then the cycle begins, and the result will be some sort of government.
I don't like it, but I accept it.
Death and taxes. Some things are unavoidable.

"Anarchism cannot work because it denies that some people will use force to get what they want."

It makes no such claim. It instead makes suggestions about stateless means of dealing with it, while avoiding specific claims under the recognition that market solutions are dynamic and not well predicted.

I just don't see how such a system could survive against power seekers, the violent thugs in their employ, and the legions of idiots like muirgeo who think feel that freedom is a small price to pay for the illusion of security.

I would never criticize you for being skeptical of something that seems so speculative. But keep in mind, that if the muirgeos outnumber the JohnKs, there is no kind of state that will save you. I would argue that in fact the state amplifies the power of the muirgeos, because it attracts them into its fold, and allows them to feed off of the JohnK's. With a private market in security, the JohnK's would stand a better chance, since they could simply stop funding any security agency that started to look like it had state-like muirgeo ambitions. And further, the JohnK's could fund watchdogs to keep a close eye on them. And even better, the JohnK's could refuse to do any business with the muirgeos unless the muirgeos developed a more peaceful outlook. Certainly the incentives would be better.

I'm not saying it will give you full confidence in a stateless program, but if you start doing some thinking about a stateless free market, you quickly find that there are at least possible solutions, not unreasonable ones, for any concern you may have.

At any rate, it will give you confidence that a gradual peaceful program of privatization could possibly end one day in effective statelessness.

Does anything "work"?

Well said.

I would just add that totalitarian is a matter of degrees, with corresponding degrees of inefficiency and human misery. States move in the direction of totalitarianism, but that is not the end result. The end result is the fall or fracture of the state. One would hope that end is reached before the state reaches the level of, say, the former Somalian state. In other words, it was better for people who lived through the fracturing of the British empire, than for those who lived through the end days of the Somalian state.

I think Obama's comment stems for a belief that health care is a basic right, not a service provided by people who expect to be paid.

Health care is a basic right, just as twinkies are a basic right; but both products are obtained by one's ability to pay.

You have a right to the health care you can afford to buy, and you have a right to the twinkies you can afford to buy.

Health care given is a privilege, twinkies given are a gift.

Each of us can be said to have a right, the freedom if you will, to buy that which we can pay for. We have no right to that which must be paid for by others.

There for evermore is the basic difference between left and rational sanity.

That isn't what advocates on the left are talking about when they say "a right to healthcare" vidyohs. Our freedom to buy and sell things to each other is already covered under property rights. This includes healthcare. If all the left was advocating were the right to freely buy and sell healthcare to each other, there would be no argument as we already have the right. What they mean by healthcare as a right is that someone *must* provide healthcare for you no matter what, even if you don't pay. If you "need" it, you get it, no matter what.

Of course, the Obama administration is going to try and put all kinds of rules and regulations around it so that people don't "abuse" that right. They want to make sure that people don't use their right to healthcare unless they meet some criteria of need. And yes, that should be another big clue that something shouldn't be a right if you can't give people full access to exercise that right, but need to heavily restrain it and regulate it for whatever reason.

And Don's letter is a perfect example of why a finite resource can never be a "right". There is a very good reason why the individual rights defined by the founding fathers were abstract things like speech and freedom to do certain things, etc. You can never have something that is a finite resource as a right because nobody can give an unlimited supply of that limited resource to everyone equally. You can do that with something abstract like speech, but you can't with something like healthcare. As much as a Utopian view of the world might hope for healthcare being a human "right", there are only a limited amount of doctors, medicine, etc. in the world, so healthcare resources can never be equally distributed to everyone.

It requires resources to ensure that rights such as free speech and freedom are protected. Are you suggesting that because the resources needed to provide such protections are themselves limited, that we should not designate such "abstractions" as rights? This seems to me the logical conclusion of your comments.

No, you are confused. I wasn't talking about "protecting" those rights. Of
course it requires someone else production/time/energy to protect those
rights. I was talking about "exercising" those rights. It doesn't take a
police force for me to be able to freely exercise my right to free speech.
It just takes me opening my mouth and talking.

Healthcare on the other hand, does require someone else to produce it in
order for someone else to "exercise" it as a right.

Oh, and before you go down this path, just because you can use someone
another person's effort to exercise your rights doesn't mean that it is
necessary. That is another distinction. In other words, just because it is
possible for you to appear on Fox News, using their resources to get your
speech out to a wider audience, doesn't mean that it was necessary for you
to do so in order to exercise your right to free speech.

I hope that helps clarify things a bit.

I appreciate your reply, although it doesn't clarify much for me. Whether I am speaking on a news broadcast or in the public square isn't really relevant I hope we can agree. The point I am making is that one shouldn't determine what is a right depending on the resources available to ensure its provision, and therefore we do not. Here's why and how.

There is no natural mechanism by which you are guaranteed the freedom to exercise your right to free speech. If you choose to speak, I can choose to silence you before you speak, and if I have the upper hand, only the law is able to ensure any such right to speech is protected. Given that this is generally is not necessary it doesn't illustrate the point that clearly, so I'll provide another example.

The right to a free trial exists in my country, as it does in yours. Every time that this right is exercised, a cost is incurred to the state. However, we would not start rationing this right to a subset of the population if it were to become increasingly used and hence more costly. It is considered a right regardless of the cost. I am simply proposing that one grants the same status to the provision of health care. I hope you able to grasp my point and find the time to reply.

It seems to me that you are arguing that because a right to a fair trial costs the state, that we can in fact have rights which costs others to produce, and that therefore, healthcare can be a "right". Would you say that is accurate?

I have an opinion on this, but I want to make sure that I am understanding you first.

Yes, I think that you have grasped my main objection to your statement above, which I will quote for clarity.

"As much as a Utopian view of the world might hope for healthcare being a human "right", there are only a limited amount of doctors, medicine, etc. in the world, so healthcare resources can never be equally distributed to everyone."

Please bear in mind that in my post I was not advocating universal heath care per se (although I do have a general opinion on this I would willingly share), merely highlighting that the need for resources to ensure a particular right has not excluded them from being adopted by society in other instances.

Well of course I agree with you that conducting trials costs resources, and we do have a right to a fair trial. But I think there is a subtle difference between those kinds of services (I would add a military and police force to those as well) that we pay for in order to "protect" our rights, but not in order to "derive" our rights.

I can see why some people might think that this is a semantic cheap-shot, but I think it is not only valid, but a really important distinction to make, else we run the risk of making anything a "right" and going down what Hayek would call the road to serfdom.

If you want to have a deeper discussion about this, I'd be interested, but my conclusion about "protecting" rights versus "deriving" rights, comes from a long processes of analyzing the nature of rights in general, and might get a bit too cumbersome to discuss in this comments thread. But I'll give a quick synopsis at the risk of it sounding invalid because I'm being brief:

I am making several assumptions when I talk about rights that you may not agree with, and if you don't, then my conclusion might not seem rational from your perspective. Some of those assumptions:

1) Rights are a man-made intellectual construct that don't actually exist in the real world. They have value, but they are not something that can be objectively studied.

2) I assume that you believe all "rights" should apply equally and without limitation to everyone, regardless of financial status, race, circumstance, religion, etc.

3) I assume that you believe that "rights" are all equally important and of equal value, and that some rights do not trump or take precedence over other rights. Therefore, you cannot have a right that depends on another right being violated to be exercised. For example, it would be invalid to claim a "right to not be offended" because it would have to violate the right to free speech in order to be exercised.

4) I'm assuming that you think no person or group of people should have the power to determine who's rights are more important than other peoples rights. For example, a judge should never have the power to conclude that Carla is in need, and therefore, her rights to life trump Bob's rights to property, so Bob must therefore pay Carla so that she is no longer "in need".

So yeah, I'm assuming a lot of things here, and you are right to correct me if those are off base.

Now the distinction:

When you say "X" is a "right", but in order for someone to exercise that right at all, someone else must produce "x", it directly violates rights to property and liberty at the very least. If Carla is in need of healthcare, but cannot pay for it, the only way to ensure her "right to healthcare" is to either force "Jim the doctor" to provide it for her without pay, or force "Bob the taxpayer" to pay "Jim the doctor" for Carla to get her healthcare. Both of these actions violate property rights, and the right to liberty.

Therefore, healthcare cannot be a right because it violates other rights. Additionally, the consumption of any good or service cannot be a right, without violating other rights.

But what about the right to a "free" trial?

First of all, the 6th amendment doesn't say anything about a "free", but rather a "speedy and public" trial. The purpose of the 6th amendment wasn't as much to give us freedom, or to give us our rights, but instead to "protect" our rights. You could say that it is necessary right if a society is to have rights at all, because rights need to be protected. The 6th amendment is more related to how trials should be conducted, not that they should be paid for by taxes.

But it is true that we need a police force and a military and a judicial system in order to protect our rights. And it is true that taxing citizens by force in order to pay for that "protection" does voilate property rights. Some philosophers and political scientists think that taxing may not even be necessary. I'm not sure. But even so, I think there are some important distinctions:

Paying the government to "protect" our rights is a little different than our rights depending on violating other rights in order to exist at all. One of the differences is that this protection of our rights (through a fair trial, police force, etc.) is something that we think can *only* be done by a government, and not by a market. On the contrary, healthcare is something that can be provided by a free market. You do not need government for healthcare services to be provided, therefore government has no business providing it because the only way it can is by violating our property rights. The only reason we (as libertarians) tolerate government taxes in order to pay for police protection, a judicial system, and military protection, is because we don't think those things can be provided by the free market.

I just caught the news about Obama's healthcare reform and remembered that I owed you an answer here. I apologize for the tardy reply!

Summarizing your numbered points:

1) Basically agree here.

2) Again, agree.

3) Don't entirely agree. There is no reason to think that given rights are a human construct (your proposition 1), they will all be equally important, and there is in fact quite a lot to suggest that the opposite is true. For example, I would consider the right to free speech to be a more important right than the right to bear arms, or the right to property, which as you mention is habitually violated by the state and is generally accepted by the citizen. The right to free speech is in some ways the starting point from which the discussions about other rights can take place, and therefore I do not think that your point axiomatically holds.

4) In theory this would be ideal, however in practice, it is possible to see how contradictions can easily arise in an imperfect world. The question of abortion is one that puts the rights of two individuals (mother vs. foetus/baby) into a natural state of conflict. Many people like myself have not satisfactorily come to a determined stance on the issue.

On the main point:

The constitution does mention the right to legal counsel, a certain source of cost. However, the deeper point is that you are willing to accept the role in government in certain areas not merely to ensure the protection of rights, but rather to guarantee the "universality" of rights (your proposition 2). For example, the market system could provide a judicial system and a police force, however the market would not be able to ensure that the availability of such institutions were universal. You admit being willing to accept certain violations of property rights for certain institutions. I would claim that the government taxes the citizen far too frequently and for services far less important than ensuring that every citizen has access to basic medical facilities.

Since you mentioned Hayek, there is an interesting anecdote (which may or may not be true!) about his role as an unofficial advisor to Tory Party HQ when he was a professor at LSE back in the 1940's. When the British Labour party was running in the post war election on the promise to create a universal healthcare system, Churchill claimed that the endeavor would lead to a "Gestapo of bureaucracy". It is often claimed that the comment contributed greatly to Churchill's defeat, and was suggested by Hayek.

Thanks for the reply.

You have several remarks to respond to. I hope you don't mind that I pick and choose, because I feel like I could write a book, so I'm just trying to put limits on my self-indulgence.

I'd like to talk about your disagreement with point 3, that one right is not more valuable or important than another right. I'll quote the relevant part of your disagreement:

"For example, I would consider the right to free speech to be a more important right than the right to bear arms, or the right to property, which as you mention is habitually violated by the state and is generally accepted by the citizen. The right to free speech is in some ways the starting point from which the discussions about other rights can take place, and therefore I do not think that your point axiomatically holds."

Initially, this seems perfectly fine and cogent. I can construct all kinds of valid scenarios where I might value one right more than another. If I don't like guns for whatever reason, then it follows that free speech would be more improtant to me than the right to bear arms.

But the problem with your view is implicit in your statement. Focus on the part where you said "I would consider". That is exactly correct: "I would consider." When you say right "x" is more important than right "y", then what follows is:

To whom?

This answer is different for different people. Adam Smith put a great deal of thought into this simple but very important and powerful observation: value is *relative*.

When a government ranks or decides which rights are more important than other rights, it does not ask the question "To whom?", but assumes the answer is "to everyone". This is a fallacy. It is therefore irrational for a government to decide which rights are more valuable than other rights.

I want to make another point about rights. Several past intellectuals have argued (and I agree with them), that there is really one one "right" that is necessary or relevent: the right to property. If you think about it, other rights such as "free speech" or to "bear arms" are already covered by property rights. Then there are other rights that the Constitution mentions, such as "liberty" or "persuit of happiness". If I had my way, these kinds of things would be removed, because they are gray areas that mean different things to different people, and therefore have no objective meaning, which makes it unproductive to define such things as "rights".

I would hold that the only "right" that is necessary for freedom is property. You own your own body, you own your own guns if you bought them, you own anything that you produce that you haven't willingly given away (this includes speech).

I have comments on the other things you said, but I know I've given you a lot to reply to, so I'll hold back on that stuff and wait to hear back from you. Also, the text is going to start getting harder to read the more it is right-justified on this page, and it irritates me more than it should. If you don't mind, please email me: miles AT mstevenson dot org, or if you have a suggestion for another public form to move this discussion, that would work as well.

I think we should keep the discussion here to allow others to read and contribute (should they be so inclined) but given that the one-word-to-a-line format is starting to tire me out as well I'll start a new thread. Just search the page for...

c@feh@yek

Why would it not be a right? in Europe it is. we can't imagine anyone who has a job, not to earn enough money to pay for basic needs as schooling and health care, in the US a huge amount of your population has 3 jobs and can't make it. yes we pay a ton of taxes, in return we get free health care, very close to free education (I pay 500€ a year at Belgiums top University)
What I don't understand is this 'socialism' you guys are so scared of. We have democratic elections, socialists are just one of several parties that rule together, and their not even in majority.
and those who choose not to pay? to me i't a silly discussion, everyone pays, everyone gets the benifits.

There are many problems with socialism. One of the biggest has to do with
the reason that we fought the British for our independence: freedom.
Franklin said it best "Those who would trade freedom for safety deserve
neither."

There is another way to get money that you need if you can't work for some
reason: charity. The number of people in America who, as you say, can't earn
enough money for basic needs, have access to a support system of charity to
help them. For example, if something happened to me and I couldn't work to
earn enough money to live, then I would look to my family for help, not the
government.

You say "everyone pays, everyone gets the benefits", but is that true? Let's
take education for example, something that the government provides for here
in America like your government does. One of the big problems we have is
that some schools are better than others, because some teachers are better
than others. There are not enough "really good teachers" to serve all of the
people who need an education. Do you think it is fair that the people who
pay just as much in taxes for this "free education" as you call it (it's not
free if you are paying taxes for it) get access to bad teachers, while only
a minority of students get lucky enough to get the good teachers? What about
healthcare? If you go a year without needing a doctor, but pay really high
taxes so that other people could go, did you really benefit from the system?
No.

Here is another reason why we don't like socialism: history. History has
shown that every time a government has centrally planed and redistributed
everyones money it has led to absolute disaster. For example, did you know
that four times as many people died as a result of communist Russia than
people who died at the hands of the Nazis? 250 million Russians. Can you
imagine that?

America is still a mostly free society, and we think that has a lot to do
with why we are still the wealthiest nation on earth. We have more wealth in
our country than any "socialist democracy" in Europe, and outperform every
economy around the world. Our "poor" people that you like to talk about have
a much higher standard of living than "wealthy" people living in
impoverished countries. We think there is a mountain of evidence to show
that socialism is a bad idea, and that even the underlying philosophy of it
is bankrupt.

You say force everyone to be equal, I say everyone should be free to be
different.

That's an interesting view. We have "rights" to abstract concepts like speech and "bear arms" because those are not finite in any definable sense. But goods require hard work to provision and by saying any particular good is a right, what you're really saying is that slavery is in baby!

Actually, I like your way of saying it better: Something cannot be a "right" if it costs someone else to produce it.

It's basically the age-old question. How much of YOUR work am I entitled to?

Answer: Exactly the same as the amount of your work that I am entitled to.

This is why the concept of a default debt to society makes no sense. If we all owe one another, then all debts cancel out. Easier to just say that no one owes anything to anyone by default, but that would leave no room for politicians to ply their "trade".

It takes a central power to take from those who have the "ability to pay" and redistribute to those in "need".

That's exactly why "we owe one another" just means "we all owe the state and are owned by the state until we repay our infinite debt to the state". Eh, it's all in The Road to serfdom.

The "debt by default" originates with Christian teachings.

Christianity doesn't teach anything about forced giving. Only voluntary charity. The whole "rich man/eye of a camel" thing is taken completely out of context. That is an intentional exaggeration to prove the point about loving money more than man. Cherry picking those types of few verses ignores all the other verses that clarify the issue. The Bible is replete with examples that giving is to be voluntary.

This article from American Enterprise Institute, in response to an Atlantic article blaming Christianity for the recession, has a lot of good examples of how Christianity is fully compatible with capitalism: http://tinyurl.com/y8symmx

Regardless, Christianity has been perverted into socialism. It's like spitting into a hurricane to try and dispute this.

And capitalism has been perverted into corporatism, where "too big to fail" means the big corporations get to decide who wins and loses. Blaming Christianity for someone distorting its teaching is like blaming Adam Smith for the bailouts and TARP.

If it originates with Christian teachings, then it is a massive perversion of Christian teachings.

Advocating giving from your own pocket to help a fellow man in need has nothing at all in common with forcing your hand in someone else's pocket while pointing a gun to their head. That's theft and Christian teachings are pretty clear on the subject of theft.

Check this out: http://skeptically.org/bible/id14.html

All communal living referenced in the Bible that I'm aware of was done by choice. I (and I'm guessing most on this board) have no problem with voluntary communism. The idea that a group of us get together and decide to share costs and benefits is perfectly fine as long as it is done by private contract and voluntary.

There have been plenty of writings that detail Christian support for the free market. Tom Woods has done quite a bit on it.

I had a debate several years ago with another group on this issue and was castigated, hated, and cast out by a very good friend because of opposing a momentarily popular point that markets were inherently evil.

I appealed to my brother-in-law, a Methodist Minister, for his opinion and he ripped them to shreds with Biblical quotes showing that markets, capitalism, and good stewardship over ones financial affairs were lauded and encouraged.

Anything voluntary by people is okay with this freedom lover, anything imposed is grounds for war.

Which is what most Evangelical Christians buy into - that capitalism is allowed under the Bible. But Catholics have a different view - that the government run social welfare system is mandatory.

Agreed, there is a an unfortunate amount of state worship in the Catholic Church. But, being a Catholic, I don't know that it's more or less than other Christian traditions. I honestly don't have much for a point of reference.

I do here a bit too much socialist propaganda coming out of Rome for my liking. I know that there's Pope John Paul II quote about capitalism "tempered with a bit of socialism" or something like that. Obviously, I think that's horse crap as you can't be "a bit pregnant".

Well, isn't that because the catholic church pretty much WAS the state throughout history and it would dearly love to return to that position?

...in case anyone ever wants to know the difference between America and a REAL Christian nation.

One of the reasons that I'm eternally grateful to Martin Luther and the work that he did to right the Catholic Church.

So what?

You're making the same argument Western communists made about Russia.

Russian crop yields never got high enough to free Russians from the soil for a variety of reasons. Russians tended to live in what's best described as pseudo-communes. Everyone in the community had to tend his own plot of crops, but if someone needed help, the others helped him out.

"See?" said the commies, "Russians were always communists, it's natural, etc."

The difference is that those communes were VOLUNTARY. Nobody was forced to help anyone out. Nobody was forced to stay and nobody was forced to participate.

Whether something is VOLUNTARY or not makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE. Does Jewish teaching not teach sharing your wealth? And does it teach robbing people to achieve this moral goal?

Hear hear. My point is that Christian teachings underpin modern socialist thought. You can hear it in every muirgeo post.

No, it really isn't. Socialism is force. Christian teachings teach charity. And, actually, so do Muslim (zakat) and Jewish.

The two are not even on the same planet.

And what you hear from muirdiot is mostly confused mental vomit. He does not seem to be knowledgeable about ANY subject and has a difficult time understanding basic speech. I only hear the confused rantings of a loony tune every time I bother reading any of Muirdiot's posts. I think you're trying to rationalize the irrational when you read his drivel.

Can I jump in here? It is true that socialism and Christianity have much in common, so very much. But, Methinks is correct, the teachings of Jesus all make it clear that it is voluntary acts that are approved (will get you into heaven), and nothing in his teachings regarding human interaction lead one to believe it should be forced.

Socialism on the other hand depends entirely on force, there is nothing voluntary about it.

Similar in goals, vastly different in method of reaching those goals.

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Ceasar's".

To our socialist Jesuit neighbors, our bodies are Caesar's.

But what IS rightfully Caesar's?

He can keep the dagger, and his funeral plot. He earned them both. That's about it.

"it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heave" (sic)

Socialism makes me want to "heave".

We have to remember how most people got rich in those days.

I posted earlier about the unemployment insurance and a guy I met in Spain. He was happily not looking for work and enjoying his time off. Where there is one there are many. Here too this applies. I knew one friend who did not have insurance, yet he had money to drink beer and go to applebees every weekend. He ended up falling and breaking his arm which cost a fair amount. Where there is one there are many who choose not to buy insurance when they can.

I remember Reason.tv did a short film on this topic where they interviewed several young people who spend their money on booze and parties and then have the gull to claim that they need financial support for health insurance. Everyone in my personal life that has ever claimed that they can't afford something they "need" hasn't been able to withstand five minutes of self-examination to actually validate that claim.

You know, he may take you up on this.

Excellent reduction to the absurd. It won't work of course...

And that's the question; Why won't it work? It won't work because you are attacking a faith based system. The people with faith in government have faith that politicians are capable of performing miracles. Logic will not sway them, because the whole point of having faith is to avoid the often harsh reality of logic.

Your are right it is a "faith based system". It is the tautology of utopian socialism: If TRUE socialism is FULLY embraced, then greed and selfishness will be transcended ushering in the age of Aquarius (sympathy and trust abound. . . mystic crystal revelation. . . etc., ad nausium)