Human Rights vs. Greed

I have a theory that any thinking species which has sufficiently evolved to the point of controlling its environment (ability to over-hunt, agriculture) has begun a path of not quite destroying itself: technology advances until we see that our behavior will destroy us, and then we find a way to back off from the brink. We can't see the cliff until we've already topped the plateau: until we see what destruction we sow, we cannot back off from it. But if we see it in time, and back off, we soon find a new plateau to climb to.

Bring this up to the level of intergalactic spacefarers, and while they may not be morally perfect, they at least have managed to avoid entirely destroying themselves with every plateau of technology they developed, avoiding the destruction they sow with every use of every device by higher and higher means. Eventually, they become able to transcend the material realm -- meaning their technology no longer leaves a clear footprint on the physical universe.

At that point, you're dealing with immortals.

I should hope that humanity sees the cliff every time, but I know that some portion will always fail to do so until they are carried safely up the mountain by others.

I notice, in your indignant post about how people are starving and dying around the world, you do not post any practical ideas about how to help. Which implies that you a) have no ideas about how to help, or b) you do have ideas about how to help, and they involve wealth redistribution (aka theft).

You have a *right* to food, clothing, shelter, and health care? Don't take this the wrong way but... okay, try and get it. Pick it off the bush where you think it grows. When kids want something that is beyond their parents' means, parents rightly point out that there is no money tree in the back yard, and you're not allowed to take things without paying for them, but apparently the same rules don't apply once you're all grown up.

Theft (the traditional name for taking something without paying for it) is unethical no matter what your justification. Understandable sometimes, yes, but still unethical. And every time someone asserts their economic "right" to housing, health care, whatever, the only way to do it, if they're not able/willing to pay for it, is to take that economic "right" away from somebody else who *has* paid for it. Please don't misunderstand me, I hate the idea of people starving, suffering and dying as much as anyone. But suffering alone does not give you a "right" to anything, nor does it incur on some stranger halfway around the world a moral "duty" to help them.

As for judging people by the amount of money they have... money is supposed to be a representation of the goods and services that are available in the market. The amount of money you own (ideally) stands for the amount of goods and services you have put into the marketplace, and the amount you are thus entitled to draw back out for your personal benefit. Is it a perfect system? No. Leaving out the problem of criminals, there are still a couple of issues. For one thing, what people want isn't always good for them (a month's worth of Big Macs, for example). For another, some people who do offer valuable goods and services (such as poetry, sorry Ysabet) tend to get "gypped" because there's not much market for them. But is there any other ethical way to run things in a free society? Not that I've ever been able to come up with. 'Cause if you're not getting out what you're putting in, as determined by what people are willing to pay you for the goods and services you offer, then logic suggests that you are getting either more or less than you're putting in. And that is, again, theft.

But if you can come up with a better way to run things than the idea that the unearned is the undeserved, and the only ethical way to determine the deserved is via free trade between equals, then please elaborate. I'm swear I'm not being sarcastic, I seriously want to hear it.

There is taking without compensation, and then there is giving to society for the continuance and improvement of society as a whole. Taxes are a compromise: a compulsory taking by society, compensated by the benefits of living within that society. If you feel that you should not give to society for the benefit of the whole, well, good luck finding a means of living outside of any society.

Well if you think it's so virtuous to give to society, then why do you bother to compel people? If it's to their benefit to give things away, why don't they just do it on their own? For that matter, who is society? I'm a member of society; why am I not entitled to receive any of the compulsory "gifts" of others? Why aren't Bill Gates and Steve Jobs entitled to receive anything? Where do you draw the line? By what right do you draw it, and according to what standard? Who pointed at you and said, "Those people over there, they're too stupid and selfish to know what to do with their abilities and posessions, but *you* are not foolish and stupid, *you* will know how to use these other peoples' money for the greater good."

I have no problem with giving things to people... provided I can find a valid reason for it. But taxes don't ask me if I think the government's reasons are valid. Taxes assume that I have no ability to determine whether a reason is valid. I haven't quit society because I still think the net benefits are greater than the net loss, but remember that this country was founded by people who a) decided that the net loss was greater than the net benefit and b) decided to do something about it.

"For your own good" is not a reason. "Because I said so" is not a reason. If that's the best you can do... try again.

Governments take taxes because otherwise people will say "My money is mine", causing a tragedy of the commons where a burglar breaks in to your house because your neighbor didn't pay their security bill and the burglar learned that this neighborhood is safe to rob; and your house burns down because your neighbor couldn't afford "fire insurance", aka calling for a pump truck from the local fire department. If you can find a way to relieve the tragedy of the commons without a compulsory method, please do enlighten us.

To conserve space, I will not quote, but rather reply point-by-point with the equivalent numbering system.

1) You misunderstood me; I was not referring to equals de facto, but equals de jure. That is, equal under the law, and equally free to make what you will of life. Free trade between equals doesn't mean that the two people in question must earn roughly the same salary, it just means that they have equal rights as citizens under the law. Equality de facto IS a communist concept, which I do not support and which is, as you rightly point out, ludicrous. So just out of curiosity, if you do not support equality de facto and call it an impossible communist utopia, why do you support the concept of "economic rights" when it so obviously falls (along with equality de facto) sqarely into Communist doctrine?

2) Well, did you have a right to 911 before phones existed? How about a right to ambulances before the automobile? 911 has really only been in widespread use since the 1980's. Also, 911 is really just a convenience; police stations and hospitals all have phone numbers, which are quite easy to look up and post by your phone or (these days) program into your cell phone. Or if you don't like that solution, then you just make sure 911 goes to the police station, who will transfer you to the hospital or whatever other emergency service upon request (no, I have no problem with the police, and since they already man a desk 24/7, they're the logical choice). As for socialized HC in Europe and Canada, I've heard good and bad. On the one side are the people who rave about their free treatment. On the other side are the people who complain about long wait times (Canada), how the system is going bankrupt (France) and limits on treatment (Britain). I've actually seen articles stating that France is moving towards the US, health-care wise. And that doesn't even bring up the fact that the tag on the health-care reform bill is currently at 900 billion in a country that can ill-afford to expand its deficit. Making the government the ultimate backer can prolong fiscal stupidity, but not indefinitely (for an example, see the Great Depression). Frankly, I would rather not pay the bills for your moral righteousness, which is why I am so vehemently opposing your views.

3) One, you assume that I have never cleaned a toilet or waited on a table in the course of a job. Though you're quite right that it wasn't something I wanted to do for a living. That's what the education was for, so that I wouldn't have to. Two, you're quite right, there are serious problems with our health care, and they do cost too much. One reform I would suggest would be tort reform, putting caps on damage awards and forcing the plaintiff to pay court costs in the event of a loss. That would bring down doctors' insurance costs significantly, which would in turn lower prices. Two, one of the big fears with the current system is that people lose their health insurance when they lose their job. Believe it or not though, the reason most people have insurance through employers is because of government intervention during WWII, because it was a way to offer extra incentives to employees in a time of price and wage freezes, and because the money used to provide health insurance to employees was not taxed, which made it cheaper than bonuses. Get rid of government incentives to get employers to provide health care, and the availability and quality of private insurers would probably improve, making health insurance similar to life, car, home insurance in that it would be more reasonable and you wouldn't have to worry about losing it with your job. Three, the 45 million number that has been so bandied about is not quite as accurate as it seems. Some of those people are only transiently uninsured because they have changed jobs. Some are illegal immigrants (if you don't pay in, you shouldn't be able to take out). Some are actually quite able to afford insurance and simply do not choose to pay for it. Still more are actually eligible for present government programs; they simply aren't enrolled. Knock those off and your 45 million number shrinks to more like 20 million, which is much smaller. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/19/AR2009061902334.html Not to mention that it is always possible that doctors will choose to engage in voluntary charity (the profession has historically been quite generous in this regard).

In short, the crisis isn't as horrific as you think it is, the government's not doing a great job of going about fixing it, there are better, simpler ways to make amends, and if they were used to bring down health care costs, then the middle class and working poor would probably be in a better position to afford things.

4) I actually have no problem with immigration; I would be quite happy to make a great deal of it legal. If people want to come here and build a future for themselves... well, that's what this country is built on. But it's also yet another reason I don't support government health care, since I don't support the idea of paying an illegal immigrant's medical bills any more than I do the idea of paying yours.

5) I actually know Ysabet personally, which is why I made that opening paragraph so strong. She is a very strong supporter of economic rights. I am not, because I don't believe there is such a thing or that one person should be forced to pay for the well-being of another by government decree. I also know that most of the people who read this blog agree with Ysabet. I agree that my opening statement was quite blunt, but I don't believe it crossed the line into irrationality or viciousness. And my call was not for her to fix everything. Actually, my call was an attempt to point out to her that she is not REQUIRED to fix everything. Neither are you, and neither am I. That's the point of not requiring one person to pay for the bad luck or neglect of another (aka, their health care), that you have no moral duty to fix another person's problem.

You call for tort reform, and then you define it as tort reduction... which is not the same thing. Tort reform is based on the idea that the law which governs legal cases is unfair; your claim is that current law is unfair to doctors, while some would claim that current law is unfair to those injured by same. As it stands, only people with the most severe of malpractice injuries, and thus the most of the most to gain, can even bring their case to court; malpractice lawyers reject everything else out of hand due to the enormous (I would say ridiculous) costs of bringing such a case. And then there is the possibility that someone who brings their case will not win. Who pays then? Oh, this person who has been severely injured, possibly to the point where they can no longer work, and thus cannot earn any greater income than disability (if they ever receive it) will provide. So add to medical costs and medical injury the costs of losing an extremely expensive court case... and bankruptcy immediately looms.

Re: 5, you have a moral duty to help fix a social problem.

"Also, wealth distribution already exists in the form of taxation & the tax breaks given to the rich. Aka theft? I'd support that definition."

You assume I support tax breaks for the rich. If I were asked to rewrite tax law, I'd probably just scrap it all and either impose a flat tax on income or a VAT on purchased goods and services. No, no tax breaks for religious institutions or charitable donations; the definition of charity is that you're doing it FOR FREE, and government really shouldn't be supporting religion anyway.

"Also also, certainly a person as decently-spoken as yourself can find many synonyms with which to communicate without relying on racial slurs."

I am honestly not aware of using a racial slur. You'll have to point it out.

"does your publicly-funded military REALLY need so many billions of borrowed money?"

If we weren't funding so many social initiatives (welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.) we probably wouldn't have to borrow so much money. I also didn't think it was possible to say that this money was borrowed for health care, but that money was borrowed for the military. But frankly, if I had to CHOOSE between health care and the military, I'd choose the military. Protecting a country against foreign threats is, like the police, something government is actually supposed to do. Health care is not.