Aug 10 2009
∞
Blog Comment Philosophy Lesson
Following the discussion of this Hit & Run post on healthcare protests I found this great analysis:
Hazel Meade | August 10, 2009, 8:35pm | #
As I’ve commented before, the notion of “positive rights” such as the right to health care, which entail obligatory wealth redistribution from some to others, sets up irresolvable conflicts. The interests which “win” in this “democratic” process which progressives advocate determine the distribution of all resources, get to impose the costs of their “rights” upon the losers.
The irresolvable conflict of rights at the philosophical level translates into conflicts at the political level, which will be played out not by reasoned debate (because reason cannot resolve the inherent logical conflict between positive and negative rights). Hence people will increasingly turn to the use of force to get their way - such as violence in the streets.
That’s why the task of moral philosophers has always been to define normative rights in such a way as there are not conflcits between them. The purpose of creating rights is to resolve conflicts - to decide who has the right to something, so as to avoid violent conflict between members of society. By setting up irresolvable conflicts at the philosophical level, positive rights set the stage for violence at the political level.Hazel Meade | August 10, 2009, 8:46pm | #
Making government a bigger player in the health-care process means that health-care decisions are increasingly political decisions, which, in turn, means that people and companies turn ever more toward political acts—like protests and lobbying—in order to participate.
Just as an example of what I’m talking about … if I’m obligated to pay for your health care, then your decision to have children imposes costs on me, and on the country as a whole. So now there becomes a political impetus to have a national policy attempting to regulate the size of families - see China’s one-child policy - or impose mandatory birth control, etc. People who want kids are pitted against people that don’t. And whoever “wins” the election, gets to force the other group to obey them. Non-Breeders get to impose mandatory birth control, or breeders get the non-breeders to pick up the tab for their kids. Instead of such conflicts being resolved by a system of “rights” the only “right” is who wins the election.
