Health Care and Rights

A key component to the ongoing debate on health care is the claim by some proponents that all people have or should have a right to health care. I do not believe that this is so. My belief comes from under my understanding of the nature of rights and of the right to property in particular.

Many philosophers draw a distinction between two types of rights, negative and positive rights. A negative right does not require anyone to do anything, merely refrain from acting in a way that would violate that right. My right to life does not require you to do anything, it merely requires you to refrain from killing me. All basic rights, including the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to free speech and press, the right to bear arms, the right to free exercise of religion, the right to assembly, the right to property, and others, are negative rights. Negative rights, in and of themselves, do not, however, require action on the part of others. I can watch you be murdered, and not lift a hand to defend you, without violating your rights.

Positive rights require others to do things. My right to vote requires that the government and its representatives hold elections. It is difficult for me to hold a positive right without infringing on the negative rights of others. Many libertarian thinkers hold that positive rights can only be acquired through contract. In this view, only those people with whom you have contracted have a positive duty to provide the services needed for you exercise your positive rights. I, for the most part, agree with this, with the important caveat that some contracts are not explicit, but rather implicit. Some implicit contracts are woven into the fabric of society and by participating in society you are agreeing to these implicit contrracts. Although these societal contracts can create duties, since these duties will, by their nature, impinge on the rights of the members of society, societal contracts should be no more extensive than absolutely necessary.

The right to property is, as I see it, a basic right. I am entitled to the fruits of my labor, and no one else is. Since I own the fruits of my labor, I may do with it what I will. I may choose give others the fruits of my labor either out of the goodness of my heart, or in as part of a contract into which I have freely entered. To deprive me of the fruits of my labor against my consent is tyranny. The right to property can actually be seen as one of the most fundamental of rights. The right to a free press is nothing more than the right to do whatever I want with my printing press. The rights of assembly, of free exercise, to bear arms, and other rights are, in a similar way, derived from the right to property. Even the rights to life and liberty are in way property rights. I own my self, and to deprive me of my life or freedom is deprive me of the enjoyment of my property.

All of this is pretty theoretical, and none of it is original with me, but they really are the views that my political decisions are rise from. Now to apply them to the health care debate. A right to health care, if such a thing were to exist, would obviously be a positive right. It would impose on medical providers on obligation to treat without payment or an obligation for others to pay for the services. This is an impingement on basic rights, which should only be done with great fear and trepidation. Even if I were happy to provide free health care or pay so that others could get health care, I do not have the right to impose that on others. I may do what I want with my property, but not with yours. (As it happens, I have provided health care for free, and payed for other's health care outside of the usual taxes and cost shifting by which every paying patient pays for other's health care.)

In addition to the theoretical reasons to oppose the establishment of health care as a right, there are practical ones, which I will discuss later.

The most basic right

When one mentions political rights, the Bill of Rights is what usually comes to mind. In particular, free speech, free press, freedom of worship, right to a speedy jury trial, the right to counsel in court proceedings, and the protections against unreasonable searches and cruel and unusual punishments, come easily to mind. If you are not a democrat, the right to bear arms might come to mind. For some, who believe in "penumbras" the right to privacy and the right to abortion might come to mind. The most basic right, however is not mentioned explicitly, although it is implied by the third and fourth amendments, and the eminent domain clause of the fifth. It is the right to own and be secure in one's own property.

Indeed many of the above rights can be seen as extensions of this right. If I own this altar and this goat, then they are mine, and I can do as please with them. If I want to sacrifice the goat to Zeus, then that is my affair, and nothing you think about it matters. In a like manner, if I own this printing press, ink and paper and I want to combine them in a way that makes fun of my representative's voting record, then I can do that. If I further want to trade my printed papers for money, so long as my trading partner owns the the money, then it is no one else's business. The Democrats, of course, don't actually recognize this right. The Republicans often merely play lip service to it.

One problem is that this right, like most others, cannot be absolute. If each piece of property were a hermetically sealed unit, then perhaps one could have untrammeled rights over it. However since humans live in close proximity to each other, it is possible for me to use my property in such a way as to deny my neighbor the use of his or her property. Sorting all of this out is one of the valid roles of the government. That role, however, is one of the governmental powers most subject to abuse. Although conservatives often tout local governments as the bodies most responsive to the will of the people, local governments are often the most abusive of the right to be secure in one's property. It is easier for small special interests to seize the reins of power in a locality than in a larger governmental unit. Property rights are abused by local governments through the manipulation of zoning and building codes, the abusive use imminent domain, and a myriad of other ways small and large. This not to say that local governments should have no control over property. Zoning codes and the like are essential tools. These tools, however, are far to often used by local vested interests to forestall competition, control "undesirable" groups, or merely enforce the aesthetic preferences of the local gentry.