Write your comment in the form below. Be sure to 'Preview' your comment to make sure that it will appear as you want it to.
You Are Replying To This Comment:
I agree, and disagree. Strongly, on both counts
By Lehua Makai
Jan 19th 2008
at 3:35 am EST
Ah, the crux of my political believes. I fully agree: people should not have to pay for other peoples dangerous (and stupid) behavior. I also agree that it is beneficial to all when people come together to help each other in some organized fashion, in this case with health care costs. However, some people may want to use metal baseball bats, and who am I to tell them no? I have to give them the respect of considering them to be a person with free will, so I have to assume that any choice they make, so long as it doesn't infringe on others, matters only to them and isn't my concern. But if I'm paying for their health care, it does infringe on my the products of my labor (money), and it becomes my concern.
The simple solution is to let those people who truly value the choice of which bat to use/how many transfats to eat/ect, opt out of the system. We give them freedom, and in return they can do any stupid thing they want. The problem, which I can't see any way around, is that there is no "opt out" mechanism. Taxes are enforced with fines, jail time, and policemen's guns. This tax money goes to pay for health care. Because no one can opt out, it is in everyone's interest to bubblewrap others. So laws are passed, and these, too, are enforced with fines, jail time, and policemen's guns. Not to be over dramatic, but nationalized health care essentially puts a gun to the heads of every person who doesn't go along. Its not a very visible effect, so it is easy to overlook. Out of sight, out of mind. I can't be a party to that, even if I'm not the one being forced. This is the exact same reason I support a Peace Tax for conscientious objectors (Link ). It is called "the non-aggression principle." One of the *very* few sane things to come out of Ayn Rand.
But I do agree that there should be some provision to secure people's health. And I would gladly join a voluntary system of health care, or contribute to a charity that provided for poorer people's health costs. I wish mutual aid societies (Link ) were an option, but they've been gutted by regulation lobbied for by insurance companies.
In short: I totally agree with the points in your article. Reached a different conclusion. Nix nationalized medicine.
In the new issue of City Journal, the neoconservative urban policy magazine associated with the Manhattan Institute, Paul Beston argues against a new law in New York City banning the use of metal bats in high school baseball. Dismissing it as "nannying," Beston links the law to other recent policies in New York City like the smoking ban and the trans-fat ban. He concludes "Banning bats my seem like small ball. But it perfectly expresses the council's and the mayor's underlying belief: too much liberty is hazardous to your health."
This clearly expresses a fundamental tenet of conservative/libertarian thinking: that engaging in risky behavior with serious social costs is an entitlement. People who are injured by metal bats, or fall ill from smoking or fatty food, cost the rest of us money. We pay their emergency room bill, their Medicare bills or their Social Security disablity insurance. Only someone willing to forgo those benefits should have the right to also opt out of public health laws like those passed by the New York City Council, or pre-existing ones requiring that motorcyclists wear helmets and drivers wear seat belts. But Beston, like all conservatives, makes no serious suggestion about offering such an option in our society (much less explaining how it would be practically possible.) Instead he merely sneers at the New York City government's efforts to lower the costs that he, like all other taxpayers, will ultimately bear (and that, should rising health costs force the government to raise taxes, Beston and City Journal would surely bray against as well).
cross-posted on TAPPED.
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
!
The simple solution is to let those people who truly value the choice of which bat to use/how many transfats to eat/ect, opt out of the system. We give them freedom, and in return they can do any stupid thing they want. The problem, which I can't see any way around, is that there is no "opt out" mechanism. Taxes are enforced with fines, jail time, and policemen's guns. This tax money goes to pay for health care. Because no one can opt out, it is in everyone's interest to bubblewrap others. So laws are passed, and these, too, are enforced with fines, jail time, and policemen's guns. Not to be over dramatic, but nationalized health care essentially puts a gun to the heads of every person who doesn't go along. Its not a very visible effect, so it is easy to overlook. Out of sight, out of mind. I can't be a party to that, even if I'm not the one being forced. This is the exact same reason I support a Peace Tax for conscientious objectors (Link ). It is called "the non-aggression principle." One of the *very* few sane things to come out of Ayn Rand.
But I do agree that there should be some provision to secure people's health. And I would gladly join a voluntary system of health care, or contribute to a charity that provided for poorer people's health costs. I wish mutual aid societies (Link ) were an option, but they've been gutted by regulation lobbied for by insurance companies.
In short: I totally agree with the points in your article. Reached a different conclusion. Nix nationalized medicine.