Okay, it's been a while since I've posted anything because I've been more focused on religious topics in the past couple of weeks. I may start doing the occasional post on that stuff too, but to date this has been pretty much exclusively a Market Anarchy blog.
Anyhow, I was drawn into a discussion on universal health care the other day with a friend. I have been, of course, taking a position from self-determination, which got me down the road once again about the nature of rights and what rights we have.
Rights stem from the axiom of self-ownership. The individual is the sole owner of his body, because he controls all of his actions and no other person can force him to, for instance, think a certain thought, or move his pinky muscles (we could argue things like pulses through an electrode, but extraordinary scenarios can usually be discounted easily enough). Nobody else has any right over someone else's body, because that would mean everyone had the same right over his body. Everyone thus controls everyone, which we know not to be the case - individuals own themselves and act as individuals,their muscles respond only to their master, not to any other human.
Following from that, you have a right to your body and the fruits of your labor. I think the argument for property following from self-ownership is probably familiar enough in libertarian circles. Every right you have comes from here - the right not to have any harm done to your body (including death), the right not to have harm done to your belongings (i.e. theft, vandalism), etc.
The problem is that many people in this day and age have assumed other 'rights' too, which are in fact counter to this axiom. I'm going to take the 'right to health care' as my first example. The phrase is common enough among Liberals, and is used to justify the setting up of a universal health care system, so that it is 'protecting the rights of all'. Even some pseudo-libertarians use this argument - government is supposed to protect the rights of an individual, I have a right to health care, government needs to provide it. I once, in my early investigations into libertarianism, believed the same sort of thing about education. I know better now, of course.
But what does it mean to say you have a right to health care? Who's going to provide it? Who's going to pay for it? When do you have a right to it? Well, to say you have a right to health care means that you're demanding the labor of someone else (doctor), that they have an obligation to treat you simply because you need it. But how can this be a right, if each individual has full ownership of himself? No other person can lay claim to another's labor as a right.
If we then say that they're hired, making it a voluntary transaction, then who pays for it, and how much? If you have a right to health care, than you're basically saying you have a right to it for no cost, or at a cost of your determination. However, if the doctor doesn't want to do it for the amount you're offering (or for any reason, really), then it's a violation of his self-ownership to force him to perform the operation.
If you have a right to something, you have a right to it at all times and all places. You always have a right not to not be harmed bodily (precluding self-defense and right-violation, of course, a separate topic), no matter where or what time it is. If you're sick, and all of the doctors are busy with other patients, do you have the right to pull a doctor out of the room and demand he take a look at you now? And if so, doesn't that suddenly violate the right of the patient already being seen? It's pretty easy to bring false 'rights' out using the argument from absurdity, pointing out how the right fails when you apply it as an actual right.
Education falls along the same lines. You have no right over the people teaching, you have no right to their labor for free or for a cost of your choosing. You don't have a right to it at 4 in the morning, or when the teacher is showering, etc. What you have is a right to your own property and body, and you can voluntarily trade for these services - a voluntary trade being one in which both parties agree to a transaction without the use of coercion, and in which both parties benefit from an increase in value from the transaction (not necessarily in monetary worth).
The same goes for many other assumed rights, like the right to not be discriminated against, a right not to be offended, a right to food and water, right to housing, etc. I'm sure you can all come up with a dozen or more examples of right people claim to have that quickly evaporate when you play them out as rights, derivatives of self-ownership.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Hey Alex!
Im hosting The Market Anarchist Blog Carnival on Oct 29th at my blog, The Radical Libertarian. You should totally submit one of your blog posts to it!
You can find the details here. The deadline is Oct 28th. Send in a submission, Id love to add you into the Carnival :)
Thanx!
This is a good article and I appreciate its logic of how the one rights violate another right. While I do agree with your point, a thought did come up so I will play the devil's advocate. Couldn't an argument for utilitarianism support the idea of universal health care? The right to universal health care is greater than the doctor's right to decide his labor.
Finally, I had one minor disagreement with the idea that, "the right to not be discriminated against" is not a true right.
I believe such a right is necessary. In order for a libertarian society to work, the government must at least protect others from victimizing crime and create an equal platform for opportunity. However, I will admit it depends on the discrimination. Everyone, by nature of the word, discriminates. By discrimination, I mean causing harm to another person. And that falls under violating another's rights.
As far as the utilitarian thing goes: it requires one to first deny the right of self-ownership/determination. It assumes that someone else ought to have control over your body, which simply can't happen, unless one applies coercion. To use a utilitarian argument ultimately boils down to a sort of might makes right, which means you can toss any right to self-ownership, which I take as physically necessary, out the window.
And with regard to discrimination: I probably ought to define my usage of the term more clearly. By discrimination I mean preference for or against someone on the basis of ethnicity, religion, nationality, physical characteristics, etc. I don't distinguish violence based on these things from any other sort of violence - all of it is bad, and should be dealt with as all violence should. However, discrimination as in not letting Hispanic people into your bar if that's your prerogative, is up entirely to the owner. Nobody can tell him what he must do with his property, that he must offer his services to so-and-so, etc. That said, discrimination is poor business practice - it cuts from your customers not only the discriminated, but is likely to draw polemics from sympathizers as well. Focusing on these various differences only heightens the problem and stresses the 'group mentality' that is at the root of this all.
Utilitarianism would not require one to deny the rights of self-ownership, it merely places which right produces more good. In place of your argument I would say that more good results from in the long-term (which is more important) from a market health care, than the greater good derived from universal health care in the short-term. Often people do not look ahead to consequences further down the road to various actions.
And with regards to discrimination, I agree with you. With society, such poor business practices should regulate themselves. The only potential flaw I see is when the majority of the community discriminates against a group. However, I do agree that it shouldn't be forced upon people. I would rather trust society than government regarding the issue because society has demonstrated its worth over the state.
P.S. I think you would find my blog interesting. Unfortunately I've had limited internet, which results in limited posting. I can hardly keep up on my daily readings as it is.
good point, I should say that utilitarianism CAN. But usually when utilitarianism is invoked, it is with the mentality that we should go to all extents, no matter the consequence, to bring the good of the majority to fruition. But in reality, the market values are usually what is really for the 'greater good'
I'll have to check out your blog :P
That is an incorrect view of utilitarianism. The idea of the majority was the original definition, but was later revised. Unfortunately, the incorrect idea of utilitarianism hit mainstream and that is what most people understand utilitarianism as.
Ah, then I'm unfamiliar with what this 'revised' version of it is
Merely that the morality of an action is derived from the resulting good.
Hmm, it seems that even that idea can be used to justify an 'end justifies the means' mentality. I think a better way to view morality is an action that doesn't violate another's rights.
It considers more than just the end. The result is all the consequences of an action(intent, ends and means all contribute to the consequences). It is part of the consequentialist moralities, as opposed to deontological or virtue ethics.
Ah, well, that's good then.
Ethan said: Utilitarianism would not require one to deny the rights of self-ownership, it merely places which right produces more good.
Well, Bentham hadn't figured that out, and I presume you haven't either. Get back to me when you have a machine capable of measuring utils, and we'll take it from there ;)
The idea that we can objectively measure subjective interpersonal utilities is a myth that will not die.
Sorry, asserting we have natural rights does not make it so. Why don't the parents have a right to a person? They created the person and more than likely gave them everything. Why is a defender, like a soldier or policemen, in control? They saved their life, it should be theirs to do with. Why isn't a slavemaster the owner of a person, they bought them fair and square on the free-market (after all without government the private security forces can just make up laws that suit them). Why doesn't the lover, the family of a victim, or bank have control of a person's body. No, not physical control, but moral ownership. You've gone from a half-assed biology lesson to "natural rights".
I'm with Bentham, Natural rights are rhetoric on stilts.
I've since become more of a natural rights support, even though I have my utilitarian aspects.
I do disagree that asserting natural rights exist doesn't prove anything. But natural rights theory doesn't do that. It begins with what we already know and works to prove points from there. For example, because we are the one to claim our bodies and make choices regarding them, we own our bodies. That means we have self-ownership. Because of that we come to the non-aggression principle(to not use force against another unless in defense or to punish/seek justice against prior force) in order to protect the right of self-ownership. As a result, we must use voluntary contracts between people.
As politically incorrect as it is, if someone consents to being a slave there is nothing unethical about it. The problem with slavery is people don't choose to be slaves(well, the vast majority). They are using force to violate the slave's self-ownership.
Based on what I have outlined above I don't see how a bank, lover, family of a victim, soldier, and policeman have a right to control somebody. The issue of parents and children is something I still ponder over myself so for now I'd rather not discuss that. Though any insights you have would be appreciated, just don't expect me to automatically agree or disagree. Currently the best I have is parents relinquish control when children demonstrate the ability to reason.
Post a Comment