What virtually no one has addressed in the
debates on health care is that there is no such thing as a fundamental
“right to health care.” Even more to the point, health care provided by
the coerced expenditure of the time and money of others is even more
destructive of rights and freedom.
While medical insurance and health care are certainly desirable values,
“forced charity” is a contradiction in terms. Few people would condone
a private citizen (or group of citizens) walking into a neighbor’s
home, placing a gun to that person’s head, and demanding money. Even if
the intruders claimed they needed the money for themselves or for
someone else in need, any decent individual would still condemn such
robbery. The (“good”) ends do not justify the (bad) means.
Somehow, though, voting for such an immoral set of actions and outcomes
is supposed to make such policies okay. But hiding behind an anonymous
vote and relying on the government and its armed agents to impose one’s
wishes on unwilling others is neither honorable nor moral. Legalized
theft is no less theft simply because one group of people is more
politically powerful than another. Might does not make right.
Only voluntary actions have moral value. In the end, no one has a right
to anyone else’s life, money, or property without that person’s
consent. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution abolished
involuntary servitude. Congress, the President, and the majority of the
American public have brought it back.
[Letter to the editor submitted to The Wall Street Journal.}
(from
Don't Get Me Started!, 6-18-09)
