Oliver North
Junior Member
Originally posted by dadudemon
Randian justification: That income could save my life or a loved one, in the future. I should be smart and save that money. If I have enough to spare and I am a charitable person, I will give it to people or an organization I deem worthy of my excess. It would be ignorant and irresponsible for me to not save this money in case of a medical emergency. The government forcing me to give up this money to give to another is potentially limiting my choices in the future when I have a problem. Don't I have a higher moral obligation to taking care of my family than I do a stranger? I directly chose to marry and have children. I am not bound by natural laws to care for my offspring up to a certain point. That includes taking care of myself so I am around to take care of my offspring. Why is it counted as evil to care for myself and posterity and why is it considered righteous to care for perfect strangers that I have no "natural law" obligation towards? If a stranger dies because I saved my money, that is not currently an issue because the human species is in no danger of becoming extinct, currently. Besides, I gain the most personal happiness from having choices, not having those choices removed. If I chose to increase my personal safety through intelligent saving and investment, that's my choice.
In terms of Rand's ideas of personal morality, you are sort of right, but she would not place any sort of restriction on an individual's rational freedom by insisting that they must place a greater priority on their own family if they do not want to. Because people, when unobstructed by state or other types of external restrictions, will act in accordance with their own assessment rational judgement.
So, to Rand, if you decided that you wanted to pay the medical bills of your neighbor's child, but not your own, she would not fault you for failing to follow a socially imposed convention like "family", but would applaud your use of rational self-interest to make the decision that you deemed to be the most appropriate.
To her, the fact you have a priority for your family comes from the fact you personally value your wife and children and extended families, etc, as a social structure to identify with. Objectivist philosophy puts not value specifically on "family", in fact, Rand often describes family as one of the things that subverts our will, as it is often a justification to do things you wouldn't otherwise do, her common example being the person who goes into a field of study or business because it was expected of them. To the Objectivist, your decision to care for your child or a perfect stranger is yours alone, and if you are free from the things that subvert your will, you will make rational judgments, even if that means a perfect stranger gets your money for medical care if your child doesn't.
[actually, thinking about it, Rand, and I mean Rand not me, would say your religion itself imposes restrictions that subvert your will in a way that sort of actually "nullifies" the fact you "want" to be a Christian. In the same way it is hard to look at a woman in full niquab and accept they have made the choice to do that of their own free will, as many would insist is the case, Rand would say your religion itself subverts your will into accepting its tenants, among which, the concept of "family" is among. She would actually say those choices were not made using rational self interest, but because you are allowing the religion to choose for you what the best recipient of your labor should be].
LOL, that said, and sorry for the tl;dr, Rand's primary opposition to health care wouldn't come from the fact people should in any way be responsible for others or themselves, it would sort of be two-fold. The first would be that the government having a monopoly on anything is bad because it limits the freedom a self-rationalized individual would have. If only the government provides medical care, I am limited in my freedom to rationally determine that marijuana is helpful to my IBS (which it is) simply because the government doesn't allow it. If the only body responsible for my health is the state, I lose the ability to choose what type of health care I wish to support. I have to go to the government doctors and can only get a second opinion at other government doctors. I lose the ability to choose which procedure I want, I am told which surgery I am going to have, because there is only one place to get it from.
The second issue would be that, when the government spends tax money on medical coverage, it violates the rights of those who don't support the issue. So, someone like DT who outright opposes the idea of others getting his money for medical care, is violated because he is forced by the state to provide something he did not rationally choose to do. And because it is not based on rational choice, it will not be the most optimal solution. Extended from this, imagine someone who thinks homeopathy is as legitimate a form of medical treatment as is science based medicine. Their rights are violated by their being favoritism paid to medical doctors by the government. The optimal solution would therefore be to not fund either homeopathy or science based medicine, and rational, self-interested people will choose the best health care that fits their needs.
I'm pretty sure it was me who made the Rand comment to you before, but it didn't mean what you think, iirc, it was more that you were making an argument that is wrong for some of the same reasons Objectivism is both self-refuting and unverifiable. Basically, again, iirc, the point was that people given freedom to donate to charitable institutions that provide medical treatment would be the best, but that, if we are talking about self interested people who want to give, the most effective and pragmatic form of this is going to be indistinguishable from the state. There may be decent arguments for a public/private split system, but any sufficiently complex modern society is going to be better served by an efficient single body funded by the entire tax base, rather than one that is burdened by over payment in one area, under in another, that has to communicate between agencies to coordinate funds, etc.