Ezra Klein: What Rights There Are

May 30, 2005

What Rights There Are

On my own blog, I never got around to commenting on the post where Ezra argued against the libertarian who said:

Let's talk about health care for a minute. Health care is certainly a need, but it is not a right. And all the high sounding rhetoric in the world that says otherwise is baloney. Rights don't involve, involuntarily, the assets of others. Any 'right' to health care would make exactly that sort of demand on the assets of health care workers.

Don't let libertarians get away with this. It's really hard to defend a notion of rights that doesn't involve, involuntarily, the assets of others. Consider the right to vote. For you to exercise this right, there need to be voting machines and ballots and people hired to count the ballots. Keeping a poor person from voting because he didn't have money to contribute to these things would still violate his right to vote. For his rights to be respected, others' assets would have to be deployed. Or consider criminal justice. For property rights to be respected, victims of theft need to have their property returned to them, and criminals must be punished. This process requires lots of assets which the victims might not have. In short, the libertarian restriction on rights can't be maintained.

--Neil the Werewolf

May 30, 2005 in Taxes | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83447449a53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What Rights There Are:

Comments

I posted this in an email exchange on an email list I take part in, mostly about pro audio, but sometimes very spirited political discourse:

And for all you faux libertarians, as Supreme Leader of America, I have a solution. Apply for Libertarian Objector status, using the paperwork I will supply. As soon as your status is approved by me, you will be exempt from any further tax payments, to any government agency, in perpetuity.

Sound good? One small catch: You can no longer drive on my roads, use my emergency rooms, attend my schools, get help from my fire and police departments, expect the support of my military in case your turf is invaded. As long as you were paying for them, fine, but no more. You will have to shop in the new grocery stores where non-FDA groceries are sold, and you will be limited to holistic and herbal cures for your prostate cancer and lack of erections. You will no longer be able to sue the drunk that hits your car and kills your family, since my courts are tax supported. You will no longer be able to sue the manufacturer of the known defective tire that cause your fatal accident, since, well, you know. You will no longer be able to sue the meat packing company who knowingly allowed e-coli to contaminate your McBurger...whoops, I forgot, you will only be able to eat fast food from non-FDA compliant outlets, so never mind.

Posted by: Stephen Anderson | May 30, 2005 7:56:42 PM

The idea that there's some nebulous final idea of 'rights' that can be appealed to if you don't like the idea of your tax dollars going towards something, frankly, annoys and appals me. The only right you have is to scratch and claw and scream with the rest of the universe for a shred of time before you're snuffed by one cosmological event or another. The rest of it is what we COLLECTIVELY decide on. You not agreeing with the collective decision is your decision, own up to it instead of bitching that the universe disapproves.

Posted by: NBarnes | May 30, 2005 9:30:17 PM

I can see the argument for not having a "right" to
health care...technically, I agree. However, I do think it falls under "the right thing to do" - not to mention it is the smart thing. We all benefit from keeping our citizens healthy. Considering that genome mapping will be possible soon for all of us, a national insurance will then be a must - as companies insure based on risk, and mapping exposes all the genetic weaknesses in a given human body.

Posted by: Cynthia | May 30, 2005 11:46:29 PM

Cynthia, I'm curious about how that argument would go! If you have time, do tell.

Posted by: Neil the Werewolf | May 30, 2005 11:53:19 PM

The genome mapping point Cynthia cites is discussed by Ezra here.

Posted by: Neil the Werewolf | May 31, 2005 12:26:45 AM

Life insurance asks about medical history of family memebers but not health insurance, sorry.

Life insurance companies are the real cherry pickers. Do you think those with bone cancer should be able to purchase $2 million dollars of life insurance?

Posted by: Ron Greiner | May 31, 2005 7:26:42 AM

Ron, we're considering a possible future in which health insurance does DNA tests.

Posted by: Neil the Werewolf | May 31, 2005 8:14:00 AM

Neil, currently health insurance does not use family history because of the law. If your grandmother, mother and sister had breast cancer you are in high rick of breast cancer too. Because of the law, health insurers can't ask. It is a regulated industry. DNA testing could be handled the same way.

Posted by: Ron Greiner | May 31, 2005 8:41:43 AM

Rob, you should probably read the post I linked to. If health insurers can't ask for DNA tests but you can get them done for yourself, there'll be serious asymmetric information in the insurance market. At this point, something's got to give.

Posted by: Neil the Werewolf | May 31, 2005 9:07:01 AM

Neil, currently when insurers request medical records the records clearly show family history yet underwriters can't and don't use this information, even when they have it.

Just because an insurer has information does not mean they will use it.

Posted by: Ron Greiner | May 31, 2005 9:14:26 AM

Ron, I totally accept that health insurers won't, under current law, look at family health information. That explains why there will be an asymmetric information problem these restrictions are extended to DNA tests while individuals can look at their own DNA tests. Your point supports mine.

Posted by: Neil the Werewolf | May 31, 2005 9:24:49 AM

Neil, are you suggesting that consumers will take advantage of insurance companies because they can act on the results of DNA testing and the insurers can't?

Or maybe you could explain what you mean.

Posted by: Ron Greiner | May 31, 2005 10:19:42 AM

Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. This causes the same problems you see in annuity pricing. (SuperMatt lays out those problems here.)

Posted by: Neil the Werewolf | May 31, 2005 5:13:49 PM

SuperMatt says,//This kind of insurance device, however, suffers from the same basic problem as private-sector health insurance: adverse selection. Individuals know more than insurance companies do about whether or not they're likely to live a long time (or, conversely, need medical care).//

This is bold and unfounded statement. I would submit that statistics known by the insurance company about 37 year old women and cancer are much more accurate than the odds guessed by an uninformed 37 year old woman who is purchasing insurance. The insurance company would also understand the costs involved with cancer better than an uninformed individual as well.

I will accept however that you do believe this arguement. It is a very interesting change of pace. ---DNA testing is an unfair advantage favoring insurance purchasers over their insurance companies.---

Now I know more about SuperMatt too.

Posted by: Ron Greiner | May 31, 2005 7:31:54 PM

托盘
 托盘
 钢托盘
 钢制托盘
 塑料托盘
 木托盘
 木制托盘
 纸托盘
 木塑托盘