I thought of this in trying to think of an argument to make to someone who thinks healthcare is a right without going into detail about derivations of rights.
The right to healthcare is derived from some basic sense of a right to life.
If this is really the case, the right not to be murdered should be even stronger right, because:
a. A right to healthcare is supposed to prevent anyone from unfairly suffering consequences of a chance disease, but also applies to conditions that are at least in part self-inflicted.
b. Being murdered is something forced on someone by another person.
c. b is the result of actions chosen by an individual on another, a is either chance or a combination of chance and actions chosen by the individual who suffers the consequences.
If one supports forcing coverage to be provided for everyone as a solution for 1, then he/she should also advocate a level of apprehension and penalty to murderers to bring the murder rate down as close to zero as possible.
I assume that someone supporting universal healthcare would object to a proposition to expend the resources necessary to drastically cut murder rates as not practical/possible. They simply don’t see healthcare as an equivalent use of resources I guess? If this is the case, do you think this is a decent argument? What I can think of for how I can revise this is that in #1, I think some people might think of it more as a right not to suffer for circumstances out of your control, or something like that. But death is still the ultimate loss resulting from some sort of disease, so I think this would still hold.
If this is valid, can you come up with something other than decreasing murder rates to be substituted in here?
This shows some promise, but I must ask: why do you want to avoid the discussion of derivations of rights? This allows them to sidestep the absolutely crucial step of explaining where this new “right” comes from, and deprives them of a prime opportunity to see the error in their thinking. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim to a right to health care. In addition, this may be interpreted as agreeing that there is a right to health care.
I think this could be put in more accessible, if less precise terms by contrasting health care, which involves others improving one’s health, with murder, which involves others decreasing one’s health. The right to one implies the right to be free of the other. Sadly, much of your target audience is accustomed to ten second clips on the news; anything longer and you risk losing the attention of your audience. This is especially true in a face to face conversation, where even a genuinely interested person may have difficulty following a lengthy argument.
A similar argument that I like to use with people who are more accustomed to my bluntness is to simply call this what it is: slavery. Health care is not some mystical good that rains down from the heavens, it’s a service that must be provided by another person. To have a right to the product of somebody else’s labor without that person’s agreement is slavery.
Natural rights are “of” the person. Life (a natural right) is “of” the person. Health care is “for” the person, thus, not a natural right. Notice the directional act of “for” and “of”.
It was an attempt to come up with something that I could hopefully get across before the eyes glaze over. Also, in conversation, I would not try to present as premise, premise, conclusion, but through a series of questions. While I’m sure there are some who may still not even pay attention to this, I believe that many more won’t even bother thinking about what rights really are.
Fair concern. I would hope to be clear that that is not what I’m saying.
Yes, I would think of trying to say something like this first, but would be afraid of someone dismissing it in thinking I was just being a sensationalist in using the word slavery. Or I could picture someone trying to justify it since ‘fair’ compensation is achieved through taxation, then rather than try to tear down his view of the world right there, instead try another route as attempted above.
Healthcare, like everything, is scarce; there isn’t enough top quality healthcare for every single person. Stating that it is a “right” is like saying that 5 star meals are a right, or mansions are a right. The market allocates these so-called “rights,” while politicians lie and claim that scarcity doesn’t exist, and that greedy “capitalists” are healthcare hoarders.
I agree. When someone doesn’t realize this though, I figured pointing out something concrete that they would understand in these terms would be a good strategy. I wanted to get some responses as to whether or not people think this would be a good way to illustrate that point.
I’ve had this problem many times myself. “Rights” seem to consist of personal preferences that people in democracy worshiping cultures believe can justly be imposed on others. A vote tends to be seen as a justification in and of itself, rather than a means to achieve otherwise justifiable ends. Of course, to even come close to implying that democracy is anything but The Best Thing To Happen To Humanity Ever is the best possible way to lose your audience.
Fair enough. People who know me are accustomed to my abrasiveness at times. This probably wouldn’t work as well on the internet. I guess the main concern I have is that someone could agree to harsher punishment for murderers (hardly an unlikely standpoint) and then where would you go?
I suppose you could make a comparison with automobiles, which for many people are essential to getting to work, therefore necessary to put food on the table. Is everyone entitled to a car as well? Should everyone be required to obtain a car or pay a “no car” tax? Should your employer be forced to purchase a car for you? Does government involvement in the automobile industry really encourage competition? How have government produced vehicles compared to their market produced counterparts? Etc…
Yea, I would hope to have a person seriously consider it at first, since being murdered can easily be seen as worse than getting sick. And if I am then unable to successfully lay out a convincing case for why it should be impossible, or at least very detrimental, I should not try this tactic. But if someone insists on production of murder prevention services at the cost of a large portion of the rest of the economy, I don’t know what would be next. Would someone who insists such a thing even be someone to continue trying to convince of anything?
It depends on how much time you’re willing to invest in it. The problem isn’t that someone views prevention of murder as a good, it’s the view that government should be in charge of providing certain goods. Good luck dispelling that myth.