A logical look at liberty by Stephanie E. Watson.

This evening, President Obama spoke to a joint session of Congress to address concerns about the health care bills currently making their way through committees. On the positive side, he showed a lot of strength, outright scolding folks for bickering and making false claims. He likewise expressed appreciation for people showing their passion and wanting to make the best decision about health care reform.

As I followed the speech, though, I spotted a few logical inconsistencies. I’m not sure if he has consulted with many economists on his plan, but it seems in direct contradiction to the “encouraging competition” goal that he claims is one of his guiding principles. Here’s a breakdown of what I mean:

(1) Obama said that he wants there to be no choice about whether or not an individual actually carries insurance. In short: he wants to see compulsory coverage. His reasoning was that it was the individuals without coverage that are costing everyone else more money.

This means, no matter what your income level or financial situation, you *must* have health insurance coverage. As this is not free, it means you have to shop for what you can afford. Without a public option, the financial outlook for individuals is frightening… with a public option, the economic outlook for healthcare is in danger (see #2 coming up).

Compulsory health insurance is a direct affront on liberty: forcing an individual to purchase something whether they want it or not. As such, anyone who reads my blog will know where I stand on that matter. The real solution to my not having to pay for someone who doesn’t have health insurance is not to require me to do so in the first place.

(2) Obama said that he wants a public health insurance option that will be self-sustaining and compete with other health insurance companies. What he isn’t telling you is that the federal government would be breaking its own rules: it would be competing across state lines while continuing to restrict private insurance from doing so.

This means, if you are in a state with unreasonably high rates, and the federal government offers something significantly less, they can gain thousands of customers where private companies are unable to come in. How Obama can call this competition is confusing: if the federal government offers a public option in the true spirit of competition, the only right thing to do would be to allow all private insurance companies nation-wide to compete on a level playing field.

(3) Obama said he wants employers to be required to provide health insurance benefits to employees. He did say there would be assistance for small and start-up businesses, but I’m not sure how he’s going to fund that without the aforementioned public option. I’d like to see more numbers on this. Again, though, any compulsory requirement like this is an affront to liberty. I don’t think there’s more I can say to that here… except that I hope this does not create further stagnation in the job market.

These are the three areas that are concerning me the most. Even a multipartisan bill will be a great source of personal frustration for me if it includes any of the items mentioned here.

For me, the true question is simple… and paints me as cold-hearted in some respects:

Is “health care” a right?

or further…

Is “good and affordable health care” a right?

How you answer those questions probably says a lot about where you stand in your own ideas of how healthcare and health insurance can be improved.

My answer? I have a right to pursue any health care as much as I have a right to refuse it… but I have no right to require or expect others to provide it to me.

There are some disturbing claims of libertarianism from the Right. Part of me takes it as a compliment that liberty and libertarian ideas are trendy enough that people want to claim to be in the trend. However, the technical writer in me does not want to see this term redefined as a replacement for conservatism, Republican, or any other group that does not share the majority of libertarian values. Such a redefinition is a threat to true libertarians, whether or not they are part of the Libertarian Party.

Here are three questions you can ask to help determine if the claimant is truly libertarian, or just a someone jumping on the trend:

(1) When is it right for the U.S. to send troops to another country?
If the individual is a pure libertarian, he would say “never.” Some libertarians may also extend this to emphasize that the U.S. has no business occupying countries, though may see some well-targeted actions against an immediate threat as a means of self-defense. The assertion that the U.S. has any business forcing its ideas on another country is an empirical claim. Furthermore, it is not the responsibility of the U.S. to be the worldwide hero for human rights. Individuals and private organizations can choose to be part of these efforts, but this is *not* government business.

(2) How should law define marriage?
If the individual is pure libertarian, he would say “there should be NO laws defining marriage, let alone rewarding or punishing an individual based on marital status.” Some libertarians may also remind us that current marriage laws were intended to discriminate, and thus the only proper solution is to repeal them, not to supplement them with further discriminatory allowances or restrictions. In essence, the government should not be in the business of defining “marriage,” and if two consenting adults want to enter into a legal civil union, there is nothing that should restrict them from being able to do so.

(3) What’s the best solution for raising taxes?
If the individual is pure libertarian, he would say “get rid of all government spending that requires taxes for funding.” Some libertarians will go further to explain the more we submit our money to the government, the more of our individual power we surrender to a political agenda. As there is no such thing as a “common good” that all individuals will agree on, majority rule is inherently flawed as a means of providing “what’s best for everyone.” Libertarians believe that “what’s best” is to leave an individual to be responsible for himself and his personal possessions, provided he does no harm to anyone else.

BONUS: What is the solution to the drug problem?
If the individual is a pure libertarian, he would say “repeal the laws against illegal drugs.” Some libertarians prefer to ease in to this, knowing public opinion needs time to recover from the scare tactics of the anti-drug movements of the last few decades. However, almost all libertarians agree that lives could be spared, and even saved, if some drugs (like marijuana, which has been consistently proven less harmful than alcohol) are made fully legal.

The overarching theme here is “non-aggression.” The most basic of libertarian principles, on which platforms are based, is outlined in the following often-used pledge:
“I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE IN OR ADVOCATE THE INITIATION OF FORCE AS A MEANS OF ACHIEVING POLITICAL OR SOCIAL GOALS”

If a person is not willing to take such a pledge, I would dare say his libertarian claim is questionable.