The 20th century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein was known for breaking down sentences and everyday terms and finding them to be fairly arbitrary in meaning. His conclusions were often rather shoddy, but his processes were frequently eye-opening. Inspired by some of his methods -- and by those of others who would sometimes take a crack at how we use language, including famous anti-statist Herbert Spencer -- we will now proceed to unpack the sentence "Universal health care should be a right."
Let us begin with the term "universal." What does it mean, legally speaking, for something to be universal? Does it mean that all American citizens should have access to it? Well, why stop there? Is health care a human right or will it merely become an American one? Will foreign visitors to our soil receive the same quality of care, at the same pace? Will they take a backseat to citizens if there are scheduling conflicts? What if they don't pay any taxes? Is a foreigner less worthy to go first than an American? Why? And what about illegal immigrants? If health care is a human right, then doesn't it seem a little incoherent to deny illegal immigrants coverage simply because they are not American citizens? Surely it is true that they broke our laws, but so have crack-cocaine users, and nobody is suggesting that we deny them coverage under a government-sponsored plan. Without these questions answered, I am forced to deem the word "universal" to be meaningless pending further clarification from the left.
Next, there is the question of what exactly constitutes "health care." Is mental health included, or simply physical health? What about cosmetic, quality-of-life surgeries? What about psychological counseling? What about controversial procedures such as gender reassignment surgery? What about self-inflicted wounds, such as those brought on by choosing to smoke, drink or partake in other dangerous activities? Should they be de-prioritized by the government? For how long and at whose expense? Should there be limits to how much "health care" one can partake in on the taxpayer's dime? Without further clarification from the left, I must also deem the term "health care" to be so vague as to border on meaninglessness.
Finally, what does it mean when someone says that something "should" be a right? Doesn't that imply that health care is not currently a right? This would mean, then, that rights are granted by government. Is this correct? Or is health care a natural right? If so, how do we determine this? What methodology do we use to differentiate a right from a non-right? Would I still have a right to health care if I were the last person on Earth? What if two people needed transplants only available from each other? Whose rights override the other's, if health care is indeed a right? If we have a right to someone else's property -- which is indeed what the left's argument is based upon -- then isn't it a violation of someone's rights to withhold it? These are questions with incredible implications that are simply not being discussed.
All of these arbitrary distinctions can be fairly dealt with in a free market, between free men using their free minds to engage in mutually voluntary actions. This is the essence of freedom, the essence of liberty: men acting as traders, rather than as masters and servants. Government is the realm of the forceful and the arbitrary. The market is the realm of freedom.
Alex Knepper is a sophomore in the School of Public Affairs and a classical liberal columnist for The Eagle. You can reach him at edpage@theeagleonline.com.
