The Libertarian Argument

October 10, 2007

So, why have government-funded health care anyway? Here’s Dave Haxton:

But the most important reason to oppose this plan is the same reason I oppose tax breaks for office parks, food stamps, farm subsidies and the war for oil in Iraq: if you want to contribute your hard earned cash to any of those “worthy” causes (with the exception of the Iraq war, because killing people for their mineral wealth is wrong on any count), by all means don’t let me stop you. But when you steal take other peoples money money and make donations, somebody has to remind you that it’s not yours to give. [ Bush vetoes child health insurance bill ]

This is the part of the Libertarian argument I don’t get. Libertarians look at programs funded by taxes — food stamps, farm subsidies, health care for people who can’t afford it, public education — and see financial intrusions into their own liberty, and thus restrictions on their freedom. I look at these programs and see… Well, here in the US I look at these programs and see public services crumbling after decades of defunding.

But assuming the programs were funded and people were committed to them working, what I see is a country deciding to pool its resources to make sure no one has to worry overmuch about their basic needs. And health care is a basic need. At Whiskey Fire, Thers says of the Graeme kerfuffle:

What are their “arguments,” anyway? That it’s too costly? When money is shamelessly being flushed away by this administration on all sorts of harebrained schemes, most notably the wildly unpopular Iraq debacle, how’s that one going to fly? That it could lead to eeek socialism booga booga? When people might think to themselves, “is this constant worry over healthcare, which causes me to make constant sacrifices and affects even so basic a question as what do I want to do with my life and what kind of a family do I want to have, actually what American liberty is supposed to be all about? Constant fear? [ Sink to the Depths ]

There is no freedom without freedom from need, and government — a liberal democratic functioning government for the people and by the people — is supposed to accomplish that end. That’s why it’s in the Official American Mission Statement, the preamble to the Constitution.

When you have to worry about your food, safety, health and your well-being, you are not free. The purpose of having government is so it can take care of these needs is to ensure that you don’t find yourself enslaved to the desires of another (corporate) entity over whom you have no control. Our government, at least, we are supposed to be in control of.

Ensuring these basic needs are met is an expansion of freedom because it lessens risk, weakens corporate and employer holds on employees, frees people to follow their interests, start businesses, make art, raise children, buy frivolous goods and play video games. Don’t we want to do that stuff? Don’t we want to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity? Or, like Thers said, is American liberty really just about constant fear?

Posted in Politics, Speaking Very Slowly