I’m tired of talking about Social Security, so I’m not going to do it for awhile at least. Mainly, I’m 100% certain that I will pay taxes my whole life and never see a cent, so it’s hardly worth talking about.
What I have been thinking about a lot lately is the duty of government, equality, and justice. Recent life-stress started that wheel moving again, but reading Russ Roberts’ recent posts on inequality and some discussion of contracts in comments at the OC has got me to thinking about more obscure matters of libertarian philosophy.
Essentially it all begins with one simple question: is it ever just to take another’s property without mutually agreeable compensation? Glibly, from my position, the answer is no. Unfortunately, a thoughtful answer is much more complicated than that. Although, in the end, I believe the answer is still likely “no”.
Usually such a question is framed in terms of a moral dilemma. I have a great distaste for that way of framing it, because most such dilemmas propose a very limited set of choices. In the example of Heinz, for instance, the doctor [a sole source] who refuses to sell a drug [the only cure for a deadly disease] is clearly not acting rationally. Why refuse the $2,000 if your alternatives are $2,000 or $0? The dilemma gives you the impression that this small town is isolated, and that the doctor doesn’t really have much of an alternative. If this is indeed the case, why refuse and profit not at all? He’ll have to wait for somebody else to get cancer, etc.
But that moves away from my central point: it would be wrong to steal the cure for your wife because you do not have a right to benefit from the doctor’s labors. However, I’d likely steal the cure out of love for my wife. If a man steals to eat, does he not still steal? The reason for a violation of another’s rights hardly needs to be considered, the important consideration is that the violation occurred.
The argument for stealing is usually made along the lines that the Doctor, as a medical professional, has a duty to cure the cancer without thought of compensation for himself. He should be willing to give up the fruits of his research in order that a woman, for whom he may or may not have a particular affinity, can live for a few extra years.
Many are inclined to believe that the doctor is some sort of inhuman monster for demanding compensation to save someone’s life…after all, he’s a doctor that’s supposed to be his job. But as the sole provider of the cure, and as an individual who likely has his own set of problems to deal with, it’s certainly understandable that the doctor would demand to be compensated. Again, we see him deciding in a vacuum not to sell, but we’re left without any notion of the doctor’s alternatives. It seems unfair to many, if not most, that the doctor should allow a woman to die over money. I’ve tarried away from the original intention of this post, and it’s gotten a bit rambling, I think later I’ll talk about how this idea of fairness plays directly into the popularity of collectivist ideas.
