Thank you again, Dr. Williams!

The great Walter Williams explains why health care is not a right.  I’ve explained it on this blog before, but the esteemed economics professor just breaks it down.

True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.

For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else’s rights, namely their rights to their earnings.The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover,there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.

Here’s the way I look at it, folks.  It’s simple:

You’re walking home from work with $300 in your pocket.  A robber stops you, points a gun at your head, and forces you to give up your hard earned cash.  Is it theft?  Yes.  Is it immoral?  Yes.

Now…

You’re walking home from work with $300 in your pocket, and the same robber stops you, points a gun at your head and says that he saw a guy lying on the sidewalk, starving to death, thirsty and bleeding. He’s taking your $300 to buy the guy some food and drink and a bandage.  The guy is dying.  He needs the food, water and bandage, and therefore, the robber lays a moral claim to your earnings for this needy guy on the sidewalk.  He’ll only keep a little for himself for the work he did threatening you with the gun.  It’s still theft, and it’s still immoral, because it takes your property by force, violating your right.

What is the difference between someone taking your money by force to help someone who needs it and Congress taking your money via government force (try not paying your taxes and see what happens to you, Al Capone!) to help those who need it?

“But wait!” you say.  We elected Congress and therefore we give them tacit consent to do what they feel is right.

ORLY?  OK.

You’re walking home from work with $300 in your pocket, and the same robber stops you, points a gun at your head and says that he saw a guy lying on the sidewalk, starving to death, thirsty and bleeding. He’s taking your $300 to buy the guy some food and drink and a bandage.  The guy is dying.  He needs the food, water and bandage, and therefore, the robber lays a moral claim to your earnings for this needy guy on the sidewalk.  A crowd gathers around you and cheers on the robber, telling you that they believe the robber is right to rob you of your earnings, thereby giving him the moral sanction to take your property by force.  Does it make the act any less of a moral abomination?

Now this is not to say that if I saw the same guy bleeding, thirsty and hungry on the sidewalk, I wouldn’t help him.  Quite the opposite.  It’s called charity, and as Dr. Williams writes, “Reaching into one’s own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else’s pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.”

Advertisement