Matt Zwolinski on Rand Paul equating universal health care with slavery:
[P]erhaps it’s inevitable that politicians are going to badly over-simplify moral arguments. And I suppose that if I had to choose, I’d much rather have a Senator who over-simplified in the direction of Murray Rothbard than, for instance, whatever moral philosopher Al Franken is butchering.
(As an aside, isn’t it finally time we crunched “health care” down into one word?)
Isn’t it possible that such slavery talk will discredit the anti-ACA position? I mean, the position itself is either compelling or not compelling (as someone who supports the ACA, I myself find it hard to answer some of the constitutional objections to such things as the mandate). But adding the hysterical slavery rhetoric might simply turn off people who are on the fence about it.
Come now, Tim. “Your crazy is worse than our crazy” is an awfully weak argument, about the forensic equivalent of “neener, neener, neener.” If Sen. Franken has said something you consider insane, by all means comment on it, but let’s not pretend that’s any defense of Sen. Paul.
I’ve not thought deeply about the analogy, but my first reaction is that Paul’s argument is weaker rhetorically than it is philosophically. Invoking “slavery” is so toxic that it approaches Godwin’s Law. And there are serious philosophical problems with the analogy. No one is a doctor by birth, and one can choose to stop being a doctor. But there are some important similarities, and as a matter of objective morality, the state has no proper authority to tell a doctor who he must treat and what he must and must not charge. I understand that economic liberty is a premise many liberals do not accept, but it is a premise that libertarians and conservatives do accept. Once you understand they accept that premise, you can begin to understand why they rail against the modern progressive state the way they do.
Paul did not state the case well, though. As Zwolinski said, he “over-simplified” and “butchered” or just omitted the connections to the philosophical underpinnings of the argument. But they’re there, at least to some extent–assuming, of course, it’s a fruitful argument to make, which I doubt it is.
he state has no proper authority to tell a doctor who he must treat and what he must and must not charge.
Nor to insist he speak Swedish or wear his underwear outside his pants. How fortunate that no one is suggesting any of that.
I understand that economic liberty is a premise many liberals do not accept, but it is a premise that libertarians and conservatives do accept.
Like when they tell attorneys what sorts of contingency fees they’re allowed to charge?
Who’s the “they” you’re referring to?
The supporters of the linked ballot, proposition, who were (self-identified) conservatives.
Re: economic liberty
First, I’ll say whether one accepts the premise of economic liberty, one must be clear as to what one means. by “economic liberty” and by “accept.”
When I, a liberalish leaning person, think of “economic liberty,” a few things come to mind: liberty of contract; liberty to enter a trade of one’s own choosing; liberty of choice when it comes to how, where, and on what to spend one’s money; liberty to trade with as few non-arbitrary limitations on that trade as possible and with no arbitrary limitations on that trade.
Now, I “accept” most of these, even liberty of contract, as things that are desirable. However, I do not accept them absolutely, as ends in themselves or as liberties that must be granted at all costs and never taken away; in short, I don’t think “economic liberty” per se is inalienable and I don’t accept that there should be no limitations on it.
I’d wager that “accepting the premise of economic liberty” usually is not intended to mean accepting economic liberty as something that ought never be limited, unless the one urging acceptance is a minarchist or anarchist or extreme libertarian. I don’t think you (Mr. Kowal) are such a person, and I suspect you accept at least some limitations on this liberty. I think the real difference between most “liberals” and non-liberals when it comes to “accepting the premise of economic liberty” is where to draw the line: liberals tend to be more willing to place limits on economic liberty; yet that doesn’t mean that they don’t “accept the premise” of it.
Second, slavery is much more than the denial of “economic liberty,” although it is that, too. It–or at least the quasi-modern version that developed in the antebellum south–is a near totalizing institution that denies the “premise” of any liberty, economic or otherwise, and denies the very humanity of the slave. I’d wager that almost no one denies the human dignity of doctors as a class or any member of the medical profession.
Pierre,
I would not say that I accept “limitations” on economic liberty so much as I would say that certain things are not matters of “liberty” properly speaking. For example, I am in favor of the proscription against prostitution not because I favor any restriction on economic liberty, but because selling sexual favors is not a thing any person has a natural right to do in the first place. This is one of the fundamental differences between conservatives and libertarians: libertarians either don’t believe in that personal liberty is bounded in such ways, or if they do, they do not believe it is the state’s place to define those bounds. At any rate, conservatives and libertarians have a fundamental shared premise here. Most liberals, in my understanding, tend to regard economic liberty similarly to the way you described: they “do not accept them absolutely, as ends in themselves or as liberties that must be granted at all costs and never taken away.” This represents a fundamental break in the way liberals think, on the one hand, and the way conservatives and libertarians think, on the other.
I think I see where you’re coming from, but doesn’t linking “economic liberty” with something that is “liberty, properly speaking” make economic liberty instrumental to some other liberty?
Assuming, as you say conservatives do, that one has not the natural right to sell one’s body for sex, the economic exchange, the quid pro quo, is not a “liberty” because the quo is not a natural liberty.
At any rate, I’m splitting hairs (and I’m indeed no philosopher). I can always nitpick another’s view; the trick, I guess, is to see where the other is coming from.
Also, I agree with your last paragraph that the denial of “economic liberty” was, though significant, not the most significant problem with slavery.
This is probably where I see the issue most differently from the way you do. If a doctor has a service to provide that is hard to find elsewhere and that is a necessity, it seems to me at the very least not a sure bet that it’s objectively immoral for the state to regulate how much the doctor charges or whether the doctor must see the patient, at least in some (say, emergency) circumstances.
The extent of the regulation may be so onerous and may be such an imposition on doctors that it amounts to, for example, a “taking” of the value of their skills, or is simply a bad policy choice. But the notion that it is clear that the state has “no proper authority” to regulate in this matter seems difficult to claim as true.
But there are some important similarities, and as a matter of objective morality, the state has no proper authority to tell a doctor who he must treat and what he must and must not charge.
Agreed! Thankfully, nobody is proposing to tell me who I must treat or what I must and must not charge. I can charge $500 for an office visit if I choose, and nobody can tell me not to. I may have no patients with that pricing scheme, but I’m free as a bird to try it.
Now, if I want to accept patients with certain insurance, I have to accept that their insurance companies will only pay a certain amount for visits. That’s the contract I have to make with the insurance companies to be a provider in their networks. This has been the case for ages upon ages. Why it should be different if the government is the insurer is not made clear to me by either Sen. Paul’s rhetoric or your argument.
What did Franken say, anyway?
Actually, I don’t know if Zwolinski was referring to any particular quote of Franken’s or not.
If not, add to the summary below: “And I don’t care if Franken makes sense, he’s not on my side.”
Not sure about Tim, but I don’t think Matt Zwolinski’s accusing either Paul or Franken of craziness — “badly oversimplifying” is not the same as crazy, and many successful politicians of all stripes do that to one degree or another.
Also, he’s not saying that one set is “worse” than the other, just that (unsurprisingly) he’d prefer the ones who are at least inclined in the same general direction that he is.
Oh, I’m not calling anyone “crazy,” either. At any rate, certain allowances for levity must be made when it comes to Senator Smalley, no?
I didn’t think you were, but I didn’t want to speak for you. I was more willing to risk speaking for Matt Z because I figured he was unlikely to come by here and witness the attempt.
Fair enough!
In other words: “I don’t care if Paul sounds batshit, he’s on my side!”
Eh, the doctor is getting paid for his services and the patient is receiving services.
If anybody is analogous to the slave, it’s the person who is expected to pay the doctor under threat of imprisonment. Even that isn’t a good analogy but it’s better than the one where the doctor is getting paid for his services under duress. (Wait, is the doctor being paid only a pittance?)