“Are You Saying That Society Should Just Let Him Die?”

Sep 16, 2011 | Politics

WOLF BLITZER, DEBATE MODERATOR AND CNN LEAD POLITICAL ANCHOR: ... Ron Paul, so you're a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question.A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I'm not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I'm healthy, I don't need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it.Who's going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?REP. RON PAUL, (R-TX.), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.BLITZER: Well, what do you want?PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced --BLITZER: But he doesn't have that. He doesn't have it, and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?PAUL: That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody --(APPLAUSE)BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

No, society should let you let him die.That is, such a decision by right is for each individual in society to make. Your question reveals your socialist premise that decisions regarding whom to help live and to let die should be made collectively by society, overruling the rights of individuals. Your question also reveals how socialist schemes such as Obamacare require death panels, denials notwithstanding. Everyone dies eventually from current limits to health care. Resources are limited. If all the medical resources are controlled and dispatched by government instead of by private owners of those resources, then government decides who gets medicine and who does not. Maybe the 30-year-old who needs a half million dollars of care will get care initially, until socialized medicine collapses entirely, but there will be some cut-off of age and expense for which the government will just say no. Consequently, no matter how much wealth an individual produces and wants to spend to save his 75-year-old mother, or very sick brother or best friend or wife or even himself, the government will just say "No, society cannot afford it, the lives of younger or less sick strangers, or strangers with more political pull, are more important."As for my own individual decision on this 30-year-old in a free society, would I pay for his emergency and let him off the hook? No. But I would consider investing in a private fund that made loans to such individuals, if the return on investment were attractive. The 30-year-old would in effect have to take out a mortgage without getting a house; and he would have to pay high interest for his uncollateralized loan, or he might even have to pay a high percentage of his income—say, 30%—for the rest of his life. Such a burden would be great; indeed, it would be more than half the current tax burden under the welfare state. But the man would have his life, his investors would have their profit, and everyone would retain that precious asset possessed by Americans: freedom.

The Morality of the Welfare State

Sep 15, 2011 | Politics

Despite the fact that the big three entitlement programs–Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare–have the U.S. government facing upwards of $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, they largely remain a third rail: touch not lest ye be voted out of office.Why are they sacrosanct? Because, whatever else you can say about the entitlement state, no one disputes that it’s a moral imperative. Inefficient? Maybe. Expensive? You bet. But morally questionable? Absolutely not.The problem with the entitlement state is not simply that it is bankrupting this country–the problem is that it is morally bankrupt.The basic principle behind the entitlement state is that a person’s need entitles him to other people’s wealth. It’s that you have a duty to spend some irreplaceable part of your life laboring, not for the sake of your own life and happiness, but for the sake of others. If you are productive and self-supporting, then according to the entitlement state, you are in hock to those who aren’t. In Marx’s memorable phrase: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

Post-9/11 World

Sep 12, 2011 | Politics

“The central ‘evil’ we seek to avoid is to fight for our own self-interest – a motive which is not, in fact, an evil one. We’re ignorant of the morality of rational self-interest, and to maintain what we think is the moral “high ground,” we base every action on the good to be gained for someone, anyone, other than us. Until and unless we recognize that we’re truly fighting for good, and that we ourselves are good, well-worth defending for our own sakes, we’ll continue to hamstring our troops and undercut our own efforts with the apologetics of self-abnegation. Every passing day will bring our enemies closer to the moment when they’ll have the capacity to wreak even greater havoc on us. War is a terrible thing, but is it not far more terrible for an entire generation to grow up watching the slow bleed of a war that we selflessly refuse to win? And isn’t it worse that they see the bloodletting caused solely by the inability of their elders to recognize their own right to defend themselves – and their values – for their own sake?”

Help Support Capitalism Awareness Week on US College Campuses!

Sep 11, 2011 | Politics

Video: David Harriman on The Logical Leap

Sep 3, 2011 | Politics