Saturday, May 1, 2010

Right to Healthcare = Right to Enslave

Lately, I have been feuding with a few associates over the issue of the concept of a "right to healthcare." I argue that such a "right" implies a right to enslave another or to have another enslaved; my associates think that such a proposition is preposterous. I've noticed that formalism (and provocative titles) in arguments work well to settle disputes, so here it goes.

When people argue that they have a right to healthcare, what they mean is that they believe they possess a legitimate claim to healthcare, that healthcare is due to them. However, healthcare is not a superabundant substance like air; healthcare is a scarce means. All scarce means require, among other things, human labour for their existence. Ergo, healthcare is something that requires human labour for its existence. In other words, human labour is a necessary cause of healthcare.

An effect cannot exist without the co-operation of all of its necessary causes. Healthcare is an effect; therefore, healthcare cannot exist without the co-operation of all of its necessary causes. If x is a necessary cause of y, then y never occurs without x. Human labour is a necessary cause of healthcare; therefore, healthcare never occurs without human labour.

Furthermore, a genuine right to healthcare is something that enables someone to acquire healthcare. Something that enables someone to acquire healthcare is something that enables someone to effectively demand the co-operation of the necessary causes of healthcare; therefore, a genuine right to healthcare is something that enables someone to effectively demand the co-operation of the necessary causes of healthcare.

Human labour is a necessary cause of healthcare. All necessary causes of healthcare are things that those with a genuine right to healthcare can legally and forcibly demand the co-operation of to provide healthcare for themselves as recipients. Thus, human labour is something that those with a genuine right to healthcare can legally and forcibly demand the co-operation of to provide healthcare for themselves as recipients.

If a genuine right to healthcare is something that enables someone to legally and forcibly demand the co-operation of another's human labour, then such a right is something that enables someone to legally impose involuntary servitude upon another or to have involuntary servitude legally imposed upon another, since anything that enables someone to legally and forcibly demand the co-operation of another's human labour is something that enables someone to legally impose involuntary servitude upon another or to have involuntary servitude legally imposed upon another.

To legally and forcibly demand the co-operation of another's human labour is to legally impose involuntary servitude upon another or to have involuntary servitude legally imposed upon another. To legally impose involuntary servitude upon another or to have involuntary servitude legally imposed upon another is to enslave another or to have slavery imposed upon another by law. Thus, to legally and forcibly demand the co-operation of another's human labour is to enslave another or to have slavery imposed upon another by law (provided that the recipient of such force is not a criminal aggressor - if he or she is, then acts of force aimed against him or her like imprisonment or the levying of compensatory fines are not acts of enslavement but acts of coercive justice).

A genuine right to healthcare is something that enables someone to legally and forcibly demand the co-operation of another's human labour. Anything that enables someone to legally and forcibly demand the co-operation of another's human labour is something that enables someone to enslave another or to have slavery imposed upon another by law. Hence, a genuine right to healthcare is something that enables someone to enslave another or to have slavery imposed upon another by law.

Voila!

3 comments:

  1. Extremely well done, Michael. I highly recommend this post to anyone of the many socialists I have been arguing with recently at TrueSlant. Maybe I will just post the link and hope they are curious enough to follow, having said nothing more.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Its my new super formalized approach. Formal arguments make the premises and the conclusions explicit, so there's less room for misunderstanding and its easier to discern the deductive progression.

    ReplyDelete