Slavery or Freedom: The essential principle

 

I   wish to bring to the fore the question that seems to be ignored by everybody else on the healthcare debate: At whose expense? And where , on a constitutional and philosophical level, do you have an obligation to pay for taxes (and I am looking to both the constitution and metaphysics)? Is it simply because the government says you have said obligation (if so, is there a qualificative standard, or is it always what the government says)? How does that obligation (which seems to be a Kantian categorical imperative) not contradict the right to life or property? Rights do not occur halfway or by compromise- you either have the freedom to dispose of your property according to your own judgments, or you do not and the State (or your neighbors, etcetera) have a claim to it.

There is no metaphysical existent between freedom and slavery- either you are free or you are not, either you are chained by obligations you have not freely undertaken (Kant's categorical imperative), or you are not and are free to undertake them or reject them. Morality does not deal with commandments and forced imperatives: it is a code of ethics created through logic and reason, and therefore it cannot feature nor accept imposition through force, nor it cannot concern itself with tactics that result in its forceful imposition. So either we must speak of a free country where you are free to dispose and manage your property, or a captive country where your life and your property are enslaved to the government.
The first is a model that is in synch with the principles under which this country was founded. The second is pretty much the kind of country that the founders escaped from.

The basic moral principle is reduced to this: Using legislative force someone's property (and thus their right to life) to be used not in accordance to the owner's judgment but in accordance to the tenements of a ruling class (whether monarchy, collective, etc) is slavery: it destroys the concept of ownership and property and fundamentally overthrows the concept of right to life.

Finally: The right to life does *not* include the right to healthcare. Healthcare, just like happiness, is something to be pursued- not guaranteed nor given by the government, because it is not a resource that happens without the intervention of individuals but in fact it happens *because* of free individuals. Healthcare is a product that relies on the resources and dedication, work and investment of said individuals, and it is right and moral for them to be able to make a livelihood out of it- otherwise they have no reason to put in the long hours to receive measly payment and to be unable to execute their own judgments but rather obey the tenements of a board of bureaucrats (not unlike how teachers must bend to the government curriculum, the result of that is plain to see).

You cannot demand the fruit of their efforts be given to you and contravene the process by which the producers may receive the just reward for their efforts through exchange any more than if you decide that 'happiness' is tantamount to the Hearst Castle and therefore the government must grant you it without your actually having to buy it.