Insurance and Social Security…Pet Peeves (blog post by gina from Gaia.com)
Steve said in the comments section:
However, as a Libertarian, I do not see my healthcare as a responsibility of the Federal Government, nor do I consider it a “right”.
I don’t necessarily disagree with this on a philosophical level because it’s a rational perspective. However, I disagree with it for reasons of compassion which aren’t precisely rational… although I would add that I believe compassion supports rationality when discussing issues specifically pertinent to the human condition.
When I hear statements like this, I immediately wonder about the background of the person making the statement. I doubt someone who has spent their life in poverty would hold such a belief. It seems to me a belief of convenience that justifies the person’s position in society.
I’m not picking on Steve for maybe he is just being honest about what he believes. We all justify our lives with our beliefs. Even poor people hold beliefs of convenience. My main complaint is the word “responsibility” in his statement which is a moral judgment which implies poor people are to blame for their own lack of healthcare. What I’m judging is the tendency in we humans to judge eachother from an assumed position of moral superiority.
I’ve noticed this kind of moral superiority in many people. It always bugs me. I know people who have lived righteous lives and who feel justified in their moral superiority, but this is in the context of their being middle to upper class people born into a stable and wealthy society. What I think many of these people don’t realize is how many advantages they’ve had in life compared to the average person in the world and particularly compared to those on the bottom of society.
And Steve further commented:
But as for me, I do not look toward any other individual or institution to pay my way. If I get sick and cannot afford my treatments, then all that hope is that I will reach around deep inside myself, find some dignity, and die with it.
This sounds rather convenient. If he was a poor person born with a disability or who got an illness at a young age, he wouldn’t say something like this. This is an example of ideology losing contact with human reality. What is even worse about this statement is that it is one step away from eugenics. Actually, it is eugenics using a passive methodology. Just let the poor and needy die of illness and malnutrition. That way, there is no blood on anyone’s hands.
Could you just imagine all of the sick and dying people crowded around the hospital doors. No one would let them in because they couldn’t pay and yet they’d have no where else to go. It would lead to riots and hospitals would become police fortresses and there’d be a black market of stolen hospital drugs. If the the the chasm between the haves and have nots got too large, walled cities would have to be created and the lower classes would be isolated into ghettoes.
It could end up in some weird kind of Plutocratic Fascism. Any ideology pushed to an extreme (meaning when the ideologues gain control of political power) ends up with some kind of oppressive political system. You can start off with Libertarianism, but where you end up may not look so Libertarian.
This is a rather dark vision that I portrayed based on the extreme views of Steve, but it’s far from preposterous. Many conservatives believe as Steve does. Conservatives at least used to at least pretend to be compassionate, but that has fallen out of favor. Since the Republican party has lost much of it’s power, it’s showing more of it’s ruthless nature. The problem with taking away power from big government is it usually just means instead giving it to big business. Libertarianism sounds like a good ideal, but sadly small governments seem to be no longer a possibility in the present globalized world. There will always be some big dog in power, but the best we can do is try to keep it on a short leash. If you ask me, a big business fascism wouldn’t be a pleasant world to live in unless you were one of the small percentage of wealthy elite. Then again, Socialism taken to its extremes can also lead to some equally dark ends. Maybe it’s better to keep all of the big dogs around so that they’ll fight with eachother. Just tie them to the same leash that way when they try to go in opposite directions they won’t actually get anywhere.
But that is just me being cynical. I just get tired of ideologies no matter what they are. Why is it so difficult to create a socio-political system that actually encourages people to care about and help eachother? Is our only choice simply to try to curtail people’s selfishness by making laws and hoping that social darwinism will somehow lead to a greater good?