[304065]

This thread has been brewing in my mind for a while, let's see what you guys think. It takes a while but hopefully will be worth it.

Many of the Liberterian types here espouse the view that we should repeal laws that "protect us from ourselves." Helmet laws, laws prohibiting use of Marijuana, etc., are all seen as being unduly restrictive of individual liberty, and any harm they prevent is really harm to the individual, not to society per se.

On its face, that concept doesn't seem that bad. In my world view, anyway, people should be responsible for their actions, and if they end up cracking their head open like an overripe watermelon, that's a cost that is borne individually.

But as they say in Hamlet: Ay, there's the rub. Where indvidual freedom has an external social cost, you open the door to state regulation. Bear with me.

Is it ACCURATE to say that such behavior only harms the individual?

Let's do a simple example. Bruce Cougar hops on his Vincent Black Shadow and smokes the balonies onto the 101 freeway. Unbeknownst to Cougar, motorist Keith Lavender has just returned from an all-night rave at Rawhide and is now doing the drive of shame at the wheel of his Subaru. His brain addled by residual MDMA, Lavender mistakenly enters the freeway via the offramp. Because a helmet clashes with Cougar's wifebeater and Levis, he isn't wearing one when he collides with Lavender who is going THE WRONG WAY at 100mph. Cougar and the bike part company, and the only thing that saves him is the grass-covered median. Because he had no health insurance, the 200 pounds of denim and hamburger that used to be Cougar gets packed off to the County ER.

But here's the trouble: Cougar just became a ward of the state in a permanent vegetative condition. He can no longer work, leaving his old lady and two small children with no visible means of support. His wife could go back to work, but she can't take the kids with her. What money he had is quickly, and I mean, in a week's time, absorbed by our overpriced health care system. Mom and the kids are forced onto AFDC. Tragedy. Destruction.

Should Cougar's desire to exercise personal freedom outweigh the social cost of his actions? His healthcare costs for a sub-acute care facility are running about $1000 per day. Public assistance to keep his family above starvation is costing the taxpayers $379 a month, plus another $80 for food stamps. To say nothing of the intangible destruction to the family that his irresponsibility has wrought.

Now, consider the case of Keith Lavender. (You DID read all the facts above, didn't you?) His consumption of ecstasy is something that only affects him, right? But clearly, it was a factor in the accident. Now let's change the facts. . . Lavender got burned on his first tab of ex, or so he thought, so he buys another one. But the first one was genuine, and so Lavender's body temperature shoots up to 105, leading to permanent brain damage. Self-imposed harm? Yes.

But our benevolent society refuses to simply let Cougar and Lavender die as a result of their exercise of personal liberty. But in the liberterian model, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Where I'm leading with all this is that once you introduce state-funded healthcare, the state has an interest in regulating your personal freedom in order to keep its costs low.

In the insurance world, there's a phenomenon called "Moral Hazard," in which people who have insurance are more likely to engage in risky behavior, knowing their downside is protected. Moral Hazard effects are observable everywhere. And the driver of losses is individual behavior that's "risky." But the fundamental axiom of insurance is, "there are no bad risks . . .only bad premiums." E.g. do whatever you want, but insurance is going to cost you a pretty penny, or you're going to have to self-insure.

We are beginning to realize (here's your point, Nostatic) that obesity is one of the single biggest causes of health problems, either primarily (heart disease) or through comorbidities. Introduce state-funded healthcare that's taxpayer-subsidized, and you have, right away, a couple problems.

1) Since, in our progressive tax system, the responsibility for paying for social entitlements is not borne in relation to consumption or risk, but rather, income level, you have the country's wealthiest 2% paying for health care for 56% of the population. Therefore, people who are obese, smokers, big drinkers, etc., have little incentive to change their behavior on their own- it's like owning a Porsche and paying Buick insurance premiums; and

2) To control its costs, and remember that you can't individually assess each person a different tax in proportion to her health risk, the state has to regulate behavior.

This leads to ENCROACHMENT ON PERSONAL FREEDOM! Guess what, you can't smoke cigarettes anymore, because the cost of lung cancer will burden the healthcare system! Want to pop that '92 Cabernet Sauvignon, forget it, too much risk of Cirrhosis! Skydiving, motor racing, SCUBA, no way, Jasper, too dangerous!

Now, the astute thinkers among us may posit, "It would be too unpopular politically to clamp down on risky behavior," and they may be right.

When you get your drivers license, you "Imply Consent" to the forefeiture of certain of your Constitutional rights, namely, your right against self-incrimination. By accepting the "privilege" of a driver's license, you IMPLY that you will give evidence of your physical person in the form of a breath test or blood sample to Law Enforcement upon their request. You NEVER are forced to, but if you don't, you give up the privilege of driving.

Why not use the same doctrine for socialized health care? Smoke all you want, but if we detect nicotine in your blood, you aren't covered! Want to be covered, gotta lose weight!

It's not that far, from a Constitutional or procedural standpoint, to the limitation of personal freedom, because the cost of providing a universal entitlement is simply TOO GREAT.

Thoughts?

(And don't bother biting at the obvious red herrings out there, that wearing helmets makes you more likely to be a quadraplegic, that drugs aren't harmful, etc. Stay focused on the issue.)