The Philosophy of Freedom

by Caleb Nelson

  Capitalism leaves everyone, including the poor, free to think, work, and earn as much as they are able. No other social system does this. If someone wants to work their way out of poverty they are free to do so; countless poor people have done so. If they don’t want to, they don’t have to. Many find great fulfillment and satisfaction in life while earning very little, but doing what they love.

  Some would argue that because of racism, sexism, and other discrimination, minorities aren’t truly free to excel. There are very real barriers to success because of discrimination. But what free means in the context of capitalism is that all people are equally protected under the law, and that no one will be able to use force to prevent anyone from succeeding. Education, experience, and exposure will help change cultural values and help make sure everyone acts with justice and decency.

  An individual seeking the charity of others, however, must rely on voluntary charity, in which America excels. In 2010, during a recession and after having their earnings plundered by government, Americans still gave $290.89 billion to charity.

  [390] That was even an increase from the previous year which was also during the recession.

  THE DISABLED

  Capitalism leaves the disabled free to compensate for their disabilities in any way they can. Many disabled individuals use their remaining abilities to support and further their lives. For instance, a deaf person might choose to pursue a career in genetics, maintenance, architecture, or accounting. A blind person could choose to pursue a career in music or psychology. A paraplegic might pursue a career in law, education, computer programming, or writing. And with today’s technology, even a quadriplegic can learn to support himself; he might pursue a career in finance, economics, science, or radio broadcasting.[391]

  Richie Parker was born without arms, but everyday (as of this writing) he drives to work at Hendrick Motorsports, a NASCAR racing organization, where he works as an engineer designing vehicles. To go to work, he opens his car door with his chin and shoulder, starts up the engine by turning the key with his toes, and then at his desk he works a keyboard and mouse with his toes.

  [392] There are many individuals who lead inspirational lives such as this.

  THE HELPLESS

  Very few people fall into this category. Most people are capable and have untapped potential for great accomplishments. Here we are talking about those “who are severely [intellectually disabled], have a totally debilitating disease, or are injured to the extent that they are unable to support themselves by any means.”

  [393] Capitalism leaves every individual free to offer these people as much charity as they are able and willing.

  We may often hear the knee-jerk response, “What if no one voluntarily helps the truly helpless?” (A completely absurd premise.) The free-market and free-conscience response to this is, “If you want to help them, no one will stop you.”

  [394] In a free society, everyone pays their own way and provides for themselves. Anyone unable or unwilling to do so must rely on private charity. Widespread callousness for the plight of the helpless did not exist in early America, does not now, and is possible on a large scale only when people are crushed into poverty and powerlessness by statism.

  We must also examine what it means to be helpless. It means that a person is incapable of creating life-serving values, i.e. taking care of themselves and earning a living. Life-serving values can only be produced by able people. Able people can only produce those values if they are left free to do so—free to act on their own judgment, free from the initiation of force. If the able are not free to live and produce, who then is left to help the helpless? Thus, the survival of the helpless is dependent on the freedom of the able. It is only by the charity of the able that the helpless subsist, and life-serving values must be produced abundantly in order to offer the means of charity.

  Production must come before charity, if only for the reason that there must first be something produced before it can be used or given. Without production there would be nothing to give. Capitalism lets men produce as much as they are able, and give as much as they desire.

  In capitalism, everyone is free to produce as much wealth as they are willing and able, and many people become very rich. Truly self-interested people care about human life and many astonishing acts of charity exist, even in this tax-and-inflation-strapped nation.

  Rational, self-interested individuals most assuredly see the benefit of helping others. They see only two options. They can either help the helpless or not. The self-interested person must ask himself, “Which environment do I think is in my best interest: one in which genuinely helpless people suffer and die in the streets, or one in which I voluntarily contribute some small fraction of my time, effort, or money to give them a hand?”

  [395] If someone thinks that helping others is in their best interest, they are free to act accordingly. If not, no one will force them; and many people do care about helping others. In capitalism, no one would be allowed to stop them.

  IS IT MORAL TO ACCEPT WELFARE?

  The statists often ask the student of capitalism if it isn’t hypocritical to decry widespread, costly, and invasive government programs while at the same time benefiting from scholarships, food stamps, unemployment benefits, Medicare, school vouchers, etc. The student of freedom may often wonder himself if it is indeed moral to do so or not. Is it moral to accept government help and services, or accept a government job or research grant, while at the same time fighting against the immorality of such programs?

  The answer is, “Yes.” However, this answer requires a certain contextual application to be true.

  It is only moral if the recipient actively opposes all forms of welfare statism and regards the benefit (a scholarship, for example) as a restitution of taxes that have been forcibly taken. If you oppose such programs, you may morally accept them; yet, if you support such things and demand them as your entitlement, you may not morally do so.

  The defenders of freedom are not required to accept a “self-inflicted martyrdom” in their fight for individual rights, while their statist adversaries exploit the spoils of legal plunder for themselves.

  The victims of legal plunder do not have to become martyrs and let the looters only distribute the money to those that demand it. Whenever welfare-state laws offer some restitution to their victims, it should be taken.

  Since social security payments and unemployment insurance is taken from us by force, receiving payments of that kind can be considered as receiving back the money that was forcibly taken. Those who support such laws are culpable and often demand them as a right. Those who oppose such laws have a right to get their own money back. The cause of freedom is not helped when its advocates leave their money unclaimed for the welfare state to exploit.

  [396]

  For example, suppose you see the many problems inherent in the government school system and the violation of rights that funding such a system involves. You would like to remove your own child from such a system but are unable to afford a private school. Would it be moral for you to accept a government voucher to help you pay for tuition?

  Yes.

  First, because you are attempting to decrease the amount of educational welfare you receive (from 100% in government schools to a partial percentage via a voucher at a private school). You are moving away from dependency and towards self-sufficiency.

  Second, because you oppose such programs as an immoral intervention of government against the rights of others.

  Third, such a voucher may be considered a restitution of taxes taken from you that you could have used to pay for tuition without assistance.

  Do not let the statists wield an unearned guilt against you.

  It has become nearly impossible and often illegal to function as a free and independent individual. When you advocate for freedom, the statists will sneer and ask why you are not living without the welfare state now. They will say that if freedom were practical, it would be working, ignoring the fact t
hat we live in a mixed economy.

  Warning: Check your beliefs for contradictions or these accusations will be correct. Is it hypocritical for a Tea-Party-like organization or individual to campaign for less spending and smaller government, while also defending the sanctity of its largest entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare? Yes, it is. But, these programs are so ubiquitous that they cannot be cut immediately, and require reform and a phasing-out period.

  Review

  Q1: What would happen to the poor, the disabled, and the helpless in a free society?

  Q2: Is what context is it moral and immoral to accept government subsidies?

  Q3: Why would anyone want to freely help others?

  Chapter 18: Health Care

  There is a difference, often overlooked in conversation, between health care and health insurance. This distinction is important because the access to, or ownership of affordable health insurance, does not guarantee the access to, or quality of actual health care.

  Health care: the actual goods and services related to medical care.

  Health insurance: one way to defer the risk of expensive health care costs.

  Many political leaders today refer to health care as a “moral imperative” or an “ethical obligation” (note the “high ground” they are taking). Senator John McCain said, “It’s a fundamental requirement to give people the chance to have affordable and available health insurance, or the option is to go into a big government program [notice the false dichotomy], such as we have in Canada, in England, and others. Americans right now are without health insurance. They need to get it.”

  [397] Such claims, however, are morally wrong.

  Recall that rights do not consist of any man-made good or service. Health care is not a right; it is a commodity, however needful. It is a contradiction to use force and violate the rights of anyone in order to supply the alleged “rights” of anyone else. The view that government must either mandate or guarantee the “right” to either health care or health insurance is both immoral and impractical. As Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh write in their essay, “Moral Health Care vs. ‘Universal Health Care,’” it violates “the rights of businessmen, doctors, and patients to act on their own judgment—which, in turn, throttles their ability to produce, administer, or purchase the goods and services in question.”

  [398]

  What is the proper role of government regarding health insurance and health care? The only proper role of government consists of protecting the individual rights (life, liberty, property) of people within a nation’s borders. Rights are only violated through force. It is therefore an immoral violation of this role for government to initiate the use of force. Examples of such force are: mandates on employers to provide insurance; mandates on doctors to accept insurance or charge certain rates; mandates on insurance companies to cover certain conditions or individuals; making it illegal to purchase insurance in another state; restrictions on individuals and doctors prescribing what drugs and treatments are approved and “legal”; mandates on individuals or companies to purchase insurance, and so on.

  WASTE AND CORRUPTION

  My (Caleb’s) wife, Chelsea, works in the Insurance and Financial Planning industry, and although she has her Life, Accident and Health Insurance license, she mostly does office assistant work for her boss. One December, her boss came in, handing her a bill for an elderly client who had a Long Term Care policy.

  “What’s this?” she asked, taking the folded pink paper.

  “A bill for Mrs. Miller.”

  She looked it over, “For what?”

  “Don’t know,” he answered, shrugging. “There’s no description or itemized list of services or dates, just the amount they want Mrs. Miller to pay. So give them a call and figure out what Mrs. Miller is supposed to be paying $117/month for since October. Mrs. Miller thinks it’s for her new walker, but that seems expensive for a walker.”

  Chelsea did some pricing research on the cost of walkers, as well as calling the client and getting their take on the walker and the bills. Chelsea also carefully looked the bill over before making a call—sometimes “bills” like this have a disclaimer at the bottom: “Don’t pay this amount; this is just an invoice.” But there was no such disclaimer. This was a legitimate bill. After the research was done, Chelsea calls the 800-number and is able to speak to a “customer service representative.” (You’ll see why that title is in quotes.) Chelsea discovers, after twenty minutes on the phone, that the company is in fact billing Mrs. Miller for the new walker, so Chelsea asks why Mrs. Miller had been billed for the walker twice in October.

  “Mrs. Miller was billed for the setup and installation of the equipment in October,” the representative replies.

  “Set up. Does that mean that someone came to her home and put the walker together?”

  “No, ma’am. It was constructed by the manufacturer and sent to her in one piece. No extra shipping costs incurred.”

  “Does ‘installation’ mean that—I can’t even imagine. What does that mean?”

  “It refers to the start up costs associated with beginning a line of service with us.”

  “So she is charged double in the first month, to have the privilege of being served by your company?”

  “We have to set up her account information and billing.”

  Chelsea laughed a little, “And that costs $117? It must take a very long time to assign an account number and enter a billing address—unless you also enter her medical information?”

  The rep seemed to miss the first part. “No, ma’am we don’t deal with the medical side of things. We just provide the equipment.”

  “All right, then how do I get these other bills for November and December taken care of?”

  The rep seemed genuinely confused, “Mrs. Miller has to pay them. Just send a check—”

  Chelsea interrupted, “But she paid for the walker in October.”

  “Ma’am, Mrs. Miller will be billed monthly for the next thirteen months.”

  “What?”

  “Mrs. Miller will be billed—and be expected to pay—for the next thirteen months until November of next year, if she intends to keep and use the equipment.”

  “Am I missing something? This is a walker, right?”

  “Yes, ma’am.”

  “Is it made of platinum? Does it have a GPS? Walking WiFi?”

  The sarcasm was not lost, and Chelsea heard the dry reply, “No, ma’am.”

  “Then please help me understand how a very basic piece of equipment—a walker with no special bells or whistles—the kind I could pick up down at Walgreens for one payment of $165 to $250 is going to cost my client $1,521!”

  The rep was now pretty short with Chelsea, using a patronizing tone, and Chelsea noticed that the polite “Ma’am’s” stopped altogether. “You’re client won’t actually pay that amount. Medicare will adjust the cost down to $53.22 per month, and that is all your client is responsible for.”

  “First off, that would still make the walker $691.90 to my client, on top of whatever Medicare is paying.”

  “No, Medicare will reimburse her for the cost of the walker. We bill that cost to them.”

  (Raise your hand if this makes sense to you.)

  “You just said that my client was responsible for that amount.”

  “Medicare will reimburse her for the cost of the walker. That’s what I meant: responsible through Medicare, but we bill them. ”

  “Then why is my client receiving and paying these bills for $117, if the cost is supposed to be adjusted and paid by Medicare?”

  “That’s just how we do it.”

  “But Mrs. Miller has paid—personally—for the last three months. Will you send those checks back?”

  “I’ll have to look into it.”

  “Hold on, before you go, I still can’t figure out why the walker should cost this much. I researched it online and, like I said, an identical or even fancier one shouldn’t cost more than $300 at m
ost. So, why, even with the adjustments, is this walker going to cost nearly $700?”

  “You’re client won’t have to pay for it directly.”

  “That’s not what I asked. Why does it cost more than twice what she could pay in a store?”

  “Because that’s what we charge. Medicare is contracted with us and with the company that makes the walkers. They can’t buy them anywhere else or get them from anywhere else or they would get reprimanded and fined.”

  “What if my client just went to the store to get her own walker and asked for reimbursement?”

  “She wouldn’t get it. Medicare is contracted by the government to work with us and no one else for this equipment in her area.” Emphasis was added by the representative, as though waving a “Get Out of Jail Free” card.

  “Wow,” Chelsea muttered into the phone, head in hands, very nearly speechless.

  “Is there anything else I can help you with?”

  Chelsea perked right back up, “Yes, you can refund the money Mrs. Miller paid directly to your company, since you have admitted that Medicare will pay the full amount and it is not her responsibility to do so. Then you can explain to me why this was NEVER explained to my client. Would it have even been noticed if she had kept paying this monthly?”