Summary of 7 December 2000 meeting of the Hong Kong Philosophy Cafe
(Kowloon Branch)

Does Compulsory Insurance Violate Human Rights?

Introduced by Simon Patkin
Moderated by Steve Palmquist

Simon introduced the topic by reading through the handout he had prepared (a link to the entire text of his handout will be given on the version of this summary posted to the HKPC web site), and supplementing it in various ways. He explained that the material was based on Ayn Rand's books, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and The Virtues of Selfishness.

Steve began the discussion by opining that the jump made at the end of the handout seems unjustified and asking Simon to explain how he arrived at the concluding tautology. Simon responded that Part I establishes that compulsory insurance always violates rights, so the tautology is merely a restatement of the question, indicating that a "yes" answer must be given.

Jame asked what the role of government is or should be in all of this. Simon replied that it is not the government's job to initiate programs that force people to behave in one way or another; rather, the government should defend the people against those who wish to initiate such force on others.

Julian pointed out that, without compulsory insurance, government run hospitals would end up being paid for by the public anyway, so on this view people's rights would still end up being violated. Tom clarified that the point is that nobody should be compelled to make contributions towards such government programs. And Simon added that to do so violates people's property rights.

Edmund asked whether compulsory taxation would then also have to be viewed as violating human rights. Simon affirmed this view, suggesting that taxation ought to be voluntary. But Daniel questioned the efficiency of such an approach, arguing that a rational and systematically planned way of dealing with such issues is likely to work better than one that is haphazard. Jame likewise noted that transaction costs are higher for charities than for government, adding that the former approach would be quite troublesome, since it would require each person to select appropriate charities on their own. Simon replied that such a position requires an assumption that it is sometimes acceptable to violate human rights, which he does not accept. But Daniel disagreed, appealing to Locke's definition of property rights.

Steve asked whether Daniel is correct to associate this issue with property rights. He asked: What if society is doing something that ends in a person dying? Simon said he is appealing to a narrower conception of rights--in particular, each individual's right to life. There followed brief exchanges between Rose and Tom on the analogy of choosing the food someone else is going to eat and between Jame and Tom on the relative merits of the investment strategies for the MPF (Mandatory Provenance Fund) in Hong Kong and a more traditional welfare system.

Steve brought the discussion back to more purely philosophical issues by attempting to clarify and restate Simon's basic argument. This led Simon to emphasize that insurance violates human rights only when it is compulsory, because this entails losing the right to choose how to use the property we own. Daniel claimed that on this basis the MPF is not a violation of human rights because you can always leave Hong Kong if you do not like it. Edmund agreed, observing that by staying here a person is implicitly giving their consent to follow the rules of the government. Steve noted that the passport controls we must all go through whenever we travel internationally are of a similar nature.

Steve then asked whether there is anything compulsory that does not violate human rights. Simon seemed to give an affirmative answer, but without elaborating. Graham argued that belonging to society requires surrendering part of our rights, due to the way organizational structures function. The MPF is not substantially different from any other democratic violations of human rights, so it shouldn't be singled out or viewed as inappropriate in itself. Rose asked whether this is a feature only of democratic governments, or whether it applies to all organizational structures. Graham affirmed the latter.

Tom questioned whether it is really necessary for individuals to give up their minds in order to live in society. Daniel replied that we wouldn't even have a mind if we didn't live in a society. We do not first exist as individuals, then come into relation to a society; rather, it's the other way around. Jame added that to use our mind, we must be educated; a baby comes from two people, and this (trio) is the basic form of educational unit. Parents must make certain sacrifices in order to bring up their children. Society does the same thing "writ large". Jame pointed out that this process does not always automatically succeed in
maximizing people's happiness. Tom added that participating in society should not be viewed as a sacrifice, but as a choice. Again, Daniel warned that we are not born rational, but we become rational through our participation in a society. We become choosing individuals only through the nurture of a social context.

Simon then cited the marriage contract as an example of a free choice that is also a sacrifice. There followed a discussion of various related issues. Daniel, for example, stressed that falling in love is more than just finding someone who matches a desired list of characteristics; trust is an essential characteristic of personal relations. And Jame pointed out that people must produce children otherwise the society will cease to exist. Steve drew attention to the similarity between society's right to have children and the individual's right to life. Tom responded that this does not give society the right to force certain individuals to have children.

Returning to the main topic, Jame portrayed the MPF as an imperfect solution to a real problem, suggesting it is better than many other options, including doing nothing. Viewing it along the latter lines, Daniel questioned Simon's position by asking whether leaving someone to die in the streets is a violation of human rights. Tom claimed it is not. Daniel disagreed, arguing that we need to have a government system in place that we can agree with most of the time. Simon asked whether a Communist state would do, to which Daniel answered negatively, on the grounds that totalitarianism does not involve a genuine social contract. By contrast, he added, most people in Hong Kong would prefer to live here than anywhere else. Simon retorted that society's agreement on an issue does not necessarily make it right.

After a short break, Steve suggested a distinction between freedoms (i.e., ability to choose) and rights (i.e., limitations on choice), noting that many people confuse the latter with the former, not realizing that the more rights a society gives people, the *less* freedom they will enjoy. Tom claimed that most people will naturally respect other people's freedoms without being forced to do so. Steve asked: What is the proper response when this does not happen naturally, when individuals intentionally disrespect others? When should government intervene? Tom replied that it depends on how the situation relates to a
person's human rights. For example, if a person acts without properly considering how his or her action will affect others, this is wrong and some intervention may be necessary. Daniel said Tom seemed to be alluding to Kant's Categorical Imperative, but Tom denied this. In any case, Steve continued: What is the best way to convince people that most people will cooperate most of the time? Tom answered that the best way is to do what we're doing right now: philosophy.

Daniel asked why taxation is not a good example of a rational means of insuring that everyone respects each other. Tom answered: because it is forced. Jame called attention to a problem of scale: we can succeed in treating everyone with respect during our philosophy cafe discussions, but with a huge group of people, a mechanism becomes necessary, otherwise it just won't work. Steve partially agreed, adding that Kant viewed democracy not as an absolute or ultimately good political system,
but rather as the best mechanism for promoting a transition from a society in which people do not always respect each other to one where mutual respect becomes the norm. When society develops to the point where the latter is firmly imbedded in our interactions, then democracy itself can be set aside and a less "rights-based" system, one that allows more genuine freedom, can grow in its place. Simon suggested an alternative solution to these problems: read Ayn Rand.

Edmund asked for a definition of property rights. Do they only come from the society? Tom agreed that we need a way to identify them. Simon argued that trade--i.e., the exchange of value--is the key, because it favors those with higher ability. Edmund asked whether community ownership is also permissible, but Simon claimed it too violates human rights. Graham stated that in that case any government would necessarily violate some human rights.

Daniel argued that Simon is begging the question. We need the government for efficiency. We would rationally choose a taxed, trusting state over a society with no government whatsoever, where mistrust abounded. He summarized some of John Rawls' arguments, based on our ignorance of the future. After relating a story about a high school teacher of his, who used to say that insurance is inherently irrational ("it's like making a bet and hoping you lose"), Steve suggested that a good principle would
be: government should not ask us to act irrationally.

Edmund agreed with the use of taxation to support welfare programs for the poor, because here the government is compelling us to care for other people; but he disagreed with programs that compel us to care for ourselves, as in the case of the MPF. If we are capable of taking care of ourselves, then the choice of how to do it should be left up to us. Rose pointed out that when we grow old, we might come to the point where we are in need of welfare, due to poor planning, etc. Steve defended the
consistency of Edmund's position, noting that he is willing to help pay for a welfare program, but does not want to be forced to save himself from becoming poor. If it were to come about that he later becomes poor, he will have paid his due. People will save without the MPF; with it, they will end up saving less. Jame, by contrast, opined that welfare is a relatively inefficient system and violates human rights even more than the MPF does. The latter, he explained, has been designed to diffuse a
demographic time bomb. Simon concluded the discussion by responding to Jame's efficiency argument, claiming that people do not have a right to social security and that the MPF therefore violates our property rights and is immoral.

++++

The following topics were suggested for the January 2001 meeting:

- Equality vs. fairness
- Reason and emotion or Is reason the slave of the passions?
- What is reason?
- How do you make people trust?

After some discussion, we decided to revise the latter topic to "When should we trust?" Rose will introduce the topic and Daniel will moderate.

Posted with permission of the author. 1997 - 2001 Hi-Tech Development Co., Ltd.  All rights reserved.