AOC Is Wrong Again

In some of my previous writings and podcasts I have covered the concept of natural rights.  Defining natural rights is something that has been debated for centuries. The basis for identifying what constitutes natural rights here in America largely rests in the work of John Locke; the Scottish philosopher of the 17th Century. Locke famously wrote that natural rights were those such as; "life, liberty and property." While there has been debate over Locke's influence on the Founding Fathers and many modern day political theorist challenge his concept of "the social contract theory", there is much that can be gained form building on his ideas.

Coming to a consensus on defining natural rights is important in determining what, if anything, people are entitled to in life. If we take Locke's three concepts of life, liberty and property (or pursuit of happiness) and define those as things we are naturally entitled to, everything else we gain is through economic activity. As Adam Smith theorized, economic activity is driven by selfish motives (not bad by the way) and guided by "an invisible hand." By this, we mean people voluntarily interact with each other; trading time, labor and money without coercion. 

So why this discussion about natural rights and economic theory? Well, as we approach the 2020 presidential election and the Democrats continue to hold debates the American people will continue to hear more and more about items that are "rights", healthcare being chief among these. Seemingly not a day goes by without a tweet being fired off by the likes of Senator Sanders or Representative Ocasio-Cortez claiming that certain healthcare services are rights. In fact, Cortez just this weekend provided us with this gem:

 This is right out of the democrat playbook:

1. Call a product that does not naturally exist, a right
2. Demonize businesses by identifying them as greedy
3. Play on emotion of the people

Let's clear up a couple of things the Congresswoman appears to be confused about. 

First, insulin as a product, is not a right. No one has a right to it, because it does not exist naturally.  Someone (the billionaire type she bashes) has taken the absolutely insane risk of organizing the factors of production to create the product. Does it help save lives? Yes. Does this mean Lilly or other manufactures have a moral obligation to provide it? No. How should prices be determined? By a government panel? Of course this is insane. Lilly and others would almost certainly cease production, or at the least cut production to the point that very few would have access to it at all.

Obviously in this case she is referencing the CEO of Whole Foods for cutting benefits. However, the same principle applies. The employment of a person at Whole Foods is completely voluntary. If someone were forcing another person to work there, it would be slavery and that is illegal. At any time if someone is not happy with their compensation package, they are free to leave and work somewhere else. So either way you look at it, there is not a natural claim to these benefits or products.

Cortez goes on to bash the business leader further by claiming this activity is "dehumanizing." Again, what could be more dehumanizing than enslaving another person, which is clearly not the case when a business leader employees another person. Providing jobs to citizens betters everyone involved. How do I know this to be true? Because again, like we defined earlier, the agreement is mutual and at any time the agreement can be ended by either party. If the CEO of Whole Foods makes this move and the employment market reacts by seeing scores of workers leave, then they (Whole Foods) executives will need to reconsider their position. But when you view employment (and the terms of employment) as non-negotiable by the company and employee, it is no wonder you view this as unjust.

Finally, Cortez uses what is probably the most worn out tactic in these debates; emotion. Using emotion to whip up the masses is a tradition unlike any other by politicians. The problem with this strategy is that it is not based in logic and truth. As we discussed above, simply claiming things are something does make it true. You can say healthcare is a right, or business leaders are dehumanizing all you want, it doesn't mean you are right. This is simply a way to get sound bites and get people angry. We must be smarter to read beyond the rhetoric of trying to score votes and understand the fundamentals of the argument.

I understand why people are worked up over this topic. I am not claiming the healthcare industry is not in need of reform. There are fundamental problems, by the way mostly created by government regulation and bureaucracy. This is a topic that is personal to me. As someone that has had over 12 surgeries in my lifetime, I appreciate what modern medicine has provided to me to improve my quality of life, but at no time have I ever felt entitled to receive the benefits of others hard work; it is a privilege not a right.