Redistribution: Wealth and Responsibility

I blogged a couple of days ago about redistribution of wealth, and then I read this post at Pursuing Holiness that discusses responsibility.

Putting the two together it occurred to me that both are cases of redistribution–one of responsibility and the other of money.

In censorship, we take the responsibility for choosing away from the individual and we give it to someone else, thus reducing their choices. They don’t have the opportunity to do the wrong thing, or at least the thing we have defined as wrong, and they have one less choice.

We don’t have little green pieces of paper marked in “responsibilities,” but the change occurs just the same.

The two are very directly connected. Consider medical payments, for example. When more of my medical bills are paid for by someone else, I have less choices regarding my care, and even how I care for myself. I recall when I was in the Air Force, I had to work with the flight surgeons on my health. I couldn’t just say, “No, I’m not going to do that” when given orders by the doctor.

We don’t move that directly in the civilian world, but we do already see the signs in our handling of smoking. People who don’t smoke ask a very valid question. Why should we pay more for health care in order to support the bad habit of people who do? The answer? Reduce or eliminate their ability to make that bad choice.

If I were less concerned about individual freedom or responsibility, that one would go over well for me. I don’t smoke, and I never have. But wait a second! I’m overweight. No matter how much I may want to criticize smokers for risking their health, I have done the same thing in a different way. (I’m finally working diligently on this, by the way, nearly 20 years after I left the service and started to let myself slip, but that doesn’t change the basic point.)

When we talk about those over-the-top politicians who want to restrict what McDonalds should sell, we need to remember the basic arguments that are used to restrict smoking. They’re going to apply.

I’m not advocating a complete elimination of government payment. In fact, I’m pretty sure we’re going to end up with near universal health care in this country, and as a result we’re going to face interference with our lifestyles. I still think we need to look that way, hopefully with a multiple payer system rather than a single payer government program, and do so soon, since the longer we wait the more radical the solution is going to be. The basic reason is that, however much we pay lip service to individual responsibility, we ultimately don’t want to let people bleed to death for want of health care.

But we need to look very carefully at what we’re giving away and what we’re getting. Count the cost. Despite political promises, none of this stuff comes without a cost.