Aca en Buenos Aires se ven carteles por todos lados.. "La educación es un derecho", "La salud es un derecho", "Por el derecho a una vivienda digna". De curioso nomás me metí a leer la Declaracion Universal de los Derechos del Hombre... y hasta el artículo 21 viene bastante aceptable, dentro de mi concepción filosófica de que un derecho es una protección contra lo que te pueda hacer el Estado. Pero a partir de ahí empiezan los "entitlements", por ejemplo :
- "right to social security" (art. 22)
- "right to work with just and favorable remuneration" (art. 23)
- "right to leisure and holidays with pay" (art. 24)
- "right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services" (art. 25)
- "right to education" (art. 26)
Y yo me hacía la pregunta obvia... los que lo escribieron, en quien estaban pensando para pagar la cuenta de todo esto ? Nada dice de arremangarse y salir de la pobreza.
La respuesta evidente es, a escala humana, redistribución (wealth spread, como dice Obama) de los que tienen a los que no tienen; y a escala internacional, de los países ricos a los países pobres. El ideal de Cristian y de otros comentaristas que nos deleitaban en este blog hasta hace poco.
Pero todo esto está en contradiccion con el art. 17 ("Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.")
Que hacemos ? Un derecho que sólo puede ser cumplido a expensas de violar otro derecho... La izquierda es terminante en definir las prioridades... mientras haya alguien con hambre no puede haber otro con plata. Casualmente, ellos estarían a cargo de la redistribución (no por nada están en contra de la tenencia de armas, no les gusta la idea de una resistencia al despojo).
Por suerte, mentes mas brillantes que la mía ya han tratado el asunto. Encontré un excelente artículo sobre el tema, con una vision objetivista randiana que hace evidente el problema fundamental de confundir entitlements con derechos. Aca van algunos fragmentos, vayan y leanlo todo.
Right To Health CareAndrew Bissell
[...] The concept of an entitlement to health care has gained widespread support. Article 25 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including … medical care.” Both the Democratic and Republican Party Platforms include language affirming their commitments to maintain “accessible” and “affordable” health care.
First, it is very important not to conflate the right to life with a right to health care. The right to life is central to the Objectivist ethics and politics, and health care is certainly essential to maintaining one’s life. However, as Rand puts it: “A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort.” ("Man’s Rights", The Virtue of Selfishness, pp. 113-114) In this sense, an apt comparison can be drawn to the right of free speech; your right to speak your mind does not create some obligation on the part of others to support that expression, financially or otherwise.
Ayn Rand unmasks the fallacy at the root of the “right to health care” and all other such economic rights: “A single question … would make the issue clear: At whose expense?” ("Man’s Rights", The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 113). Health care doesn’t simply grow on trees; if it is to be made a right for some, the means to provide that right must be confiscated from others.
Health care exists because of the efforts of doctors, nurses, medical technicians, and even the engineers who design and build lifesaving machines. There are really only a few ways, then, that it can be provided. These medical personnel can offer their services as part of a mutual exchange of benefit for benefit, in a system of free, market exchange. Or, they can be forced to provide these services at the point of a gun, as in the movie John Q. Or, the government can arrogate to itself the title of the sole health care provider, funding its operations through forced taxation.
The problems with forcing doctors to treat patients are obvious—first, of course, it requires wanton violation of their rights, and represents government enforcement of the principle that a doctor’s life is not his own, but instead belongs to the state or the community. And no one will want to enter the medical profession when the reward for years of careful schooling and study is not fair remuneration, but rather, patients who feel entitled to one’s efforts, and a government that enslaves the very minds upon which patients’ lives depend. [...]
[...] If a free market in health care is not to be permitted, the only alternative to enslaving—and eventually destroying—the entire range of medical professionals is for the government to take over, i.e. nationalize, the entire health care industry. This has been attempted most thoroughly in Canada where, for cases of serious illness, private insurance and care had to be outlawed to prevent competition with inefficient, slow service at public facilities. Gathering health clinics and hospitals under a government umbrella has the effect of bringing all the efficiency and service of Departments of Motor Vehicles to bear in the provisional of medical care. In Canada, services are paid for not with dollars, but with time—often spanning months—spent waiting in queues for checkups and operations. As P.J. O’Rourke warned, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.”
An alleged “right” to health care, like all other economic rights, imposes positive obligations on the parts of others to fulfill that right, and thereby necessitates the violation of other rights like the right to property. A “right” that is in conflict with other rights represents a contradiction that is resolved not by some crude moral balancing act, but by recognizing that economic rights themselves do not exist.
Muy bueno, Mike, pero te olvidas de uno de los derechos fundamentales.
ReplyDelete