I am asking for some help with an Objectivist ethics question.

I recently discussed the Obama health plan with a group of very smart liberals and for the first time in awhile was stumped.

First thing to know is that I am a lifelong student of Objectivism and have read and studied about it as much or more than many others.

Here was the question – “You advocate that the only public good that the government should perform is for national defense. I ask you why? And then I ask you why is healthcare different from national defense?”

Leave aside their phrase of “public good” for a moment as it is not germane to the issue.

I answered the first part to their agreement, but had trouble with the second part.

I moved them through the Objectivist view of limited government, the difference between the initiation and retaliation of physical force. I included AR’s theory of government financing using a voluntary court fee or insurance system.

At the end, my liberal friends understood and agreed as follows:

The barring of physical force in society.
The justification of retaliation against those who initiate it.
The justification of granting a government a monopoly on that retaliation.
The proposed method of financing police and armies with the court system.
That citizens would enjoy the benefits of the police and army without cost.
The costs would be borne by those using the court system.

The discussion further described that in the Objectivist view no citizen could opt out of the police and army protection. But could opt out of the court system.

(Am I correct so, far?)

Their remaining question was why would an Objectivist delegate the retaliation of physical force and but not delegate the use of medical providers.

Let’s assume the liberals were willing to pay market salaries, etc to medical provides as well as to the police and army personnel. And that no medicals providers were forced in any way as were no police and army personnel.

And then they asked, in the police and army examples, citizens do not get to pick the individual persons assigned to protect them, why should they be able to pick their medical providers?

My usual rebuttals surround the theme that the government should protect rights (intangibles) and not provide materials items (medical care).

The liberals’ response went like “The police and army protect against physical enemies and health care providers protect against injury and disease enemies. What is the difference?”

In all the prior reading of AR’s non-fiction work and her Lexicon I have not found or understood a strong ethical argument about the limitation of limited government. The general theme I have read is along the lines of “the proper role of government is…”, but not a clear ethical explanation of what proper is and why this is so. (And yes, I do know some objectivist anarchists).

What I have read makes a case for retaliation of force as a limited government requirement, but does not make an ethical case about extending that to other services if all agree.

In other words in an Objectivist view –

“Why can the government provide the police and army and not the medical providers?”

Please assume that for this discussion, no coercion is present. If a group of people gather together and decide to form a government and that government is charged with the monopoly of the retaliation of physical force, could not that government be granted a monopoly on medical services?

I have revisited all the Objectivist material on the subject, but have not found what I need.

I hope I have been clear in this request and I hope some of you have the interest and time to help me.

Thank you.

Cameron Craig
Denver

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/10142/The_Myths_of_Medical_Monopoly_and_Monopsony.html

The connection between your article and the link is that lack of information on pricing is a strong factor in keeping prices higher. The link article provides some empirical evidence for your contention.