Being a physician certainly does not qualify me as an expert in social policy. But neither does it disqualify me from entering the debate. We (including you) should all be open to new ideas, or new perspectives on old ideas, without attacking their source (which is the informal fallacy of ad hominem – attacking the person and not the argument).

You wrote: “You wouldn’t be nearly so wealthy if the government let just anybody practice medicine.” I agree that the government should not control the practice of medicine, including licensing.

You wrote “See what he’s doing there? Socialists think health care is a right, ergo anyone who thinks health care is a right is probably a socialist.”

Your ‘insight’ is off the mark. My reason for linking these two concepts is that it is logical that a socialist would consider health care to be a right, and so that furthers my arguments regarding the implications of these ideas. This is a formal logic problem for you, perhaps some Venn diagrams would help: Socialists like cupcakes. John likes cupcakes. Does it follow that John is a socialist? Your error is one of ‘affirming the consequent’. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

I didn’t actually define socialism in my piece, but implicitly it would be defined as those who would attempt to equalize wealth among all adults (in this case, everyone in a nation). That’s hardly watered down, but you don’t have to use the word socialism if you don’t like it. While I did not intend to use socialism as a pejorative, you can simply substitute ‘redistributionist’ into the essay.

You also said “Dr. Alway’s discourse on economics and policy is about as sophisticated as you might find in the freshman boys’ dorm of a very conservative, not-very-selective private university…” Interesting. Some might consider it cowardly to diminish an argument without actually taking it on. But giving you the benefit of doubt, the essay you read was a markedly pared down version of a 2,500 word essay. Kevin, of Kevin MD, said he couldn’t publish anything over 1,000 words.

Perhaps, though, you should appreciate what I’ve done in a different context. My essay is an attempt to get inside the reasonable heads of people who do, in fact, believe these things and to come up with some ‘in principle’ truths. Einstein, Aristotle, Plato, and Newton were engaged in the same process. Of course, the conclusions I arrived at are informed by my view of history, governments, markets, capitalism, etc.. – they certainly do not stand alone. But I think that taking ideas seriously, even ones that I ultimately conclude are bad ideas, is important. I do not believe ‘redistributionists’ are purposefully evil – rather, I think they are mistaken. Looking at some implications of their ideas might help them to understand this.

You also reference slaves in your response, thinking it too strong a word. I agree that it is a strong word. The idea I am getting at is a loss of freedom and property imposed by a government. I am pitting the freedom of the individual against the control of the state. How much loss of property (say, in the form of taxes) and freedom is enough for you to be able to use the word slavery? That is for you to decide. If I decide to devote many years of my life to medicine including training, late hours, and the never-ending process of keeping up in my field – then have that field taken over by autocrats, limiting my freedom to practice medicine as I see fit, then a distinct loss of freedom has occurred – for myself and my patients. If I have to leave the field, then all of my work and devotion will have essentially been stolen from me.

Your chronic illness is not a form of slavery, in that it is not imposed by another person on you (I’m assuming). I truly wish for great advances in medicine to combat all forms of illness. The goal of improved health for everyone is a shared goal – we just have different views on how this can be accomplished.

I think you are confusing a respect for ideas, a commitment to truth and fidelity to the concepts underlying language, with humor.

And to Mr. Small – you’re feeble attempt at humor failed.

C. Jeff – thanks for your comments, and welcome to DuncanCross.net! I’ve actually been blogging on these issues for more than a year; let me direct you to the search box on the left, which I think will answer all of your questions. For example, try “socialism” and you will get several results which ought to illuminate my views. You can do the same for “economics”, “slavery”, “rights” – just about any other term that isn’t adequately fleshed out in this post has been discussed at length elsewhere on the blog.

I certainly understand from reading above that you are very angry. And I understand that you think Dr. Alway is pretty much an idiot. But beyond that, I don’t really understand much else.

Maybe you can interrupt your ranting about Dr. Always just long enough to tell us exactly how you define socialism and to explain how using government force to requiring one segment of the population to pay for the medical services of another does not qualify as socialism under your definition (at least I think that’s what you are trying to say). If the altruistic and egalitarian philosophy of socialism is not the justification for giving “rights’ to some person or group while requiring that they be produces and/or paid for by others, could you please explain what principles justify this type of social arrangement.

I understand that you think Dr. Alway does not make a very good presentation of economics. Would it be possible for you to briefly outline your economic theory so that we readers could all have a better context for understanding the points you are making. I’m not asking for any detailed theory, just a brief overview of how you see economics operating successfully in a complex society and what the guiding goals are for that economic activity.

I was also confused by your discussion of slavery. I understand that in your view, regardless of how much regulation and authority the government exerts over a profession or industry, so long as any participant can abandon their livelihood, possibly forsaking a huge investment of time and money in training, then it is unreasonable to categorize the arrangement as slavery. Okay. If we do not use that term, could you please explain your views on this issue. Do you see any limits on the power of the government to encroach on the lives of its citizens? Do the citizens have any guaranteed rights that may not be violated? If so, could you please explain what those rights are and how they are manifest in action?

I was confused by your piece, because these were the issues that Dr. Alway seemed to be addressing, and I could not really understand where you stood regarding them. If you could please take some time to present your thoughts on these points, I think it would make your disagreements with Dr. Alway much clearer.

Thanks.
–
C. Jeffery Small