Right to Life, Liberty and Healthcare Too

It is amazing that people who say they care so much about liberty don't want to support a healthcare reform bill. Those right wing conservatives and libertarians who are against it, of course, say it because Obama's plan infringes on their rights. They portray the public plan as "socialism" and as an example of "big government" stepping in inappropriately. A public government plan in an infringement of individual rights, they say.

This is an example of how "liberty" is used indiscriminately to actually infringe on rights. For it is not only possible, but probable, to argue that "health" is a natural right.

I am by no means the first to make such a claim. Cass Sunstein, as one example, has written a good book on the subject (The Second Bill of Rights: Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever). But I want to approach this same topic from another angle. The very notion of what is and is not included in our natural rights is a construction. For the question of why health should not be a natural right that is protected by government, just like my other rights, shows just how flimsy and problematic is the Right Wing's view of natural rights. Indeed, we shall see that it is arguable that "health" should be considered a basic natural right alongside others such as "life, liberty and property."

Without going into the whole history of natural rights, it is fair to say that seventeenth century philosopher John Locke at least represents one of the most credible and influential writers on natural rights. In fact, those who want to see natural rights as a foundation of American society, , often argue that Thomas Jefferson and the American founders endorsed natural rights in general and a Lockean view in particular. I have documented and challenged these contentions in a series of essays (see http://www.freedomandcapitalism.com/) and in a forthcoming book, Jefferson, Natural Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

Lets assume for a moment these writers are right, and that John Locke's understanding of natural rights is a foundation of the American vision. If so, then what are we to make of the fact that Locke includes health as a natural right.

In the Second Treatise on Government, Locke writes in one of his central statements on natural rights:

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipoent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one soverign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during hs, not another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of createures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the life, the liberty, health, limb or goods of another.

Now it is surely interesting that Locke here mentions "health" along with the other basic natural rights in one of his classic definitions of natural rights. Indeed, this is one of Locke's classic justifications for the fact that people have natural rights. We have such rights because we are God's workmanship and as God's property we don't have a right to harm one another. In this passage at least, Locke assumes our natural rights derive from the fact that God made us and we are his property. I can't touch you because you are someone else's property.

Furthermore, we also see here Locke's assumption that my right to life is primary and the other rights like property are secondary and derivative from my right to life. In Locke's own words, one "may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the life, the liberty, health, limb or goods of another." Property is not a right by itself, but a right that derives from my right to life. As Locke says elsewhere, if someone can take my property they can take my life. So my right to property is a fence around my more basic right to life.

We often here the summary of natural rights as "life, liberty and property" (or Jefferson's "happiness"). But note that Locke includes "health" in his list too. Health is on the same level as property in the list of natural rights. My right to health is as primary as my right to property. Noone has the right to impair my health in the same way they have no right to my property. Both are a fence around my more basic right to life.

We see then that my right to health should be protected and this right is as strong as my right to property. But so what? What has this to do with the healthcare debate? Doesn't Locke mean to say only that noone may do something to harm my health? And if so, Locke is merely saying that I can't do something that will harm your health?

In fact, we shall see that Locke is saying something even stronger than this. But lets assume for a moment he is not. Lets assume he is merely saying that noone may do something to harm me or my health. Still this is a very significnat addition to natural rights. For it means that there should be as many laws protecting my health from harm as we recognize for protecting my property. If government has to create many laws to protect my property, it should have the responsibility to create as many laws to protect my health. My property should not be more precious to society than my rights regarding health. One could see here the foundation for government regulating what others do that may infringe on my health. One can see here a justification for anti-smoking laws, for example, or for environmental laws against pollution. Actions of others can harm my health directly and indirectly and that is a violation of my right to health. In other words, if I have a natural right to health, then my health should be protected from the detrimental actions of others. That is a pretty strong endorsement for government getting involved in protecting me from the behavior of others that they may not intend to harm my health but that actually may harm my health.

But there is a reading of Locke that suggests an even stronger obligation to protect the health of the individual. For Locke indicates that if our own preservation is not at risk, that we have a duty to protect the life and health of others. In his words,

"Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the life, the liberty, health, limb or goods of another."

What Locke is saying here is that the same Reason that leads me to conclude that I may protect and preserve myself leads me to understand that I have a positive duty to preserve the rest of mankind. This duty to preserve the rest of mankind can be construed as a positive duty of "care" . As long as my own preservation is not at risk, I have an obligation to help others, not only to protect their lives, but "what tends to the life, the liberty, health, limb or goods of another."

In this reading, Locke is arguing that we have not only a right to be protected but a duty to care and that duty is part of the natural rights obligation. This duty moreover is as self-evident to reason as the protection of our life. What this duty to care suggests is that each person has a duty to do "whatever he can" to preserve the rest of mankind.

Now this language certainly opens up the possibility that individuals have a responsibility to contribute to the health of others. And it opens up the possibility that individuals can transfer this duty to society and execute it through government institutions. After all, Locke sees the beginning of government in the social contract in which individuals turn over to society some of their rights in exchange for some of societies benefits. If an individual has a responsibility to preserve humankind, it stands to reason that government can act as an agent for those responsibilities.

In this way, we can see how it is appropirate for government to see itself as executing the natural right obligation to protect the health of its members. A health care plan that puts some of the onus on government certainly can be aligned with a view of natural rights. To call a health care plan that has government involvement "socialism" indicates a complete lack of understanding of the natural rights tradition.

For those who want to argue that America is founded on natural rights and liberty, they have to contend with the fact that the father of liberty, John Locke, thought health was a central right. And they have to deal with the fact that many that right wingers think Jefferson adopted the Lockean view of rights. If they think American is founded on natural rights, then they have to at least concede that the father of the natural rights tradition included the protection of health in the category of a natural rights.