The Two Sides

One side argues that it has the right, say, to smoke cigarettes anywhere it wants. Or to pollute as much as it wants. Or to exploit others as much as it can get away with. And so forth. The other side argues that second-hand smoke limits the rights of the first side--one right is harming another right: here, the right to survive or the right to be healthy. And any moral system that has any meaning would have to say that the second side is the correct one. Yet who wants to inhabit a world in which every action is under surveillance, every gesture judged and weighed and found wanting? The current "debate" over health care reflects these two sides. One side wants to gamble--why should someone be forced to get health insurance? The other side says that, ultimately, others must then pay for the health care the first side refused to get. I say: gamble away. But if you need health care and you can't afford it, then you must pay the consequences. Ambulances and hospitals must refuse those who lack the moral imagination to see that their irresponsible actions still exploit others. You don't agree that the government funds Medicare? OK. But you can't have Medicare unless you do. And you have to acknowledge it beforehand--not in an emergency. Let's actually live according to the social Darwinist rules of the right.