The Greater Good?

I have coffee with a friend about once a week. He and I have distinctly different views of government. Last week he said, “In a modern, complex society I am willing to give up some individual liberty for the sake of the greater good.” This was said specifically in defense of the healthcare law under review by the Supreme Court, but I think I am being fair when I say he would invoke this premise to justify many of the nobly intentioned programs of the federal government. His statement sent me into a rant (whose uncontrolled and not very principled nature I won’t try to recreate here). Still that rant revealed to me a principle that I describe now. First, think about the premise of his statement: In a modern society the greater good can only be served at the expense of individual liberty. I reject this premise as false and challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise. If the premise is false, then what is the justification for “greater-good” arguments in the case of public policy? At a minimum at the federal level, I believe they should rest on: (a) the constitutional authority to act, (b) an open and truthful costs/benefits analyses, (c) overall affordability, and (d) the consent of the governed. Was the healthcare law subject to such scrutiny? Did the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, not say, “we have to pass this bill in order to see what’s in it.”? In my mind the necessary arguments were not entered into nor were the subsequent justifications adequate. Now imagine that the premise of a statement about serving the greater good were framed this way: In a modern society the greater good can only be served in a manner that increases individual liberty. Also imagine that the Congress tried to write a healthcare law and behaved in accordance with the revised principle. How different the law might be! Certainly the country would not be split in half on the resulting law. Further, I don’t think such a deliberation would have turned into a health insurance law, rather it would have focused on cause of the costs, the rationale for insurance, how to build flexibility and choice into the system, and many other positive efforts to increase the choices of individuals. This might mean that the employer mandate would go away. It might mean that individuals would have to make hard choices about whether or not to have insurance, and what type of insurance to have. A truly dedicated Congress might initiate a national debate on the right to choose the manner of one’s death, and how criminalizing that choice effects health care costs. All sorts of important issues might have been raised and discussed. Instead, we were treated to a President demonizing both insurance companies and opponents who raised concerns about costs. Instead we were treated to the worst possible governance display – passing a monumental bill via budget reconciliation. Time for a change of premises if you ask me.