Join the new world

After a short hiatus, Canadian Liberty Magazine is back to explore the difference between voluntary agreements, and coercion backed by force. I will look at this in light of the pending Q4 hospital that will soon be built in Canada. The title of this article comes from a line in The Godfather.

This week was an exciting one for citizens in eCanada. Thanks to a generous donation by TaiwanPanda, a Q4 hospital will soon be built and placed somewhere in Canada. While the debate rages over the yet-to-be-determined location of the hospital, the freedom-minded citizen cannot help but see this as a huge victory for voluntaryism (and a subsequent huge defeat for those the "coercion backed by force" crowd, ie the statist). It is mind-boggling to me that some have criticized this free gift, citing the obvious differences between a Q4 and a Q5 hospital. While the differences are palpable, the most important thing to remember in this situation is that no one has been forced to fund it, and no one will be forced to use it.

Herein lies the difference between a freely entered into agreement, and a State-sponsored "service". TaiwanPanda decided with his own mind that he wanted to provide a Q4 hospital. There was no gun pointed at his head, he was not forced to do this, and he receives no financial gain from building it (a bug, not a feature of eRep, imo). A single individual, TaiwanPanda, chose to do this. It is a testament to what the free-minded and free-willed person can achieve.

In contrast, when the state has the monopoly on health services, the individual loses choice and at the same time is forced to fund a service he may not even elect to use. Taxes are extracted from the individual (or business) and used to fund all sorts of projects (in eCanada, war is Chief among them). A person who does not wish to use the state-run hospital has no other choice but to fund it via taxes. In this way, the state becomes like Vito Corleone, providing citizens with services they cannot refuse. At least with the Corleone crime family, the gun is visible and acknowledged. With the state, the violence is more hidden, yet still implied.

Another clear benefit to voluntary acts of charity and trade is that it eliminates argument amongst those who receive the benefit. This is because the cost of supplying the good or service (in this case, a Q4 hospital), is removed from the taxpayer completely. Taxpayers cannot say it was a waste, and they cannot complain where the hospital gets built. In a state-run hospital, taxpayers have every right to voice their concerns. It is perfectly valid to criticize the use of funds to build a Q4, when a Q5 provides considerably more wellness. This produces a sort of "cannibal pot" ethic amongst citizens. And naturally so: when the government removes your wealth and collects it in a pot to fund all sorts of projects, you want to reach in and grab some of that stew for yourself. It is a logical result of statist policy. The government then caters to those needs which are voiced the loudest (or which donate the most at the Party Convention), rather than supply services based on market realities.

I know we've beaten this dead horse or private vs public health care a lot lately, so I won't keep repeating the same old refrain (though perhaps it is a little too late now). Sufficed to say that force was not required to make TaiwanPanda fund this hospital.

Violence was not required either.

Nor was coercion.

All that was required was the mind of a man to recognize a market and supply the needed service. It's perfectly sensible. And perfectly free. May this act continue to be a rallying cry for voluntaryism and freedom.

Thank you all once again for reading this edition of Canadian Liberty Magazine.