Originally Posted by trumptman
JUSTICE KENNEDY: But the reason, the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that's generally the rule.
The court is discussing and may decide whether you are your brother's keeper. People can make fun of Ayn Rand but damn is she prophetic.
I think most people want to help others and most would certainly help the proverbial blind man stepping into traffic.
I think the critical issue here is the compulsion*.
The question that arises here is what does society and liberty look like under a regime of compelling this behavior. Is it the morally right thing to do? It is the morally healthy thing to do? What does that society look like long term.
There are certain counter-intuitive things that ought to be considered in this debate:
1a. Despite lack of central
(i.e., government) planning tons of things happen with great consistency, success and even precision.
1b. Whenever and wherever central
(i.e., government) planning is implemented it leads to terrible shortages, inefficiencies and failures.
2a. Despite government mandated Samaritanism, people get taken care of, usually very well.
2b. Government mandated Samaritanism is very likely to lead to less
morality in society, not more.
3a. Greater personal, political and economic liberty tends to lead to greater order and stability.
3b. Greater control and restriction of personal, political and economic freedom tends to lead to greater chaos and instability.
Obamacare (among other initiatives) shoots for the trifecta of 1b, 2b and 3b.
Unfortunately those who advocate 1b, 2b and 3b sort of have the positive language and short-term
effects on their side. Word like "planning", "control" and "helping others" all seem to be positive words...and they are
. But in the context we're speaking of they are double-edged (s)words.
*What's especially ironic about this compulsion is that advocacy for it typically comes from our leftist friends who, for a long time now, have been telling us that we can't legislate morality.