They will not say that society has the right not to treat the drug addict who is in need of hospitalization because of his addiction. They will say that he must be treated, humanity requires it. They will even find a court which will rule that the Constitution compels it.
So the liberal sets up an obligation in society to pay welfare, unemployment compensation, Medicare, Social Security, food stamps, and then seeks to limit individual liberty because the costs run out of control.
How much better it would be if the addict were permitted to indulge his addiction at low-cost presumably without the need to hit me over the head take my wallet to buy his fix. How much better it would be if he were sick from overdose to obtain treatment only if he has secured insurance.
If we cannot have both-and it looks like we can have neither- it would be a difficult choice to determine which of the two we would take if we could only have one. The question is, does the corruption and social dislocation costs caused by making drugs illegal exceed the cost of treating uninsured addicts?
Probably.
But if the liberals ultimately succeed in using the uninsured addict as a lever to require universal healthcare supported by universal taxation, that would probably cost more. It is an open question, which one forfeits more of our liberty?
