If the nation accepts the invitation, the last natural barrier to government control of individuals will have been crossed, and there will be no sector of life where the interests of individuals in their life plans will take precedence over the power of government. Worse than false, the chestnut is dangerous, for it completely undercuts our understanding of what rights are. Already, health-care costs are used to justify paternalistic measures, from cigarette taxes to laws requiring people to wear seat belts and motorcycle helmets. It is not surprising, then, that all the president's examples of responsibilities calling for coerced compliance called to mind already-disfavored groups in society. Worse still, as a general style of thought, the rationales behind national health-care plans invert the proper relation between rights and social efficiency, and in doing so subvert the sanctity of life.
Individual rights are trumps over social utility.
By giving up social efficiency, we ritualistically and culturally affirm privacy as sacred, just as through a tithe an individual reveals and certifies his deepest religious beliefs. More generally, the social inefficiency required by constitutional rights is the sacrifice society is willing to make to certify as sacred the value of individual human life and choice. The money would have saved more lives in general if it had been donated to immunization programs or to research and development on childhood diseases. But this seemingly irrational expenditure makes perfectly good sense as a ritual that confers sacred value on individual human life. The assessment of the value of people here is assimilated to the same models of thinking by which we evaluate crop subsidies, the efficiency of engines, and the price of beans.