Healthcare is broadly a service and thus what hospitals, GP surgeries, etc. produce in the economy.
The NHS is a socialised system based on socialist ideas and indeed can be seen as a socialist construct within a capitalist overall economy. Nothing inherently wrong with that, that's just objectively the way it is. Bevan just said it the way it is.
Now, the military and police are regalian functions of the state. The government and regalian functions cannot really be labelled 'socialist', that would make much sense.
The etymology of the term indeed comes from the prerogatives of the sovereign.
"Regalian functions of the state" is a common term that means the basic powers of the state (monarchy or not) that used to be the prerogative of the sovereign. I.e. law & order, military, and taxation. You could also call these "inherent powers of the state".
> "Regalian functions of the state" is a common term
It's really not; I mean, I've got a poli sci degree so I've seen it, but it's not really a common term.
> that means the basic powers of the state (monarchy or not) that used to be the prerogative of the sovereign. I.e. law & order, military, and taxation.
The pre-modern-limited-governnent prerogatives of sovereigns were much broader than law enforcement, defense, and taxation. And, in fact, the principle thing denoted by regalian power is the fundamentally ownership of all land which is superior to all private title, which is the root of all the other (essentially unlimited) powers associated with sovereignty, in a “my house, my rules” kind of way.
The term “regalian functions”, though, is most often used to refer to the three functions Adam Smith identified as essential to the sovereign in The Wealth of Nations, which are still much broader than what you suggest:
“The first duty of the sovereign, that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies, can be performed only by means of a military force.” [0]
“The second duty of the sovereign, that of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice, requires two very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society.” [1]
“The third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth, is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual, or small number of individuals; and which it, therefore, cannot be expected that any individual, or small number of individuals, should erect or maintain.” [2]
> Hence military is definetly in a different category than healthcare.
This is true, not in the sense of not being subsumed within “regalian functions”, but in the sense that the military is the first regalian function identified by Smith while healthcare delivery systems that broadly and effectively serve the whole population are in the third.
> while healthcare delivery systems that broadly and effectively serve the whole population are in the third.
That's your interpretation but that's really a political view, and indeed the definition of that third duty is highly subjective. As I wrote in another comment, the line must be drawn somewhere.
Note that my point wasn't to discuss regalian functions in general but to counter the argument that calling the British NHS 'socialist' was like calling the police or the army 'socialist'.
(Btw, I heard the term "regalian functions" in secondary school/high school...)
> That's your interpretation but that's really a political view
Smith's concept of regalian functions is just as much a “political view”.
> and indeed the definition of that third duty is highly subjective.
So are the definition of what particular actions of sovereign are within the boundary of the what is essential within the other two (and all three expressly vary by context, including available physical and social technologies, as perusal of the relevant parts of the Wealth of Nations makes clear.)
> Note that my point wasn't to discuss regalian functions in general but to counter the argument that calling the British NHS 'socialist' was like calling the police or the army 'socialist'.
Which the reference to regalian functions fails to do: all fall within the broad ambit of what could be considered those functions, and whether the dpecifics of either do is debatable, and, in any case, whether or not a function is within the scope of regalian functions is irrelevant to whether or not it is socialist.
The military is a regalian function (and arguably its first function is to defend the state, not the citizens...), while healthcare is not usually considered a regalian function.
The line must be drawn somewhere.
You can imagine healthcare being provided fully by the private sector without state intervention (how that works for the poor is another issue) but the military has to be controlled by the state even if in fine the state hires mercenaries.
The NHS is a socialised system based on socialist ideas and indeed can be seen as a socialist construct within a capitalist overall economy. Nothing inherently wrong with that, that's just objectively the way it is. Bevan just said it the way it is.
Now, the military and police are regalian functions of the state. The government and regalian functions cannot really be labelled 'socialist', that would make much sense.