My last post "Sad day for America" received a lot of comments and although I do not intend on this blog moving more towards American politics, I feel remiss in not sharing articles that succinctly state this bloggers position. Although some may argue about what this has to do with Panama, I think it does for several reasons. Foreigners come to Panama in many cases because the are fed up with their home countries. Not everyone understands this society and the way it functions and that is what this blog is all about, to help you with some insight. My view on the world greatly affects both what I decide to post and how I frame it. You the reader should know this perspective if you are to gain any real value from my drivel. Here is an excellent article from Robert Ringer. I have not read him before, but he clearly tells it like it is from my point of view and may help you to understand just what we are up against in our eternal battle for freedom and the pursuit of happiness.
Linking Compassion with Aggression
Robert Ringer
Millions of people are convinced that the implementation of Congress's new People-Control Bill (a.k.a. as Obamacare) is, of and by itself, the death of liberty in the United States. There's no question that this draconian measure is the most anti-freedom, unconstitutional, immoral piece of legislation ever ''passed'' by Congress, but it would be a mistake to focus on it to the exclusion of everything else.
In truth, Obamacare is just one part of the tyranny wrecking ball that clobbers Americans on a daily basis. What I am referring to is the ''progressive'' notion that elected politicians - not to mention non-elected bureaucrats - have the authority to grant, as well as take away, individual rights.
Two of Ron Paul's ''Six Forgotten Principles of Freedom'' spell it out clearly:
The justification for the existence of government is to protect the liberty of individuals, not to redistribute wealth or pass out special privileges.
People's lives and actions are their own responsibility, not the government's.
In plain terms, people have a natural right to be free to make personal choices about their own lives, their own bodies, and their own property.
This simple truth is commonly referred to as ''Natural Law.'' It can also be thought of as the Law of Nonaggression.
If one believes that it is a violation of an individual's natural right to force him to do something that he does not want to do (e.g., give up any part of his wealth or property to others) or prevent him from doing something that he does want to do (so long his actions do not harm anyone else), then government aggression can never be morally justified. In a society of moral people, the Law of Nonaggression would be the only law that would be needed.
Where confusion comes about - and trouble sets in - is in the progressive's perversion of a trait known as compassion. Compassion is a unique human trait. Contrary to what some animal lovers would like to believe, animals, in the strictest sense of the word, do not have the capacity to be compassionate. Only human beings can feel compassion, and they can feel it for both people and animals. Which, of course, is a good thing. It's why private charity thrives in America, notwithstanding the fact that the government forces individuals to hand over a substantial portion of their earnings to fund immoral government activities. Compassion is about charity, and charity is about each individual giving not according to his ability, but according to his desire - to those whom he deems to be in need and worthy of his charity. CC = compassion and charity. Got it?
The progressive, however, does not get it. He severs the relationship between compassion and charity and instead links compassion with aggression - i.e., the use of force. And while it may seem self-evident that compassion and aggression contradict one another, thanks to the emotion of guilt, this combo is an easy sell even to those who possess a basic belief in individual sovereignty. After all, how can a person not be in favor of taking wealth by force when millions are unemployed ... homeless ... in need of medical treatment ... lacking money for education ... the list is endless, because human desires/needs are endless. But a person would have to be omniscient, not to mention divinely moral, to know which needs of which people are superior to the rights of other individuals to keep what is theirs.
The fact that 35 percent of Americans favor government-run health care is irrelevant. Lots of people want lots of free stuff. That's a given. But to take money by force in order to give them the free stuff they desire is unconstitutional - and, more important, immoral. Since the government does not create wealth of its own, the only way it can ''help'' people - whether it be to give them unemployment benefits, health care, or any other commodity - is to commit aggression against others and simply use force to take the resources it needs.
If we are to steer the U.S.A. Titanic away from the gigantic financial iceberg that lies just ahead, the entire concept of entitlements - of any and all kinds - must be rejected by a majority of Americans. The notion that anyone has a right to anything - other that what others are willing to pay him in a free market - is progressive nonsense. That includes such sacred cows as Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment benefits. Liberty-minded folks must not allow themselves to fall into the compassion trap that results in a tied tongue. I have observed a number of conservatives squirming for an answer when asked if they are not concerned about people with pre-existing conditions that have no health care. Of course they are concerned, as am I and most other people. But the solution is not to destroy our current health-care system and make everyone equally miserable.
If insurance companies are forced to insure people with pre-existing conditions, they will have to raise everyone else's rates dramatically, which is the equivalent of a transfer-of-wealth program. If people refuse to pay those increased rates, their insurance companies will go out of business. Presto: Government achieves full control of health care. On the other hand, if the government prevents insurance companies from raising their rates so they can afford to cover people with pre-existing conditions, those companies will go out of business because they will quickly incur unsustainable losses. Presto: Government achieves full control of health care.
Get the picture?
The solution to medical care for people with pre-existing medical conditions - and people who, for one reason or another, can't afford medical insurance - is private charity. Private charity always works; government coercion never works (except for the politicians who increase their power as a result of it).
The irony is that people who are against Obamacare have argued that one of its worst features is that it cuts Medicare by $500 billion. Yet, Medicare is government-run health care, thus it, too, is both unconstitutional and immoral and is outside of government's restricted powers. (As always, I must add that Medicare should be phased out over a period of decades in order to avoid undue pain to elderly folks who have come to depend on it.)
As time goes on, progressives will increasingly argue that if government is forced out of the health-care business, those who can't afford medical insurance will be left to die. No one wants to see anyone die unnecessarily. But if progressives are as concerned about such people as they claim to be, there should be no problem. After all, in a free society they would be free to lead the way when it comes to contributing time and money to set up and fund private charities to provide for those whom they believe are in need of free health care.
Only a Marxist/communist/progressive would even attempt to concoct a justifiable reason why the use of force is morally superior to charity. The idea that compassion justifies aggression is a perversity that must be exposed for what it is: an excuse for government to increase its power over people. Compassion, on the other hand, leads quite naturally to charity, without government involvement. Nothing whatsoever to get tongue-tied about.
Recent Comments