Why, then, the question?
I ask the question because, increasingly, Americans are answering it in the same way it is answered in all the other countries of the world. The state owns you. And to an ever increasing degree, that is true.
If this sounds far-fetched to you, or if you would simply like an elaboration, I invite you to read this op-ed piece written by Walter Williams.Here is an excerpt:
. . . In a free society, the question of who has the right to harm whom, by permitting rap music and smoking, is answered by the property rights question: Who owns the bar? In a socialistic society, such conflicting harms are resolved through government intimidation and coercion.Do you think that our founders would have turned over their rights of self-determination when it comes to medicine in exchange for a massive federal program which taxes people unequally in order to dole out mediocre benefits to all while taking freedom of choice away from them? Are we really ready to give up our rights for this mess of pottage?
What about the right to harm oneself, such as the potential harm that can come from not wearing a seatbelt. That, too, is a property rights question. If you own yourself, you have the right to take chances with your own life. Some might argue that if you're not wearing a seatbelt and wind up a vegetable, society has to take care of you; therefore, the fascist threat "click it or ticket." Becoming a burden on society is not a problem of liberty and private property. It's a problem of socialism where one person is forced to take care of someone else. That being the case, the government, in the name of reducing health care costs, assumes part ownership of you and as such assumes a right to control many aspects of your life. That Americans have joyfully given up self-ownership is both tragic and sad.
5 comments:
Up till now the right has only been able to resist attacks on our freedom. Health care for instance.
Since the left owns the legislative and executive branches of gov. Currently the only place to put forth an offense is the judiciary.
States like Montana are passing gun laws with the intent to challenge the federal governments use of the Interstate Commerce Clause to continually expand it's power over states rights. It may be a long shot, but taking the fight to a federal government run amok is the patriotic thing to do.
I agree.
I think another avenue involves the 10th amendment and states' rights. I would like to see states start refusing to bow to Washington DC and take Washington DC to court to force them to back off--and the 10th amendment is the key to this. Collectivism would be much easier to beat back on a local level than at the national level. As far as that goes, if Massachusetts, Michigan, and California want to be people's republics with limited liberties and punitive taxation (and bankrupt governments), that's their business. At that point, all the producers can just leave and come to a better-run state.
But I think the assertion of states' rights is key and I may blog about it on the main page soon.
I ask the question because, increasingly, Americans are answering it in the same way it is answered in all the other countries of the world. The state owns you. And to an ever increasing degree, that is true.
We people from the rest of the world have news for you: we can have higher taxes paying for the great benefits of universal health care because WE OWN our governments and DEMAND that they do it. Our governments are FRIGHTENED by our political will in this area. As a result, we're freer than the US, which has been descending into a corporate state for decades now.
It's just really disturbing that the people who argue that the government should not interfere with Business cannot see how Business (and not people) controls government (esp the US government)
I'll not argue with you about how much control big business has on government, OSO. See, for example, the degree to which big corporations are in bed with this administration. GE is practically joined at the hip with them.
I don't suppose it has ever occurred to you, however, that corporations are owned by individuals? We, in America, either directly or indirectly (through pension funds and other means) are stockholders. So, when you say that when big corporate interests are controlling the government, I have to laugh. Corporations are just an entity of the private sector--the people.
As for your idea that a socialist democracy is the handmaiden of the people, I have to laugh about that too. It is the tool, rather, of the aristocracy. It is used to control. The implication that the political class might want to get rid of it but is afraid of the people is a HOWLER!
But what if you are right about the will of the people wanting nationalized health care in your country? I say, so what? You can have it. In fact, you can keep it--over-seas. We don't want mediocre health care over here, we want freedom, as poll after poll has demonstrated. Our political class, however, wants it--not for themselves (oh, no), but for us. They want it so they can have more power.
You may believe that nationalized health care means more power for the people, but you are living in dreamland. It means less freedom for individuals and more power for the ever-encroaching bureaucracy.
OSO makes one good point. Our government is controlled by corporations. The Federal Reserve, a private bank not owned by the government, is granted monopoly privileges in the creation of money and credit. It's main purpose is to violate liberty and property rights. It steals from individuals by devaluing their property (money).
The politicians use the Fed (and central banks in general) to funnel resources out of the private sector, where capital is allocated cooperatively and efficiently, to the government, which allocates capital coercively and politically.
The welfare state which OSO claims makes him free from corporate control is actually the mechanism by which his government enslaves him - ironically, by funneling resources to politically-connected corporations and individuals.
Government-operated health care schemes operate the same way. They are nothing more than huge subsidies for corporations that provide medical services and prescription drugs.
Post a Comment