I sometimes wonder if anyone has ever really sat back and thought about the morality of the Health Care bill or the entire concept of government services? Of course they have, I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of people blogging about this stuff every day, so I'm sure I'm not going to be talking about anything new. Thinking out loud about this will help me understand all of this a little better myself, I'm sure.
Is it right for the government to take from one and give to another without the direct consent of the one being taken from? (h/t Mr. Sowell) Of course it is not. If I see a person who is hungry and cold in the street, perhaps I'll give them some money to buy a coat and have a hearty dinner (assuming of course that is what they spend the money on...) That is a moral act. It may make me feel good, and this individual will have their needs met at least for a little while longer. The morality ends when I take food from a street-side vendor to give to this person in need and then take a coat from another who looks like they don't need it. We have just crossed the line from charity to theft.
Simply because a representative government decides I have enough money, that I have enough material goods, and that I have a moral obligation to give of my time, my money, and my property does not make what they are doing moral. It may be legal, I may or may not have voted for them, but it certainly is not moral. Legalized theft never is.
When in our history or upbringing did we come to think that this was a normal way of life? I worked hard to get where I am today. I have significant educational debt (that's another blog) and have taken significant time out of my life (time investment) to gain the position and status among my peers. How can a 17 year old mother of two claim a moral right to my property? Why does a 45 year old drug user have a claim on my earnings? By what reason does the 85 year old widower lay claim to my charity?
They do not and can not claim my property, be it intellectual, material, or temporal. Does that mean that I will step over the 45 year old shivering on the sidewalk? Perhaps not. Does that mean that I will give my grandmother a can opener so that she can open the dog food can (since that is all that conservatives want old people to eat, apparently)? Perhaps, perhaps not. Charity is an individual act. It can not be coerced or it ceases to be charity.
When I was 17 I did not have children. When I turn 45 I'm sure that I will not be a drug user. When I'm 85 I can only hope that I helped my kids become wealthy enough to take in their dear old dad. All of these are choices. Life is nothing but the accumulation and propagation of our choices rippling through time. We choose to be irresponsible with our bodies, be it diet, drugs, or our choice in our partners. Yes, circumstances can seem to be stacked against us and sometime it seems like our choices are limited, but we always have a choice. The problem is our natural inclination to avoid that which is painful or difficult; and this factors into everything we do.
If we lose our job, it is a very hard thing to leave your family, either extended or immediate, to find work elsewhere. It is a very hard thing to kick a drinking or drug habit. Drugs and alcohol claim more futures then just about anything else. They can be over come and you can make something of yourself again. You simply need to make the choice and then carry through. Just ask Glenn Beck. One failed marriage, two alienated children, and a 20 year career in radio flushed because of drugs and alcohol. He now hosts his own radio and TV show. Writes books and is doing good for himself, his second wife, and his two younger children.
Should you be bitter that someone has more money or stuff then you? No, you should seek to emulate them. Don't be jealous, be happy that you live in a country where a falling down drunk and failure has the opportunity to redeem themselves and become productive members of society again.
Money is simply a certificate that represents the work of another. If I make shoes but need meat, I can not give shoes to a butcher who does not need shoes. My intellectual and material efforts are converted into a medium of currency that represents my efforts. If I write poetry for a living, can I expect to have as much currency as a person who operates on people's brains? Most certainly not. To produce a poem, I have to possess natural talent, basic writing supplies, and perhaps a mentor and a few school courses; and with experience I may be able to write good poetry (we can ALL write bad poetry, go ahead and give it a try). If my poetry brings happiness or causes another to be thoughtful then I have just provided a value to that person.
If I can no longer write poetry because of double-vision then my livelihood is in jeopardy. I would need to go to a neurologist or a neurosurgeon to ask them to evaluate my double vision. This person would have to possess a god-given talent and skill for the work that is refined through as much as 18 years of continued education and training. If I need surgery then I must place my faith and my life in the hands of another. Their service to me is my health and my continued progression in my life's work. I will have to give more of my currency to this individual then the one that wrote my get well card from Hallmark. The card is great and may make me feel better, but it did not remove the small tumor from my brain that was making me see double.
When a government official decides that the neurosurgeon has too much money and material possessions and attaches a moral fee to that wealth, then we are setting the table for an act of legalized theft. By what right does the government officer lay claim to my wealth (a representation of my time, effort, and intellect)? Simply representing a collective need is not moral enough. It is not moral at all. Let us assume that I am the wealthiest person in a group of ten. That wealth is not in the form of money, but in an intellectual skill. Let us assume that I am a general physician practitioner. Our little group has become a collective. I buy the food that they grow and the cars that they build. They come in to my office and I treat their bumps, scrapes, and broken bones. Then one day, the other nine decide that health care is a right and not a service. That somehow, somewhere, they are now able to claim a moral right to my services. I no longer have any 'currency' now that my skills have been claimed for the common good. However, does my need now rise to the level where the rest of the collective will take care of me? Doubtful since my profession and existence would have been likely demonized by the rest of the group in order to justify their claim on my wealth. I would either perish or leave the collective. Now where will the grower or builder go when they break a bone? Hello Atlas Shrugged.
Western Europe is well down the road towards self destruction and Obama is determined to rocket past them to the Endgame. The Social Democracies of Europe will collapse, just roll time forward enough. It is inevitable. They have never experienced the life and success that America has experienced. They went from Kings and Emperors to unelected Prime Ministers. Lumping one Social Democracy with another only amplifies the worst aspects of the system. Hello European Union.
America is unique in that here is where the people of Europe came to live life free of the ancient cast system. Only here could they be what they wanted, earn as much as their talents permitted them, and be seen with admiration for their successes. Now, somehow, we have degenerated. We have been infected with Progressive seeds that have taken root and are draining us of our vitality. The vast majority of people only want the best for others, they really do, however, you do it by clearing away the obstacles to success, not granting them womb to tomb care. It may make you feel like you are doing good, but if you really think about it, you are resigning them to an unfulfilled and frustrated life, dependent upon the charity (forced or otherwise) of others. Only America has this history of self-reliance. Only here do we know for certain that the only limits on you are the limits you place on yourself.
No one really thinks any more. Too busy blogging, working, taking care of kids and families to really think about whether what the government is doing is the right thing to do. Forget legal, they crossed that line a hundred years ago. I think the reason why our Founders were as smart as they were is because there was no TV or Radio. No Internet and no telephones. No electric lights and no mechanized transportation.
In that environment, you have plenty of time to talk and to read. You are more plugged in to your community (gossip or current events...your choice). Our Founders were very well read and educated. They wrote to one another and conversed often. They never had to run home to tape Seinfeld. They debated Natural Law and Roman History. They discussed and debated, often times passionately, the differences between a Monarchy and a Representative Republic. Democracy and Greece, tyranny and big government. All of it was fair game. Today we are simply too distracted with ourselves to really think about these things any more. We rely on the inertia of the past to carry us into the future. Thomas Jefferson knew this would happen and felt that every generation would need to have its own revolution to keep the government fresh and responsive.
Unfortunately, we are victims of our own success. We are well fed (fat, even). Our poor, those that live at the 'Poverty Line' live better than 85% of all the other human beings on Earth, yet we continue to cut our own wrists to "care for the poor" in this country.
There will need to be a reset. We will need to relearn the virtues of self-reliance. We will need to relearn the proper role of government in both our country and our lives. I think this is long over due when some politician thinks that they can pass a law banning salt in restaurants. Heck, the EPA is trying to regulate a gas that we exhale for god's sake. It is no wonder that they feel they can now control the amount of salt that we eat, seeing as how the water in our bodies is in the form of salt water...
By what right does the government do this? Does "We the people..." want this? Do we think this is right, sane, and moral?
I guess we will find out in November. I just hope that Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are minimized in their ability to cause lasting harm to my Republic in that time.
--Zavost
