You’ll learn to like it. That’s the sentiment from the Democrats in regards to the newly passed health care reform. You’ll learn to like it. You may not like it now, but don’t worry. President Obama will be traveling the country, selling this newfound boondoggle to all the rubes and troglodytes who are trying to bitterly cling to their current health insurance. After all, our morals require this.

So you’ll learn to like it. Maybe you’ll even love it. Or learn to, at least. After all, many events occur in the lives of people – events we usually resist, at first – with which we later tolerate. Children are forced to go to school. Men and women and forced into arranged marriages the world over. Loved ones die. After grieving over our sudden conditions, we find the strength to tolerate and, in most cases, even learn to like these new situations.

You’ll learn to like it.

Such is the state of our politics. Such is the state of our nation under Democratic leadership. We’ve been bullied and talked at by our leaders in a vain attempt to sell a product that most Americans didn’t want to purchase (i.e. the reform bill). We’ve been lectured that the only way to know the absolute awesomeness of health care reform was to shut up and let Congress do whatever they please. The Democrats, their advisors, the pundits and all the people who made it their mission to go out and sell this garbage tried to explain away their poor polling with the claims that once the bill passed, Americans would accept it and know the good it will do.

Of course this prognostication proved incorrect. The polls show no real bounce in support. And now, with this prediction proving incorrect the Democrats are hoping the American people will deal with health care reform as one would deal with any loss: the five stages of grief. Currently we’re in denial. Eventually, we’ll learn to like it.

But I have some bad news for them. This incalculable loss of liberty will not end with bargaining and acceptance. It will only end in the replacement of every Democrat in office with someone who believes in the Constitution on which this great republican was built. It will only end in repeal.

Let me be clear. I will not learn to like it.

I am not a man of means or of power. I do not have the ability to challenge this on my own. But I am a man free in thought and feeling. I am a man who has found his voice. I am a man who sat idly by for years, listening silently as those on the left tried to destroy everything that has ever had meaning in this country. For a long time I did not realize the true implications of what had been given to me and my fellow man by the bravery of our founding fathers. I recognize now the greatness of everything I’ve been given and – where once I would have quietly suffered the indignation that comes from living in the heart of liberalism – I will stand up for the freedoms that we have been given, the freedoms that have been earned from the throwing off of shackles.

I will not learn to like it, nor will I let anyone around me learn to like it.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” I will make it my goal to see that mankind, in the form of those around me, those who can hear my voice, will not be more disposed to suffer just because this madness is sufferable.

Many people do nothing because they believe that one man cannot institute a change. History has shown, however, that many men acting with a common goal can correct a dangerous course. And while I may not be a man of means or power, those who wish to “rule the people” will come to realize that millions of us, using nothing but our voices, hearts and ballots, will find the means to right this ship called America.

We will not learn to like it.

Roar! Hide the children! Hide your wallets! Nans and the Progressives have come to claim your money so that they can magically transform it into health care.  Smash. Take that, John Deere. Boom. Take that, Caterpillar. Capitalist swine! We’ll make a Twentieth Century Motor Company out of you yet!* Rawr!

The Progressives (yes, that is what I intend to call them from now on. Cast off these notions of them being for Democracy or [classical] Liberalism) have their health care reform, and now they’re going to reinvent American society via the mystical powers of Turbo Tax Timmy and the IRS. The Progressives want us to engage in the same sort of wishful thinking as them, and believe that the 2.3% tax we’ll pay on medical devices, the 10% tax on tanning salons as well as the plethora of new taxes and regulations will lead to some wonderful world where all health care wishes are fulfilled.

You see, Progressivism is all about sacrifice. [Un]Willingly donating a small portion of your livelihood is a small price to pay for universal health coverage. They’ll argue that this bit of money lost by the privileged and overpriveleged will provide infinitely more happiness to the people who don’t have to suffer under the current “Shut up and die!” system. Certainly you need your money less than some people need their lives (but really now, how many people have genuinely died from lack of insurance? As though hospitals won’t help you if you’re not covered)! If we spend a gajillion dollars to save one life, it will all be worth it.

Progressivism is not a far cry from Utilitarianism, that moral philosophy established by men like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism as an ethics is the idea that every action ought to maximize utility [happiness]. And, on the face of it, this is what Progressives claim they want to do. Of course it’s a perverted form of Utilitarianism, however, because Mill’s belief was in a minimal government, which only served to protect and enable people. But why quibble over details?!

But kyoufuu, you’ll ask, isn’t it a good thing if we spend money to save lives? Certainly it is, if it’s your own money and you own life [or your money and the life of someone you wish to save]. But if you want to say that a greater good is gotten from having universal health coverage than is gotten from having the money lost, then I’ll tell you that you’re running a grave risk of being eating by…dundundun… the Utility Monster.

What is the Utility Monster, you may ask? Why, it’s the creation of the great American philosopher, writer and property rights proponent Robert Nozick. Nozick was smart. He was smarter than most members of the Congressional Democratic Caucus combined. He asked us to imagine, in Utilitarian theory, a monster who gets greater happiness from sacrifices than others lose in making the sacrifice. Thus Utilitarianism would require that all members of society (assuming they were Utilitarians), be willing to sacrifice whatever they could to the utility monster so as to maximize his happiness.

Won’t somebody please think of the [utility monster’s] children?

The point Nozick was making is that Utilitarianism, and by extension its black sheep stepchild Progressivism, is not really egalitarian. There are no equal outcomes, no maximized happiness. Of course the Utility Monster is just a though experiment, and cannot exist practically. We must realize that if money [property] is the unit of sacrifice, and government is the one converting, then it is simply impossible for the conversion to be 1:1 or better. This is regardless of what Madame Botox says.

What we have here is not Utilitarianism, but rather a system that will end with the mere addition paradox. What’s that, you ask? Why, that’s a story for another time.

Rawr!

*Yes, I could not escape from inserting a Rand reference. My apologies.

One of the most commonly used and emotionally compelling arguments in favor of health care reform – or any government service, for that matter – is that without it, many people will be dealt undo suffering. The claim is that the job of society, and by extension government, is to act in the best interest of the underprivileged amongst us. If some people cannot afford health insurance, they argue, it is the job of everyone else to shoulder the burden and help provide it. This is, undoubtedly, a system of moral beliefs; and the requirement to help our fellow man is no less than a moral imperative.

This moral belief system is known as ethical altruism. I have written about it before, so I will not go into details on why I believe it is an incorrect system. Instead I wish to discuss the problems with imposing a particular system of morals upon a set of people who might not particularly agree with that system.

When discussing the imperative to help the needy progressives, in my encounters, have often used Jesus Christ as an explanation for this imperative. The irony in this is not at all lost on me, as it is progressives who will usually be the first to completely ignore Biblical teachings when it comes to other matters which I will not discuss here and now. Jesus called men to cloth the naked, to feed the hungry and to help the sick. He asked us to give up our wealth and refuse to live a life of greed. If so many Americans are willing to follow this directive at the behest of their Savior and by extension the churches which teach his good works, why is there such hesitation to do this when required by their government?

My response to this question is always broken down into two parts.

Firstly: Free Will

The first part of the answer is that humanity was endowed by its creator with free will. We are given the freedom to choose whether or not we want to do right by our fellow man. If we choose the righteous path, we are thus also free to choose what we feel is the best path to achieve this, as well as whom we choose to assist. Reason would dictate the no one’s resources are infinite – either in terms of money or time – and therefore choices must constantly be made as to where those resources are directed. Having government decide where, when and how much of these resources are allocated violates all tenets of free will.

There is a common argument proposed by progressives to challenge this, which is only properly combated by discussing the second part of my response.

The Counterargument

The counterargument that I will hear leveled against my two points is that by nature of accepting a particular religion, one thus forfeits their free will. Accepting a faith such as Christianity means that one cannot truly be free, as it is therefore required that the practitioner do good deeds in order to gain eternal salvation. In other words, they view entry into Heaven as the raison d’être of being a good person for Christians.

Secondly: No Two Belief Systems Are (Practiced) the Same or Equal

While those of the Christian faith believe in works of Jesus Christ, this is not necessarily the case for every citizen of the United States. A further irony is that those who would constantly argue against any inclusion of religion in government or even public would dare to use Jesus as a justification for government intrusion into the life of the citizenry. While we are a nation founded on the concept that there a unalienable rights granted by God, the fact is that we have no state sponsored religion. We are a diverse nation with many religions of which none, by nature of the contract between the government and the people, may be placed above any other. There may be some who reject the teachings of Jesus Christ in favor of living a life of greed and gluttony. One may not agree with that set of beliefs, but disagreement does no nullify existence. Also, it is entirely believable that two people of the same faith who pass a beggar on the street might have completely different reactions. These are the nuances of individuality that make a government dictated, one-size-fits-all morality incompatible with freedom.

I’ll admit that the second point is really nothing more than a function of the first, but I have listed them separately for simplicity’s sake.

So what of the progressive counterargument? When considering whether an action is moral or ethical, there are two parts that one must evaluate. The first is the action itself. The second is the motive behind the action. Even the law takes this into account; that is why we have the concept of mens rea. Killing is wrong if it is done in cold blood. But killing to protect oneself or to protect another can be morally and legally justified.

So when the progressive claims that free will is negated by the requirement to do good deeds to find eternal salvation, twelve years of Catholic education makes me raise an eyebrow. Jesus did not simply teach his followers to do good because they will get a reward when all is said and done. He taught us to do good out of the love of our neighbors and the genuine desire to help our fellow man. I would be hesitant to cast accolades upon a person who helps the poor solely to court favors from them at a later time. The action might be good, but the intent is far from it.

To put it more succinctly: free will does not just account for our actions, but it also accounts for our intentions. I call it the Failure of Pascal’s Wager.

So how does this relate to the imposition of the system of ethical altruism that is pushed upon us by our government, and by so many governments throughout the world? It violates our freedom to choose who we help and how we help them. It also forces upon people a system with which they might not agree, violating their ability to choose their own belief system and the practice of that belief system. In religion, we can balance the risk/reward between our actions and intentions. I could decide that there is no afterlife, and choose to be a terrible person. I could also decide there is an afterlife, but be a terrible person anyway.

When it comes to government rules by fiat, there is no reward, only risk. The risk is that failure to agree or act accordingly leads to a definite punishment, regardless of one’s belief system.

To the progressives who argue in favor of our current system, I like to propose the following argument. Say my beliefs dictate that it is the duty of all of us to protect our country from our enemies, and to protect people around the world from despotic governments. With our economic and military wealth, it is our duty to protect our fellow man, wherever they may be. In my mind, the only way to accomplish this moral imperative is to build an incredibly large military force. It’s possible that many might disagree with this concept, but it is prevalent enough that many members of Congress agree as well. Would the progressives view it as right an moral to pass a law requiring all men and women to spend a mandatory number of years serving in the military?

Or is it possible imposing a moral imperative interferes with the free will and beliefs of the people it is imposed upon?

Oops. Sorry. It turns out that “man date” is just a homophone for what I really mean: mandates. Even though I despise the concept of a “man date” – that two males are so inept at making friends that they must be forced to go out as though they were attempting to court each other, leading to the inevitable awkward conversation about nothing – I will not devote my time to writing about this outrageous practice. Instead I’ll write about the concept of mandates, ever present in any health care bill that has passed through each chamber of Congress. I’ve already written my thoughts on where I believe this country will be headed should this health reform pass. Trust me, it ain’t pretty.

Congress and the President wish to impose upon the American people a particular restriction upon economic liberty with their version of health care reform. I use the term “restriction” because even though it’s not the case that this bill stops us from purchasing something – as is usually the case with laws passed by Congress – it strips away the choice that we have to not do something, which in and of itself is still a restriction. I realize that there’s a bit of dubiousness in the constitutionality of forcing someone to buy health insurance. The Democrats will claim that under the commerce clause, they have this power. After all, if states can require drivers to have car insurance, why would the government not have power to mandate the purchase of health insurance? I’d argue this by calling it an inappropriate generalization, but I usually find logic to be lost on Democrats.

And anyway, I’m not writing this to argue why a mandate is unconstitutional (I’m no lawyer), nor why all arguments in favor are logically invalid (I’m only a logician by hobby, and I simply do not have the patience). Instead, I’m going to speculate on what I see as the future of our economic liberty should this be considered perfectly allowable. After all, once Congress has gotten away with something once, there’s no doubt that they’ll try to get away with it again.

With that in mind, I’d like to propose a list of future economic mandates of which some, most or all will be imposed upon the American people. With each is the warped and twisted reasoning that will be used to maintain that these are for right and necessary.

-All Americans must purchase an American made automobile. By American made, I don’t simply mean manufactured here. I mean a car built by a company whose headquarters are firmly footed in the U.S. After all, (Union card carrying) Americans build these cars. Purchasing anything but will wreak an immense level of havoc on the economy. If the market share of GM, Ford and Chrysler are allowed to shrink, this could force people out of jobs. If they have no jobs, how will the purchase the medical insurance that’s mandated upon them?

-On second thought, let’s just change it to “buy American.” Completely. Everything. Why not?

-Require everyone to deposit a certain percentage of disposable income into a government run retirement account. Disposable income is defined as all money still remaining after the payment of all bills. I like to call it Social Security doubleplus. This will serve two purposes. First, it will allow Americans to save money for retirement, something at which we’ve proven terribly inept. It will stop people from wasting money that they should be saving up on things like going to Vegas for a weekend. Being in the government’s hands, the money is perfectly safe (trust me). Secondly, the mandate will make the tax forms so complex that companies which prepare tax returns will have to hire more employees to make up for the loss of efficiency. It’s a jobs bill!

-All Americans must own a dog or cat. There are so many stray animals wandering around, that this will save those poor creatures from a life of misery. It will also provide much needed stimulus to veterinarians and manufacturers of pet food and toys around the country. And since all purchased products must be American made, it’s a perfect fit.

-All utility bills must be paid immediately, before the money that should go towards them can be used for any other purchase. Gas, electric and oil suppliers are not the kindest people. It would be dangerous to allow a world to exist in which people have their heat or electricity turned off due to failure to pay.

-If people don’t pay their utility bills, companies cannot turn those services off. Just in case.

-All Americans must buy X number of books per year (with X to be redefined every year). Let’s face it, Americans are falling behind and getting dumber. Constantly. This will provide the people of this country with much needed mental stimulation, allowing us to retake our place in the world.

-All Americans must finish high school, in a publicly funded high school. See above about education.

-All Americans who finish high school must go to college. Ibid.

-No one may have a credit card. There’s a definite credit card crisis in this country. People are spending more than they have. The only way to curtail this is to completely eliminate the solitary cause: credit cards.

I have no doubt that there are many Democrats out there (well meaning? I can’t say) who would think that some of these ideas are perfectly reasonable and good for society. These are probably the same people who argue that health insurance mandates are based on sound, logical ground.

 I’m not one for slippery slope arguments. Generally, such concerns are not based on any particular evidence. Congress has shown, however, that often the slope is very slippery, and the only ones sliding down it are the American people.

[Author’s note: In my time as a writer, fiction has been the primary vehicle by which I convey my ideas. I hope any readers can forgive my indulgence in that particular method of communication to discuss what I see as the future ramifications of the health care bill, shoudl it be enacted into law.]

Today is Tuesday, April 4. Today’s a rather cold day; another cold April day in a continuing progression of particularly cold Aprils that seem to have gotten worse as the years have gone on, in spite of the continuous war we have been fighting against climate change. But I’m not writing this to provide my personal ruminations on the nonexistence of anthropogenic global warming, or climate change, destruction, chaos or whatever it is they’re calling it these days. That’s a never-ending battle to discuss another time. Instead, I’m writing to mark an anniversary, one with which most kids these days are unfamiliar. On this date, twenty-five years ago, the first bill was passed which led to the creation of the National Health Resources Controlling Committee.

I still prefer to call it ObamaCare, even though such terminology is out of vogue, especially due to the fact that Obama has not been President since 2017. But old habits die hard, I suppose.

You’re probably wondering why I’m writing this, why I’m bothering to document something that is, simply put, an unequivocal part of life. Why bother talking about the history of something that cannot be changed? Or something whose history has been changed so many times through the years? Maybe it’s due to a longing for a time when truth was absolute, when history was a record of past events from which we could learn, and when the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were truly unalienable.

But mostly I think it’s because I’m angry and lacking any other method to voice my anger or anyone of significance who will listen. This is all I have.

It started with the dream of a progressive utopia. And as is often the case, utopia for the elites proved to be dystopia for the rest of us.

The debate on the issue of health care reform rolled on for almost a year. Bills were proposed, scrapped, changed, backroomed, reproposed, amended and voted on, while the American public and the Congressional members voting yea had little idea what was really included in any particular bill. Yet consistently those same members of Congress and President Obama himself claimed to know every minute detail that was included. At the time, I was reading Atlas Shrugged (it’s since been more or less banned in schools), a book registering more than one thousand pages in length. It took me months. The health care bills had the tendency to be almost three times that length. I certainly could not remember each and every detail of the book I had been reading. Was it a stretch of the imagination to think that it would not be possible for Democrats to remember every rule and provision in the health care bill? To think otherwise would have been pure folly; and yet daily we were told of how absolutely certain they were of the bill’s contents.

A prominent Republican talked about death panels that would result from this bill. That a committee of appointed bureaucrats would be able to decide life and death decisions about medical care, decisions which had previously been between doctor and patient. “Don’t spoil the debate with rhetoric on death panels,” she was told. The prevailing meme was that she, and all of us, were too stupid or naïve to understand the intricacies of the bill. “But how are insurance companies not death panels?” we were asked. The straw men were consistently set up and knocked down. I don’t expect kids nowadays to know what a straw man is. After all, as someone once sarcastically told me, “logic is the contrivance of the white male Europeans.” He might have been kidding, but those who decided that critical thinking skills are unnecessary in life were all too serious. I digress.

Eventually, through machinations, deals and pledges which to this day I cannot fully understand, the health care behemoth was passed on their Easter deadline in 2010. Make no mistake, the Democrats suffered heavily for their plotting. The House of Representatives was lost to them and the Senate was nearly evened out. The Republicans celebrated their November victories and quickly went about trying to put the American house back in order. But there was too much to do. The economy was in shambles and the entitlement programs were bankrupting the country. As Republicans worked to pass bills to repeal ObamaCare, the bureaucratic network began to establish itself. It was difficult for them, but the Republicans managed to get both chambers to agree to a bill that would end ObamaCare before it could really get off the ground.

What they were lacking, however, was an adequate number of votes to override President Obama’s veto. So the goal for Republicans became to correct that problem by winning the Presidency in 2012. They failed in this regard, because if there was anything in which President Obama was fully capable, it was campaigning. As time passed, complacency set in. The mantra of “Repeal it! Undo it!” started to shift to “We can do it better!” Through the prior eighty years of progressivism, this had always been the case. Incremental gains by the Democrats meant incremental adjustments to ObamaCare, to the introduction of a Public Option, then the gradual shift to a fully government run system.

What the Republicans never managed to realize was that they were at war. The war was not a traditional one, but rather one of ideals and power, with the outcome being nothing less than the freedom of the American people. As such, we ended up with was the National Health Resources Controlling Committee.

But we couldn’t dare call it a death panel.

This history is incomplete, of course. The full account is far too detailed and nuanced to ever be put into words by one man alone. This is merely a short account, recorded for posterity’s sake; recorded by an angry man who has been cut off from the typical existential angst that guided previous generations. I guess they probably don’t teach about existentialism any more, either.

What has caused this anger to spring from the deepest, darkest parts of my soul, you may ask? The anger arises partially from a cruel nature which would allow a world in which the body of my beloved could so stunningly turn against her and stricken her with cancer. Part of the anger is from my own impotence at being incapable of securing the finances necessary to afford the treatment available on the medical black market. But primarily, my anger is at the National Health Resources Controlling Committee.

You see, the cancer was perfectly treatable. It was at a stage in which, at one point in time, her doctor would have referred her to an oncologist who would have recommended surgery or chemotherapy. It would not have mattered what her past history was or whether she was likely to suffer it again. In all likelihood the payment would have been taken on partially by her insurance company and partially by us. And even if, for whatever reason, the insurance company declined we would have had the option to pay it ourselves. Instead our system dictated that the case be brought before the local NHRCC, which scoured her medical records and family history. I’d seen others with similar issues go before the committee and have their requests approved. I expected the same.

Instead, the committee deemed that her family history indicated that the cancer would likely not go permanently into remission. Also, a history of Alzheimer’s and mental illness on the other side of her family made her a high risk for developing further problems. The committee, though not saying this, did not want to be tied down by having to see the same patients over and over again. Such continual need for medical care was problematic. Society could not bear the burden of treating someone who would not necessarily live to fully enjoy the “gift” that society had given them.

I watched my beloved wither and waste away, barely managing on the pittance of painkillers the committee had been gracious enough to provide. I became angry, and rightfully so.

But we dared not to call them death panels, or else that would have saddled the debate with too much vivid (i.e. truthful) language. And now I wait. I wait for the day when my body turns against me as well and the committee, either because I’ve written this or because I’m too much of a “risk,” decides that I too am expendable.

As James Madison has been quoted, at a point where he was actually taught about in our school system: “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

“Well, the good news is that we’ve stopped the bleeding. It took a couple dozen bandages – which we need to replace them every now and then – but if you look at him you’d never even know there was a problem. The pain? Well yes, we’ve managed to deal with that as well. We’ve given him painkillers, so I don’t think he’s feeling anything at all. Are you not satisfied with his treatment? We’ve got the greatest minds in the world working on this. Hundreds of men and women from all over. And the key is that we’re working together. Believe me when I say that he’ll be able to keep going like this. What if he wakes up? Well, I suppose we’ll just have to get stronger painkillers. I’ll leave these with you while I go hit the links. Have him take two of them if he wakes up. Is there anything more we can do? Well, possibly. But that’s a lot of work, and we’ve got a lot on our plates.”

There’s an old axiom that if the government were a business, it would have gone out of business long ago. I think that’s still true, but the healthcare debate has started to make me think that there’s a more apt analogy to be made. What if the government – and our political “leaders” particularly – were doctors instead of businessmen?

I think the situation would be not much different from the one described above. The only real difference being that in the real world, this patient would have died long ago.

There are deep and serious structural problems in our economy and in our society. These are a result of years of building the progressive utopia; of building a country in which we, as a society, can collectively pat ourselves on the back knowing that we’re able to take care of the “less fortunate” among us. But it’s also the result of Republicans who spent years seeking bipartisanship with those who fundamentally disagree, hoping that they could take charge of the utopia and show a better way to manage it.

If, God forbid, I were to ever get cancer I would not want it treated with a few pills and the assurances of my doctors. I would want it eliminated, eradicated, removed from my body and not given the slightest chance to ever return. But yet, the former is what our politics has become.

Just consider some of the failures we’ve had to suffer through the years.

The Community Reinvestment Act required banks to lend to people who normally wouldn’t be able to buy a house. Real estate boomed, and to disguise the inherent problems, we created a labyrinthine system whereby ownership of the assets were bundled and passed from hand to hand. When this inevitably failed, as Congress was warned it would, we gave untold sums of money to the banks. When this failed to right the economy, we passed a stimulus to “save or create” jobs. We also spent money to keep people in their homes, buried under mortgages that they still couldn’t afford and didn’t care to pay.

Social Security and Medicare were created as a means of “taking care of” those who became too old to care for themselves. Yet our leaders have continued to turn a blind eye to the fact that with medical progress men and women in our country have been living longer and therefore been spending more time on these programs. So we’ve filled the trusts with I.O.U.s to be paid by future generations who will likely get no benefit from these programs. Any effort to fix these flaws has been met with derision, ad hominem attacks, strawmen and the promise to deal with it later. Later is now, and yet the solutions are few and far between. But the pills have been administered, along with more promises to fix it in the future.

The public school system was created to ensure that everyone could get a good, quality education. It wasn’t long before this was co-opted into a public employee’s dream, completely insulated from the standards and practices by which any reasonable business runs. And yet, every election cycle, we’re told stories of the failures of education, how we’re slipping behind the rest of the world. And always, the solution seems to be that more money or technology will solve our problems.

Now there’s Health Care Reform, which promises to be less “reform” and “more of the same.” There will be no cure to the disease which has led to high costs. There will simply be more restrictions on business and individuals, more money thrown at the problem, more assurances that when it goes wrong – which it will – that it will be fixed at a later date.

These are but a few examples. There are plenty more. But one thing is always clear. Our political solutions amount to nothing more than slapping a band-aid on a bullet wound and loudly proclaiming “success!”

If our politicians were doctors, the one patient they’re given the task of treating would have died long ago. Who is this patient, you ask? Why, it’s none other than this guy:

I’ve heard many people recently who like to say that the American dream is slipping away from the majority of Americans. Usually this is in reference to the fact that people are losing their jobs and homes. Sometimes they refer to the fact that “big business” makes it impossible for the “little guy” to earn a meaningful living. Other times some will say that “the American dream of becoming a millionaire is impossible for most of us.”

In every case, those making such claims are wrong. The first reason they’re wrong is simply that what they’re describing is not the American dream at all. The second reason they’re wrong is one that’s much more important and grave for the future of our nation.

They’re wrong simply because for many citizens of this great nation, the American dream is dead.

To understand the two reasons why these people are wrong, we must first understand what the American dream really is. Why have millions of people of different nationalities, religions and races left the places that they’ve called home to participate in this great American experiment? Surely it could not have been simply for material goods or the promise of a job?

To quote James Truslow Adams, who coined the phrase in 1931:

“The American Dream is that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for every man, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.”

 

 In other words, the American dream to which Adams wasn’t referring isn’t just the ability of people in the United States to own a home. But rather it is the ability to obtain the greatest possible life for ourselves. It is this drive and motivation for betterment that has made this country as prosperous as it has been. Certainly having a job and owning a home are a benefit of pursuing the American dream, but they are not the basis upon which that dream is built.

The dream is built upon freedom.

By being free, Americans have historically been able to pursue their own interests without fear of government intrusion. This has usually meant working hard and advancing ourselves through that hard work. America prospered and the dream flourished because all men were fully capable to keep what they earned, believe what they wanted and, if unhappy with their lot in life, to make it better.

The American dream has never been about making the quick buck nor having the right to a home or a job. These were all things which had to be gained through hard work. The American dream developed from the fact that everyone could earn a fortune, could have a good job and could own land.

Alexis de Tocqueville noted that American and Europe were different because in Europe money was meaningless. The elites were always guaranteed to maintain their status, while the poor could never hope to advance themselves. Americans saw the wealthy and decided to emulate them, not through malicious envy but by following their examples to achieve success. This is why Americans historically despise the elites. It is impossible to elevate oneself to the status of elite. But through years of attempts to emulate the European model –the same model that our Founders broke the shackles of- that American dream has died.

This is not to say that it is forever gone. After all, the American dream is an idea. Ideas never die. They can be co-opted, manipulated and turned on their head so that they no longer resemble their origins. This is what’s led to such a misunderstanding of the concept. But it is possible to return an idea to its original meaning. It takes work.

This American dream, however, also has a practical element to it. That element, as stated previously, is freedom. We must be free to guide the course of our lives. It’s this practical side to the dream that has currently been lost.

And we have only our politicians and ourselves to blame.

Eighty years of living the liberal dream have provided a wealth of “free” services. Free education, free money when we retire, free medical care when we get old, etc. But there’s nothing in life that comes without charge, especially from government. The cost of these services is paid in both the fruits of our labor in the form of taxes as well as in a loss of freedom in the form of tighter government control. Because to be able to better ourselves, we must be free to choose how we go about accomplishing that goal.

The government monopoly on the school system has created generations without the drive to pursue the dream. Welfare has created an entitlement class which believes it has a right to get something for nothing. Social security and Medicare have led us to believe that it’s not necessary to practice forethought in regards to our living situation when we wish to retire. The government backed mortgage industry has made us think that we deserve a home, whether we can afford it or not.  The government backed student loan industry has diminished the worth of a higher education, by funneling the failures from its public school system into higher education. Affirmative action has been used as a blunt instrument to require businesses to disregard whether a candidate is more deserving of a job. Regulation have stifled the job market and demonized business to a point near Randian levels. Excessive taxation has taken money from our pockets, where we could use it for our own needs, and squandered it on pet projects and attempts to buy votes.

The list goes on and on.

I see a bright note upon which to end, however. The push for the Obama-Pelosi-Reid radical liberal agenda has awakened a mighty beast in the American public. In their attempt to take over that which we all hold nearest and dearest – the right to choose our own medical care – the elites in our society have forced us to open our eyes to the loss of American exceptionalism and the American dream that has propelled us through the years. The townhall protests, the tea parties and the elections in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts are evidence that the work of our Founding Fathers from so long ago need not be in vain.

What we’re seeing today is that the American dream may not necessarily be dead, but only on life support. All it needs is for us to bring it back from the brink, to draw it from the light. How ironic that an attempt to drastically reform our health care system should be the impetus to save this idea from death.

When I was in college, my first introduction to Ayn Rand was in her philosophical writings in regards to ethical egoism, which is the idea that all men, as rational agents, ought to act in their own best interests. At that point in time I could not bring myself to agree with Ms. Rand. I thought that by acting in our own interests we would be inclined to do damage to others. I was more inclined to agree with the doctrine of utilitarianism espoused by John Stuart Mill; that our actions ought best maximize general happiness, not necessarily our own. Since I’ve now gained a little intellectual maturity and have been reading Atlas Shrugged, I’ve come to accept and believe in ethical egoism. I will not, however, use this entry to argue for why I think ethical egoism is correct. Instead, my goal here is to show how the battle that we currently see in our politics, conservative vs. liberal, republican vs. democrat, capitalist vs. socialist, is really nothing more than an expression of egoism vs. it’s opponent, altruism.

As I stated previously, egoism, or rather ethical egoism is the notion that men ought to act in their own best interest. Too often this is confused with outright selfishness. The difference, however, is that egoism explicitly requires us to act in our own best interest without trampling on the ability of others to do the same. This does not mean that there will not be interference indirectly, but such is the nature of egoism. If two people are vying for the same job one will inevitably have to be chosen. But one person’s hiring does not diminish the ability of the other to pursue his own interests, unless the person chosen has poisoned the well. This also doesn’t mean that the employer has diminished the rights of the loser, because the employer, as a moral agent, must also put its own self interests ahead of either man. Therefore the employer has the duty to pick the more competent applicant. If neither fits its needs, the employer is free to choose to its search.

Egoism also does not call for us to put our own short-sighted best interests before long-term interests. In other words, it does not call for us to do merely what we want to do, but rather to put the fulfillment of long-term interests ahead of pleasures we might enjoy right now. I could probably go out right now and find the funding to buy a house whose cost is beyond my means. This would fulfill my desire to own a house right now. But in the future I will likely find that I cannot afford the house, which will lead to foreclosure and bankruptcy. In other words, egoism calls for us to use our pursuit of self interests responsibly, and to not be reckless in the process.

Ethical altruism, by contrast, is the idea that all men ought to act in the best interest of others. According to altruism, we have a moral obligation to help others, even if it requires us to sacrifice of ourselves. Consider the question of the two job applicants again. According to altruism, each applicant should be required to consider whether the other has greater need for the job, and willingly bow out if they find that it is the case. Looking at it from the perspective of the employer, altruism would ask the employer to consider which man has greater need, and therefore hire him. Or, if possible the employer should hire both men and be willing to decrease its profit. I’m willing to admit this is an over-simplified example, but it is helpful to compare and contrast the two moral philosophies.

So how do egoism and altruism relate to our modern day conservatism and liberalism? Since the latter two are political beliefs, it can be easy to say that they don’t correspond to any sort of overarching philosophical system. By inspecting the platforms and core principles of the two movements, we can see that they do overlap.

Conservatism at heart is about the Constitution. The Constitution, aside from being a document that established a system of government, codified the natural rights of man. It’s not that the Constitution creates certain rights, but rather that it affirms the God given rights that are possessed by all mean; rights that exist to preserve individual liberty. The Bill of Rights in the Constitution was written not to tell men what they can and cannot do. The Bill of Rights was written to tell those in governments what they cannot do to men.

Because men have rights, they therefore have liberty. Liberty affords men the rightful pursuit of their own interests. It grants them the ability to make their own well-informed decisions. Liberty allows men to seek out self-fulfillment. This self-fulfillment extends through every aspect of a person’s life: where they choose to live; where they choose to attend school; where they choose to work; and how they choose to use the fruits of their labor. But liberty also comes with responsibility. It does not permit men to simply do what they please. There must also be a respect for the rights of other men.

This view of the world explains why conservatives hold many political beliefs as well. Regulation and excessive taxation are disapproved of because they limit economic liberty. School choice is lauded because it gives parents the freedom to choose the education their child receives. Gun control is loathed because it takes away the ability to choose how one spends their money and how one protects themselves and their belongings. Unions are disliked because they stop employers from running businesses in the most efficient manner.

Liberalism, in its current incarnation, seeks to ensure equality for all men. They view the world and human nature as possessing certain inherent biases which unfairly permit some men to have better opportunities than others. This unfairness causes society to devolve in classes of working/upper, slave/master and victim/perpetrator. To liberals, the role of government is to correct these inequalities.

Liberals try to abolish perceived inequalities through government regulations, such as affirmative action. The goal is to give everyone a fair shot, be it at education, jobs or housing. They are skeptical of the motives of businesses. To liberals the goal of maximizing profit is antithetical to what they view should be the primary goal of business: to provide for their workers. Seeking profit must lead to exploitation, they will argue. Liberals are in favor of progressive taxation which takes a higher percentage from those who are well off, as well as providing tax credits to the needy. The wealthy have a duty to help those who are not well off.

Considering the explanations given above, it should be easy to see that conservatism is a political form of egoism, and liberalism is a form of altruism. In my mind, conservatives should grasp onto the concept of egoism and treat it not as a vice, but as a virtue. Too often liberals will attempt to obfuscate the concepts of egoism and altruism with rhetoric referring to egoism as “selfishness” and altruism as “charity.” This couldn’t be further from the truth. Charity is an act performed voluntarily out of the goodness of one’s heart, without a sense of obligation.

Conservatives believe in individual rights and liberty. They believe that men should work to better themselves, of their own volition. They believe that all people are ends, not means. And so, conservatives should strive to embrace the concept of egoism, because the egoist believes the same.

In 1957 the ever prescient Ayn Rand published her magnum opus Atlas Shrugged. Though I am ashamed to admit it, I have never before read this novel. I have only recently begun reading this 1069 page tome, and have found myself reading it with a vigor that I have never known in any other piece of literature. In Atlas Shrugged, I have found put to words the all that is currently wrong with this great nation of ours. I won’t deny that I am not the first person recently to point out the correlations between Rand’s fictional dystopia and our own society. Indeed, my interest in the book is based on the recommendations of those who have declared that such a world is where we are heading. I’ll also admit that I’ve started this novel knowing far more than I wish I did. Since it is more than 50 years old, I suppose such a prospect is unavoidable.  But regardless, my reaction to the book is not one of precaution or warning. Instead, only one thought springs to mind as I read Atlas Shrugged.

This novel fills me with dread.

This dread swells up not because of the fact that Rand is presenting some bizarre world where everything is turned on its head. It is not the dread that comes from imagining a world that could genuinely exist some day in the future. That’s the kind of fear which occurs while reading novels like Fahrenheit 451, Nineteen Eighty-Four and Brave New World. Instead, the feelings I have through reading the novel arrive because every time I read the words spoken by the novel’s looters and moochers, I can easily imagine some member of the liberal intelligentsia, or even one of their regurgitators, saying exactly the same thing. And to think, I’ve only made it to page 154, the end of part 1, chapter 6.

The most fascinating concept that Rand puts forth in the novel is that of the “Sanction of the Victim.” The concept, to put it simply, is that those who are good allow themselves to suffer evil, to play victim for no greater reason than the fact that they are producers, indulging in the sin of creation. Nowhere is this sanction more prominent than in the character of Dan Conway, whose rail line, the Phoenix-Durango, was forced out of service by an all powerful cabal.

Conway’s rail line was targeted only due to the fact that it was successfully cutting into the business of the poorly run Rio Norte Line of Taggart Transcontinental. That Conway’s line, small and relatively unknown, was able to compete with the Taggart giant spoke of how well the business was run. And yet in the interest of “ensuring competition” the rail cabal passed the Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog rule which, in a purposefully oxymoronic fashion, snuffed out the competition provided by the Phoenix-Durango. A poorly run rail line which, as some would say, was “too big to fail” found itself bolstered by Conway’s refusal to fight the rule that effectively put him out of business.

The Sanction of the Victim is also shown to be riddled with hypocrisy. When Francisco d’Anconia’s San Sebastian Mines end up being nationalized by the Mexican government, d’Anconia is met with ridicule. Men like james Taggart, who had invested heavily in d’Anconia’s mines, only to find that they were worthless, become infuriated.  Francisco responds to James’ anger by stating that he did everything society asked of him: he hired men based on need not ability; he set up housing for his employees; he took a loss on the business venture and surrendered it according to the will of the people. What more could a responsible member of society have done? But the truth is that the Sanction of the Victim is only meaningful when the victim is an unwilling participant. Francisco d’Anconia wanted the mines to be taken. In that regard there was no victory to be found for the looters.

I can see many modern occurrences of the sanction of the victim. Barack Obama left the investors in GM and Chrysler out in the cold, effectively taking away what was rightfully theirs to give to the undeserving. In fact, the history of American cap companies has been one long chain of creators (the companies and their owners) willfully allowing themselves to be wronged by unions, who have taken more and more, until there was nothing left but the rotting corpse of that which once signified American exceptionalism.

When you consider that something like 10% of Americans pay 90% of taxes, it is hard to deny that even taxation has become a vehicle for the sanction of the victims.

“I am in favor of a free economy. A free economy cannot exist without competition. Therefore, men must be forced to compete. Therefore, we must control men in order to force them to be free.” – Dr. Pritchett

Democratic House Whip James Clyburn sat down with Dan Gilgoff for an interview in U.S. News. What followed was a Q&A session so full of Biblical misunderstandings and Orwellian doublespeak that anyone with the slightest critical thinking skills and knowledge of Christianity would have to be left scratching their heads. He presented what I like to term “Religious Relativism,” or the notion that the teachings of a religion vary depending upon the beliefs and ideals of the person interpreting them.  Consider it the Christian big government version of radical Islam’s jihad.

Below I look at some of his more egregious statements, along with a rebuttal of each, since Mr. Gilgoff was not so prone to asking follow-up questions.

I feel before beginning this analysis that I should point out that I am in no way a social conservative. I was raised Catholic, spent 12 years in Catholic school and parted ways with the Church about a decade ago. But nonetheless, I cannot rightfully read such misrepresentations without disagreeing and setting the record straight, regardless of my religious affiliation.

Also, for reference, bold text in the block quote indicates the question being asked, while regular text indicates the answer given or statement made.

 When you became chair of the Democrats’ Faith Working Group in 2005, you said, “The Democratic agenda is deeply rooted in faith, but we have been less effective than we could be in communicating how our moral values guide our policies.” That certainly seems to have changed.

Members are becoming much more comfortable with expressing our policies in faith terms. For a long time, constitutional issues were so near and dear to Democratic officials that we were just too guarded with all of that. Anything that even seemed like it would in any way violate constitutional principles we just stayed away from.

It’s worth noting that Rep. Clyburn is essentially stating here that at one time the Democratic Party was deeply concerned with Constitutional questions, but now…not so much. Unless of course the question at hand concerns the funding of facilitators of child prostitution rings such as ACORN. Then and only then can the strictest reading of the Constitution be adhered.

Do you worry that Democratic concerns over abortion coverage can derail healthcare reform?

Oh, no, no. Those concerns will be resolved . . . . We have to just make sure that everybody feels comfortable.

Of course the comfort of our elected representatives is of paramount importance. Heaven forbid they be required to practice what they preach as part of their Faith Working Group. Faith, much like the Constitution, is not meant to be called upon at the slightest inconvenience. Rather, it should only be looked to when asked to make politically inconvenient choices.

Are the concerns of antiabortion advocates about healthcare reform valid? Some Democrats say they’re a smoke screen to derail reform.

Yes, they are very valid concerns. One of the reasons we exist is because the speaker feels there ought to be an entity within our caucus to keep these issues front and center. So Rosa DeLauro knows that there are things of the faith persuasion that are pretty much Catholic centered. She’s the go-to person when it comes to this.

Is Rep. Clyburn also inclined towards asking the Hamburgler to guard his purchases from McDonald’s while he’s in session? If Rosa DeLauro is the best example to be offered up from motley crew of the Faith Working Group, that’s certainly a bad omen. If one were to look at Rep. DeLauro’s voting record as it concerns abortion, she would have to be considered the less-than-ideal candidate to tackle abortion concerns. Faith based, indeed!

What has the group accomplished recently that you’re proud of?

Believe it or not, the faith community was big in [passing] our climate change bill. Something that I’ve always been taught is stewardship. It’s the watchword in most religious teachings, and there’s nothing more evident in stewardship than our responsibilities to the climate, to the Earth. It was a tough bill to get 218 on, and I don’t think we would have been able to get there if there wasn’t the kind of climate that faith groups helped us create.

It’s true that stewardship of the Earth is a significant part of the Christian faith. God created the Earth, not for humanity to squander and pillage. But at the same time much of the concern shown by those trying to protect the planet goes beyond stewardship, to a form of gaia worship. Human beings have a duty to protect the planet because it is one of God’s creations, but also because it provides us with sustenance to the human race. Our actions on this planet affect others, and so we should not ruin the Earth’s bounty because of the negative consequences that others will have to endure. Love your neighbor as you love yourself. But conversely, Christianity is explicitly against acting in such a way that will bring injury to others. All analysis of this cap-and-trade bill that Clyburn pushed shows that it will lead to misery and suffering for a vast majority of Americans. Such is the antithesis of the moral espoused by Christianity.

And they’re very much involved in this healthcare bill. I believe if James were writing his epistle today, he would go beyond clothing [the poor]. He would demand that we take care of the sick and the shut-in as part of expressing our faith. Most religious groups see it that way.

I cannot argue with giving time and energy, donating and volunteering to help those are less fortunate. This is the epitome of Christianity, to build the kingdom of Heaven here on Earth. But it is inconsequential to the health care bill. The key word there is “giving.” This involves individual choice, not a faceless government requiring you, under penalty, to provide to the poor and needy. Human beings have been helping those less fortunate long before welfare existed.

What do you say to religious conservatives who argue that those kind of biblical exhortations are directed at individuals, not the government?

What is the government if it’s not individuals acting collectively on behalf of the common good? That’s what we are. So I would not argue with that point. I would agree.

The problem is that Clyburn, and all liberals, are completely corrupting the notion of what a government is. This statement can only be true if the government could reasonably claim to know what all of the governed want. To forcibly take from one and give to another, under the guise of “helping” is opposed to the core tenets of Christianity. Christianity teaches that humans possess free will, not seen in any other of God’s creatures. It is not charitable, in any way shape or form, to undermine the free will of anyone in order to help another.

A government is a social contract between citizens, in which they give up certain powers and freedoms for the protection of their natural/God-given rights. It is not some entity which exists to lift a few men up by using other men as stepping stones. And this is just as Christianity is not some faith or religion which would encourage us to forego personal responsibility in favor of our government doing charity in our stead.

Representative Clyburn should learn these lessons as part of the Faith Working Group, and cease using his misunderstanding of Christianity to push his version of big government. At the very least, he should be thankful that he decided not to go to seminary, and instead went to law school. At least there no one is interested in the truth.

By now many Americans are probably well aware of the video on youtube showing school children singing the praises of President Obama. If not, well, here it is:

The response given by the school stated:

Dear Burlington Township Families:

 

Today we became aware of a video that was placed on the internet which has been reported in the media. The video is of a class of students singing a song about President Obama. The activity took place during Black History Month in 2009, which is recognized each February to honor the contributions of African Americans to our country. Our curriculum studies, honors and recognizes those who serve our country. The recording and distribution of the class activity were unauthorized.

 

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me or Dr. King, Principal of B. Bernice Young School, directly.

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Christopher M. Manno,

Superintendent of Schools

Considering that it is now fully encouraged that such acclaim be sung towards the President to the tune of religious songs, the following are recommended for teachers who are prejudiced against their students sounding like the early nineties band Crash Test Dummies.

To the tune of the The First Noel:

Barack Obama, is more than a man

He was sent from Chicago to lead us by hand

He changed the world by speaking the truth

And stopped climate change to protect the youth.

Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama

He is the One who will save us from us!

To the tune of Silent Night:

Barack Obama, President

Came to us, not hesitant

Bipartisan and post-racial

Get the world to love us you shall

Lead with eloquent speech

Lead with eloquent speech

And for those who object to any religious concepts being brought into their classroom, the following song has been written.

To the tune of Auld Lang Syne:

Should the old ways be forgot,

And the world rid of drama,

Should the old ways be forgot,

And in Age of Obama

For Obama, my dear,

For Obama,

We’ll take a public option yet,

For Obama.

 Also, the NEA suggests that the following be recited every morning before the official start of the school day:

Barack Obama,

Who art in D.C.,

Hallowed be thy name.

Health reform come,

Thy will be done,

Here as it is in Chicago.

Give us this pay,

Our stimulus bill.

Three million jobs to save or create,

As we find ourselves empty of hate.

And lead us not into inflation,

But deliver us from Republicans.

Amen.

These songs and many more will soon be available on CD or preloaded Ipod, sung by the children from the KidsBop line, for the low low price of $34.99 and $399.99, respectively.

As most Americans are by now no doubt aware, with the notable exception of Charlie Gibson, the House and Senate have voted recently to deny ACORN the right to feed at the federal trough. The Senate was the first to act, a revelation which caused a bewildered Nancy Pelosi, when questioned about the defunding, to feebly attempt to fight off her botox treatment and furrow her brow in confusion.

Not to be outdone, the House quickly acted to take federal funds away from those kiddy trick turning helpers at ACORN. Both votes were pretty unanimous, and in fact were probably the most bipartisan effort put forth by our venerable leaders in congress since the era of healing began. Today, however, along comes Jerry Nadler (D- NY08) to valiantly defend the Constitutional rights of a criminal enterprise to offer advice to sex trafficking pimps while being eligable to receive 8,500,000,000 dollars in taxpayer money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). That’s right, 8 point five billion! From us. To assist with prostitution.

It’s now apparent who was meant to be stimulated by the ARRA.

Quoth Jerry Nadler, steward of the Constitution:

“Today’s Republican Amendment is in blatant violation of the Constitution’s prohibition against Bills of Attainder … Congress must not be in the business of punishing individual organizations or people without trial, and that’s what this Amendment does. Whatever one may think of an organization, the Constitution’s clear ban on Bills of Attainder is there for the protection of all of our liberties.”

Jerry scores points for understanding this basic Constitutional concept, but fails for applying a broad liberal brush when he says:

“A little while ago, the House passed an amendment to the bill that we were considering that says no contract or federal funds may ever go to ACORN, a named organization, or to any individual or organization affiliated with ACORN. Unfortunately, this was done in the spirit of the moment and nobody had the opportunity to point out that this is a flat violation of the Constitution, constituting a Bill of Attainder.”

Where Nadler’s argument falls apart is in his liberal assumption that refusing to dole out taxpayer money is in some way a violation of ACORN’s rights. This is explicitly not the case. The founders added the clause to Article 1 in order to keep Congress from doing the job of the judiciary. The goal was to ensure that congress would not deprive any person or group of liberty or property for purely partisan gains. However, ACORN has no right to be given Government (read: taxpayer) money. This exists purely as a privilege. Congress has, as part of its budgeting powers, the right to say where federal money can and can not go.

I would agree with Jerry Nadler if the House voted to take possession of all of ACORN’s properties and to throw its employees in jail, but that is not the case. ACORN and its employees were not stripped of any rights by the House’s actions.

Still, I cannot help but wonder where Jerry Nadler was when the U.S. government took over Chrystler and GM, or when the House voted to strip AIG’s employees of their bonuses. Could it be that since the three aforementioned companies are profiteers, whereas ACORN exists ”solely to help people” that Nadler let the Constitution off the hook those day? 

Or did he pull an Obama and simply vote present?

President Obama, along with all of his true believers and comrades in the Democratic Caucus have been pushing the notion that HR3200 will create a health insurance exchange where consumers can shop for different health insurance premiums, one of which will be the public option. Their claim is that this exchange will encourage competition, which will necessarily cause prices to decrease. I applaud the President and his fellow Democrats for being able to grasp the concept that competition is a good thing, which does indeed lower prices. It seems, however, that their understanding of competition is sorely lacking. They want the American people to believe that simply having multiple options when it comes to a product is the same thing as having a healthy competitive market. The problem with this logic is that it misses key components of true competition; components which will not exist if HR3200 passes, and will therefore make their exchange completely noncompetitive.

The first element of true competition is choice. The consumer is at liberty to decide whether or not they want to buy the product. If they have a particular want or need for the product, they are free to make the decision to buy it and in so doing, then choose from the providers. At this point they can decide what features work best for them, and thus purchase the one with the most fitting options. Conversely, they can decide that their money is better spent elsewhere. The problem with this proposal is that it takes away the ability of the consumer to decide whether health insurance suits their wants and needs through the imposition of fines and penalties. The IRS becomes the strong-arm of the government, forcing citizens to buy health insurance or be punished thusly. Any wise consumer, being given the options of paying for something and paying for nothing, will use their money to have something. But making a choice by government diktat is not the same as being able to decide, without coercion, what one wants to do.

The second element of competition was touched upon above. This is the concept of product variability. What does one find when they peruse an automobile dealership? Do they find one car with all the same options and all in the same color? Or, perhaps, is one treated to an assortment of cars, in all shapes, sizes and colors with different features added throughout? As stated previously, consumers don’t all have the same tastes, and so will differently weigh that which is available to them. While one might want a sedan with power locks and windows, another might want the same car but decide to save money by purchasing one with manual locks and windows. Even still, a third consumer might opt for an SUV or sports car. The point is that manufacturers can differentiate themselves by offering their customers variation. If an automobile company did indeed produce only one car in one color, we might not be too surprised if we found out that it went out of business.

But the bill currently before Congress does not allow for those options in terms of purchasing health insurance. The bill requires a minimum level of coverage from insurance companies, as well as a cap on out of pocket expenses. Gone will be the “injury or illness” type of policies with low premiums and high deductibles, replaced with policies that require wellness and prevention testing. This will be anti-competitive by nature, since high deductible plans are, by their very nature, cheap because they put most of the risk on the consumer.

Next one must consider the cost of manufacturing when it comes to competition. Every company has different levels of efficiency, different wages that they pay their employees and different levels of overhead. These differences are primarily the reason why U.S. auto manufacturers have been unable to compete with foreign manufacturers for so long. The big three have been bogged down by such exorbitant labor costs for so long that they had a difficult time creating a comparable product for the same price as their competitors. Granted, insurance is a different kind of product, where the price is based both on the product and on the consumer, but nonetheless the idea remains the same. Insurance premiums vary based on the level of risk being taken on by the company. This is the reason why life insurance costs more when one gets older, because of the increased likelihood that the policyholder will pass away.

Since those on the left have been happy to make the auto insurance analogy, let’s make a similar one here. Higher premiums for auto insurance get paid by people who fit certain sets of criteria. If one is young, has a history of poor driving, drives a new car or lives in an area where car theft is commonplace, they have more costly auto insurance. Yet the left does not desire to make sweeping changes to the auto insurance market because of this “discrimination.” The simple fact is that people in these groups are more likely than others to have to file a claim, thus causing the insurance company to have to pay more money. The Democrats wish to pass this bill, which does not allow health insurance companies to adjust prices based on age, sex, etc. It is understandable to attempt to enforce anti-discrimination laws where it is fitting, but the simple fact is that certain groups are more likely to require high cost medical care than others. And either way, the truth is that this is a false dilemma between discrimination and no discrimination. The fact is that there is not one single trait in a person that determines rates, but rather a myriad of facts that actuary’s consider.

Considering all of these components which make a market truly competitive, and also considering the ways in which HR3200 wishes to strip those components out of health insurance, one must start to question this health insurance exchange. While the Democrats swear it will lead to lower prices and increased competition, there’s little in the bill which actually allows for that. And this article hasn’t even touched on how badly the public option will skew the market! Either our leadership has a serious misunderstanding of what competition truly is, or they hope that the American people fail to accurately understand. Regardless of which it is, the last thing this bill will do is lead to more competition.

Physicists and Engineers (read: nerds) like to get all wee-wee’d up when discussing the Laws of Thermodynamics. These discussions will often span across all fifty seven states, and even across languages. The Laws of Thermodynamics end up being debated by scientists speaking English, French, Sanskrit and Austrian. But what are the Laws of Thermodynamics, and why is it important to learn about them?

The truth is, they’re probably not important at all. I haven’t really read about them, so I don’t have all the facts, but nonetheless I think that they’re stupid. For the sake of argument, however, let’s try to consider one of them, even given my limited understanding. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which I have arbitrarily decided to focus on, states:

“In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the universe.”

I would hope that this statement should be transparent enough, but for the Neanderthals out there, allow me to translate. Entropy is nothing more than a fancy way how saying how mixed up something is. It’s a level of…mixedupness. So this is very clearly stating that processes cause the universe to become more mixed up, and never less. Another way of putting this second law would be to say that:

“Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.”

This is why it was so important to weatherize federal buildings. In the winter, heat will naturally want to escape, wasting precious taxpayer dollars. Never fear, though, I’m sure that once the government cures cancer, they will get around to tackling that pesky 2^nd law of thermodynamics.

Where was I going with this tirade again? Ah yes! In the interest of making sure that science is returned to its rightful place in our society, I’ve decided to take these purely theoretical concepts of the 2^nd law and entropy, and have applied them to the only sciences that really matter: political and social science.

With that, I have developed the following axiom, which I call the Law of Increasing Governmentropy:

“In a nation, a law that is passed will tend to increase the governmentropy of that nation.”

Governmentropy can be defined, quite simply, as the size and complexity of the Government running a nation. In other words, it’s a measure of how mixed up a government is! The best part is that since Governmentropy is a constantly increasing entity, claims of “I inherited this mess” must always be logically true. This axiom guarantees that our elected officials can remain punch-drunk and can spend their time attempting to improve their bowling scores to show up those hoity-toity special Olympians.

Of course, as with that goofy other second law, we can rewrite this one as follows:

“Tax dollars cannot spontaneously flow from the Government back to the people who paid those taxes.”

And that, boys and girls, is all too true.

Vice President Elect Joe “J-O-B-S” Biden recently announced that he will be the working families czar, a very important role for Mr. Biden, considering the fact that being Vice President is less than a fulltime job. Once he’s done figuring out which article of the constitution describes the executive branch, VPE Biden will frantically get to work on tasks such as: making sure the middle class is growing; making sure they’re not “being left behind”; making sure that they get all the luxuries only affordable to members of congress. It’s a job that can only be done by a member of the executive branch, I assume, one as difficult as President Elect Obama’s job of putting gas in Peggy the Mooch’s car and paying her mortgage.

But beneath the lowbrow insults that I am hurling at the next President of the World and his head “honcho” is a much more serious and dangerous situation, which is namely the continuous attempt of our Democratic overlords to “build the middle class” via methods that are akin to making a chilly house warm by setting it on fire. When Democrats talk about “building the middle class,” they’re never referring to policies that would actually benefit those who are too poor to be rich, but too rich to be poor. Examples of such useful policies would be: providing cheap and abundant sources of energy; balancing the budget to allow for lower income and property taxes; increasing the standards of public education to allow more Americans to be competitive in the world.

Instead, the policies that Democrats choose to push forth are policies doomed to failure, such as increases in minimum wage, card check and refundable tax credits that essentially amount to welfare. The desire therefore becomes not to help the middle class, but to use government fiat to pull those in the lower strata of the socioeconomic ladder into the middle class. However, government does not create wealth. It only redirects it through force. And in the end, the only ones who benefit are those who lack the will and desire to create prosperity for themselves, and that is by taking from the upper echelons of society, where it is believed there is much wealth to spread.

As Democrats’ policies are carried out, the true middle class, people who are self-sufficient and whose only desire is to work, have their families and be happy are forgotten. They end up paying as the cost of goods and services increases due to higher labor expenses and decreased margins for businesses. Lacking the government assistance only given to the poor and the high paychecks only seen by the rich, the middle-class falls by the wayside and finds life to be harder.

So, one may ask, what is the best way to really help the middle class? Forget czars. Forget refundable credits. Run a responsible government which works to stay out of everyone’s lives and instead strives constantly for fiscal responsibility. Then the middle class can find real success.

Skepticism, traditionally, is the notion that one should suspend all judgment in the investigation of facts. Skeptics are those who use logic and reason in the pursuit of truth, relying on genuine evidence rather than on emotion and intuition. The great skeptic David Hume said:

“All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability”

Hume believed that we must be ever cautious in our assumptions and beliefs about the world. And while his harsh skepticism got him in a great deal of trouble with many groups, his wisdom in regards to our defense of untenable hypotheses is nonetheless something to always consider.

 In current times, the term skeptic has been given a negative connotation, mostly by those who wish to advance the belief in anthropogenic global warming. They liken climate change skeptics to deniers of the holocaust and those who believe the Earth to be flat. The claim of such Goremongers is that the evidence is so strong, that to reject the hypothesis amounts to a complete loss of reason. They wish to make climate change skepticism seem like the opposite of genuine skepticism, based on preconceived notions or political and economic affiliations.

However, the point of skepticism is not necessarily to believe something once you find evidence. But rather, the point is to question the evidence when it seems that the evidence is contradictory or counterintuitive. To that end, climate change skeptics can be grouped into the following categories, based on which evidence they reject. For each group, there are subsets, and it need not be the case that a person fits into only one group.

1.) The Earth is not warming. This group explicitly rejects the notion that the Earth has warmed. It is the weakest position, since evidence indicates that temperatures have indeed increased over the last century.

2.) The Earth is warming, but the data…

a.) Is too corrupted by human influence, scientific adjustments and urban heat islands to be in any way meaningful

b.) When averaged to some nebulous global mean, is too imprecise to determine changes over small time scales

3.) The Earth is warming, but scientifically…

a.) The Earth is currently rebounding from the Little Ice Age, and that all through human history there have been cold and warm periods.

b.) The warming has stopped, and that over the last decade, temperatures have been dropping

c.) The climate system is too complex to understand, and too complex for there to be a reliance on the fallacy of a single cause, in this case CO2.

4.) The Earth is warming, and the effects will be…

a.) Good for humanity and the world in general, regardless of the cause. Higher temperatures allow for longer periods of vegetation growth, and certainly there is more danger and suffering as a result of low temperature.

b.) Negligible compared to the effects of enacting draconian  controls on CO2 emissions.

c.) Nowhere near as bad as the dire predictions of Al Gore and the IPCC.

5.) Carbon dioxide levels…

a.) Historically trail increases in temperature.

b.) Are not linearly proportional to temperature increases. Instead, there is a logarithmic relation, as the ultraviolet absorption spectrum for CO2 is narrow, which leads to smaller gains in temperature as CO2 increases.

c.) Are at a historical low, and should be higher to ensure stronger and healthier plant growth, and thus a stronger and healthier human race.

6.) The science of global warming…

a.) Is based entirely on computer models that give different results, are unable to recreate historical data and have no basis in reality.

b.) Is politically and economically motivated

c.) Is shrouded in secrecy, and that climate scientists are unwilling to share their data and methods, in clear violation of the standards of scientific research.

d.) Relies on unverifiable assumptions and approximations.

e.) Focuses too greatly on CO2, while disregarding other greenhouse gases, such as water vapor.

I have no doubt that there other ways to group these skepticisms, and as stated previously, it is not necessary to agree with only one of them, or with all of them. Upon deeper evaluation, some of them might actually overlap. However, it is important to know what aspects of the “settled science” one is skeptical about before being able to engage those who fervently believe in the dangers of global warming.

Again, we should remember Hume, who also said:

“When men are most sure and arrogant they are commonly most mistaken, giving views to passion without that proper deliberation which alone can secure them from the grossest absurdities”

During the Presidential campaign that seemed like a lifetime ago, then Democratic candidate and now President-Elect Barack Obama made a promise, largely in the debates, that to counter the extreme budget shortfall that was bound to arise from the bloated wall street bailouts, he would:

And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.

And also:

I want to go line by line through every item in the federal budget and eliminate programs that don’t work and make sure that those that do work, work better and cheaper.

 And from the third debate:

 Now, what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut. I haven’t made a promise about…

…

Absolutely. So let me get to that. What I want to emphasize, though, is that I have been a strong proponent of pay-as- you-go. Every dollar that I’ve proposed, I’ve proposed an additional cut so that it matches.

…

We need to eliminate a whole host of programs that don’t work. And I want to go through the federal budget line by line, page by page, programs that don’t work, we should cut. Programs that we need, we should make them work better.

 But now the President-Elect is telling a different story:

“The consensus is this: We have to do whatever it takes to get this economy moving again — we’re going to have to spend money now to stimulate the economy. … [W]e shouldn’t worry about the deficit next year or even the year after; that short term, the most important thing is that we avoid a deepening recession”.

Far from being at issue is the President-Elect’s propensity towards saying one thing and doing another. One can easily make the claim that at the time he proposed utilizing pay-go and a Carteresque line-by-line budget analysis, the nation was unaware of the recession we were facing. This is easily argued, considering that by the time the third and final debate rolled around, the stock market had already sunk to its lowest, home prices had been in decline for almost a year if not more, and there were a slew of other economic indicators that we were receding.

The problem at issue here is the fact that President-Elect Obama wishes to tell us that deficits are unimportant in the short term, because we need to fight the recession. It is thinking taken straight from the New Deal, which history tells us was probably more disastrous for the economy than anything else, since the heavy government burden only served to deepen the effect on business owners. And now, right in the vein of FDR, soon to be President Obama wants to push forth bailouts and stimulus packages in the hopes of giving the economy a shot in the arm.

But aside from inflating the deficit, there is a problem with bailouts and stimuli: they don’t work!

A bailout, by its very nature, does nothing but put money into the pockets of unprofitable businesses by taking money from businesses and people who are. Government does not create capital. It only redirects it. So by running up a huge deficit to support failing industries in the short term, the government does nothing more than take from the successful in the long term by increasing their tax burden and handcuffing their ability to direct their capital how they see fit.

Stimulus packages offer the same dilemma. We saw the $300 billion stimulus during the summer, which failed to bolster the economy. The problem with the stimulus was that by paying money to 100% of tax filers now, regardless of tax liability, the government guaranteed that in the future, the 60% of workers who actually pay taxes will be left to foot the bill. The next stimulus package, which will also rank in the hundreds of billions, will do the same, but with goals that are far vaguer. Obama wants to use the proposed stimulus as part of a green jobs program, where workers performs tasks such as making homes more energy efficient.

But the details are lacking. Jobs such as siding a house are skilled labor. Certainly he doesn’t expect that layabouts happen to know how to install siding, windows or furnaces? Who will these people work for? If they work for the government, that is a frightening concept, as the government can set their pay wherever it chooses. If they’re put to work on government offices, there will be no competition, and costs will skyrocket. Businesses will suffer from the lack of work. This bill will then be passed on to the taxpayer. And if the army of green workers is put to task on private buildings, they will either be too expensive to be affordable or, if their salaries are coming from taxpayers, will be so cheap to make private businesses not competitive. Either way, there will be a great loss of private capital due to suffering businesses and higher tax burdens.

The best thing the President-Elect could do to fix the recession is forget bailouts and stimuli. He should work on lowering the deficit and taxes to allow businesses and individuals to have more money now and in the future. It seems that the best option would be to do nothing. No meddling. Put a spending freeze into effect. Let the economy correct itself. But when presented with the idea of a spending freeze, Obama said:

The problem with a spending freeze is you’re using a hatchet where you need a scalpel.

The real problem is that since being elected President, Obama has completely left the operating room.

Nickelodeon is currently, and has been for some time now, advertising their youth environmental indoctrination program, the Big Green Help using the child stars of their TV shows. Of course, this is in no way surprising to me, since Nickelodeon is one step away from being a children, tween and teen’s version of MSNBC: wrong all the time, but completely unfaltering in how wrong it can be. Nickelodeon wants to teach the children of the world that Global Warming is the greatest danger the world has ever faced. Ever ever.

In the Big Green Help, kids play a video game featuring NickToons characters, and fight the oh-so-evil CO2 polluting monsters. I won’t point out the ethical issues of using the pressure provided by successful peers and idols to goad children into making “climate pledges.” I won’t even point out that CO2 isn’t pollution. Not only that, I won’t point out the irony of having kids pledge to decrease water usage, power usage and so forth by playing a non-essential, power consuming video game on a computer.

Human induced climate change is to today’s generation of youngsters what the peak of the cold war was to my parent’s generation. Children today stay up at night, fretting over what might become of the world if the ice caps melt, or if Tuvala sinks underwater. Where will we be if the poor polar bears, completely unable to defend themselves from anything have no ice to which they can return?

I often lament the fact that, as a child, I never had anything that scared me so thoroughly I woke up in the middle of the night, sweating profusely. Sure, there was acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer, cancer caused by high voltage power lines, the fact that Gorbachev had the mark of the devil. But none of these ever really stuck. Nothing ever caused panic attacks for me or the general population outside of the anxiety ridden. But that’s a sad tale for another day.

Global Warming is a crisis! Or, as Al Gore would say, “Global. Warming. Is. The. Greatest. Threat. The. Human. Race. Has. Ever… … … … Known.” To those of us who are more rational, there is slightly more disturbing threat presented by Global Warming. Or, more specifically, presented by the threat of the threat of Global Warming. Unlike previous crises, Global Warming brings about an angst that is existential in nature. And by existential, I do not mean like that of John McCain, discussing in the first debate the fact that Iran EXISTS and is dangerous. I mean existential angst in the vein of Sartre and Kierkegaard, of the variety in which human beings, by nature of being free, feel great dread over the fact that they are prone to mistakes, and such mistakes might and will have disastrous effects.

Previous crises were about fear, about the fact that the average person could do little or nothing to stop the impending doom. But angst is a different beast. Today’s youth are being told that Global Warming is not a problem that is confined to being dealt with by our leaders, but instead will be solved by everyday actions. Kids are even being asked to pressure their parents to live more environmentally responsible lives, even if it is by government fiat. To them, it is not a problem if the government decides to tell us what light bulbs we must use, or that we cannot heat our houses above a certain temperature, or that we must recycle or drive a hybrid. There is a long list of small liberties that today’s children are being led to believe that it is acceptable to surrender in order to preserve the safety of the world.

But as Benjamin Franklin said , “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

As someone who went to school in the Lehigh Valley area of Pennsylvania, this story intrigued me. Very sad and psychologically scarring for the poor child. Maybe licenses should be required for people to be parents.

The sad case of a boy names Adolf

Seriously, for these people to believe that their child will have a normal life, they must be absolutely oblivious.

Update: Some commentary.

I think that this sort of problem is indicative of a level of ignorance possessed by many people. I don’t say that to sound mean or offensive to anyone who happens to have given their child a strange name. But it is a problem that people need to think about before naming or raising their children. Parents have a great responsibility, and the decisions that they make determine who their children end up being.

Children face enough problems simply on the basis of being children, that it’s unfair and, in a sense, abusive to behave in such a way. I don’t advocate that the state should take this child away based solely on a name. But other aspects of the article, such as the preponderance of Nazi paraphenalia in the house is cause for concern. Even still, I would not necessarily claim that the children should be taken away because their parents may be bigots.

It’s just a shame that this poor child will likely have to suffer much of his life for such an unnecessary reason.

Previously, I discussed how it is inherently possible for people of two differing ideologies to draw their conclusions from the same principles. Looking at the principles of conservatism I discussed:

1.) Belief in a limited government which is contracted with its citizens to minimally interfere in their lives and to defend them from harm.

2.) Belief in a specific moral order that grants us both rights and responsibilities

3.) Belief in a system of values which enable individuals to best maintain their rights. This system includes hard work and family as a cornerstone.

One can understand how it is possible to have conservatives who end up with drastically different opinions, if they believe that one or two principles are far more important than others. This is how we end up seeing some social conservatives who push for big government populism, fiscal conservatives who are pro-choice, and every other combination of issues that could be imagined.

However, what we inevitably end up with in any attempt to discuss social issues are arguments from different camps. We can only ever view issues from our own positions on policy, with reason and pragmatism getting lost as a result. Where we find ourselves unable to agree, we must instead look to principles to find common ground. Therefore, I will attempt to approach the social issues from a position of principles, rather than my own view on the policy, in an attempt to find common ground.

Abortion is always the most hot-button issue, so I hope to not alienate anyone in this initial discussion. The most extreme pro-life view dictates that abortion is always morally wrong, and that the government is participating in murder by allowing it. The most extreme pro-choice view is that abortion should be allowable up until the moment the baby takes a breath, and that it is not alive until it is completely independent from the mother. As with any position at the margins, both of these views can be seen as flawed. I will not discuss the flaws, but will instead point out that both views attempt to analyze the topic narrowly, without looking at the bigger picture.

If we outlaw abortion, we will not stop it from happening. We will have only criminalized it. Rather than actually fixing the problem, we will have simply washed our hands of it. Our consciences will be free, knowing we have made it illegal, but we still see it occurring. Conversely, if we allow partial* or live birth abortions, we will be simply allowing the death of a child who, on its own, would have likely been capable of surviving. If the purpose of abortion is supposed to be to save someone the cost of carrying a child, or the stigma of being pregnant, what reason is there to legalize techniques that require women to carry a child almost to term?

There is no simple solution. What gets lost in the debate is the real question: why do abortions occur? Is there a specific demographic that sees higher abortion rates than others? Is it due to socioeconomic status? Age? In those groups, is it due to lack of education? I recall a news report of teens some time ago who were using Mountain Dew as a contraceptive. Surely this can only be viewed as a failure of parents and the educational system.

Since it is always easier to say that one is for something or against something, this is the where we end up in our political discourse. But being simply pro-life or pro-choice is a false dilemma, and ignores other options for combating the problem. It should be in this regard that we attempt to solve the issue, rather than finding ourselves in a perpetual stalemate.

I am confident that a practical application of our principles could solve the problem. But the question is: who has the political courage to propose such applications of principle?

Next post, I will discuss gay marriage, provided there is the desire to see it.

*I maintain that I am pro-choice, but not to the point where I agree with this terribly sickening practice.