variation30
Posts: 1190
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: Alabama
Status: offline
|
If I were to suggest that socialized health care naturally leads to totalitarianism and an abolishment of individual freedoms, I would most probably be written off as a ultra-conservative right winger...just like Mises (according to some members of the SDS). But if the government mandates that they are the sole provider of health care, does it not follow that they would take certain actions towards ensuring the efficacy of their programs. We see this from the regulations of our public schools and universities to the circus known as airport security. Individuals are too incompetent to educate their own youth and they need to trust in the ubermensch that have brought us marvels such as No Child Left Behind. We are too incompetent to securly run airlines (remember 9/11) and we need to trust the masterminds who have given us the the color coded terror warning system. Ignore the facts that the public school systems in the nation are largely a joke and that the TSA has had numerous scandles involving undercover TSA agents smuggling bombs through TSA security, that after dumping nearly seven billion dollars into the program they still score lower than private security agents, the many claims of theft, sexual harassment, spending on non-security related items and projects, etc. It would probably be wise for us to trust the government when they say that we are too incompetent to keep ourselves healthy and that we must rely upon the benevolence and brilliance of our elected leaders to keep us healthy through "free" health care.
The government has regulated our property to keep "the economy efficient" through things like minimum wage, tariffs on imports, granting natural monopolies, price fixing, etc. Can we not also expect a similarly invasive set of regulations to keep this government project efficient? On the same hand, can we not also expect these regulations to be just as...effective. We've already seen quite a few injuries done to individual liberty in the name of 'protecting the citizens'. The evil dragons of second-hand smoke (the ravages of third hand smoke are coming to a state near you), illicit substances, 20 year-old alcoholics, good, fatty french fries being served in the city of New York, and keeping individuals in pain from easily acquiring medication that would alleviate their misery have all been slain by the shining knights that inhabit our state and federal governments. These restrictive actions are, of course, absurd - as is the professed reason for these actions, our protection. Do I need to be protected from my appreciation of black cavendish or scotch? Of course not. Do I need to be protected from my desire to eat a deep-fried Snickers bar? Of course not. What these...Protectors of the Citizenry fail to understand is that perhaps the risk of losing a few weeks of your last years is worth a tri-weekly helping of ossobuco. Perhaps filling my lungs with Chancellor Tobacco is worth risking my last decade as a senile elder that I would otherwise spend driving my children crazy. Perhaps, and I know this is me being silly or glib, but perhaps my life is my possession. Perhaps my health is my possession. This is, of course, going against ideas that say things such as:
""Brother national socialist, do you know that our Führer is against smoking and thinks that every German is responsible to the whole people for all his deeds and emissions, and does not have the right to damage his body with drugs?""
Now obviously I am not suggesting that people who think that smoking or trans fat should be banned are Nazis, are Hitler, or hate gypsies and homosexuals. What I am illustrating is a similarity in the arguments between these 'social democracies', our own nation, and a nation that is a notorious example of collectivism and totalitarianism gone awry. I'm trying to show the danger inherent in the mentality that we, because of some invisible web of "society", owe our bodies, minds, and will to one another and especially the entity that brings us together - our government. These programs and the mantras that support them may seem harmless enough at a cursory glance. But even these seemingly benevolent actions could very well (and probably will) lead to egregious injuries to individual freedoms. You know about individual freedoms, the things that allow you to do whatever it is that makes you happy: practicing religion, being beaten with a cane while wearing a ring gag, smoking marijuana while listening to Phish, performing Shostakovich, creating and trading vicuna clothing, falling in love with and expressing love to someone of the same sex, starting a mail service, eating foie gras, watching your meerschaum slowly change colors, making pornography, trying to advertise eggs, composing music and creating art that has nothing to do with illustrating how great your nation is, having sex in any position other than the missionary position, starting a brand new railroad to California, drinking whiskey, traveling, ad infinitum. These are some of the things that make we humans happy. What do they have in common? They all have been (or are) illegal. We must ignore the pretty words that are used to back up the regulation of foie gras consumption or art production. We must only look at the results of these actions. If any of the aforementioned regulations do effect you or would have effected you, then I think the result of these regulations should be obvious. If you acknowledge how these...laws would have effected you, then please have the courtesy to not stand in the way of other individuals who wish to partake in the activities they enjoy...even if it is claimed that this is being done for their own good.
The result of these regulations is an encroachment upon an individual's ability to act with his body as he sees fit. These laws and regulations are upheld through violence or the threat of violence. This is, if anything, an act of aggression. I am of the opinion that agressing against another individual is never just. This obviously applies to keeping 15 year olds from hosting bake sales and egg producers from advertising their product, but also applies to a much larger enity that may be overlooked...social health care itself. But that's a conversation for a different time.
< Message edited by variation30 -- 1/7/2009 3:43:47 AM >
_____________________________
all the good ones are collared or lesbians.
or old.
|
A Government Ban on Egg Commercials: Socialized Healthc... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread