Where’s the Charity in Force?

Recently I had the opportunity to converse with an old friend on the topic of Charity. My friend informed me that from his perspective, in order to live my religion and be charitable, I should be a proponent of Government mandated and controlled health care. From his perspective this is understandable as it is a basic Christian tenet to take care of the poor and needy.  Isn’t that all that is happening when the government injects itself into the health care industry? Aren’t we just making sure that those who don’t currently have health insurance are insured, so they don’t have to live in fear? Isn’t it the charitable, and therefore, the Christian thing to do?

After some additional study I submit this paper as an answer to all individuals who believe, specifically, that government should play a role in providing health care to Americans, and generally, that government should play a charitable role in our lives at all.

Charity is an Exalting Process

In an act of charity, the giver is exalted as they see or become aware of someone in want and reach within themselves to find a way to satisfy that person’s want of their own means. Often this act requires the giver to humble themselves and to reach further than may be comfortable in order to give, in other words, to make a sacrifice.  This sacrifice empowers the giver to more fully recognize the great abundance with which he has been blessed.  Serving others also carries with it the natural by-product of an increased love for all mankind.  This occurs because one has copied the Lord’s example of serving others.

Conversely, those who are in want are exalted because of the potential for great spiritual growth through first, increased humility in the giving of thanks and the showing of gratitude for the care and support, and secondly, through the humbling act of requesting help from an individual or organization. Through this process of receiving, the receiver draws closer to the Savior, by realizing he is not alone, and that God is looking out for him through His other children.

We Are All Dependents

Clearly we are all dependent upon the Savior for our Salvation. None will return to him save through his grace. But when times are good and temporal things are plentiful, we tend to arrogantly forget our dependence upon him and can even leave him completely out of our daily lives.  Thankfully the process of charity has the power to bring back to remember our dependence upon the Savior for all things.

So if charity has such a benevolent impact on givers and receivers, why not use government to spread it to all people within its borders?  The reach of government is so immense, and its resources so deep, couldn’t charity be implemented among all people equally?  Certainly, the charitable intent of the people wouldn’t change just because a government entity was used to provide it, would it?  Let’s examine these questions and see if government truly could engage in the process of charitable giving.

Strike #1 for the Government – No Choice

Many seem to believe that the Government acting in the role of the giver (having been empowered by its citizens’ tax dollars) is a noble purpose. The core problem is the source of funds. Government can only acquire its funding through the power of force, in other words, the government must do it by law.  Hence, when a law is passed there is always a required threat of force to enforce the law; the threats of fines, imprisonment, garnishment, and confiscation are the natural remedy for citizens who do not abide by the “charitable” law.  We have little choice in the matter and may suffer at the hands of the state should we choose to resist. So on the First hand, the giver is not exalted through the process but rather they are debased as their power of choice has been stripped from them.  This is a clear violation of their unalienable right of liberty, or, the ability to choose for themselves.

Strike #2 for the Government – No Growth

The receiver is deprived of the growing process which comes from asking a or seeking for help directly from others.  They still must request the assistance of the Government, but the Government does not see and deal with individuals, rather they deal with social groups, economic classes, and political special-interest organizations. As long as you qualify for assistance it becomes an entitlement for you–in many cases the benefits are irrevocable–unless you physically repudiate it. Consequently, the expressions of gratitude are non-existent. Some may see it as just dipping into the bank account that they were forced to pay into when times were better for them, rather than realizing the Sacrifice of the Giver. Thus the receiver is debased, and has the real opportunity for growth of character stripped from them.

Strike #3 for the Government – A Wall of Separation

This process puts a wall up between the actual givers and receivers through the encompassing, bureaucratic arms of the Government. They never know each other and lose the opportunity for a meaningful relationship. You may even have two neighbors who are both participating in the “System,” one as a giver (Taxpayer) and the other as a receiver (beneficiary), but never realize that one is “Helping” the other . Therefore, they both are deprived of an increase in their neighborly relationship that they could have seen through the act of a direct request or bestowal of charity. As a result their relationship is debased and in all likelihood will not reach it’s potential level of exchange, communication, and love.

What About Charity & Non-Governmental Organizations?

There is a stark difference between governmental “charity” and the philanthropic efforts of private organizations. You will never see the Salvation Army volunteer ringing a bell with one hand while holding a gun in the other. It is critical to remember that a church or volunteer organization has no power of force (law) to command citizens to fund their charitable endeavors. In order to fulfill an organization’s missions, they must rely upon the free generosity of the citizenry. And not only do they rely upon their voluntary donations of material goods but also upon their donations of time and love. Private groups likewise facilitate meaningful communication between volunteers and recipients in order to ascertain how the organization can effectively serve the recipient. With a focus on the individual, rather than some arbitrary social order created by politicians, private charities can help receivers understand that the goods/funds/services they are receiving were made possible solely by the generosity of others; others who desired to give. This process retains the exalting effect on the givers, receivers, volunteers, and the organizations themselves and the world is better for it! True charity reigns and all of this is accomplished by agency and love rather than the force and coercion of the government.

Government – You’re Out!

The very act of “Charitable” giving by the bleeding heart of government, can and will have a damning effect on the citizens. This is because forced charity is a blatant violation of the peoples’ unalienable right of Liberty and ultimately the Savior’s tenet to serve others of one’s free will and choice. If indulged in for long enough, it will lead to a moral cancer, like a virus, that will corrupt the very heart and soul of any nation.

Therefore we see that Charitable Force or False Philanthropy is as destructive in its nature as its name suggests. All government “charitable” (or non-charitable) redistributions must be stopped, thus giving the citizens (IE. the marketplace) the opportunity to come up with better, more efficient, and more helpful ways to assist those in need. If the government was not involved in this so-called charitable giving, Inflation, our National Debt, and the economy would be in a much better state. People would retain a greater amount of their income to bless others how they see fit.  And arguably those who now qualify for these government entitlement programs would be in a much better financial situation free of all the governmental “help” that they currently receive. But that is a subject for another post….

Is There a Right to Health Care?

by David Kelley

(A speech delivered at multiple venues in 1993-94)

Bill Clinton ran for president last year by attacking the 1980s as a “decade of greed” —attacking the leveraged buyouts and hostile takeovers engineered by Wall Street financiers. I happen to think this trend in the 1980s was a good thing, a productive realignment in American business. But be that as it may, the irony is that President Clinton is now proposing a hostile takeover of his own, a hostile takeover on a scale far beyond anything that Wall Street capitalists ever dreamed of, a hostile takeover of one seventh of the nation’s economy. I’m referring, of course, to his recently announced plan for health care “reform.”

The Clinton plan in its present form involves a massive exercise of coercion against physicians, employers, and patients alike. Most people will be forced to do business through health insurance purchasing cooperatives: government-backed monopolies that collect payments from consumers and set the terms on which producers can offer their services. Everyone will be forced to buy health care through these monopolies, with employers forced to pay the lion’s share of the bill. Physicians, hospitals, and HMOs will be prohibited from dealing with patients directly; they will be forced to offer their services through the purchasing cooperatives, subject to highly restrictive rules.

What has brought us to this state of affairs? Socialism has collapsed in the Soviet Union. The nations of Western Europe are trying to trim back their welfare states, desperately looking for ways to privatize. Yet in this country we are on the brink of a massive increase in government subsidies and government controls. Why?

The full story is a long and complicated one, but the essential cause, I think, is simple. The essential cause is the assumption that if people have medical needs which are not being met, it is society’s responsibility to meet them. In the current debate over health care reform, universal access has become the unquestioned goal, to which all other considerations may be sacrificed. The assumption is that the needs of recipients take precedence over the rights of physicians, hospitals, insurers and drug companies—the producers of health care, the people who deliver the goods—along with the rights of the taxpayers who are going to have to pay for it. In other words, those with the ability to provide health care are obliged to serve, while those with a need for health care are entitled to make demands.

Indeed, it is often said that the need for health care constitutes a right. President Clinton campaigned with the slogan, “Health care should be a right, not a privilege.” Opinion polls regularly show that the belief in such a right is widespread, even within the medical profession. The AMA’s “Patient’s Bill of Rights” includes the statement that patients have a “right to essential health care.”

If health care is a right, then government is responsible for seeing that everyone has access to it, just as the right to property means that government must protect us against theft. For the past thirty years, the idea that people have a right to health care has led to greater and greater government control over the medical profession and the health care industry. The needs of the indigent, the needs of the uninsured, the needs of the elderly, among other groups, have been put forward as claims on public resources. Government has responded by subsidizing these groups, and regulating physicians, insurers, and pharmaceutical companies on their behalf. Now the Clinton Administration proposes to make this right universal, to create a universal entitlement, and to vastly expand government control.

In this context, I can state my own point in a sentence: there is no such right. I will show you why the attempt to implement this alleged right leads in practice to the suspension of the genuine rights of doctors, patients, and the public at large. And I will show why the concept of such a right is corrupt in theory. I want to stress at the outset the importance of this issue. The long-term direction of public policy is not set by electoral politics, or by horse-trading in Congress, or by this or that court case. In the long term, at a basic level, public policy is set by ideas—ideas about things are just and worthy, what rights and obligations we have as individuals. The idea that people have a right to health care is inimical to our genuine liberties. The policies that flow from that idea are harmful to the interests of doctors and patients alike. To fight against those policies, we have to attack their root.

Liberty Rights vs. Welfare Rights

Let’s begin by defining our terms. A right is a principle that specifies something which an individual should be free to have or do. A right is an entitlement, something you possess free and clear, something you can exercise without asking anyone else’s permission. Because it is an entitlement, not a privilege or favor, we do not owe anyone else any gratitude for their recognition of our rights.

When we speak of rights, we invoke a concept that is fundamental to our political system. Our country was founded on the principle that individuals possess the “inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Along with the right to property, which the Founding Fathers also regarded as fundamental, these rights are known as liberty rights, because they protect the right to act freely. The wording of the Declaration of Independence is quite precise in this regard. It attributes to us the right to the pursuit of happiness, not to happiness per se. Society can’t guarantee us happiness; that’s our own responsibility. All it can guarantee is the freedom to pursue it. In the same way, the right to life is the right to act freely for one’s self-preservation. It is not a right to be immune from death by natural causes, even an untimely death. And the right to property is the right to act freely in the effort to acquire wealth, the right to buy and sell and keep the fruits of one’s labor. It is not a right to expect to be given wealth.

The purpose of liberty rights is to protect individual autonomy. They leave individuals responsible for their own lives, for meeting their own needs. But they provide us with the social conditions we need to carry out that responsibility: the freedom to act on the basis of our own judgment, in pursuit of our own ends; and the right to use and dispose of the material resources we have acquired by our efforts. These rights reflect the assumption that individuals are ends in themselves, who may not be used against their will for social purposes.

Let us consider what liberty rights mean in regard to medical care. If we implemented them fully, patients would be free to choose the type of care they want, and the particular health care providers they want to see, in accordance with their needs and resources. They would be free to choose whether they want health insurance, and if so, in what amounts. Doctors and other providers would be free to offer their services on whatever terms they choose. Prices would be governed not by government fiat, but by competition in a market. Since this is an imaginary state of affairs, no one can predict what mix of private practitioners, HMOs, and other sorts of health plans would emerge. But market forces would tend to ensure that patients have more choices than they do now, that they would act more responsibly than many do at present, and that they would pay actuarially fair prices for health insurance—prices that reflect the actual risks associated with their age, physical condition, and lifestyle. No one would be able to shift his costs onto someone else. In a truly free market, I might add, there would be no tax preference for obtaining health insurance through employers, so most people would probably buy health insurance the way they buy life insurance, auto insurance, or homeowners insurance—directly from insurance companies. They would not have to fear that losing their job, or changing the job, would mean losing their coverage.

So that is what liberty rights—the classical rights to life, liberty, and property—would mean in practice. The so-called “right” to medical care is quite different. It is not merely the right to act—i.e., to seek medical care, and engage in exchanges with providers, free from third party interference. It is a right to a good: actual care, regardless of whether one can pay for it. The alleged right to medical care is one instance of a broader category known as welfare rights. Welfare rights in general are rights to goods: for example, a right to food, shelter, education, a job, etc. This is one basic way in which they are quite different from liberty rights, which are rights to freedom of action, but don’t guarantee that one will succeed in obtaining any particular good one may be seeking.

Another difference has to do with the obligations imposed on other people. Every right imposes some obligation on others. Liberty rights impose negative obligations: the obligation not to interfere with one’s liberty. Such rights are secured by laws that prohibit murder, theft, rape, fraud, and other crimes. But welfare rights impose on others the positive obligation to provide the goods in question.

Health care does not grow on trees or fall from the sky. The assertion of a right to medical care does not guarantee that there is going to be any health care to distribute. The partisans of these rights demand, with air of moral righteousness, that everyone have access to this good. But a demand does not create anything. Health care has to be produced by someone, and paid for by someone. One of the major arguments offered by supporters of a right to health care is that health care is an essential need. What good are our other liberties, they ask, if we cannot get medical treatment for illness? But we must ask, in return: why does need give someone a right? Fifty years ago, people whose kidneys were failing needed dialysis every bit as much as they do today, but there were no dialysis machines. Did they have a right to protection against kidney failure? Was Mother Nature violating their rights by making their kidneys fail without a remedy? It makes no sense to say that need itself confers a right unless someone else has the ability to meet that need. So any “right” to medical care imposes on someone the obligation to provide care to those who cannot provide it for themselves.

If I have such a right, some other person or group has the involuntary, unchosen obligation to provide it. I stress the word “involuntary.” A right is an entitlement. If I have a right to medical care, then I am entitled to the time, the effort, the ability, the wealth, of whoever is going to be forced to provide that care. In other words, I own a piece of the taxpayers who subsidize me. I own a piece of the doctors who tend to me. The notion of a right to medical care goes far beyond any notion of charity. A doctor who waives his bill because I am indigent is offering a free gift; he retains his autonomy, and I owe him gratitude. But if I have a right to care, then he is merely giving me my due, and I owe him nothing. If others are forced to serve me in the name of my right to care, then they are being used regardless of their will as a means to my welfare. I am stressing this point because many people do not appreciate that the very concept of welfare rights, including the right to health care, is incompatible with the view of individuals as ends in themselves.

I might add that the difference between charity and rights is very well understood by the advocates of a right to health care. One of their main arguments for using the language of rights is that it removes the stigma associated with charity. A right is something for which you don’t owe anyone any gratitude. But notice the contradiction. The reason for proposing such a right in the first place is the claim that certain people cannot provide for themselves, and are thus dependent on other people for their medical care. The advocates of a right to health care then turn around and insist on using the concept of rights to disguise the fact of dependence, to allow the recipients of government subsidies to pretend that they are getting something they earned.

It is also worth noting that the Supreme Court has never recognized a constitutional basis for any welfare right, including the right to medical care. The Court recognizes that the concept of rights embodied in our legal system is the concept of liberty rights. Welfare rights are a product of later movements to expand the role of government beyond the original conception of its role. In our constitutional system, there is no requirement that the federal government provide health care. Health care entitlements, unlike fundamental rights like freedom of speech, have to be invented by legislators.

Effects of a Right to Health Care

Unfortunately, our legislators have been equal to the challenge. They have invented such entitlements in spades. And that leads me to my next point. When government attempts to implement a right to health care, the result will be the abrogation of liberty rights. As with money, bad rights drive out good ones. Let’s review the major consequences of implementing a right to medical care. I am going to use illustrations from our current situation, but these consequences follow inevitably from any approach: single payer, managed competition, whatever.

1) To begin with, of course, the government has to tax some people to pay for medical subsidies offered to those it considers to be in need. So the first consequence of implementing a “right” to medical care is forced transfers of wealth from taxpayers to the clientele of programs like Medicare and Medicaid. And this will inflate the demand for health care services. Offering free or heavily subsidized care is inevitably going to increase overall use of the health care system.

Figures from the early years of the Medicaid program indicate the vast increase in demand that can result. According to a Brookings Institution study, in 1964, before Medicaid went into effect, those above the poverty line saw physicians about 20 percent more frequently than did the poor; by 1975, the poor were visiting physicians 18 percent more often than the nonpoor. Again, before Medicaid, those with low incomes had only half as many surgical procedures as those with middle-class incomes; by 1970, the rate for low-income people was 40% higher than for those with middle class incomes.[1] When Medicare was instituted in 1966, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that by 1990, allowing for inflation, the program would cost $12 billion; the actual figure was $107 billion.[2] (Government forecasts of the costs of entitlement programs are never accurate. In many cases, like this one, they do not even get the order of magnitude correct.)

2) The cost explosion leads to the second major consequence of implementing a “right” to medical care: restrictions on the freedom of health care providers. During the debate over health care policy in the 1960s, proponents of Medicare and Medicaid assured doctors that they only wanted to pay for indigent care, and had no intention of regulating the profession. Abraham Ribicoff, then Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, said: “It should be absolutely no concern to a physician where a patient gets the money.”[3]

But of course the surge in demand for medical care led to rapid price increases, along with abuses of the system by clients of the government programs as well as by unscrupulous doctors and hospitals. These problems had to be addressed somehow, and the result was a growing web of controls: Professional Standards Review Organizations, diagnosis-related groups, restrictions on balance billing, utilization reviews. Under the managed care systems that have proliferated in the effort to control costs, physicians have less and less autonomy to act on their own best judgment about what is best for the patient. Dr. Maurice Sislen has written: “A huge, complex, policing system has taken the place of what used to be the doctor’s responsibility to his patient. Probably only a practicing physician can fully appreciate the magnitude of the economic waste and moral degradation involved.”[4]

3) A third major consequence of implementing a right to health care is the increased burden imposed on consumers of health care—the ones who were originally not in need of government subsidies. As taxpayers, of course, they have to pay for all the programs; that’s point 1. But as consumers, they are also affected by all the distortions of the market which these programs create. Everyone pays the higher prices caused by the inflation of demand for medical services, together with the increased costs of regulation and paperwork. As people are priced out of the system, they are forced into managed care systems that limit their choices of doctors.

Health insurance stipulations by states raise the cost of insurance, and discourage employers from hiring certain kinds of workers. For example, “community rating” laws require insurance companies to offer policies for the same price to all people, regardless of age, lifestyle, or physical condition. Since the actual risks depend on these factors, what community rating means is that the young pay higher prices to subsidize the elderly, the well subsidize the sick, and those with healthy lifestyles subsidize those with unhealthy ones. As an indication of the kind of subsidy involved, community rating in New York nearly tripled the cost of insurance for a 30-year-old male.[5]

4) Yet another consequence is a growing demand for equality in health care. If something is a human right, after all, then it should be protected equally for all persons. Our system is based on the idea of equality before the law. Now if we plug into this system the additional idea that we all have a legal right to some good like health care, the natural inference is that we all ought to receive that good on a more or less equal footing. For example, in a 1989 survey for the Harvard Community Health Plan, 90% of the respondents said that everyone should have “a right to the best possible health care—as good as a millionaire.” Here’s another example, a statement by Horace Deets, the Executive Director of the American Association of Retired Persons: “Ultimately, we must recognize that health care is not a commodity. Those with more resources should not be able to purchase services while those with less do without. Health care is a social good that should be available to every person without regard to his resources.”[6] And the Clinton plan is clearly egalitarian. One of the explicit goals of the proposal is to eliminate any “two-tier” system in which some people are able to buy more or better health care than others.

5) The fifth consequence–the last one I’ll mention–is the collectivization of health care, and of health itself. Just as a mixed economy treats wealth as a collective asset, which the government is free to dispose of as it sees fit for “the common good,” so a collectivized health care system treats the health of its members as a collective asset. Under this regime, physicians no longer work for their patients, with the overriding responsibility to act in their interests. Instead, physicians are agents of “society” who must decide the amount and the kind of care they give an individual patient by reference to social needs, such as the need to control costs in the system as a whole. Indeed, even the individual in such a system is urged to protect his own health not because it is in his self-interest, but because he has a responsibility to society not to impose too many costs on it.

To summarize, then, a political system that tries to implement a right to health care will necessarily involve: forced transfers of wealth to pay for programs, loss of freedom for health care providers, higher prices and more restricted access by all consumers, a trend toward egalitarianism, and the collectivization of health care. These consequences are not accidental. They follow necessarily from the nature of the alleged right.

Clinton Plan

The same is true of the Clinton Administration’s plan–true on a much larger scale. This plan will be far more destructive of our liberties than anything we have experienced so far.

The plan calls for a further extension of health care subsidies: to those who are currently uninsured, and to those who have health coverage less extensive than the proposed standard package of benefits. Where are these subsidies going to come from? The Administration has rejected the so-called “single-payer system”—that is, overtly socialized medicine, in which the government pays all the bills—because it knows that the government cannot pay all the bills. The necessary tax increases would be politically impossible. So the Clinton plan calls for a nominally private system in which regulations force some people to subsidize others.

At the heart of the plan are the health alliances: government-protected monopolies in each area which will collect premiums and negotiate with health care providers to offer acceptable plans. Everyone who lives in a given area will be forced to obtain health insurance through their local monopoly health alliance. Health care providers—private practitioners, HMOs, and others—cannot deal directly with individuals. They can offer their services only through the health alliances, subject to the conditions it imposes.

One such condition is guaranteed access: every plan must be willing to accept any individual who wants it; no one may be excluded for any reason. Another condition is community rating: the price of the plan must be the same for everyone. Now think about what effects this will have on incentives. If I know that when I get sick I will be able to enroll in any plan I want, at a price that does not reflect my condition, then I have no reason to obtain health insurance when I am well. If people are free to choose whether or not to obtain and pay for a policy, the only people enrolling will be the sick, and costs will go through the roof. So the system works only if everyone is forced to participate. That is exactly what the proposal requires, and although the details of the proposal keep changing, this is one point that cannot change.

At the national level, the system will be governed by a National Health Board whose two main functions will be to determine the standard package of minimum benefits, and to set global budgets. The global budgets will force the health alliances to impose what amount to price controls on medical providers. And the standard package of benefits will be set by interest group lobbying, as every group in the health care field will try to get its services included in the package. For example, the current definition of the package includes mental health and substance abuse counseling. You may feel that you do not need insurance for these services, but you are going to pay for them.

In short, the plan will require a massive exercise of coercion against individuals, far beyond anything we have seen so far. Which brings me back to the fundamental issue.

Moral Foundations

In all the ways I have described, any attempt to implement a “right” to health care necessarily sacrifices our genuine rights of liberty. We have to choose between liberty rights and welfare rights. They are logically incompatible. It is because I believe in the rights of liberty that I say there is no such thing as a right to health care. So I want to end by explaining why I think the rights of liberty are paramount, and by trying to anticipate some of the questions and objections you may have.

The rights of liberty are paramount because individuals are ends in themselves. We are not instruments of society, or possessions of society. And if we are ends in ourselves, we have the right to be ends for ourselves: to hold our own lives and happiness as our highest values, not to be sacrificed for anything else.

I think many people are afraid to assert their rights and interests as individuals, afraid to assert these rights and interests as moral absolutes, because they are afraid of being labelled selfish. So it is vital that we draw certain distinctions. What I am advocating is not selfishness in the conventional sense: the vain, self-centered, grasping pursuit of pleasure, riches, prestige, or power. Genuine happiness results from a life of productive achievement, of stable relationships with friends and family, of peaceful exchange with others. The pursuit of our self-interest in this sense requires that we act in accordance with moral standards of rationality, responsibility, honesty, and fairness. If we understand the self and its interests in terms of these values, then I am happy to acknowledge that I am advocating selfishness.

We have to draw the same distinctions when we think about altruism. For it is, in the end, the moral code of altruism that makes people think that need is primary, that need gives one a right to the ability and effort of others. In the conventional sense, altruism means kindness, generosity, charity, a willingness to help others. These are certainly virtues, so long as they do not involve the sacrifice of other values, and so long as they are a matter of personal choice, not a duty imposed from without. I might note in this regard that physicians have historically been extremely generous with their time.

In a deeper, philosophical sense, however, altruism is the principle that one person’s need is an absolute claim on others, a claim that overrides their interests and rights. For example, Dr. Edmund Pellegrino has asserted, in an article for JAMA, “A medical need in itself constitutes a moral claim on those equipped to help.”[7] This principle has often been asserted by thinkers who are opposed to individualism, and it is the basis for the doctrine of welfare rights. It is the reason why advocates of government involvement in health care can take for granted that the needs of patients are primary, and that everyone else can be forced to provide for those needs.

No rational basis for this principle has ever been offered. The fact is that our needs have to be satisfied by production, not by taking from others. And production comes from those who take responsibility for their lives, who apply their minds to the challenges we face in nature and find new ways of meeting those challenges. Ayn Rand said it best, in her novel The Fountainhead: “Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution—or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary.”[8] The creator’s need, in any field, is the freedom to act, the freedom to dispose of the fruits of his labor as he chooses, and the freedom to interact with others on a voluntary basis, by trade and mutual exchange.

That freedom is a vital need, not only for doctors but for patients. It is only in a context of freedom that one person’s need is not a threat to others. It is only in a context of freedom that genuine benevolence among people is possible. It is only in a context of freedom that the medical progress which has brought so many benefits to all of us can continue.

The problems of our current system were caused by government. More government is not the solution. But we must oppose the expansion of government control in principle, by rejecting spurious claims of a “right” to health care, and insisting on our genuine rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

NOTES:

[1] Karen Davis and Cathy Schoen, Health and the War on Poverty (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1978), cited in Terree P. Wasley, What Has Government Done to Our Health Care? (Washington: Cato Institute, 1992), 61

[2] Steven Hayward and Erik Peterson, “The Medicare Monster,” REASON, Jan 1993, 20

[3] Quoted in Leonard Peikoff, “Doctors and the Police State,” The Objectivist Newsletter, June 1962, Special Supplement

[4] The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 10, 1990

[5] Michael Tanner, “Laboratory Failure: States Are No Model for Health Care Reform,” Policy Analysis #197, September 23, 1993 (Washington: Cato Institute, 1993)

[6] Letter to the Editor, The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 23, 1992

[7] Edmund D. Pellegrino, MD, “Altruism, Self-Interest, and Medical Ethics,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 258, Oct. 19, 1987, 1939

[8] Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead (New York: Bobbs Merrill, 1943), 712

© Copyright 1990-2009, The Atlas Society. All rights reserved.

The Fate of any Nation Lies in the Strength of its Families – 9-1-2009

Call for Freedom - Strength of Families [ 58:52 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Can we expect to have a strong, resilient country when our nation’s families are faltering? Common sense says no.

What has caused and contributed to the dissolution of family bonds?  What have been the effects on our society?  What more is coming and what can be done about it?

As infringements by government become more prevalent, it is vital to understand and embrace our responsibilities as individuals and families so that we may retain our rights and freedoms. Join us as we discuss both the current and potential assaults upon the family unit, and what we can do to preserve liberty for our posterity.

Families are the Building Blocks of Society

As we have become more and more interested in politics over the last few years, we have felt discouraged at times. Outside of trying to stay aware of current political news, writing our representatives and voting, none of which we felt like was really making a difference, we really didn’t know what to do. Over the last few months, however, we have gained some real clarity. Through a lot of thought and discussion we have come up with some working solutions for our family.

First off, we want to be clear that we realize the sensitivity involved when you discuss family. It is a very personal topic.  In general terms we will be looking at the family unit in the context of a married man and woman with children. Obviously family structures vary – single-parent families, couples without children and those that are not yet married. Any family can be strong when solid principles are believed in and practiced.

We will also be referencing God in some of the quotes that are used. Belief in Deity is another sensitive, personal subject. This network doesn’t promote any particular religion, but we do acknowledge our own belief in God to be congruent with the founding fathers’ belief in God. In The 5000 Year Leap it is suggested that throughout the many writings of the founding fathers were five main themes referencing God and religion that were universally represented. In fact, they were sometimes referred to as the “Religion of America.”

They are: 1) Recognition and worship of a Creator; 2) God has a moral code of behavior for happy living; 3) God holds mankind responsible for how they treat others; 4) Man lives after this life; 5) We will be judged in the next life for our conduct in this life.

We likely come from a variety of religious backgrounds and family structures. We will be using some quotes from our religious leaders as well as others, all of which we believe outline basic and fundamental principles found in most religions. We also invite you to seek out writings from your own religious leaders on this topic.
One of the “Five Core Principles” established by the Call for Freedom Network states,

“The Family is the sacred entity ordained by God to be an incubator for His children as they enter into earthly existence and prepare for adulthood.  Marriage between a man and a woman and the family they create is the primary venue through which values, principles, and habits should be taught and applied.  Though other venues can be complimentary sources to supplement the teaching performed at home, any attempt to usurp the power and responsibility of performing this labor should be viewed with jealous scrutiny.  Family is a demanding responsibility that accompanies procreative powers and carries with it obligations and consequences relative to the successful execution of the entrusted duties. “

The Declaration of Independence references that man possesses “certain unalienable rights”, and the signers of this great document correctly identified that these rights are those “endowed by their Creator”.  These are rights that come naturally from God and should not be impeded by governmental practice or policy.  Procreation is a very salient example of an “unalienable right”.  Unless hampered by government interventions the natural course of sexuality tends to be procreation and the perpetuation of the species and when one looks specifically at human sexuality this has historically resulted in the formation of families.  One can look at nearly any given point of the globe and across the spectrum of time and see that humans tend to form groups comprised of one basic building block: The Family.

The family is, as noted in our 2nd principle, “a sacred entity ordained by God”.

Many religious leaders have attested to this fact:

Pope John Paul II discussed the importance of the family, “As the family goes, so goes the nation and so goes the whole world in which we live.”

In 1995 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released The Family: A Proclamation to the World.  In part it states;   “The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities.”

Scientific Evidence that Supports Religious Views

Science has also confirmed that the status of the family has significant importance to its stability:

A. Dean Byrd notes in his research the importance of the family composed of and led by a married father and mother,

“Children reared in a family with a mother and a father navigate the developmental stages more easily, are more solid in their gender identity, perform better in academic tasks at school, have fewer emotional disorders, and become better functioning adults.  This conclusion, supported by a plethora of research studies spanning decades, clearly demonstrates that gender-linked differences in child rearing is protective for children.  That is, men and women contribute differently to the healthy development of children. These essential contributions that emerge from dual-gender parenting are virtually impossible for a man or woman [alone] to combine effectively.” [Byrd, A.D. (2008). Setting the Record Straight: Mormons and Homosexuality. Orem: Millennial Press, p. 86]

Another researcher writes,

“Social science research is almost never conclusive … yet in three decades of work as a social scientist, I know of few other bodies of data in which the weight of the evidence  is so decisively  on one side of the issue: on the whole, for children, two-parent families are preferable to single parent families or stepfamilies.”  [Popenoe, D. (1996). Life Without Father. New York: Mark Kessler Books: The Free Press, p. 8]

The preceding quotes indicate that strong family structures tend to create strong children who live healthier and happier lives and who are properly prepared for adulthood.  As we proceed forward the information presented will demonstrate the weakening of the family unit that has occurred.  This represents the dissolution of family bonds and results in decreased resiliency for not just the children, but the family as well as the society in which they live.

In review we want you to think about these principles as we move forward in looking at actual and pending incursions on the rights of the family and determine whether the principles are sustained or violated.

• The Family is ordained by God
• The Family is the primary venue through which values, principles, and habits should be taught and applied and these responsibilities should be guarded with “jealous scrutiny”

Current Attacks on the Family Unit
It is true that the family is under attack from all sides. For decades the government has been using its welfare programs (food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) to step in and take over the role of “provider” for some families, many of whom now expect these services and regard them as a right.   Often times this means that one parent (in most cases the mother) retains the role of “nurturer”, but the role of “provider” (typically played by the father) has been abdicated and adopted by government.  The unhealthy social patterns learned from this act of supposed “charity” on the part of the state are:

• A “provider” is an optional part of a family unit when the government can provide.
• Procreation is not accompanied by real expectations of responsibility.  In this scenario mother and father, as well as the children are robbed of an understanding of the significance of the responsibilities of a marital contract.

Star Parker, author of “Uncle Sam’s Plantation” writes about this phenomenon, and her own personal escape from modern day plantation life where, “A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from “How do I take care of myself?” to “What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?”  Longitudinal studies affirm Star’s claim that welfare actually limits the recipient’s independence.  In 1996 PRWORA (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act) was passed which revised the system and requirements for receiving welfare.  This was the time period in which Star Parker was assisting as an advisor revising welfare distribution processes to prompt recipients toward less dependence on welfare.  Critics of the act expressed fears that these changes would be detrimental to families, especially to the children.  Studies found just the opposite to be true, however,
“But fears that families headed by single mothers would sink deeper into poverty turned out to be unfounded. Following the reforms, welfare caseloads declined rapidly, and employment and household incomes of single mothers rose.  Importantly, these improved outcomes largely survived the challenges posed by the 2001 recession, suggesting that the initial successes were not simply due to a booming economy.”[Daly, M., Did Welfare Reform Work For Everyone? A Look At Young Single Mothers, FRBSF Economic Newsletter, August 3, 2009]
Other attacks on the family are more socially driven, such as the battle over how marriage was defined in California and last year with Proposition 8.   Whether an assault originates directly from government or through social movements using governmental processes or legislation as the vehicle to push their ideas forward, we must be aware that the family is indeed under attack.  In every state, in every zip code, likely near wherever you reside, the family is under attack.
We would like to review a few other historical and current examples:
Medicare
Medicare has been around for more than 40 years. When initially initiated, the thought of providing care for the elderly was appealing.  However, family provided care has decreased as care has been provided by services such as Medicare, Hospice, etc.  A study from Denmark has proposed that family caregivers provide a positive outcome in treating patients who are critically ill.  This has challenged an existing assumption there that family caregivers complicate and bring about negative outcomes. [Weibull, A., Caregiver’s Active Role in Palliative Home Care – To Encourage or Dissuade? A qualitative descriptive study., BMC Palliative Care, Sept 2008]
Convention on the Rights of the Child
According to the Open CRS (Congressional Research Reports for the People), “Convention on the Rights of the Child” is an international treaty that aims to protect the rights of children worldwide. It defines a child as any human being under the age of 18, and calls on States Parties to take all appropriate measures to ensure that children’s rights are protected ‘including the right to a name and nationality, freedom of speech and thought, access to healthcare and education, and freedom from exploitation, torture, and abuse.’”

On November 20, 1989 the UN’s General Assembly adopted the document and made it available for ratification. It has been ratified by 183 countries. Only two, the US and Somalia, have not ratified the CRC.

Again, according to the Open CRS report, “Perhaps more than other human rights treaties, CRC addresses areas that are usually considered to be primarily or exclusively under the jurisdiction of state or local governments, including education, juvenile justice, and access to healthcare.”

Opponents argue that U.S. ratification would undermine U.S. sovereignty by giving the United Nations authority to determine the best interests of U.S. children. Some are also concerned that CRC could interfere in the private lives of families, particularly the rights of parents to educate and discipline their children.

Because of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution, all treaties are rendered “the supreme law of the land,” superseding preexisting state and federal statutes. Any rights or laws established by the U.N. convention could then be argued to hold sway in the United States.

Supporters hold that U.S. federal and state laws generally meet the requirements of CRC, and that U.S. ratification would strengthen the United States credibility when advocating children’s rights abroad.

According to Susan Rice, ambassador to the United Nations, “The Obama administration is reviving efforts to have the United States sign onto a global children’s rights treaty ratified by every U.N. member except the U.S. and Somalia. Administration officials are actively discussing “when and how it might be possible to join.”

For more information on the current status of the situation go here.

Public Education Issues

• A Massachusetts parent’s (David Parker) rights were infringed upon and he was arrested and criminally charged while trying to prevent the violation of his right to decide whether his 5 year old was exposed to the topic of homosexuality by regular curriculum in school. More recently, according to a Fox News story, the UN has released an educational plan for sex education, which includes among other things, instructing 5-year olds about masturbation.
• Census in Schools Campaign – nationwide that mandates teachers to take 15 minutes daily for a week to teach students why their parents should complete the Census in 2010.
• In August 2009, a video titled I Pledge, which shows a group of celebrities pledging support for a variety of causes was shown to students in a Utah public elementary school. The situation has caused uproar in Utah, as many parents feel that their children were exposed to political propaganda.

Parental Rights vs. States Rights

• (Parker Jensen Case, Utah)
• Infant Blood Testing in Texas – Texas Department of Health took and indefinitely stored blood samples from babies, for undisclosed research purposes, without parental consent.
• W Virginia (Gardasil Vaccination) HB 2835 – Proposed bill which would require children to be vaccinated with Gardasil to prevent HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) thought to cause cervical cancer.  HPV is a sexually transmitted disease.  Testing of Gardasil was limited to 4 years, where the HPV virus incubation period can be up to 20 years.  Consequently the effectiveness of Gardasil is questionable.
• Planned Parenthood and other providers of services which prevent or end pregnancy are not constrained to ensure parental notification/consent for services rendered to minors. A judge can issue permission for a minor to receive an abortion without parental knowledge, and a clause even permits the minor to receive the abortion without the judge’s permission if they have to wait longer than 48 hours for a response to their petition and they get a free lawyer to boot.
• Science Czar John Holdren, President Obama’s head of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy has in the past suggested that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence do not guarantee citizens a right to elect the number of offspring that they would choose to have.  This ideology is seen in China and other locations today.

So What Can We Do?
At the World Congress of Families Conference, Russell M. Nelson addressed the precarious position in which the Family finds itself; “On all sides, the family is under attack. Many wonder if the institution is no longer needed. Our response is certain. If there is any hope for the future of nations, that hope resides in the family.”
At the same conference, his wife Wendy Watson Nelson stated that government is not the source of the solutions we are seeking to resolve the ills of our societies.  She affirms,

“Dear friends of the family, are we really serious about having nations that prosper? Cities where it is safe to live? Towns where husbands and wives brave the challenges of life together? Villages where children enjoy childhood and relish opportunities to grow, learn and explore? Of course we are. And because we are, we can no longer look to our governments for the kind of world we need. Not now. Now that the forces around us are increasing in intensity, we need to look to God!   And we need families who look to God and who relentlessly remove anything and everything from their lives that is spiritually corrupting; families who seek all that is spiritually strengthening.   May we each go home to our nations and do everything we can to spiritually strengthen the natural family because there is no doubt about it:  Families who are spiritually strong are the only hope for the future of our nations. ” [World Congress for Families Conference - Not Even Once]
So, what can we do?
Confucius gave the perfect answer to this question: “To put the world right in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must first put the family in order; to put the family in order, we must first cultivate our personal life; we must first set our hearts right.”

We can and should do things to improve our nation, but the most successful efforts that we can possibly have will take place in our own homes.  The results of those efforts will not stop at the threshold of our houses, however, but rather they will simply start from there and emanate outward into the world around us.

Through a lot of thought and discussion, we have come up with some working solutions for our family. We want to share these in hopes that they will give you some ideas for your own family. We have five suggestions:

1. Pray for guidance, establish the values that your family will live by and then teach these overtly and consistently.
2. Help your family members learn to apply the values and principles to the decisions they make in their lives. For example, you might choose to teach your family members about service and help them to see the difference between obligatory “service” and self-motivated service.  Teach them how to stand up for the rights which are under attack.  Teach them self sufficiency so that they may know true confidence.
3. Educate yourself and your children. Read and learn about this country’s history. This will be the best way to know for yourself the principles that our Founding Father’s followed as they drafted the Constitution and other founding documents. And coming back to a line that is found in one of the principles that was discussed earlier, “Though other venues can be complimentary sources to supplement the teaching performed at home, any attempt to usurp the power and responsibility of performing this labor should be viewed with jealous scrutiny.”  Always remember that the responsibility that God entrusted you with, as a parent or as a head of a family, belongs first and foremost to you.  Be very wary about abdicating this duty to anyone or any group.
4. Remember that every decision that we make in regards to our time must be intentional. There are too many distractions; things that are not of eternal consequence. This is not to say that we can’t have time to relax and renew, but we have to have a plan and a purpose for ourselves and our families. Henry B. Eyring, noted “We will have to make some hard choices of how we use our time. … But remember, you are interested in education, not just for mortal life but for eternal life. When you see that reality clearly with spiritual sight, you will put spiritual learning first and yet not slight the secular learning…And since what we will need to know is hard to discern, we need the help of heaven to know which of the myriad things we could study we would most wisely learn. It also means that we cannot waste time entertaining ourselves when we have the chance to read or to listen to whatever will help us learn what is true and useful. Insatiable curiosity will be our hallmark” (“Education for Real Life,” Ensign, Oct. 2002, 18, 19).
5. Find and connect with people that are like-minded when it comes to your values and principles. Strengthen and learn from one another.  Unite to work on important issues using Constitutional principles as your North Star. That is why we joined this network. We also have been fortunate enough to find a local group in our county. Through this group we are able to meet and discuss American history, specifically in regards to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, hear from local candidates, learn about becoming a citizen lobbyist and learn about the process of becoming a state delegate. By doing this we are expanding our abilities to become more involved in the political process.

These things will take time and effort, but at the end of the day it will be worth the sacrifices that we make now. It is only through effort that we will be able to bring virtue back into local, state and national government.  As our base becomes stronger we will be able to more effectively influence the political system by finding, vetting, and electing candidates who stand for principle.  Ultimately if we want to take back the nation, we have to take back the family.

What is Socialism? – 8-25-2009

Call for Freedom on Socialism [ 56:55 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

With all the different policies that have been proposed in Washington D.C. over the last few months, a great deal of almost zealous fervor has erupted in the populous. All to frequent is the call that these “Socialist” measures must be stopped. Many critics have derided their excitement as uneducated banter, stating that this is not socialism at all, but only a little additional step of control or regulation of the free market. Further stating that actual Socialism requires state ownership of the means of production.

Would it be to crazy for either side to find out that….their both correct in degree. Socialism takes on many faces in the world. There have been many advocates of different forms of socialism, from early 1800 social cooperatives, to full on communism. These forms varied in degree with the early “experiments” beginning as a perceived organic collective, to the complete and total control of the economy through central planning.

Later the implementing the ideas of “Social Democrats” sought to heal the apparent problems in a Market Economy (Capitalist) through the nationalization of key industries providing for the control over the market for the good of the people, while still allowing a semblance of the previous market economy to continue to operate.

it is this form of Democratic Socialism that is what the so called kook is screaming about, and what the critic downplays. They both have ground to stand on and both see each other as being the one that is wrong. But it is history that undermines each of their arguments.

The kook calls out the current socialist agenda and is marginalized in his arguments by his acceptance of past social/progressive agendas like Social Security, Medicaid, Farm Subsidies, Child Tax Credits, (insert your favorite government subsidy here), etc. Their unwillingness to admit to their dependance on those currently existing social programs, and only calling out the new addition to the menagerie weakens their moral standing. So more than being a call against socialism it is a call against changing the status quo.

The critic casts doubt on the kooks cause, vilifying them at every turn. While they will marginalize their own viewpoint by heralding new regulations and restraints in the market. With these new restraints in place they then suffer from the unintended consequences of the “needed” market reforms and then complain about the increased cost of their favorite widget. They then go off blaming this obvious injustice on the greedy underhanded Capitalist that must have raised prices to line his own pockets. Rather than realizing that the heralded regulation required additional resources of the Capitalist to produce their widgets, so the Capitalist was “forced” to pass those added capital expenses along to the consumer (AKA the critic).

In order for truth to be found on the issue of Socialism and its effects, one must push past the flawed opinions of both sides, Ignore the issue and seek to understand the underlying principle.

Our nation was founded on the principle that “All” were given the “Unalienable” right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (This last right also being deemed to be Property). These were given to us by a source that was greater than our government, that our very existence verified the existence and necessity of these rights. Those rights created the foundation upon which all future legislation was to be judged. How does socialism stand up to the test?

In 1989, at Stockholm, the 18th Congress of the Socialist International adopted a Declaration of Principles, saying that

Democratic socialism is an international movement for freedom, social justice, and solidarity. Its goal is to achieve a peaceful world where these basic values can be enhanced and where each individual can live a meaningful life with the full development of his or her personality and talents, and with the guarantee of human and civil rights in a democratic framework of society.

Truly high ideals, who wouldn’t want to help everyone have a meaningful life,  and a guarantee of human and civil rights. Let’s look at the opinions of a philosopher who lived during the French Revolution, and argued against the Socialistic movement of the time.

Frederic Bastiat stated in “The Law”:

It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

He understood and was able to succinctly point out the major flaw in the theory of socialism. That is that to violate the founding principles of Life Liberty and Property for any reason however noble, creates injustice and inequity in the society that is in the process of being socially herded at the whims of the legislators. The very act of attempting to attain those high ideals that Democratic Socialists claim to espouse, will rob it from the grasp of those whom had already attained those ideals through their own labor and industry.

To illustrate this, let’s look at an example. Let’s say that you notice that you have two neighbors that have a noticeable difference, Neighbor “A” has two nice cars, and Neighbor “B” has none. This may seem like an obvious inequity in your neighborhood. So being the egalitarian that you are, you walk over and take one of Neighbor “A”‘s cars and give it to Neighbor “B”. We all should easily be able to see that no matter what the motives, You would be arrested and tried for Auto Theft. No matter how much you wanted to help Neighbor “B”, Taking the car from Neighbor “A” will always be a violation of their property rights. If the government enacts legislation requiring that everyone only be allowed to have one car, and giving the excess cars to those individuals who do not own one. The same principle has been violated, that of Neighbor “A”‘s property.

This example may seem a little far fetched you say, I would never take my neighbors car and give it to my other neighbor. Maybe not, but you would be willing to take money from your neighbor in order to receive your favorite subsidy. It some how seems to make it easier for individuals to swallow, if they are not directly involved in the plunder, but just get to be the recipients of it.

That is the point on which this whole debate revolves. Taking money from anyone to give to someone else, without their permission or direction, whether through your hands or the hands of the government is and always will be PLUNDER. That is why socialism in all its forms will never be successful and accomplish their aims, because it violates the core unalienable rights of its subjects. It can never create justice for all, by implementing injustice for all. When we can all understand the core of this then we can really begin to remove our own socialist blinders, then we can start to see some real effective changes in the United States.

Look in your own life and realize where you have been unjustly benefiting from others labor, and make the changes that are necessary in your own life.

Please join us for the Call for Freedom each week Click Here for this week’s details.

Listen to all of our Call For Freedom Recordings, Click Here to view our archives.

Health Care Reform – 8-17-2009

Health Care Reform - The Call for Freedom [ 1:02:28 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Most Americans seem to want to see some sort of change in the Health Care system of the United States. There is however a vast difference between the ways and means of seeing this get accomplished. Some have argued for a public government guarantee for health care benefits, while others indicate that a removal of many governmental obstacles and regulations would be the way to accomplish the desired changes.

The number of different ideas out there seems almost limitless, which is understandable seeing as virtually every citizen is impacted by the Health Care industry in a very personal way. Any industry that can account for approximately 17% of the GDP in 2008 or $2.4 Trillion, is a market that just by the nature and size of it would impact most if not all of the citizens.

Given it’s size and scope it is little wonder that individuals would be concerned about the way that it functions, and would want it to bend a little in a direction that would make life a little better for them. That being understood we may then want to ask ourselves, where is the proper source for changes to come from, and what is the scope that they should take.

There are currently several bills that are at various stages of development in the House and Senate seeking to find the best solution to the given problems that are seen in the system. Most have touted some pretty dramatic reforms that could drastically change the way that the current system operates. A system which for all it’s flaws currently takes care of the health care requirements of all the citizens and even some non-citizens. But people know what they can expect from the current system, a luxury that they do not have with the proposed bills. Accusations about the contents of the bills (which are currently in flux and changing) vary from the somewhat believable to the completely outlandish. Can anyone blame them, any time you change the rules of a game the players take time to adjust to the changes. Where this game impacts so many so intimately, they are understandably upset. Unfortunately for congress it seems that while most people want some kind of reform a good majority of them don’t like the new rules and don’t think that the game is as dysfunctional as congress has painted it.

Timing is just one thing that has made this a difficult move for congress. The President was pushing for a bill to be created and passed before the August Recess (Yea Right). But this is such a large piece of legislation, and encompasses so much of the economy that to try and orchestrate it’s transformation in that short of time would take a miracle to get right.

Let’s compare that with the passage of the constitution, this document changed the form of government and affected all of the citizens of the colonies. At that time the population is estimated to have been at under 4 million people, but yet that document in all it’s grandeur took several months to properly write, and then 3 years to ratify. During that process the states all had many debates and discussions about the document and the proper role of government, it was discussed well enough that the people were willing to accept it and abide by it’s precepts. And now we expect to pass meaningful and useful changes to a system that affects the lives of over 300 million people in less time than it took to write the constitution.

Unfortunately that sounds like a slippery slope to me. If legislation of this magnitude is passed this quickly, without thorough debate and analyzing all sides, I am afraid that the US will end up with reform, but not necessarily the right reform. The Congressmen and Senators will pat themselves on the back for helping the President achieve his goal, but after they have received the praise for passing the bill, it is the people who will suffer the adverse consequences that could be brought on by flawed legislation.

One possibility that may be pushing this legislation along, is the increased deficit spending that the previous and current administrations have used. These deficits are paid for by monetizing debt instruments through the use of Treasury Notes or Bonds. Some of the biggest buyers for these notes are foreign nations, many of which have found it less desirable to purchase our debt, seeing that our economy is having a tough time, the dollar is not as healthy as it once was, and that we are spending money like we’re on a binge.

If these countries don’t purchase our debt, we cannot continue to spend. This is a concern for this administration. What better way to ensure the stability of the economy, than to bring 17+% of the economy under the total taxable jurisdiction and control of the US Government. That along with Cap and Trade (think about that in reference to the debt as well) should provide enough leverage for the government to continue it’s spending binge with reckless abandon.

When faced with a choice between Freedom or Force, Choose Freedom, or the next one to lose their Freedoms might just be you.

Please join us for the Call for Freedom each week Click Here for this week’s details.

Listen to all of our Call For Freedom Recordings, Click Here to view our archives.

Additional Resources:

A British politicians perspective on the UK Health Care System

Obama Recants on the Public Option

Free Market Reform Proposals from John Mackey (CEO of Whole Foods Market)

Cap and Trade, Time to put a cork in it. – 8-10-2009

Call for Freedom on Cap and Trade [ 51:56 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

There has recently been quite a bit of buzz in Washington D.C. and in the media about the recent passage of a bill titled the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009″ (H.R. 2454).

HR 2454 has at its core the purported ability of helping us save the planet through reducing the amount of carbon that is being released into the atmosphere, thus stemming the tide of Global Climate Change through the reduction of Green House Gasses. The methodology employed to create this reduction begins with either giving or auctioning off “Carbon Credits” to companies who currently pollute. The companies that are more “Green” than others will have an excess of credits, while those that are the greatest polluters will find that the credits allocated will leave them with a lack of sufficient credits to continue operation.

The number of credits that is slated be issued will be “capped” at 2005 carbon levels.

This bill will then “Create” a market that will allow for the exchange or “Trading” of credits so that those who are “Green” can profit from their greenishness by selling their excess of credits to those companies who are not so green.

Thus the nickname of the bill “Cap and Trade”, becomes the methodology for greening our countries industry. It is touted as being an excellent “Free Market” alternative for saving our planet, by allowing those who green-up first to profit from the sale of their carbon credits.

Now this wonderful resolution does not come without a cost (Does any bill?). The Congressional Budget Office(cbo) reports that during the 2010-2019 period federal revenues will increase by $846 billion and direct spending increases will be $821 billion giving an net budgetary surplus of $24 billion over that period. Also the average household will see a $175 dollar increase in their yearly energy expenses over that time period as well.

Some other independent estimates show that increase as being much higher, possibly $2000+ per year per household. It is only natural to assume that in the end all consumers will find that their energy costs and most other costs (food, appliances, apparel, etc) will have increased, since the companies that produce those items will have to increase their prices to cover the additional overhead that the bill will create for them.

Along with the increased charges, many households and business will be able to offset this additional burden by applying for Federal Tax Credits based on their “Green” Activities. Subsidies range from “Refundable Low-Income Energy Tax Credit” (which in the current economy will probably be utilized much more than they estimate), “Green Energy Production Tax Credit”, “Fuel-Efficient Vehicle Vouchers”, etc… providing many new ways to increase your income through the help of the federal government.

They have even accounted for a “Climate Change Worker Adjustment Assistance” program which will help individuals that are displaced as a result of the bill to receive 70% of their average weekly wage, job training, employment search assistance and an 80% subsidy for their cost of health insurance. Those individuals will be eligible to receive this assistance for up to 3 years from their termination.

Along with the “Cap and Trade” system, additionally there is stipulated the creation of a “Smart Power Grid” (or overhaul of the current power grid) allowing your future appliances to communicate to regulatory authorities on your usage habits and the devices overall efficiency.

There are so many facets to this bill that it is nearly impossible to attempt to sum them up and do any credit to covering them without writing a doctoral thesis on the subject…..Let’s continue with a little analysis.

Many have painted this as a Green, or Clean Energy Bill, a necessary step for the saving of our planet from the wiles of climate change. While others call this a bill that needlessly removes freedoms and arbitrarily increases taxes and regulation at the benefit of corporations and government. Still others feel that even though this bill has a noble cause, it is to little regulation to late, and will do nothing to stem the tide in the fight against Global Climate Change.

Some paint this bill as a job killer that will just force jobs out of the United States to other countries where a relocated company has few to no restrictions on their pollution and a much cheaper labor force, thus draining our country of its already dwindling manufacturing jobs.

One aspect that I have not heard anyone talk about is the potential for a carbon monopoly. Few understand how a monopoly can come about, in my mind there are only two types, the first is a monopoly in the market of a controlled good that is created because the company services its customers so well that there is no market incentive for a competing company to get a foot hold. Or in other words a monopoly through customer loyalty. There is nothing wrong with this kind of monopoly as it will only exist as long as the customers are receiving what they want, as soon as the company stops performing as desired, opportunities will be created naturally in the market for competitors to spring up and take over the disgruntled customer base.

The second is a monopoly that is maintained by the force of government. When the Government creates regulations that increase the barrier to entry for new companies. This regulation then enthrones the players that currently exist in the market and can make it near impossible for new players to enter the marketplace and compete.

Take the railroad industry for example. In it’s early history there were many new start-up railroads that fought for control of different cities and regions. As the industry grew they became more and more important to the country. The government started off regulating a little her and then there. Now the regulations have made it so difficult to run a railroad that those companies that exist are living off government subsidies to stay alive, and have made it unattractive for anyone to try to enter and innovate in that market.

With cap and trade the opportunity may exist for the current contenders to buy up as many credits as they can, eventually cornering this new “Carbon Market” and making an impossible barrier to entry for new, innovative, cleaner, greener, companies to actually enter the market. If this is the case, rather than helping the market to decrease the amount of carbon emissions, those that own the credits will continue to pollute and the new or existing companies that cannot obtain sufficient credits will be forced to startup or relocate to countries that do not have the same regulations on pollution and market entry.

Many commentators and individuals say that as long as a carbon based energy market can create inexpensive energy, that the green/clean energy sources will never be able to enter the market and compete. The fact that they are right, I think, says less about the need for a restrictive structure that forces the market to choose the result YOU want, and more about the fact that central planning has never and will never WORK. True free market principles always work, whether you believe them or not.

When faced with a choice between Freedom or Force, Choose Freedom, or the next one to lose their Freedoms might just be you.

Please join us for the Call for Freedom each week Click Here for this week’s details.

Listen to all of our Call For Freedom Recordings, Click Here to view our archives.

References:

HR 2454 full text and summary

Voting Record for HR 2454

Wikipedia Entry on Emissions Trading

Cap and Trade will raise energy prices – US News and World Report

House Passes Carbon Cap and Trade Bill – Businessweek.com

Arrogance

  
By John Stossel

It’s crazy for a group of mere mortals to try to design 15 percent of the U.S. economy. It’s even crazier to do it by August.

Yet that is what some members of Congress presume to do. They intend, as the New York Times puts it, “to reinvent the nation’s health care system”.

Let that sink in. A handful of people who probably never even ran a small business actually think they can reinvent the health care system.

Politicians and bureaucrats clearly have no idea how complicated markets are. Every day people make countless tradeoffs, in all areas of life, based on subjective value judgments and personal information as they delicately balance their interests, needs and wants. Who is in a better position than they to tailor those choices to best serve their purposes? Yet the politicians believe they can plan the medical market the way you plan a birthday party.

Leave aside how much power the state would have to exercise over us to run the medical system. Suffice it say that if government attempts to control our total medical spending, sooner or later, it will have to control us.

Also leave aside the inevitable huge cost of any such program. The administration estimates $1.5 trillion over 10 years with no increase in the deficit. But no one should take that seriously. When it comes to projecting future costs, these guys may as well be reading chicken entrails. In 1965, hospitalization coverage under Medicare was projected to cost $9 billion by 1990. The actual price tag was $66 billion.

The sober Congressional Budget Office debunked the reformers’ cost projections. Trust us, Obama says. “At the end of the day, we’ll have significant cost controls,” presidential adviser David Axelrod said. Give me a break.

Now focus on the spectacle of that handful of men and women daring to think they can design the medical marketplace. They would empower an even smaller group to determine — for millions of diverse Americans — which medical treatments are worthy and at what price.

How do these arrogant, presumptuous politicians believe they can know enough to plan for the rest of us? Who do they think they are? Under cover of helping uninsured people get medical care, they live out their megalomaniacal social-engineering fantasies — putting our physical and economic health at risk in the process.

Will the American people say “Enough!”?

I fear not, based on the comments on my blog. When I argued last week that medical insurance makes people indifferent to costs, I got comments like: “I guess the 47 million people who don’t have health care should just die, right, John?” “You will always be a shill for corporate America.”

Like the politicians, most people are oblivious to F.A. Hayek’s insight that the critical information needed to run an economy — or even 15 percent of one — doesn’t exist in any one place where it is accessible to central planners. Instead, it is scattered piecemeal among millions of people. All those people put together are far wiser and better informed than Congress could ever be. Only markets — private property, free exchange and the price system — can put this knowledge at the disposal of entrepreneurs and consumers, ensuring the system will serve the people and not just the political class.

This is no less true for medical care than for food, clothing and shelter. It is profit-seeking entrepreneurship that gave us birth control pills, robot limbs, Lasik surgery and so many other good things that make our lives longer and more pain free.

To the extent the politicians ignore this, they are the enemy of our well-being. The belief that they can take care of us is rank superstition.

Who will save us from these despots? What Adam Smith said about the economic planner applies here, too: The politician who tries to design the medical marketplace would “assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.”

Copyright 2009, Creators Syndicate Inc.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/22/arrogance_97561.html at August 05, 2009 – 12:27:09 AM CDT July 22, 2009

Back on Uncle Sams Plantation

I thought that this article gave an appropriate look at some of the issues that are occuring in the US today, So I have included it for our readers benefit: Here is a link to the Original Article on Townhall.com

Six years ago I wrote a book called Uncle Sam’s Plantation . I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.

I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas — a poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism.

I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.

A vast sea of perhaps well-intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960s, that were going to lift the nation’s poor out of poverty.

A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from “How do I take care of myself?” to “What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?”

Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems — the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.

The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.
Through God’s grace, I found my way out. It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.

I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican Congress and signed 50 percent.

I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth-producing American capitalism.

But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction.

Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.

Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, “Thank you, Suh.”

Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers . . .  they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.

There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.

In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus.

“This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending — it’s a strategy for America ‘s long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, healthcare, and education.”

Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place “with unprecedented transparency and accountability.”
Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the Synfuels Corporation, and the Department of Education.

Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 — The War on Poverty — which President Johnson said “…does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty.”
Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single-parent homes and out-of-wedlock births.

It’s not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama’s invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?

Insanity on Capitol Hill

With the nation deepening in economic turmoil a virus seems to have gotten loose on capitol hill. This virus seems to turn the minds and backbones of men and women alike, into a gelatinous mass. They then stop thinking and rush to get something done, rather than stopping to think if they ought to be doing anything at all.

We stand at a crossroads, the future of our country is looking more bleak every day. Our lawmakers seem more ready to do the things that will bring them greater popularity, rather than take a hard look and make hard or unpopular decisions that would be in the best interest of our country.

Now that we have every lawmaker in Washington DC squabbling over the billions of dollars that they want to print for us, our state leaders are discussing all the great ways that they can spend the money that comes to them. What a great opportunity for our state leaders to really “LEAD” and turn down the money. Follow true economic principles and somebody take a stand before this beast destroys what little we have left. Call your state representatives and ask them to stand against this doling out of your children’s future today.

The problem was not created because of and will not be fixed with MONEY. We must take a stand for principle or we will reap the unfortunate rewards of economic slavery.

Open Letter to the Government

Pyrolitical Rally - Open Letter to the Government Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Pyrolitical Rally - Open Letter to the Government Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

An Open Letter to Washington

I address those in Washington charged with the sacred duty of representing the views of the people, as well as our Chief Executive.

From its inception in 1776 the United States of America was designed to be a haven from tyranny in its many forms.  Our founders who drafted the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and other important formative documents gave high value to freedom, liberty, and self-determination.

They recognized that tyranny seeks to remove these divinely bestowed gifts from personal possession amongst a citizenry.  It was during such a time in our nation’s history that great men met to plan how these gifts could be preserved as perhaps never before.

During dark times our founding fathers exchanged ideas of government with these principles of liberty in the forefront of their minds and hearts.  They asked for divine guidance and drafted the documents that changed earthly history.  We have been blessed by these guiding principles for many years.

We are faced today with choices that will change earthly history again.  The bill recently passed by the Senate and Congress which was then signed by the President places in peril our freedom, liberty, and self-determination.

The so called, “bail out bill” is an assertion that we depend on government.  This is simply not true.  If we act as though it were, our freedoms will not survive.  This usurpation of power without consideration to the balances placed in effect by the Constitution has the power to destroy our freedoms.

In Freudian terms the Legislative and Executive branches acted as one giant “id”, making decisions without regard to the voice of the people and without recognizing that their “timeline” did not allow for the process of judicial review.

Freud’s “id” acts only in hedonistic self interest seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.  I can think of no better descriptor to explain what occurred this past week.

Freud theorized that the “id” would destroy itself were it not for its counter balance the “super ego” which is ideal and value driven.

The “super ego” informs the “id” that it can’t act without considering certain rules and consequences.

I would compare the “super ego” to the fortuitously created Constitution left by our forefathers and its properly executed enforcement via judicial review of the Supreme Court.

Freud’s third participant in this process is the “ego”.  The ego balances the two pulling forces of the “id” and the “super ego”.

In many ways the ego acts as a fulcrum point, or the true position of power.  This power MUST be in the People; We the People!

In your process of governing these past few weeks you have acted as the “id” serving against the will of the people; bypassing their will through strategically negotiated, self interested, pork barrel spending.

The passage of the bail out bill was not earned through hard work and innovative thinking; it was purchased using bribery and coercion.

The People didn’t want to spend $700 Billion, but you spent it anyway and then you added an additional $112 Billon buying the votes needed to pass this bill.

If you did not vehemently fight against this bill, I consider you accountable.  If your vote was bought, I hold you responsible.  If you supported this bill I wish you were more creative and I wish that you truly believed in the American people.

What have the People had to say during this?  People across the country have expressed hesitancy at the expenditure of their tax money for the purpose of bailing out companies which have been either imprudent or unscrupulous in their financial practices.

The bill was presented to the public as the only solution and we were told that its immediate passage was necessary to prevent disaster.

I recall feeling at the time as if I was receiving a sales pitch at a car dealership.  In the past I have fallen for this hype.  This was before I knew that the best way to purchase a car, is to purchase a car I can afford and buy with cash.  If that happens to be a $650 beater, so be it.

Having learned that purchasing a vehicle I cannot afford only brings servitude, I see past the sales floor farce and I have seen past yours.

There is more than one solution to our present financial crisis and it has nothing to do with the expenditure of money or a specific timeframe.

The long term solution is centered in the implementation of prudent financial practices by our citizens, by our institutions of commerce and by our government.
Just like I must do when I go car shopping; some of our unrealistic dreams must die.  There may be a great deal of pain associated with that.

My 401k plan has decreased in value, but if it is the true reflection of the value then I prefer to accept that real value rather than entertain a delusion of an inflated value.

We the People have expressed a desire to “take the hit” and deal with the reality of this crisis now in lieu of making this absurd expense and exacerbating the problem for the future, and for our children.

Many polls showed that a majority of people did not support the bail out. I challenge you, as our political representatives, to review the positions expressed to you by email, letters, and phone calls.  Look and see what we the People wanted.  I fear that most of you will find that you failed to represent us.

I applaud those of you who listened to your constituencies.  I specifically thank Congressmen Rob Bishop and Jim Matheson who listened to their People and voted against this bill.

I shamefully recognize that Senators Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch as well as Congressman Chris Cannon chose not to represent the will of their People.  This is already reflected in Chris Cannon’s loss of his party ticket.

I will do everything in my power to ensure that those who do not listen to their constituencies do not return to Washington.

You in Washington have become an out of control “id” that does not recognize the need to adhere to the rules set forth in our founding documents which are meant to preserve freedom.

You have lost perspective of what it means to be a representative.  You have not recognized that your duty is not to dole out what you feel is best for your constituents, but rather to listen to your constituency and represent their will on the Congress and Senate floors.  You have failed your litmus test.

Let us return to the topic of tyranny.  The cost of this bill will be shouldered by the People; and is in essence taxation.

The manner in which the bill was passed lacked the component of true representation.  The Revolutionary War was sparked by this same act; taxation without representation.

Though centuries have passed, the desire of the American people to be heard remains strong and constant.

Hear us now:  Represent us or we will revoke your office of power.  We are not children needing to be rescued.  We are beings capable of utilizing the gifts entrusted us by God; capable of self-determination.

We can and eventually will depend on ourselves to recover from this economic crisis.  Please allow us this right.

I urge the People of America, from sea to shining sea, to take back your government.  Regardless of your party-affiliations express your views to your representatives, share your ideas, and vote into office people at the local, state, and national level who understand that their duty is to represent us not rule over us.

I urge those of you who currently hold the sacred representative roles to reflect on your recent choices.

Did your vote truly fit your ideals?
Do you have “buyer’s remorse”?
Have you violated our trust?

I believe in our system of government.  It was designed to function if you truly represent us, it cannot if you violate that trust.

If your stance requires change and you are willing to do so, I will accept you.  I recognize that you are human.

Perhaps the consequences that we face by taking responsibility for our nationwide practices of living beyond our means caused you to want to shrink away from the consequences.

However, I assert that those consequences, as fierce as they may seem, will pale in comparison to the cost of the loss of freedom.

I ask you to use your positions and our political structure to ensure that these errors of usurpation of power do not occur again.

I urge our current President and those who are seeking this office to have faith in the potential and resolve of your people.

Do not think of us as weak and unable to weather a storm.  Lead us through the storms.  Teach us about ourselves through your expectations of us.

I urge our third branch of government, our Judicial branch, to take up their role in our system of checks and balances to challenge this new law, and restore our confidence that the structure of our freedoms as outlined in the Constitution remains sound.

Signed a hopeful American,

Karson Kinikini

Next Page »