E-mail:
Password:
Feb 8, 2009 at 03:08pm
This was an essay I wrote for one of my classes. The prompt was to watch Michael Moore's Sicko, and to write an essay detailing your reactions to the film while suggesting ways to improve/change the current health care system.
It was almost two years ago, and I had obtained a pre-release copy of Sicko. I awaited with excitement, since I had enjoyed his other blockbuster hits Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 immensely. After watching Sicko, I became extremely passionate in advocating for free health care for all- even so much as guaranteeing a win for our current president in writing in February 2007- almost two years before his inauguration. The first time I watched Sicko, everything made perfect sense, and I couldn't understand why we didn't have free health care when every other Western country did. It was a mystery to me, and I demonized any position that stood against me. Boy, was I in for a ride.
I actually credit President Obama for "curing my apathy"- even though that became a popular phrase of supporters of Ron Paul, whom I ended up writing in on the ballot. I'll never forget that day- February 10, 2007, a Saturday. I was spending the weekend with my friend at his school due to a dire need of R&R, and we both watched the 22 minute video of Barack Obama announcing his bid for Presidency at the Old State Capitol in Springfield, IL. When his campaign song, "City of Blinding Lights" by U2 came on, a shiver was sent straight up my spine- the kind of shiver you get when you can feel that something great is about to happen to you. In fact, I just watched it again, and that emotion was so powerful that I still feel that shiver.
Obama got me to start reading and paying attention- a lot. I'd read varying degrees of news sources every day, and started reading books. Authors included Al Gore, Cornel West (whom I saw speak at my school last year), Obama himself, Joseph Ellis, and Jeffrey Toobin, among others. I became a bonafide "liberal" (in the contemporary sense), and tuned in to the appropriate outlets: Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, The Huffington Post, etc. Like clockwork, I was speaking out against the "evil conservatives," the Bushies, the evangelicals and fundamentalists, and the neo-conservatives. I read and read, because I believed in Obama so strongly, that I wanted to be able to defend my position against anyone and any criticism. My friend and I were such strong supporters, that we drove to New Hampshire to watch his speech after the New Hampshire primaries (which he lost to Hillary Clinton). We were packed in a high school gym standing about 30 feet from President Obama, after waiting outside for five hours.
Then, out of sheer coincidence, I happened to catch a segment on conservative host Glenn Beck's television program. He was talking to author Jonah Goldberg about his new book, Liberal Fascism. The ideas they talked about in the program seemed so far-fetched; how could the liberals be the descendants of fascists? I decided that I had to read this book and gawk at the faulty reasoning employed. But there wasn't any (at least, in his case to show that fascists were the logical ancestors of modern day liberalism). This book opened my world, and I started to read more "right-wing" books, but they seemed just as dogmatic as the "liberal" books as I had been reading.
I was caught in a whirlwind of political ideology, and I didn't know where to go, but I soon found a home with Republican Congressman Ron Paul who had a resounding message: liberty. His positions seemed to "rise above" the normal donkeys and elephants rhetoric. The problem isn't taxes or tax cuts, but the Federal Reserve. Or, the problem isn't which drugs are bad and which are not, but why is a victimless crime against the law in the first place? Or the problem wasn't life-begins-at-conception or right-to-choose, but that the Federal Government had no standing to rule on abortion; the Constitution mandated that it be left up to the States. Ron Paul's message wasn't Republican or Democrat, it was liberty through adherence to the Constitution- our founding document; the brainchild of Madison, a student to my historical idol: Thomas Jefferson. I saw myself as a Constitutionalist that transcended left and right that supported the cause that was started 233 years ago, but was quickly lost in its own enigma: liberty.
At this point, I came across the Free State Project. It's a movement to get 20,000 "freedom loving" Americans to move to New Hampshire in attempt to restore "liberty in our lifetime." I quickly found myself on yet another spectrum- a spectrum of small government libertarianism (otherwise known more generally as minarchy, meaning that you support the existence of a State that has courts, police and national defense only to protect individual rights) and no government libertarianism- otherwise known as anarcho-capitalism, voluntaryism, or free market anarchism. I later came to find out that voluntaryism (which is what I now consider myself) is quite simply the fullest expression of the libertarian creed: the initiation of force is wrong. (Also called the nonaggression axiom.) Naturally, given my past mistakes with the cloud of contemporary liberalism, I had to learn more about this philosophy, and again, I started reading. Authors this time included economists from the Austrian School of Economics: Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, George Reisman, David Friedman, and more. (I am still reading, as there is enough material for a lifetime- and thankfully, they are kind enough to offer it for free online in PDF form.)
Slowly but surely, I was convinced of my current position: voluntaryism or anarcho-capitalism. As Murray Rothbard stated, "Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism." At its very core, and something that resounded deeply with me personally, was freedom for all, and to its fullest extent. For the only thing not allowed in such a society is the restriction of freedom of others. Everything else is built upon the fundamental level of capitalism: voluntary exchange, in which each person gets something they desire, i.e., a "win-win" situation. Capitalism is a way in which not the most skilled people become rich, but rather, the most efficient solutions to any problem work their way to the top.
This is the framework under which I reject anything and everything socialist in nature; that includes the current concept of Universal Health Care. Of course, taken literally, Universal Health Care is something desired by all, and only denied by the nihilists of us. Unfortunately, as it is framed in current public debate, Universal Health Care equates to the more popularly phrased term, socialized medicine, which has been labeled as a "fear tactic." Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production, and in its current form, Universal Health Care is trying to be pushed through by government subsidies. (Perhaps a more accurate term is statist health care, but socialism captures the essence that government gets more control.)
By consequence, I also reject all conservative and neo-conservative (especially neo-conservative) opposition to socialized medicine (I will use this term throughout as to avoid confusion). Socialized medicine is nothing more than the extension of (more) government power into an industry already riddled with it, and given that Republicans (to encapsulate conservative and neo-conservative viewpoints) have not shown much opposition to other socialist programs like welfare, public education, bailouts/stimulus's, etc., it would seem odd for them to create a stopping point before socializing medicine. (Even though it already exists in the form of Medicare/Medicaid and other regulations.) Thus, their viewpoint really does become crass and insensitive, as the public has portrayed it. Their reason for denying socialized medicine is because it "seems" bad- not because of any philosophy they hold (if their philosophy, were as they'd say, for a "free market" then it is broken at the socialized points I mentioned above which they support- so they don't truly believe in the free market). Thus, no popular group in the mainstream media has any legitimate standing to combat the idea of socialized medicine.
That's where I come in- I want universal health care for all, I simply disagree with the mainstream means. My intentions are pure, but the logic leading to my conclusion over the means goes against the grain of mainstream economics. (That is, I subscribe to Austrian Economics as opposed to the mainstream economics being of the Keynesian variety- mixed with a bit of neoclassical economics for good form.) As I had detailed in my previous essay, government regulations and programs (Medicare, Medicaid, HMOs, etc.) raise the cost of health care. (Through the steady removal of the pricing mechanism.)
This creates an interesting predicament for the insurance companies. Insurance companies usually operate on the principle that they can make a profit off of others hedging their risks. Basically, they can calculate the probability for which some bad event can occur, and charge a certain price to cover the costs of restituting that bad event while also making a profit. As costs rose in the health care industry from government regulations, however, people had to start using insurance more and more. Insurance is now something we use every time we visit a doctor- for a checkup, a hangnail, all the way up to surgery and high-cost operations. Therefore, if the insurance companies do not increase the costs of insurance, those companies cease to exist. Since everyone is using insurance for everyone, and there are laws requiring employers to pay into the HMO, the insurance companies reach a point at which they can no longer raise their rates, but instead, are forced to ration. This is where Michael Moore displays the very saddening cases of people rejected by insurance companies. Unfortunately, the insurance companies aren't the problem. It's the high cost of health care caused by government interference.
Thus naturally, I would argue that further government interference would only increase costs more. And therefore, in order to fund subsidies to the uninsured, the government must raise taxes, and eventually, use their printing press at the Federal Reserve- and thereby inflating the currency. Eventually rationing will occur (perhaps based on favor to bureaucrats), and we will be right back where we started.
So I propose the complete removal of government regulation from the health care industry. This is obviously the endgame, and must be approached carefully and sensibly. Privatization of existing programs like Medicare might be the first step (upon further reflection, this might not be a good idea- but the point here is to say that removal of regulations and programs must be done carefully). Removal of regulation will inherently decrease prices, since consumers will again have to hunt around for health care, thus reintroducing the pricing mechanism that is so important to allowing competition to decrease prices. Once prices are decreased, insurance can go back to being used in those emergency and costly operations. Not to mention the side effects of removing government regulation: reduced taxes because the government no longer needs to fund the programs nor enforce regulations, decreased cost, and thus, more money in the pockets of consumers and thereby more money with which more charitable organizations can be established to help pay for the people who still can't afford health care. (Just like there are charitable organizations for people who can't afford food or shelter.)
I see absolutely no reason why we must sacrifice freedom in order to achieve universal health care- it only takes a bit of thinking and a bit of ambition. The first step, of course, as Gandhi said, is to "be the change you wish to see in the world." We must learn, then teach, and then we must do- and I have made education my mission.
Michael Moore asked, "Who are we?" I say we are a people founded on the libertarian ideal of freedom- to live without oppression. We once valued individual rights more than anything else, as Patrick Henry so eloquently put it, "Give me liberty, or give me death!" The soil of America still has the capability of bringing back freedom; the seed only needs to be replanted.
Comments (22) | Post Comment
Oct 29, 2008 at 06:25pm
You heard me. Socialists, not laissez-faire capitalists, are the cynics. Socialists are the ones that think the absolute worst of humanity.
Why? First lets start with what exactly "socialism" is. It is an economic system with which the means of production are owned and controlled collectively- by a Government. The goal of socialism is to obtain equal distribution of wealth. This implies the abolition of a class hierarchy, and the abolition of the individual.
When I say that most Americans are in fact "socialists", I do not mean that they are conspiring to overthrow class hierarchy, and actively seek to abolish the concept of self. When I say that most Americans, including contemporary Republicans, are socialists, I mean to say that they wholeheartedly support the equal redistribution of wealth. Abolishing class hierarchy and the individual is simply a logical progression from this.
Socialism does not mean violence. It does not mean dictatorship. It quite simply is adequately explained by "equal distribution of wealth." Marxism, Communism, Nazism, and Fascism are all socialists movements- but to be a socialist does not imply you are a marxist, communist, nazi, or fascist.
The easiest way to prove that most Americans are in fact socialists is to cite one example that is unequivocally socialist: welfare. Most Americans today would be hard-pressed to say that they would want to completely ban welfare, and thus, this is why they are socialist. Welfare, in its most reduced definition, is when the Government uses taxpayer money to give to people with little money. This is redistribution of wealth- or in other words, forced charity. You, as an American citizen, have no choice but to give money to the impoverished.
Perhaps you think this is a good thing- and that would make you a socialist.
At first, this sounds a bit cold. But lets think about it in another way that brings the issue closer to home. Lets imagine that I break into your home with a loaded pistol. I point it to your head and demand $1000. I tell you that I will use this $1000 to feed hungry children, but if you do not give me the $1000, you will cease to exist.
Think this is over the top? It isn't. Your taxes go to the Government, and the Government pays people who are on welfare. If you do not pay your taxes, you are thrown in jail. In other words: you cease to exist. You have no choice.
Maybe you are thinking it should be mandatory to help your fellow human. If you are, then I would say that this is what makes you a cynic: you could not have any lower opinion of humanity than this. Believing that people can only be helped through the forced charity of others, that is, people must be forced to help others at gunpoint, is the single worst thing that could be said about humanity. Why? Because as a consequence of this belief, it would also be true that if people weren't forced to help others, than people who need help would not get it.
Oddly enough, the people who believe that people will help others on their own free will are the ones cast as "selfish," while people who believe that we must be forced to help others are the ones who are deemed "compassionate."
Capitalism, it seems, has received a bad reputation over the years. It's individualist nature has led people to brand it as "selfish"- but yet, the whole point of Capitalism is that through individualism, society as a whole, and people in general, will benefit the most than under any other economic system. Don't forget one of the core teachings of capitalism: businesses exist to provide the consumer with what they want.
There is nothing more degrading than believing we must be forced to help others. There no worse opinion of humankind than the one that socialism implies.
Comments (11) | Post Comment
Oct 27, 2008 at 12:36am
(This is in reference to the Ballot Initiatives for the State of Massachusetts.)
How can you want to take power away from the Government, then give it right back to them by consenting to laws that infringe on personal liberties?
How can you want to take power away from the Government, then give it right back to them by consenting to laws that protect animals? The Constitution says nothing about making laws to protect animals.
If we are against using and torturing dogs for entertainment, must we also be against hunting for sport?
Lets start with our premise: Voting Yes on Question 1. (If you're voting No, then you are not a conservative, and support redistribution of wealth and big government spending.)
So there are a few reasons why you might be voting Yes on Question 1:
1) You are against all income tax on principle (or all direct or all forced taxes).
2) You believe that private companies can operate more cheaply and more efficiently than government.
3) You believe that government spending should not be so high.
These are wholly conservative views, as they represent the Constitutional principles of Government: that it be small and "out of the way". Quite simply, that Government exists to protect the people from dangers foreign and domestic- not to "take care" of the people.
Following this line of logic, conservatism favors the status quo- that is, little change. In other words, breaking it down to its very core, conservatives should be interpreting the Constitution as a dead document- one that does not change, and a document that means exactly what it says it means at the time of writing.
Continuing this line of logic, it is easy to see what the Constitution is: a document, agreed to by the people, that creates, establishes, and restricts government. Contrary to what most people think, the Constitution doesn't grant us any rights. No, not at all. The Constitution assumes we have rights, because we are human. It then goes on to say how the Government cannot interfere with those assumed rights. The Constitution never grants authority for Government to regulate what I may or may not put in my body on my own free will. Thus any laws that try to establish such a law are unconstitutional. Being a conservative means sticking with the status quo, and for the history of the United States, all the way up till the 1930s, drugs were perfectly legal. Marijuana (or hemp) was even a major cash crop, and was once used as a form of currency!
A similar line of reasoning exists for Question 3. Where does the Constitution grant Government authority to regulate how its citizens treat animals? Nevertheless, if you feel your sense of higher morality kicking in overdrive for animals, then you must relinquish the next point: hunting for sport. You cannot possibly vote Yes on Question 3 while still supporting hunting for sport. Both torture and kill animals for entertainment. If you dissent from hunting for sport, then I would say you are not a conservative: hunting has been a human tradition throughout all of our history. It's one of the more status quo things that makes up being a conservative.
Being a "conservative" these days (ie: the self-proclaimed Fox News Republicans) amounts to being a neo-conservative. Similarly, being a "liberal" these days amounts to being a "socialist". I always like to compare the two this way: liberals and conservatives today both like Big Government- the only difference is that one has twisted social policies.
Lets try an applied example, shall we? A true conservative wants to make immigration laws more relaxed. Yet, all we see from today's conservatives is something about beefing up border security and deportation. We must look at why we have an illegal immigration problem: that is, what specifically attracts people by the droves to cross our borders illegally? Not only are we offering them jobs (illegally), but we have something far better: you don't have to work, and you'll be paid! This means that the elimination of the welfare state is required to curb our illegal immigration problem.
After that, more immigrants will be welcome as they will need to work. More workers means more labor, which increases production and thus helps make our economy grow.
The problem never was illegal immigration. It never will be. It will always be the welfare state and the incentives we provide. Stomping around and complaining about illegal immigrants sucking the system dry and how we should deport them is completely futile and naive. It doesn't address the problem at all. These people are not conservatives.
Not to mention the litany of other anti-conservative things: a privately controlled monetary system (aka The Federal Reserve- the Constitution never granted Congress the authority to delegate currency management to a collection of private banks); medicare (more redistribution of wealth); unapportioned taxes (which is the current state of the Federal Income Tax); social security (why should I be forced by the government to delegate X amount of dollars to my retirement? where is my liberty to design my own retirement fund?); compulsory education (where is my right to educate myself? or where is my right to educate my children in my own way?).
Being a conservative isn't limited to thumping on about overturning Roe v. Wade, lowering taxes, and retaining the right to bear arms. There's a lot more to it than that, and what's even better, we have a document written a while ago that tells us exactly how to be a conservative!
I'll say it once more: Democrats and Republicans only differ on social policy now. Both are for big government, and neither are for the free market.
Post Comment
Aug 25, 2008 at 11:07pm
As the Atheist Blogger says, "When I die, I won't know that I'd been correct all these years."
Hehehe :D
Comments (1) | Post Comment
Aug 23, 2008 at 12:44pm
This is a really great introduction on the concept of Peak Oil- the model that says oil production must eventually decline. I highly recommend watching it!
Chris Martenson on Peak Oil
1 2 3 > » (Page 1 of 5)
