A ban on denial of health care coverage or cap on insurance premiums based upon pre-existing conditions would, essentially, be an absolute abolition of the most crucial tool in maintaining insurance coverage plans; actuarial tables.

Actuarial tables are formula systems which properly set the costs of each insurance premium by weighing the risk. The higher the risk that the insured customer will file a claim, the higher his premium must be, in order to offset the likelihood of costs to be incurred by the insurance company. After all, when a claim is filed and care is received, someone has to pay for it.

That's why life insurance would be substantially more expensive for a base jumper than it would be for a restaurant manager. Obviously, the base jumper is much more likely to die, so his rates will be higher, or he may even struggle to find anyone to insure him at all.

When that concept is transferred over to health risk, many people very quickly see a distinct difference. Base jumpers choose their activity, but pre-existing medical conditions are really the 'un-luck' of the draw.

Quite true. But does that change the circumstance, except in the potential emotional aspects of heredity and chance's inherit and natural disparity? Not really. People who are at a substantially higher risk for diseases or maladies will, on average, cost insurance companies more in claims than their premiums recoup.

But it sounds horrible to say that people who will cost more, ought to pay more. No one asked to have a propensity for certain conditions, of course not. Still, no one seriously suggests that grocery stores sell food on an 'ability to pay' basis rather than on the real price system. Why should health insurance, a product experienced individually, be approached differently?

Consider a ban on denial of coverage based upon pre-existing conditions in this light; I will offer you $100 and in return you will give me $1000. I'll get politicians to say that it's a fair trade because I have pled a special grievance to them and, after all, you have more than I do. It would be greedy for you not to follow through with the transaction. I'll even get government to force you into the deal.

That is essentially the same idea that is being pushed in such a ban. Some people, through no fault of their own, are in a tough spot and the suggested remedy for that is to help them to engage in government backed theft. No mind is paid to the concept of charitable donation. Only hatred is levied toward businesses.

Like it or not, no insurance company that loses money every year will continue to exist. Then no one will have insurance, because the company was forced into fiscal suicide. We cannot abridge the liberty of voluntary association without jeopardizing all freedom and rights for all individuals.

In today's society, there is an assault on individualism, or the belief that each man owns himself. This belief is truly the most accurate definition of freedom. What is freedom, except the most direct attachment of each individual to the consequences of his actions and inactions as well as the right to determine what those actions or in-activities are. As always, I note that this self determination is circumscribed or limited by its direct impositions upon others.

The Fort Hood attack of several weeks ago, yes, a terrorist attack, was not just an an outrage of thuggery and murder. Many commentators have been terminally frustrated with the politically correct atmosphere that seems to have entirely overtaken every facet of American life. So, in politically correct fashion, the soon-to-be terrorist, Nidal Hassan, was promoted through the ranks and his communication with Islamic radicals was kept secret from the Army. As well, the Army itself, refused to court marshal or at minimum reprimand Hassan even though a number of complaints had been filed against him for his overt anti-American views and his admonition of the worthiness of the enemy's cause. Action was not taken against a clear threat because he was not regarded as an individual. He was dealt with as a member of a class; Muslim American and as the omnipresent insistence prompts, he was assumed a moderate practitioner of Islam.

Yet, in this climate of hostility primarily emanating from Muslims toward Americans, Americanism, and anything which is not Islamic, but perhaps in some small part reciprocated by a small portion of the nation, Hassan was given a huge pass on the even larger warning bells his statements and actions must certainly have set off amongst those with whom he had contact. It was his religion that protected him from scrutiny, from reprimand, from arrest, from charges. His Islamic beliefs, a characteristic which can be noted of a great portion of the American population, allowed him to remain unchallenged until his violent heart expressed itself in grim outrage. The class which was ascribed to him by other people, unwilling to see individuals as they individually are, permitted him the necessary time to carry out terrorism and murder.

Who in our culture views people as members of a particular class? One does not have to look very far to discover the plain answer. The left believes in ascribing order by placing people in classes, and then fooling with those classes until everything is 'fair'. Remember the President's recent appointment to the Supreme Court? Sotomayor made clear in her judicial decisions that 'fair' was one group of people being treated differently than another, based upon things which have nothing to do with the situations in which individuals act. The firefighter case was as blatantly racist a decision as one can find, as much as the Dredd Scott decision, I venture and boldly so. Perhaps you would think otherwise? Recall that in the Dredd Scott case the Supreme Court's decision ruled that Scott was not entitled to the rights afforded every other American citizen. Sotomayor's decision in the Ricci case essentially said the same thing, that people in like circumstance must be judged differently, based not upon their different actions, but based upon the differing social classes into which each of those people are reserved.

Many other situations of this sort exist, where the depravity in the arrangement of confining people to classes and creating warfare between them is fogged only by a proclaimed superior ethic of social manipulation. We have a heavily one-sided graduated income tax, splitting people into economic classes. We have privileges afforded people based upon their race, in many states and cities who run quotas in their hiring processes rather than allowing market forces to drive for the best employees to be hired, regardless of their heritage. It has been long known that such programming of culture is counterproductive. Not only does it most often entirely ignore merit, it arranges a situation where the perception is that merit does not matter. What I am referring to is this; suppose a black man is hired on to work at a fire station in a city that practices affirmative action or some similar system. Even if that black firefighter was truly the best qualified candidate for his position, there will remain doubt in the minds of those who did not receive the position and in the coworkers that something other than merit was what promoted that man to the position. The same thing is true in the mind of the black firefighter. He would much rather have been hired solely on merit so that his credentials for the position are not doubted at all, avoiding the stand-off-ish circumstance that non-merit hiring creates.

But, in returning to my original point, individuals are the bearers of their own freedom. They own themselves, the right to decide, the right to act, the right to succeed, and just as much the right to fail and pick themselves back up and go at it again or at something else or not to pick themselves up at all. This notion that people should be protected from their actions or, effectually, isolated from their rights because of the 'class' into which intellectuals fit them, is utter nonsense and the outset of tyranny. People behave individually and we cannot regard their behaviors in any other way.

Whereas the Dredd Scott decision hurt the black ex-slave and forced him to return to slavery, denying his American rights to himself, the Ricci case denied firefighters the advancement they earned on the whimsical notion that since none of the black candidates passed the test, the nineteen white and hispanic firefighters who did pass the test would have their scores invalidated. Where the graduated income tax takes a greater percentage from the people who work the hardest, it is called justifiable since that money is used to fund government handouts to people who did not work as hard (but promise ever-so-earnestly to vote Democrat henceforth).

Here is the truth. Freedom is individual in nature and is a hands-off situation. Individuals owning themselves are entitled in every respect to those things they produce. No one has the right to anything that they cannot produce or freely barter for themselves. They have a right to contract with anyone they wish, for whatever they wish, again within the boundaries of impositions upon others. No class, no race, no gender, no bereaved minority, or tyrannical majority has any right to enslave one man for the benefit of another. Americans are not a mass of people to be arranged. They are a people who have lived for a great deal of time in harmony, while producing for themselves and their families on an individual level. Adam Smith was a brilliant man, but he only pointed out the self-evident nature of men's free barter; that the invisible hand works amongst people because, in order to achieve his own goals, each man is more than likely to help someone else in some way even having no intention to do so. The only situation in which this is not the case is where a man may isolate himself. Anything other than these two arrangements is one person imposing his will upon another, and thus a violation of that man's liberty.

The left has continually sought dramatic mutation of the American culture, based upon liberty, into something which is entirely different to this great experiment. We can only point to the whole of history in which tyrants have used congealed power, establishing themselves to be of greater import than the rest of their subjects in total. With the American example of true individual republicanism, many of the world's nations have modified their approach away from blatant monarchy to a more muted approach, yet still with the same trappings of absolute power. No westernized nation seeks to be governed by an autocrat but many seek to establish unions of autocrats who are to 'act in our best interests'.

Distinguishing this from what the American framers established with our Constitution is really quite simple. Our nation founded a government to defend and expand the maximums of individual freedom, that is to say, each citizen of America owns himself and the choices he undertakes. This differs from all other governments because it is rather indifferent to the situations in which men place themselves, or even find themselves by the luck of the draw. In other nations, those situations insist upon and overtake the proper limits of government power and create benevolent despotism who, not seeking merely to do for themselves, seek to put each piece of the puzzle in its place.

Central to this arrangement of government is an arrogance of stellar proportion. Bureaucrats believe themselves intelligent beyond all other members of society, exempting those who espouse identical views, and by this reckoning, they hold themselves to be supremely, uniquely capable of solving those things which 'ail' the 'populace' or 'masses'. Still with me so far? I have merely rehashed what most of us already know. Let me break it down a little bit.

What these busybodies misunderstand is the nature of mankind. They see that some people do not have something they desire (or they see people lacking what the arrogant tyrants want them to have, regardless of what the people feel themselves). They see that some others might have, what the statists consider to be, more than enough of their own wealth. In such arrogance, the left soon is consumed by the notion that mankind is a gigantic puzzle and 'if only those numbskulls would do as I command' the superbly intelligent leftist could place each puzzle piece in order and complete the entire picture, creating a statist, command-and-control society, utopia. This is the justification behind the acts of redistribution of property, suppression of individual goals, and even the rejection of continued life for certain people, due not to a reckless disregard for the lives of others, but to merely the inconvenience of allowing that person to eat, drink, or breathe. The left regards some as 'drains' on the system and attempts to purge society of those people. In effect, the left believes very clearly that their intended ends justify any means. Actions expose the truth of that statement despite that most statists would uproariously reject the mere advocacy of such a notion.

But is society merely a puzzle? It become very clear, first off, even if it could be viewed as a puzzle it is simply too great to be understood by one man or by an institution of men. What constitutes the jigs and jags of the pieces? Individual desires which are constantly shifting based upon the localized climates surrounding each piece or person and I refer to climates in every respect. Everything which affects a person's desires, goals, and abilities must be considered. Simply put, in order for the left to arrange a puzzle, they must be able to freeze and sculpt each piece to their will. That, in itself, is a blatant violation of individual sovereignty, not to mention the tyranny of command necessary to force two pieces together that may not desire to associate.

I subject that, ethically, morally, as well as analytically, culture cannot be viewed as a puzzle to be properly arranged, and that, therefore, the jigs and jags not lining up in every circumstance are not actually a problem. They are a communication between parties of what is good and what is not. Without individuals, having their own goals and their own unique situations and their own unique talents, being allowed to operate as they see fit for themselves, there is no method but total, robotic control whereby men can be made to fit a utopian ideal that every leftist thinks he is creating. Men are not robots and anything which can be done to coerce them into a collectivized state is merely another form of slavery and as such will fail since it destroys the capacity installed within humans to produce. Those who believe in freedom, however, must believe that the proper means justify any ends. That if people remain free to seek what goals they wish, then the end result is theirs to reap, even if it is great disparity of wealth. (Note that wealth is the product of labor and exchange. By and large, wealthy men created a great deal of wealth and poor men did not. The statists like to play up the differences in the ends rather than accept the results of the means.). There is no utopia on Earth and one cannot be created. This is an excellent argument for the absolute sovereignty of the individual.

Now, of course, this critique of arrogance on the left sounds much more harsh than it may actually appear in practice. But the individual power of this nation's people can only be overcome in baby steps. Every time the left exceeds a speed limit each generation places on the growth of government power, there is a revolt and those in power are thrown out. Yet, look at every single action and actions advocated by the left and project those ideologies outward.

Humanity is not a problem to be solved. The ends do not justify the means. The means justify the ends, rather

A little late, maybe, but applicable.

The office of President of the United States is a unique one for the history of our world. It is was created with a perspective of crippling limitations upon its power, making it largely incapable in all but a few duties. Even among those responsibilities vested into the executive branch, a great many hurdles are erected by the Constitution, which heavily limit the exercise of power; Congressional power to declare war, for instance. Since the responsibilities of a President are very clearly defined, so should the actions of that President be very defined and by such virtue confined to those duties.

A trend which is has been present in all modern Presidents has seemed to explode in this current administration, and that is one of the office of President being used as a platform of commentary, not just on matters of disputed policy, but on all things, including a recent drunken faux pas on stage by a musician. Many people will recall, when asked, the President referred to the musician very casually, and correctly, as a jacka**. The comment was in response to a question posed by a reporter but one must ask, what has this to do with the executive office of the United States federal government? Why was such a question relevant and why should the President have anything to say about it at all?

No one could be derided for having an opinion on a matter which is made public, regardless of who the opinion-holder is, but is the time of the President to be so callously wasted? Should he be answering questions which do not, in any way, pertain to his office, or should he be answering questions which directly correlate with the duties of his presidency? Should the principle of a school in Memphis use time at a PTA meting to discuss such matters?  The answer is quite clear, and it is fairly obvious that the fawning love of this President has overtaken the United States media, to the point of hearing their childish giggles of glee in response to his every whim.

Many other examples of such indiscretion from the administration can be pointed out. Queries from news organizations nearly always seem to focus on ambiguous trivialities or at least as much as they do on the business of government. And this trend, while less prevalent, was present none-the-less in prior administrations and is, therefore, a cause for concern.

This is an example of expanding government, in that people expect the White House to have an opinion on everything, when the President's opinion, in real terms, is utterly meaningless, since his duties do not expand to the realms in which he finds it necessary to comment. Does our President have authority to censure the drunken musician? No, he does not. The drunken musician can do as he pleases and the President has no say in the musician's affairs unless they violates a federal law.

Our society has increased the socially accepted powers of the federal government by allowing it to make statements about our lives which it never had any business making, and to turn this page a little more, I shall point out an area where the federal government is taking this commentary to a level of invasion against our rights.

For many years, we have heard the call by public officials, including Presidents, for people to curb 'pollution' (this word is used in quotes because much of what is referred to as pollution is not, but some is as well). Environmentalism is very tricky, the federal government is given authority to regulate the business between states, and what merges seamlessly between states but the environment on the borders of those states? So, it would seem the federal executives have authority to regulate pollution, entirely at its own discretion as to just what qualifies as 'pollution'.

Yet, by allowing the federal government to have a running commentary on how 'bad' certain products are on the environment, Americans have essentially expanded executive authority into the realm of controlling the population's consumption of those 'bad' products, through the EPA and the CPSC. Our President ought not comment on what he thinks of the CO2 emissions of the cars on the street, because there is significant research showing that CO2 is beneficial to plants, a naturally-occurring component in our atmosphere, is crucial to our ecology, and is not at a dangerously high level. But, since Presidents have taken it upon themselves to berate this particular greenhouse gas, we now have an executive branch who has the power to regulate the production of CO2, although government is currently attempting to cement this power more fully. This essentially becomes the power to regulate every aspect of every American life, thus destroying all liberty and undoing what it means to be American.

A callousness has been developing in the executive branch of government, which not only ignores the principle of the Constitution but also its spirit. Instead of referring to the musician as a jacka**, our President ought to have replied that the situation had and has nothing to do with the office of the President or the federal government and as a representative of that government, he will not provide an unnecessary, irrelevant opinion. Rather than this reverence of limited government, the signs of an ever expanding government are present in commentary as well. An executive who finds every occasion to have an opinion on every situation is a hair's breadth away from making his opinion dictatorially pertinent to that situation, and therefore a tyrant to those involved. The President will not take that step into such minutia in the musician's life, nor will he do so as a pinpoint, in all people's lives. Yet, as stated before, the government is taking on new roles in this way, very obviously in the safety and 'green-ness' of products. We should be forewarned of this next step.

Normally, I prefer to construct my statements with an eloquence which has been lacking my past few posts. This is primarily due to time constraints, however, today I intend to speak frankly. There is only one other way to convey my message.

Republicans, fear my departing vote and recover your principle or face extinction.

It is very clear that the Republicans fear rejection from the 'intellectual elites' who run the media and largely control America's higher education systems. I suppose it makes sense to fear the power of people who suppose themselves to be in control of America's mindset.

But, primarily, the Republicans have given away the store while seeking some acceptance from these people who hate their guts. The media elites are ten to one Democrat. Some colleges have professorships which are far more heavily Democrat, making Republican professors mythical comparatively.

Get the message, Republicans. They hate you. They want you to curl up and die or concede absolute power over to their party.

The party of Republicans is not one of the college kid. Once that idealistic college kid grows up and earns a paycheck, he may realize the truth of individual sovereignty even despite what he was programmed to think in college and by the media. But he will not accept a Republican while at school, not until the schools beaten at their own game, by colleges which are alternatives to the left-wing worship-fests.

It is all the more important that you Republicans stand on principle NOW, more than ever, since we have an ultra-radical left-wing administration and Congress who will stop at nothing to see a rewriting of American freedom, from mean the right to own oneself, to the release from human circumstance.

These statists are friend to no one except their own egos and those who support them unconditionally. Republicans, they will never support you. You are in power because I, and the rest of we common thinkers, put you there. We decide your political fate. We determine whether or not you survive politically and you know what? We're hated by the media and the colleges as well.

We set goals for ourselves and go work to achieve them, not caring to hear from the left that we can't do that or that we shouldn't be agents of our own success. In that sense, we associate better with a politician who is hated and despised with spitting fury by the campus leftists who have never had to deal with a truly private sector.

And every time you embrace this left-wing bear which gnaws at your neck you lose my respect and my vote.

Republicans, I will not vote for a moderate. A moderated destruction of rights is a death of individual sovereignty no less and has every likelihood of permanence since rights trampled lead to revolt.

Fear my departing vote and the votes of the American people who have been aroused, not to supplant your rival party, but to supplant the growth of this government.

I have tried to sit down and write but time always gets away from me too quickly. So, in lifting a form idea from Sowell, I'll run through a few quick hits here that I have meant to post and hopefully down the road I shall elaborate on them in more detail. (I have only just placed these words on screen and will edit them tomorrow. When these parenthesis disappear, the editing is complete.)

The Constitution is an exceedingly small document for the purpose it was created. It's small because it was to restrain an exceedingly small body; the federal government of the United States. HR 3200 is massive because it is designed to control a large body; the American people.

A great many people mistake consensus of opinion with fact. But facts do not depend upon the opinions of mankind. Truth stands wholly apart from vindication by observation. Interpretation of evidence  is an extrapolation or even invention of situations to match what is observed with some level of preconceived world-view.

Justice is the direct binding of action and result, a natural association of choice with consequence. Nothing is justified by the end result. The means are of at least equal if not greater import than ends. And the means, therefore, often justify the ends. Men who break the law lose their freedom in prison. That's an attachment of consequence to action and a statement against supremacy of results.

The right to life is not the right to continue breathing at any cost. It is the moral claim of individual and sovereign self-ownership. Simply put, the right is to 'my own life' and with that right comes the right and responsibility of self-actualization, self-determination, and property. This overarching right to life can be argued for on a number of different levels but I wish to note here that a human is a natural individual. It cannot tap into any collective will without intentionally aligning itself to such duties or without external and brutal force. It does everything, at some level, to match with its own set of goals, even if that appears to follow a unified goal with others.

Collectivism has an appeal in that it frees people from the rigors and disciplines of prudent behavior. Consider this; A leads to B which leads to C. Most of us understand that. If I fail to pay my mortgage (A), I will be foreclosed on (B), and will end up homeless (C). Concern over results guides my behavior to abide by my responsibilities. Yet, under a collective system, when results are 'evenly' distributed across the community, not only does the material wealth no longer have a bearing on input, intentions become the highest currency. In Barney Frank's mind, he could NEVER be responsible for the housing bust because he believes and has pushed for a socialization of lifestyle in America, therefore, the entire nation is responsible if anything.

This is turning into a bit of a non-few-statement blog post but allow me to elaborate a tad further. Remember what I said earlier, that no human operates outside his own individual goals? Well, Barney Frank, being a collectivist, could never associate himself with consequences because he's 'operating toward a collective good'. Yet, he blames Republicans (who should have shut down the GSEs) for the housing bust. Why? Because by and large the Republican party is NOT collectivist in nature. They are individualists and therefore are subject to the consequences of their actions (or in this case, subject to the consequences of Barney Frank's actions). It's important to realize, this is not merely an arrogant belief in the left's purity of intentions. It is a concerted effort to supplant human nature with a foreign construct of elitism.

The left regards anyone who disagrees with them as idiots while the right regards disagreement as a natural state of mankind. The right believes in liberty, therefore disagreement is associated a measure of competition within the principle of individual sovereignty. The left believes in collectivism and therefore associates disagreement with hatred toward the collective or to mere imbecility. In this situation the left will never regard the right as capable of intellectual debate because of the left's perpetual refusal to accept as intellectually worthy anything which is not collective in nature. The right, also, will never be able to regard the left as capable of proper debate because of the left's voluntary constraints within a collective ideal.

A lot of Liberals are fond of claiming that there are many Americans who leave America and go to other countries to get health care that they can't get here and that this somehow proves that our system is messed up and needs fixing. And that there are Americans that need to stay in a hospital, that either can't get into one, or are discharged too early for their condition. That made me wonder for a long time. It contradicted all the ideas I had about America's health care. I have always thought that ours was the very best in the world. But I finally figured out that they are absolutely right on every count.  There are many instances where Americans travel to other countries for treatments not available here. Mexico is the most common destination, but there are other countries to which they travel as well. And why do they go there? They are seeking out treatments which are not approved by the FDA or other bureaucratic agencies. These are often experimental drugs or not thoroughly tested methods. Our government has very strict standards of what is and is not allowed, based upon medical evidence of the physical benefits for the patient. So some people, in a desperate attempt to cure a terminal cancer or other disease, will go to a clinic in another country, even if it is not up to our standards, to try one of these unapproved drugs or treatments.

Now, whether or not our standards should be lowered to allow these people to remain it the United States to receive their treatments is a topic for another discussion. However, for this discussion, what is relevant is what causes these people to seek treatment outside the U.S. The most obvious reason is the involvement of the United States government in deciding what treatments are to be made available to the citizens of our country. If our government were to allow these treatments here, doctors, or hospitals, or clinics, or faith-healers, or charlatans, or someone else would offer them. Whether or not the treatment works, or is wise, the patient will still have the opportunity to purchase those services he deems worthy of his money and body. And if we institute a government run health-care system, we will not make this travelling-abroad treatment less likely to occur, but actually more likely. If the problem is too much government control, based strictly on medical questions, how can more government control, including introducing cost considerations to the government’s decisions, bring about a solution to this situation? (Joe's note: Perhaps this is how Barack intends to 'reign in costs', by making people leave the nation and buy it with their own money which cannot be quantified.)

Consider also, who is it that is doing the travel to other countries? Is it the poor? The uninsured?  The homeless? No, obviously, it’s the wealthy, or at least the middle-class, people with some means. These are usually people with insurance and available treatments, but who are running from a government-controlled system that does not allow them the treatment of choice. Will this exporting of patients stop under any of the plans now before congress? Of course not! What, in fact, will be the result when the new system begins telling patients that it is not cost-efficient to treat their condition, and to offer a pain pill? (That was the solution offered by President Obama on June 25, 2009, in answer to a question by Jane Sturm.) There will be more people than ever flooding to Mexico or where ever they can find the treatment they feel they need.

And then there is the situation of hospital rooms not being available when needed, or the insurance company insisting on an early discharge or out-patient treatment. What is the most fundamental rule of economics? The one economic statement that people can quote that know nothing else about economics? “The Law of Supply and Demand.” This is not an occassional rule but a law that always works at all times, in all situations. The Soviet Union found it could not avoid it forever. They bent it, twisted it, but eventually it broke them. President Nixon’s Wage and Price controls proved that, like a rising tide, artificial restraints will be washed away in the clutches of this simple law. Just like gravity or the Borg, “Resistance is futile.”

The law shows how when the demand for a product goes up, the price goes up. As the price rises, competition enters the market as an opportunity for profit is recognized. Then supply rises and price goes down. As price goes down, there is less incentive to produce the product, so competitors pull out of the market, and supply goes down, beginning the cycle again. Only in a diverse (individual), free and open market, these shifts happen so subtly that it is usually unnoticed, until there is a sudden disruption to the market, or there is some type of limit introduced to the market.

And what has the law of supply and demand got to do with the cost of hospital rooms? Well years ago, hospitals were free to build a facility where ever they decided to build. Sometimes the motive was to make a profit . Sometimes the motive was more altruistic. However, it was up to whomever was in the hospital building business to make the choice for whatever reason seemed to be fit to them. But then in recent years, the government decided that this system of supply and demand wasn’t proper for hospitals, and they began to dictate where hospitals were to be located and how many beds were to be in them. There were targets set to limit the number of  beds in each area. The perception was an empty bed was unprofitable, so beds should be near capacity at all times.

Now the clouds begin to part, and we begin to see the connection between out-patient surgeries and basic economic law. When the number of beds went down, price went up. But the supply was artificially restricted by government mandate, and so the resulting effect was a continued rise in the price. And as the cost of a bed went up, the insurance companies had to try to control costs in the only way left to them: out-patient surgery and early discharges. So what is the cause of this symptom of a health-care system that is broken and in need of repair? Government agencies making decisions that affect the health and well-being of millions of Americans not on the basis of medical practices, but on the perceptions of a bureaucracy, on the basis of what they deem important, and arbitrarily so.  (Joe's note: the left likes to state that capitalism demeans humanity, that it reduces a person to their economic vitality. The opposite is true. It is demeaning to human life to collectivise it, to override the value of an indivdual, which is in large part economic value, to a mere return quotient society will see as a result of permitting that individual access to care, education, or their own labor. Nothing devastates the will, nature, and dignity of a man more than separating him from his natural right to have total control over his own faculties, this right of course being circumscribed by the identical rights of every other man.)

Now, I’m not saying that government regulation of the medical profession or health-care system is wrong. We need government regulation of many things in our lives. The Founding Fathers knew that. That’s why they instituted the Constitution and our system of government. They knew that a government unchecked by the control of the people was tyranny, but a people without a government was anarchy. Neither was acceptable. Thus, they instituted, not a democracy, but a republic, whereby the people would be the overseers, but the Legislative and Executive Branches would manage the limited powers given to the government. But many of the Founders warned of the dangers lurking in striking that delicate balance.(Joe's note: Enforcement of contract law between patient and doctor is an area of government's duty, as with contract law between any two parties. People who agree to a contract are bound by thier word to it.)

Now we find ourselves on a precipice from which we may never recover if we take that leap of faith, trusting that our government is the best agent to decide what is available to us medically as a people. As I have shown, government control of health-care is not new, and it has shown that even with the best of intentions, it can make a bad situation worse. We have all dealt with various nameless, faceless people in government offices, in stores, on the telephone, etc. who make it plain that they are not interested in me as a customer, and would rather I just leave them alone, instead of having to do their job of helping me.

Well, if I’m in Wal-Mart, Kroger, or my local bank, and I’m not satisfied, I can walk over to Target, Marsh, or another bank to do my business. But if  I have the government providing my health insurance, where will I go if I’m not satisfied? Of course, President Obama  has assured me that if I like my insurance, I can keep it. But according to the proposal now before Congress, H.R. 3200, Section 102, (a), 1, (A.), on page 16, I can only keep what I have; if I am unsatisfied with my company and would like to switch to a different company, I cannot. My only alternative is to join the “Collective.” No other company is legally permitted to write a policy for someone who is not already a policyholder.

And finally, you may be perfectly satisfied to have your medical decisions up for review by the appointees of  President Obama, and the fact that he may make decisions on whether or not you get treatment for some disease based on whether the budget deficit is too high or if there are other diseases that are a higher priority, or whether you are a Republican or a Democrat. But what if our next president turns out to be someone like VP Cheney or Richard Nixon? Do you want to put that power in his hands? Remember, when you create a monster, that monster can turn on you and eat you as easily as he can eat your enemy.
 

Among the surplus of annoying, demagogic talking points put out by the class-warfare crowd, one in particular consistently stands out, in my mind, as a thorn in the side of reason, and which seems to be perpetually accepted by a great number of the followership in our culture. That statement is, 'The rich are always getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is shrinking.'

There is not a shred of honesty to the statement and a moment's consideration could expose it as an outright lie, if only such consideration were given a chance.  After all, that is half the reason for having a 'talking point', that declared notions are accepted readily and without question.

So, why does this statement grate me so much? I suspect some of my frustration stems from overexposure to this nonsensical, bilge but I will set that aside for now and focus on the meaningful reasons.

The rich are always get richer... This statement cuts right to the core of the need for law. It is stated that 'The rich always get richer,' as though this is a problem, as though people putting forth effort to improve themselves is somehow bad. In a free market economy, in order for a person to acquire wealth, he must please someone! Many people, noting objectivist libertarians, hold that the greatest charitable act anyone can undertake is to provide for oneself and thus avoid ones own 'burden to society'.

And the rich, generally speaking, do, indeed always grow their wealth. But how do they go about it? Do they break down doors and steal from bank accounts? No, they engage in market commerce, most often investment in businesses, which employ people to create products and services that other people want and want enough to trade the performance certificate of their effort (money) in exchange for those goods.

Notably, in a free market economy, everyone gets richer. A rising tide lifts all boats. You don't see America's poor still traveling the nation by equestrian means. Cars were once a luxury. Now, almost anyone can get a car and through many different means. Pick any area of American life and you'll see how free market economics has improved the quality of life for everyone. This is an example of wealth.

So, perhaps the statists do not speak merely of the rich getting richer so much as they mean to refer to the rate. It is true, the wealthy in America grow their fortunes at a faster rate than most other people, but there are reasons for that as well. Principally, it becomes much easier to invest in one's own businesses and in other businesses, as a greater amount of generated wealth becomes available. You can hire experts to analyze the markets for you, hire business consultants to streamline your businesses, etc.

But once again, that's not a problem in any way, shape, or form. Businesses almost always employ people and ALWAYS provide a mutual benefit to anyone with whom they engage in transaction. The simple fact remains indisputable that no transaction would take place otherwise. Any transaction which takes place without the impetus of a perceived mutual benefit has taken place against the will of one party, is therefore force, a violation of law, and to be redressed in the courts.

As citizens of moderate means, or even poor means, slowly work to improve their circumstance, it is most common that their effort will pay off in greater amounts over time. The more money they set aside to invest, the more likely they are to reap greater amounts of interest from those investments. Of course, this is risk taking, but on the whole, the average is a benefit when the market is left to the decisions of individuals rather than bureaucrats and commissars.

The poor always get poorer... Many reports have indicated that poverty in America is not poverty as would have been accepted in the eyes of citizens even 50 years ago, much less 150. The poor do not get poorer. They benefit from the rising tide. Products which were once luxuries in the extreme, to be experienced only by the super-wealthy elite, are now available to the lowest earning members of our population. Computers, cars, prescription drugs, air conditioning.... Look around your residence and pick any item you see. Study the history of that item, it's availability in the past, it's function. You will find a quality of life increase in every case. A rising tide lifts all boats.

Now, many poverty stricken people in America never rise from their location in America's supposed 'classes', but the reasons for that point very blatantly to government redistribution. A person whose life is provided for, at the basic level, and as we're doing at the entertainment level, will never see the need to rise out of it, to put forth effort. Welfare programs and redistributionist programs were declared necessary in order to get people out of their dire circumstance. Yet, every year these programs expand their dependents and their budgets.

As far as the "shrinking middle class" goes, I reject the notion entirely that the middle 80% is somehow no longer 80%. But seriously, this comes down to the mutation of analysis. Instead of associating people's quality of life with their circumstance, demagogues have sought to stack the 'rich' against the rest.

Here's what happens; the wealthy invest and as their holdings increase, the growth curves more steeply upward. In America, that upward curve happens very quickly because of the enormous opportunities afforded by a largely free market (which is quickly seeing chains form, unfortunately). As the top 5% begin to reap rewards which are at new levels, the entire graph must suddenly accommodate greater heights of value. So, the 'middle class' is pushed lower on the page, despite being higher in quality of life, opportunity, and even personal wealth. It is noteworthy that people in America have electric power in their homes. This is an example of the bottom of the graph falling off, though the falloff happens at a slower rate than the gain at the top, thus the perceived dominance by the uber-wealthy. Remember that the accelerating growth of wealth is multiplied as available value increases, not only when referring to different people but within a person's own achievement.

This sort of 'stacking' is an emotional argument. It tries to pit one earner against another, as though the two have to assault each other to achieve greater production. Leftists try to show how much more wealth one person has than another while ignoring several key issues, such as, choices made, opportunity available, and quality of life within it all. In those respects, every American is richer, across the board, and specifically because of the right of individuals to keep whatever they produce, in Bradfordian simplicity. Once again that proper, and natural arrangement is being attacked by the demagogues.

Statements referring to people in 'classes' are useless as well. Such an analysis of population is unAmerican. It disregards the notion that people can travel between levels of prosperity based upon the choices they decide to make. Well, does anyone really think that the wealthy simply always were wealthy? Is that even historically possible? The left uses a term quite often, 'robber-baron', to describe the top 5% of wealth holders in America, as though the mere fact that they have more than others can only mean they assaulted those others to have it. But the wealthy do not steal from anyone, by and large. They create that wealth by engaging in productive commerce which would not have been produced otherwise.

Next time you hear the statement that the "rich are getting richer", ask the demagog/sheep why that is. Invariably, he will state that it's 'obvious' because the wealthy 'have so much more than everyone else'. Then point out to him, that is a result, not a reason. When it comes to war, no statist makes the case that the ends justify the means, and yet, in economics, they try to state that unequal ends make injustice of the means.

I submit this; in economics, the means always justify the ends. ALWAYS. When people engage in free commerce, the results are theirs to decide. They have only to set a goal and find a way to achieve it by mutually agreed upon transactions. Or even no transactions at all. Suppose I wanted corn. I don't necessarily need to buy it from anyone. I can buy some land and grow my own (barring the court's decisions, anyway).

Jason Lewis once pointed this out, and it really stuck with me. There are two types of equality which cannot be combined. There is equality under the law and equality of results.

Equality under the law is civil protection from force and fraud and national preservation from both. Equality of results is a perfectly equal divvying up of all valuable items amongst a given population, and is absolutely mythical at best (See Getting Specific on Material Equality). Thus, equality of results demands an inequality under the law, because the certainty of property rights has to be tightened for some to provide for those who have less and loosened on others to extract from those who have more.

I am not a wealthy man, far from it, in fact. I have a great deal to gain by stealing from those who have more than I do. But then again, those who have less than I, namely most of the world, would have a great deal to gain by stealing from me, following my own example. Sound familiar? I hope it does. Take a look at this quote. "Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another but let him work diligently and build one for himself thus, by example, ensuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." Words of wisdom from Abraham Lincoln.

Violence is done to those who are savaged in Marxist fashion, by demagogues and politicians. It is very concerning that we have covered chains in velvet 'benevolence' to soften the bite of slavery; forcing one man to work for another. I do not stand for such tyranny and insist that every citizen of this nation awake from the slumber of ignorance and roll back the truly despicable systems which are set up to subject some men to the whims of others.

Behavior is regulated by results. Do not stand in the way of those who wish to increase their lot in life from reaping the rewards they've sown, else they will not effort to sew any seeds of prosperity or at best they will sew foolishly. Productivity exists for the sole purpose of prosperity and is best encouraged on an individual level.

I have taken the time to update some of my statements in my introduction. The additions are in red. I did not strike out the letters of the subtracted parts because it is all covered in this new edition and to allow them to remain would be mere repetition. I have edited the original post but am adding this one as well, to keep any potential visitors apprised of my fundamental beliefs.

I believe there are two things central to the stability of a free society; the sanctity of life and the absoluteness of private property. Neither of these moral bulwarks are superior or inferior to the other and the development of policy and belief stem from the two ideals remaining hand-in-hand. I also believe that these ideals are primarily defended through religious teaching and their establishment by God.

Taking logic from those views I have concluded definitively the following.

-There is no right or left. There is freedom and tyranny. Tyrants wield an authority of control while freedom-minded people wield nothing but a desire to maintain liberty. Liberty is an absence of force or coercion in the life of each individual. No one, who believes in freedom, forces anything upon anyone or from anyone unless that person has first violated the natural agreement of liberty to which such force is necessary to defend these rights.

-There is no perfection on Earth. Humanity is blessed with a stunningly diverse array of people, in thought as much as anything else. No arrangement will work perfectly to everyone's complete and satisfactory benefit. What we must seek is the best arrangement whereby people can coexist and attain their unique or common objectives for themselves.

-This diversity of humanity exposes an individuality which cannot be reconciled with any collective ideal. Humans all eat, breathe, drink, think, decide, act, speak, etc as individuals. The only instances of collective ideals are in those cases where men unionize their similar ideals to amass greater power by threat or by peer pressure. Each goal which drove each member to join such a unionized force remains an individual objective. Therefore, each individual owns the right to decide for his own being, what contracts to participate in, what faith to hold, what desires to establish, etc. I will refer to this as the 'contract of the individual'.

-Property is the manifestation of a person's choices and effort. The right to own property is absolute, since the nature of the individual's ownership of himself is absolute, and not subject to repeal based upon popular demand or fiat. Redistribution of wealth through theft or progressive taxation and recurring taxation is immoral, discouraging to an economy, and an initiator of snowball effect which functions against production, societal values, and morality. An owner has total discretion as to where, when, how, and why to distribute, destroy, dispose, dispense, stock, save, or reserve any property owned, created, received in transaction or gift, or discovered.

-People, therefore, have a right to defense of one's self and one's property as well as the persons or property to which one feels obligated in defense, contractually, neighborly, or otherwise, thus the right to items which can best assist that defense against any threat cannot morally be withheld by law. This is identical to violation of contract. The nature of humanity is the contract of the individual, once again.

-The right to freely associate is a crucial and basic principal to mankind and may not be restricted without the bound person having prior violations of these rights against someone else. This applies not only to political parties and movements but also to labor and sales. An employer has an absolute right to determine who will work for them and why someone will or will not work for them. A worker has the absolute right to determine who they will work for by formulating contracts with whomever they wish for any rate or reason. A salesman has sole discretion as to whom they will sell to and for whatever reasons. A customer has the right to decide where they expend their value for any reason at all. Contracts to these ends, formulated between agents of the economy are binding and must be upheld by the law.

-Life is the most valuable commodity of all to a person. It cannot be violated without just cause (self defense) or consent (that is, for example, as a person may give consent for dangerous assignment by contract to a construction company whose specialty is high steel). However, it is not a violation of one person's life that another person's property remains intact. Suppose a man may die without charitable contribution from good citizens. He still has no right to prop up his own life by stealing from another man, whether or not that man can afford the abuse, whether or not the abuser sends government to act in his stead. One life is not protected in the trampling of another.

-Willful violation of the right to one's own life or one's own property repeals all these rights for the violator and thus they subjugate themselves to the necessary steps for a civil society of ordered liberty to maintain it's precarious stance or to an individual's right to self defense. This is identical to violation of contract, nullifying the contract's obligations to the violator. The nature of humanity is the contract of the individual, once again.

-Travel is as necessary as the rest of the rights. A person who is free to do as he pleases (rights circumscribed by the identical rights of others) but only permitted to be so in a certain area, has no rights at all. With the ability to travel comes increased abilities to associate, contract, and transact. Therefore, no restrictions may be placed upon mobility except for those to ensure mobility is not a direct threat to the other rights. This is why we have drivers' licenses and we search people before they board aircraft among other things as well as allowing private land owners to maintain sovereignty over that land.

-The Constitution is, in originalist principal, for the restriction of government to its sole and declared duties which are to stop force and redress fraud. Freedom-minded people do not need governing in any sense. The diversity of mankind not only demands a system where people are not subject to collective will, but requires a government to preserve the natural rights of mankind from those who wish to impose unnatural violations of humanity. Those violations vary from petty crime to invasion from an enemy force. Thus, government has a function in an imperfect society, not to create perfection, but to protect against force and reestablish justice of as much imperfection as possible. In that sense, government is the greatest threat to liberty and must be governed, itself, and harshly. That is the purpose for the Constitution of the United States of America.

-Freedom of advocacy and speech is necessary, however, not as wide open as commonly thought. Harassment and public endangerment circumscribe this right which is otherwise unencumbered.

-A nation of ordered liberty must be a republic of some sort. All other forms of governance are fundamentally at odds with liberty in their inability to reign in the absolute power of mob rule. A republic can only serve as a bulwark against this for so long, until the mob overrules the minority or until, as is also currently happening, the society loses all moral navigation and boundaries. Yet, we cannot simply throw the only baby out with the bathwater.

I may amend and append these statements further as necessary but the ideals are sound, though incomplete.

On our horizon, I fear, looms a great and terrible beast, alluring in beauty to those who cannot or will not recognize the glitter of fangs or distinguish from a luxuriously brushed coat, the claws which peek out.

It has become second nature for politicians, propagandists, and aspiring demagogues to seek and secure power by appealing to the vanity of man's imperfections. This past Presidential election was no less an example. Essentially, the race was not between opposing world-views and ideologies at odds with each other. Instead, each candidate tried to out-promise the other to secure votes by effective bribery. The only distinction between typical bribery and the conduct we observed, primarily from Obama but reciprocated in McCain, is that the candidates promised taxpayer money for a vote, rather than promising a vote in return for private money. In a free society, legality does not translate to morality, although I think the case can be made that such redistributionist action can and ought to be made illegal. I suppose, in the end, the equation is different in semantics. Money changes hands as a reward for voting a particular way. Which party does what matters little.

But, the beast which may spell forever the death of individual freedom and the possibility for its recovery, is so called 'health care reform' which is simply the latest moniker and mask for the nationalization of all medicine and care. A great many others have gone into intricate detail as to exactly how any sort of health care promoted by the current crop of control-freaks is truly, at heart, a simple, if slow, takeover of the individual's right and responsibility to choose.

In an earlier post I noted that the individual is the only agent capable of properly ascribing value to his produce. If he does not feel the exchange offered for his effort is of great enough value he does not have to engage in the transaction. He is also the only agent capable of properly ascribing value to those things he desires; he does not have to purchase. So, how does this apply to health care and services?

How would an individual approach a situation of so-called 'universal' health care coverage? First, you must understand the individual. Humans are self-interested by nature. We are primarily concerned with the well being of our own bodies, and not those of other people to any extent so great. That is why it is laudable and displays uncommon valor when our military men and women gallantly sacrifice themselves to save their brothers in arms or even we Americans and our liberties. But the overwhelming average human approach remains that each person cares more for himself than he does any other person. That is not greedy. It's survival and is moral since no one must take up the slack to provide for your survival if you take care of yourself with your own able-bodied/minded effort in the first place.

So, since the individual values himself infinitely to remain alive and as physically worthless when dead, it stands to reason that he will act on that pricelessness by visiting doctors, hospitals, and clinics for every single malady or ailment, whether legitimate or perceived. He will not economize because his life is infinitely valuable to him. The only reason to economize, the true cost of procedures, he no longer has to pay.

The statement of infinite value is made consistently by the left and the right. Life is too valuable to be arbitrarily tagged at a price. I agree, wholeheartedly. But all things cost money. So, what about the life of doctors, nurses, biochemists, surgeons, anesthesiologists, psychologists, pharmacologists, and mechanical engineers? No one advocates that those people be disallowed to charge for their labor and their expertise. There is a value which cannot be separated from the services and products they provide. Who is to value what they are worth, what their efforts and skills are worth? They are and their patients are. To say that someone should have no authority in setting their own worth is to declare them unworthy of basic humanity. Additionally, to say that a government bureaucrat should have a stake in what transaction a doctor and patient can agree upon or even to declare that they must engage in a transaction, is similarly debasing of individual human freedom and worth.

So, what of the patient, you ask? The patient is prime to decide his own worth as well. He will value his life infinitely, regardless of the system set in place. But no system can accept infinite value, because all medical care requires effort and all effort is limited to the time each of us has on this Earth. I advocate that people be permitted to engage in those transactions they mutually agree upon, without arbitrary force being applied to either. Once again, to try to separate a person from deciding their own worth is similar to the attitudes which enable slavery. It is simply debasing and devaluing life.

So, the doctors value their time and effort infinitely, trying to better their situation and their families' situations but at the same time patients and patient's families value themselves infinitely as well. How are these people supposed to come to grips? The media, education centers, and current political establishment will tell you that a system which assigns real-world numbers to the treatments will provide the proper care to the people who need it.

I agree with that as well. However, with players of self-professed infinite worth on either side of the transaction and neither having any responsibility to market forces, there remains only one way to settle the trade; bureaucratic force. I have little faith in people who can logically regard the benefactors of their decisions as arbitrary to their own existence. With such players calling the shots, there will be a vast amount of dissatisfaction because very few people have any real control over their situation.

Would free market forces settle trades as well? Yes, and much more efficiently since the players involved in the game are much more in control of their own situations (See note below). In the case of insurance companies, customer satisfaction is the ultimate goal because to continually disappoint the customer means to lose them to competitors, and thus continued survival of the company demands quality care. The same is true for doctors. Patients will find themselves limited by their financial circumstance but most will be able to pay for their disaster coverage on health insurance, as long as the government gets out of the way of insurance companies writing the plans their customers demand.

Finally, I'm a strong believer in private charity. I know for a fact that people are built with a degree of compassion and empathy and when successful will give in larger portions to those who truly need a hand up. The real difference between this action and what they government seeks to do is that private charity is much more carefully doled out. Abuse is not nearly the problem with private money that it is in government. Is that statement subject? Sure, but is it not also a fact we can all observe, especially with this current government which simply 'lost' several hundred BILLION dollars? You do the math. Regardless, no one is as careful with someone else's money as they are with their own (Ref. the great Dr. Milton Friedman).

I'll leave off with this statement; there is no preservation of human life in the collectivising of a population. That demands weeding out the individuals who are a thorn to the social objectives, individuals who seek their own objectives, and individuals who are unproductive to meet their rate of consumption from the public coffer. There is no way around that. Read here and make sure to take close note of Britain's QALY system which rations care based upon a person's usefulness to society. Once a society embraces doctor-assisted, government-funded suicide (as several states in America have) and nationalized health care, the difference between eugenics actions of Nationalsozialisten, slaughtering millions of people, and the 'usefulness' formulas for American health services, are a matter of who is targeted and why. The end result is the barbaric murder of the defenseless, for a social goal. No, the only moral arrangement is for individuals to operate as individuals without outside force compelling them to act in any way to which they never agreed.

Note: I feel it's necessary to acknowledge the situation of 'emergency' care. A patient may have no control over their receipt of care if the situation which demands care has incapacitated that patient. Thus, the doctor hasn't the slightest idea if the patient can pay for their services, or if the patient would desire services at all. In these cases, I think it is fair that the doctor, by Hippocratic oath, will do their level best to restore the patient to health. As far as I am aware, all hospitals have either write-off budgets for those patients who simply will not be able to pay, and for whom no funding will be received, even from government, or financial experts who will help patients set up payment plans that anyone who holds a mortgage or a car loan would die to have (pardon the pun). As it stands, the market could be made a great deal more free and it is very obvious to me that such a reduction in government invasion would be a great boost to American medicine, which is already the best in the world. To this add tort reform, a cancellation of all mandates on insurance companies, a heavy handed reduction or even closure of the FDA, and set in motion the phasing out of medicare and medicaid programs to be replaced by private charities, and nothing would stand in the way of patients, doctors, and companies for mutually benefiting each other in transactions. As it stands right now, before the beast rises, American medicine is not really all that free.

Once again, I am prompted by recent conversations to pour out my thoughts and so this blog may quickly be mutating further into a dictation of my running thoughts, more so than a listing of carefully constructed arguments. Both are beneficial for the intellectual pursuits which were and are my purpose for creating such a vent in the first place.

The matter today, is one of the various forms of government. Our early history is teeming with people who disagreed greatly on the details of government; upon what strengths it should posses and exercise, upon its arrangement, upon its officers' titles. The list of known debates goes on for quite a ways. These disagreements were bitter, even to the point of hatred between holders of opposing viewpoints. Many argue that this is similar to modern times, in that we find our citizenry bitterly debating policies, government, and every other possible item beyond the point of hatred for each other. But I think there are a few grave differences which belie a gross injustice occurring amongst our people.

It is clear to me that the left has issued unto itself a warrant for power in every form and at any necessary cost. This mandate is not new, nor is it unique to the American statists. A great host of governments and regimes have organized with a self-appointed duty of control over people in one form or another. Of late, many governments have cushioned these chains to soften the societal slavery which they establish and maintain. Other regimes continue that historical tradition of utterly trampling anyone who opposes them and their hegemony.

There is an endless variance between these forms of government, when laid in comparison with every detail exposed. But there is an underlying similarity in which some seek to control other lives beyond preventing force and redressing fraud amongst citizens. In the education systems, and among the general public as well, there seems to be a broad acceptance of the notion that each of these forms of government have their place on a graph. For instance, communism would be on the left and fascism would be placed on the right, according to conventional wisdom.

But does the color of the chains binding a man change the fact that he is bound? Are not all forms of tyranny similar in their affect on each individual? The distinction between socialism, Marxism, and fascism is merely that of method and measure. The form of tyranny matters only to agents promoting it, in their operation and their supposed goals. Even those who try to throw off the controls of their oppressors  care little for what form of government they are addressing until they have a chance to institute a government themselves. Their primary concern remains their own lack of power or liberty.

Many try to create distinctions between these tyrannies and even demonize their current political opponents. The left has branded the Nazi party of 1930s Germany a "right-wing" party. (Author's note: those interested in the hard evidence of Adolf Hitler, Bismarck, and the Nazi party's leftism should read Dr. John Ray's article Hitler was a Socialist) But fascism is really another way to control citizens and as shown repeatedly by Jonah Goldberg among dozens of others, fascism is much more often a tactic used by the political left.

Nationalism is branded to the right and the first historical example with nationalism which is brought up by the statists is, once again, Nazi Germany. Sure, nationalism is a considerable problem, if the nation being supported is engaging in depravity, despotism, and deplorable activities. On that point, the American left could never be labeled American nationalists because they regard our history as one of appallingly unforgivable men acting horridly. They throw out the entire works of our founders and framers on the basis of being "white slave-owners" rather than take an honest look at history. We American conservatives regard nationalism as a matter of pride in our history, since that history is a matter of continually overcoming human flaws thereby changing America, and by proxy the world, to become far better than the historical average, where slavery, for instance, is overwhelmingly common and human equality is all but a ghost.

In this rite, America has rolled back the constancy of tyrant states permeating every continent except that one which is not naturally inhabited. We have unleashed the power of the individual to create lifestyles which could not have been imagined just 50 years ago. Our founders and framers set forth a system of restraints placed upon the government, rather than the governed, which is uncommon to this planet, but a sense held by a great number of people who have dwelt on this Earth and never saw the arrangement of their yearnings even remotely possible We have done more than to take part in the ending of hard slavery in the modern world. We established our declaration of independency from Britain and the rest of the world with words whose operation in history were intellectually present at times but void in almost every situation; that "all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...".

Finally, to the item which sparked my mind to consider these things in this order. Several years ago, during my political coming of age, I wondered, why do we celebrate our independence on a day when our nation remained in tyranny? Why should we commemorate the fourth of July when on that day in 1776 our colonies' people were still subject to a tightly-fisted king whose military might was considered by the world to be nearly a rival of God, Himself? Why not celebrate October 19, 1781 or the day ratification of the Treaty of Paris?

The answer is in Jefferson's magnificent document. We don't celebrate our independence because we were freed from Britain. We celebrate our liberty on the anniversary of the continental congress' adoption of the Declaration of Independence, because it makes very clear that independence is not a situation which is to be occasionally proper for mankind. Our individual right to liberty is quite sovereign from the situations in which we find ourselves. Morality is indifferent to the opinions of common sentiment. Things which are wrong, stay wrong and things which are right do not suddenly become wrong.

How are we to know what is right in the governing of mankind, or in having no government, for that matter? We may look to our Creator and we may look to His creation. The sentiments I hold on the former are assured to ensnare some prospective readers in a host of rebukes and rebuttals which I would expect and would prefer to answer more fully without compromising the efficacy of this work. Therefore, I will focus on the latter; His creation.

We are each born individually. We crave, construct, cry, and console as individuals. Nearly every verb in the English language has the basis of an action as it relates to an individual and that goes for nearly every language, at least those of which I am aware. There is no collective mind which unifies people without the agreement upon mutually inclusive individual goals, which compel people to unionize their efforts and in so doing, create an illusion of herd mentality. It seems to be unchallengeable that every facet of our nature and, as follows, our society is built upon individuality, when you get to the core reasoning behind each action. I see no reason to disabuse our human nature of its aspect which we could never begin to separate it out, without enslaving the remainder of mankind's existence to misery. This is because individuals will always have goals which are not mutually inclusive, even beside those which are. Such goals of a non-collective nature would, necessarily be forced by the wayside to make room for the objectives of a herded, resistant totality.

So, why did my subject matter take such a great shift from an analysis of modern opinion of graphing political systems to our Revolution and the nature of man? I think it should be made plain to anyone that trying to graph the forms of government and locate the moderate-most of them and establish that as the proper average of mankind's desired government is, really, a way to mask tyranny. It ought to be stated at every opportunity, being in favor of an extreme amount of individual liberty is not an extremist position at all, it is merely a principled and logical belief in the nature of mankind. Barry Goldwater once stated that "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

He was right. All forms of government which practice controls over the freedoms of men, be those controls softened or hardened, are invariably immoral. In my piece Inescapable Justice, I tried to convey that free peoples choosing the wrong thing will soon have a great want for their liberty. Observe the people who have few choices in their health care decisions in England, people who have no choices over their political leaders in Iran, and people who have little choice over their education in America and you will soon realize that every new program of government is one which overtakes a part of a life rightfully yours to manage and with which to be responsible.

Have I made the statement that Marxism is no different than the barest hint of government control? I've made the association, no doubt, but I state again, the differences are not of their immorality. The differences between forms of tyrannical government are only those of method and measure and one should be prepared to see the differing situations of method and measure as a matter of time.

Given infinite time, someday this nation will choose to throw away freedom entirely, rather than bit-by-bit. We should no longer permit either concept any inkling of entrance into our lives. Choose individual freedom on every issue and support a civil society which establishes and maintains government only to do those limited objectives to correct for man's imperfect individuality. We are a long way from that at the moment, so we had all better dig in.

It has been a while since I had a chance to sit down and logically place my thoughts on page. I've skirmished a bit on youtube comments, battling back various forms of madness, but I want to get some thoughts I've had down. I'm also in a very plain and frank mood. I won't be spicing this work up with the eloquence I usually prefer. Sometimes things need to be stated very candidly.

"Public good" has been rolling over in my mind. I have had it stated to me a number of times that government "must do 'X' because 'X' is a public good." That is to say that the entire public benefits from whatever 'X' may be and that it is very unlikely, impossible, or impractical that 'X' would occur in the free market. Some of the examples of what 'X' might be are as follows; public schooling, universal health coverage, or scientific research. All of these topics have arisen in my discussions in the past few months and all have been defended as 'public goods'.

Honestly, I have not yet done a great deal of research on this particular topic and I expect all of what I say to have been better said by better men. But a lesser man speaking right may be better for the country if the lesser man's statements are freshly heard by someone. So, here's how it occurs to me.

Primarily, I dispute the notion that any of these things are impractical, unlikely, or impossible for a free market to provide. In fact, each of those items has been shown to occur in the free market, despite enormous intervention by government. Public schooling only accompanies a plethora of schools and institutions of learning which survive despite the fact that the product they are selling is being given away by government. So, let us not be deluded that these items are unattainable by individual decision-making.

That brings me to my second point. I dispute the notion that government provision of these services is better than the free market alternative. I have made the point before that the mere existence of private schools despite the monopoly of government schools which cannot be broken in the marketplace. That illustrates two main facts; 1 that public schools are not providing an education at peak quality and 2 that public schools are far too monolithic in their structure and course content. Parents desire much more control over their child's education and they receive more control in the private sector. So, they are willing to be taxed and then pay once more for the education they regard as best. If money should follow the students to the school their parents send them, some public schools may indeed fail. But won't the parents and students be better off for it that their child is not in a system which would fail, were it not for government fiat?

If public education, health care, and science are public goods, what about accounting, food, housing, clothing, energy, water, entertainment, and mobility? Should we subsidize pencils, sandwiches, 2x4s, cotton, electricity, aquifers, film, and vehicles? Many people argue that when an educated worker is worth several times what an uneducated worker is worth. What they are really advocating is a misguided form of free market economics, where value changes hands, gaining along the way. Their argument is this; 'Well, if that's so, let government throw money around too. That way money changes hands and the economy benefits.'

That brings me to another point. Some of the comment battles I have had on youtube videos have pertinence to a Milton Friedman video where he mentions the funding of science. Someone commented that science is a public good and ought to be kept. That individual has argued that more advancement of science requires public monies. But my question is this; at what cost? You see, to provide funds to one sector you must take it from another or a group of sectors. Value doesn't simply appear from no where. So, where should the burden be felt to expand the realms of science? Isn't the burden the entire reason a market system exists? Besides, science exists quite apart from government funding. There is a market for new developments but those scientists and studies are subject to the marketplace value of their effort, and ought to be.


Now, supposing all of these points are moot and these items are indeed public goods for which we should have no say but to pay taxes and allow the government to fund the given ideals, how can we not advance the notion and control, as the public, exactly what happens with those funds?

What I am asking is this; suppose we educate a child by public schools and justify it by saying the child will grow up and become a productive member of the economy because he is well-educated. Does that child not also have the ability, the way our society is currently constituted, to become lazy, a drunkard, a fool? Is he not also able to collect welfare?

Well, if his education was a public good, he is obligated to produce. Therefore, the government schools might even be justified in testing the child, discovering his aptitude, and placing him in that career path, without his consent or consent from his parents. After all, it's his duty to become productive and repay his debt to society.

The same with science, shouldn't the scientist be told what to work on if he recieves a government grant to research?

Don't believe this can happen? How many people today call for health care to be denied people who smoke, are obese, drink heavily, or even simply get 'too old'.

So, this begs the question, if all these things are public goods and therefore the individual is separated from his God-given right to decide his own life for himself, where does freedom play any part at all?

The answer? Freedom plays only a part in the demagoguery and propaganda spewed ad nauseum to promote the institution of such 'public goods'. FDR called for a 'Second Bill of Rights' which 'freed' individuals from the compulsions that limit all humans (and enslaved others in the maintenance of those declared 'universal rights'). Johnson made nearly the same declarations and every Democrat Presidential candidate since I can remember has brought up a sob story about one person or another meant to guilt we Americans into abridging our own freedom. It is very easy to declare a policy encroaching on individual liberties is acceptable because it is a 'public good'. Very often people who stand to gain from the encroachment fall for that tactic and convince themselves of the moral superiority of their position.

It seems that public good, rather than meaning roads, police, justices, and an army, has come to mean tyranny of the deluded perception over logic and morality.

I make the same call I always have. Those of you who wish there was some 'safety net' for health care in this nation; socialize your own income. Those of you who believe there is no better system of education than the public schools; educate yourself. Those of you who think science would go under were it not for grants; do your own research or pay a scientist yourself.

Some people regard themselves as so smart, they believe they know better for all than each person knows for himself. Even when they know they can't understand every situation, deep down, at their core, they regard anyone who disputes their ideology as simpletons and write off what they have to say without giving it a moment's consideration. The test of freedom is distasteful to the control freak in that the test is whether or not you permit a person to do something you think foolish.

Let everyone bear the cost of their own choices. That is freedom. Simple and plain.

Short and simple. I'm on my way out the door to go camping, but this is something that's been rolling around my mind for a few years.

It is not possible to 'overshoot' freedom. It isn't possible to create a system in which the individual has a level of control over his own life that is 'too great' to be allowed. Many, in politics and amongst the advocates of covetousness, try to state that some people can't take care of themselves or that when left more completely free, people are more likely to become victims of fraud and force.

Well, perhaps in an anarchic system, fraud and force would rule the day. That is why real freedom is a natural contract between individuals that no one will foul with each others business and everyone will operate according to the contracts they establish with each other.

When that contract is violated, there is a need for a universal backlash which is not democratic, which does not merely engage in the fiat of mob justice, which is not reciprocity but rather is blind justice. That is why we have established a government. To stop force and redress fraud.

This leads us to another need, that of a binding contract by which the government ought to be held in its operation; a Constitution.

Further, having a Constitution which is unchangeable would enslave subsequent generations to the decisions of a previous one. While human nature demands we all be left alone in our freedom, it is that freedom which allows us to choose against that human nature, hypocritically, unwisely, and illogically. Therefore, we have processes of amendment and election.

It follows that these people will eventually choose a form of government which is unnatural and which oppresses the human spirit of freedom. We are engaged in such a transition at this moment. So, it also stands to reason that our freedoms must be maintained by a philosophical adoration for the precarious system which allows the unhindered expression of liberty, man's truest and most often suppressed character. Morality and personal reservation become utterly crucial components to the individual's right to decide for himself.

I have not said anything profound here. But I think we are at a point when very simple concepts are profoundly ignored and hidden from and by a great subset of our society. I only hope that my own contributions in discussion, debate, and writing help to illuminate those very basic ideals which are more often than not buried by the flaw of humanity.

Reality works a certain way. The world in its physical nature, behaves according to certain laws which we can observe and upon which we very dearly depend. Imagine the chaos which would ensue should matter decide it does not need to abide by the laws which manifest as gravity? Earth should soon find herself void of atmosphere and anything not solidly planted. She should also be stuck on a beeline out of our solar system. Take away any rule of physics and it becomes clear how very different and terrible this universe could be.

For some reason, the physical world operates according to a strict code of conduct. Matter and energy consistently interact in very specific ways. Humans too are built upon a system of law. Similar to another law of physics, it demands a reaction for every action. For instance, a person who behaves in a very productive manner is likely to reap benefits of that labor as a result. While there are several other factors, including luck, marketplace dynamics, and efficiency, the rule is generally clear. Honest achievement of an objective is entwined, indeed irretrievably ensnared, within effort. The opposite plays out as well. When someone acts flippantly toward their stated goals and engages in imprudent action, it is only justice when his desires do not come to fruition. A field bears little bounty when neglected.

Other laws of humanity are very crucial to the way we interact. We do not permit killing as part of a civilized society because of that Unalienable Right to life. And some of the other Self-Evident Rights demonstrate that each individual is wholly owned by himself and cannot be morally owned, in total or in part, by any one else. Because humans are all born with this truly spiritual Right, in that no 'freedom gene' can be identified, individually incalculable value is fastened to each human life, only to be thrown off if that person so wishes to engage in uncivilized action, to which a response of self-preservation is required by the rest of society or by an individual who may believe his own Rights threatened.

This is all a very elaborate way of stating what most people understand, deep down, intrinsically. For actions or inaction, there are consequences. Being in control of our actions, each human should behave in a manner which is to direct the consequences they intend. Additionally, being the actor and the setter of goals, each human ought to be sole owner of the results.

Unfortunately, humanity has taken, most of the time, to bending this rule so that consequences are spread to others. In the game of pool, when the cue is launched at the eight ball, the force applied to the cue frequently ends up pushing the eight ball further than the cue. The same way, humans have operated, through the power of force by government, to live at the expense of others. Welfare is an excellent example. People have operated without any sort of productivity whatsoever and yet receive amounts of funding for this lack of proper behavior. And nearly every attempt to reform the system, demand personal accountability for oneself, has been challenged as heartlessness and plutocracy.

But no action can be without consequence. What is the consequence of placing people upon roles where they are provided for without a requirement of effort? The answer is very simple, the demand for additional welfare grows, rather than shrinks as the stated intentions of such forced provision initially had declared would occur. Only a sense of pride would drive a man to self-reliance and in our supremely narcissistic culture, pride and especially self-reliance take a distant back seat to instant gratification at any cost. A great host of other illicit actions by government are provided justification by majority support with the ever-ready application of good intentions.

But the laws of humanity are not to be dissuaded. Psychology and sociology play a big part in how people interact, and it is a truth of the human condition that people are primarily concerned with their own, individual well-being before they are concerned with much else. (After all, a homeless person cannot employ anyone, can he?) This rule, in concert with the Right of natural self-ownership, splits a wide chasm into the mantra of anti-free market activists. People will not work perpetually for the benefit of strangers or the collective. People adjust their behavior based upon their rate of return. (Quotes from Jason Lewis). What all this means is that productivity amongst the productive class declines as a greater portion of what they create is confiscated and illegitimately gifted to the unproductive.

Is that heartless? Perhaps it seems that way but it really is not. It makes little sense for a man to work himself night and day when he will only be taxed a greater amount for each additional revenue band he can reach. How exactly is this supposed to drive the aspirations within each man to become more productive? With certain tax rates, it is overwhelmingly likely that very productive people would find themselves much happier working only to a fraction of their potential. This has the end result of decreasing productivity. (Philosophically, this is undeniable. Economically it is enormously evidenced. Check out the works of John Lott, Thomas Sowell, Henry Hazlitt, Frederick Von Hayek, and Walter Williams.) When productivity goes down, the society itself is being punished, naturally, for behaving against the laws which govern human nature and human interaction.

Try as they might, no politician can get around the nature of humanity, at least not without destroying it entirely in the process. Many people understand that communism only works on robotic automatons and none of us wishes to be constrained to goals which are thrust upon us by all-powerful governing bureaucrats. But too many in our time have insisted upon confounding themselves to generate reasoning why their particular grievance should be the one given special consideration.

A society which cannot abide by the laws of human nature is bound to destroy itself or plunder its worth until nothing remains of freedom, prosperity, and rights. The tragedy which is being enacted in our society is the revelation of a human flaw in our natural being which corrupts us permanently, to override justice with jealousy and convert law into the whim of the democratic majority.

In my own life, my own personal financial situation, I have a great deal to gain by plunder of those wealthier than I. Yet, it is my yearning for a society which acts toward individual justice, which repels any thought of impropriety. Each person should take total ownership over his own life and live with his actions, rather than thrusting upon all society the punishment which is trampled rights and the devastation which results of such inhuman behavior. It is heartbreaking to see effort destroyed by the vanity of politicians who believe themselves capable of deciding what is best for us.

My concerns of late have been piqued by a particular thought that entered my mind early in April. I wrote this about that time and am editing it now to post.

The left feels itself accepted by America because of the recent wins for hard leftists candidates, chief among them Barack Obama. Frankly, people such as myself regard the past two national elections, not as a rejection of conservatism and America's founding principles, but as a rejection of moderation in the pursuit of virtue. In that approach John McCain has always served as a prime example, being dubbed "Maverick" by the leftist media. He was never a conservative. He has always stood with the Democrat party on a fair number of issues and it was for that reason the media fell in love with him, that is until he decided to challenge Barack Obama.

Regardless, of that, the socialist left believes it has a wide open road and no voter-wielded police cars pursuing. They do in fact have this situation but there are a few roadblocks they don't recognize just yet. The first is that our system of government is sluggish, slow in operation. Any changes they make will take time to have their affect, and for this I fear as much as they may wait breathlessly. The left will certainly do a great deal of damage where the destruction will only show up much later, an excellent example of this would be universal 'health coverage'. The second roadblock is that the American people, by polling on nearly every issue, dislike and distrust big government. That is to the credit of the people and to the spite of the leftists who have tried for decades to indoctrinate every generation they can, succeeding with near total monopolies on grade school education, colleges and universities, and media outlets.  The changes Barack Obama and his cohorts are putting in place are not resonating and soon, I believe, it will begin to affect Barack Obama's poll numbers, Bradley effect aside. By speeding these changes through, Barack is sure to turn public support away from himself, to a certain degree. It may even be enough of a shock to the American people to emerge from their complacency and return power to originalist leaders who will actually get rid of government programs and not create new ones at the same time. Wouldn't that be nice?

But the hard left also doesn't like allowing the people a fair vote. There remains no doubt in my mind that fascism is the strategy of the authoritarian and they are all too happy to use those tactics and declare it in the best interests of the public. They disregard the will of the people in how government is administered and maintained. This often takes the form of judicial activism.

However, there are other ways this fascism occurs. Despite its attempts to register every moron, alien, and felon possible (because these are the people most easily bribed with government programs), the left essentially dislikes the system of voting. Walter Williams states that the true test of a person's support for freedom is whether or not that person allows others to do what the tested person does not think they ought to do. The same is true in elections. If the left is defeated at the ballot box, they find other ways to get their objectives done, because they believe they know what is better for the American people than we the people do for ourselves. Summarily, the left believes in their own right to control, their own claim to power by being 'intellectually superior', and they believe they have a right to maintain and expand this power with any method they see fit.

Therefore, it stands to reason, since Barack Obama will not be challenged in the Democrat primary, that the legions of leftists will be called upon to temporarily join the Republican party in order to foul up the primary system illegitimately. Barack (and the Democrat power brokers) want to face another McCain style moderate who will try to walk the fence between the parties rather than rally the numerically superior support for individual liberty (in the way of Ronald Reagan).

Democrats know, even if Barack Obama becomes an economic failure, a property rights nightmare, and is absent on national security, they can control the Republican primary election to guarantee that no conservative will see the oval office, no matter how the election results come in. They would most hope for a second term for Obama, but would not be terribly wrathful to endure four years of a moderate who will preside over a slower growth of government power (but growth nonetheless).

What the Republican party needs to do to curb this villany and treachery is overhaul the party nomination process. There are a number of ways they can do this. Each involves setting in stone party bylaw which is exclusive. The core beliefs of the Republican party ought to exclude certain people from being allowed to use the Republican moniker. After all, a party is not merely a monopoly of political convenience. If it doesn't stand for something, it is worth nothing in the end except as a union to maintain a few certain jobs go to a few certain people (political jobs to Republicans).

The bylaws ought to include tax cuts for anyone who pays taxes, abolishment of certain taxes altogether and a replacement of the tax code  by amendment to the Constitution, protection of national sovereignty from military force and from foreign intervention or domestic writeoff (be it to a union of nations, individual nations, or individuals), preservation of the American love of liberty by limiting access to our nation to those who hold similar ideals.

A host of other principles and philosophies exist but some set must be constructed and candidates must only recieve party endorsement if they have a track record of supporting, say 90% of those ideals. If they cannot support those party ideals, why do we have a Repubican party at all? The Republican party does not exist to hold democratic elections to decide what to stand for. Republicanism in America has always stood for strong federalism and decentralized authority. These unions of politically like-minded people are not simply engines of acruing power. They are and ought to be drivers of an agenda. It's time the Republican party return to republicanism and set in stone the conservative ideals upon which this nation was founded.

Incidentally, I've contacted the Republican party about this concern several times. They seem disinterested.