Why All Public Health Options Must Fail
I find myself making the same argument repeatedly. I can not understand why any citizen of the United States of America could want the federal government to provide health insurance.
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness...
The founding fathers transcended time with this simple statement, attributed almost directly to John Locke about a hundred years prior. It's irrelevant who stated it first; facts don't change over time. Too often Liberty is taken for granted. Great sacrifices have been made to protect liberty, and yet we're asked constantly to sacrifice that hard earned liberty "for the greater good." I ask, what good can be greater than to live one's life free?
Of course, the point of contention is the ability to live one's life free.This brings us to the notion that the state (federal government, so that there's no confusion) wants to provide the citizenry with health insurance. More appalling, the citizenry want to fall into the trap! I do not know of any greater assault on liberty; this provides the grounds for moving from a republic to an oligarchy. The perceived benefits of any federal health insurance program are easily outweighed by the assault on liberty that would take place; maybe not for ten years, maybe not twenty. It will happen slowly, eroding away at liberty like a small stream flowing over a rockbed. The sand washed out to the ocean will never return.
Taxation is an arbitrary restriction on liberty, therefore taxation must be considered heavily in a few ways: Is it constitutional? Does it promote liberty and the pursuit of happiness? What service is being rendered to the public that we deem it necessary to restrict liberty for? Any service can be provided by the private sector or on a state level without the burden of restricting everyone's liberty that earns above a completely arbitrary income level, what's so special about this one?
To acquire property follows naturally from laboring; to deny property from labor is slavery. If we truly believe in the prospects that liberty can offer in the fulfillment of our lives, then we must accept the truths that ones life is limited, hence their labor is limited, hence every moment spent laboring is valuable. We measure this value, in general, as wealth. Taxing wealth for the sole benefit of another is theft. All public health options will steal from those that already have health insurance and give that wealth to those that do not. If this type of theft is legal, where does it end? Is it acceptable to demand food from a restaurant, or board in your home, simply because you're in want? Both are far more essential to life than health insurance.
If the government can provide services better than the private sector simply through lack of profiteering, why stop there? Why not have the state provide us our meals? None shall go hungry. Why not have the state provide us our entertainment? Because no soul shall bear the burden of boredom. Why not have the state provide us our jobs? Nobody will have to face the threat of failure. Why not have the state provide us our news? Certainly, the people must be informed.
The federal government providing any service is a disservice to human nature. I'll end with my favorite quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin:
Those who would sacrifice liberty for security will deserve neither, and lose both.
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness...
The founding fathers transcended time with this simple statement, attributed almost directly to John Locke about a hundred years prior. It's irrelevant who stated it first; facts don't change over time. Too often Liberty is taken for granted. Great sacrifices have been made to protect liberty, and yet we're asked constantly to sacrifice that hard earned liberty "for the greater good." I ask, what good can be greater than to live one's life free?
Of course, the point of contention is the ability to live one's life free.This brings us to the notion that the state (federal government, so that there's no confusion) wants to provide the citizenry with health insurance. More appalling, the citizenry want to fall into the trap! I do not know of any greater assault on liberty; this provides the grounds for moving from a republic to an oligarchy. The perceived benefits of any federal health insurance program are easily outweighed by the assault on liberty that would take place; maybe not for ten years, maybe not twenty. It will happen slowly, eroding away at liberty like a small stream flowing over a rockbed. The sand washed out to the ocean will never return.
Taxation is an arbitrary restriction on liberty, therefore taxation must be considered heavily in a few ways: Is it constitutional? Does it promote liberty and the pursuit of happiness? What service is being rendered to the public that we deem it necessary to restrict liberty for? Any service can be provided by the private sector or on a state level without the burden of restricting everyone's liberty that earns above a completely arbitrary income level, what's so special about this one?
To acquire property follows naturally from laboring; to deny property from labor is slavery. If we truly believe in the prospects that liberty can offer in the fulfillment of our lives, then we must accept the truths that ones life is limited, hence their labor is limited, hence every moment spent laboring is valuable. We measure this value, in general, as wealth. Taxing wealth for the sole benefit of another is theft. All public health options will steal from those that already have health insurance and give that wealth to those that do not. If this type of theft is legal, where does it end? Is it acceptable to demand food from a restaurant, or board in your home, simply because you're in want? Both are far more essential to life than health insurance.
If the government can provide services better than the private sector simply through lack of profiteering, why stop there? Why not have the state provide us our meals? None shall go hungry. Why not have the state provide us our entertainment? Because no soul shall bear the burden of boredom. Why not have the state provide us our jobs? Nobody will have to face the threat of failure. Why not have the state provide us our news? Certainly, the people must be informed.
The federal government providing any service is a disservice to human nature. I'll end with my favorite quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin:
Those who would sacrifice liberty for security will deserve neither, and lose both.
