WHAT IS NOT FORBIDDEN IS REQUIRED

by Donald Sensing

That was how someone once described life in the old Soviet Union, a few decades ago. The state tells you what you may not do on the one hand, and what you must do on the other. Personal freedom?

So it should be with some trepidation that we digest the first paragraph of this AP story: “House bill would make health care a right.”

WASHINGTON (AP) – House Democratic leaders, pledging to meet the president’s goal of health care legislation before their August break, are offering a $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans.

Italics added. Note well that the Democrat party is clear that the government should take over the administration of health care for every American. This they have plainly stated. Now they want to make it a right. What that means is that you will get only the health care that they decide to give you. That is, your right will be not to health care per se, not to health care in itself, but only the health care that the government deems affordable, necessary and proper for you. What does this mean for certain kinds of people? Well, the elderly will find themselves getting shut out (as they already are in Britain).

And don’t forget that they say health care is also a responsibility. Whose responsibility? Why yours, of course. So to receive government-funded and -controlled health care, there will be certain standards we will have to meet. For example, will we have the “right” to health care only as long as we take “responsibility” to merit it? That would mean, oh, let’s see: exercising in government-approved ways and standards, maintaining a government-approved weight, no smoking, limited alcohol intake, limited intake of certain foods, such as fast foods. (Driving fast food restaurants out of business is not exactly a hidden agenda of the health Left.) And more – what about refraining from risky activities such as motorcycling, skydiving, or certain kinds of boating?

Because health care is such a huge chunk of the American economy – closing in on 20 percent of all spending – the duality of us having a right to health care only as long as we prove we are responsible enough to receive it is a despot’s dream formula for controlling almost every aspect of our lives.

No wonder that psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Szasz wrote, “Universal Health Care Isn’t Worth Our Freedom.”

The idea that every life is infinitely precious and therefore everyone deserves the same kind of optimal medical care is a fine religious sentiment and moral ideal. As political and economic policy, it is vainglorious delusion. Rich and educated people not only receive better goods and services in all areas of life than do poor and uneducated people, they also tend to take better care of themselves and their possessions, which in turn leads to better health. The first requirement for better health care for all is not equal health care for everyone but educational and economic advancement for everyone …

If we persevere in our quixotic quest for a fetishized medical equality we will sacrifice personal freedom as its price. We will become the voluntary slaves of a “compassionate” government that will provide the same low quality health care to everyone.

Henry David Thoreau famously remarked, “If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life.” Thoreau feared a single, unarmed man approaching him with such a passion in his heart. Too many people now embrace the coercive apparatus of the modern state professing the same design.

If he can quote Thoreau, I can quote de Tocqueville:

The sovereign extends its arms about the society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of petty regulations—complicated, minute, and uniform—through which even the most original minds and the most vigorous souls know not how to make their way… it does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them; rarely does it force one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting on one’s own … it does not tyrannize, it gets in the way: it curtails, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupefies, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

I wrote last February in, “How Democracies Perish,” that if you know how to use free corn to capture a herd of wild pigs, then you know how to confiscate freedom from the American people. And this administration is printing money and passing legislation to give away all the free corn it wants to. The question is, will we decide to be hungry occasionally but roam free or will we surrender our freedom to get government freebies?

The tragedy is that we are, as a nation, willingly surrendering an enormous level of our freedom to gain a little level of health care. We should remember, as Ben Franklin warned in 1775, if we give up liberty to obtain security, we will find ourselves with neither.

Because one day the free corn will run out. But we’ll still be trapped.

Thoughts About the Prosperity Gospel

A year ago a single young woman came into my office frustrated and confused, she was looking for answers.  She had lost her job, her car had broke down and her rent was due.  For some time she had been attending a church in Tampa known for its teaching on what is called the “Prosperity Gospel.”  This kind of gospel is a mixture of scripture, pop-psychology and American consumeristic culture.  It is primarily an American phenomena, not found elsewhere in the world or in church history.  This young lady was very perplexed by the fact that God had not prospered her yet.  She needed a job, some money for her bills and 2 kids and her car fixed.   She told me that she felt entitled to these financial blessings because she faithfully attended her church, listened to christian music regularly and had refrained from sex for a number of months.  She seemed not capable of understanding why God was not rewarding her with prosperity, blessings and happiness that all God’s children are entiltled to.

This is a major flaw with prosperity theology, it teaches people that they are entitled to wealth, happiness, good health and other blessings that make us feel good and enjoy life here on earth.  It’s teachers tell people that God wants them to have good self esteem and an abundance of all the goodies that this world has to offer.  Those who have these things consider themselves blessed and in the will of God.  God basically wants to spoil his kids!  I guess the most amazing proclamation that I have heard of this theology  came from a famous TV preacher who before an audience of thousands with a big smile on his face  told  his listeners that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead to ensure their prosperity in this life.

Why is this gospel false and biblically unsound?  Fact is, the Bible makes no such promises.  Yes, there are some in the Bible who were blessed by God with wealth and prosperity; Abraham, Job, Soloman and Jacob for example.  But the bulk of scripture does not promise great blessings, a new car, big home or a life of ease and happiness.  In fact, much of what we see in scripture is just the opposite.  In the Gospels we see a lack of prosperity among the followers of Jesus.  Jesus himself was homeless and sympathetic to the poor, never promising them prosperity, better times and positive self esteem in this life.  Instead there is much suffering, struggle, persecution and danger in following Jesus. 

Erwin McManus in his book The Barbarian Way tells us that being in the will of God is a dangerous place to be.  Those in the perfect will of God according to McManus found themselves in situaitions of high risk and danger.  Jesus was crucified, Stephen was stoned to death, Paul was beaten, jailed and ship wrecked.  In Hebrews 11 many of the great saints unnamed in the early church were not rewarded with prosperity, instead they were thrown to lions, beheaded and tortured.  The Jerusalem church was almost starved out of exsistance because of persecution and the poverty stricken Corinthian church sent funds for their relief.  Where was the promise of prosperity to these people?  Did God not care about their self esteem enough to provide them with wealth to buy nice homes and live debt free?

This kind of theology is tailor made for a self indulgent, self absorbed and me centered culture.  When you think you are the center of the universe and buy into the materialistic and consumeristic cultural values of the secular world around you, prosperity theology is what fits you best and you see yourself entitled to it!

WHY SOCIALISM DOES NOT WORK

Many of the politicians, academics and those in the elite news media do not seem to understand or care about the failed history of socialism wherever it has been tried in the world.  One can only see what is left of the USSR, present day Cuba and Europe to see tangible evidence that socialism is a failed economic system.  Our own American history informs us that even when the Pilgrims tried a collective community agricultural system, they almost starved to death.  Every country that attempts a centralized, usually government run economy where the utopian goals of equality and economic fairness are enforced by the state, poverty and failure are the result.

In theory socialism sounds good on paper.  A world of fairness, sharing and equal distribution of wealth and outcomes appeals to many.  The old Marxist slogan “from each according to his means to each according to his need”  has a noble and virtuous sound to it.  Unfortunately this is not done voluntarily.  It ends up having to be enforced upon the population by an oppressive and tyranical government that is hostile toward personal property rights or any other rights the people may have.

Why is the socialistic economic system dysfunctional?  History and common sense informs us that when equal distribution of wealth and resources is enforced by the state, human nature being what it is will  incline many to allow others to work while they enjoy and consume the productivity and wealth provided by others.  As the hard working productive person has the fruit of his labor confiscated by the state and redistributed to those less productive or capable,  the incentive to work hard, take risk and produce wealth is lost.  Penalizing productivity and rewarding lack of productivity is the great failure of socialism.  Those who promote the socialistic economic theory are either ignorant or blind when it comes to human nature.  The socialist will condemn the capitalist for greed and unfair accumulation of wealth,  but  fails to see the human flaw of an inclination to live off others if given the opportunity.  Socialists also seem not to care or are unaware that killing off incentive to produce wealth dooms their utopian dreams.

Capitalism is not a perfect economic system, it’s main weakness is greed and looking after individual self interest.  But it is the most viable economic system that brings a higher standard of living to it’s practitioners and provides opportunities for those willing to work hard and take risks. On the other hand, socialism does not really spread much wealth because wealth decreases when the lack of incentive is taken away to produce it.  As a result, poverty is equally spread among the citizens of any nation that implements it as it’s dominate economic system.  Socialism is attractive to governments because it empowers  government bureaucrats and politicians and centralizes all power at the seat of government creating a ruling class.  Freedom is limited and the population depends on the state to provide their daily needs.

Socialism is the economic theory of the American Democratic Party and President Barack Hussein Obama is it’s leader.

DESTROY IT AND START OVER

It seems to me that the actions of the Obama administration are either ideologically naive or a purposeful plan to destroy free market capitalism and replace it with  European socialism.  The goals of the Marxist is to create  an economy that practices economic justice, free of competition and equality for all (except for the ruling elite).  In order to achieve these goals, government must be given great powers in order to facilitate this economic system.  Since the US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government giving rights to citizens, implementing change will take the willingness of  citizens to give up their rights and constitutionally granted freedoms.  What would motivate free citizens to give up rights  they have been entitled to for over 200 years in exchange for an all powerful government ruling over them and limiting their freedoms?  Security is the only motivation that I can think of that would cause a free people to surrender to a tyranical government or maybe by force of arms (we haven’t come to that yet, but for the Marxist it is has been done many times). 

I think as the economy continues to falter, more deficit spending, stimulus, government bailouts, nationalization of failing companies, higher taxes (i.e. Cap & Trade), universal healthcare, bankrupt states and hostile attitudes toward small businesses will cause near economic collapse.  Is this ideological naivete or the use of a crisis to cripple capitalism and cause an economic catastrophy that will bring the American people to a state of panic and make them willing give up their freedoms in exchange for a nanny state that will control their lives and future.

When Obama promised change in his campaign for President he was not kidding.  He was just not honest and upfront about the kind of change he had in mind.  Americans did not realize they had elected a man President of the United States that was a committed Marxist and the change he had in mind was attempting to change America into a socialist nation.  Problem with this vision for America is that socialism has not worked anywhere it has been tried.  It fails everytime and eventually these nations end up going back to a free market based economy like Europe is in the process of doing now.  Maybe Americans will catch on before it is to late, but my fear is that too many Americans prefer the nanny state and if Obama gets another term with a Democratic congress, radical change will come and I don’t think many will like the poverty it will bring to most.