People talk pro and con about Obamacare but the philosophical question – the principle – at issue is: What’s the legitimate role of government?
I believe its role should be preventing us from physically harming (or defrauding) one another, maintaining a court/legal system to see that the processes needed for the foregoing are administered fairly and equitably (the “rule of law”) and also national defense.
Everything else should be done on a voluntary, cooperative basis. If you can’t convince your neighbor to voluntarily support whatever your project/agenda is – then that’s where it ends. No resorting to force to compel your neighbor do what you want done. No forcing him to pay for your heaf cayuh. Or your old-age retirement. Or your kids’ education. And in return, he agrees to leave you in peace, too.
Live – and let live.
I do not believe that heaf cayuh is a right, anymore than having a house or a car or a job or a Snickers bar is a right. These are things you have a right to pursue and obtain if you want them, through your own efforts and with your own honestly earned resources.
People who think such things are “rights” are saying they have a “right” to force you and and others to provide them – at gunpoint, literally. Housing, food and heaf cayuh are not things that just magically exist, to be divided up equally amongst us all. They are things that must be produced by someone’s sweat and effort.
Morally speaking, there can never be a right to take from others by force for your personal benefit. To disagree is to say you believe you have a right to compel other people to work and produce to provide you with a benefit based on their work – or else. And that is the ethic of a street thug, just gussied up to sound respectable by such terms as “democracy” and “the vote.”
Unfortunately, we have let this notion seep into the consciousness of the public and nowadays many people do believe in such “rights” – and routinely vote to rob their neighbors for their own benefit (their neighbors doing the same in return when their candidate or political party is in charge).
Very few people live by the old country song saying: “I don’t want nothin’ from no one, if I can’t get it on my own. You don’t like the way I’m livin’? Just leave this long haired country boy alone.”
That was the American mentality, a long time ago. It was the theme behind the Declaration of Independence.
No more. Today, it is “gibs muh dat!”
We thus have a system of controlled plunder called “democracy.” Three wolves and a sheep taking a vote about what’s for dinner.
And the wolves continue to grow in number…
Morally speaking, we are each responsible for ourselves (and our dependent children). That means we are morally obligated to work to put food on our own tables, a roof over our heads and to provide for our own families.
No one else is obligated to provide these things to and for you.
We do not “owe” anyone else a living, food, shelter – or heaf cayuh. Not at gunpoint.
If we wish to help others, voluntarily, that is a wonderful thing. But being forced to “help” (or “contribute”) is a contradiction in terms. And worse, it causes us to resent our fellow men because they are able, via the government, the vote and “democracy” to take what is ours, to manipulate our lives and turn us into helpless peons at the mercy of the government. It is much, much worse than being assaulted by a street thug – because you can’t even try to defend yourself. If you do, then you are a “criminal” – and subject to prosecution!
That is why I not only oppose heaf cayuh “reform” – I will resist having anything to do with it. I won’t “participate.” I won’t pay in. They can come n’ git me if they want to.
It’s finally, really, time to take a stand, I think.
If this atrocity goes into effect, there is literally no area of our lives that will be off limits to the government – to the prying eyes, petty rules, fines, say-so’s of low-rent petty totalitarian government workers – who will be empowered to make us do pretty much whatever they want. For example: What we eat; how we live, the type of housing we have, our hobbies and recreations – since all these things can – and will – be argued “affect” our health and thus, everyone else – because heaf cayuh is now a corporate thing that involves all of us, in one great messy interconnected stew. It’s no longer a private matter involving each of us as individuals, making individual choices in life, according to our own best judgment – and free of compulsion.
All for our own good, of course.
Not this clown. I was born in a semi-free country and I know enough of the value of being free to refuse to become a slave. Not without a fight, at least. How about you?
Is social security & medicare tax constitutional?
In my opinion, yes.
There is nothing in the language of the Constitution – the actual language laying out the specific powers of the federal government – that gives it authority to force people into a mandatory retirement program, or health care program of any kind. Some say the “general welfare” or “commerce” clause empowers the federal government to impose such things, but that is (my opinion) shyster talk that’s obviously at odds with the clear intent of the Constitution (and the men who wrote it), which was to set up a limited federal government with clearly defined powers – and no other powers (everything else “reserved to the states,” etc.).
If such things are “constitutional” then there is no limit on the authority of the federal government. After all, you can argue that “the general welfare” requires almost anything. Which is precisely what is done and has been done for a long time, unfortunately.
Bottom line, just as it’s each of our own responsibility to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table, so also is our retirement no one’s responsibility except our own.
What’s especially galling about Social Security is that it puts the retirement security of random strangers (those receiving checks funded by the taxes you’re paying today) ahead of the financial security of yourself and your own family. The money we pay in (especially younger people) is enormous; it would have been enough (if saved and invested, etc.) to not only provide for our own retirement, but for an earlier and richer retirement. Hell, if I had the money I’ve been forced to “contribute” (15 percent off the top of my income) for the past 20 years, I’d have had around $100k – not counting what I could have done with that money. Back in 1997, I could have bought a townhouse in my neighborhood for $75k. By 2004, they were selling for $225k. I’d be able to retire now.
Instead, I can look forward to paying taxes for another 20 years – and probably the whole shitty Ponzi scheme will collapse long before I retire anyhow.
I had a friend of mine tell me that she thought we have a “right” to health care. This surprised me because she is not one of the typical class of someone who might say this. I suppose my answer to her should be that maybe there is a right to free health care, but not a right to get everything you want for free. Or maybe there is no right to force me to pay for your health care.
Somewhere along the line this whole messy subject changed from “paying for healthcare” into “healthcare”. It started out as money, and insurance, and ended up being “death panels” and whether or not I was required to buy a certain kind of insurance or go to prison (where healthcare is free).
The government has no business getting into this particular thing. This, by definition, means it is unconstitutional and must be avoided as a sworn duty.
I agree – and hope the rest of the country (or enough to make the difference) agrees with us!