I considered myself, at least for a short time, a tea party activist. This is largely because my very first overtly political act was to attend an anti-tax rally in the spring of 2009. Since then I've attended one organized tea party event as well as protested, with a loosely organized band of activists, the passage of the health care reform abortion.
I say that this was for a short time mostly because I don't join any group or cause as a rule. I've been a Libertarian for nearly thirty years yet have never been a member of the Libertarian party. It's just not in my nature to join things. I couldn't tell you if my four year stint in the Marine Corps was merely anomaly or catalyst for this aversion.
From what I can tell, this is the case for most of the early participants in the tea party movement. These were people awakening to political activism because they had simply had enough of the lies and drunken spending sprees that are a staple of Washington politics. These were libertarians, independents and moderates who felt that the eight years spend fest of "compassionate conservatism" under Bush the younger, combined with the thinly veiled socialism of the current administration, warranted a call to action. While this remains the case in general, the movement has steadily been co-opted by disaffected conservatives who share, at least in part, the disgust of these other political neophytes.
While my acceptance of the movement is tepid at best, specifically because of the moralizing and selective application of liberty championed by some of the speakers at these rallies, my support of the movement grows with each attempt by the administration and its mouthpiece, the mainstream media, to demonize its participants. Clearly the movement is having an affect on directing the discussion. If this were not the case, we wouldn't have the ministry of truth and other agents of big brother so aggressively attempting to silence this growing voice of the people.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
This has never happened before
Recently, while listening to my iPod, I heard a song from an early nineties band called Consolidated that made me think. The band was a collection of brazenly socialist vegetarians who challenged their audience to question all aspects of society. While I always admired their ability to question and challenge, I certainly found little to agree with in their political viewpoint.
The song that piqued my interest was called "Music Has No Meaning". This particular piece descried the corporate influence on the music industry. The song, like many of their works, incorporated audio clips from such sources as an MTV music award presentation and news analysis of the industry. In short, their argument was that corporate culture had transformed music into a commodity that had little social, artistic or historical value. While I don't completely disagree with this, I did find its analysis to falter like most do when challenging the status quo.
We too often fall into the trap of romanticizing the past when arguing our point. Much like this song, we have a tendency to assert that present conditions are directly attributable to some recent evil. Of course, the benefit of this is having a concrete enemy behind which to rally our opposition. However, I find little value in attempting to transform things which, in essence, are elements of human nature. History's most famous artists are notorious for dying destitute, yet this is somehow new to the music industry. As Paul Fussell once said: "...prole America is about sweet." Of course, while he seemed surprised by this, the fact is that the masses throughout history have been about the most basic fluff and diversion. Music, art and entertainment in general has always been most successful when it caters to the masses in very superficial and titillating terms. It is human nature to seek out the path of least resistance and no where is this more evident than in the masses.
Politically, this analytical shortcoming most often manifests itself in the conservative pining for the good old days. I'm sure the pedophiles and child abusers of the past would also like us to return to a time when their activities where discussed in mere hushed tones. Conversely, and just as inept, is the liberal belief that creating an identifiable current evil, most recently the younger Bush, will help us force humans to behave in ways completely contrary to their nature. Neither of these approaches holds any lasting potential. Only through accepting and understanding human nature do we have any hope of improving our lot socially or politically.
The song that piqued my interest was called "Music Has No Meaning". This particular piece descried the corporate influence on the music industry. The song, like many of their works, incorporated audio clips from such sources as an MTV music award presentation and news analysis of the industry. In short, their argument was that corporate culture had transformed music into a commodity that had little social, artistic or historical value. While I don't completely disagree with this, I did find its analysis to falter like most do when challenging the status quo.
We too often fall into the trap of romanticizing the past when arguing our point. Much like this song, we have a tendency to assert that present conditions are directly attributable to some recent evil. Of course, the benefit of this is having a concrete enemy behind which to rally our opposition. However, I find little value in attempting to transform things which, in essence, are elements of human nature. History's most famous artists are notorious for dying destitute, yet this is somehow new to the music industry. As Paul Fussell once said: "...prole America is about sweet." Of course, while he seemed surprised by this, the fact is that the masses throughout history have been about the most basic fluff and diversion. Music, art and entertainment in general has always been most successful when it caters to the masses in very superficial and titillating terms. It is human nature to seek out the path of least resistance and no where is this more evident than in the masses.
Politically, this analytical shortcoming most often manifests itself in the conservative pining for the good old days. I'm sure the pedophiles and child abusers of the past would also like us to return to a time when their activities where discussed in mere hushed tones. Conversely, and just as inept, is the liberal belief that creating an identifiable current evil, most recently the younger Bush, will help us force humans to behave in ways completely contrary to their nature. Neither of these approaches holds any lasting potential. Only through accepting and understanding human nature do we have any hope of improving our lot socially or politically.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Return of the Neanderthal
I count myself among the millions of Americans who opposed the health care "reform" bill from inception to passage and remain an ardent supporter of the forces which would repeal this abomination. However, I do not now, nor will I ever, condone violence against the perpetrators of this criminal legislation.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that violence has been done against liberty in the name of "reform". However, that is violence against an ideal and does not warrant physical aggression as a response. In fact, the threats and vandalism thus far targeting those involved in passing this legislation have, in fact, harmed the campaign of those of us who recognize that this bill is an assault on freedom.
Such is the nature of political activism. Ignorance knows no political boundaries and those ill equipped to reason out the consequences of their actions in advance will be doomed to commit them to the detriment of their crusade. Despite the fact that their actions reflect poorly on my cause, I remain certain that its goal is just: returning the constitution to its appropriate place at the helm of our republic.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that violence has been done against liberty in the name of "reform". However, that is violence against an ideal and does not warrant physical aggression as a response. In fact, the threats and vandalism thus far targeting those involved in passing this legislation have, in fact, harmed the campaign of those of us who recognize that this bill is an assault on freedom.
Such is the nature of political activism. Ignorance knows no political boundaries and those ill equipped to reason out the consequences of their actions in advance will be doomed to commit them to the detriment of their crusade. Despite the fact that their actions reflect poorly on my cause, I remain certain that its goal is just: returning the constitution to its appropriate place at the helm of our republic.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Gray matters
I find it troubling that we as a society so easily fall into the trap of declaring issues in absolute terms. For example, and drawing again on my recent excursion to D.C., I kept thinking to myself that I support immigration reform, just not reform identical to that being called for in the rallies on the lawn. There are similar questions of choice specific to terminating pregnancy and the recognition of same-sex couples.
I am pro-choice. I don't mean that in the liberal "I believe in the rights of the individual except when it comes to owning property or guns" sense. Nor do I mean it in the conservative "I believe in the rights of the individual except when they want to take drugs or have abortions" sense. I mean it in the absolute sense. This being said, one of my many oppositions to the health care abortion passed this week was the issue of taxpayer funded pregnancy termination. Yes, people should have the right to choose to have an abortion if they so desire. No, they should not have the ability to demand that someone else pay for it.
However, many on the left tried to make this a black and white issue of choice. Abortions, like health care in general, are not a right. Nor are they things for which one person can steal from another to pay for the activity of a third. I was disappointed that the final vote hinged on abortion, not because it rightly pointed out the immoral act of taking tax payer money to fund this activity, but because it served to fuel those who wish to force their ethical code on the rest of us by banning abortion.
Gay marriage is similarly gray to me. Marriage is a religious ritual and, as such, is protected from federal intervention by the first amendment. I'm not a Christian, nor do I espouse any beliefs adhered by the world's organized religious groups, but I do recognize the need to protect religious activity from government control.
At the same time, I believe that two people wishing to join together through a social contract should be recognized equal to any other couple, regardless of their gender or sexual practices. The only way that I see this as possible, while enforcing the constitutional protection enjoyed by religion, is to separate the religious act from the social contract. This is not to say that we should simply allow for civil unions as well as marriage, but we should make all such contracts into civil unions and leave the marriage act as a separate religious rite void of social or legal implications. Then, each union can be granted the same recognition without violating the constitution.
I am pro-choice. I don't mean that in the liberal "I believe in the rights of the individual except when it comes to owning property or guns" sense. Nor do I mean it in the conservative "I believe in the rights of the individual except when they want to take drugs or have abortions" sense. I mean it in the absolute sense. This being said, one of my many oppositions to the health care abortion passed this week was the issue of taxpayer funded pregnancy termination. Yes, people should have the right to choose to have an abortion if they so desire. No, they should not have the ability to demand that someone else pay for it.
However, many on the left tried to make this a black and white issue of choice. Abortions, like health care in general, are not a right. Nor are they things for which one person can steal from another to pay for the activity of a third. I was disappointed that the final vote hinged on abortion, not because it rightly pointed out the immoral act of taking tax payer money to fund this activity, but because it served to fuel those who wish to force their ethical code on the rest of us by banning abortion.
Gay marriage is similarly gray to me. Marriage is a religious ritual and, as such, is protected from federal intervention by the first amendment. I'm not a Christian, nor do I espouse any beliefs adhered by the world's organized religious groups, but I do recognize the need to protect religious activity from government control.
At the same time, I believe that two people wishing to join together through a social contract should be recognized equal to any other couple, regardless of their gender or sexual practices. The only way that I see this as possible, while enforcing the constitutional protection enjoyed by religion, is to separate the religious act from the social contract. This is not to say that we should simply allow for civil unions as well as marriage, but we should make all such contracts into civil unions and leave the marriage act as a separate religious rite void of social or legal implications. Then, each union can be granted the same recognition without violating the constitution.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Concerning rights and privileges
This morning I heard a news article concerning the health care piracy bill signed into law today by the president. The commentator indicated that the question hinged on whether a person thought that health care was a right or a privilege. It occurred to me that those who pushed this down our throats don't consider it a right at all. Instead they consider it a responsibility. I base this assumption on the fact that they seem bent on forcing us to maintain insurance. If it were a right, then there would be no such requirement.
Of course, I understand why they created the requirement: their scheme breaks down if only a portion of the population participate. So, as is the case with government, they must force us to participate in order to take our money to give it to someone else. These people appear to believe that forcibly taking the fruits of one person's labor and giving it to another, without their permission, is a moral act. I, however, understand this to be a rough definition of slavery.
Of course, I understand why they created the requirement: their scheme breaks down if only a portion of the population participate. So, as is the case with government, they must force us to participate in order to take our money to give it to someone else. These people appear to believe that forcibly taking the fruits of one person's labor and giving it to another, without their permission, is a moral act. I, however, understand this to be a rough definition of slavery.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Recollections of my early forays into political activism
My recent trip to our nation's capital was not without it's reassurances that ignorance and stupidity remain among our nation's great pastimes. Having only recently begun attending anything remotely political, the experience has served to reinforce my understanding that few people truly grasp what freedom means.
As with the prior events, this spectacle was populated with many people touting their religious zeal, descrying the exercise of personal freedom vis-a-vis the choice to prematurely end pregnancy, and speaking out about their unique ownership of citizenship as it relates to immigration. One prime example of all that is despicable about conservatives repeatedly insisted that Hispanics, there to protest for immigration "reform", return to their home. The fact that they may have been born in this country seemed to escape her.
On the opposite side of the coin were those who, instructing us that we were ill-informed, sought every opportunity to silence our voices while screaming about first amendment rights when others attempted to respond in kind. I always marvel at how arrogant liberals are, insisting that only they are smart enough to understand what is necessary despite the obvious flaws in their "logic".
Why is it so difficult for people to see their own hypocrisy? Each side, liberal and conservative, claims the moral high ground of individual liberty while attempting to squelch the rights of those they oppose. Am I really one of the few who understands this?
I did spend an hour or so engaged in a great conversation with a fellow Marine Corps veteran who found that he and I agreed a great deal on what freedom meant, though he had never considered himself a libertarian. I suppose there is some hope for us yet.
As with the prior events, this spectacle was populated with many people touting their religious zeal, descrying the exercise of personal freedom vis-a-vis the choice to prematurely end pregnancy, and speaking out about their unique ownership of citizenship as it relates to immigration. One prime example of all that is despicable about conservatives repeatedly insisted that Hispanics, there to protest for immigration "reform", return to their home. The fact that they may have been born in this country seemed to escape her.
On the opposite side of the coin were those who, instructing us that we were ill-informed, sought every opportunity to silence our voices while screaming about first amendment rights when others attempted to respond in kind. I always marvel at how arrogant liberals are, insisting that only they are smart enough to understand what is necessary despite the obvious flaws in their "logic".
Why is it so difficult for people to see their own hypocrisy? Each side, liberal and conservative, claims the moral high ground of individual liberty while attempting to squelch the rights of those they oppose. Am I really one of the few who understands this?
I did spend an hour or so engaged in a great conversation with a fellow Marine Corps veteran who found that he and I agreed a great deal on what freedom meant, though he had never considered himself a libertarian. I suppose there is some hope for us yet.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
As Goes Health Care
I begin this blog on a sad day for freedom in this country. Having just returned from our nation's capital, a place where I found a modest assembly of people at least moderately versed in the U.S. Constitution rallying against the attempted takeover of health care by our elected representation, I've come home to hear of the "momentous" beginning of socialized medicine in the land where liberty is thought to be an unalienable right.
While few I meet will argue that our health care system is not flawed, few people of reasoning can abide the atrocity that is the legislation passed on this day. The unconstitutional nature of the act aside, there is little hope of success of such an act. Nothing government does is efficient because government itself has no incentive to be so. Nothing the government does costs as little as the government claims it will because... well, I just answered that point. In fact, we have ample empirical evidence that such systems do not work, that they serve only to lower the quality and/or availability of care, and that they in fact harm the people they are presumed to aid: the poor. So starts my argument for repeal.
Constitutionality
A point which seems hardly worthy of debate. Health care itself is certainly not a stated right, nor can the declaration of "life" be twisted to apply to this without significant gerrymandering. Additionally, and most importantly, the constitution is explicit in the powers it grants to the federal government. Any such powers not granted are explicitly set aside for the states and/or the people. I plead the 10th on that point.
Feasibility
The system as proposed removes incentives for people to maintain insurance by removing the impact of "preexisting conditions". Those who see a financial incentive to pay the fine over the premium will take the sensible approach. Insurance providers will then have to increase premiums to address the shortfall, making even more people realize a financial incentive. The inevitable outcome of that are death spirals for each insurance provider until the only option is a government one. While the current scheme lacks a government "option", such activity will make it appear to be necessary to bring about that which the proponents have always desired: a single payer system administered by the government.
Ample examples of failed socialized medicine experiments aside, the ploy here attempts to imply feasibility of such a social program by delaying its implementation until taxation has built up a sufficient nest egg from which to launch. However, inevitably the cost of maintaining that single payer system begins to squeeze both availability (read rationing) and innovation while perpetually increasing the burden on tax payers. Eventually, the money runs out.
Perpetuation
While the stated cause is to help the impoverished, these are the people who will be forced to remain poor by the very plan that is meant to assist. How is this? Simple: subsidies. The proposal seeks to force all people to participate. When a person is incapable of paying the cost themselves, a subsidy is to be provided to assist them. When a person qualifies for government subsidies, they are trapped in a position where improving their station threatens the availability of those subsidies. For example, if a subsidy amounts to $12,000 dollars (i.e. $1,000 per month), as soon as this person begins to earn enough to no longer qualify for the subsidy, they take a $12,000 hit on their income. If they have advanced their personal income $24,000 in a single year, they net only half of the benefit, thereby removing the incentive to advance.
These are but a few of the several reasons to have defeated this legislation. There are ample methods for reasonably addressing the aforementioned flaws in the current system, none of which involve increasing government involvement:
Address tort reform
We are all aware of the impact that defensive medicine has made on the industry. This, coupled with outrageous malpractice rates make inexpensive health care merely a dream.
Increase competition
Allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines would mean... well... competition. Competition breeds lower costs and greater efficiencies. I just came up with that one all on my own.
Increase personal responsibility
People becoming directly aware of what health care costs will have the incentive to shop for better deals, to reconsider unnecessary procedures and to demand better alternatives.
Permit individual coverage
Sure it exists, but it's only after taxes. Individuals have an incentive to get insurance through corporations. If the federal government extended pre-tax payment to individuals, insurance would be accessible to many more people.
These are but a few of the options which, despite their viability, were ignored by the powers-that-be while crafting the current abomination. Instead we moved several steps further from freedom.
While few I meet will argue that our health care system is not flawed, few people of reasoning can abide the atrocity that is the legislation passed on this day. The unconstitutional nature of the act aside, there is little hope of success of such an act. Nothing government does is efficient because government itself has no incentive to be so. Nothing the government does costs as little as the government claims it will because... well, I just answered that point. In fact, we have ample empirical evidence that such systems do not work, that they serve only to lower the quality and/or availability of care, and that they in fact harm the people they are presumed to aid: the poor. So starts my argument for repeal.
Constitutionality
A point which seems hardly worthy of debate. Health care itself is certainly not a stated right, nor can the declaration of "life" be twisted to apply to this without significant gerrymandering. Additionally, and most importantly, the constitution is explicit in the powers it grants to the federal government. Any such powers not granted are explicitly set aside for the states and/or the people. I plead the 10th on that point.
Feasibility
The system as proposed removes incentives for people to maintain insurance by removing the impact of "preexisting conditions". Those who see a financial incentive to pay the fine over the premium will take the sensible approach. Insurance providers will then have to increase premiums to address the shortfall, making even more people realize a financial incentive. The inevitable outcome of that are death spirals for each insurance provider until the only option is a government one. While the current scheme lacks a government "option", such activity will make it appear to be necessary to bring about that which the proponents have always desired: a single payer system administered by the government.
Ample examples of failed socialized medicine experiments aside, the ploy here attempts to imply feasibility of such a social program by delaying its implementation until taxation has built up a sufficient nest egg from which to launch. However, inevitably the cost of maintaining that single payer system begins to squeeze both availability (read rationing) and innovation while perpetually increasing the burden on tax payers. Eventually, the money runs out.
Perpetuation
While the stated cause is to help the impoverished, these are the people who will be forced to remain poor by the very plan that is meant to assist. How is this? Simple: subsidies. The proposal seeks to force all people to participate. When a person is incapable of paying the cost themselves, a subsidy is to be provided to assist them. When a person qualifies for government subsidies, they are trapped in a position where improving their station threatens the availability of those subsidies. For example, if a subsidy amounts to $12,000 dollars (i.e. $1,000 per month), as soon as this person begins to earn enough to no longer qualify for the subsidy, they take a $12,000 hit on their income. If they have advanced their personal income $24,000 in a single year, they net only half of the benefit, thereby removing the incentive to advance.
These are but a few of the several reasons to have defeated this legislation. There are ample methods for reasonably addressing the aforementioned flaws in the current system, none of which involve increasing government involvement:
Address tort reform
We are all aware of the impact that defensive medicine has made on the industry. This, coupled with outrageous malpractice rates make inexpensive health care merely a dream.
Increase competition
Allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines would mean... well... competition. Competition breeds lower costs and greater efficiencies. I just came up with that one all on my own.
Increase personal responsibility
People becoming directly aware of what health care costs will have the incentive to shop for better deals, to reconsider unnecessary procedures and to demand better alternatives.
Permit individual coverage
Sure it exists, but it's only after taxes. Individuals have an incentive to get insurance through corporations. If the federal government extended pre-tax payment to individuals, insurance would be accessible to many more people.
These are but a few of the options which, despite their viability, were ignored by the powers-that-be while crafting the current abomination. Instead we moved several steps further from freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
