Sunday, November 8, 2009

5 votes further away from freedom

Last night, our leaders and representatives in the House of Representatives voted us further away from the rights and liberties which give this country its moral standing.

220 to 215.

If this bill passes the Senate, it will be illegal for me to choose to spend my honestly earned money on my child's education instead of government-controlled, government-mandated health insurance. With less money at my own discretion, it will be more difficult to opt out of government schooling and pay for private school tuition. How can this be considered consistent with freedom?

As a business owner, it will be illegal for me to offer a higher wage to my employee instead of a health insurance plan.

It will become illegal for me to contract with an insurance company to design a plan which best meets my unique circumstances-- if it does not align with the mandates from Washington.

As a physician, it will be even more difficult to care for the elderly as cuts in Medicare reimbursements fall even further below the cost of providing that care.

As a philanthropist, I can not choose how much I can spare or even the causes I wish to support, but will be forced by law into paying for the health insurance of those the state determines require my charity.

But most distressing of all is the number of people in this country who support this and similar bills. What I can not understand is how my good and honest neighbors, who would never think of breaking down the door to my house and demanding I submit to their idea of appropriate medical care or health insurance--not only do not even blink at the use of the ballot to accomplish that very act -- but self-righteously claim it to be a legitimate form of social interaction.

To those who think such laws are not only legitimate, but good, I ask, on what grounds do you justify this blatant intrusion into my peaceful and private life? On what basis can you deprive me of the property I have peacefully and honestly obtained? What crime have I committed to be stopped from directing my own life and the use of my own resources in a manner furthers my life, and the lives of those I value, and perpetrates no harm to others?

The cost of this legislation is said to exceed $1.2 trillion. It certainly does.

The full cost is includes our freedom.


.

2 comments:

Harold said...

"But most distressing of all is the number of people in this country who support this and similar bills. What I can not understand is how my good and honest neighbors, who would never think of breaking down the door to my house and demanding I submit..."

I think there's a mixture. It's certainly the case that there are people who are so conceptually damaged, that they can't make the connection between petitions to the government and the initiation of force--those who can see goods and services but don't know where they come from. However, the sad truth is that there are also many who do know and don't (as yet) have the courage to physically carry out these goals themselves. How do we know this? Look at their evasions on the subject of taxation and other controls. You will often hear some bromide about the military or police or what Europe is doing etc... In essence, they acknowledge that this is going on and they don't care. Indeed, they embrace it.

Beth said...

Harold,
Thank you for your thoughts.

I agree that many do not view voting as an initiation of force--because it is non-violent. It was revolutionary for me when I realized that violence is not the problem--but rather how violence is employed. Violence in self-defense is justifiable and pro-life. The initiation of force, whether violent or non-violent, is anti-life.

What I would like to hear is how is it not? I know what I think their answers will be...but I would like to know what their actual thinking is-- how do they, in their own minds, defend such actions. (And by "they"--I mean the people in my circle of friends and family who disagree with my political beliefs.)

How do the initiators of force justify such actions to themselves?

Some will say it is our duty to attend to those less well off than ourselves. But, I would like to ask those who are not religious, where does that duty come from?

Some will say those who are better off were the ones who initiated the force--some variant of Marxist exploitation.

Anyway, that is what (and who) my question is aimed at---those people who in my day-to-day experience are kind, respectful, compassionate but who advocate actions which scream so loudly to me: anti-property, anti-liberty, anti-life.