So why can’t I go out in the marketplace and get a competitive bid to take care of my flabby white ass in the event I get cancer and only cancer? Or how about only for heart attack or stroke? Or how about only problems stemming from diabetes? Why can’t I take a look at my own family history, then get a competitive bid on just the type and amount of coverage which I think necessary? Where’s the ala carte menu? I’ll tell you why. Because our beneficent government thinks most of us are too damn stupid to make those decisions for ourselves and they don’t allow insurance companies to sell such policies. Just like most of us are too damn stupid to save for our own retirement, and too damn stupid to buckle our seat belt, etc. etc,
OK. I admit some Americans are too damn stupid to not wear a life jacket in a boat in a maelstrom, but why does that mean that those of us that aren’t that damn stupid have to be subject to the same rules as they? Well maybe it’s because the government thinks, perhaps accurately, that some of us think we’re smarter than we are. In a word, we’re not smart enough to tell if we’re smart. Good point. But just who in gad-jeezus gave the government the monopoly on smarts anyway? What makes them smart enough to determine if they’re smart enough to determine if we’re smart enough to determine if we need to wear bike helmets?
Those who believe that government is a force for good also have to believe that those who occupy its decision making positions, are smarter than the rest of us and that it’s possible to elect such people.* That’s why it’s impossible to be a statist/liberal without being an elitist. You have to believe that those smarter and most virtuous should make decisions for everyone else. When a liberal votes for someone, they’re essentially voting for someone to take care of them. No practical experience necessary, just a good heart, a good mind, and a belief in government as a force for good? (Remind you of anyone?)
But if our government doesn’t think we have the head-horse-power to make most practical decisions for our own well-being, how can they believe in a free society? If the only decisions we are allowed to make for ourselves are those that won’t potentially hurt us, are we in any real sense of the term, free people? And if we’re not allowed to make the most important decisions in our lives, what happens over time to our drive to succeed and to accomplish more with our lives, our will to take care of and defend ourselves, our sense of self-reliance and self-worth, even our creativity? Does the word maturity mean anything in a society where these goals and qualities aren't held in high esteem?
Clearly, those who believe that a uniform panoply of laws, regulations and disincentives must be imposed to protect each and every individual from their own bad choices can’t simultaneously, in any real sense, believe in a free society. If political freedom isn’t the ability to make meaningful decisions about one’s own life and future, what is it? It is a testament to the left’s elitist belief in their own goodness and wisdom that they can’t bear to allow any of us to hurt ourselves. But where's the line between a society that controls all potentially hazardous human activity and a totalitarian society? Strange, how quelled within seemingly innocuous terminology like ‘public safety’, lurks the potentially quintessential evil of tyranny. One needn’t scratch the surface of liberalism too deep to find totalitarianism. Failed controls bequeaths more control. A government strong enough to give you all you need is a government strong enough to take away all you have; but to gain that much power, it first has to cajole you into giving up your freedom. And in a democracy, paradoxically, giving up one’s freedom, is a choice.
*I’ve asked a score of liberals this question and never got a nay when asked for instance, ‘Do you think that if we got the right people in office we could fix health care?’
M.D.T.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You are wrong. They are smarter than us. If you look at the well funded federal pension plan (exempt from all social security withholdings and the inevitable bankruptcy of that system designed for "all of us")the federal health care "plan" (a menu of 15 different private plans designed to provide ultimate free market choice and the best and most affordable care for federal workers) and work place discrimination rules (largely exempting members of congress from its onerous and puntive regulation and litigation penalties until very recently) -- then you will realize that "two feet bad, four feet good" is still alive and well. Oh, and by the way, never mind if they mess up in their personal lives -- like the Mayor of portland reportedly driving around unzipped and tipsy and admittedly incapable of being able to pay his own mortgage -- all that matters is that you feel good about them, they feel good about themselves -- and they keep on getting the best while we pay for it. Get with the Obama generation, Mark. Read your Animal Farm and learn a little! Smile and be happy. You have seen the future and you know it works.
ReplyDeleteIf you were to give government everything you have, you could only receive back less than what you had in return.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteIf you're right the future is more dire than even glum old me imagines. Why brave the perils of the private sector when one can make six figures working for tri-met for 30 hours a week, get 4 weeks off a year and retire at 52 with full benefits adjusted annually for inflation. The disincentives to 'going in on your own' appear to me, at this point, to outweigh the positives. It's hard not to feel like the putz in this new racket of working harder and especially longer in no small degree to support the comfortable life style of America's new 'Leisure Class', the public employees. Mark