Friday, December 18, 2009

Down with Capitalism!

So, down with capitalism, eh?

If a man is unable to provide for his needs all by himself (and aside from a few survivalists living off the land in the middle of nowhere this is all of us) then he must secure to cooperative effort of his fellow men to provide for his needs or he will die. If capitalism (the free and voluntary exchange of goods and services, possibly, though not necessarily aided by the abstraction of work effort called money) is off the table, then what means is available to secure this cooperation?
So we may pass a law stating that one man must give his property (goods/services) to another man. What if the first man refuses, then what? We must then come to take his property from him by force or the law will not accomplish it's aim. What if he resists our force with his own? We would then have to escalate our force to surpass his until either he acquiesces or he dies.
Given this set of incentives, what rational person would ever produce any goods or supply any service? If no man voluntarily produced goods or services, then our survival would depend on the use of force (which, in order to function, would require a willingness to kill the objects of that force) to compel men to work to supply us with the goods and services we require. I wonder, has such a system ever existed in the past, and if so, what name would men have given it?

Of course, none of the men who are now advocating an end to capitalism would ever admit that the only other social structure that has ever existed is slavery under one name or another. Feudalism, fascism, communism, socialism, national socialism (which, as a matter of record, was originally defined as any socialist movement not loyal to the global socialist movement headquartered in Moscow) - they all require slavery in their implementation to function. This is what when politicians espouse their lofty goals of public charity and social justice, they always speak of the ends and never of the means that must be employed to reach those ends. The devil is always visible in the details, but he is present (though hidden) in the rhetoric.

Friday, November 20, 2009

A Better Health Care Bill of Rights

1. No law shall be passed granting any group or entity any tax incentive or advantage that exceeds the tax benefit received by an individual citizen of the united states.

2. Neither the federal government nor any of its states shall pass nor enforce any law which prohibits a citizen from purchasing any health insurance policy under any terms that citizen desires.
Minimum mandates are really restrictions on the rights of the consumers to purchase what they wish by disallowing insurance companies from offering products that the consumers want. These restrictions are immoral and should not be given the force of law.

3. No citizen shall be required to finance the health care of any other citizen.
The role of charity is to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves, and the role of the recipients of charity is gratitude towards those extending the charity. Thus, both the giver and recipient benefit from the transaction. When, however, one entity takes by force from another to give to the needy the taker steals from the producer both the resources already produced and the goodwill and gratitude that would have been due the producer for providing for the needy. Come on, people, this is self-evident and so obvious.

4. No citizen shall be forced at any time to submit to medical treatment against his will without due process.
As recently as 1981 the State of Oregon was forcibly sterilizing persons deemed unsuitable to reproduce by its "Board of Eugenics." Members of Christian Science whose religious faith prohibits invasive medical treatment have their religious tenants violated when forced to submit to medical care.

5. No health care provider may be compelled to either provide or withhold medical treatment from a patient.
Since health care provider provides a service of economic or financial value the 13th Amendment already prohibits forcing a person to work against his will. The existence of laws in violation of this principal throughout the country and the failure of the courts to uphold this principal when the work provided is medical in nature is evidence that this principal needs to be explicitly extended to this arena.