Things I Know #26

From a comment Jason left over at Morgan's Place. I only modified it somewhat to fit my format here.

#26 Progressivism makes you "good" by forcing others to do what you are too weak-willed to do yourself.

Things I Know #25

This one is from Thomas Sowell, and apparently it's the first line from a book of his I just ordered.

#25 Dangers to a society may be mortal without being immediate.

Incidentally, I'm a big Sowell fan anyway, but... the title sold me on the book.

The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy

Bill Whittle Interviews Dana Loesch

Bill Whittle on the attempted marginalization of small-government advocates:

"Their attitude seems to be that if there's enough of a division between Congress and the people then we just have to get a new 'people.'"

Nice!

Interview is here.

From the Progressive Dictionary

From the Progessive Dictionary:

Racist: /ray' sist/ 1. n White person arguing against a liberal on any subject. 2. adj Any argument a white person puts forward that any liberal disagrees with. 3. adj white or caucasian.

Mysoginist: /mis ah' jin ist/ 1. n Male.

That second one inspired by a recent post over at Cassy's place.

I smell a new series of posts coming on. You can all join in, of course.

Evolution of Tactics

First, they, the annointed, thought that everyone, of course, would go for massive government expansion as a solution to our economic woes.

Then the Tea Parties Started.

Their first counter-tactic was to ignore with the occasional mocking.

The second was to attempt marginalize.

The third is intimidation, Chicago style.

Well at least "ignore" isn't working anymore. The others continue.

Found the graphic below linked from the home of St. Louis Talk Radio Host Dana Loesch (who is going to be my new poster girl for the Tea Party Movement. I mean, wow!)

Check out her speech at the St. Louis Tea Party.

The graphic speaks volumes.

It came with some good Tea Party/Town Hall advice:

• Do not engage supporters of socialized medicine–they come to strike, not to speak
• Do not offer to shake hands, as they’ve been trained to charge us with assault for handshaking
• Do not look them the eye, as they will take this as a challenge (we don't like this one)
  
• Do not respond to their taunts
• Do not comment on their attire, attitudes, or words
• Do NOT raise your voice–volume or pitch
• Do NOT raise your hand–except to deflect and incoming blow
• Do NOT retaliate to provocation or attack–others will come to your aid
• Do talk about the substance of this hideous legislation
• Do decry the White House and DNC attempts to quash free speech with violence and threats
• Do demonstrate your disgust with White House, DNC, and SEIU campaigns against the First Amendment
  

"Dissent Is Patriotic™" R.I.P.

Read it and weep. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

On the other hand, remembering Sun Tzu and using your enemy's force agains them... consider Alinski's Rule #4 "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

In their book of rules, Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism. Well that's what they told us over the previous 8 years.

They call you a hypocrite when you occasionally fail to meet the goals your values set, as though Christ himself didn't say even the just man sins seven times daily. A good, real Christian knows he is imperfect and yet doesn't abandon his moral goals because he fails from time to time, and what these Progressive Community Organizer people profess to hate (especially in Christians, which is why I used that example) is other people cramming their morals down their throats ... while they do precisely the same thing and either can't see it or choose not to.

Meanwhile, they feel they are free from hypocrisy precisely because they have (supposedly) no such moral goals.

But they do, they just usually avoid calling them that.

When they dissent, it is The Highest Form of Patriotism™, when we do it is Un-American. When they organize, the people are speaking out and doing their duty as citizens using their first amendment rights when they burn things, block traffic, shout down speakers, start fights, and even blow things up (like Bill Ayers and his buddies tried to do). When we organize, we're angry mobs, and Nazis even though we refrain from these things.

When we suggest that perhaps constant, vocal condemning of everything any American soldier does anywhere and all but sides with our enemies during war might not be in our country's best interest, we're squelching dissent. But when we oppose massive government expansion domestically it's time for us to shut up. When we support letting the CIA track international call patterns to and from potential terrorists, it's domestic spying. When they call on citizens to report "fishy" arguments against Socialized Healthcare, its .... not.

In their arrogance, they have exposed themselves to their own tactics.

Hillary Clinton, at a passionate, screaming fever pitch during the Bush administration: “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”

Don't Hold Back There, Bill

Just tell us what you REALLY think.

Bill Whittle -- my favorite grass-roots blogger turned minor celebrity, joined Pajamastv a while back.

I recommend his essays highly -- but now he's doing video essays on PJTV, which I also recommend. I just went back and watched his Independence Day broadcast. He gets wound up, and for good reason.

Wait, so it's not just "Right-Wingers" being organized here?

Huh. You'd think, listening to the Democrats, there are some ordinary citizens showing up at these town hall meetings, and then there are "thugs" showing up as "mob" and "disrupting" the meetings, and they're "stooges" of insurance companies and Republicans.

On the other hand in St. Louis:

"The back and forth between factions within the crowd created a carnival-like atmosphere inside and out between members of the movement opposing President Barack Obama's policies and groups who came to show support for the president's proposals."

So you mean the other side is organizing people to go to these events, too? Huh. No kiddin'.

Kenneth Gladney, 38, a conservative activist from St. Louis, said he was attacked by some of those arrested as he handed out yellow flags with "Don't tread on me" printed on them.

Well I'll guarantee you Gladney wasn't with the Progressive side, or attacked by the conservative side. So there's the first violent act I've heard of, and it wasn't by my side.

And in Denver (same article)

"Just say no!" yelled those demonstrating against health care reform."
Yes we can!" shouted back those who support Obama's plan.

People shouting from both sides? But I thought these meetings were being "stacked" by the conservative side.

I think the problem is, the progressive side is used to stacking these things unopposed, and they're upset to encounter opposition.

Boener's spokeswoman lays it down the way it is, though. See if this makes sense to you and squares with bunches of opponents showing up at these things:

"All the polls show there is serious concern, if not outright opposition, to the President's health care plan"

Which jives with all of the polls I've seen in the past month or so. So why the surprise?

In Tampa, in Kathy Castor's defense, she said all the right things about welcoming a healthy debate, and I, for one, don't approve of the shouting down bit. I understand if you get agitated during an exchange and your voice raises because your adrenaline is high, but remember My Ten Commandments for Conservatives. Anyway, from the article.

Political groups on both sides also recruited members to attend.

Opponents included the 9-12 Project, the Free Republic Web site and the Hillsborough County Republican Party, Proponents included unions involved in sponsoring the event and Organizing for America, a liberal organizing group that grew out of the Barack Obama presidential campaign.

Advocates on both sides said they urged their members to behave respectfully at the meeting.

"Be courteous while anyone is speaking, including Castor. We don't want to sound like an 'angry mob,' " advised the Web site of the Tampa chapter of the 9-12 Project, a meetup group founded under the influence of Beck, a television and radio host.

Yes indeed. Be courteous. Please.

In Response to their Dismissive Characterizations

Asked about his 99 year old grandmother, this is what Obama had to say:

"And all we're suggesting -- and we're not going to solve every difficult problem in terms of end-of-life care. A lot of that is going to have to be, we as a culture and as a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves. But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."

So, no, Obama is not saying "Kill Granny". Not outright. And we'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that's not his intent. But let's take a look at what he is saying.

"... we as a culture and as a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves."

Not really "Kill Granny", but we as a society need to start maybe making decisions that granny might not want to go along with about how long she will live or with what functionality.

Obama & Co as President, Congress, & Empathetic Judges, doesn't get to tell us what "we as a culture" need to do. We as individual free men and women get to decide what we need to do with the resources we have. It's none of the rest of our concern until we start involuntarily paying for others' choices.

Once this happens, The Collective has a say in what care you get. Period. And as has happened in other countries, once the inevitable shortage that invariably comes from "free" things that people want arrives, there will be rationing. There will be pressure to cut costs by the collective. It's simple economics. It's human nature, and there are plenty of examples to look at. Care will be denied. And government doesn't take kindly to being shown up by private health care plans. The people behind this have a basic philosophical hatred for the idea that A can afford something and B can afford something better. They are here to enforce equal outcomes. It is a basic tenant of their religion. And they see their chance here with Obamacare.

When the responsibility for payment resides with the individual and those around him who volunteer their support, we can make peace with our own decisions. When the decisions are out of our hands

Obama and the "Rude Mobs", and the ole snitcheroo

I thought I remembered this quote (re-discovered in today's IBD Editorial)

It was not that long ago that Barack Obama told a crowd of 1,500 supporters in Elko, Nev., to challenge those who disagree with them and him: "I want you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independents or Republicans. I want you to argue with them and get in their face"

I don't recall seeing, in any of the video clips, anything more than some people raising their voices in anger when being patronized at what they thought was a public forum for politicians to give and take with their constituents. I've sure seen plenty of Acorn types literally getting in people's faces all over the internet and on the news for the past several years.

Malkin had a good rebuttal a couple of days ago. An excellent rebuttal, with video tape of what real mobs look like. Matter of fact, she's kinda been on fire lately with her response to Boxer: How to Dress Like an Authentic Grass Roots Activist.

Oh, and of course, if you do find people in opposition to Obama & the Democrats (sounds like some Motown group, doesn't it? Groovy!) make sure you email it in. Snitch on your neighbors like good little brown-shirts! Crank up that Civilian National Security Force now!

And, of course, whine and complain that people are comparing them to ... wait for it ... Nazis! (Because nobody on the Left has ever made that comparison, no.) Or making allegations that people who are protesting socialist policies and runaway spending as Nazis. So they call us Nazis while complaining about us allegedly being Nazis and/or calling them Nazis. Rich.

Not that Nationalizing big parts of the economy while moving unapologetically toward Socialism while trying to margingalize, intimidate, and silence the opposition... National .... Socialism ... where have I heard that term before?

Those Rude Disrupters trying to Shut Down Debate

I've seen and heard the clips from people concerned about what Obama's health care plan is and what it will do, and where it leads.

I've heard them accused of behaving like this:

But I've seen no evidence of it.

I think the left is guilty of a severe case of projection.

What is telling about this is it is posted on a pro-single-payer "channel" on YouTube. The asshat making the video is proud of what he's doing.

Essay Answers to Someone's Facebook Political Quiz

I took this quiz. But I found the questions wanting in that they were often misleading, too black and white, and in at least one case self-contradictory. And in many cases addressed things that the government shouldn't have any role in.

You got to answer the questions with 5 degrees of agreement, along with a weighting of how important the issue was to you. My real answers were too often more like "none of the above".

I decided to reproduce the quiz here and actually answer the questions for real.

1. The state should restrict abortion in all or most cases.

Yes, I think it is the taking of a human life, and the state should protect human life. I would be willing to compromise to the first trimester, though, knowing what I know about the physical development of the human embryo and to get rid of the practice of late-term, especially partial-birth abortions all together. Not my ideal solution, but then again it hasn't been the anti-abortion side that's been the least compromising, either.

2. Unions were indispensible in establishing the middle class.

Probably, but unions were not originally institutionalized by the Government, nor should they be given special consideration by the government.

3. In nearly every instance, the free market allocates resources most efficiently.

A straight, strong, "yipper" on this one.

4. Public radio and television funded by the state provide a valuable service the citizens.

Public radio and television should be funded by those members of the public who find it valuable. If it is valuable in and of itself, the government doesn't need to fund it.

5. Some people should not be allowed to reproduce.

In practice, or by law? ;-) But seriously, it should not be against the law for individuals to reproduce.

6. Access to healthcare is a right.

No more than access to food or housing is.

7. The rich should pay a higher tax rate than the middle class.

I don't see any reason for this except to satisfy the egos of those with Robin Hood syndrome.

8. School science classes should teach intelligent design.

Schools should be private, and private schools should be able to teach whatever creation theories they desire. As long as schools are public, I see nothing wrong with presenting alternate theories as such that can be explained as "yes, this is one theory" and lay it out. Of course, they should do that with all theories, including anthropogenic global warming.

9. Marriage must be heralded for the important role it plays in society.

Yes. But not by the government.

10. Sometimes war is necessary, even if it means you strike first.

Sun Tzu was right. Often the best defense is a devastating offense.

11. Patriotism is an overrated quality.

Blind, blanket patriotism is bad. Patriotism, in general, is good. Reflexive anti-patriotism, on the other hand, is at least as bad as blind, blanket patriotism. Probably much worse.

12. Radio stations should be required to present balanced news coverage.

Radio stations should distinguish between opinion and news, but let the market decide what it wants to listen to.

13. Government should do something about the increasing violence in video games.

No. Parents should, if they think it's important.

14. If our leader meets with our enemies, it makes us appear weak.

Way overly simplified question. But if we're talking about Ajmadenijad, the issue is is it makes him look strong. If we're not going to get anything out of it -- and we're not, we and others have tried again and again and again -- we should let them rot in isolation.

15. We must use our military from time to time to protect our supply of oil, to avoid a national crisis.

That in and of itself is not a good enough reason. If there are other compelling reasons to protect a country that happens to be a supplier, there is nothing wrong with that.

16. Strong gun ownership rights protect the people against tyranny.

Absolutely. The founding fathers went on at length about this with very compelling arguments. We as individuals have an inalienable right to effective self-defense, as well as, as a group -- recourse to redress a tyrannical governmnent.

17. It makes no sense to say 'I'm spiritual but not religious.'

I'm not sure what this has to do with politics. No, I don't think it makes no sense. But I think it's often a dodge.

18. It is not government's responsibility to regulate pollution.

This is one place the government probably should be involved, but it should be subject to scientific and not political oversight as well.

19. Gay marriage should be forbidden.

Gays can do whatever they want and call it whatever they want. However, Government doesn't have any business defining Marriage as it is a social institution and not a government institution. It is free to recognize whatever unions it needs to for the enforcement of contracts.

20. It should be against the law to use hateful language toward another racial group.

No. Which is why this violates the first amendment, plus "hateful" is far too subjective. Whether or not I think people SHOULD use "hateful" language ... that's an entirely different question.

21. Government should ensure that all citizens meet a certain minimum standard of living.

No. This is the realm of individuals and groups in society. It's a very slippery slope when Government gets involved, and we're already way too far down it.

22. It is wrong to enforce moral behavior through the law because this infringes upon an individual's freedom.

Murder is immoral. It is not wrong to have and enforce laws against murder. Some people consider wearing short skirts in public immoral. It is wrong to have and enforce laws against wearing short skirts in public. Most people consider public nudity immoral. This is why laws like these should be left to local communities, the way the country was initially designed. Pretending laws don't enforce moral behavior and -- that laws can be separated from morals is fantasy.

23. Immigration restrictions are economically protectionist. Non-citizens should be allowed to sell their labor domestically at a rate the market will pay.

This is two different questions. 1) Immigration restrictions can be economically protectionist, but there are other good reasons for immigration restrictions, which is far too vague a term in the first place. 2) Non-citizens being allowed to sell their labor domestically at a rate the market will pay really doesn't have anything to do with immigration, since immigration implies becoming a citizen or at least acquiring some legal status. But the answer is, yes, non-citizens who go through proper channels should be allowed to sell their labor domestically at a rate the market will pay.

24. An official language should be set, and immigrants should have to learn it.

Absolutely (or get somebody on their own dime to translate for them). There are a few things that a nation needs to have some cultural adhesion. Plus there's the overhead of everybody having to learn a zillion different languages just to work the counter at McDonalds or to have that many copies of government forms and that many more people who can read the answers.

25. Whatever maximizes economic growth is good for the people.

This is too black and white. In general, I'd say yes. But "whatever" is far too inclusive.

26. Racial issues will never be resolved. It is human nature to prefer one's own race.

It is not up to the government to resolve racial issues that do not interfere with the constitutional rights of persons of particular races. It is up to you and me. It may be human nature to prefer one's own race, but it has been shown that this can be easily overcome. It's not about race. It's about culture. And yes, some cultures are better than others.

27. People with a criminal history should not be able to vote.

What kind of criminal history? Crimes past a certain threshhold, I wouldn't have a problem with.

28. Marijuana should be legal.

Absolutely. You are free to ruin your life (or use it responsibly) as long as you don't interfere with the constitutional rights of others.

29. The state should fine television stations for broadcasting offensive language.

Ideally, parents should be in control of what they and their children view on television.

30. It does not make sense to understand the motivations of terrorists because they are self-evidently evil.

They are self-evidently evil. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to try to understand their motivations. Sun Tzu was right. Know your enemy. But I don't mean "understand" in an "I feel your pain, bro" sort of way. More of an "understand" as in know what your enemy is mentally capable of, what they might and might not try.

31. The lower the taxes, the better off we all are.

Another absolutist question, to which the answer would be "no". But back in the real world, it has been shown that there is a "sweet spot" past which higher taxes mean government revenues actually decline. Taxes are always a drag on the economy, regardless of the question of necessity. And the government has no business taxing for things it shouldn't be charged with in the first place. As for needing taxes at all, one of the things Government is charged with is Defense. This takes revenue. So clearly, there has to be SOME taxation.

32. Minority groups that have faced discrimination should receive help from the state to get on an equal footing.

No, private individuals and groups should organize to convince the population that all men really are created equal. However, my freedom of association should mean I get to hire and fire and include or exclude anyone I want to on whatever basis I want to.

33. It is wrong to question a leader in wartime.

No. But it is wrong to continuously assail the leader with speculative allegations and assumptions for political gain. There's criticism, and then there's what happened to the Bush Administration.

34. Tighter regulation would have prevented the collapse of the lending industry.

Regulation and other government meddling in the market led to the collapse of the lending industry.

35. It makes sense and is fair that some people make much more money than others.

Yup.

36. Toppling enemy regimes to spread democracy will make the world a safer place.

Probably. Doesn't mean we should go around doing it for that sole purpose.

37. The state has no business regulating alcohol and tobacco products.

Sure doesn't.

38. If an unwed teen becomes pregnant, abortion may be a responsible choice.

If the mother's life is in danger or she's in danger of serious bodily harm, it may be. There's no other reason to kill a baby.

39. International trade agreements should require environmental protections and workers' rights.

Depends on the scope of the protections and how you define "rights". I mean, remember I don't think health care is a "right".

40. Gay equality is a sign of progress.

For Progressives, it is. But that is not my religion, it is theirs, and I think the first amendment has something to say about that.

41. The state should be able to put a criminal to death if the crime was serious enough.

Yes.

42. The military budget should be scaled back.

As with every government program, there is probably a lot of waste. But a strong defense is necessary for the preservation of freedom, for there are those who wish to take it away. Sadly, many of them now live among us.

43. Economic competition results in inumerable innovations that improve all of our lives.

The proof is in the pudding, Jack!

44. It is not our place to condemn other cultures as backwards or barbaric.

Sure it is. Why is our perspective any less valid than anyone else's?

45. When one group is slaughtering another group somewhere in the world, we have a responsibility to intervene.

We do not, unless we have a treaty with one of the parties that says we do.

46. We'd be better off if we could just lock up some of the people expressing radical political views, and keep them away from society.

Another loaded question. Sure I think we'd be better off, but that doesn't mean we should do it.

47. Unrestrained capitalism cannot last, as wealth and power will concentrate to a small elite.

Capitalism has never been unrestrained. Wealth and power may concentrate, but it will be allocated mainly to the job makers, the risk-takers, and the hard-workers. No system is perfect, but it's better than allocating it to a self-appointed intellectual and political elite, which is what happens in every socialist country.

48. It is a problem when young people display a lack of respect for authority.

Yes, but it's gonna happen. They're not finished maturing. Many of them never will.

49. When corporate interests become too powerful, the state should take action to ensure the public interest is served.

"Too powerful" is subjective. The public should decide what the "public interest" is. My definition of "too powerful" would be if the corporation were to somehow merge with government interest because the government deems it in the public interest when the public feels differently about it. This is generally called "Fascism". For instance, if the government bought controlling interest in a company, or the company convinced the government to bail it out. Since the government would be involved in this power in either case, the action the government should take in the public interest would be to dis-involve itself.

50. A person's morality is between that person and God only. Government should not get involved.

Once again, there's the murder argument, and the de-centralized local community laws argument.

51. The state should not set a minimum wage.

The market should set wages.

52. A nation's retirement safety net cannot be trusted to the fluctuations of the stock market.

The government should not be responsible for any retirement safety net.

53. Offensive or blasphemous art should be suppressed.

Not by the government, nor should it be encouraged by the same, and it definitely should not be funded by tax revenue.

Happy Birthday Mr. President

Litmus Test

I like it.

If I was President, any time a bill landed on my desk I would randomly pick one Congress member who voted for it, call that member into my office and ask him or her to explain the details of the bill to me. IF the member couldn’t do it, I’d veto it.

Update 10.26/2011:  That came, apparently, from TrogloPundit, Lance Burri's blog -- from guest blogger Mister Pterodactyl.   I likely unceremoniously snagged the link from Morgan's blog and didn't even really see TrogloPundit... because if I had I would have remembered it.  He has an awesome banner.

And that's too bad (that I didn't see it) because he had something nice to say about me.

He didn’t link to me, exactly. He linked to something Grandpa Steve Mister Pterodactyl posted while I was gone last week. So I don’t know if that counts.

On the other hand, his blog does have a great name, which is really the most important thing about blogging. Wisdom of that kind should be rewarded.

Yours truly struggled a bit when I renamed the blog from "philmon" to the current name, thinking the new name sounded a bit too cocky.  But blog brother Morgan assured me it wasn't, and said he liked it.  Truthfully, I liked it, too -- it's exactly what I felt like doing, and reflects the inspiration behind my starting the blog in the first place.  Yelling at NPR in the car, talking back to CNN, and muttering things under my breath in response to dumb sh*t progressive family and friends said.   I felt like I needed to get out there and start swinging a Clue Bat around -- albiet mostly for batting PRACTICE, which I sorely needed.  I still need it, but not as badly.  It has helped me tremendously.... and now instead of 40 hits a month, I'm up to around 1,500 to 1,700 (this month it has hit 2,300, but 500 of those were in one day.  I'm guessing on my 53% post.

But philmon thanks TrogloPundit for the kind words, and will link him under "friends of this blog" and check his out for a while.  It looks pretty good from here.

This is why it's now "Climate Change"

So they can cover anything that happens as Teh Evil of Man.

Accuweather Meteorologist Jesse Ferrell posts:

If you've noticed that this past July was colder than normal, you are not alone. AccuWeather.com meteorologist Jesse Ferrell took a look at the record low temperatures on the East Coast and he reports some surprising findings.

More than 1,100 daily record low temperatures were broken in July nationwide, according to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). When record afternoon low highs are considered, that number jumps to more than 3,000 records. An additional 1,200 stations tied records.

Sowell Summarizes

Utopia vs Freedom

Ultimately, our choice is to give up Utopian quests or give up our freedom. This has been recognized for centuries by some, but many others have not yet faced that reality, even today. If you think government should "do something" about anything that ticks you off, or anything you want and don't have, then you have made your choice between Utopia and freedom.

Thomas Sowell for President.

Pants .... On ... Fire!!!!!

It's not about ... a government takeover of health care. Let me be clear. If you have insurance now, and you like it, you can keep it. Those who say different are not telling the truth.

What a Difference a Party Makes

It seems that when a Republican is in office, any economic indicator that doesn't expand up to expectations is a sign of doom and dispair, and "proof" that supply-side economics doesn't work.

But now that the economy has slowed it's rate of fall, since we have a Democrat, and not just any Democrat, but "Teh Democrat Savior" it's being trumpeted as the end of the recession, Obama avoided Armageddon, it's all uphill from here..... and maybe it is, I hope it is. But they're afraid it's going to "take too long" and that people won't appreciate what the Messiah has done for them.

Let's just remember that even if we had a marsupial in the White House, any recession will bottom out and the economy will grow. Recessions are market corrections. How do we know the Market wouldn't have been done correcting back in March if we hadn't printed up a metric sh*t ton of money to "rescue" it? And how do we know this isn't just a temporary slowdown in a very long recession?

Eh... we don't.

A Picture Paints a Thousand of Them

What's Obama doing here?

What's Sgt Crowley doing? Sidebared American Thinker talks about it.


Hat tip to Lawrence and, of course, to American Thinker.

Must Read Mark Steyn on the Health Care Debate

It's the argument I've been making. It's also the argument Canadian Mark Steyn (who surely deserves American Citizenship as he is one of our strongest advocates) is making. RTWT.

Only as I've said many times before, Mark is a more talented writer than I.

Here are two quotes from the article that encapsulate the point that ultimately, the utilitarian argument is the wrong one. It's the Liberty argument that is the right one, and the one we should be using.

How did the health-care debate decay to the point where we think it entirely natural for the central government to fix a collective figure for what 300 million freeborn citizens ought to be spending on something as basic to individual liberty as their own bodies?
[..]
Freedom is messy. In free societies, people will fall through the cracks — drink too much, eat too much, buy unaffordable homes, fail to make prudent provision for health care, and much else. But the price of being relieved of all those tiresome choices by a benign paternal government is far too high.

Government health care would be wrong even if it “controlled costs.” It’s a liberty issue. I’d rather be free to choose, even if I make the wrong choices.