Proponents of limited government, like myself, are too often misunderstood. I speak in this post only of the Federal government, so I'll limit my remarks to that august body.
We believe that the Federal government should be limited to those powers directly granted it by the Constitution of the United States. No more, no less. Nearly every single issue which arises between Left and Right, at the national level, would be put to bed if that pesky ol' Constitution were simply followed.
It's not a matter of limiting government for specific causes, or to only a politically-expedient list of certain responsibilities (e.g., food safety, roads/infrastructure, education). We want government limited to what it's allowed by law.
Recall the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So, the limited government view holds that the Constitution does not grant the Federal government any power that it does not expressly mention.
The contrary view holds that the Constitution grants the Federal government the authority to do anything that is not explicitly prohibited by the first eight amendments.
Regardless of the issue at hand, be it food safety or infrastructure, the limited government proponents have a simple solution: Amend the Constitution to allow government to do that which it wishes. Absent an amendment, it's illegal.
The day-to-day musings of a frustrated conservative American.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Socialized Medicine
Government-run health care will look a lot like other government-run entities.
So... the emergency room at your local hospital will be run like the Department of Motor Vehicles office where you live.
Inefficiently.
And that leaves aside, for the short-term, the lack of invention - and incentive - of which the United States currently enjoys an abundance. Who will want to be a doctor, for example, when a government panel decides that doctors should only earn X dollars per year? Who will want to attend medical school, endure residency, and - most important - accrue the massive debt associated with them - just to make a maximum of X dollars per year?
What's the incentive?
That's the part that liberals consistently miss... it's as though they cannot conceive of 'incentive', what it means and how it benefits our society. Did you know that England has been operating with such a shortage of doctors for the last several years, that they IMPORT doctors from other countries? Naturally, they doctors who emigrate to England do not have the education or skills required of doctors who learned their trade in England; so the quality of medical care suffers as a result.
This incentive applies to all fields, all areas. Medical devices, pharmaceutical drugs, patient care - everything. Some people complain that the cost of prescription drugs is too high; let's hear them complain when the supply of those drugs dries up, because government has forced price caps on the drug companies, thereby curtailing research and development - by curtailing incentive.
It's a liberal tenet to hate 'the rich', be they people or corporations - unless those people and corporations reside in Hollywood, of course. It's perfectly fine for Susan Sarandon to be paid $10 million to appear in a film, but the CEO of Pfizer only deserves $100k per year.
I don't begrudge a Hollywood celebrity, or a Fortune 500 CEO, or a doctor, whatever money they can make. We should ALL want to emulate them, not disparage them.
So... the emergency room at your local hospital will be run like the Department of Motor Vehicles office where you live.
Inefficiently.
And that leaves aside, for the short-term, the lack of invention - and incentive - of which the United States currently enjoys an abundance. Who will want to be a doctor, for example, when a government panel decides that doctors should only earn X dollars per year? Who will want to attend medical school, endure residency, and - most important - accrue the massive debt associated with them - just to make a maximum of X dollars per year?
What's the incentive?
That's the part that liberals consistently miss... it's as though they cannot conceive of 'incentive', what it means and how it benefits our society. Did you know that England has been operating with such a shortage of doctors for the last several years, that they IMPORT doctors from other countries? Naturally, they doctors who emigrate to England do not have the education or skills required of doctors who learned their trade in England; so the quality of medical care suffers as a result.
This incentive applies to all fields, all areas. Medical devices, pharmaceutical drugs, patient care - everything. Some people complain that the cost of prescription drugs is too high; let's hear them complain when the supply of those drugs dries up, because government has forced price caps on the drug companies, thereby curtailing research and development - by curtailing incentive.
It's a liberal tenet to hate 'the rich', be they people or corporations - unless those people and corporations reside in Hollywood, of course. It's perfectly fine for Susan Sarandon to be paid $10 million to appear in a film, but the CEO of Pfizer only deserves $100k per year.
I don't begrudge a Hollywood celebrity, or a Fortune 500 CEO, or a doctor, whatever money they can make. We should ALL want to emulate them, not disparage them.
Affordable Health Care - Is It a Right?
Of course it's not a right.
Rights are defined by Black’s Law Dictionary: "...'something that is due to a person by just claim, legal guarantee, or moral principle." So, a right is something you can do without asking for permission. Rights carry with them certain responsibilities inherent within them; for example, the right to bear arms does not abrogate one from the responsibility of allowing no harm to come to innocent people through indiscriminate use of those arms.
The opposite of a right, therefore, is something you cannot do without asking for permission - a "privilege". Black’s Law Dictionary defines this as: "A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A peculiar right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others."
There are many, many examples of this, beginning with driving upon the public roads; but the purpose of this answer is to cover Rights vs Privileges in a macro form rather than at a granular, micro level.
Some people think that there are rights for any action or activity with which they personally 'agree', such as (but not limited to): Same-sex marriage, health care, welfare (be it corporate or personal), abortion, and so on.
Rights and privileges are opposites. Privileges are granted - conditional - and hence can be revoked. Privileges can be tightly regulated and, with little justification, taken away. Rights present greater obstacles to confiscation. Over time, government at all levels has slowly eroded rights into privileges, thus ensuring governmental control over the actions or activities under discussion. Morphing a right into a privilege for the purpose of regulating the action or activity is necessary, since imposing regulation on a right has been defined as illegal:
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of [this] exercise of constitutional Rights." Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.
Rights are primarily (but not exclusively) predicated upon ownership of property, which is why we Americans have VERY few actual rights remaining to us. If you think you have the right to dig for oil on property that you 'own' - try that sometime, without permits and licenses and permission. I think the local Sheriff will take you aside for a chat. That means that you are not sovereign over your land; you do not, in actuality, 'own' it - and hence do NOT have the right to act as you wish upon it, because it is not your property. A privilege says that you are NOT allowed to act as you wish against the property of another, and that is, in essence, what the Sheriff will be explaining... that the truth is simple: The government owns the property, proven this by the requirement to apply for permits and licenses for the privilege of drilling for oil. And because these permits and licenses are written forms of permission for you to act in a certain manner, they may be denied or revoked - and their provisions enforced, as the Sheriff will no doubt explain.
Arguing that good health is somehow good for the country is ludicrous on its face. Is it safer for Americans to drive 45 miles per hour than 55? I'm sure we'd have fewer highway deaths. How about 35 MPH? Or 25? Where does it end? We either have the right to pursue our own medical care, or we don't. Would YOU like to see a hospital ER run by the government? Imagine the ER run like the local Department of Motor Vehicles.
While affordable (debatable term, that one) health care may be desirable, it is most assuredly NOT a right.
Rights are defined by Black’s Law Dictionary: "...'something that is due to a person by just claim, legal guarantee, or moral principle." So, a right is something you can do without asking for permission. Rights carry with them certain responsibilities inherent within them; for example, the right to bear arms does not abrogate one from the responsibility of allowing no harm to come to innocent people through indiscriminate use of those arms.
The opposite of a right, therefore, is something you cannot do without asking for permission - a "privilege". Black’s Law Dictionary defines this as: "A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A peculiar right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others."
There are many, many examples of this, beginning with driving upon the public roads; but the purpose of this answer is to cover Rights vs Privileges in a macro form rather than at a granular, micro level.
Some people think that there are rights for any action or activity with which they personally 'agree', such as (but not limited to): Same-sex marriage, health care, welfare (be it corporate or personal), abortion, and so on.
Rights and privileges are opposites. Privileges are granted - conditional - and hence can be revoked. Privileges can be tightly regulated and, with little justification, taken away. Rights present greater obstacles to confiscation. Over time, government at all levels has slowly eroded rights into privileges, thus ensuring governmental control over the actions or activities under discussion. Morphing a right into a privilege for the purpose of regulating the action or activity is necessary, since imposing regulation on a right has been defined as illegal:
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of [this] exercise of constitutional Rights." Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.
Rights are primarily (but not exclusively) predicated upon ownership of property, which is why we Americans have VERY few actual rights remaining to us. If you think you have the right to dig for oil on property that you 'own' - try that sometime, without permits and licenses and permission. I think the local Sheriff will take you aside for a chat. That means that you are not sovereign over your land; you do not, in actuality, 'own' it - and hence do NOT have the right to act as you wish upon it, because it is not your property. A privilege says that you are NOT allowed to act as you wish against the property of another, and that is, in essence, what the Sheriff will be explaining... that the truth is simple: The government owns the property, proven this by the requirement to apply for permits and licenses for the privilege of drilling for oil. And because these permits and licenses are written forms of permission for you to act in a certain manner, they may be denied or revoked - and their provisions enforced, as the Sheriff will no doubt explain.
Arguing that good health is somehow good for the country is ludicrous on its face. Is it safer for Americans to drive 45 miles per hour than 55? I'm sure we'd have fewer highway deaths. How about 35 MPH? Or 25? Where does it end? We either have the right to pursue our own medical care, or we don't. Would YOU like to see a hospital ER run by the government? Imagine the ER run like the local Department of Motor Vehicles.
While affordable (debatable term, that one) health care may be desirable, it is most assuredly NOT a right.
What Do I Think of National Service?
Horrible idea.
No active behavior forced on one by another yields positive results.
Moreover, I don't pay taxes so that government can actively tell me that I must go here, or go there, and do a certain thing for a certain period of time.
I say "active" because government does tell us what we may and may not do passively (e.g., we may not murder, we may not steal, we may not build on our property with X, Y and Z permits, etc.). But government's role is supposed to be restrictive in that sense, ensuring a level playing field for all of its citizens.
In our history we have tried this, and recognized its shortcomings -- hence we have no draft, and except in an extreme national emergency, we will not. Draftees are unmotivated to perform at all, let alone at a high level, and the same is true of all who are forced into service.
The only possible way to ensure even the barest minimum of effort is to threaten the use of force against the 'volunteers' -- as they did in the Soviet Union. Otherwise, you must rely on each individual's penchant for the task, or self-motivation, and that's really not worth my tax dollars.
No active behavior forced on one by another yields positive results.
Moreover, I don't pay taxes so that government can actively tell me that I must go here, or go there, and do a certain thing for a certain period of time.
I say "active" because government does tell us what we may and may not do passively (e.g., we may not murder, we may not steal, we may not build on our property with X, Y and Z permits, etc.). But government's role is supposed to be restrictive in that sense, ensuring a level playing field for all of its citizens.
In our history we have tried this, and recognized its shortcomings -- hence we have no draft, and except in an extreme national emergency, we will not. Draftees are unmotivated to perform at all, let alone at a high level, and the same is true of all who are forced into service.
The only possible way to ensure even the barest minimum of effort is to threaten the use of force against the 'volunteers' -- as they did in the Soviet Union. Otherwise, you must rely on each individual's penchant for the task, or self-motivation, and that's really not worth my tax dollars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)