This whole question of universal healthcare is, in actuality, only the ramblings of those who have given up on knowing what it really is that owns a man. Is it the state? Is it his money? Or does a man own a man? To immediately assume that the importance of Obamacare comes directly from a public good is to ignore the existing rights of men which they are naturally given, their own agency and control over their own bodies. The very notion that any governmental body should have their say in how a man exerts his money, his body, and his time is an infringement on the rights of men in the United States that would burn the ears of John Locke himself. Any man of stature should have memorized those immortal words from The Declaration of Independence “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” the longer the malignant tumor of the state is allowed to decide the interpretation of those words the further that man gets from his natural born purpose of protecting his body and his property. The Affordable Care Act seeks to make sure “each and every American: receives health care coverage from the government. To understand why this can only lead to the detriment of honest men in honest society we must examine what it even means to maintain liberties. A man’s liberties are not those things that the government, that the state, gives him in a mad gamble for complacency; a man’s liberties are those aspects of himself that are immutable given by himself to himself and cannot be removed from him with the exception of his death. Knowing this for a fact it becomes immensely clear why the Affordable Care Act is a desperate intrusion on the liberties of American men. Those who seek the comforts of the Affordable Care Act are only those who have been so shunned by society that they no longer think they are fit to participate in a meaningful way. There is an order to the American healthcare system. A man participates in society, he moves up the ranks from the station of his birth, he finds himself in a position to do work for the betterment of himself and so he might afford himself the luxuries and necessities that living entails; this includes healthcare. Those who are so far from the light of modern society that they have no choice but to bawl to the state and receive whatever they hand out have lost their stature, have lost their individuality, and have lost the strength that makes them human. Furthermore, when the shadow dwellers and mystics who have no sense of self worth come looking for help, where will the money come from? Not from those who can’t even find themselves a proper place in civil society, but from the hardworking individuals who can take care of themselves, and now must take care of others. The Affordable Care Act should be repealed as quickly as possible so that we might begin restoring honest liberties to deserving Americans.
Tag Archives: Rand
The Province of Whims Cannot Be An Emergency, Mr. Dewey!
If only people like Mr. Dewey would refrain from advocating for the province of whims through publications like his piece on the Opioid Crisis, perhaps the world would not be “collapsing to a lower and ever lower rung of hell.” In this piece, Dewey makes two futile and inherently irrational attempts. Firstly, he tries to define the opioid crisis as an emergency in need of government intervention. Secondly, he promotes a specific proposal as rational and reasonable.
In attempting to define the opioid epidemic as an emergency, Dewey praises President Trump for allegedly taking “a step in the right direction” by declaring the opioid epidemic a “90-day public health emergency.” There are three main qualifiers for emergencies, and this particular case does not satisfy any of them. Essentially, “an emergency is an unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time, that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible.” Drug use is a choice, at least at some point in time. Particularly, it is a choice that is categorized as being a whim, since it is irrational and pursues short-lived pleasure in exchange for a threat on one’s health and life. Additionally, it is not necessarily an unexpected event. As Dewey even says in the final paragraph of his article, this type of behavior and abuse can be foreseen in individuals. Prescription drugs tend to lead patients down this path, meaning that it is not an entirely unexpected outcome for many of its victims. Finally, although it is life-threatening, the opioid epidemic is not necessarily short-lived, as Dewey again acknowledges when he asserts that a more “permanent” solution is necessary.
Since the opioid epidemic cannot be considered an emergency, then it also cannot be considered moral for individuals to sacrifice their hard-earned money or any other effort to help a stranger. Emergencies are the only situations in which it is ethically acceptable to sacrifice or risk sacrifice, and it is also required that the individual be readily willing and able to make the sacrifice with minimal damage to themselves. Unfortunately, the interventions and programs that Charlie Baker has proposed simply violate these fundamental, rational principles. These programs would not simply be free; in fact, they would cost the employees and taxpayers a great sum of money compared to how much it might be able to add. While it would be nice in some ways, it almost certainly isn’t the case that all taxpayers would agree with their money going to fund this cause, which would mean that taxpayers are being forced to sacrifice, which is inherently immoral.
Additionally, Dewey makes it appear as if there are a variety of other drugs on the market that can help manage the pain caused by illnesses and other health issues. While this may be true, it is apparent that these drugs are the best that we have, for now, since these are the ones being used by doctors and their patients. If we assume that they are rational human beings, then it is implied that both doctor and patient have agreed upon the drug’s usage, due to it being some combination of less expensive and more effective than the other drugs on the market. Thus, if restrictions were to be placed on this drug, then people that find more value in it than other drugs would not be able to get it. Once again, the wellness of the collective is prioritized above the wellness of the individuals.
So, even though it may cause harm to more than just an involved individual to some degree, the opioid crisis is not technically an emergency. Since it is not a situation in which strangers can help strangers and still maintain their ethical integrity, the opioid crisis should not be considered a public issue. It is certainly concerning that individuals in our society would choose to follow their whims rather than rationality, even when it becomes a threat to their own life; however, we must handle this concern by modeling good morals ourselves, not by stooping to their level of whims and altruism.
Slaves to the unproductive? More like slaves to systematic racism, classism, and misogyny
Slaves to the unproductive? More like slaves to systematic racism, classism, and misogyny. To fix an issue, you have to identify and acknowledge what’s causing it. In this case, the issue is homelessness, and the proposed solution is an additional tax on the rich. You argue against an additional tax on the rich by saying my argument frames “issue as rich vs. poor, [rather than] industrious vs. the unproductive,” but doing so implies homelessness is synonymous with being unproductive, a narrative conservatives push often. It also implies that everyone who is extremely wealthy has made their money honestly, which is actually the funniest thing I’ve ever heard. In actuality, homelessness is often attributed to rising housing costs and the socio-political norms and attitudes strongly rooted in our governing policies that enable poverty. For example, many district zoning and county lines were written during times of segregation, ultimately putting those communities at a disadvantage due to lack of income and poor school systems. Another major cause of homelessness for women is domestic violence, a cause that has absolutely nothing to do with being unproductive.
As for your argument stating man should live for himself and his well-being rather than the collective good, you must have forgotten our society is too complicated to live so selfishly, as we rely on one another too deeply in terms of commerce already. And how can you argue there’s no “we” or “society” in the UNITED States, a country built on an extreme sense of nationalism and patriotism? You also mention that “a slave can be categorized as anyone who doesn’t benefit from their labor and that’s what this tax will do,” as if these millionaires aren’t going to pocket millions regardless, so I’m pretty sure that counts as ‘benefiting from their labor’.
I agree, every man has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And because I believe that, I also believe the people in power should try their best to level out the playing field for everyone under their care by dispensing necessary resources to those who are unable to do so themselves. The theory is that by providing equal resources to everyone, you’re giving people the equal opportunity to become productive citizens in society. By supplying these resources, you’re allowing people opportunities they wouldn’t have otherwise, and in doing so, you have a better chance of harvesting knowledge and creativity from poorer cities and towns that are typically at a disadvantage, which could most definitely benefit society as a collective. Say the cure for cancer is planted in the mind of someone born into poverty, but our governing policies are written to disadvantage lower-class families so the or she never receives a proper education, ultimately falling victim to our crooked judicial system only to end up in jail for a small misdemeanor. Meanwhile, politicians among the top 1% commit crimes far greater and remain in power, continuing to enforce to policies that benefit them.
Again, most of your argument is built on the claim that the wealthy make their money honestly, and purely through hard work, so they shouldn’t have to give it to give it those who are “unproductive”, discrediting all of the hard working people that live in poverty. Though it may seem so, there isn’t a direct correlation between hard work and the amount of money you earn, as you could work very little and make 6 figures or work 50-60+ hours a week and live paycheck to paycheck. Additionally, I’m positive that, in a society built on commerce, there wouldn’t be a loss in productivity if an additional tax on millionaires was put into place because people will ALWAYS want to make money, period. The upper-class threatening to withhold goods and services birth from their “productivity” because they’re being asked to share their resources with those they’ve robbed is an empty threat I refuse to believe.
P.s. I, one of your fellow liberal peers, forgive you for writing that article.
Filed under Mill
Compulsory? More like complicit…
John Dewey’s intent in “Education Reform = Compulsory Community Service” is asinine to liberty. The assertion that there should be mandatory community work for any individual who is seeking a public or high education is impractical and makes several dangerous assertions. It rides on a collectivist ethics approach that usurps a free individual’s rights. Dewey goes on to make the argue that the impetus for this compulsory community service is so that it more closely models and reflects our democratic values. There were a lot of compulsory activities in the USSR. These activities were implemented in a similar light- for the aid and benefit of the community, but nobody had the audacity to pretend like it was advancing a democratic society.
So, we find the proposition, “adults cannot succeed in a democratic society that does not incorporate the value of community service and social support into an already compulsory education. We cannot only focus on molding our children’s minds we must teach them how to be compassionate as well as hard working. We must also teach our citizens that working hard only to benefit one’s own life is not what is best for our community and our posterity.” This sounds like it is spoken directly from the lips of Karl Marx. It’s this justification that makes this idea so dangerous. Here we can see that since the action is altruistic that it justifies the compulsory nature of it. It’s a speculation of what the “society” should do to help a community. Here is the dangerous precedent; the collectivist assumption that regards this issue as a problem or duty of society as a whole. The only way that the security or altruistic value is complete, is to require the expense of others and those contributing. In today’s fast-moving world, people lead busy lives. Many people must go to school and work as well. Many have families that they need to go home to and provide for. While you may be happy with compulsory cleaning of a park for the benefit of everyone, know that it came at the cost of a mother or father not getting to be with their children, at the expense of a person who is not able to provide for themselves because they cannot work and complete the compulsory service as well.
The precedent extends to an even more dangerous ideology. If there be a collectivist premise, whether altruistic or not, it creates the assumption that man belongs to society and not himself. This is the degradation of a free society to one quite literally of communism- sacrifice of one’s self for the greater good. This altruistic approach to humanitarian issues, while seemingly a good idea, leads to the decay of individual rights. This is especially true when it comes in the form of political mandates and legislation. That is a pure dictatorial ideology. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” said Marx. It’s the second portion that’s worrisome. He’s speaking to what he believes should be the sentiment of society. “…to each according to his need,” is the “humanitarian” part of his vision. The problem though, as mentioned, is the means of accomplishing it. Yes, a clean park is nice, but to whom? The working mother trying to obtain her college degree who is having to spend time picking up dog feces and candy wrappers because she is mandated to by the government? Tending a community garden could be another example. What will you say to the elderly woman finally obtaining her degree who is on medication that requires her to stay out of direct sun and arthritis that prevents her from stooping over? Will she receive special accommodations? Alternative assignments? How will we know that her altered work is equivalent to what the others are doing? It’s impractical.
This concept is frightening. Compulsory anything can’t be an advancement of a free and democratic society. Don’t be fooled by the guise of altruistic collective ethics. They are just as dangerous as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Any forced humanitarian work will be the demise of individual right and the first stepping stone towards Communism. Dewey misinterprets what’s best for a society, by advancing government intervention in individual decisions of what is considered ethical, or just.
Public School… Prison… What’s The Difference?
I chuckle with wholehearted disgust at John Dewey’s assertion in “Private Education Disrupts Democratic Education System” (https://sites.dwrl.utexas.edu/liberrimus/2017/11/15/private-education-disrupts-democratic-education-system/) that the collectivist values imbued in public schooling’s curricula serve to “[allow] the majority of the population reach their individual freedom”.
Dewey boldly claims that the “encouragement” of parents placing their children in private schools “violates the student’s opportunity to be submerged in various perspectives, cultures, and religions.” I fail to see any violation here; if a student or parent decides that they would rather not engage in an opportunity to be exposed to X or Y, then that is entirely within their prerogative. Johnny here seems to forget that we have the right to pursue our interests, whatever they may be, and are not inherently entitled to them; education, jobs, healthcare, adequate pay, etc. are all commodities — you have the right to obtain these, of course! But you’ll have to earn them. If you yearn for something, you must work hard for it. (Similarly, if an option is as unsavory to you as is Dewey’s argument to me, you could just walk away from it – spend your time striving toward your interests.) The laziness that ensues when individuals feel as though they are entitled to everything is a heavy detriment to the well-being of the country. Rather, the fervor, ambition, and strength of character born of passionate efforts toward self-realization are reflective of both the vitality of the people and of the nation.
Beyond this, encouraging people to enroll their children into public schools is the true evil.
Children are not property of the state — the people responsible for them are their guardians. The government has no place in familial life, since its major and only purpose is to ensure our rights; it is our protective agent, not a separate entity who can extend its own judgements to decide what brand of cereal schools serve and what poisonous propaganda their teachers regurgitate onto our children’s fresh and feeble minds. Schooling, being a commodity, necessitates an intimate agreement made by the parent/student and the teacher deciding the worth of the service. When the government overreaches (whether it be a Federal or National government) and decides what kids ought to learn and what to what to wage their teachers, it nullifies, it destroys, the need for personal agreements because it becomes the one deciding the value! Were anyone entitled by the light of the heavens to any commodities, it would mean that the hard-working endeavors of the individuals providing the services would be given without their deserved cost… I thought you had moved past your adolescence, past slavery, America?
Dewey argues in further perpetuation of slavery, this time, of the mind:
“The state set education system, while separate from other parts of the country, is a broader reflection of the cultural and physical aspects of the given society that each individual who graduates from public schools must assimilate into.”
Individuals are not and should not be constricted by their roles in “society”, because they are people. People’s responsibility is to the self, for acting in accordance to the whims of an invisible collective is a compromise the weak must engage in with total internal dishonesty. Acting in dependence to others disintegrates the sense of self – was America not built on the voraciousness of the individual? If our brightest stars are dulled because of a pressure to conform to the masses, what hope is there for continued intellectual or economic success? The mere thought of forced, or, in Dewey’s terms, “encouraged”, assimilation rattles everything within me, from my sturdy Russian bones to whatever morsel of respect I have left for America, given its tragic Progressive streaks.
Filed under Rand
Natural Disaster Relief Efforts
As I would have expected, the cult of altruism has yet again created an immoral situation out of a moral one. On September 20th of 2017, Hurricane Maria made landfall on the island of Puerto Rico and created a humanitarian crisis for its population. Thus, the Puerto Rican people were thrust into a state of emergency. What is an emergency? As I’ve said before, “an emergency is an unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible. In an emergency situation, men’s primary goal is to combat the disaster, escape the danger, and restore normal conditions.” Since man is not omnipotent and cannot control the weather, or even predict natural disasters sufficiently far in advance, the devastation caused by this hurricane was clearly an emergency for the island of Puerto Rico.
The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) responded by quickly entering into a $300 million contract with a company called Whitefish to repair their island’s energy grid. Whitefish charged 2-3 times the normal rate for repair efforts in the contract, but their company website boasts their ability to mobilize quickly and work in challenging situations. PREPA’s decision makers were on the island and in the emergency themselves, and no amount of money could outweigh the value they put on their own lives. Thus, it was entirely moral for PREPA to have agreed to the contract with Whitefish, since they believed Whitefish had the ability to restore their conditions to normal. In fact, it would have been irrational and immoral for them to have entered a contract simply because it was less costly in dollars, as it would provide fewer resources and incentive for help to come quickly and effectively.
As a Montana-based startup, Whitefish has no apparent personal ties to the people of Puerto Rico. Therefore, the majority of Puerto Ricans can be assumed to be strangers to Whitefish’s decision-makers, and therefore fairly low in their value hierarchy. In any typical situation, it would have been immoral for Whitefish to risk sacrificing their company’s welfare (since PREPA was bankrupt, and the contract itself was risky) and their employee’s lives for Puerto Rico. However, this was a special situation. Puerto Rico in a state of emergency, as I proved above. Additionally, Whitefish’s website boasted that the company was particularly quick and skilled in challenging conditions, and therefore reasonably equipped to help Puerto Rico. Since Whitefish had the ability to help, and Puerto Rico’s situation was an emergency, it was moral for Whitefish to risk sacrifice in this scenario. Yet, Whitefish acted even more rationally than expected by charging higher prices to help compensate for the risks that they were taking. This was specifically Whitefish’s reasoning behind their prices, as explained by their spokesman to the public, and so this is not simply an assumption, but a matter of fact.
However, the evils of altruism couldn’t simply let the virtue of selfishness restore Puerto Rico in a timely and rational manner. Public and political outrage over the higher prices agreed upon in the contract began to influence PREPA away from their initially moral behavior. This outrage was fixated on Whitefish, accusing the company of “price gouging” in an emergency situation. But, if the extra money had not incentivized Whitefish’s contractors to work in these extreme, life-threatening conditions, help would not have come so quickly or effectively to Puerto Rico. Is money actually valued higher than the safety of one’s life? I think not, with the exception of the “altruist” perspective.
A month after Maria hit, PREPA’s CEO caved to altruist pressure and cancelled the deal with Whitefish, explaining that he was “making this determination because it is in the best interest of the people of Puerto Rico.” Due to public criticism for the increased costs that Whitefish was charging, PREPA “unselfishly” ceased construction on the island’s main transmission line that desperately needed repair. Payments were delayed, along with the restoration of power to the island of Puerto Rico. Still, Whitefish retained their morality by making the decision to leave the island when they did not receive the payments that they felt would outweigh the risks they were taking with their own lives. It never ceases to amaze me how irrational the altruistic public can be: without their intervention, fellow human beings would have been willingly and ably saved from this emergency situation. If only the public had not prompted PREPA to question their decision to enter the contract, the situation would have remained moral and rational. I’d love to sincerely ask some of the authors of these articles: how much does a dollar cost, when your life is at risk?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/29/us/whitefish-cancel-puerto-rico.html
Filed under Rand