The Moral Argument Against ObamaCare for Mr. Ed Schultz

Ed Schultz, host of the Ed Show on MSNBC, spoke with a minister who opposes the Affordable Health Care law (aka ObamaCare).  The minister argued that ObamaCare was costly and basically a bad deal for America.  Mr. Schultz told the minister that millions of Americans who are currently uninsured will be provided health insurance through ObamaCare.  He also pointed out that under ObamaCare no one can be denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions.  Then Mr. Schultz asked the minister to make the moral case for denying insurance to these currently uninsured people and to make the moral case against ObamaCare.  The minister's response was weak. He seemed unprepared for the question. Here's how I think the minister should have responded.

Mr. Schultz is it moral to steal things from other people? Is it moral to use force to make other people do what you want them to do against their will? Is it moral to lie? Is a law that causes people to suffer and die needlessly moral? ObamaCare is based on the immoral principles of force, theft, and dishonesty.

Health care is a limited resource.  Today we have the best quality and the greatest quantity of health care on Earth right here in the United States and it is available to everyone. Health care costs money and there is no way a person can know in advance just how expensive it might be. Insurance is a service that is available to those who want to insure their risk against these unknown future costs.  Some people choose to buy insurance to reduce their risk; some people do not wish to make this investment. Under ObamaCare the government will use force to make everyone purchase insurance whether they want to or not.  Mr. Schultz it is not right to make a person buy something that they do not want even if someone else believes that that something is good for that person.  Forcing another person to act against his or her will is immoral.

Under ObamaCare no one can be denied insurance for any reason including a pre-existing condition therefore the cost of insurance will increase exponentially.  ObamaCare empowers the government to impose new taxes to subsidize the insurance companies and other special interests to cover this cost gap. These are additional tax dollars that most Americans would rather keep and use to support their families.  Taking money that taxpayers have earned with their own labor and giving that money to government selected insurance companies and other special interests is nothing short of theft.  Mr. Schultz theft is immoral.

Under ObamaCare, “unlimited” amounts of health care will now be "free" to millions of people who would previously have been expected to pay for those limited resources.  But there are not enough doctors and other medical professionals to provide unlimited quantities of health care to millions of people for free and there never will be.  ObamaCare promises unlimited access to limited resources. This promise is a lie that will hurt everyone, the poorest among us most of all.  Mr. Schultz, Lying is immoral.

The Affordable Health Care Act (ObamaCare) is a vast maze of government policies, procedures, rules, restrictive regulations, and micro-controls that will be anything but affordable.  ObamaCare will greatly increase the amount of waste and bureaucracy in all aspects of the health care and insurance industries. ObamaCare is based on the economic fantasy that a government bureaucrats can outperform a competitive market economy.  No way.

The ObamaCare bureaucracy will stifle innovation, drive costs up and reduce the quality, quantity, and availability of health care resources in the United States. ObamaCare is a bloated, costly, bureaucratic system designed to transform the world's best health care system into something that looks a lot like the Department of Motor Vehicles.  Under the bureaucratic morass that is ObamaCare millions will suffer and die as they wait for innovations that never emerge, and millions more, mostly poor people, will stand in line for years waiting for doctors that never became doctors because ObamaCare made it unprofitable for them to do so. Under the ObamaCare bureaucracy people will suffer and people will die who would not have suffered and would not have died had this law based in economic fantasy never been imposed upon the American people.

Mr. Schultz ObamaCare is immoral because it is based on the immoral principles of force, theft, and dishonesty. For the sake of our nation and especially for those less fortunate who will suffer the most, this immoral law must be de-funded and overturned.  Thank you for having me on your show.

Mark VanSchuyver

Presidential Double Speak

I'm watching the President on TV as he gives his State of the Union address. The President is a master of double-speak. Just listen to what he says and translate the double speak back to reality.  Investments = Tax money spent on government boondoggles (e.g. the nearly one trillion dollar failed stimulus package).  Revenue = tax increases.  Level playing field = take from producers and give to takers and special interests.  Climate change = shutting down the private sector for the sake of special interests.  Gun control = termination of the second amendment (i.e. termination of the inalienable right of self-defense). Alternative energy investments = pouring taxpayer money into boondoggle technologies e.g. ethanol, windmills, electric cars, and solar panels.

To the president, free market = government takeover of healthcare, the auto industry, the finance industry, and more.  In the President's double speak responsible business management = massive, crippling regulations that do nothing to keep us safer, healthier, or protect our environment while crushing innovation.  Initiatives = government spending on special interests when the government is broke.  To the president job creation = government jobs, i.e. jobs paid for by tax money.  Investment in education = money thrown down the failed rat-hole of government schools. Immigration reform = amnesty for illegal immigrants at the expense of legal immigrants. The president's paycheck "fairness act" = social engineering.  His recommended minimum wage increases = forcing employers to pay pay people more than they can afford to pay so that thousands of entry level workers don't get hired at all. Shared prosperity = forced equality of outcome and food stamps for all. Improving the voter experience = federal government take-over of the voting process. Violence where guns are used = "gun violence" as if guns are alive and cause violence so therefore guns and the right to self-defense must be banned. Due process for American suspects = drone strike.

I'm turning the TV off now.  The double speak is making me sick to my stomach.  We have a slick talking nanny-state collectivist in the Oval Office demanding bigger and bigger government and less and less personal liberty. I won't sleep well tonight. After that speech, if you care about America, you shouldn't either.

Mark VanSchuyver

Retro-Gun-Control

President Obama is pushing hard for gun control including the banning of sporting rifles and other firearms that he deems offensive.  Members of the Senate including the Honorable Dianne Feinstein are demanding gun control and gun bans. Many liberals are calling for an overturn of the Second Amendment. “The Second Amendment is out date they say.” This is all very confusing to me.  I thought the Second Amendment was there to protect the inalienable right to self-defense.  Unable to get good answers from the media I decided to take a retro-trip. I jumped into the Delorean and travelled back in time to interview the folks who know best the meaning of the Second Amendment. I managed a round-table interview with several of our Founding Fathers, Mr. Washington, Mr. George Mason, Mr. Lee, Mr. Henry, Mr. Madison, Mr. James Mason, Mr. Adams, Mr. Pitt, and Mr. Jefferson. Here’s the transcript.

Liberty 301: Mr. President, what role do firearms play in American society?

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence… from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable… the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference, they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

Liberty 301: Who should be armed?

George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed."

Liberty 301: Mr. Mason what would happen if our government bans firearms?

George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."

Liberty 301: Mr. Mason, the Second Amendment says, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.  You are the co-author of the Second Amendment.  What did you mean by militia?

George Mason: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people."

Liberty 301: Mr. Lee, do you agree or disagree with Mr. Mason?

Richard Henry Lee, "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves."

Liberty 301: Mr. Henry, who should be armed in American Society.

Patrick Henry: "The great object is that every man be armed. And everyone who is able may have a gun."

Liberty 301: Mr. Madison In my time most countries have banned private ownership of firearms?  Why should the United States be any different?

James Mason: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Liberty 301: Mr. Adams, does the Constitution give elected leaders the authority to disarm some Americans?

Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

Liberty 301: Mr. Pitt people in my time say that things are out of control and that it is necessary that we ban the ownership of firearms.

Mr. William Pitt: "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

Liberty 301: Mr. Jefferson, many people in my time argue that the Second Amendment is about hunting.  What was the main reason for preserving the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment?

Thomas Jefferson: "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Liberty 301: Mr. Jefferson will we have less crime if our government imposes more gun control and gun bans?

Thomas Jefferson:  "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes."

Liberty 301: Mr. Jefferson will we be safer if our government bans guns and adds more gun control laws?

Thomas Jefferson: "Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Wow. The Founders were pretty clear on the purpose of the Second Amendment being the inalienable right to self-defense.  To get the other side of the argument I set the Delorean for jump into the recent past to talk to a famous, hard-core liberal, Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey.  Here’s the transcript.

Liberty 301: Mr. Vice President, should American citizens be allowed to keep and bear arms when the citizens of most other countries are not?

Hubert H. Humphrey: "The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."

I’m back.  The Delorean is parked. It is clear to me that the President and the liberals in Congress are not on the same page with Mr. Washington, Mr. George Mason, Mr. Lee, Mr. Henry, Mr. Madison, Mr. James Mason, Mr. Adams, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Humphrey, or Yours Truly.  Mr. Obama, Mrs. Feinstein and dozens of other liberals in office and out are advocating for the termination of our inalienable right to self-defense. It’s up to us to stop them, or as Thomas Paine said, "Those who reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."

Mark VanSchuyver

Left Vs. Right? No way!

It is popular to describe the political divide in the USA as left vs. right.  I don’t think this is accurate at all.  For example the “left” traditionally advocates for bigger government, entitlement programs, and restrictions of personal liberties but try to find a “righty” who really wants a balanced budget amendment, privatized social security, or privatized schools.  Everyone in the Executive Branch and most members of Congress are big government guys and gals.  In other words they are all “left,” some are just a tad more “left” than others.

To me a more accurate way of describing the divide in politics is to contrast the two fundamentally different world views that underlie virtually all political arguments; Individualism and Collectivism.

Individualism regards man, every man (or woman) as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individualism.html

Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group—whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.” http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/collectivism.html

How can you determine whether you are an Individualist or a Collectivist at heart?  Here is a simple test.  Print the page.  Put a check next to the statement on each row that best describes your world view.

Individualist		Collectivist
	What’s mine is mine; what’s yours is yours		What’s yours is mine
	I am responsible for me		You are responsible for me
	What I earn is mine		What you earn is mine
	I have value; others have value		Others have value; I have no value
	I am accountable for my actions		You are accountable for my actions
	The world does not owe me a living		The world owes me a living
	Equality of opportunity		Equality of outcome
	I own me		Others own me
	My freedom ends where your nose begins		Both of our noses belong to the government

Now you know where you stand philosophically. It's not left or right that means much, It's Individualism Vs. Collectivism that matters.  As for me, I agree with this guy:

"There is only one kind of freedom and that's individual liberty."
Ron Paul

Mark VanSchuyver

 

Newspeak on Gun Control

The Orwellian name change for anything that has to do with firearms continued this week and last with the President and Vice President's rebranding of the term “gun control,” with newspeak, "I don't view it as gun control, I view it as gun safety," Vice President Biden said. The term gun control is now oldspeak. From now on watch for the word “gun safety” to come from the mouths of politicians and the media because gun control just became an unword.

In case you haven’t read George Orwell’s classic dystopia, “1984,” Orwell envisioned a totalitarian society in which the government sought absolute control in part by changing the language from English (i.e. oldspeak) to a new language (i.e. newspeak) that eliminates “any vocabulary that expresses such concepts as freedom, free enquiry, individualism, resistance to the authority of the state . . .” – Wikipedia. 

Here are just a few of the newspeak terms that the government and the media have created to control your thoughts on the gun debate:

• Newspeak, gun safety. * Oldspeak, gun control and gun banning.
• Newspeak, military assault rifles. * Oldspeak, sporting rifles and hunting rifles.
• Newspeak, gun violence.  * Oldspeak, violence perpetrated with a gun.
• Newspeak, automatic weapons, i.e. machine guns.  * Oldspeak, semi-automatic weapons.
• Newspeak, high capacity clips.  * Oldspeak, standard magazines.
• Newspeak, "preserve" the Second Amendment. * Oldspeak, overturn the Second Amendment, ban confiscate all firearms, ammunition, and accessories starting with 158 popular sporting and hunting rifles.

So now, using newspeak, the government (Big Brother) can “preserve the second Amendment” (i.e. ban and utlimately confiscate all firearms starting with 158 popular sporting rifles and hunting rifles), get “military guns and machine guns” off the street (i.e. ban popular sporting rifles and hunting rifles), and increase “gun safety” (i.e. implement draconian gun control laws starting with a ban on standard magazines and more than 158 popular civilian firearms), and eliminate "gun violence" (i.e. disarm Americans and eliminate the Second Amendment) without actually saying so.

Mark VanSchuyver

 

Mexican Coke!

I'm crazy about Mexican Coca-Cola. Mexican Coke is the real thing! This is because Mexican Coke is made with real sugar. Yum! As far as I can determine Mexican Coke follows the original Coke recipe. This is not true of "Coke Classic" because Coke Classic is made with corn syrup. Yuck!

How did this happen. Well, you may not be old enough to recall "New Coke." After getting trounced by Pepsi in the "Pepsi Challenge" (blind taste tests pitting Coca-Cola against Pepsi Cola) in the 1980s, Coca-Cola reformulated their product and conducted their own blind taste tests. New Coke won and management decided to dump their original formula for sweeter, New Coke.

The switch was made in record time. Almost overnight the original Coke left the shelves and New Coke took its place. But the people, including yours truly, rebelled. New Coke was universally rejected. Coca-Cola management was forced to pull New Coke off the shelves. Rather than return to the original formula, however, they reformulated Coca-Cola again removing the real sugar and replacing it with corn syrup. The new/old Coke was rebranded as Coca-Cola Classic. I've never forgiven them for this.

For years I wondered why they didn't just put the original Coke back on the market. Then I discovered what I believe to be the root cause, import restrictions on sugar. You see our government wants us to buy American made sugar. To see that we do they imposed import restrictions on sugar including those in the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981. I believe that this is why Coke Classic and lots of other sweet drinks are made with corn syrup rather than sugar in the USA.

The big losers from federal sugar programs are U.S. consumers. The Government Accountability Office estimates that U.S. sugar policies cost American consumers about $1.9 billion annually. At the same time, sugar policies have allowed a small group of sugar growers to become wealthy because supply restrictions have given them monopoly power. The GAO found that 42 percent of all sugar subsidies go to just 1 percent of sugar growers. To protect their monopolies, many sugar growers, such as the Fanjul family of Florida, have become influential campaign supporters of many key members of Congress. - Agricultural Regulations and Trade Barriers, Chris Edwards

Score! By accident I discovered Mexican Coke at my local grocery store's Hispanic section. Lo and behold Mexican Coke is made with real sugar, yum! No import restrictions on sugar in Mexico I suppose? Long story short I now have access to real Coke and so I now officially forgive Coca-Cola for changing its formula to include corn syrup (yuck) instead of real sugar (yum) in the USA. It wasn't their fault really; it was bad governmental policy that killed the original Coke.

Mark VanSchuyver
 

Gun Violence?

Since the President started his efforts to impose gun control and gun bans on us I've been paying close attention to the way the media talk about the issue.  One of the most interesting things is how the media refer to violent acts using firearms as "gun violence."  Gun violence sounds like newspeak to me.  Guns don't do violent things.  People do violent things.  What if the media used this rhetoric when talking about violence perpetrated with other tools?  Here's how the headlines might look.

• Two killed in car violence today.  A crazed driver purposefully crashed his car into a crowd at the corner market . . .
• Fifty-nine murdered in bomb violence. Fifty-nine died and dozens more were injured when a suicide bomber wrapped himself in dynamite and blew up a wedding party . . . .
• One killed in paper weight violence. Woman kills abusive husband with single whack on the head with a paper weight . . .
• One killed in water violence.  Police say a crazed swimmer killed his swimming coach by holding him under water for four minutes . . .
• Two killed in stapler violence.  A man killed two people today with a metal stapler . . .
• Three killed in bat violence.  A man used a baseball bat to bludgeon three pedestrians to death . . .
• One killed in knife violence.  A woman stabbed her boyfriend to death after an argument . . .
• One killed in fist violence.  Former boxer bashes buddy to death in fisticuffs frenzy . . .
• Seventeen killed in fire violence.  An arsonist killed seventeen people by setting fire to their apartment complex . . .

Why do the media use different language when speaking about violence done with firearms than violence done with anything else?  I suspect it is because most folks in the media are opposed to the right of self-defense and the Second Amendment that protects that right. Using newspeak helps the media frame the debate in the negative.

Mark VanSchuyver