A few days ago I linked to the bizarre reaction of the CNN/Tea Party Debate crowd
to Wolf Blitzer's question of Ron Paul (R-TX), what we
should do if a 30-year-old man who chose not to purchase health insurance
suddenly found himself in need of six months of intensive care? Paul's
reaction was unremarkably honest as usual, "that is
what freedom is all about - taking your own risks." Blitzer followed up, as if the conclusion wasn't
already clear to everyone, "society should just let him die?"
To this, the audience cheered "Yeah!" (and so Topher Morrison records what thousands of
writers have already covered since Monday)
Words have meaning. At a certain point when their definitions
become obfuscated by emotion and ignorance we cease to be able to use them
effectively.
So·ci·e·ty (noun)
A community of people living in a particular country or region
and having
shared customs, laws and
organizations.
Mr. Blitzer knowingly used the word
society to bind our laws (compulsory rules) and by extension
our government (agent of compulsion) with both customs and organizations
of which do not necessarily have anything to do with law or government.
Furthermore, Mr. Blitzer by utilizing this rhetorical sleight of hand
damned both customs and organizations to undue ineptitude without concern or
debate!
Milliseconds later, the audience after not musing on these
facts as audiences invariably do not and in reactionary mob rage, embarrassed
themselves in front of God and country. Essentially the American public heard: "Yeah, society (our
customs, laws, and organizations) should not help this man!"
To the contrary, Dr. Paul briefly touched on the fact that society,
properly defined, engenders thousands of charities, private organizations,
foundations, research groups, doctors, friends, families, etc. which may be
able to lend a hand, when and if, this situation arises. The headlines,
however, were not about Mr. Blitzer's pillaging of the English language, nor were they about Paul's measured response, but about the Tea Party's naked gaff.
Paul Krugman wrote about this
today in the New York Times and proffered a new theory (at least to me) about F.A. Hayek, the esteemed economist with
veritable super powers within the libertarian and conservative circles Dr. Paul
frequents. Mr. Krugman posited that Hayek "supports" (Krugman's words) a "comprehensive
system of social insurance" (Hayek's
words) when Hayek merely claimed the "the case
for...social insurance is very strong." Hayek after writting "Road to Serfdom" (from which these quotes were pulled) in an interview
with two socialist economists Krueger and Merriam from the University of
Chicago, clarified his position on social insurance: "It might well be made optional, which is not in contradiction to its being government assisted, but why
it needs to be made compulsory I do not see in the least [my
emphasis added]."
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Barack Obama's new Affordable
Health Care (snore...) Act are all riddled with mandates and obligations, not to
mention more pages than anyone would care to read. To put it kindly, it is at this point government ceases to be a help and begins to be a burden. Krugman cannot afford
to use Hayek in support of the current paradigm on these grounds. Considering all the
directives stemming from Washington and with all
the love and largesse our government showers upon us it is amazing the
rest of American society continues to feel charity is needed at all.
In the end Mr. Blitzer's question centered on a 30-year-old man who made
the decision not to insure against future travesty, a right he theoretically
exercised and if not helped out would undoubtedly pay dearly for. Yet Paul
Krugman like many liberals and progressives tirelessly proffer the red herring:
"So would
people on the right be willing to let those who are uninsured through no
fault of their own die from lack of care?"
Two things Krugman obviously refuses to understand: insurance is by
definition to insure against future calamity; if you are already sick
(preexisting condition) you can't possibly expect to get coverage, other
options must be sought or created. Moreover, insurance doesn't necessarily save
lives, nor does it lower costs immediately or in the long term and most importantly not one
insurance company, hospital or government for that matter promises an endless
amount of care and for the obvious reason stated succinctly by Mr. Tyler Durden.
The reaction by the Tea Party Expressers is
why the original Tea Party vied for representative government rather than
direct democracy. We need professional leaders, men and women
who can see passed the distortions, understand how to improve liberty and guard
against tyranny mild or aggressive. The most important reasons why we need these sentinels of liberty is to consistently remind Americans, with a cool head, that while life is a right and that government was erected to protect it, our government is not here to perpetuate it. As far as nature is concerned, we are
all star dust; it is up to us to remain human for as long as possible.
(This article is way longer than I
expected, I'm sorry.)
