Bully Statism?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/10/health-care-industry-reps-offer-trillion-savings-source-says/

The way businesses are now terrified of government is very troublesome. The healthcare industry is begging to be spared rough treatment by this administration and congress. Since fascism is such an ugly word and offends so many people, and since socialism has a specific meaning we haven't yet met, can we just call it bully statism?

I recommend everyone trace the effects we witness in healthcare today back to the orginal causes -- don't be surprised when you find at the end of the search the heavy hand of government. Through the years, government has set the stage for a takover, one intervention at a time.

Something that's sadly funny and ironic

It might take a political leader to lead the country back to freedom, and to teach the country how to utilize the private sector so as to avoid tyranny in the future.

Historically, great men and women have risen when there's a great need. Sadly, it will most likely take someone with political influence to, ironically, lead the nation away from government dependence. The public doesn't seem to hear the voices in the private sector calling for a libertarian turn -- they think it's merely capitalists trying to trick them into allowing businesses to run the country. You know how tricky those capitalists can be.

The reason this is funny, as well as sad and ironic, is that Americans should know that freedom is our best route to the future, but it will take someone in politics to teach this to a public that has forgotten or was never taught properly -- there's something humourous about a politician saving the nation from politics. Whoever this leader is, he/she will have to be persuasive, reasonable and patient. Actually there's a great opportunity for the right person, for someone who has the confidence to stand up to statism and unwaveringly hold firm to libertarian principles. Once the public understands that the private sector has the power to provide everything government is attempting to provide, and the capability to provide it more efficiently and productively without coercion, it will catch on.

Most people will believe this is impossible but I envision a technologically advanced society understanding and embracing the concepts, especially once government begins to show signs of collapse, which may be in the very near future. Disgust with both parties will increase the liklihood of a third party rise which captures the independents, which now almost outnumber Democrat voters, and do outnumber Republican voters, although this leader could arise in either party. If the trend continues of both parties losing support, in a few years independents will be the largest voting bloc. There is also a possibility that the millions and millions who never vote will become politically active and join the independents in a new direction toward freedom -- this could change everything.

I predict this leader will show up on the national scene within the next ten years and that independents  will flock to the call. By this time media will have changed drastically and the influence of the MSM will be weakened significantly. Government is overreaching and it will take time for public awareness to sink in and create a backlash -- and when the backlash happens, it's not a given that Republicans will be the beneficiaries. It's time to get out of the vicious loop we've been in going in circles with Democrats and Republicans spiralling downwards. Remember you read it here.

Special interest warfare at its finest

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-05-10-healthcare-reform_N.htm?csp=34

Who knows what mongrel monstrosity will be created when all is said and done, but one thing is assured -- it won't be the best healthcare system in the world -- no, it will be a Rube Goldberg nightmare, most likely. If nationalized healthcare is allowed to go through, it's official -- we've lost our minds.

Political intensity --to the point of falsification

http://clubtroppo.com.au/2009/05/10/libertarianism-an-ideology-for-socially-retarded-adolescent-white-guys/

Peter Thiel is right, politics is way too intense -- the article above is an example of how intense politics gums up debate over issues and through ad hominem attacks renders objectivity impossible. There is a big difference between a critique of womens' voting patterns and claiming women shouldn't have the right to vote, and anyone who doesn't understand the difference may be retarded (they started it) in more ways than one. PC is far too limiting for an advanced society.

I've got a foundation for you -- a libertarian foundation

The time is quickly approaching when society will be forced to re-evaluate statism. Between the private sector and statism, statism has won the war without having to engage in a battle. Even those who have no special love for government intervention concede to the status quo conclusions that statism is essential for the creation and management of public goods and welfare. It seems very few people can envision a world without government to provide for the needs of society. Only those who have chosen free-thought and have looked at the possibilities of privatization understand how conclusions regarding statist essentialism are unproven.

We desperately need clear thinking on this subject and a re-evaluation of old ideas. The next time a statist uses a standard justification, like road-building, to rationalize government intervention, ask them to prove their claim that only government can provide what society collectively needs. But before we get into the specifics of who does what, the national mindset needs to change to understand that privatization is the best first choice to consider before concluding government intervention is essential.

The political class and officious commanders of government-run education have a done a good job indoctrinating the nation to reach the conclusion of statist essentialism, but the reality is that the private sector can be trusted to more efficiently handle most of the problems we rely on government to resolve. But first there must be effort to allow the private sector to develop solutions. I'm using "statist essentialism" as an awkward term to refer to the idea that certain powers and responsibilities are essential to government, and that absent these powers and responsibilities government wouldn't be government. We have given government the powers and responsibilities it now possesses, and we can take them away. There is no reason to conclude that the powers and responsibilities which now make up government are essential to governance. Only in the minds of statists are these powers and responsibilities essential - this is the liberal ideology which liberals claim is non-existent in the liberal plan. Although libertarians are the ones charged with being narrow-minded ideolouges, libertarians propose artful persuasion and competition of ideas in a free market, while the new liberals insist on the monopolistic ideas which make statism critical to governance.

Education freed from government-control would no doubt diversify education and encourage free-thinking, which would do great damage to the statist cause, as alternatives to statism would be taught in schools where the ability to think freely would be more important than what's proper to think. Statists have an incentive to control education and the media, so the message is controlled and order is safegaurded. The elitist mindset of statists is much like the elitist mindset of religious leaders following the Middle Ages -- to instill order and to teach society the proper means of living well, message control is vital, as well as the ability to enforce morality. Liberal statists would deny being moralists, but there is no other way to understand their need to engineer society according to their ideas of equality, justice, economic fairness, proper relationship to the environment, etc. 

Some thinkers say that libertarians advocating a limited government don't understand how much government has to control and therefore anything short of anarchy is an admission that statism is essential -- conversely, insisting on a government limited to police, military and courts would show the world how little the state needs to control, and it might even show there are better ways to provide protection and court systems. The point is a change of emphasis is needed, from statist essentialism to the possibility that the state is not even needed in a free society. With this change of emphasis, we could possibly find that government is needed for a few collective needs regarding the protection of basic rights, but this not a given until the emphasis is changed and an objective assessment is made.

The evil that the liberal statists protect society against is capitalism -- poverty, pollution, inequality, minority oppression and destruction of the environment caused by an unregulated market. There's no evidence that in 2009 a free market would cause all these evils, but most people have accepted this as the justification of liberal statism. If it's true that society values wealth-creation open to all, a healthy environment, fairness and equal opportunity, then there's no reason to believe these would not be freely chosen and implemented in a non-coerced fashion, but most people have been taught that it's impossible for the private sector to achieve this type of society. We're asked to believe that these values can only be achieved through the moral actions of elected representatives who force society into acceptance. What's ignored is the dangers of government power, incompetence of government programs and the politicization of social problems, i.e., special interest warfare. The problems of corruption, corporate welfare and favoritism are swept under the rug, or written off as the price of doing business with the government, necessary evils that go long with the welfare state and public goods.

We're at a point where the price of doing business with the government is too high and too wasteful, and the loss of freedom is far too great. The alternative is a re-evaluation of privatization -- the answer is free choice. There's a difference between criticizing government for certain abuses and demanding a limited government with a complete separation of economy and state. Statists defend government intervention without considering an alternative. Unless we develop a mindset which looks to the private sector first, the conclusion that statism is essential will always favor government engineering to deal with societal problems.

We are weakening communities, hamstringing private charity, stultifying innovation, homogenizing education and a creating a nation of apathetic dependents. Rather than taking an entrenched, unexamined position to justify the state, all citizens must realize the power of the private sector and objectively assess our ability to handle problems without the use of government force. The more power we give government to micromanage society and our economy, the closer we get to soft tyranny, then hard tyranny. Anyone who believes America could never fall under the rule of hard tyranny is delusional. When you wake up one day and realize your choices have been removed, don't say you weren't warned.