ObamaCare — How Nice People Crush Freedom

By: sebastianjer , 2:02 PM GMT on April 01, 2012

Share this Blog
0
+



ObamaCare — How Nice People Crush Freedom

by Andrew Klavan

Listening to MSM reports about the Supreme Court judges questioning lawyers on ObamaCare has been kind of comical. As Rand Simberg points out, both the media and the government’s lawyers seemed wholly unprepared for the basic questions from the judges — questions they would have heard a million times by now if they ever actually listened to conservative commentators instead of simply demonizing them. The conservative judges especially are only asking what Tea Partiers at town hall meetings have been asking since the bill was passed: “If the government can force you to buy insurance for your own good, what CAN’T it force you to do?”

Underlying this question though is a larger issue, put forward by economist Friedrich Hayek in “The Constitution of Liberty”:

Not only is liberty a system under which all government action is guided by principles, but it is an ideal that will not be preserved unless it is itself accepted as an overriding principle governing all particular acts of legislation. Where no such fundamental rule is stubbornly adhered to as an ultimate ideal about which there must be no compromise for the sake of material advantages—as an ideal which, even though it may have to be temporarily infringed during a passing emergency, must form the basis of all permanent arrangements—freedom is almost certain to be destroyed by piecemeal encroachments. For in each particular instance it will be possible to promise concrete and tangible advantages as the result of a curtailment of freedom, while the benefits sacrificed will in their nature always be unknown and uncertain.

In other words, there’s always a good reason to take your freedom away — your health, the poor, your evil opinions, the lousy way you raise your kids — and never a reason to preserve freedom except the love of freedom itself. Thus, so often, the people destroying the American way of life are actually nice people who just want to help.

As C.S. Lewis observed:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.


When my son was an adolescent he and his friends used to play what you might call an age-appropriate game. Whenever they would read the fortunes in fortune cookies, they would add the words, “In bed.” So if the cookie declared, “You will have good luck,” they would add, “in bed.” And hilarity would ensue.

I would like the government to play a similar game with the words, “And keep us free.” So when they propose an answer to rising health care costs or poverty or traffic jams or whatever, they are forced to show how the solution will not encroach on our liberty. Because if liberty is not the first principle of government, it will soon be no principle at all.Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

When my son was an adolescent he and his friends used to play what you might call an age-appropriate game. Whenever they would read the fortunes in fortune cookies, they would add the words, “In bed.” So if the cookie declared, “You will have good luck,” they would add, “in bed.” And hilarity would ensue.

I would like the government to play a similar game with the words, “And keep us free.” So when they propose an answer to rising health care costs or poverty or traffic jams or whatever, they are forced to show how the solution will not encroach on our liberty. Because if liberty is not the first principle of government, it will soon be no principle at all.

~~~~~~~~~~~

In line with the above article:

Pelosi's answer to the question about the constitutionality of Obamacare "Are you serious?" was, at the time, seen as the height of simple arrogance which in part it was. But the deeper far more painful aspect of the answer is that I believe she really meant it. The progressive left has so diminished the importance of the constitution in their own minds that they cease to see it as something to be taken into account when designing their authoritarian schemes. What is worse, if possible, they are so obsessed with their agendas that they no longer are able to discern the simplest of limiting principles, not only in their schemes but at all.

To show how untethered the progressive/liberal mind can be both from common sense,critical thinking and simple reality of that which they so obsess over controlling, we need only look at the most recent addition to the Court from that side of the political argument, Justice Elena Kagan.

The following is the entire exchange between the Paul Clement and Justice Kagan on the issue of forced expansion of Medicaid in the states as part of Obamacare. I will post the entire exchange so that you can read it in context:

Mr. Clement: "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court. The constitutionality of the act’s massive expansion of Medicaid depends on the answer to two related questions. First, is the expansion coercive? And second, does that coercion matter?"

Justice Kagan: "Mr. Clement, can I ask you as just a matter of clarification; would you be making the same argument if, instead of the federal government picking up ninety percent of the cost, the federal government picked a hundred percent of the cost?"

Clement: "Justice Kagan if everything else in the statute remained the same I would be making the exact same argument."

Kagan: "The exact same argument so, so that really reduces to the question of: why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?

"In other words, the federal government is here saying: we’re giving you a boatload of money. There are no, is no matching funds requirement. There are no extraneous conditions attached to it.

"It’s just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people’s healthcare. It doesn’t sound coercive to me, I have to tell you."


Putting aside the main theme of the argument which is grounded in the federalist nature of our constitution which Kagan seems to dismiss entirely,the true disconnect from reality is her last statement:


"It’s just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people’s healthcare. It doesn’t sound coercive to me, I have to tell you."


In this statement she seems oblivious as to where that "boatload of money" comes from, as if the Federal Government was some separate entity totally disconnected from both the states but also the people who in fact are the source of her "boatload".

The progressive left and their minions live in an alternate universe where the printing of money to finance their desires has absolutely no negative consequences. The government in their world is a god, dispensing gifts upon incapable, subservient followers.

That is a generous view of this mind set. The other, far darker, scenario is that many on the progressive/left are fully aware of the future dire consequences of their actions and are willfully carrying them out to destroy our current republican form of government. That they are doing this knowing full well that by collapsing the current structure they will be in place to create their own more "benevolent" one.

The two motivations are not exclusives of one another, in fact they compliment each other. For those who live with Utopian world views, it is easy to ignore the darker authoritarian side in the never achievable belief that "the ends justify the means." These people do not understand that the journey is life and the end is as elusive as tomorrow but the means you employ is all you truly are.

Just as Kagan's "boatload of money" is a mythical invention which is actually the fruits of hard working American's labor (either now or in the future) being confiscated by an authoritarian government, so too is the belief in a society run by benevolent bureaucrats. Neither have or can ever exist in the real world.

************************************************* ****
Profile Visitor Map - Click to view visits
Create your own visitor map


()()()()()()()()(()())()()()()()()()()()

The religion of Climate Science

Romney's Pending Sellout on Global Warming

EPA Endangers Human Health and Welfare
()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()

NOT EXACTLY FRONT PAGE NEWS



***

CONSTITUTION 101

History in Pictures


###
TODAY'S QUOTE

"I don't know what the future holds, but I know who holds my future, that's something that has always given me peace and comfort"

Tim Tebow

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 14 - 1

Page: 1 — Blog Index

14. theshepherd
11:53 AM GMT on April 02, 2012
3. Skyepony
"Forcing us to pay for those health costs is our due for being led down the "cheap food & energy" route."

12. Skyepony
"Spathy knows me:)...I don't want forced health care."

************************************************* *

My apologies for misinterpreting your conclusion in post #3.

Spathy knows me also :) ...
Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10030
13. Skyepony (Mod)
5:12 AM GMT on April 02, 2012
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 156 Comments: 36085
12. Skyepony (Mod)
5:08 AM GMT on April 02, 2012
Spathy knows me:)...I don't want forced health care.

Oss~ How backward is Europe they just tried to outlawed GMO foods (I don't think the WTO will let them). Do you have any idea what the food is genetically engineered for? It's also something that can't be contained, is creating super weeds, some of it produces chemical pesticides that are in the food & some feeds a never seen before fungus that lives in the gut & around the reproductive tracts of those that ingest it. There is also 2 different variety that are severely killing back the honeybee population. Without them we starve. GMO isn't making our lives any better, they are making us as a whole fatter & sicker & should be banned or atleast labeled.

The average age young girls start their mentrual cycle in the US is now 8 because of the growth hormones in the meat & the hormones that are fed to cows so they will yield a little more milk. This doesn't happen to girls raised organic meat & dairy. This has been outlawed in several civilized nations.

Commercial chicken & turkeys no longer can live a full life. If they aren't slaughtered when they meet market weight they quickly get too fat to maintain. The turkey might break their legs before they die. The chickens usually just can't get up anymore, their hearts give out or the flock (if made of other breeds) will tend to kill it for being so weak. Don't forget, you are what you eat.

This wouldn't starve people either. GMO isn't saving people from starving. They have made organic more expensive because with the round up in the rain, GMO pollen drift & hormones in the waterways it is harder to produce, plus you have to pay to be certified. Most GMOs are heavily subsidized with taxpayer money to make it cheaper, organic is not. GMO is processing a few crops into many foods with lots of oil instead of labor..which puts people out of work~ increasing the poor. Big Ag has in a very scary way reduced genetic variety which when it comes to our food would help us adapt if need be. I'm a total food snob but probably spend less on food than you because organic food is easy to grow & generally cheaper than you think if your willing to prepare it as apposed to already processed.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 156 Comments: 36085
11. Ossqss
2:30 AM GMT on April 02, 2012
Quoting Skyepony:
Corporations are allowed to pollute, poison us, release radiation, & cause our food to produce pesticides, for the good of the shareholders. This causes many to be chronically ill & die. Chronic illness is way up. We know there are health costs that aren't figured into using coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, Roundup & things like splicing genes into our food so they will produce their own pesticide that the consumer can't even begin to wash off.. Forcing us to pay for those health costs is our due for being led down the "cheap food & energy" route.



So if you have your way how many, of those that count on that daily sustenance from such , still exist any longer?

Ya gotta look at it from different perspectives.

Paralyzing sometimes.........

Kinda like the forcing debate with respect to the climate, no?

OH THE HORROR of food production and medical advances!

Like an infection, no?





Do the math
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8183
10. Skyepony (Mod)
2:26 AM GMT on April 02, 2012
Jer~ I'm talking chronically ill, especially the kids & young adults. There has been studies, what you eat & are environmentally exposed to as a child has a great bearing on life expectancy.. my grandfather's generation has pushed the life expectancy growing up on dandelion rock soup in the depression. Vaccinations have helped as well as the advances in child-bearing.

Things have changed for his greatygreats generation.. This year 1 in 55 boys in the US come down autistic. Asthma affects like 8% of kids. 10% of adults in FL have it..that's ~$11,000 when you take a trip to the hospital for it. I've seen reports as high as 25% of kids in the US having a chronic illness in 2011. I have kids & see what is out there. These studies aren't way off base.. this one is from Harvard..

The number of American children with chronic illnesses has quadrupled since the time when some of their parents were children, portending more disability and higher health costs for a new generation of adults, a study said.

An almost fourfold increase in childhood obesity in the past three decades, twice the asthma rates since the 1980s, and a jump in the number of attention deficit disorder cases are driving the growth of chronic illnesses, according to researchers at Harvard University . The study is published in a themed issue of today's edition of the weekly Journal of the American Medical Association that focuses on children's health.

Doctors and public health officials should be bracing for a wave of chronically ill young adults with weight-related ailments that include diabetes and heart disease, researchers said. In 1960, just 1.8 percent of American children and adolescents were reported to have a chronic health condition that limited their activities. In 2004, the rate rose to 7 percent .

"We will see much greater expenditures for people in their 20s than we ever saw before, and no one is thinking how we should prepare for that," said James Perrin, professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and the report's lead author, in an interview. "We call it an epidemic. It's certainly worrisome, and we look at it as a call to action." (click link for the rest).
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 156 Comments: 36085
9. theshepherd
1:45 AM GMT on April 02, 2012
Quoting Skyepony:
Corporations are allowed to pollute, poison us, release radiation, & cause our food to produce pesticides, for the good of the shareholders. This causes many to be chronically ill & die. Chronic illness is way up. We know there are health costs that aren't figured into using coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, Roundup & things like splicing genes into our food so they will produce their own pesticide that the consumer can't even begin to wash off.. Forcing us to pay for those health costs is our due for being led down the "cheap food & energy" route.



So because shareholders have made money from corporations allowed to pollute because government agencies haven't done their job then it is our responsibility to provide insurance for the shareholders? Or for the illegals picking the vegetables? Or for lazy people who won't work? Or for the irresponsible among us who place their lifestyle above their own medical needs? Or for the Space Coast employees spending billions to visit Mars?

I think your pony has kicked you in the head.





Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10030
8. Ossqss
1:05 AM GMT on April 02, 2012
Progressives seem so regressive.

We did not have them where I come from :)

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8183
6. TemplesOfSyrinxC4
6:39 PM GMT on April 01, 2012
The same entity of bullies are stealing your child's lunch as well and forcing their parents to pay for mechanically separated chicken ammonium hydroxide pink goo,http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_excl usive.html?id=8762

Pink slime that had been used mostly in pet food was approved for human consumption in 70% of the ground meat but has recently been pulled from stores, but still good enough to be served in the public school lunches, but hey- the former under-secretary of the FDA says 'It's pink; therefore, it's meat!' Of course, after her tenure at that the FDA, she's now on the payroll of the American Meat Institute in the very industry she was responsible for regulating as the revolving-door merger of state and corporate power is the real problem we face, where it overlaps and the future foxes are guarding the henhouse. It's like the Wisconsin judge who actually ruled in no uncertain terms that people don't have a fundamental right to drink milk from their own cow or to produce and consume the foods of their choice, then not long after that ruling, quit to join one of Monsanto's law firms.
Member Since: February 5, 2012 Posts: 11 Comments: 271
4. sebastianjer
5:32 PM GMT on April 01, 2012
Re 3

When ideological belief structure ignores reality

Life Expectancy Graphs 1850-2000


No. HS-16. Expectation of Life at Birth by Race and Sex: 1900 to 2001

Just in the 21st Century the life expectancy in the United States has increased from 77.12 years to 78.32 years

Yet people who live in a self-delusional cocoon somehow believe that modern technology brought on by such things as cheap energy and advances in pharmaceutics and food production are somehow (despite all evidence to the contrary) an overall detriment to mankind. And we are called flat earthers. It would be funny if it were not so sad.
Member Since: August 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
3. Skyepony (Mod)
4:53 PM GMT on April 01, 2012
Corporations are allowed to pollute, poison us, release radiation, & cause our food to produce pesticides, for the good of the shareholders. This causes many to be chronically ill & die. Chronic illness is way up. We know there are health costs that aren't figured into using coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, Roundup & things like splicing genes into our food so they will produce their own pesticide that the consumer can't even begin to wash off.. Forcing us to pay for those health costs is our due for being led down the "cheap food & energy" route.

Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 156 Comments: 36085
2. latitude25
2:28 PM GMT on April 01, 2012
Eric Sharp: Michigan surrenders to global warming

T RAVERSE CITY -- Saying that the unusually warm winter was only a hint of future climate change, the Obama administration has given Michigan $136 million for pilot programs to establish an alligator ranch on the east arm of Grand Traverse Bay and a banana plantation on the Leelanau Peninsula.

The alligator ranch began last fall but was kept secret until residents along the shoreline of Grand Traverse Bay launched their boats in March and began noticing big "logs" that disappeared under the surface whenever they were approached.

Lotta Bull, a spokesperson for the Department of Natural Resources, said the agency carefully considered the risks of introducing alligators to Michigan before signing off on the project (for which the DNR will receive a $53-million consultation grant).

"In Florida alligators kill maybe one person a year, three at the outside, and they only bite 200, 300 more," Bull said. "Those numbers might be a little higher in Michigan at first, because people aren't accustomed to look for alligators lurking nearby before they approach the water.

"We figure in the first 10 years we might see gators eat 15 people, no more than 50 tops. But we kill nearly that many on snowmobiles every year, and once Michiganders become accustomed to look for those little bumps sticking up that are the gator's eyes and nose, it should drop back down to about the same rate as in Florida.

Link
Member Since: August 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 3654
1. latitude25
2:25 PM GMT on April 01, 2012
‘Wrong sign paradox’ finally resolved?
Filed under:

Climate Science

— stefan @ 1 April 2012

A group of colleagues has all but solved one of the greatest remaining puzzles in climate science. But the story is not one of scientific triumph – rather, it is so embarrassing that we had controversial discussions in our group whether to break this to a wider public at all.

The puzzle is known amongst climatologists as the “wrong sign paradox” – our regular readers will probably have heard about it. Put simply, it is about the fact that a whole number of things in climate science would fit very nicely together, if only the sign were reversed. If only plus were minus.

The story goes back to the late 1980s or early 1990s (the exact date has not been traced back yet), when a German climate modeller had persistent problems with results of obviously the wrong sign in his model. He was unable to track down the error, so instead he introduced a FORTRAN integer variable called ICHEAT

Link
Member Since: August 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 3654

Viewing: 14 - 1

Page: 1 — Blog Index

Top of Page

About sebastianjer

Local Weather

Scattered Clouds
80 °F
Scattered Clouds