There is a problem, but the problem is not the government.
Let us not mistake the effect for the cause.
The oft repeated quote of Ronald Reagan "Government is
not a solution to our problem, government is the problem" is currently contrasted
to Barak Obama's various goals, regulations, laws and the rest whereby income
distribution, healthcare, green energy among other things are to be modified by
government to ensure 'fairness' and that people are provided for (How well
Reagan followed his own words and that Obama and his administration is not the
only administration to push government as the answer will not the focus in this
article.)
If we combine the two points of view, we will come to the
real issue that needs to be addressed: Reagan's admonition was the criticism of
the sign of the sickness that gives rise to Obama's virulent programs. Government is not the problem; it is the
result of the problem.
The problem is multilayered: the belief that in some legal form
we are 'our brother's keeper' and equally, they are our keeper; that democracy,
majority rule, can override moral and economic principles; that there should be
a legal base to have categories of people and treat them different legally;
that it is proper to use force to make individuals conform to the will/whim of
the authorities, whether those authorities are the collective, or the
representatives of that collective.
On being our brother's
keeper:
The very notion of welfare (corporate and individual) as
well as Obamacare and all healthcare permutations (Medicare, Medicaid, et cetera) is that someone is suffering,
so the government must step in and help those who need it.
On majority rule
overruling principles:
This ranges over the various areas of life whereby it is
deemed 'the majority willed it, so all must follow'. Defenders of such a policy (when their side
wins) are quick to decry that in politics 'to the victor go the spoils', though
they are quick to contest and protest the results as invalid if their side did
not win. The 'spoils' are not
necessarily a specific good, but more importantly the legal use of force to
implement a plan, an agenda.
Two things not answered by majority apologists, since they
are quick to defend their vague quantitative measure for 'majority rule'; 1) at
what point does the majority overrule individual rights?- 2) how does the
majority deciding 2+2=5 make it so?
Examples include: gun control and abortion - at what point is the
majority a majority enough to dictate the options to the minority? More examples include: Obamacare, taxes and
subsidies - how much of a majority is needed to overrule the law of supply and
demand, ignore the punishing presence of taxes, and the how the otherwise
unworthy will flourish when the State/government takes from the sufficient and
gives to the insufficient?
On legal classism:
There are only two questions the government should be able
to ask for census data: 1) are you alive? - 2) are you legally an adult? Anything beyond those questions is the
beginning on legal classism. Legal
classism is when two groups are categorized, made distinct from one another, in
order for one of them to get some form of a legal benefit or punishment;
subsidy or tax; permit or license fee.
Classism is a pragmatic tactic; it is done for an end,
whether it is to spur or stifle a given behavior.
Want to promote 'clean air'?-create 'green' companies and
policies that get subsidies, while pushing new taxes and fees to those
companies that are not green. Want to
push 'healthy behaviors'?-create 'sin' taxes, and legislate away or limit
smoking, sugar, salt, alcohol et al. Want to get elected?-divide the people along socioeconomic
status lines and pit them against each other; there are fewer 'rich' (a
relative term for many poor in America
would be considered rich elsewhere on Earth), so as a numbers game, it
pragmatically pays off.
However, any form of classism, in embracing a pragmatic end,
also embraces a principle: there is to be legal distinction between groups
based on a given characteristic. With
one application, the principle has been set and another group wants to emerge
and have its boon to be received. Have a
subsidy for corn?-why not wheat, cotton, soybean, rice, et al? (They each are now
subsidized, but there are other crops that are not.) Does one group have 'too much wealth'?-take
some of it away to give to others… who voted for the transfer from the other
group to their own.
On legal use of force
to make people conform:
The government has the legal use of force initiation, through
(only after) due process as in the pursuit and apprehension of a criminal (and
properly, should only be after someone's rights were violated - outside of
that, what this article addresses). Everyone
has the right to use force in self-defense.
The issue here is in the lack of violating another's rights, the use of
force to make people obey the dictates of the law.
It does not matter the end: whether it is for the forced
one's 'own good' or for the forcer's benefit (or the one who hired the forcer -
a special interest - under the guise of the 'greater good'). From speed limits, prohibition, caloric
restrictions, concealed-carry laws as for our own good, to for the forcer's (or
for who the forcer is a proxy of) benefit such as legal requirements of accreditation,
licensing fees/permits and union laws.
The goal is to make the chosen ones the only options, keeping others
out.
Obama's crown jewel piece of legislation (like the
re-ratification of the Patriot Act, passed by both Republicans and Democrats,
or similar plans like Romneycare) Obamacare crosses all aspects of the problem:
we are each others' keeper, majority opinion overrules principles, legal
classism and the use of force to make people obey. The nature of Obamacare and its creation and
implementation has the following: that there are some people suffering;
everyone must by the force of law be made to support the suffering group; that
can only be done after legal classes have been defined (the haves and
have-nots); implemented regardless that adding millions more to the demand, and
not increasing supply is supposed to make health care (actually medical care)
more available and cheaper, and is placed upon all whether it is wanted or not
by each individual.
The problem is the idea itself that government can be turned
to in order to resolve individual and social issues. Life involves constant struggle in small and
large forms: food, shelter, healthcare and many other goods each require
investment of money, material and labor; there are those who are ignorant,
incongruent, or knowingly biased and prejudicial but see it as part of their
belief system: the 'other' ethnicity, or women, or homosexuals are
inferior. There is no legislation that
can be passed that can override the fact of production of limited goods, using
limited resources, just as there is no law that can be voted on that will make
people think critically, empathize or feel compassion. There is no way that any governing body can
guarantee bounty, and avoid risk for anyone.
Those who offer such protection and safety only can claim such boons,
while what they do is nothing more than 'legally' steal from one to give or pay
for another.
None of this takes away from our individual preference to
categorize, to classify according to our preferences - weighing, valuing,
judging and choosing is a great part of what it is to be human. Having the government make our choices for us
by legal restrictions removes in small or great parts through each law passed,
a piece of our ability to act as humans.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is
force. Like fire, it is a dangerous
servant and a fearful master." - George Washington.
Government is not the problem; it is the sign of the
problem. The problem is the notion that
the government should be turned to in order to resolve individual and social
issues, forcing all of us to obey. The
answer to the problem is free people interacting freely. Will the perfect option be chosen every time?-no. But it will be chosen more often, and adopted
to more quickly than the mandated error of slow legislation of government that
carries with it the legal force of the State behind it. That is the pragmatic concern. Morally, only free choice can lead to moral
decisions.
