Back to Quack Off
health care? Stop thinking in terms of “collectives,” we are individuals
Aug 7, 2009
DC – We do not have a “national” health care problem. We do not have a
“national” housing problem. Nor do we have a “national” car problem.
We are not
a nation of collectives. We are not The Borg in Star Trek. We are not “The
Public,” “The Public Good,” or "The Masses."
the U.S. Constitution does it state that the Bill of Rights exists to
redistribute the fruits of other people's labor to a collective majority.
On the contrary, the Bill of Rights is an individual rights document that
prohibits infringements upon inherent
individual freedoms obtained from Nature.
freedoms refer to individuals, not collectives. It's not collectives
that have freedom of speech, it's individuals. Freedom of religion is
not guaranteed to collectives qua collectives, it's guaranteed to
individuals. The right to be secure in your own home from illegal
search and seizure is an individual right, not a collectivist right.
"collective" that exists, and it exists as a revocable privilege, is the
government, brought into being by free individuals as the collective
coercive power of force to protect, not infringe upon, our inherent
Therefore, the Bill of Rights is concerned with
individual rights, not collectivist or
"national" rights to receive or redistribute the property rights
It then follows that the health care debate should be concerned with
individual rights of voluntary exchange, not "national" or collectivist
rights or programs that mandate redistribution of the fruits of other
people's labor, specifically services from doctors.
Let's look at the
Medical care is provided by individuals, not collectives. This is true for
all services and commodities and is the basis for free market economics
101A. The concept of “national” health care assumes at its premise that an
individual, say, Joe Doe, has the right to enslave another individual, a
doctor, to force, demand, and coerce involuntary servitude from said doctor
to provide health services to Joe Doe. (Adding in the government as
The Broker does not change this argument.)
condition is one of slavery or involuntary servitude, abolished in Amendment
14 of our U.S. Constitution. Enlarging this slavery to include all doctors
in the nation and/or implementing involuntary servitude using the collective
coercive power of the federal government as The Broker for a National Health
Care Program does not change the fundamental fact that “national” health
care is simply slavery, or involuntary servitude, of the doctors to other
Nor does Democratic
Majority Rule make it right. In fact, Democratic Majority Rule is
simply a tyranny of the majority.
Care proponents apparently think that the more people who engage in a crime,
the less of a crime it becomes. Implementation by the federal government
does not make “national” health care less of a crime against the individual,
both doctor and patient.
So the real issue about the “national” health care issue is an individual
rights issue, not a collectivist issue about how much it costs, how it will
be implemented, or how many people are currently insured.
to defeat President Obama’s “national” health care plan, which is simply a
socialist wolf pack in sheep's clothing, we must stop thinking in terms of
collectives, and start thinking in terms of individuals. We must think
in terms of individual rights and freedoms, the concepts this country was
President and Congress have led us astray in the “national” health care
debate. They want us to first accept their erroneous premises (i.e. they
are trying to obtain the sanction of their victim, which is you.)
Don't fall for it. Collectives have no “rights.” Only
individuals can have rights. And nobody has the right to receive or
demand the fruits of others’ labors, in this case the doctors.
Obama keeps insisting that you, the individual, must sacrifice your
individual rights to the “collective” or “public good.” That's because
Obama is a socialist who is trying to undo the concepts of individual rights
as protected by the U.S. Constitution so that he can implement his state
collectivist concepts. He erroneously assumes that you obtain your
rights from the federal government. And his concept of "rights" means
"rights to receive" health care from doctors. And, as we have seen in
Obama's first 200 days in office, he extrapolates his concept of "rights" to
"rights to receive," which means the redistribution of all services and
commodities in the market according to his grand collectivist scheme.
the government used this same health care reasoning, “national” rights of
the collective, as an excuse to enslave, confiscate, mandate and
redistribute every individual’s product or service to everybody else?
(Oops, they already are: e.g., banks, cars, houses, etc.) We would end up
trying to enforce an untenable, contradictory program of National Reciprocal
Rip-Off Rights, a condition that cannot, in reality, be implemented since it
implies an oxymoron or non sequitur at its very premise: i.e., two people
cannot simultaneously demand to receive the fruits of each other’s labors as
a “right.” Not health care, not education, not homes, not cars, not
anything. Changing the economic service from health care to cars or
tomatoes does not change the argument.
two people cannot simultaneously enslave each other with conditions of a
“rights to receive” philosophy.
And this is the fallacious axiomatic problem with President Barack Obama’s
“national” health care ideology. It is the same problem with all state
collectivist ideologies and is also why state collectivism must always fail
in the end: it violates both (1) The Law of Identity, i.e., two unique or
mutually exclusive things or ideas cannot be the same thing at the same
time, by definition, and (2) The Law of Cause and Effect.
One cannot have
individual rights AND a "national" health care program. And, second,
the establishment of a "national" health care program will have numerous
unintended consequences that must necessarily lead to economic failure.
Socialism, The Cause, will produce anti-free market consequences, The
President Barack Obama’s “national” health care program – even if passed by
Congress over the protests of the people – must end in total economic
failure because its premises – reciprocal rip-off rights to receive – are
based upon illogical premises.
And so we
come to the Big Question: Does Obama know that his premises are false? If
he doesn’t, then he has been “educated” way past his intelligence at Harvard
and Columbia universities. If he does know, then he is simply lying to us
and is out for a big power grab.
the President’s nationalization-of-everything philosophy has a name that he
doesn’t want to say in his speeches, and, in fact, he ridicules those who
accuse him of espousing this hidden philosophy. It’s called “economic
fascism” or “national socialism,” and, in actual historical and current
practice, it is a brutal form of economic rationing -- including human lives
-- because, having destroyed all semblance of a free market, including
subjective price formations, supply and demand, competition, and a hard
money system, a "national" health care system -- like any state collectivist
system that has destroyed the free market -- has no means to “see,” to
gauge, to calculate, or to forecast the very economic information it
destroyed but needs to succeed.
nothing inherent in health care services that exempt it from the laws of
free market economics.
Socialism is its own worst economic enemy since it
is, literally, social and financial suicide on the installment plan.
stop arguing about “national” health care programs and start arguing about
individual rights, rights of you the patient and individual rights of your
doctor. We must re-state our “national” health care debate as getting the
government completely out of the health care business. We must argue for
pro-choice individual rights for health care between the patient and the
doctor in a voluntary free market environment – an environment which does
not exist today due to all the previous governmental interventions into the
individual lives of doctors, patients, insurance companies, and others.
his state collectivists are trying to lead us down the wrong path.
“National” health care is an individual rights issue, not a “collectivist”
health issue. – FM Duck
back to top...