The other day I was walking down the street after having picked up my lunch when I saw something entirely repulsive. It was an honest to goodness meter-maid. She was somewhat mannish in appearance, but was nevertheless a meter-maid. Come to think of it, I think she was also rather hirsute. Be that as it may, that is not what caused my repulsion. As I observed her I could see that she had been marking tires and was in the process of placing a parking ticket on some unlucky soul's windshield. So what is the big deal? It was just another case of the government against the people.

GOTCHA! We want your money.

Half of the parking spaces on the street were empty, but the city was zealously enforcing its three hour parking limit. Heaven forbid that someone might spend too much time and money in the city's retail district. They might even want to go to lunch and shopping! They might even go to a show. Then the city (which will remain nameless) will be sure to get a few bucks that they can mismanage. After all, what does a private citizen need all that money for anyway? The point is that there was really no need for the city to enforce this draconian ordinance except to squeeze money out of a few people. It just belies the fact that somewhere some government functionary is out to get you. They hold power over you. If we the people are going to allow people in their function as government representatives to have power over us shouldn't it at least be for something important? But the fundamental premise here really is that the people are a resource of the government. In this specific case the city government wants money which means labor. I trade my labor (my time working) for money. Then the government demands their cut so that among other things it can be used to pay their people to further intrude on my life.

How do you feel knowing that you are a "resource." You are their source of money and, depending on your age, either you or your children are a military resource. The political class has few regrets consuming your hard-earned income as well as the lives of your children in the carnage of war. The political class grows fat in its gluttony- sucking the very marrow out of the common man. And their lust for power is insatiable and feed their pride and arrogance even unto the point when they forget their own kinship in mortality. Almost every elected official from city councilman to president of the USA sees himself as a conductor and all the rest of us as the members of the orchestra. Do I really want to be a resource to be directed by the hand of the state? Not really. And I sure as hell don't really want that for my children either. You also have to think about what this says about what kind of person really has as a goal in life to be the leader and tell all of the little people what to do. A megalomaniac? Maybe. A busybody? Almost certainly.

On Tolerance

Tolerance is proclaimed over and over again to be one of the great virtues of our ostensibly postmodern age. It seems to walk hand-in-hand with the other proclaimed virtue of diversity. If one is accused of being intolerant of people who are, or who behave differently, or who believe differently, then the accused is understood to be some sort of troglodyte worthy of extreme verbal excoriation and social stigma, and perhaps legal action as well! And what is wrong with this? Who could possibly be against tolerance? The issue is, of course, that the American "liberals" who preach tolerance (and diversity) practice intolerance while deriding their opponents as intolerant.

What the modern American liberal doesn't seem to understand is that tolerance is only possible when we vehemently disagree with something or someone. Let us examine homosexuality in the light of our topic. The traditionalist conservative society which enforces anti-homosexuality laws does not practice tolerance in this issue. This case is such that the majority sees homosexuality as wrong and has determined that the power of the state be brought to bare against its practice. Conversely, this modern American liberal (hereafter liberal), in the expression of his social liberalism, might see nothing wrong with homosexual practice and consequently celebrate it as an example of diversity. Neither group has practiced tolerance. The man who sees homosexuals as deviants but who nevertheless believes that they have a right to live their lives unagressed upon by both their neighbors as well as the police power of the state practices tolerance. A person can only be tolerant of something with which he disagrees. What the modern American liberal really has done is confuse tolerance and acceptance. (I chalk this up to sloppy thinking, but it could actually be strategic in its origin.)

The liberal says that he loves diversity. But this love certainly does not extend to a diversity of thoughts and opinions. The television and print media in the United States march lock-step for the Democratic Party and a left-of-center worldview with almost total hegemony. There is only one center-right television network which is allied with the Republican Party. For this, Fox News is viciously savaged. Fox News may not be totally "fair and balanced" as they purport themselves to be, but more importantly they provide balance to the other networks. The liberals who control the government-media complex are intolerant of the diversity of opinions found in a free society. Because the Democrat Party liberals have controlled the major media for so long and so completely, the non-conforming media has mostly been relegated to the Siberian tundra of A.M. radio. Lo! and behold! Left alone, A.M. radio became strong and viable because of the freedom found there. And as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, the Democratic Party apparatchiks and liberal ideologues find not joy in the diversity of varying viewpoints and tolerance for those who see things differently than themselves. In the name of tolerance they descend as locusts and brand their enemies as purveyors of hate and ignorance to whom no one should listen. In the name of diversity they demand the power of government be used to diminish or silence the voices of their opposition through appeals to the Orwellian "fairness doctrine." How tolerant! To the Democratic Party liberal diversity is one hundred diverse people with exactly the same views. And tolerance is being OK with that.

You still think liberals are tolerant? Black conservatives are Uncle Toms and race traitors. When was the last time you saw Condoleezza Rice or Clarence Thomas interviewed for their sage advice on matters of race? Do you think the Congressional Black Caucus would have welcomed the opinionated Vernon Robinson? No way! Vernon's not willing to toil on the DNC plantation. How about women. We all remember 1992- the Year of the Woman. We were all told to celebrate the gender diversity in the Senate with the election of a number of liberal Democrat women. Fast forward to more recent memories. Why could not 2008 be Year of the Woman part two? After all, Hillary Clinton ran a serious race for the nomination to the presidency in her party and Sarah Palin was actually on the ticket to be Vice-President in hers. But alas, it was not meant to be. The Fourth Estate had already informed those of us on this side of the talking box that that election year was about assuaging the collective national racial angst. It was to be a propitiation for the national sin of racism. The thought-meisters were pulling hard for the Obama-Biden campaign. And what happened to Caribou Barbie? They declared political Jihad on her. Hillary Clinton's plethora of $6300 pantsuits were a passing bit of trivia, but the fact that Extreme Wardrobe Makeover- Sarah Palin Edition cost 150 grand was a multi-week talking point. America liked Sarah Palin. The Democrat media needed to create a reason why people couldn't relate to her. (And besides, no one wants to talk about real issues anyway.)

Tolerance involves respecting others even when I have no respect for their way of life, the choices they make, or how they believe. Tolerance is allowing one father to refuse to let his son join the Boy Scouts because he believes the organization promulgates a Christian worldview, allowing another father to refuse to let his son join the Boy Scouts because he believes it does not endorse a "true" Christianity, and allowing the Boy Scouts to run their organization as they see fit. So what is this ethic of tolerance? It is an American ethic. It is an ethic which, though I may disagree with others vehemently, causes me to never force others to accommodate me. I do not want others to force me to accommodate them. That is not to say that society must tolerate crimes (unlawful aggressions against people), or that I cannot even try to persuade others to abandon their own lifestyles in favor of my own. Speech, discussion and persuasion are integral to human language and cannot be separated from the human experience without the direst of consequences, even in its attempt. The issue then is aggression. When I aggress against others, whether to steal from them, kill them, or silence them, I wrong them. Consequently, the manipulation of the state to aggress against the people with whom one disagrees is a most egregious form of violence. For underlying the regulation of the people is the initiation or threat of force by the police power of the state against others through which its proponent seeks to control his fellow human beings. This is political violence. This is the tool of totalitarians everywhere.

So what is diversity and tolerance. Diversity is all the unique individuals of the world with all their own individual beliefs, talents and desires. Tolerance is my not having to accommodate them and their not having to accommodate me. And freedom loving people everywhere are OK with that.

Why health care is not and can never be a right

Today the public attention is largely focused upon health care, and an animated and vociferous chorus of socialists cheers and demands for health care as a "right." Many millions of people listen and find themselves agreeing, saying that it would indeed be a wonderful thing if nobody went without superb health care. Almost everybody wants the less fortunate to be better off. And millions of others say to themselves what a wonderful thing it would be if the government (meaning taxpayers other than themselves) paid for their own health care costs. Almost everybody wants something for nothing.

The opposition to the government takeover of the medical industry is in reality largely missing the point. The social conservatives point out rightly that the government will have to ration health care. To some degree or another this will absolutely be true. The argument then goes that the government will kill old people to save money. While this is certainly a final solution to the issue of the long term financial viability of a socialist America, it is certainly at this time a great stretch bordering on scare tactics- but not totally. The other argument that I have heard is that the government will promote and pay for aborting more children, especially those who will become special needs children, and therefore the government takeover of the medial industry must be stopped on moral and ethical grounds. Again, this may be so, but it is peripheral. The key to understanding the debate on what its proponents are calling health care reform is understanding itself.

The first things that need to be understood are the terms.

What is the big deal that the socialists in the Democratic Party call health care a "right?" What is a "right" anyway? Understood classically, rights involve those functions of my being which no person or group of people may morally or ethically take from me or deny me. I will detail this at length soon, but suffice it to say that health care is not a right as is personal liberty (which includes the right to free speech and the prohibition against slavery), but is in fact a "good." What is a "good?" A good is that which is the creation of some one's labor like televisions, bagels and bottles of beer. Related to goods are services which, though intangible, are also the product, the creation, of some person's labor. These include haircuts and tango lessons. Services then are really a subset of goods. They are merely intangible goods. Health care then is a combination of goods and services- the services of medical staff and the inclusion of goods like medicines and medical equipment. Not one person will argue with me claiming that health care then is not the result of the labor of many people- doctors, nurses, assistants, chemists, assembly-line workers, pharmacists, administrators and various other people.

If I had a right to health care then I could claim the labor of all of these aforementioned people without paying. If I take this health care from them without paying them then I have robbed them just as if I had stolen a loaf of bread. This brings us to another term.

Need. I need food to live. A want is something I desire. A need is something without which I will die. Food and a place to sleep and medical care are all needs. Medical care may not always be a need, but at some point in your life it probably will be. If I have a right to health care then I also have a right to food and sometimes shelter. I will die if I am left in the snow or heat of the desert. I will die if I do not eat. I will also die if I do not have water or air, which brings us to some interesting circumstances. I need air so I just breathe it. Air for all practical purposes is superabundant. This means that there is plenty to go around; no one has to make it- it is just there. Water is abundant but not superabundant. There is plenty of fresh water, but not in all places and at all times. (It is interesting to note that most of the costs associated with water are those of transportation- getting the water to the people.)

Health care, unlike air and water does not simply exist. It must be created by the work of people who do not all wish to work for free. If I claim health care as a right then I am saying that I have a right to the health care worker's labor. Even if I take the health care from the people who have provided it and pay them fifty cents on the dollar I have still robbed them. I cannot force the car dealer to sell me a $20,000 car for $10,000. We all know that the robbing of a person's labor is known as slavery. What then is it if I take the money to pay for my health care from my neighbor without his consent. Well, then I have robbed my neighbor and he will probably not invite me over anymore. Instead of that, what if I take the money out of the safe at the rich mans house on the other side of town. I will just threaten to hold him prisoner until he hands over the cash. Again I have robbed him. What if everyone on my block goes with me to the rich man's house and performs the same action? Now, because we are many and he is just one, I am well on my way to saying that we have taxed him. A point to be made is that health care like any other good is created by labor, and that if it is not stolen outright by the enslavement of health care laborers then it must be paid for either with money I earned or money I didn't earn that someone else did.

This is the heart of the issue. No one would be clamoring for the nationalization of the health care industry if the taxpayer thought that he was only going to get what he paid for. He wants it only because he wants something that he doesn't want to pay for. It is as simple as that. If our elected officials devised a plan that would ensure care as good as what we get right now and then followed up by telling us that everyone in America will be covered and that it would only cost the average taxpayer 30% more than what he spends right now on health care the people would revolt. The problem is that everyone wants something for nothing.

So the focus of the middle of the country becomes reform. Certainly there is a lot that can be done. However, as long as any considerable element of the legislation focuses on the idea of something for nothing there will only be trouble down the road. But who cares? Promising something for nothing is how you buy votes.