Dear Proud Liberal (and Reformed Republican) -

First of all, congratulations on evolving from an ape to a cro-magnon! Most people I know start their evolutionary journey as "liberal-progressives," and then, upon entering the real world and paying taxes for inefficient government, they become conservatives. Regardless, if you would like to complete your evolutionary journey and become a fully-formed, rational, independent thinker, the end-state you are looking for can be found in libertarianism (i.e., true liberalism). The true liberal is a believer in (and defender of) liberty, which is properly understood to mean freedom from the force, fraud, and coercion of others - most notably, our government. By contrast, the modern "liberal" does not believe in freedom from government control. Rather, he wants greater government control in order to free himself from individual responsibility, which is an entirely different concept of "liberty" (see the definitions of negative liberty vs. positive liberty at Wikipedia).

Anyway, I digress... Regarding your comments, let me say that most of what you have written is absolutely correct. However, you completely botched it with your non sequitur conclusion, when you wrote, "Until you've done that, you owe your life to people other than yourself and you have a moral obligation to assist those people that have helped you."

Let me start with what you got right. It is absolutely true that in a modern society, no man is an island onto himself. Nearly every one of us living on the planet today (perhaps without exception) must rely to some extent on others to provide us with even our most basic necessities in life. There is an adage that says, "Self-sufficiency is the path to poverty," and this holds true whether it be for individuals or entire nations. What has enabled human-beings to rise to become the most dominate species on the planet is the fact that we trade with one another, and by doing so, we gain from the knowledge, skills, and resources of others (see Matt Ridley's book, "The Rational Optimist"). Sometimes these resources are unique (e.g., it is very difficult to grow bananas in Alaska). But mostly, we gain because trade leads to specialization, and this leads to greater efficiencies, economies of scale, and innovation when people focus their production, while diversifying their consumption (see Adam Smith). Likewise, trade allows us to take advantage of the economic concept known as, "comparative advantage" (see David Ricardo). Without trade, people would be much poorer. Even the highly vaunted transcendentalist / individualist-anarchist philosopher, Henry David Thoreau was not entirely self-sufficient when he spent two years living near Walden Pond. Not even close! Thoreau had no choice but to travel to nearby Concord, MA to get supplies for those things he could not produce on his own (e.g., iron tools, cooking utensils, salt, and nails).

So far, so good, but this is where we differ... What enables trade to take place is the use of a fungible commodity like money. Without it, we would have to rely on barter exchanges or in-kind payments, which is extremely inefficient and untenable in a modern economy. (What's the likelihood that what I am selling is exactly what you are buying AND vice versa?) Money is nothing more than a credit for (or a token of) the value one has produced while serving his fellow man. Sure, some people get their money via gifts, inheritance, or theft (e.g., outright theft or the welfare state); but the vast majority of us receive our money by serving our fellow man, and that means providing him with a product or service he values more than the money he paid us to receive it. This is what I meant when I wrote, "my hard-earned money." I have exchanged something of value (i.e., my time, talent, and labor in the form of a product or service) in order to receive a symbol of value (i.e., money). This money was earned by me, and therefore, it belongs solely to me. It is my private property. However, if I ask my fellow man to provide me with a product or service, I must surrender my money in exchange for it. Thus, trade is nothing more than an exchange of value-for-value, and money is nothing more than a unit of measure to facilitate these transactions.

So, to use your example.... When I visit Mr. Fiore's website, I have exchanged money to pay for the computer I use, the electricity that powers it, the cable company which gives me access to the Internet, and I have paid Mr. Fiore indirectly by viewing the ads he has placed on his website using Google's advertising engine. In turn, Mr. Fiore has paid for his computer and the software he uses to produce his animated cartoons, and he has allowed Google to take a cut of his advertising revenue for enabling the ads to be displayed on his site via a keyword search algorithm. There is no further obligation I have to Mr. Fiore, and he has no further obligation to his suppliers. Everyone involved has been fully compensated for their services.

Thus, your conclusion is fallacious. You have assumed that since someone has provided me with a product or service, "I owe [my] life to [these] people... and [I] have a moral obligation to assist [these] people that have helped [me]." Wrong! I have already given these people sufficient claim-checks (i.e. money), which they can use to assist themselves by purchasing food from their grocer, housing from their landlord (or home-builder), and medical services from their doctor (or indirectly via their health insurer); or a myriad of other products and services they might need or desire in life.

In other words, I have no moral OBLIGATION beyond the mutually beneficial, VOLUNTARY agreements I have already made with others, and fulfilled with with my payment of money. To suggest that I have some greater obligation beyond this is absurd.

This isn't to say that I should never help a fellow man in need via private, VOLUNTARY charitable giving. It is merely to say that the decision who I help (and to what extent, including no help at all) is mine alone to make.

Sincerely,

- H. Roark

P.S. - A note on government. There is a proper role for government, but it is limited to providing us with the rule of law, protecting our private property (both our physical persons and our possessions) from the force and fraud of others (foreign and domestic - e.g., military and police services), and for providing us with certain public goods (strictly defined as being non-exclusionary and non-rivalrous - e.g., clean air and public infrastructure like city streets, sewage systems, etc.). Healthcare services are not a public good (strictly defined), because the benefits go entirely to the recipients of the care. Therefore, these services are private goods and should be paid for privately.

For those essential services which can only be provided by government, each of us must bear the burden of paying for them. This can be done in the form of paying tolls (e.g., for the direct use of public roads), or paying taxes for those services where the costs cannot be assigned directly (e.g., national defense and police protection).

Would you like some tissue paper to dry those tears of compassion?

Please, you think that "I am filled with so much hate" and I don’t care for my fellow man. Is that right? On what basis could you possibly draw this conclusion? Think about your logical reasoning (or lack thereof) for a moment.

Premise: Roark is opposed to the welfare state because it involves using government force and coercion to take what properly belongs to one man in order to help another man.

Conclusion: Therefore, Roark is a selfish S.O.B.

This is a non sequitur, because it assumes that the only way to help your fellow man is via the nanny-state. Have you ever heard of private, VOLUNTARY, charitable giving? While I don’t believe that any man has a moral OBLIGATION to help his fellow man (i.e., a complete stranger that is; family members are an exception), I do believe that helping a man in need is one of the most noble and praiseworthy things one could do.

Now, let me answer some of your questions. Have I ever been unemployed? Yes. Have I ever been uninsured? No. How is this possible? I have an individual health insurance policy. If we didn’t have a tax code that heavily favors employer-based health insurance, more people would have individual policies, and these policies would stay with the member regardless of his employment status.

Re: The pre-existing condition issue – It is incumbent on each individual to purchase a health insurance policy BEFORE he gets sick or injured, not afterward. If you roll the dice by not insuring yourself, why should that become someone else’s obligation to pay for your medical care after the fact? We live in America, where individual liberty is paramount. But freedom isn’t free, is it? One of the prices of liberty is individual responsibility, and that means accepting responsibility for your actions or lack thereof (e.g., not buying health insurance BEFORE you get sick, in this case).

I agree that we all end-up paying for uncompensated care, but I would rather have a system where those who are irresponsible have to pay a severe penalty first (i.e., personal bankruptcy), before the rest of us have to make up the difference in higher premiums.

For those who are truly in need and can’t afford health insurance or medical care (and there will always be people in need – albeit far less than under a welfare / entitlement state), there is private, charitable giving to fill the gap.

Private charitable giving is moral because it is VOLUNTARY, and thus, it does not involve the use of government force and coercion to steal property from one American to help another.

Here’s a quote by Walter Williams that summarizes the argument quite succinctly:

"There are people in need of help. Charity is one of the nobler human motivations. The act of reaching into one's own pockets to help a fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pocket is despicable and worthy of condemnation."

1) I have already answered the moral question in a previous reply (see my response to Anonymous on Fri, 2011-01-21 00:31, below). If socialism is good for the economy, then reductio ad absurdum, why stop with healthcare? Let's socialize the entire economy? Oh wait, we already tried that in the Soviet Union, East Germany, China (under Mao), North Korea, Cuba, etc., and it was a human catastrophe. Even if one were to reject my deontological / natural law argument against socialism, one would have to reject it on a consquentialist basis, alone.

2) The Constitution grants limited, enumerated powers to the federal government. Meaning, the government cannot engage in activities for which it has not been given specific authority by "We the People." This is so fundamental that Alexander Hamilton (who later, unfortunately, abused the Constitution with his "implied powers" doctrine) was opposed to the Bill of Rights. In Federalist Paper No. 84, Hamilton wrote, "(B)ills of rights... are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous... For why declare that things shall not be done [by Congress] which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given [to Congress] by which restrictions may be imposed?"

Now, as to your claim that the Constitution is more than 200 years old (and thus, I presume, out of date), have you ever heard of Article V? It is the process for amending the Constitution, something which has been done as recently as 1992 (27th Amendment). I agree that the establishment of the Air Force might have been unconstitutional. But please don't forget that it was originally created within the Army in 1907. The Marines (another example that "liberal – progressives" like to use) remains a division of the Navy.

3) The CBO has hardly proven anything. They are required by law to do a simple "plug and chug" analysis without any consideration given to how people's incentives / disincentives will change under the new law.

I agree that "U.S. healthcare already is horrible" (at least in terms of its costs), but I am not arguing that we should repeal Obamacare and return to the status quo ante. The only way to fix healthcare is to promote more choice and competition, which will lead to far greater innovation, improvements in efficiency, lower prices, and higher quality. To do this, we need to eliminate the third-party payer problem as much as we possibly can, as well as all the counter-productive rules and regulations that impede competition, rather than foster it (e.g., the prohibition against sellling insurance across state lines; the favorable tax treatment given to employer-based insurance, but not granted to those of us who buy individual policies; etc.)

____________

Finally, with regard to the General Welfare Clause, this is what James Madison (the acknowledged "Father of the Constitution") wrote in Federalist Paper No. 41:

"Some... have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the [Constitution's] power '...to provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States,' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it... But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?"

In other words, as Madison wrote separately: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one ..."

Yes, of course. Here is the basic test of what constitutes legalized plunder, by Frederic Bastiat:

"The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is... legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay... If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system."

In other words, no man can morally delegate to his government an authority which he does not possess as an individual.

If you would like to understand this concept better, please see "The Philosophy of Liberty" at - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I . This runs only 8 minutes.

See also, Walter Williams lecture titled, "Legality vs. Morality" at - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhkHEoFfqp0 . This runs only 7 minutes.

If you can refute this logic, then I would be very interested to hear your counter-argument.

Pablo -

Two words for you: Federalist Papers. In case you didn't know, this is the reader's guide for the U.S. Constitution.

You are correct to note that Congress has the authority "To regulate Commerce... among the several States." However, since the Congress is specifically prohibiting commerce from taking place INTER-state, and rather, it is forcing health insurers to operate INTRA-state, I don't see how this could possibly apply. In fact, if you had read the Federalist Papers, you would know that the original meaning and intent of the Commerce Clause was to facilitate INTER-state commerce, not hinder it. Our Founding Fathers were gravely concerned that trade-wars and protectionism between the states would become outright military wars.

Furthermore, as you should know, the individual mandate in Obamacare requires every American to engage in a commercial activity. In other words, Congress is trying to regulate the INACTIVITY of commerce. Even under the disastrous Wickard v. Filburn (1942) decision, which stretched the authority of the Commerce Clause well beyond its original meaning and intent, Congress has never been granted the authority to regulate an activity that isn't taking place to begin with.

Regards,

- H. Roark

Nice well thought out cogent reply.