Back to Quack Off

 Quack Off               

by Free Market Duck

“National” health care?  Stop thinking in terms of “collectives,” we are individuals

Aug 7, 2009

Washington, 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."

   We are individuals.

   Nowhere in 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.

   Rights and 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.

   The only "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 individual rights.

   Therefore, the Bill of Rights is concerned with individual rights, not collectivist or "national" rights to receive or redistribute the property rights of others.

   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 facts.

   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.)

   But this 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 individuals.

   Nor does Democratic Majority Rule make it right.  In fact, Democratic Majority Rule is simply a tyranny of the majority.

   The Obama 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.

   In order 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 founded upon.  

   The 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.

   Notice that President 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.

   Imagine if 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.

   Put simply, 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 Effect.

   Therefore, 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.

   Finally, 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.

   In short, there is 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.

   We must 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.

   Obama and 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...