Archive for October, 2009

Litmus Test for US Candidates

October 20, 2009

Although the constitution specifically forbids religious tests for federal office, I suggest we, the voters, apply an ideological test for all candidates in any office.

The following questions can be used to determine a candidate’s ideology.

  1. Do you believe in government?
  2. Where do the people’s rights come from?
  3. What is the proper role of government?
  4. What should be done with governments that exceed or do not meet their proper role?

Anyone who is born and bred in the American political tradition, of any party, should be able to answer these questions easily.

Do you believe in government?

The correct answer is, “No.” Not just “no”, but “Hell no!”

The only thing we can and should believe in is God, of course. Anyone who believes in government is an idolater, someone who worships a false god that is powerless or worse, destructive.

Every elected official should understand, as the people do, that the government is the gathering place for those criminals who wish to commit crimes under the color of law and authority. That means every elected official should go into the government the same way a soldier enters enemy territory. They should treat every elected official, bureaucrat, every law, every regulation, every line of the budget and every tax and every bond as evil. That’s because it is.

They should attempt to take the natural, evil tendencies of government and twist them around on itself into a pretzel. This is the philosophy of “separation of powers” and “checks and balances”. The only areas where the government should find itself suddenly free to act is in those areas where we, the people, demand they act. This includes battle in war, the enforcement of our laws against the lawbreakers, and so on.

Where do the people’s rights come from?

The answer to this question is likewise simple: God. There is no room for equivocation.

Even devout Atheists should answer this particular question in this way, even though to them it means “nothing”.

The reason for this is simple: Our basic, natural rights are beyond the reach of any government or any philosopher or scientist. We have the right to live because we have the right to live. We have the right to do what we like because we have the right to do what we like. We have the right to keep what we create because we have the right to keep what we create.

Anything beyond this opens us up to losing these precious rights.

What is the proper role of governments?

The answer to this is, of course, “to protect the individual rights of the people.”

This is a difficult concept to many people. They do not understand the difference between “protecting rights” and “giving things”.

This confusion is manifest when President Obama declares that a law that mandates health coverage would finally grant the people the right to health care. Little does he know that we already have the right to health care in the same way we have the right to free political speech and the right to bear arms. Granted, we have to buy the microphones and television ads, and buy our guns and ammo, but we have the right to make such a decision for ourselves.

Note the careful wording of “protect” versus “provide”. Government is supposed to remove obstacles to the free exercise of our rights, not provide the resources we need to exercise those rights. For instance, there are people that would gladly censor my speech. They may use a variety of methods to accomplish their purposes, including writing a policy that if I work at such-and-such a company, then I can’t speak my mind freely in public places as an individual. The government’s job is to make sure such a scenario can’t arise by enacting laws that prevent just such a thing from occurring, thus protecting my right. It is not the job of the government, however, to provide an open mic where I can go to say my piece.

What should be done with governments that exceed or do not meet their proper role?

The answer to this question is, of course, “insurrection.” That is, we should replace the government with one that will do the right job.

Insurrection in America typically occurs at the ballot box. Rarely, if ever, does it occur in any other way. In fact, even the Civil War wasn’t that great of a tool to change the country. It took an amendment passed by congress to change the government.

As Americans, we have a right to voice our displeasure with current governments and demand that they be changed.

We also have a right to change the governments. We can change the people in the government by a majority vote. We can change the structure itself with constitutional amendments.

Note carefully the ways that we do not change governments. Let me list a few.

  1. Unconstitutional or illegal actions of government officials, elected or otherwise.
  2. Unconstitutional laws and budgets.
  3. Judicial rulings that violate the clear text of the constitution and the clear text of the laws as written.
  4. Disregard of the laws by the people.
  5. Mob action and violence.
  6. Armed revolt.

Other countries may allow these methods of changing governments. We do not.

Note that we have seen, from time to time, various combinations of the above work together to change our government. We are seeing it today. These things are not new, but they are never right.

Hopefully, armed with the above four questions, you’ll be able to decide what kind of philosophy the candidate lives by. This should be enough information to make a good decision on election day.

What should be done with governments that exceed or do not meet their proper role?

On Education

October 13, 2009

We, in the United States, have uncovered the most successful education system in the history of the world.

Our method is superior to the Greeks and Romans. Our system is superior to the European and even Asian education systems. Our system is so effective and wonderful that countries consistently look to it to emulate it. In fact, it is now recognized as the only proper system of educating the masses.

Sadly, that system is not found in today’s public schools. If the government signs the check that pays for your education, you are not participating in that system of successful education.

It is, however, found in the highest levels of academic achievement in our country. The colleges and universities and academies of our country are the finest in the world. Only a handful of universities in a handful of foreign countries can compare.

That system is simply described thusly: Freedom.

We used to have freedom in our public schools. Back in the day, a community would pool their resources and build a school. A handful or members of the community were chosen to run that school and held accountable for its success. The school board would collect money from the people, either as tuition fees or as a general tax. That sacred money was spent carefully, hiring the top teachers from the top universities, teachers who could handle the unique demands of their community school.

Over time, several changes have corrupted this wonderful system.

The first corruption was public financing of the community schools. First the states, and then the federal government, began subsidizing these schools. No longer were the people in the community the people to go to to ask for more money. Today, schools across the country look to the state and federal government to provide the funds they need. Only occasionally do they turn to the community, and even then, they do it sparingly and with great hesitation.

The second corruption is the unionizing of the teacher class. It used to be that teachers, like engineers and business managers, would market and advertize themselves and their unique abilities. They would seek out the jobs they wanted in the communities they wanted to serve. And they would be held accountable for whatever success or failure they inspired.

Today, teachers are a statistic, a number, a forgotten component of a complex machine. Whatever accountability used to exist is long gone. Whatever recognition used to occur occurs much more rarely. Teachers are treated like dishrags and not individuals with unique goals or talents in our system, thanks to the unionization of their profession. The unions hurt the children, schools, and parents. But they hurt the teachers more.

The third and final corruption is the flurry of mandates coming from state and federal governments. This directs attention from the local schools and school board to the state and federal legislatures. School board members have become robots, administrators have become swamped in a morass of regulation, and both are forgotten.

There is a really simple way to fix all these things. All it takes is a simple change in heart on our part.

First, we must stop financing and regulating the community schools across our nation. This will put control of the schools back in the hands of the community. It makes no sense for people from Illinois to dictate to Federal Way how they should run their schools, and neither does it make sense for us to dictate to them how they should run theirs. Let’s stop it be ending public finance and regulation of the schools, making every public school a community enterprise.

In changing this dynamic, I think you will see a desire to have one school board for each school, rather than aggregating schools into districts. Districts exist because of the complexity of regulations and the difficulty in petitioning for funds. If that is no longer an issue, then a few members of the community will be enough to manage the school and ask the community for the needed funds.

Second, we must break the union. We must no longer treat all teachers the same or collectively bargain with all of them at the same time. Principles, or at least, the school board, should be given hiring and firing power, and the power to assign teachers to whatever post they are needed. Teachers should have the power to quit and be hired according to their desires, to work in the schools they want to work in and not in the ones they don’t. This is no different than how every business operates. Teachers deserve no less respect than the top engineers and business managers get in the real world.

These two changes alone will restore the greatness of the American system of independence and freedom. It will be enough to elevate our worst school above any other nation’s top academies.

The Wages of Government Control

October 13, 2009

In North Korea, people have no jobs. What jobs that do exist are back-breaking and afford a pittance of a salary. And what meager money people earn isn’t enough to buy enough food to feed yourself, let alone a family.

I’ve often wondered why it is that socialists / liberals / progressives or whatever they are called today don’t look at the obvious evidence that socialism doesn’t work—ever—and conclude that they were wrong. I think I have an explanation.

See, in North Korea, Kim Jong Il goes around telling people one of two things. One, that if the people were actually practicing real socialism and honestly gave up every capitalist motive in their body, there would be enough to spare. In other words, the “No true Scotsman” defense. Socialists use this to describe why socialism in Russia, Eastern Europe, China, North Korea, Southeast Asia, Africa, India, South America, Central America, and any other place it was tried failed, but it will definitely succeed here. Here being, of course, wherever the socialist is standing at the moment. See, socialism in those other places wasn’t real socialism, or the right kind of socialism, or socialism at the wrong time for the wrong people, etc…

The other excuse Kim Jong Il uses is that due to forces beyond his control (involving the United States, of course), the people of North Korea are suffering. See, if only America would stop doing X or start doing Y, they would have enough food to eat and to spare. This is the classical victimization argument but applied to systems of government. It wasn’t because the USSR was corrupt, incapable, and retarded, it was because America happened to have a run of good luck and exploited that fact to destroy the worker’s paradise. It wasn’t because India / Cuba / Southeast Asia / China / etc… were failures, it was because Greate Britain / the United States / etc… oppressed them.

These two arguments, of course, are hogwash. But any true socialist doesn’t have a hard time believing them. This is because they’ve already swallowed all the other hogwash that has been spat upon them by pretender philosophers.

Capitalism and freedom don’t need excuses. It works. Everywhere. Under any conditions. Under any oppressive forces. It works in China without political freedom. It works in Hong Kong under foreign domination. It works in the United States with corruption and gangs and drug problems and the breakup of the family. It works because it is the only economic system that can deliver on its promises.

The only time capitalism doesn’t work is when government tries to control it. When governments raise taxes, borrow vast sums of money, and control massive amounts of capital, impose regulations, fire the CEO of major corporations, and otherwise imposes its will on the market, then it fails. Of course, we have a word for systems of government that impose their will on the free market.

Socialism.

What LDS Doctrine has to Say on Elections

October 12, 2009

The upcoming elections should weight heavily on your minds. You, the citizens of this state, are being called on to choose who your masters will be.

The LDS people are known to vote as a block. This is surprising, I suppose, to many. As a church, we like who we like and we don’t like who we don’t.

What’s even more surprising is that you can go for years without hearing a single endorsement of a candidate in the walls of our churches. Why is it then that we seem to flock to particular candidates without an order from the pulpit, or some steering committee, or something else to guide us?

It’s because of our doctrine on elections.

We like candidates who are, first and foremost, honest. The people of Washington State agree, and so we have laws that mandate transparency and honesty on the part of our elected officials. Honesty is an easy thing to check. Dishonest candidates are never embraced.

We like candidates who are also wise. Who wouldn’t want a wise official? However, the truth is that there are several powers that would like officials who are easily stupified or manipulated. I think we have too many examples of candidates saying one thing and then, in the heat of the moment, doing another. These are not wise candidates, either because they failed to consider beforehand the right course of action, or having discovered it, refused to adhere to it.

We also like our candidates to embrace our principles. Our principles are simply this: That man is accountable to God and none else; that governments are instituted by God to protect the God-given rights of man; and that governments which infringe upon the individual liberties of the people and thus overreached their limits should be overthrown by the people. Gratefully, our revolutions are bloodless and occur on election day each year. If you feel like your government is not protecting your individual liberties, then throw the bums out. If you feel like they are, then keep them. Following this simple rule alone will help you make the right decision 99% of the time.

We also tend not to follow popular perceptions of the above attributes. It seems to be contradictory to the nature of Mormonism which adheres to a strict, common doctrine. However, we value, strongly, our own senses and understandings. That’s why we ask people to ponder and pray, free from distractions, about their voting choices. There are a great number of voices out there who would love to manipulate us to believe one thing or another. Truth can only be found in the quiet moments alone between us and our God.

I think the vast majority of people who practice the above principles will come to choose the same candidates and issues.

As for myself, I will share with you my personal endorsements shortly.

Why Wynn is Right

October 12, 2009

On Rush’s site (emphasis mine): (link)

WYNN:  Government has never increased the standard of living of one single human being in civilization’s history. For some reason that simple truth has evaded everybody.  The only thing that creates an increased standard of living is giving someone a job, the demand for their labor — whether it’s you and I, Chris, or anybody else.  The people that are paying the price for this juggernaut of federal spending are the middle class and the working class of America.

Steve Wynn has created millions of jobs over his lifetime. He has provided more people with health insurance by his own efforts than Barack Obama ever could.

And he is absolutely right. Even the Governor of Michigan, a leftist if there ever was one, agreed. She knows, as everyone should, that the money that government spends comes from the pockets of people like Steve Wynn and his employees.

What is so magical about private industry that wealth is created from nothing? That is, why is it that government cannot mandate the creation of wealth? Why can government only lay down some rules and—at best—provide some services such as police and judges and jails, and private industry has to go and actually create wealth?

Because, my dear friend, wealth is simply having things you want. Marxists, communists, socialists, liberals, and progressives tend to focus on one or the other side of that equation, but fail to connect them together. They talking about having things like “health insurance”. They talk about wanting things like “medical care”. But they never, ever talk about having things you want.

That kind of system can only arise out of freedom. Give people the freedom to obtain what they want, and they will find ways to get it. And as they get the things they want—food, water, shelter, clothing, etc…—they become wealthy.

Private industry is made up of people who know how to create wealth. Creating wealth is simply this: giving people what they want. By giving people what they want, they end up with the things they themselves want.

Take Steve Wynn for instance. He goes to investors and says, “Give me some money now, and I’ll give you more later.” He takes that money and he uses it to pay people to work. Some people work managing aspects of his business, others work to build his hotels, others work to keep his hotels clean and functional, and still other work to make his customers happy. The secret is that all of these people are delivering something that is more valuable to Steve Wynn than the money he is paying them. And that valuable thing they give Steve Wynn he turns around and hands right to the customers, who are glad to impart of their hard-earned cash for it.

Steve Wynn walks away with more money than he started with, and he pays off his investors and everyone is happy. By everyone, I mean everyone. Steve Wynn gets rich, the investors get a nice return, the employees have a nice, stable job that pays well with nice benefits, there are nice hotels that dot the cities of the world, and people have nice hotels to stay at. And even if you don’t use Steve Wynn’s hotels, you know that they are out there, ready to open their doors to you on a moment’s notice.

Government does not work this way. Government doesn’t have to make people happy, except the voters, and then only once every couple of years. Government doesn’t connect people together because it’s a win-win situation like Steve Wynn does. Government takes judges and policemen and politicians and regulators and throws them, hopefully, at the scum of our society and belligerent foreign powers to duke it out in a fight to the death. We kind of like having someone else do violence in our behalf on those who refuse to participate positively in society. We’d rather have them live out the rest of their days in a jail cell, or buried six feet under in an unmarked grave. And by them I mean those people who think it’s okay to bully and lie and cheat their way to wealth.

I wish this is a lesson that everyone would internalize. We live it every day of our lives. We love its precepts. We understand that we shouldn’t force people to get married when they don’t want to, that we shouldn’t tell people who their friends can and can’t be, or what they should do with their lives. But if we somehow thing once money enters the equation, we need a strict schoolmaster with stricter methods than any public school would tolerate to make us play fair and treat each other right, we are deluding ourselves. The best government can do is punish, and we would do well to try and live our lives as far away from government as possible.

On religion…

October 11, 2009

Somewhere on the internet:

Why won’t a religious person ever give me a rational reason for their belief?

This is an example of an absurd question. It is, in other words:

Why isn’t belief based on rationality?

The problem the questioner has is that they believe that all things should be rational. That is, it isn’t good to have an irrational thought, or things that are irrational are bad.

Note, carefully, the language I am using above: “Believe”, “good”, “bad”. These are not logical words.

Logic itself is based on non-logic. The very fundamental rule of logic—what is, is not what is not—is an assumption. Logic is filled with these kinds of things, things that say, “There is no foundation for what I am claiming here, but please don’t let that stop you from examining the remainder of my arguments.”

If you trust them as being true and descriptive of the way things really are, then you are doing what believers do every day and every moment. You are participating in a ritual we call “belief”. Follow that belief, and change your behavior based on it, and you are exercising “faith”.

Scientists are the biggest believers of all. They believe these two fundamental things:

  1. That logic is, well, logical.
  2. That the universe is logical.

These are very queer beliefs. That vast majority alive today, and the vast majority of people ever on this earth, never believed such things. Heck, even the best scientists have their moments when they’ll put their trust in illogic or ponder the contradictions seen in nature.

Why is the universe logical? Why is logic so logical as well?

The answer for these things cannot be logical, nor can it be something within this universe. That is a logical fallacy we call, “begging the question.”

Begging the question works something like this:

  1. Sam is a human.
  2. (something unrelated.)
  3. Therefore, Sam is human.

So you can’t use anything within this universe to explain the logic of the universe. Nor can you use logic to explain why logic is logical.

So what does that leave?

The supernatural, illogical forces that exist beyond and before reason. In other words, God.

Quite simple, really.

On the Federal Way School Board

October 8, 2009

There are two races in the Federal Way School Board. There are two candidates that I support.

In the Barney vs. Pirkle race, I endorse Pirkle.

In the Griffin vs. Skipper race, I endorse Skipper.

Let me take some time to explain why.

Charlie Hoff did a wonderful job interviewing the candidates with hard and important questions in the Federal Way News (part 1, part 2). If you can’t see a difference between those trying to get on the board and those already there, let me explain the difference. The current school board has done nothing since they took office. They are, like Emperor Nero, fiddling while Rome (our schools) are burning.

I know and respect Ed Barney. He is a very, very good guy I would trust my cash with. However, he is not a leader on the board. He is a follower. We need leaders, leaders who stand up and say, “Why are our schools failing? Who am I going to fire to make them succeed?” Barney may be good when you have strong leaders on the board like Castellar and Hoff, because he is very good at evaluating options and choosing the best way. But he doesn’t shine without a strong-willed leader.

I don’t know Angela Griffin, although she sounds like a very reasonable and honorable woman. However, like Barney, she doesn’t understand that her job is to make sure the community’s desires are fulfilled. Being on the board, she has the power to call the administration to task and layout solid goals and a vision. If the schools fail, it’s because Barney and Griffin weren’t doing their job.

I know, personally, Steve Skipper. He is your “typical” conservative, someone who believes the principles in the constitution and who believes the people, not the government, are in charge of this country. Steve is a leader. He is someone who gets things done without power endowed by the people. Put him in charge, and he will change the schools. Steve is someone who can’t tolerate failure, and who knows that the way to success is to set high standards and stick to them.

I also know, personally, Bill Pirkle. Bill Pirkle strongly believes, like Steve, that the people are in charge. He has been a leader in government bureaucracy before and knows exactly how to manipulate bureaucrats to do their jobs. If you put him in charge, his very presence will change the attitude in the schools. The teachers union will become visibly disturbed by him. The administration will whisper mean things about him. Parents would wish he would be quiet and go away. But you know what? Your kids will get an education, especially the under privileged and minority students. He will change everything, from the top to the bottom, inside and outside, to set our schools up for unprecedented success.

This year, don’t vote for the nicest or best-spoken candidates. Nice and well-spoken board members don’t get minorities educated. We see that, because we’ve done that.

Vote for candidates that can get things done and lead the school district for success.

Orson Scott Card Doesn’t Understand

October 6, 2009

Orson Scott Card, a proud Democrat, has come down hard on the radical leftists in his party. Today, he writes about unions. (link)

His overall message is sound. There is a cycle, not just in business but in politics. Unions are on the downfall because of their greediness. But he also tries to justify government regulation and control of the free market because of the “evils” of unrestrained capitalism.

I want to share with you a few thoughts I have about the incorrect assumptions he makes about free market capitalism. I have a different view than most Americans because I have seen the 1920’s first hand—in the tiny country of South Korea.

In South Korea, people work back-breaking jobs without any assurances that they’ll even get paid. Fraud is common. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard of someone doing a job and then never seeing a won, or someone loaning a close family member a few thousand dollars and having that family member squander it on alcohol or gambling. Managers abuse their workers, workers abuse their customers, and overall, it’s a pretty glum picture. That’s the way freedom is. It’s messy. It hurts. Some people fail while other succeed.

Unlike the US, or rather, more like the US that most people live in but you don’t see on TV, the predominant industry in South Korea isn’t the major manufacturers you’ve heard of. That operation is big, but it doesn’t compare to the countless millions of tiny mom-and-pop shops that are in every nook and cranny in that country. Heck, you don’t even need land or capital to go into business down there. Just find a sidewalk and spread out your wares. And that’s the way the vast majority of the country has done it.

My mother-in-law remembers raising her family in times of absolute destitution. Starvation was common. There were no such things as jobs. You worked all day long in the rice fields and you barely had enough rice to make it through the winter. She remembers going into the mountains just to cut some wild vegetables before the sun came up. Then she’d take them down into the town square and sell them. When she came home at night, she used the money to buy essentials—medicine, food (precious protein), and saved the rest. That was how she got money.

And money was scarce! The Korean government was just learning about how to manage the money supply. For centuries, the government had kept a strict control on money, failing to expand it when the economy grew. The Korean people are known for pinching pennies and accumulating vast hordes of wealth—wealth they never spend. Trying to get people to pay for something was harder than pulling teeth.

These were hard times, times when bad things happened and death wasn’t uncommon.

But you know what? Things started to change. Little by little, the economy started to figure itself out. Soon, there were trains that ran everywhere, allowing the fruits and grains and vegetables grown at home to be sold in Seoul. Eventually, trade with other countries started to open up, and their prize-winning Asian pears could be sold in Japan, Taiwan, and even America.

Yes, there were labor unions and labor strikes and bad management and all those things. But most of the country couldn’t care less because the vast majority of the country didn’t work in a factory. They worked wherever they could find work, doing whatever they could to survive. The reforms that the government made had very little effect on the common man living in the country. But you don’t need a strong government or a massive tax base to create wealth.

The South Koreans had the one essential and only necessary ingredient for wealth. They had freedom—in particular, economic freedom. That’s the freedom to buy and sell, the freedom to make and destroy, the freedom to use your brain and figure out how you will convert your time and labor into food, clothing, and shelter for you and your family. The freedom to work for almost nothing, or to quit your job, or to hire someone with promises and a wink, or to pay them as much as you could afford.

Today, the South Koreans are not wealthy compared to the Americans. No one is. But they are vastly more wealthy than they used to be. Everyone has more than enough food, more than enough clothing. Even poor people have cars and apartments and computers. This isn’t because of unions or because of social welfare, it’s because everyone has the right to work in that country, and everyone has the right to buy and sell as they see fit. They have their freedom, and they enjoy it.

I wish I could take you to the open-air markets where 80-year-old grandmothers sell produce they grow along the streets near the hovels where they live. I’d encourage you to ask them what they think of their life. Yes, their back hurts, they can’t get more than a few hours of sleep each night, and they’ll complain about thieves and people not coming to the markets anymore to buy their vegetables. They may even complain about imports competing with their goods. But if you ask them how they are doing financially, you’d be surprised. One may have sent her sons to college. Another has saved up several hundred thousand dollars for a wedding gift for her daughter. These people aren’t poor, and they aren’t hopeless. For the relatively few cases where things are genuinely bad, neighbors and family step in, quietly, to help out whatever way they can.

In my mind, a lot of what we hear about the early 20th Century is propaganda. Communists trumped up the plight of the common man and exaggerated the wealth of the rich. They wanted to tell Americans a different story than the story they had grown up with throughout the industrial revolution and before. They wanted Americans to believe that unless they accept draconian controls in their economic life, they could not experience wealth.

Which was a really odd thing to believe, since at that time, and for all of our history, America’s poor have been richer than the vast majority of the world. America has always been a land of plenty and productivity where starvation is virtually unknown. And we’ve done it by applying plenty of freedom and a only a tiny bit of regulation and control.

If you ask me, I’d have told the factory workers that maybe they weren’t cut out for factory work. Maybe they’d have been better off to move back out to the country and work to owning their own land. Or maybe, just maybe, they preferred the work in a factory or the mines to the work of the farms, because it was easier to work in a factory to earn your food than to sweat under the sun. Maybe they weren’t prisoners at all, or the type of prisoner who stays in his cell even though he is free to go whenever he pleases.

Private Insurance Saves Lives

October 5, 2009

For those of you who believe that nothing good comes out of free market economics, consider this: The IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety).

Comparing the 2009 Chevrolet Malibu versus the 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air reveals a lot of technological advancements. (link) Was it government regulations and mandates that created this technology? Or was it market forces?

The reason why we have the technology we have today, with its accompanying lifestyle and safety, is not because we’ve had the most dictatorial and oppressive government in world history. It’s much the opposite. Because our government has been constrained by the constitution, and because our people have chosen to be ruled by God (namely, laws based on morality) and not men, we have experienced more wealth than any other people or individual in the history of the world. The poorest American lives a richer lifestyle than the Emperors of Rome.

The reason why cars are safe is becase the consumer demands safe cars. If driving one car of similar price will give you greater safety, the market tends to sell more of those cars than the less-safe ones. If given the choice between safe cars and cheap cars, we’re more likely to buy safe cars.

The best thing we can do for ourselves is to free our markets from government control.

Cut me out of the health plan, PLEASE!

October 4, 2009

“Compassionate” leftists charge that republicans should be left out of the health care plan—left to die starved of health care—because they oppose the plan.

I say, “PLEASE!”

Please leave me out of the plan to have the government make personal, medical decisions on my behalf.

Please leave me out of a system where doctors are not free to work as they see fit, and patients are not free to see the doctors as they see fit, where both have to beg the government to do that which they would have done naturally.

Please leave me out of a plan where taxes are collected, political supporters are paid off, and what few scraps that are left are used as political tokens to manipulate the public emotion for votes.

Please, please, please! Leave me out of it!

The history of the world shows, quite clearly, that government run anything always ends up with nothing. It is the people who innovate, who create, who profit, and who make something where nothing existed before. It is government who destroys. The best government can hope for is to provide the basic services of civil justice and national defense, leaving the rest to the people. Anything beyond that is tyranny.

So, please! Allow us to opt out of this system.

In the meantime, I’d also like to opt out of medicare, medicaid, social security, unemployment insurance, welfare, education, food stamps and all social services provided by the government. Stop collecting my money for these purposes, and stop providing me with them. If I really, really want them, I’ll pay for as much as I want or I’ll save my money for something more important.

As far as the federal constitution is concerned, We the People opted out of all of these programs a long time ago, and we have yet to opt back in. We have laid down what exactly congress is allowed to do in Article 1, Section 8, and providing charity isn’t found there.