As published in today’s Daily Camera:
Do you want politicians to put you “in it together” with others, or would you prefer to reserve that choice for yourself?
Last Tuesday guest editor Clay Evans wrote that one of President-elect Obama’s “great challenges” will be to “bring us together.” While defending Social Security, Obama himself has written that we “need to reclaim the idea that in this country, we’re all in it together. That is America’s very promise…”
When a charismatic speaker says this, it can make you feel hope, that you’re part of a community, or inspire you to voluntarily cooperate with others to achieve great things. Or such talk could make you suspicious and skeptical, as you might react to a snake-oil salesman or an aspiring cult leader. In either case, you can choose either to participate or walk away.
But you cannot walk away from an elected politicians who claim “we’re all in it together.” Politicians “bring people together” with legislation. If you peacefully refuse to cooperate with such legislated “togetherness,” you’re a criminal and can end up in prison. For example, if you think Social Security <a title="nice political cartoon” href=”http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/medicare-explained/”>resembles investing with Bernie Madoff, try opting out. When politicians legislate how “we’re all in it together,” law enforcement can punish us for not cooperating with their wishes.
Instead, politicians should promote policies that respect individual rights. That is, our right to associate with, or be “together” with, others on a peaceful and voluntary basis. Respect for individual rights: this should be America’s promise.
[pdf as published in print edition]
Oh, let me guess it: you’re one of those “rugged individualist” types. Yeah well see how long that lasts when you lose your job to globalization or get sick and your insurer dumps you or denies coverage. Then who’ll be looking for “togetherness”.
If government doesn’t mandate some sharing and cooperation who’s going to do it? People are only interested in themselves and won’t take care of others even though they know it’s the right thing to do.
Peter, you sound rather angry about my post.
You ask: “If government doesn’t mandate some sharing and cooperation who’s going to do it?” I recommend that people donate to and participate in charitable organizations. In fact, Americans already do. The USA Today reports that
You write: “People are only interested in themselves and won’t take care of others even though they know it’s the right thing to do.” How much would people need to donate to charity to demonstrate to you that they would do “the right thing”?
You wrote: “If government doesn’t mandate some sharing and cooperation who’s going to do it? People are only interested in themselves and won’t take care of others even though they know it’s the right thing to do.”
If this is true, what kind of politicians will such people elect? Politicians are just people, as are those who run the very government programs you support. If they are “only interested in themselves,” can you really trust them to do what is right? That’s why I support voluntary charities that must compete for donations. That way you can support the ones you think are doing a good job.
I also value charitable organizations that are effective and efficient, and do not see why government charities would be either, since they need not demonstrate it to donors. They get taxpayer dollars no matter how effective or ineffective they are. I address this issue here and here.
Nor do I see why government has taken over the unemployment insurance market. People take responsibility to buy auto insurance, homeowners insurance, and medical insurance (made more expensive by politicians). They can also choose they amount of coverage they want. Why not do the same for unemployment insurance?
I wouldn’t call myself a “rugged individualist.” I value individual freedom and personal responsibility. I see no virtue in empowering politicians to force my neighbors to donate to causes I see fit.
I’d like to live in a society where people take responsibility for their own lives. This means that government does not play the role of a nanny. It also means people take responsibility to support charitable organizations that they think do a good job.
Oh, let me guess it: you’re one of those “rugged individualist” types. Yeah well see how long that lasts when you lose your job to globalization or get sick and your insurer dumps you or denies coverage. Then who’ll be looking for “togetherness”.
If government doesn’t mandate some sharing and cooperation who’s going to do it? People are only interested in themselves and won’t take care of others even though they know it’s the right thing to do.
Peter, you sound rather angry about my post.
You ask: “If government doesn’t mandate some sharing and cooperation who’s going to do it?” I recommend that people donate to and participate in charitable organizations. In fact, Americans already do. The USA Today reports that
You write: “People are only interested in themselves and won’t take care of others even though they know it’s the right thing to do.” How much would people need to donate to charity to demonstrate to you that they would do “the right thing”?
You wrote: “If government doesn’t mandate some sharing and cooperation who’s going to do it? People are only interested in themselves and won’t take care of others even though they know it’s the right thing to do.”
If this is true, what kind of politicians will such people elect? Politicians are just people, as are those who run the very government programs you support. If they are “only interested in themselves,” can you really trust them to do what is right? That’s why I support voluntary charities that must compete for donations. That way you can support the ones you think are doing a good job.
I also value charitable organizations that are effective and efficient, and do not see why government charities would be either, since they need not demonstrate it to donors. They get taxpayer dollars no matter how effective or ineffective they are. I address this issue here and here.
Nor do I see why government has taken over the unemployment insurance market. People take responsibility to buy auto insurance, homeowners insurance, and medical insurance (made more expensive by politicians). They can also choose they amount of coverage they want. Why not do the same for unemployment insurance?
I wouldn’t call myself a “rugged individualist.” I value individual freedom and personal responsibility. I see no virtue in empowering politicians to force my neighbors to donate to causes I see fit.
I’d like to live in a society where people take responsibility for their own lives. This means that government does not play the role of a nanny. It also means people take responsibility to support charitable organizations that they think do a good job.