First I will mention the good aspect, which came from the game itself. It was a good game between fairly closely matched teams. There were few penalties and major errors, even the interception near the end was more the result of a good defensive play than a poor offensive play or a bad throw. The Saints won, not because they played better, but because they took risks. If there is anything to be learned from a game like that its that you can win big if you take risks. You can blow away your competition even when they are a little better if you have guts and toughness. That is what was so beautiful about it. The Saints didn’t win by having the highest paid players or the best players or the best coach or the basis of unfair calls or some corrupt means. The Saints won by taking risks and maximizing their potential.

Now, they had to play well also, and they had to get lucky a bit, i.e. the recovery of their onside kick, etc., but they would not have won without taking some huge risks and playing innovatively and in unorthodox manner. It is a lesson for the country and for business and the economy. Its not about playing by the rules, its not about getting help from others or from the officials (government), its not about having lots of money or being the best. Its about doing your best, taking risks, and maximizing your potential. Cheers to the whole franchise for that brilliantly executed game.

Now for the bad part that got me the most fired up. It came in the form of one of the commercials, from the fourth quarter of the game. It was a commercial called “paper or plastic“, and I was hoping about halfway through that someone was finally making fun of the eco-police. In a way they might have been, or it might have been their intention, but the message was: “drive this car because the eco-police wont get you”. It even said it “feels right” to be in one of their new clean diesel cars. Now I am all for efficiency and reduced emissions. I am all for Audi’s new car, you like it and want one, go get it. I love that diesel is making headway in the non-commercial market, it has always been a higher efficiency fuel.

But the message of the commercial is that a day is coming when we really will have eco-police and we better deal with it. It was more scary than funny. If I start seeing arrests for the wrong light bulb, I will know that I should have taken up arms against tyranny long ago.

Now, maybe Audi was trying to make fun of those who cry foul about every little eco trend. Maybe the “green police” was supposed to be a joke on the public opinion trials we all face if we drive an SUV or throw away a plastic cup. Or, maybe thats just wishful thinking. Either way, what I took from the commercial is that I need to be very vigilant of something like that actually coming. The green movement, regardless of its intention, is fast becoming another power grab, and with the obvious manipulation of environmental data and the ability to follow the dollar to find motivation for such corruption of science, it is becoming more and more evident just how blatant a power grab it really is. Even Obama’s state of the union address glosses over environmental questions as if to silence the debate so that the government can continue to gain control unabated.

I am not one to trounce Audi by calling for a retaliatory boycott of their clean diesel engines. I am sure its a fine machine and not a bad idea at all. But their marketing guy is way off, because that commercial was not a positive or funny experience at all. Here’s hoping that we all wake up before the jack-booted green police thugs take away the only vehicles that can get around in this snow (thank you global warming). I love my 40mpg Civic, but I have been driving an AWD Mercury Mountaineer to make it to work this week, the Civic is going nowhere until the snow is less than 5 inches deep and the Mountaineer pulls it out of the hole its in. Just sayin’

That said, there are a few arenas of agreement that most libertarians have with the conservative military position. 1) We believe that if you are going to fight a war, fight it to win, don’t play games with people’s lives, don’t worry about saving face, and don’t bow to the pressures of other countries or international regulations like the U.N. 2) We believe that a military should be maintained for the defense of this nation. 3) We believe in the defense of our allies and to some extent  in the assistance of those who seek freedom. These last two, however, we believe should be funded and staffed by volunteer forces only. The fate of other countries is not necessarily our concern. On the other hand, there are lessons to be learned from the WWII era and the comparative failure of the Monroe doctrine, but forward thinking and recognition of potential threats to ourselves if our allies fall should be enough to cover those issues.

Currently our foreign affairs are grossly meddlesome, and we have not seen any real benefits or successes because of our actions and policies. Freedom is best spread through trade and communication, not military action. We are involved in many conflicts with no clear direction or directive, and without even taking decisive action, leaving our troops in harms way for far too long. If indeed decisive action cannot be taken because of strategic or political reasons, then no action at all should be taken. The military is not a police or peacekeeping force, it is a fighting force. If there is no clear fight, then there is no place for our military. It seems obvious that not taking that tack has lead to a lot of death, and not to any real peace. We have the most powerful military in the world, we have no business struggling to win a war.

More importantly, our government has no business messing with other countries at all, even the affairs of our allies should not affect us unless they are directly attacked. Not our fight, not our business, and it definitely should not be at our expense. I am proud of our military, and support its existence, but it is for the defense of this nation and the freedom of its citizens. When it is used for anything else, it is a violation of our constitution and of the real reason for having a military. The military is not a toy to use to play with other countries’ affairs. We need to be less arrogant and more concerned with our own issues. Furthermore, we are overextended on costs as it is, and ceasing to be the military for the whole planet just might help with that a bit.

Bring them home, all of them.

The libertarian stance on drugs has been a political white elephant for the party. In my political strategy articles I admonish libertarians to put their position on drugs on the back burner. Even in cases where a candidate has not mentioned drugs, it tends to be brought up by opponents because it is a hot-button, emotionally charged issue that when attacked in sound-bite form tends to make the libertarian under fire look like a crazy extremist. The only defense is to downplay the issue and point out the silliness of the attack and hope that it gets dropped. That said, I would like to let the conservatives out there in on the reasoning behind the drug stance in the libertarian platform. It is, for many conservatives seeking a new home, a deal killer for joining the libertarian party. I can assure you that a position of drug freedom is not just a justification for a bunch of pot-heads as libertarian opponents like to claim. There is method, reasoning, and honest philosophy to our madness.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this piece, one of the biggest reasons to loosen the restrictions on drugs is found in the lessons of prohibition in the 1920s. Not only were the laws broken by many people, turning otherwise good, law abiding citizens into criminals, but the money all went into the black market and funded a massive growth in gangs and organized crime. Basically, the criminal types were given lots and lots of money, crime truly paid in those days. Men like Al Capone and the attrocities committed by his ilk would never have existed without the government trying to criminalize a vice. The same is happening with the drug war. Legalization and a shift to “controlled substance” status for most drugs would all but eliminate the drug cartels. Also, massive amounts of money would be saved in law enforcement, and a huge reduction in the prison population and cost would also result, not to mention the potential for sales tax revenue. It just makes good economic sense to stop pouring money down a hole just because it makes people feel like something is being done about a perceived drug problem.

Of course, there is the response that we should not do the “wrong thing” just to save money. But is it the wrong thing to grant freedom? The basic philosophical position behind decriminalizing drugs is that there should be no victimless crime. If someone is only hurting themselves, and they are an adult capable of making thier own choices, then they should have the freedom to do as they wish. The restriction of persons from doing themselves harm is just a restriction of freedom, and an example of the nanny state in action. If we can restrict someone from using drugs, then we can restrict them from overeating or drinking sodas or smoking or whatever else that is deemed unhealthy or harmful. If you are going to be an honest supporter of individual freedom then you have to be consistent, regardless of your personal feelings about a specific activity.

I am not interested in drugs, I am a fairly health-oriented person. I am, however, interested in freedom, and I see no reason to change that position just because of the damage that drugs can do to a person. That may sound cold and heartless, but its not. I think taking away freedom is the most heartless thing that can be done, and the government has no right to do so. In fact, according to our constitution, our government is bound to protect freedom, not take it away. So are libertarians in support of legalizing drugs? Yes, but we have good reasoning for that position. If you are a lover of freedom, then you should be in support of legalizing drugs, even if you fight against them personally to the extent you are legally allowed to.

There are a variety of issues in the LP platform that the average conservative balks at. Many are minor issues, and as the state of the Union gets more desperate and the mistakes and corruption of our leaders grows more massive, more and more conservatives are embracing the libertarian platform as a far better option than the status quo. The big issues, especially the basic concept of limited government and very low taxes, are the main draw for conservatives. The social and religious freedom aspects are a bit more of an area of conflict. As a former traditional conservative myself, I would like to address some of those areas of conflict in order to help others seeking a political platform they can get behind to understand the reasoning, to understand the thought process that I went through to get where I am now.

The first area I would like to address is religion, and it is, in part, an answer to one of my readers who was asking questions about libertarian stances on legislating morality. I answered briefly, but realized a full post on the subject was likely to be in order. Other points of conflicts will follow, I appreciate as always any feedback or questions my potential readers may have.

I grew up very religious. When I got older I realized a great deal of what was happening in the church I grew up in was hypocritical and corrupt, and I backed off of my dogmatic thinking a great deal. In spite of that, however, I have always made certain that my political philosophy was not in conflict with my personal belief systems. Once I began thinking through political philosophy as it applies to whole societies of people, I have had to make sure that it does not conflict with any one’s faith or personal belief system.

Several well known libertarians are atheistic or agnostic, especially outspoken ones like Christopher Hitchens and others. Many of the early libertarians were resisting the religious right and the personal freedoms that group attempted to restrict, as well as the socialistic mindsets of the liberals and the fascist/corporatist mindsets of the authoritarian conservatives. The libertarian platform firmly believes that there should be no victimless crimes. If one is only hurting oneself, one should be allowed to do whatever one wishes. These factors make the LP a little abrasive to most conservatives, particularly those with strong moral stances who have not been historically opposed to certain pieces of morally motivated legislation.

When I was looking at the LP, I realized that regardless of my own beliefs, I was able to embrace what I believed to be the core philosophy of the libertarian platform. I too do not believe in victimless crime. I do not believe in government involvement in matters of religion or faith. My reasoning is two-fold. Firstly, history has proven that government and religion have disastrous results when they mix. Some of the greatest atrocities in human history were carried out in the name of “God” or some sort of belief system that was integrated with government and used as an excuse to wield power. The Inquisition, the Crusades, and a variety of other wars and atrocities are the result of government use of religion to motivate and justify people to commit horrible acts. Even the Holocaust was an act accepted by the people because of blind faith. It was blind faith in nationalism and the propaganda of government, but it represented a belief system that was enforced by the government, rather than one that people came to on their own. Power corrupts, and adding the power of faith to the already dangerous authority that governments wield is a bad combination.

The other reason for a separation of church and state is the protection of the faith itself. True faith comes from within, not from following a set of rules. If people are being moral only to follow the law, that may still lead to moral decisions, but it does nothing for the soul of the person. Perhaps even more importantly, the tenets of faith or the base concepts of a religion must be protected from government structuring. The Catholic Church, while it has done great things in human history, was not only used by the government, it was created by one. The early Christian faith was nothing like the catholic church with all of its hierarchy and structure, that was developed when Emperor Constantine declared Christianity the State Religion in Rome. That officiating of the Christian faith lead to a complete change in its operation and structure, one that, according to Martin Luther and other early Protestants, was a severe corruption and deviation from the Christianity that Jesus intended. You can agree with their position on that or not, but you cannot deny that the face of Christianity was forever changed when the Catholic Church was formed, and it was formed because of government involvement. The best way to protect ones faith and the souls of those around you is to keep it out of law.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with a person of faith being in government. In fact, the use of the argument of “separation of church and state” to restrict the election of persons of faith, or worse, to restrict the actions of persons of faith who are in government is a corruption of the meaning, and is a violation of the first amendment rights of those citizens in government. To say that an elected official cannot pray in public lest he be seen as supporting a certain religion and therefore violating a separation of church and state is a direct violation of his rights as a citizens to act on his religious beliefs.

The best way to forge a separation is to determine the basis of what laws should be in place. Many moral positions, such as the idea that stealing is wrong, are also rights granted to a free society. The right to property is considered necessary for a free market to function properly, and is a key aspects of personal freedom and motivation. The fact that it is a moral precept does not mean that there should be no laws against stealing. There will always be some overlap. The basis for law should be the protection of the freedom of the citizenry, and the rights that go along with that. Laws that facilitate a free society, such as laws protecting contracts and transactions, laws against fraud and false advertising, laws against assault, threats, murder, etc. are all laws that, while they could be considered moral, are more importantly in place to protect the freedoms of individuals in our society.

A good example of a law that is not a legitimate part of government is the big debate over same-sex marriage. The biggest issue with this debate is the false dichotomy that is represented in the debate. On the one side is opening up marriage to any couple of age, regardless of gender, on the other is the use of law to define marriage in the more traditional sense. The real issue is that government should not be involved in marriage at all. The only reason it is involved is because many of our laws were imported from Great Britain. We declared our independence and set up our constitution, but many aspects of our legal system and legal proceedings are based on traditional British legal concepts. Marriage licenses are just one of many examples. The real debate is whether government should be involved in marriage at all. Marriage is a faith-based institution. It has been a sacred part of many different belief systems. One’s own beliefs should define marriage, not some law. Defining marriage for one group violates the beliefs of another group if it is done through law. If it is not, then no one’s definition of marriage steps on the toes of anyone else’s definition. Of course there are aspects of marriage that have legal repercussions, i.e. division of property, custody of children, etc. upon the death of a spouse or termination of the marriage. Such legal aspects could, however, be handled through a legal contract. Some such contracts could even be entered into without a marriage being involved. Joint ownership of material possessions and custody of children may be a lifelong agreement between two or more parties such as godparents and parents, or any number of other lifelong contractual arrangements. The only restrictions would be that the persons involved would have to be of age and of sound mind to enter such a contract. The idea of sex or intimate love or a commitment before God is not a necessary part of such an arrangement. Thus, government can handle the part that it should and no more.

That is just one example, but the bottom line is that government should be in place to protect the freedom and rights of the individual from other individuals or entities, no more, no less. Anything else is a corruption of what government is designed to do, and is an expansion that like all expansion of authority and consolidation of power, is highly dangerous. The libertarian position is that individuals are free to practice their faith or belief system or religion as they see fit, providing it does not violate the rights of another individual. Anything more than this is a violation of a seperation between church and state as well as the first amendment. If you want others to join you in your faith, it is up to you to convince them, not to pass laws to force them. If you want to see a change in society, be that change you want to see in the world, do not seek the easy path of power to enforce your vision. If your vision cannot stand on its own merit, then perhaps you need to look closer at the vision, not find new ways to force it on others. Trust your faith, if it is real then it will stand. If you cannot trust it, then you yourself do not truly believe it.

Let us start with the points where I agree with most 3rd party opponents. I firmly believe, as do Rush and others, that the only way to truly waste a vote is to not cast it. The persons whose opposition to a third party is some misguided notion that a “vote strike” is the way to send a message are sadly mistaken. Not voting sends an unclear message at best, and likely its real message will be that you do not care and are allowing others to make your decisions for you. This will always be taken advantage of by power seekers.

the other agreed upon point is that both major political parties have become corrupt and support, to some extent, a large and growing government. I think there is little difference between the parties and that opposition to policies by one party is more motivated by partisanship and political games than real ideals. This is evidenced by the fact that whichever party is in power seems to be pushing much of what the other party did when they were in power. It seems little more than a shell game and a false pretence of having different ideals. It may indeed be that there is some difference in the parties and that, for instance, the Republican opposition to the health care bill is based on some real ideals that support keeping health care in the private sector rather than just game playing or vying for specific changes but an overall similar result. I don’t really care if that is the case because, in the end, it remains a lesser of two evils situation, with no real good choice in sight. It is a false dichotomy, offering two bad choices and attempting to force a decision, rather than allowing all options on the table. As I said, however, it is agreed that both sides need to change, especially the conservative side, as they are the ones most inconsistent.

From an idealism standpoint, I support the idea of a third party because I believe people should be able to vote for the person who best represents them, not the person they think can win strategically. I have not problem with political strategy as most of you know, and I think it is a necessity, but I also believe that voting your conscience is a good thing, and people should be able to do that. Voting the lesser of two evils simply perpetuates evil, there should be a good option to vote for. IF such an option showed up with a D or an R by their name, then that is great, but until that happens, a third party candidate should be an option.

I could go more into the idealism side of this argument, but that is not the primary point of disagreement, so let us get to the heart of the matter: political strategy.

The idea of “fixing” the Republican party is absurd without having any real way to accomplish this. It is well and good to say that we should simply vote in real conservatives or freedom lovers or supporters of small government into the Republican party, thereby taking advantage of the party name, voter loyalty, resources, etc. to win an election. It is true that a third party has a massive uphill battle trying to win an election without those things. The problem is, the system that is in place does not offer any persons up for election that fit the bill of reforming the party. There is no motivation for the RNC to change its candidates or for the candidates themselves to change their ways without a threat that has teeth. Thus, it is as much a pipe dream that we can “fix” the major political parties without a real threat as it is that a third party will suddenly take over Washington. Part of the point of voting third party is to take votes away from the leadership that is bad. I refuse to waste my vote by not casting it, since that does not send a clear message, and I refuse to vote for the other major party simply to punish the other party since that sends a message of support to the opposing party. The only way to send a real message to our representatives is to vote for a candidate whose positions on the issues we actually like, taking votes from the party we want to fix. This process may take some time, but it is the only way to effect any real change. Anything else is an empty threat or a confusing message.

The reactionary response to this is, of course, that it will ensure the victory of the greater of two evils by splitting the vote. That is true. However, we have to stop thinking of our country two years at a time. If our strategy does not look farther into the future, it will fail. The Progressive movement did not bring us to the horrid point we are at overnight, it took a lot of time and patience to get us to this place we find ourselves. Reactionary thinking is no competition for long term stratagems. As horrible as it may be to endure another two or four years of bad leadership, it will be a quicker fix than continuing to hope for our favorite party to change.

Another reason it is strategically expedient to vote third party is that corruption is so firmly ensconced in the existing parties that rooting it all out will take a lot of time, even if decent candidates began to propagate the party. Shaking up the Washington system will be much easier with a true newcomer with some real unpredictability. Furthermore, corruption in a newly reformed party could kill growing support among the disenfranchised. Starting fresh is not a bad move when the existing system is so broken. Sometimes a new bicycle is better transportation than an old broken car.

The last reason I support the idea of a third party is that the message sent to Washington will affect both major parties, it will hit home that their little system is no longer accepted and that the people are taking matters into their own hands. It will do more to show who is boss. Maybe a win is not possible, at least not soon, but an impact is possible. If, by chance, some big wins did happen, a third party might actually take the place of one of the existing parties, and that is not a bad thing. Party loyalty is not a particularly useful trait in a republic. We need to be voting for the person who will best represent us, not the person with a certain letter by their name. As such, the impact of a strong showing in a third party will wake up not only Washington, but a lot of the American people as well. Why not send a message that really means something?

Government health care will be the death of this already struggling economy. Most people in the real world understand this, as evidenced by national polls concerning the health care bill and the direction of the country. There is still a lot of support, but most  of it comes from those who are uneducated on the realities of the bill itself or its costs and the overall impact on the economy. Increasingly, as information becomes more and more known, the polls have been showing steadily declining support for nationalized health care.

It seems elementary that government health care is a power grab. It is nearly as obvious as the Patriot Act. The health care industry represents around 16 percent of our nation’s economy, a massive chunk to be turned over to government control, either directly or indirectly. To have an economic power grab of that magnitude is mind blowing. To think that it would be a good idea to turn over that much of our economy considering our government’s track record with business is ludicrous. Considering how much even socialists point out that real freedom depends on having resources to do what you want, a government grab of an additional 16 percent of our production is worse than the phone taps and extra “security measures” in the Patriot Act ever were.

All of this is being gotten away with for the same reasons as the Patriot Act, however: fear. We need to wake up to the realities of the cost and control that is being pressed upon us, and we need to stop being a country of fearful wussies.

Grow a pair America.

Representatives from 170 countries are expected to be at the Copenhagen conference, as well as a whole host of other people, discussing one tiny aspect of environmental concern. The rest of the concerns, unfortunately, are hardly even being addressed. This is the first and most important way that the environmentalist moevement has strayed from the path. There are real ways in which humans are impacting their environment negatively, but none of them are being addressed. I suppose they aren’t “big enough” to scare whole nations into cooperation, making them far less powerful as a political tool.

But that’s just it isn’t it? The whole climate change debate is being used as a tool to grab power and control nations, and the most fierce accusations are always directed to the most free nations, because the free nations have the wealth that is coveted and the freedom that those who seek power want to take away. It is hardly even possible to honestly call it an environmental debate anymore, even by those who actually believe in climate change concerns.

I, for one, do not buy into the climate change hoax. There is too much evidence showing that concerns over climate and atmospheric conditions are unsound. There are too many pieces of evidence used by the climate change believers that do not make sense, such as the correlation between carbon in ice cores and temperature. The rise in temperature precedes this increase, rather than follows it. There are also too many doomsday theories about what would happen in the case of a global temperature change of a few degrees that do not make sense either. Certainly, there would be some changes in sea levels or farming regions, but that is a problem for people, not the planet. Life will not be destroyed by such things, just a few buildings. It is as though the real fear, even by climate change believers, is that their happy little world might change a little and they will have to adapt. Guess what, all life is full of change. When you can no longer adapt, you are naturally selected out of here by the natural processes of this planet. That means you survive or the planet kills you. That is a far cry from killing the planet.

There is a lot of debate raging over the validity of the whole concept. As I mentioned, there is a lot of weak or false evidence supporting it, and a lot of good evidence against it. Furthermore, there is a great deal of evidence that even the impact we can be proven to have is so tiny compared to other natural factors that significant changes to our actions as a species are hardly worth the effort. The presence or lack of certain solar activities would dwarf even the most optimistic scientific projections that such changes in carbon emissions would actually have on the global climate. But I am not here to debate the validity of climate change. I am here to show that the focus on climate change is a bad thing for the environment overall, so here goes:
1) As I mentioned before, the focus, as evidenced by the massive nature of the upcoming conference and the overall hype of climate change concerns is dwarfing other, more legitimate and immediate concerns. There is virtually nothing heard anymore about local pollution and ocean conditions resulting from chemicals and overuse of resources unless it is an aside to the climate change preaching. Some of these other concerns are very real, and they are lost in the mass of hype over the climate.
2) The shaky nature of the evidence for climate change makes the entire environmental movement lose credibility, leading to a backlash among those who do not believe the hype. They end up taking actions that are not at all friendly to the environment either because they believe none of the concerns or are rebelling against the hype.
3) The above reactions to the climate change hype are increased tenfold by the political aspects of the movement. The use of environmental fears to gain political power or manipulate nations is deplorable, and should be fought against by any true environmentalist, regardless of where they stand on climate change. Government involvement is not the answer to hardly any problem, least of all one as important as the fate of the planet and those species who depend on it.
4) The steps for climate change prevention that are being taken or demanded are destructive to the economies they are pressed upon. A poor country does not innovate. It does not improve efficiency. A regulated coutnry does not advance or have the freedom and ability and opportunity to have time or resources to devote to the environment. Look at the environmental records of theocratic, communist, and dictatorial nations versus the free nations of the world, particularly on a per unit of production basis.
5) The anti-technology arm of the environmentalist movement is grossly ignorant on the effect it would have on efficiency. It is well and good to want a “return to nature”, I often seek that myself as a vacation from the rest of life, but to think that the human race could make such a shift without starving to death or being a far greater burden on the planet is very naive.

So let us not forget that there are things in our environment that we DO need to be concerned about. Being more efficient, being more aware of our impact on our local environment, being more willing to reuse or recycle resources rather than use raw resources, being more aware of where our food and toys come from so that we can look at whether they are really coming from the best process possible are all great and important things. We have no time or resources to waste, especially on hoaxes like global warming when there are so many real concerns in this world. Don’t be manipulated by hype, if you really care about something, it is worth using your brain, not just your heart, don’t you think?

The aspects of this I find questionable are as follows:
1) The CDC has called for medical centers to report and treat all flu virus cases as Swine Flu, in many cases the testing is not even completed to determine the exact strain before turning over the process to the CDC. This smacks of over-statement, and it places all of the real evidence with the government, without private oversight.
2) The vaccine, as with many vaccines, is not healthy, but in the case of a real pandemic, it would be pressed upon everyone at risk. In this case, many medical professionals are saying that the risk of the virus does not justify the health risk of the vaccine, making one think that the risk is not as great as it is being reported.
3) Even the raw numbers do not justify pandemic status, yet that is how the media is portraying this thing.
4) The quantities and distribution of the vaccines and treatments are quite questionable, and the shortages are of things like Tamaflu, which is a fairly basic treatment. If this virus is such a dangerous strain, why are basic treatments sufficient to head it off and bring it to low danger levels.

In short, I am not trying to say that care need not be taken. I am not trying to belittle the horror of the deaths this virus has caused. I am trying to say that fear is once again the main enemy here, and that the primary perpetrator of that fear is the one organization who stands to gain the most power by having a fearful public. No, not the pharmaceutical companies, its the Federal Government that is the culprit here.

Stop listening to what they are saying. We all already know our leaders are liars. Why should we fear the doomsday cries of proven liars, especially when they stand to gain from those lies being listened to?

We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Good evening, my name is Jon Smith, and I would like to represent you and your fellow countrymen as your president. There are a great many things to discuss, and I intend to take on those many issues one at a time. In light of our current climate, I would like to start with health care.

Our current health care system is flawed in many ways. Our current safety net system, designed to help those in need, is also flawed. These issues need to be addressed, but two things must be kept in mind in pursuit of these much needed changes. Firstly, proper changes will take time. Despite the urgent nature of the financial stability of our safety nets and the dire need to change our approach to the safety net concept, the fact is that many Americans depend on the system the way it is. Changes will be difficult to adjust to, and enough time must be taken to ensure that our country and its citizens are not unduly harmed by attempting to make changes too rapidly. Furthermore, our system of checks and balances, which I will always respect, will make overly rapid changes, thankfully, impossible. Care must be taken to ensure that the changes made are indeed for the better, and that they are within the authority of your representatives, including, if I have your vote, myself.

The second thing I must urge you to keep in mind is a bit of history. Many issues we will be addressing with require this same admonition, but the hype surrounding health care right now makes it imperative in this specific issue. The thing I am speaking of is fear. This country was madegreat by those willing to take risks. I am happy to look into ways to make costs for health care go down. I am happy to look at ways to ensure that those dependent on safety nets do not find those nets broken or suddenly removed. Ultimately, however, I cannot realistically provide health care for all persons, nor do I believe that I should. The idea of ensuring one’s health is a concept born of fear. We pay for insurance out of fear, we run to the doctor at the first sign of an issue out of fear that it may be a major health problem. It is our fear that is crippling us, and it is our fear that makes this issue even big enough to be worthy of a mention. Take heart and take courage. In the land of the the free there is opportunity. Where there is opportunity and faith in one’s self, there is no need for fear. I believe in a country where we have enough faith in ourselves and individuals and in our fellow citizens as friends and neighbors that we do not need to look to government for help or security. We look to ourselves and to our neighbors when we need something. This is the most important aspect of any viable solution going forward.

Nothing in this life is free. It is not possible to have government paid health care without costing everyone a great deal. In fact, history would suggest that a government run program would cost more once the funds went through the various bureaucracies that government always adds. I am in opposition to increasing the medical safety nets we currently have. In fact, I would like to see them reduced. To assist the free market in handling the needs of our countrymen, I propose that we make it free. Insurance should be able to be procured from any company across the nation, there is no need for restrictions forcing you to choose from insurance providers in your state. Some may think that this will hurt smaller providers, but, in fact, it will help them. Currently, only companies large enough to have offices in every state get the benefit of customers from all across the nation, while a smaller company that might serve a niche market would be restricted to the state it operates in.

I would like to make medical expenses and medical insurance premiums tax deductible on income forms, helping to reduce the tax burden on those who combat illness. I would like to gradually reduce or at least halt the growth of medicare and medicaid and other safety net programs. Infrastructure will need to be in place to keep this from harming the growing retired population, but a constant increase in the cost of our system is no longer sustainable. You will be on your own leaning on the arms of your fellow citizens. It is, frankly, not the government’s responsibility to care for you. That responsibility is your own. This may sound harsh, but it is just as harsh to say to the healthy that they are to set aside their dreams and futures in order to pay for those who are ailing. It is harsh to say that if you do not give your income to the government, whether you agree with the cause or can afford it or not, you will be punished. It is theft and coersion.

What is not coersion is the encouragement of charity. Government funds will be channeled to private, non-profit organizations that look out for those in need. Regular audits to make sure that efficient use of those funds are enforced, but the average private firm is so much more efficient than government ones are, and they are more able to truly help those in need, not only with medical care, but with real care, a face and a heart to go with the check. Those who choose to voluntarily help their neighbor financially will find that such monies  and resources are not taxed in the least. It is time the government stopped getting in the way of neighbors helping neighbors. We are here to protect the freedoms and rights of people, the individuals in the society are the ones responsible for the personal well being of their neighbors.

It is not the government’s responsibility to control your lifestyle. If the government were to get into the business of paying for your health, it would, of necessity, be forced to also control the risks you take. If you want to smoke, eat poorly, and skydive in your spare time you should be free to do so. That this makes you a risk person to insure is the problem of a private firm and should be part of your personal life decisions, based on what those decisions cost you. In a single-payer situation, everyone pays for your lifestyle. This is not acceptable. I encourage you to take risks and live life without fear, because it is too short to waste time on worrying. However, I will remind you that those risks you take are, as they should be, your own.

The final arena I would focus on in the health care arena is the de-regulation of medicine. Often the FDA lends a false sense of security to people, even tho it has made errors concerning the safety or effectiveness of medicine and foods. More often restrictions are placed on items that should be perfectly acceptable. There are many forms of medicine, to only support traditional Western medicine and ignore the importance of other medicines, lifestyles, supplements, and treatments is to do a great dis-service to our people. The FDA will be encouraged to look only for false advertising and willful danger to people, with a much lighter scrutiny. If you want a closer look at your products, there are independent testing firms with a far better track record and far less potential for corruption and lobbying than the government.

There is much more to discuss on this campaign, be well my fellow citizens. Be well, live free, and fear not.
Thank You

Reich also states that he is doing this “honest version” of the speech as it could only be done if, “we were in the kind of democracy where citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship and they were educated in terms of what the issues were and they could separate myth from reality in terms of what candidates would tell them.” This, or course, implies that our citizenry are not honored nor educated, and that they cannot tell myth from reality, thus somehow justifying or making necessary the lies we are fed. He also admits that in our country, a presidential candidate could only give this speech if he did not care about being president. In other words, in this country, the president is going to try to put through health care even though the citizens, if they knew the truth, would resist it. So, they must be lied to. Perhaps, mr Reich, it would be best to listen to the citizens, instead of carrying on in your arrogance and presuming that you are right and that it is only the stupidity and lack of education of the rest of the population that prevents them from supporting your ridiculous concept of health care.

Reich goes on to state that “we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that’s true and what I’m going to do is that I am going try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people”. I am not sure I agree that it is true that we avoid “sick people”. Certainly, there are higher risks for insurance companies to cover persons who are already sick or have lifestyles that are more likely to result in need for medical treatment. Much like there are higher risks for auto insurance providers to offer insurance to persons who have a history of poor, risky, or illegal driving. Outside of that, I do not even see where he would get such a statement from. Our hospitals do not avoid sick people. Our medical technology companies, if they are guilty of anything, it is of treating rather than curing because it is more profitable, in the short run, to approach sickness from that angle. As the saying goes, there is no money in a cure, only in treatment. I most cases, I doubt our system is even guilty of that. What it is not guilty of, however, is avoiding “sick people”. Such a charge is foolish and unfounded.

Reich then proceeds to tell the crowd: “that means you,  particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people…you’re going to have to pay more.” All of us uneducated Americans already knew that, its about time someone admitted it. If you are a young, healthy, productive member of society, forget about saving money and building wealth, forget about ever having the resources to start a business, forget about being able to start a family and provide for them or save for their education, forget about ever changing your class, FIRST you have to pay for all of the unproductive sick people. FIRST you have to give your money to the government so they can decide who is worth saving and who isn’t. FIRST you have to take care of medical bills that are not your own. Its all about the needs of right now, not your future. ‘Cause that attitude hasn’t hurt us as a nation in the past, right?

He goes further and states: “And by the way, we’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.” So, it IS economically necessary to mete out health care to some and not others, based on a government determined “cost/benefit ratio”. I don’t know what bothers me more, that a man who knows this stuff is the truth is still proceeding with it, or the fact that the people in the audience would cheer after each of these statements.

Now, I don’t know if this speech was in support of these ideas, opposed to them, or simply stating realities of the economic realities of government-run health care, but I do know that this is an indicator that at least some people supporting this stuff know exactly what they are supporting, but they are lying about it so as not to lose support. Arrogance and societal thinking to the detriment of the individual, combined with a total disrespect fot the intelligence of the individual or for the wisdom of the combined thinking power of all the individuals in a society is a scary thing. What is more scary is that it is rampant in our academia and in our government, leaving the rest of us in the unfortunate position of needing to take action or be steamrolled. I, for one, have no intention of lying down.