Most Libertarians, I concede I'm definitely in the minority on this issue, see no role whatsoever for the government in handling the personal affairs of private insurance. That seems fair enough and I don't think that stance is unreasonable from their perspective. However, I never claimed to be a Libertarian, just that I have a libertarian view of government.
I don't happen to see it the same because I don't see paying taxes for the betterment of our society as an infringement on my personal liberties. It doesn't conflict with the three tenets (morality, private property, and state's rights) that most Libertarians uphold, at least in my mind. Most Libertarians would argue the government wasn't put in place to take care of people and they would say buying insurance for its citizens fits into this category. I happen to believe that's exactly why government was put in place, to take care of people. If we didn't want to take care of people and make sure their lives ran smoothly then we would have never formed a government in the first place. We could have just let everyone be completely "free" and have no rules in place but that's not what we wanted. That's not to suggest we don't require people to work and pull their weight in society, it simply means when we can improve the overall living condition of all of the citizens then I think that's a worthy and noble cause for government to take up.
As I've mentioned, my view isn't the "norm" in the Libertarian crowd and it causes others to doubt my understanding of the values of the group. My willingness to accept Obamacare (actually I was very disappointed by it because it didn't go far enough and was written poorly and not explained to the public in a way in which they could comprehend and could have been ruled unconstitutional if Justice Roberts hadn't been such a patriot, dedicated to his oath) seems inconsistent to Libertarians. And if I had to honestly rule on whose idea of universal health care is more libertarian, mine or Libertarians, then I would have to side with the Libertarians.
I have views and ideas and opinions on everything in life, just like everyone does. If two or three or four of those views aren't libertarian but three hundred thousand of them are then I would still be comfortable describing my principles of governing as libertarian leaning. And when I do harbor one of these views and respite from my normal philosophies of government I am capable of acknowledging my unconventional persuasion. All I ask in return is you, the Libertarian that would call me a LINO if it was a word, to do the same, recognize when you aren't fully embracing the libertarian view.
Dr. Ron Paul, the poster child (or would it be poster grandpa?) of libertarian views, is a better Libertarian than me. He never breaks rank and is even willing to hold some absurd positions in the name of libertarianism. If you don't believe me just Google the debates and his answer to the coma question or search for the hurricanes and his ideas about FEMA or look into his "no" vote in 2004 to a resolution honoring the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But I'll give him this, he is consistent.
Dr. Paul's position on not supporting the Civil Rights Act (he wasn't in office at that time but has said he would have voted against it and did so in the ceremonial resolution) really boils down to privacy. He believes people and businesses should make their own choices and the government shouldn't dictate wanted behavior. In the case of the Civil Rights Act the government wanted minorities (mostly black people) to be treated equal and not denied service or treated in an inferior manner. A Libertarian like Paul would argue society would weed out the unwanted behavior (discriminating against people) simply by supply and demand. Paul, bless his heart, believes if a person had the freedom to choose to eat at a restaurant that serves all races and one that serves only white folk then everyone would surely choose to eat at the multiracial restaurant and the bigoted restaurant would inevitably fail.
Remember when I said I had two or three or four views that weren't libertarian and exampled Obamacare? Disagreeing with Paul's approach on this is another one of them. Now don't misunderstand me, I'm saying I don't agree with Paul on this but I'm not saying that his view isn't libertarian. It's me that's jumping off that ship. The libertarian view comes with "rely on the people, not the government, to fix things" as option one. Option two doesn't exist. I'm a true Libertarian when option one is available and works, and there are certainly shining examples of option one working today. In fact, almost everything works in our society under option one. However, sometimes the private sector simply fails us or doesn't have the capability to provide a service we demand and need in order to continually form a more perfect Union.
The private sector should always be given the first crack at meeting our needs, but we have to collectively come together as a people in the form of a government and enact some things that better our society if the private sector doesn't do it after given that chance. By 1964 we had decided the private sector had failed us and supply and demand wasn't enough to afford people equal rights. People were choosing to eat in only white restaurants. People were choosing to make "coloreds" relinquish their seat at the front of the bus and relegate them to the back. We, society, stepped up and made it illegal for businesses to provide service in an inequitable fashion.
Notice what we didn't do in trying to solve the problem. We didn't allow the action (discrimination) to continue to be legal. We didn't try to zone it and regulate it by business.
The Chic-fil-A controversy is an amazing study. If you aren't familiar with the important details of the latest buzz then I'll provide the CliffsNotes (formerly Cliffs Notes, originally Cliff's Notes and often, and erroneously, CliffNotes). Chic-fil-A is a very successful restaurant chain based in the South and the owner is a proud Christian. The business donates to charities and groups that support the owners views. One of his views, that happens to be very much in accordance with his religious beliefs, is gay people should not be married to one another. Every once in a while an event would take place and the public would be reminded of some of the policies of Chik-fil-A that were unfavorable to gays. This has been going on for awhile now. However, this time when the story emerged again it gained traction and didn't go away. Now everyone is on a "side".
Some Democratic politicians decided they would try to ban the business from coming to their cities. This type of governing is ridiculous and down right illegal. This sums up exactly why I could never be a Democrat (besides I don't usually agree with their solutions), they absolutely suck at governing. I can't stand this mindset, that the government knows what's best for me, when all of my choices are legal. Now if they want to say something is illegal and I can't do it then so be it. However, if something is legal then don't tell me what I can and can't do. If I am the owner of Chik-fil-A and your city has zoned for restaurants then you have no right to ban me or deny me access to your city simply because you don't like my personal choices. What's next? They'll tell me I can't drink more than 64 ounces of legal sodas? Bad example.
Chik-fil-A isn't doing anything illegal (at least that I'm aware of when it comes to their policies in regard to this specific issue). If they were doing something illegal then we would simply penalize them and rectify the situation. However, since the politicians can't do that some on the left have opted to take the Democratic way and have the government poke their nose into affairs they have no business poking their nose into in hopes of remedying their predicament. Don't get me wrong, if something illegal is happening then I'm all for the government stepping in, but that just doesn't seem to be the case here. So I will completely stand by my fellow brethren on the right when they call foul on the Democratic politicians who have chosen to wrongly "fix" this "problem".
But if I am providing a fair assessment of this fascinating situation then I must report the real push isn't coming from politicians, it's simply coming from the public. I candidly shredded the Democratic politicians and their misguided tactics for their role in this affair. However, there were only a couple and they were very small players in the grand scheme of the political environment. This just isn't a political issue, it's not a government happening.
What is happening though is protests against and rallies for whatever "side" one chooses in this debate, pro-Chik or anti-Chik. And certainly the vast majority of people who protest are from the left and are probably Democrats and the vast majority of those on the right that rally in support are Republicans, but it's still not a political happening. If nothing illegal is occurring by the business then there is nothing for the government to weigh in on. What we are witnessing is simply the public weighing in on it and supply and demand are taking its course. It's a Libertarian wet dream.
I explained earlier that I broke from Paul's view, the libertarian mindset, when he would opt to let the private market decide human rights. That's because our government was deciding if the practice of discrimination at large was legal or illegal. Paul, and Libertarians, believe in the ultimate freedom, where people have the right to discriminate and rely on the goodness of society to win in the end. Just like slavery ran its course and we just came to our senses and freed all of the slaves and didn't have to engage in a civil war or anything. Bad example.
I personally think treating gay people differently, in any way at all, in any environment, but especially at their place of employment, is discrimination. But the law of the land doesn't entirely agree with me. It is not legal for two people of the same gender to be married in most states. Companies aren't required by law to provide benefits to gay couples as they would legally married couples. Therefore, if Chik-fil-A, decides to run their company how they choose without violating any discrimination laws then .... (say it with me).... it is what it is.
So imagine Ron Paul had to vote on gay rights and the legality of discriminating against gays. He would hold true to his libertarian principles and vote against any law making it illegal for businesses to operate in this fashion. He would vote for the status quo, everything stay as it is, and opt for no government intervention. I would disagree with him. However, if Paul had to vote on whether a certain city could ban a certain business based on a policy that is certainly legal then I would probably agree with Paul. We would both think that is ridiculous. I implore you to understand this subtle difference. Deciding whether or not an action (discrimination) is legal is completely different that deciding the worthiness and value to the community of a business that has legal policies (Chik-fil-A). The jury on the second part of the scenario is simply the purchasing public.
We willingly place ourselves into one of two camps, two entirely narrow scoped views of how the country should operate, and we are content to wage war against the other camp on every single issue. We have no desire to live together, embracing the best of both views, compromising on issues to ensure success when addressing our problems. We are so entrenched and shell shocked we can't even see when we are simply fighting over chicken. We are so delusional we think an order for a char-grilled chicken club sandwich is a vote for Romney in the preliminary stages of election voting. We take comfort in knowing we aren't homophobes and support the gay movement because we stayed at home and had a hope and change pizza delivered.
There are real things to discuss about this issue but we have become so confused we would rather believe anything than a fact that might counter a self serving agenda. In the end a discussion of any merit becomes impossible. A pipeline explodes and leaks millions of gallons of oil into the ocean for months, killing and destroying hundreds of thousands of animals, damaging people's livelihoods and we cover it on the news for weeks at time. Still, we never have a discussion about the real issue, instead we fight over nonsense and political rhetoric. Animals die and the environment is severely damaged and we are more worried about defending our political camps. The greatest minds on the planet tell us we should be concerned about climate change and our atmosphere and that turns into a Democratic and Republican issue. Gay people are treated like second rate citizens and we fight over a restaurant that sales chicken.
We must continually challenge ourselves to think deeply about our views, understand why we have them, how they were embedded in our brains. We have to only hold on to those beliefs that have passed a self imposed virus scan and have been defragged to ensure our computers are operating at maximum efficiency. And perhaps even more importantly, that they are in sync with the other computers, all 311 million of them, that surround them. This is the only formula to secure the common ground required to begin any discussion. And remember the importance of consistency when a few members of a gal country group make known their views about a war and you burn their albums and boycott purchases of their products to show your disdain for their intolerant and unpatriotic views while you are purchasing chicken sandwiches to show your disdain for the intolerant and unpatriotic views of those liberals that aren't purchasing chicken sandwiches to show their disdain of your intolerant and unpatriotic views. Bad example.
No comments:
Post a Comment