[Rhodes22-list] Political -A Reply To A Politician Seeking Office-#1

[Robert Skinner]

Ed, 

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my message.  
In that spirit I have interspersed my comments with 
yours, as follow:

Tootle wrote:
> Bob,
> I will not attempt to write an inclusive reply to your post.  Your post
> actually has one or two points that I agree with.  But as you anticipate
> many that I cannot.
> ...
> You mentioned the subject of health care and government's role in providing
> a floor.  I have personally seen how your proposed floor works.  While
> occasionally the results are good, just as often the results are deleterious
> and wasteful.  Too make everybody pay, contribute to that debacle is wrong,
> it is totalitarianism.  If people want to contribute as a charity, that is
> their free choice.  But to compel every person to contribute is dictatorship
> and evil.  It is also known as communism.



THE COMMON WEAL:

Ed, I think you go too far in that statement.  

The British common law concept of the "common weal" 
is well recognized in US law as well.  Taxes are 
levied and collected to promote the common weal, 
including standing military forces at the federal 
level and police protection and public education at 
the local level.

I assume that you support the idea of a standing 
army for the defense of the country.  Voluntary 
contributions for that purpose are nice, but not 
sufficient.  Even a volunteer army must be paid.

EDUCATION:

I suspect that there are aspects of public education 
that make you a bit uneasy.  Me too, but perhaps for 
different reasons.  But on the whole, I also suspect 
we'd agree that establishing an educational floor is 
a good idea.  As it is, our educational systems are 
not the best in the world, with science education 
and basic research particularly lagging behind some 
other countries.

STARVATION:

So let's take a look at starvation.  This is a 
tougher situation.

We would probably agree that charity was somewhat 
effective in the early 20th century in providing 
basic requirements.  This worked as long as we lived 
in relatively static communities.  Nobody who knew 
Joe wanted to see him and his kids starve to death.  
But as people became more mobile, the basic premise 
of the local charity was challenged.  When George 
blew into town with his wife and kids in need of 
food, we often just invited him to load up his brood 
and keep on moving.

They did, smack into the dust bowl and stock market 
crash of '29.

This led to the CCC, WPA, and other social programs.  
These components of socialism pulled us out of the 
depression and into a position to win the second 
world war.  And they morphed into welfare, which 
keeps people alive, but also carries some baggage in 
the form of fraud and other abuses.  Again, charity
helps, but is not a guarantee against starvation.

Charity is an answer, a good one in a moral sense, 
but practically not enough to feed some of our less 
able or fortunate citizens.  Who would you have 
starve as you express your antipathy toward 
tax-supported social programs?

> Europe is very illustrative of socialism in its various designs and results
> thereof.  Socialism is advocated by many well educated and well intentioned
> people in USA.  They believe that they can choose the best parts of
> socialism and make them work in America.

Yes.
 
> They and you strongly advocate their positions.  In fact those opinions
> control the formerly free press in America.

Opinions don't control.  People do.  People 
in the press are as much threatened by capitalist 
moguls with a growing centralization of control 
over the media as they are by "PC" public opinion.  
They exist in a battleground between "right" and 
"might", and have to feed their families -- as 
they always have.  

We have the obligation to listen to all sides, 
understand as well as we can, and ultimately walk 
our own path.  And to not ignore the chilling 
effect of oligarchic pressure in the guise of 
patriotism.

> However, those views are not those that the American democratic republic was
> founded on.  Change as advocated by Barack Obama simply states that freedom
> must give way to socialism. 

I doubt that he would agree with your 
interpretation.  And who invited him to this 
discussion?

> The change advocated by the liberal press is
> saying the freedoms espoused by those who wrote the Declaration of
> Independence and Constitution are no longer valid.

Things do change.  The nature of freedom changes.  
The cost of freedom changes.  For example, in a 
stabile community, a terrorist would be recognized.  
In a mobile world, he/she is cloaked with 
anonymity.  In the early years of our country, 
someone could screw up horribly and then head west 
to start a new life.  Now we have social security 
numbers.  Anyway, as George the second said, "The 
constitution is just a piece of paper."  Right?

> I disagree because those freedoms created the highest standard of living the
> world has ever known.  That standard of living does not result in equal
> results to all.  As a system it does not guarantee a floor of health care to
> all.  If you want a health care floor to all then create a charity that will
> provide it.  But do not use dictatorial powers of government to compel it.

I certainly wish that the many charities that try 
to provide the basics of life were more successful.  
I suspect that you do more than your share to help 
others.  But there are not enough of you to do the 
whole job.  And while you decry those are not like 
you, innocent children suffer diseases and the 
results of accidents that may disable them for 
life, and old people die in great and unnecessary 
pain.

> Eastern European socialism has failed because a dictatorial system results
> in corruption.  The medical floor for heath care that you espouse leads not
> only to corruption, but to deleterious applications of medical treatments.
> Those treatments and procedures are ordered because the medical doctors
> order those treatments solely because they can or the family demands them
> under threats to the docotor, not because the results of those therapies
> have been adequately analyzed.

So let us deal sternly with corruption, favoritism, 
and threats against person and property.  Rather 
than diverting the limited police capabilities with 
the many inconsequential and petty crimes 
manufactured by an overheated legislature, let them 
take care of the basics.

> In summary you are advocating socialism.  If you want to live under
> socialism go to a socialist country.

As a citizen of this country, I have the right -- and 
obligation -- to work toward keeping it relevant and 
successful in the here and now.  So do you.  

But you have no right to suggest that I leave my 
country because I disagree with your interpretation 
of its past, your view of its purpose on the face of 
the earth, or your vision for our future.  

I agree that we need to work on our common purposes 
in pursuit of the common good.

/Robert