Monday, March 5, 2012

A Criticism of Universal Healthcare and the Welfare State

I think it's abhorrent that while special interest groups and whiny individuals like Sandra Fluke (and the women she represents) somehow "need" contraception insurance coverage, somehow I don't need medical or pharmaceutical services of any kind. 

If I get injured, I clean myself up and repair or treat my own injury using whatever I have on hand. If I get sick, I utilize whatever natural herbs I see growing wild, and most of the time I don't do anything at all-- I just sleep it off and take extra good care of myself until I get well. If someone attacks me, even beats me to a bloody pulp, I don't go to the hospital, not even to have some doctor give his or her opinion. I take care of myself, regardless of the circumstances.

You might believe that you deserve special treatment, that you are "entitled" because you are a woman, because you are disabled, because you are a minority, because you have some unusual debilitating condition or simply because you feel like playing the victim. If you, like Sandra Fluke and other welfare state advocates, feel it's the duty of taxpayers to accommodate this spoiled need for "special treatment", there is one thing you're entitled to: your opinion. 

But there's no way I'm going to pay for your special treatment, because I believe it's selfish, immoral, and it's fundamentally against my moral stigma towards insurance of any kind, health or otherwise.


I spent my entire adolescence in the system, with everything being provided to me by the welfare state. Those were the most wasted years of my life. You might claim that it's "selfish" for us to not "help" to those in need through compulsory legislation, but at least from my own experience these "good intentions" are only hurting people by making them complacent, dependent on a corrupt system, and motivationally crippled from actually living life.

You may believe that universal healthcare and welfare services are "helping" people, but I know from experience that it is quite to the contrary. Even if it did actually help people to be successful in life and actually make something of themselves, what good does it do when every single person being "helped" has their individuality stolen from them in the name of socialist ideals? Now everything is public. 

Parents no longer rear their children (we have daycare and preschools for that), and they no longer teach their children (we have public schools for that), People no longer take care of themselves (we have health care for that), they no longer defend themselves (we have the police for that), they no longer think for themselves (we have society for that), we no longer hold our own beliefs (we have religion for that), we no longer invest our own money (we have banks and investment firms for that)....The list goes on and on! 

At this rate, there will no longer be anyone to help, there won't be any "one" at all, there will only be the collective state, and those remaining few who still have the courage to refuse to go along with this irresponsible madness


I think it's disturbing that we live in a world where it's selfish to not want to encourage selfishness, self-righteous to not condone self-righteousness, unsympathetic to support freedom and independence from corrupt systems, close-minded to have an opinion at odds with the consensus or norm, and cold-hearted for asserting that everyone should be happy just to be alive, that we're not entitled to any more than that.

In a comment to the above statements, people stated how they felt my opinions were at complete odds with my self-summary:  "I believe in living a life of Oneness manifested through Selfless Love, and it is my mission to find a way to get rid of all the selfishness in the world, along with the misunderstandings, prejudices, and misled self-righteousness that it fuels."

That is, they felt that my more recent posts represent me as being selfish, self-righteous, unsympathetic, close-minded, prejudiced, and cold-hearted. Believe me, if I was, I would probably not post any of this type of content-- I would just post content people wanted to hear, game the system to get the maximum amount of influence, and leverage that influence to my own corrupt ends. So being the minority in my beliefs, I just think it's a bit absurd that I could even be accused of such things-- an absurdity that sadly reflects the "norm" of the modern world :-(

Argument For a Return to a "Gilded Age" Government

With how big and diverse of a nation America is, we would be far better off as a federation of largely autonomous states, which is precisely how America was in our golden age, historically known as"The Gilded Age".

"In United States history, the Gilded Age refers to the era of rapid economic and population growth in the United States during the post–Civil War and post-Reconstruction eras of the late 19th century.The Gilded Age is most famous for the creation of a modern industrial economy. During the 1870s and 1880s, the U.S. economy rose at the fastest rate in its history, with real wages, wealth, GDP, and capital formation all increasing rapidly. For example, between 1865 and 1898, the output of wheat increased by 256%, corn by 222%, coal by 800% and miles of railway track by 567%. Thick national networks for transportation and communication were created. The corporation became the dominant form of business organization, and a managerial revolution transformed business operations. By the beginning of the 20th century, per capita income and industrial production in the United States led the world, with per capita incomes double that of Germany or France, and 50% higher than Britain.

The Gilded Age saw the greatest period of economic growth in American history. Eventually, the United States produced over one third of certain international goods such as steel and oil. After the short-lived panic of 1873, the economy recovered with the advent of hard money policies and industrialization. From 1869 to 1879, the US economy grew at a rate of 6.8% for NNP (GDP minus capital depreciation) and 4.5% for NNP per capita. The economy repeated this period of growth in the 1880s, in which the wealth of the nation grew at an annual rate of 3.8%, while the GDP was also doubled. Real wages also increased greatly during the 1880s."

The Gilded Age was followed by the "progressive era", which was dominated by FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt), and socially progressive (which translates to naive and ignorant) measures-- stuff like the "Prohibition", socialist feminism (which has done more to destroy American morality than just about anything IMO), and "reforms" in virtually every aspect of life, and every business industry-- which incidentally culminated in the Federal Reserve, the hallmark of the Progressive Era. What the important thing here is that "progressives" then (and now, from the looks of it) got off to fixing government policies that weren't broken, and expanding the government's power to cover areas that people were happy and prosperous without such interference.

The Progressive Age effectively destroyed the prosperity of America through the expansion of government in the name of, ironically enough, "eliminating corruption" (pot calling the kettle black much?) Politicians started utilizing war (starting with the Spanish-American War, and later with such wars as World War I) to force the states to unite against a common enemy, and exploited the FUD(fear, uncertainty, and doubt) in the nation to insert pieces of nationwide legislation which, were it not for the wars (and other engineered socio-economic crisis's such as the two "Great Panics") would be condemned by the states and people as unconstitutional. Things have been becoming more and more corrupt in America since then, and our national debt and high rates of crime/other disturbing trends reflect that.