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 :-(

My Views on Climate Change, and its Effects on Civil Liberties

First, I would to clarify to both sides of the argument of climate change that I neither believe, nor disbelieve in global warming. so  who believes that I am a conspiracy theorists or in any way against the current focus of scientific studies, rest assured I believe that any field of scientific inquiry, whether valid in its assumptions or not, is acceptable so long as it does not infringe on the inalienable rights of individuals. Which brings me to my pain point:

I am not so much against climate change, as I am against the lack of transparency in the scientific community surrounding it, the corruption and lobbying efforts on *both* sides of the argument, and (most importantly) I am against any government exploiting science (whether valid in its arguments or not) to generate FUD and use climate change as a reason to expand the size and scope of the federal government.

The reason why I think there is a strong possibility of the government-sponsored investigations being corrupted, is _because_ they were government-sponsored, and furthermore, the two countries involved in the investigations have a long history of using "facts" to mislead the public, and using the mainstream media as their strong arm to push a liberal agenda of government expansion. It has nothing to do specifically with climate change, except in that climate change has enough evidence backing it for the government (and the U.N., which has also become corrupt) to use it as an excuse to expand its powers.

In conclusion, I would like to remind everyone that there are three types of untruths: lies, damned lies, and statistics. So at the very least, the "evidence" of climate change is built on a very unreliable foundation indeed, as its "legitimacy" is almost wholly grounded in statistics, and the interpretation thereof. 

But there's at least one site, founded by the discoverer of Climate change, which at least provide transparency. Now that's progress! http://www.realclimate.org/