Dr. Keyes has written an article for WorldNetDaily called "Unhealthy for Liberty" from which I excerpt the following passage:
Though even some of the critics of the Obama faction's health sector proposals speak as if the problem with it lies in the fact that they are reaching for too much too quickly, this criticism begs the most important question: What are they reaching for?
Thanks to Dr. Keyes for pointing this out, it is a vital point to make.
From my point of view there is at least some advantage to our side due to the administration's aggressive, radical 'overreaching' (and I use the term very loosely here), but it does nothing to change the facts that what they're reaching for, at its very roots, is dictatorial totalitarian government, which is altogether unAmerican and must be stopped -- not merely resisted, stopped!
Dr. Keyes puts it in very simple terms:
The problem isn't that they are overreaching.
Again, thanks to Dr. Keyes for pointing this out. It is precisely correct. Indeed, as I've intimated above, that they're aggressively 'overreaching' works more to our side's advantage than theirs. And as I've said before here and elsewhere, I do not believe that they have the mental (or moral) capacity necessary to recognize that they need to scale it back IF they are to have any hope of advancing their agenda, ummm, peacefully. Not that advancing their agenda peacefully is necessarily their goal. Nonetheless, Keyes is right to point out that the perception which attributes to them the sin of 'overreaching' is mired in a false premise, namely that it's not what they're reaching for that is wrong, but the breakneck speed and wreckless driving in pursuit of the what that is wrong. This is, I believe, a great example of what Lawrence Auster has denominated the unprincipled exception. In the event that you're not familiar with the term, read Auster's explanation here.
Dr. Keyes continues:
It is quite simply that what they are reaching for is wrong – wrong for the quality of health care, wrong for the individual liberties of Americans, wrong for the preservation of constitutional government that secures the liberty of the American people.
Amen! A right principled position if there ever was one -- as opposed to taking an unprincipled opposing position wherein the best (albeit flawed) argument one can articulate 'against' government takeover of the healthcare industry (among others) is that we're not quite ready for a complete government takeover of xyz industry just yet. In this case there's no higher principle on which one founds his opposition to a given thing. No; he isn't necessarily opposed to government-run anything per se, he just thinks everyone is better served if totalitarianism continues to be implimented bits-and-pieces at a time, or, that the rate of speed at which it is advanced should be increased by slight yet steady increments. Because, you see, he thinks that that is the American way.
2 comments:
Well, that depends on how you define "overreaching".
After all, the preservation of the free market requires that government closely regulate any industry which is based on expert claims and involves the strong probability of personal injury or death due to malpractice. Doctors make claims to be able to save lives, and to take advantage of their services they require you to put your physical well-being at their mercy. While the basic standards of law should apply equally in principle to any profession, in practice it makes a lot of sense to have law enforcement keep a closer eye on people who can and do accidentally maim and kill so many others.
I have no problem with law enforcement keeping a close eye on medical practitioners generally. False claims and criminal abuses must be eliminated if people are to have real freedom in choosing their health care providers. And fundamentally, what we're talking about now is not having government officials wield the knife on patients, but complete regulation of what doctors may and may not do.
So I see it as an extension of an activity that government initially has a legitimate reason to undertake. Thus, in declaring it to be illegitimate, I must declare that it is an overreach, not that the regulatory function is itself wholly illegitimate.
The antithesis of liberty. That is all that needs to be said about the current proposals.
Post a Comment