Wealth Creation:

Cooperation:

Conservation:

“The whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be
reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists in looking not merely
at the immediate but the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing
the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.”"Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other science known to man.”
– Henry Hazlitt in Economics in One Lesson

[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

-U.S.Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3)

Here is a great segment from Reason.tv discussing the history and expansion of the federal power through more modern understandings of the interstate commerce clause.

The ultimate question here has more to do with how you view the Constitution. Is it a legal contract written specifically to limit the power of government – or was it just some basic guidelines for setting up a government system?

This is a fundamental question that American’s each must reconcile. It may not seem important, but rest assured – your rights and liberties will look very different, based on your answer.

I certainly agree with the idea that we deserve the government that we get. If we, as a society, feel that the decisions and responsibility concerning our own health are things that our government should be shouldering, rather than us – then we deserve socialized medicine.

If this is our choice, then we must also acknowledge we will be necessarily handing our own choice over to a third party – and be willing to live with this decision. We also must be willing to accept that in the future, removing this government program will be impossible – given that it provides citizens with something they perceive as ‘free,’ in exchange for their votes and loyalty to keep that program going. Mark Steyn points writes about this change in rolls:

“The problem isn’t the cost. These programs would still be wrong even if Bill Gates wrote a check to cover them each month. They’re wrong because they deform the relationship between the citizen and the state. Even if there were no financial consequences, the moral and even spiritual consequences would still be fatal.”

[...]

“Once you have government health care, it can be used to justify almost any restraint on freedom: After all, if the state has to cure you, it surely has an interest in preventing you needing treatment in the first place.”

This idea of cultural infantilism is much more fully discussed in Steyn’s article: Live Free, or Die.

You are probably wondering, if I am against a socialized or nationalized plan – what alternative would I suggest? Well, I am certainly no expert on health care – however, I do have several guiding principals and questions that we should ask or consider when we talk about health care:

First, Thomas Sowell’s famous three questions:

1. How much does it cost?
2. Who pays for it?
3. Does it work?

Now, several of my own:

1. Does the new plan increase – or decrease personal liberty?
2. If the new plan isn’t initially in conflict with personal liberty (question 1), can it easily be made to be so (for instance, by a future corrupt government)?
3. Why does any plan need to be created at the National or Federal level? Why not let the states figure out their own plans, especially since they are much closer and more knowledgeable about their own peoples and situations?
4. What evidence can you point to that our government can afford such a program, given the state of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security?
5. Does the new plan increase personal choice? In other words, under any proposed plan, would an individual have more choices overall, or less?
6. Does the plan encourage competition? Historically, industries that have free and tough competition, have to find ways to entice the customer to their service – or they will cease to be. Usually they do this through innovation, providing cheaper services, or providing better services for similar prices. Would whatever new plan we are considering create  competition, favor one business over another (such as one provider teaming up with the government, similar to lobbying), or eliminate competition?

Those are just a start, so I will probably return to this post and add additional questions. Feel free to add your own in the comments. In the mean time, here’s John Stossel’s take also:

And here are ten facts about the U.S. health care system you might not know (via The Hoover Institute – follow the link for in-depth explanations):

1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.
2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.
3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.
4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.
5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.
6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom.
7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed.
8. Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.
9. Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain.
10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Part 6:

Part 7:

Part 8:

I have only a couple quick thoughts on this video.

First, Prager mentions ‘Inalienable’ Rights – when the Declaration of Independence actually declares ‘Unalienable’ Rights. Today, these terms are often used interchangeably, but there is a subtle important difference which I wrote about before. This is a minor difference for sure, but I think it is still a useful one to understand.

Also, while some Atheists may take serious issue with value #2, I think there exist reasonable philosophical systems for non-God based values (such as Ayn Rand’s Objectivism) that may support the idea of ‘Unalienable’ Rights. I don’t have the time (or the desire, frankly) to write a thorough discussion on that topic here. At the very least we can say that, in America, it is the Atheist’s Unalienable Right not to believe in a God based system. That right is inherent and essential (incapable of being given up, or taken), and must be protected and defended in just the same way as, say, my own Christian belief system.

Other than that, I think Prager does a nice job outlaying some of the basic American values. Hopefully, his future videos will be as informative and positive as this.

Many thanks to Youtube user brittle13 for posting this full interview (in 5 parts):

“I do not know any exception to the proposition, that if you compare like with like – the freer the system, the better off the ordinary poor people have been.”
- Milton Friedman

The late Nobel Peace Prize winning economist Milton Friedman created a great series on economic freedom called Free To Choose. It is lengthy (each segment is about 45 minutes), but thorough, and does a great job making the case for economic freedom. Whether or not you agree with all aspects of his theories – this series is a great asset for anyone who wishes to discuss economics and government.

If you don’t have time to sit and watch these videos, you can also simply listen to them while you work.

Each part begins with an introduction, and ends with a panel discussion on the topic presented:

Part 1: The Power of the Market

Part 2: The Tyranny of Control

Part 3: Freedom & Prosperity

I can’t find the other parts on Google Video, but you can watch Part 4: The Failure of Socialism, and Part 5: Created Equal at ideaChannel.tv.

UPDATE: I think that Part 3 and 4 are actually combined. I’m not certain about this – but as far as I can tell – this is the case. Feel free to leave a comment if you discover otherwise.

This is a good thing to keep in mind as we discuss ideas like Capitalism and Socialism. When you feel angry about rich and wealthy people – don’t forget that they don’t just stuff their money in mattresses (though they certainly are free to do so). They invest that money in businesses, buy houses, and build things. This investment employs a vast amount of talent from all sorts of people.

While some people with wealth may be motivated by greed – this does not justify jealousy, coveting, and the demonizing of all people with wealth (one of the foundations of Marxism). Nor does it justify stealing from those (by governmental force through unfair taxation) to redistribute that wealth to people who did not rightfully earn it. Remember – most people with wealth did not steal it. They offered a product or service that someone else valued more than their own dollars, and then chose voluntarily to trade for. If we wish to value freedom as a people, we have no right to then turn around and confiscate the property of the wealthy that they earned by trading fairly.

One of the foundational rights of a free people is the right to the wages of their own labors (more commonly referred to as the right to private property). This is the core of Capitalism. All other systems, in one from or another, deny private property, and end in collective slavery to the State (government coerced collectivism).

I will expand on these thoughts in part two of my study on Rejecting Socialism (be sure to read Part 1 Here, if you haven’t already). It is taking me a while to write, not only because I have been busy – but also because I want to make sure that I am thorough and fair. Be sure to keep checking back!

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

-Martin Luther King Jr.

A fine quote to add to the above:

“Black History is American History”

-Morgan Freeman

Freeman’s statement echos something, “The Sage of Anacostia,” Frederick Douglass once stated:

Everybody has asked the question. . .”What shall we do with the Negro?” I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature’s plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!

–Frederick Douglass