The Independent Voice » carlos http://the-independent-voice.com Non-Partisan Commentary On All Things Social Thu, 19 May 2011 17:57:44 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 Atlas Shrugged and Conformity http://the-independent-voice.com/atlas-shrugged-and-conformity/ http://the-independent-voice.com/atlas-shrugged-and-conformity/#comments Fri, 13 May 2011 18:28:28 +0000 carlos http://the-independent-voice.com/?p=43 I first read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand about 40 years ago. At the time, in my youth, after having read the book, I was both ecstatic and depressed.

Atlas ShruggedWhy was I exhilarated and depressed, because I saw both sides of myself. I saw those moments of bliss and exhilaration when I accomplished something regardless of what others thought. I also recognized those moments when I succumbed to social guilt and cultural pressure and felt miserable.

Atlas Shrugged hammers the very virtues of society. It pits the philosophy of free will and its sister, liberty, against the philosophy of compassion and its sister, altruism. It questions our social morality.

How do you reconcile the desire for liberty and self-expression and comply with the moral dictates of society?

Capitalism

Capitalism and all the other socio-political/economic “isms” strive to define a system of rules, a framework that gives order to a society. If liberty is the driving force of a community, then Capitalism or some version of Capitalism appears to be the ‘ism’ of choice.

Pure Capitalism imposes no restrictions on an individual’s pursuit of wealth. Unfortunately, the holders of that wealth become power mongers that impose their will on those with less wealth through sheer force of their accumulated wealth and exploit the masses in subtle and perverse ways.

On the other hand, planned systems like Socialism and Communism impose centralized control and attempt to distribute wealth equitably among the population. Again, unfortunately, the holders of that power, the power of law, will impose their will on those without able representation.

More often than not, common sense judgment is non-existent in an altruistic world and one law fits all forcing all to comply under penalty of law. On the other end of the law are those that take advantage of the law and demand their “God given” equality.

Freedom and Liberty

So how do you reconcile the desire for freedom and liberty in all our pursuits with the desire to leave no man behind?

Ayn Rand champions captains of industry. Except that there are no longer any champions of industry, only multi-headed corporations devouring resources like the multi-headed Hydra of Greek mythology.

The novel celebrates the individual and the arrogance of truth but only focuses that celebration through the lens of free enterprise. The saga equates liberty and freedom with making money. It declares that monetary gain and liberty are inseparable.

It is true that without social, economic, and political liberty and freedom, individuals are not free to choose their labor. Consequently, without freedom they cannot make whatever money they desire or deem necessary.

The liberty and freedom that our forefathers declared is not limited to the pursuit of money. It encompasses all aspects of human life. It is a matter of dreaming a dream and having the freedom to achieve that dream.

Responsibility

We confuse the achievement of wealth, through creativity and production, with truths that have been declared, “to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights … life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” That ideal assumes equality in terms of potential, not in terms of capabilities. It assumes responsibility.

With our inalienable rights come responsibilities. Were that not true we would experience anarchy in this human reality.  Because humanity is unequal in its understanding of those responsibilities, nations enact laws to allow for the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

I would venture to guess that most would agree that without some law in place, our American society would resemble the pinnacle example of the survival of the fittest. The American Wild West would be a love story in comparison to the resulting lawless anarchy.

It is fair to say then, that as a society we define through law what our responsibilities should be in our pursuit of life, liberty, happiness. The cornerstone, the foundation, of that definition is our Constitution.

Hypocrisy and Injustice

Atlas Shrugged confirms the hypocrisy of our society. We applaud truth, individualism and creativity and enforce conformity. There is no denying that injustice abounds in this the freest of all countries, but therein lies responsibility.

Injustice is not a result of the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. It is the result of not taking individual responsibility of our potentials and converting them into capabilities through action. It is the result of greed, greed for power. It is the result of lust for the power of control.

Human Spirit

Knowledge and experience forge the human spirit. Culture and religion taint the human spirit. I am not a ‘religionist’ nor am I an atheist, but I recognize the Divine Spirit in humanity. The Declaration of Independence addresses that Divine Spirit. It is the potential of humankind.

It is unfortunate but necessary that for lack of an understanding of responsibility, we must limit the divine potential in humanity through law. It is when that law institutes “a long train of abuses and usurpations” that a nation must question its laws and the powers that allow them.

Are we approaching that limitation? Over fifty years ago, Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged warned us of an alarming trend in government.  Today we allow corporations and religion to control our government and force the subtle and perverse slow boil of conformity.

Nonetheless, I must ask. Where would you be were it not for the Civil Rights legislation of 1964?

]]> http://the-independent-voice.com/atlas-shrugged-and-conformity/feed/ 1 Environmental Questions http://the-independent-voice.com/environmental-questions/ http://the-independent-voice.com/environmental-questions/#comments Mon, 21 Dec 2009 02:57:57 +0000 carlos http://the-independent-voice.com/?p=26 I do not consider myself an environmentalist at least not in the sense of a torch bearing gun-toting advocate. Nevertheless, not to perceive that we humans are detrimentally affecting the environment is blind stubbornness.

roses

You need only look at the smoke stacks emitting their billows of thick chalk colored smoke.  Drive down a freeway with your windows rolled down and gag from the fumes. Look at the millions of acres stripped naked of their natural growth like a boot camp haircut.

If you cannot give this observation any credibility, then you do not stop to smell the roses.

Is this affecting the melting of our glaciers and the warming of our poles? Scientists cannot agree.

I know that we are the masters of the earth. Masters charged with the command to subdue Mother Earth and to have dominion over it and its kingdom.

I do not think that command implies desecration. It implies responsibility. What ruler that plunders and rapes is respected by his subjects? Fear and force will triumph for only so long before revolution festers and overthrows.

You may argue that there is a difference. You may argue that a soul that rules over another in discord and malevolence is different from dominion over the inanimate.

Mother Earth has a soul. It may not be a soul defined by religion, but it has a soul, an essence. Look at Nature all around you. Can it be denied that Mother Earth lives? I think not.

Have we not become parasites that gnaw at the surface and devour the bowels of this living creature we call home? We need its resources to survive. Must we devour it to satisfy those needs? We take from the bowels of earth. What have we done to replace what we have removed?
A wise man saves a few kernels of corn to plant and grow food for another day.

I am for individual freedom and for our capitalistic way of life. But, with that freedom comes responsibility. How do we hold ourselves responsible without strangling individuality? Unfortunately, only binding treaties and more laws can stymie the plunder of our planet. We can’t do it on our own.

What do you think?

photo by mezuni@flickr

]]> http://the-independent-voice.com/environmental-questions/feed/ 0 There Oughtta Be A Law http://the-independent-voice.com/there-oughtta-be-a-law/ http://the-independent-voice.com/there-oughtta-be-a-law/#comments Tue, 08 Dec 2009 02:54:43 +0000 carlos http://the-independent-voice.com/?p=22 One of our local TV stations regularly does a health care bit as a community service. This one was particularly interesting.

Did you know that a very high percentage of children are poisoned by medications? In my state, it’s about 45%.  That is a very high percentage.  There ought to be a law.

Tamper-resistant Packaging Regulations Well there is. There are child safe medicine bottles. You know the kind. I often have trouble opening them, but then I am way over sixty and sometimes I can’t get a grip on the caps.  I just cannot get them open.

In 1982 the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) passed their Tamper-resistant Packaging Regulations to prevent poisonings. That was a long time ago.

You have to ask why then are so many children still poisoned by medicinal drugs? One suggestion is that parents and grandparents leave the bottles open because they too have difficulty getting them open. Consequently, inquisitive little tots get to them.

That might be a good explanation. Here is another, remember that TV show I mentioned at the beginning? Well, it turns out a bunch of kindergartners were given empty tamper-resistant bottles to open. The game was to see how fast and if they could open them.

What do you think happened? Yep, the bottles were opened. Some were opened in less than a minute! I checked around and found that throughout the country the results are the same.

This begs the question, are our children any safer now than they were before 1982? I doubt it. Ultimately, it is the adults’ responsibility to keep children out of harm’s way.

All this raises another question, who paid for this? Who has paid for the salaries of the enforcers, the bureaucrats, the designers, engineers, and the manufacturers of the tamper-resistant bottle caps? Can you guess? Yes, you are right again. You and I.

If there were a proven benefit, then maybe it would have been worth it . There hasn’t been.

Just another law by those who know better than you do and know what is best for your welfare.

Am I right?

]]> http://the-independent-voice.com/there-oughtta-be-a-law/feed/ 0 Health Care Plan, Pros & Cons – What About the Constitution? http://the-independent-voice.com/health-care-plan-pros-cons-what-about-the-constitution/ http://the-independent-voice.com/health-care-plan-pros-cons-what-about-the-constitution/#comments Mon, 07 Dec 2009 02:31:01 +0000 carlos http://the-independent-voice.com/?p=17 There is daily coverage of the 2009 Health Care Reform Bill pros and cons. The coverage is incessant and well it should be. It will change our lives. However, there is a fundamental question that is ignored, what about the Constitution?

Health Care Reform
Very recently, Speaker of the House Pelosi was asked by CNS News, “… where does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” Her response was, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” CNS News: “Yes, yes I am.”

Later, Pelosi’s press secretary went on record as saying, “That is not a serious question.” My question: “Asking for Constitutional clarification is not a serious question?”

I have another question just how many of our Senators and Representatives do you think have actually read the Health Reform Act? Yes, I think you are right. Not very many.

Regardless, it seems to me that it is not within Congress’ or President Obama’s authority to dictate to any citizen whether an individual must carry health insurance. How about you? How do you feel about it?

It is like automobile seat belt laws. I know that there is evidence to support the use of seat belts. Still, in my naive way of thinking, I cannot accept being fined for not wearing my seatbelt. There is no evidence that my not wearing a seatbelt will hurt any one else.

So then, this law, the seatbelt law, is a law for my own good. A law passed by those that know better for my own good. Whatever happened to my unalienable rights? I realize that those unalienable rights are not part of the Constitution but they are words on which this nation was founded (The Declaration of Independence).

Some would argue that enacting a Public Health Policy requiring health insurance under penalty of prosecution falls under the Congress’ Constitutional prerogative or right and duty “to promote the general welfare”. I agree.Promoting the general welfare is Congress’ obligation. However, it is not their prerogative, duty or right to dictate the general welfare. Promoting and dictating are two distinct words with completely different meanings.

Any law that would require a citizen to insure himself for his own protection under penalty of prosecution is not promoting. That is dictating. It is enforcement, not a suggestion.

Do not confuse the likes of auto liability insurance, which is an enforced law in most of the country, with a required health insurance mandate.

Liability insurance protects you from the consequences of someone else’s actions. If someone causes harm or damage to you or your property, you have recourse. Liability insurance protects you from someone else’s negligence not your own.

Requiring liability insurance is promoting the general welfare. That mandate protects you from others. Health insurance protects you for you. It does not protect you from someone else.

Requiring me or anyone else to have medical insurance under penalty of prosecution is just plain wrong.

Maybe we should also require mandatory life insurance, so that I can pay those exorbitant funeral costs. What do you think?

]]> http://the-independent-voice.com/health-care-plan-pros-cons-what-about-the-constitution/feed/ 1 Health Care Reform Act of 2009 – An Open Letter http://the-independent-voice.com/health-care-reform-act-of-2009-an-open-letter/ http://the-independent-voice.com/health-care-reform-act-of-2009-an-open-letter/#comments Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:20:04 +0000 carlos http://the-independent-voice.com/?p=14  

Admin: It is not often that one finds a citizen concerned enough to actually read what Congress is attempting to impose on its people. Dr. Stephen F Fraser wrote a letter to Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) about his concerns regarding the House health reform bill.

We have included the letter in its entirety. Dr. Fraser cites his concerns line by line. Unfortunately, the time spent reviewing and analyzing this document may have been wasted in that the Bill Dr. Fraser refers to, ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009’’, is no longer the Bill being considered.

Nevertheless, it is our duty felt obligation to applaud Dr. Fraser for his efforts and to publish that effort. If you wish to follow along with his review, we have included the link to the document that this letter refers to: http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf.

The Senate version of the Bill sponsored by senator Harry Reid (D-NV) can be found at this link: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s4/show.

We have verified that there exits a Dr. Stephen E. Fraser that resides and has a practice in Indianapolis, IN.  We have not attempted to contact him. We post this letter under the assumption that it is an open letter and not subject to copywrite.

 

The letter follows:

Senator Bayh,

As a practicing physician I have major concerns with the health care bill before Congress. I actually have read the bill and am shocked by the brazenness of the government’s proposed involvement in the patient-physician relationship. The very idea that the government will dictate and ration patient care is dangerous and certainly not helpful in designing a health care system that works for all. Every physician I work with agrees that we need to fix our health care system, but the proposed bills currently making their way through congress will be a disaster if passed.

I ask you respectfully and as a patriotic American to look at the following troubling lines that I have read in the bill. You cannot possibly believe that these proposals are in the best interests of the country and our fellow citizens.

Page 22 of the HC Bill:  Mandates that the Govt. will audit books of all employers that self-insure!!

Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill:   THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

Page 42 of HC Bill:  The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!

Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.

Page 58 HC Bill:  Govt. will have real-time access to individuals’ finances & a ‘National ID Health card’ will be issued!

Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24:  Govt. will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer.

Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations: (ACORN).

Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt. mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the ’Exchange.’

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill:  Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans –The Govt. will ration your health care!

Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt. mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal aliens.)

Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt. will use groups (i.e. ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt. HC plan.

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. (AARP members – your health care WILL be rationed!)

 

Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill:  Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. (No choice.)

Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue Govt. on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Govt. monopoly.

Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors American Medical Association – The Govt. will tell YOU what salary you can make.

Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NO choice!)

Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees AND their families.
(Employees shouldn’t get excited about this, as employers will be forced to reduce its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense.)

Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option will pay 8% tax on all payroll!  (See the last comment in
parenthesis.)

Page 150 Lines 9-13: A business with payroll between $251K & $401K who doesn’t provide public option will pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.

Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn’t have acceptable HC according to Govt. will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.)

Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of the GOVT HC Admin. will have access to ALL Americans’ finances and personal records.

Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.”  (Yes, it really says that!)

Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt. will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors. (Low-income and the poor are affected.)

Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn’t matter what specialty you have trained yourself in — you will all be paid the same!

(Just TRY to tell me that’s not Socialism!)

Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt. sets the value of a doctor’s time, profession,
judgment, etc.  (Literally– the value of humans.)

Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt. mandates and controls productivity for
“private” HC industries.

Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt. regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS -
Cancer patients – welcome to rationing!

Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt. will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt. deems preventable (i.e., re-admissions).

Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission — the Govt. will penalize you.

Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt. tells doctors what and how much they can own!)

Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion.
(The Govt. is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.)

Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for exception BUT
community input is required.  (Can you say ACORN?)

Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: The Govt. mandates establishment of=2 outcome-based measures. (HC the way they want — rationing.)

Page 341 Lines 3-9: The Govt. has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc.  (Forcing people into the Govt. plan)

Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt. will RESTRICT enrollment of ’special needs people!’ Unbelievable!

Page 379 Sec 1191: The Govt. creates more bureaucracy via a “Tele-Health Advisory Committee.”  (Can you say HC by phone?)

Page 425 Lines 4-12: The Govt. mandates “Advance-Care Planning Consult.”  (Think senior citizens, end-of-life patients.)

Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt. will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc.
(And it’s mandatory!)

Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426  Lines 1-3: The Govt. provides an ”approved” list of end-of-life resources; & guiding you in death. (Also called ‘assisted suicide.’)

Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Govt. mandates a program for orders on “end-of-life.”  (The Govt. has a say in how your life ends!)

Page 429 Lines 1-9: An “advanced-care planning consultant” will be used frequently as a patient’s health deteriorates.

Page 429 Lines 10-12: An “advanced care consultation” may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans.  (AN ORDER TO DIE FROM THE GOVERNMENT?!?)

Page 429 Lines 13-25: The Govt. will specify which doctors can write an
end-of-life order.(I wouldn’t want to stand before God after getting paid for THAT job!)

Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt. will decide what level of treatment you will
have at end-of-life!  (Again — no choice!)

Page 469: Community-Based Home Medical Services = Non-Profit Organizations.  (Hello?  ACORN Medical Services here!?!)

Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt. will cover marriage and family therapy.  (Which means Govt. will insert itself into your marriage even.)

Page 494-498: Govt. will cover Mental Health Services including defining,
creating, and rationing those services.

Senator, I guarantee that I personally will do everything possible to inform patients and my fellow physicians about the dangers of the proposed bills you and your colleagues are debating.

Furthermore, if you vote for a bill that enforces socialized medicine on the country and destroys the doctor-patient relationship, I will do everything in my power to
make sure you lose your job in the next election.

Respectfully,

Stephen E. Fraser, MD

 

 

]]> http://the-independent-voice.com/health-care-reform-act-of-2009-an-open-letter/feed/ 2 America Is a Democracy? http://the-independent-voice.com/america-is-a-democracy/ http://the-independent-voice.com/america-is-a-democracy/#comments Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:16:20 +0000 carlos http://the-independent-voice.com/?p=11 I suspect you have an answer to this question- “Is America a Democracy?” I further suspect that you have answered in the affirmative. Well you are, unfortunately, WRONG.

ConstitutionThe United States of America is a Republic. That is right. I said a republic. The media, politicians, bureaucrats, and all of us have mistakenly labeled our country a democracy. A democracy is not synonymous with a republic. Let me repeat, we are a republic. There is big difference.

Majority rules a democratic nation. A republic is a nation ruled by law. You may ask. What is wrong with being a democratic nation? Allow me to explain with an example.

Let us assume a community of people. We will also assume that there is a rapist or murderer among them. Someone of the community names and identifies a suspect.  Fearing for his well-being, the suspect runs away. A group of people set out to find him and they capture him.

In the heat of emotion and because the crime was so horrendous, the group decides that justice must be served there and then. They take a show of hands. Most agree that he deserves swift and just punishment. The majority decides to punish the suspect.

I hesitate to call this group a mob. They are God-fearing, rational people. They are convinced of the suspect’s guilt. The majority believe in his guilt. The suspect’s fate is sealed, majority rules. That is a democracy.

Luckily, for the suspect the police chief arrives and says, “Stop! You cannot take the law into your own hands. This man must be judged by the rule of law. He must be tried before a jury of his peers.”

Not only must the suspect be tried before a jury of his peers, but also the jury’s verdict must be unanimous. In a republic, the rule is by law not by a majority’s consensus.

Are you living in a democracy or a republic? You get to choose.

There are those that will argue that a movement like Civil Rights is proof of democracy in action. Wrong, again.

The Civil Rights movement and subsequent enacted laws did nothing but follow the rule of law, our Constitution, the law of the land. It guarantees equal rights before the law. At the time, that was something that was not recognized.

You and I know that some of the signers of the Constitution were slave owners. But, by design or by forgetfulness the Constitution harbors no allusion to the superiority of one individual over another. If such language did exist, it was wisely omitted or discarded.

Politicians love democracies because they need only appease the majority. If politicians governed by the rule of law, some would agree and some would disagree, but all would know that the rule of law protects their rights.

Are your rights protected? The Constitution is no more than an extension of the Golden Rule. Are you following the Golden Rule?

]]> http://the-independent-voice.com/america-is-a-democracy/feed/ 0 The 2009 Reform Act and Congress http://the-independent-voice.com/the-2009-reform-act-and-congress/ http://the-independent-voice.com/the-2009-reform-act-and-congress/#comments Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:09:46 +0000 carlos http://the-independent-voice.com/?p=5 I have a question just how many of our senators and Representatives do you think have actually read the Health
Reform act? Yes, I think you are right. Not very many.

Regardless, it seems to me that it is not within Congress’ authority to dictate to any citizen whether or not an individual must carry health insurance. How about you? How do you feel about it ?

It’s like the automobile seat belt laws. I know that there is evidence to support the use of seat belts. In my naive way of thinking I can’t accept being fined for not wearing my seat belt. There is no evidence that my not wearing a seat belt will hurt any one else.

So then, this law, the seat belt law, is a law for my own good. A law passed by “do gooders” for my own good. Whatever happened to my unalienable rights? I realize that those unalienable rights are not part of the Constitution but they are words on which this nation was founded (The Declaration Of Independence).

I am sure that there are some that would argue that enacting a Public Health Policy where you are required to have health insurance under penalty of prosecution falls under the Congress’ Constitutional  right to and duty “to promote the general welfare”. I agree. Promoting the general welfare is Congress’ obligation.

However, it is not their duty or right to dictate the general welfare. Promoting and dictating are two distinct words with completely different meanings.

Any law that would require a citizen to be insured for his own protection under penalty of prosecution is not promoting. That is dictating. It is an enforcement, not a suggestion.

Do not confuse the likes of auto liability insurance which is an enforced law in most of the country with a required health insurance mandate.

Liability insurance protects you from the consequences of someone’s actions. If someone causes harm or damage to you or your property, you have recourse. Health insurance, protects you for you. It does not protect you from someone  else.

Requiring me or anyone else to have medical insurance under penalty of prosecution is just plain wrong.

That there are many who do not have coverage is not the fault of those that do have insurance or of the employers that provide it.

God forbid , but let us use logic and reason to tells us why someone is not able to afford medical expenses.

]]> http://the-independent-voice.com/the-2009-reform-act-and-congress/feed/ 1