An Observation from Marc Stevens

From Marc Stevens at http://marcstevens.net
Compulsory Insurance & More Conservative Doublethink

Written by Marc Stevens Wednesday, 24 March 2010 19:05
The March 11, 2010 article by Walter Williams: “Is health care a right?” was posted online here and it’s getting a lot of traffic, many people seem to be discussing it. While Mr. Williams, a guest host for Rush Limbaugh, is a statist, his article not only raises very important issues, but it’s a clear example of the doublethink one needs to engage in to be a statist.

Mr. Williams unwittingly makes the case against government healthcare (compulsory insurance) at the same time against the concept of government itself. He fails to directly address it though.

Mr. Williams put forth the following as the grounds why he is against government forced healthcare:

“Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another? There would be one important strategic difference, that of concealment. Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another.” (Emphasis mine)

This is the same position Rush and other “conservative” radio show hosts have put forth opposing government imposed healthcare. What Mr. Williams and these statist radio show hosts don’t mention is this is why we are voluntaryists, agorists, libertarian or anarchists: it’s basically the voluntarist/anarchist principle:

It’s wrong to forcibly use one person to serve the purposes of others.

If Mr. Williams, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck et al., really believe it’s wrong/immoral to forcibly use one person to serve the purposes of others, then they’ll apply that principal to the concept of government itself and call for the immediate abolition of all governments. They are the ones who love the phrase “intellectually honest”, why not be “intellectually honest” and be consistent in their thought? If it’s wrong to forcibly use one person to serve the purposes of others, then the concept of government itself is wrong.

It gets to the real issue and quickly moots the discussion of compulsory insurance doesn’t it? Obama, Pelosi and Reid are not going to be worried about passing “healthcare legislation” when people in the mainstream media are talking about abolishing government itself.

Sadly, I don’t see anyone in the mainstream media talking about abolishing government. They are not loyal to the truth and to their principals and if they are they’ll be replaced. After all, think their sponsors want anarchists on the air? No, they will continue their doublethink by championing the “founding fathers” and how American government is somehow excluded from “forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another”. Gotta keep those sponsors happy.

Despite this, it’s great voluntaryist principals are being talked about on such a mass scale. People are sure to start catching on.

Mr. Williams ends with:

“None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.”

Yes, the manner in which government operates – “reaching into someone else’s pockets” - is “despicable and deserves condemnation.” See how easy that is and no conspiracy theory necessary.

Care to publicly join the ranks of voluntaryists and proclaiming that Mr. Williams?


-0-


In the frame below is Mr. Stevens website: