Why Did the Hospital Cross the Road?
It didn't. Because the government wouldn't give it permission to cross the road.
Okay, it's not exactly a road it wants to cross, and it's not over yet, but Franklin Regional Medical Center (FRMC) in North Carolina's Franklin County is in a heated fight with the state.
FRMC is a private hospital located in Louisburg but wanting to move a few miles away to the more populated area of Youngsville. In NC (as in other states) a hospital does not have the freedom to make major changes (like moving, expanding, or even buying an MRI machine) at will. It must file a Certificate of Need (CON) with the State of NC. It has to ASK PERMISSION from the government. Two days ago, the state denied the CON for the move. FRMC is appealing the action.
How is it that we're told growing up that we live in a free country, but it turns out that a hospital that may have to shut down if it doesn't move has to beg for permission to do so from a bunch of political elites and bureaucrats? Why is that we've become a society of totalitarian apologists who have decided that, if Bob down the street is good at running hospitals and decides to build one to fulfill a market demand and earn a living, we can prevent Bob from running his business as he (and the market) sees fit simply because we attach some special emotional significance to health care?
Why is it that so many people in the 'land of the free' continue to insist that health care is a basic right, even though that's a logical impossibility? (Nothing that requires taking from someone else, i.e. taxes, can be a right.)
I do not believe this is an acceptable state of affairs for a free society. Am I off base here?
Share your thoughts!
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
I’m a Winner!…
...of the Post of the Day Award from The Rising Blogger on July 24. My post on immigration was given this award the other day. I haven't yet figured out how to add my 'winner' graphic to my sidebar, so I'll just include it here:
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Laying a Foundation for Liberty
It occurs to me that if I'm starting a blog trumpeting the virtues of liberty and of ending coercion, I should probably lay a little philosophical foundation. I've had some questions from friends and acquaintances that indicate to me that some people have very little understanding of the underlying philosophical basis for liberty.
If you haven't seen this Flash animation, take a couple minutes and just watch it. I've never seen libertarian philosophy expressed so clearly and simply.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Interesting Online Political Test
I just ran across this detailed political test (oddly, it's from a dating site). A lot of the questions aren't formulated properly to gauge one's political philosophy (not oddly). Nevertheless, it still pegged me as almost pure anarchist, so it was pretty accurate for me. The way some of the questions were written, they end up gauging attitudes about culture and interpersonal relations rather than political philosophy--otherwise I would have been a perfect 100% permissive in both the social and economic realms. It also leaves out the critical third dimension of views on foreign policy (I think there's one out there that includes that--I'll have to look for it).
| You are a Social Liberal (85% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (93% permissive) You are best described as a: Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
So, where do you fall?
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
I’m such a noob
Well, I'm definitely a newbie at this whole blogging thing. I just discovered how to import the posts along with comments from my previous temporary blog. So I did end up wiping out the most recent comment on the immigration post, and for some reason it didn't import the names/e-mails/URLs of the commenters. Hopefully I'll be able to figure that out and remedy the situation. If anyone can point me in the right direction, I'm all ears/eyes.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Legalize Health Care
Yes, that's right--legalize health care. What's that? It's already legal, you say? Hmm...nope...just checked. I'm still not allowed to go out and buy any medication that the FDA hasn't approved, since it's illegal for a producer to sell me such items. Even then, I still can't buy a great many FDA-approved medications that government says I need a prescription for. Oh, and that prescription has to come from a government-licensed doctor, and the medication has to be dispensed by a government-licensed pharmacist.
And if I need hospital care? Well, at least in my state (North Carolina) the government prohibits the very existence of any medical facility that doesn't follow all the government rules, including (in most cases) treating patients that can't pay and thus raising the fees for everyone else in order to cover it. And if I need an urgent MRI? Well, I might have a long wait because even private hospitals have to get permission from the government just to add a new MRI machine to their facilities! I swear I'm not making this up.
And then there's insurance premiums, which continue to soar due to the fact that government rules have resulted in insurance morphing into prepaid medical plans that cover every little doctor visit and stubbed toe; not to mention the fact that insurance companies are mandated by government to cover certain things that some might choose not to cover when not coerced; and the fact that governments flat out tell insurance companies what they're allowed to charge.
I'm sure I'm leaving out all kinds of coercive government actions that are responsible for the high cost of our health care, but you get the idea. It's government coercion that is responsible for the mess we're in. The state has engaged in aggression against would-be willing buyers and sellers and prevented their value for value trade from taking place. This is simple destruction of wealth and immoral initiation of force.
So the next time you hear Michael Moore or his minions going on about the desperate need for nationalized/socialized/universal health care, ask why they think more government is going to fix a government-caused problem.
P.S. I'm no health care expert, so if anyone sees anything I've left out or in some way misstated, do let me know.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Up and Running
Okay, I'm up and running (bare bones at least) on my own domain now.
I shall now commence with both posting killer libertarian rants/thoughts and enhancing my blog as I learn more about the process.
Thanks for joining in the fun!
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
The A-Team and Liberty
Originally published on the Mises blog almost a year ago, A-Team Stands for Anarcho-Capitalism, by Mateusz Machaj gives a great perspective on a great show! He lays out ten reasons that the A-Team was the quintessential anarcho-capitalist (libertarian) organization. Check it out--it's great reading!
I'll have to see there's an A-Team boxed set out there I can add to my libertarian collection!
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Breaking news: Ron Paul has mad cash!
Okay, it's all relative...BUT--he's number 3 among the GOP candidates in cash on hand!
Ron Paul Tops McCain in Cash on Hand
This is outstanding news! Paul should now garner some serious attention--not only from the media and the voters, but from larger donors as well. This should be a big boost for his momentum.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Immigration is the Sincerest Form of Flattery
I know the immigration bill is dead for the next year and a half, but the issue is still important--so I'm going to give you my personal libertarian take on it. (Just to be clear, I thought the most recent immigration bill was a load of crap, but not for the reasons most Republican were opposed to it. The bill was a Soviet-style, central planning, grossly expensive, big-government boondoggle.)
We don't need a crackdown on immigration.
Immigration, in general, is a good thing. It's the result of natural supply and demand in the free market.
If you consider aggression, coercion, and the initiation of force (meaning not in self-defense) to be inherently wrong, then you surely consider freedom and the free market the most natural and just state of affairs.
It follows that you should be allowed to hire whomever you want at whatever wage is mutually agreeable (this, of course, is why minimum wage laws are inherently wrong).
It then follows that if someone says that someone from outside the country is not allowed to come into the country to work for you, they are engaging in coercion against both you and that person. Stopping people from moving into the U.S. and punishing business owners for hiring certain people are entirely inconsistent with freedom and the free market.
The three real problems we face are:
1) welfare handouts attracting a higher amount of immigration than the market would naturally demand: this, of course, is not an immigration problem--it's an overall socialist scheme that increases poverty and dependence, distorts all kinds of markets (including the labor market), and should be done away with.
2) archaic and complicated rules for getting into the country legally: when it takes years and thousands of dollars to immigrate to the 'bastion of freedom in the world,' there's something terribly wrong. There's nothing inherently immoral about moving from Nuevo Laredo (in Mexico) to Laredo, Texas. Therefore, laws preventing it or making it difficult are, by definition, immoral and acts of aggression. So, if someone is deemed to be 'illegal' or a 'law breaker' due to the fact that they've violated an unjust law to engage in a perfectly moral activity, it seems to me the term 'illegal' loses its meaning. One part of the solution to 'illegal' immigration is the same as the solution to the problem of 'illegal drug use'--get rid of the laws!
3) an interventionist foreign policy has created a group of lunatics intent on entering the country and doing us harm--thus creating a perceived need for 'secure borders.' Even those who agree that there's nothing wrong with immigration, per se, tend to fall back on the need for 'secure borders' to justify their support for a crackdown on immigration. I submit that this is an instance of putting a bandaid on an out of control tumor. First, the amount of government force that would be required to truly prevent determined terrorists from getting in would turn us into one of the most draconian police states in human history. Second, it doesn't address the source of the problem. Islamic nutjobs want to kill us because we've been meddling in their countries for decades (sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for bad reasons). Instead of using one form of aggression (a militarized border) to solve the problems caused by another form of aggression (non-defensive military involvement overseas), doesn't it make a lot more sense to end the causative aggression by bringing all our troops back home where they belong? And no, most Muslims aren't trying to kill us because of our freedom. If that was true they'd be suicide-bombing Ireland, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, New Zealand, and all those other places that match or exceed our level of freedom. And yes, there would still be a few who really do want to kill us because of our unholy freedom, but once they lose the easy excuse of 'fighting back against American imperialism,' they would lose the widespread support (or at least the lack of condemnation) they currently enjoy from their fellow Muslims.
Remember, immigration is the sincerest form of flattery.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!