Wholistic Libertarianism

The libertarian political philosophy requires that the state give the highest priority to the preservation of individual rights. Conventional libertarian philosophy only pays heed to the principle of liberty and ignores most other concerns. This blind allegiance to one principle has made conventional libertarianism impractical and a political failure. In this document, we chart a new political philosophy which retains the libertarian's devotion to liberty while dealing with the reality of human beings and their complex interdependent society: Wholistic Libertarianism.
The preservation of individual rights is best protected by law which is guided both by the principle of liberty and seven other auxiliary principles. These other principles are drawn from our American heritage. By giving each principle its due regard, liberty can be better protected. The principles are:
> LIBERTY
>SOCIAL CONTRACT
>NATIONALISM
>EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW
>REPUBLICAN DEMOCRACY
>CONCENTRATION OF POWER
>COMMON DOMAIN
>HUMAN REALITY

 The principle of individual liberty, or liberty for short, is the premier principle and the raison d'etre for all the others.


Liberty

Liberty is the first and foremost word in our American political heritage. Why is that so, why is it so important? Well if you are minding your own business and somebody comes up to you and gives you a bloody nose, will you understand then? If the government banned condoms, would you care? Or when the government gives you a ticket for not wearing a seat belt to protect your own safety, would you be offended? Or perhaps if the government takes a third of your hard earned income and gives it to somebody who spends his life getting drunk, high on drugs and fathering illegitimate children he doesn't support, will you be outraged? Now the simple folk amongst us know instinctively about liberty and they will even defend it with their lives. Ah, but the better educated, sophisticated folk know better. And if they pride themselves on their compassion, they know how to pick and choose the liberties worth defending. Yes, they will say, you should avoid the selfish instinct not to share your income with the poor and you should remember the government knows best about your personal safety...it is a foolish instinct to resent being ticketed for driving without your personal seat belt.  And when war comes, many of them will know that the higher moral plane demands they abstain from the bloodletting.  What is the truth here? The truth is the simple folk who will defend their liberties and those liberties they don't even use are full of valor and virtue. While the sophisticated compassionate folk who will not do so are contemptible hypocrites or mercifully maybe just not as smart as they pretend to be.

Now in the abstract:
Liberty is the natural and rightful condition of a reasoning human being. Centuries of human existence have demonstrated that the least strife and greatest prosperity are achieved only when individual liberty is respected. The victory of the free enterprise system, in the twentieth century gives testimony to that belief. While liberty cannot be easily defined, its loss or infringement is sensed without any training. When you are minding your own business and somebody limits what you can do with your own body or steals the wealth that is the product of your labor, the natural outrage you feel is the consequence of your liberty's violation. When your liberties are violated, you will eventually, if not immediately, naturally retaliate against your oppressor. The ensuing violence usually results in the loss of life and property (wealth). Since the retaliatory response, to the violation of liberty, is natural, it may be concluded that liberty itself is natural. Since a society's health is imperiled by a continual loss of life and wealth it is rightful we protect liberty.

The more each individual, rises to his or her, full potential, the greater prosperity, that nation will attain. The diversity of individuals requires they follow different paths in life. Who knows better the abilities of the individual, than the individual himself. A free society allows the individual to use his self knowledge to rise to his highest potential.  Further, the search for the truth moves at its quickest pace when freedoms of opinion,religion, speech, press and assembly are respected. And with truth, comes prosperity.


Social Contract

If an individual is naturally free (as shown above), then the power to control him is something he must have voluntarily allowed. It is an agreement called the Social Contract. That agreement is between the government and its citizens and is the sole conduit for the flow of power from the people to the government. Government cannot claim power which lies outside of the Social Contract and thereby does not originate from the consent of the people.

The Social Contract between the individual and his government is a contract borne of the inability of unorganized individuals to adequately protect their liberty. If there is no organization (government), the weaker individuals will almost certainly be victimized by the stronger. Such a situation will be so intolerable and for so many people, that individuals have banded together and consented to the formation of government. They do so to retain the greater portion of their liberties while realizing that they will never again be totally free. This is a gamble. They hope that government will allow them to retain more liberties than if there was no government. They must obey red lights, pay taxes and share in the responsibility of protecting their nation. In return they expect that government will protect them from assault, criminal and foreign. This defense of liberty is the raison d'etre for the Social Contract and must be considered its primary element. Are there other elements to the Social Contract, besides the defense of liberty? Any other element must be considered secondary and coincidental and not conflict with the primary element. The Social Contract principle defines governmental authority and thereby  restrains the governmental tendency to trample upon liberty instead of protecting it. The Social Contract principle is therefore a valid augment to the Liberty principle and an essential part of WHOLISTIC LIBERTARIANISM. Further even if the Social Contract is not written down, not something we actually signed, but only something, we sadly imagine, it is a concept worth examining and drawing wisdom from.

Some people (Socialists and fellow travelers) believe that the insurance of a minimal living standard for everyone is another element of the Social Contract. All the elements of the Social Contract must have been approved by the majority of its signatories, otherwise it wouldn't be a Social Contract. The majority of signatories must have been at least self sufficient (net producers of food or goods or services of equivalent value). If it were otherwise, that society would not have survived... to write a Social Contract.  Therefore, if the majority of signatories were  self sufficient, they did not sign the contract to obtain their sustenance. It is more likely they sought those things that were lacking in an ungoverned society. An examination of colonial American history lends credence to this. The Pilgrims didn't come here to guarantee the meeting of their material needs. It was a wilderness and they were guaranteed almost nothing. They came here for liberty, specifically religious freedom. Consequently it seems unlikely that the insurance of a minimal living standard was part of the Social Contract. Moreover, how could it be when the inclusion of a minimal living standard requires the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor. When the rich are forced to give by the coercive power of government, it violates their liberty....that is the right to keep one's property and the fruits of one's labors. Thus the inclusion of a minimal living standard conflicts with the primary element of the Social Contract and thus cannot be considered a part of the Social Contract.

But Socialists will also assert that each of us is entitled, has a right to food, housing, health care, etc. Does this supply of food, housing and health care exist in a vacuum? Is it something the government can magically call forth into existence. No, it is owned by others and they must be deprived of their ownership if redistribution of wealth is to be realized. So what Socialists are really asserting is that the poor have a right to steal from the rich. The truth is money and all the things that money can buy, don't grow on trees. The only thing you have a right to, is that which is freely provided by nature...the air you breathe.  You cannot have a right, if its implementation means, that someone else's rights will be broken in the process.

Is the US Constitution our Social Contract? First, we didn't get the chance  to sign it. The original constitution didn't ban slavery, so it certainly wasn't. Even as currently amended and as interpreted by the Supreme Court, it hasn't stopped the government from routine redistribution of wealth and violation of our freedoms to do with our bodies as we please. However, the existence of the Constitution is evidence, that government derives its power from the governed and of the validity of the Social Contract principle. The Social Contract is not the US Constitution; it is something we must work towards; something that lives in the hearts of a free spirited people.


Nationalism

The Social Contract enables the birth of government. A government that will protect liberty. But it can only do so if it is empowered by the resources of a nation. It is the nation that will provide the soldiers to protect against foreign assault and the police to protect against criminal assault. The nation is not composed of just any persons; there are common features that bind them together. Our nationhood is marked by the common features of language and a shared appreciation for freedom and democracy. Nationhood is essential for the protection of liberty and therefore is another augment to the Liberty principle. Within reason, that which promotes nationhood, is consequently good for the preservation of Liberty. Alternatively , within reason, that which diminishes or subverts nationhood is bad for the preservation of Liberty.

Flag Burning:
For example if you own a piece of fabric and wish to destroy it, that is your freedom. But if that piece of fabric is the American flag, should you be allowed (if your intent is desecration)?  No , because the principle of Nationalism and the greater preservation of liberty that it promotes, is more important than your individual exercise of self expression. It is here, we see how the concept of WHOLISTIC LIBERTARIANISM better defines the just powers of government. If we just followed the principle of Liberty, we would say you have a right to desecrate the American flag. That is  the path of conventional Libertarians. It is a simple and unenlightened path. It is a path that the majority of Americans will never be drawn to, because while they are attracted to Liberty they are also repulsed by the rigid beliefs of that simple path, as in the above example.

Similarly the promotion of a common language, a necessary ingredient for nationhood, sometimes forces us to slight the principle of Equality Before the Law (a principle to be discussed later). That may be the case in laws which call for English only in the public schools or administration of the law. But our nationhood and the liberties it protects is more important than the distress of those who haven't learned English yet.


Equality Before the Law

Equality Before The Law (EBTL) is derived from the principle of the Social Contract that exists between the government and its citizens. "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. Papers, 1:429 . The individual consents to the rule of law in the expectation that the existence of government will allow greater protection of life and liberty than could otherwise be expected. Since each individual has given the same consent, equal treatment by the government is expected in return. How could it be otherwise? Would any man pledge the same things and expect an unequal and inferior return? That would be unnatural and very unlikely. However, what about the ladies? Up to this time, and even now, most women don't have the expectation that they can be drafted into combat military service. For those women and also those men who would object to such service, it's logical that their voting rights reflect their lesser commitment. The same could also be said for those who cannot fulfill their tax obligations. That being said, the importance of EBTL cannot be overstated. It is crucial for a nation with our diverse origins. Unfortunately, EBTL is one of the more difficult principles to get right. First, it is confused with the ridiculous notion of equality. People are almost universally unequal in their abilities, their appearances and almost everything else. To seek or demand equality in anything, but our relations with government, is folly. Second, EBTL compliance is almost completely neglected in matters of taxation, while at the same time the principle has been corrupted to demand equality in the voluntary relations between individuals. Is it EBTL to have different income tax rates (percentages) . Is it EBTL for a person whose employer provides a CAFE plan, to have his health benefits go untaxed, while the retired person who pays for his own health insurance, with dividend income, must pay taxes on that income. It must be conceded that the tax code pays little attention to the EBTL principle, and neither does the Supreme Court. Our federal government has demanded that local governments give equal access to the handicapped. That sounds good except when you learn their idea of equality means unequal expenditures. In education, it could mean spending 10 times as much on the handicapped student as the normal student. In public transportation, it means scheduled bus service for the normal population and a (100 times or 1000 times more expensive?) door to door, special bus service with wheelchair lift for the handicapped. Is that EBTL? No, that has nothing to do with EBTL. It has to do with the social agenda of do gooders who impose their charitable objectives on the rest of us. And what if you're a dentist who refuses to take the extra risk of treating people with AIDS. He's not violating EBTL; he's just exercising his freedom to choose his business clients. EBTL is by definition, something, that only the government can violate. EBTL has nothing to do with the relations between individuals. But it has been corrupted in a wholesale way to make all sorts of demands on our private interactions.


Republican Democracy

The Social Contract provides for the establishment of government; but what type of government? Our American heritage gives the best answer. It is a democracy, meaning the majority rules; and a republic, meaning that rule is achieved through representatives elected by the people. Democracy allows for the satisfaction of the majority and thereby encourages its allegiance. The majority is not always right but no one else has a better track record over the long run. The business of government is conducted by representatives of the people because the complexity of the task demands it. However, in the coming age of the Internet, it will be feasible and beneficial to make more of the legislative outcome directly subject to a vote of the people. While the majority rules, the principles of Liberty and the Social Contract must limit the scope of its authority. The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution is a good example of these limitations and the protection offered to minorities.


Concentration of Power

Everything has its limits. We cannot allow any individual or non-governmental organization to amass such economic power that its economic power transcends to overbearing political power. At that point its economic and political powers would be mutually reinforcing and perpetuating. The nation faced such a situation at the advent of the twentieth century. The economic power of monopolies in vital industries was such, that they could corrupt the political process and thereby void the protections granted by the Social Contract. Simultaneously, monopolies were an obstacle to economic progress by negating the benefits of a competitive marketplace. An extreme example will serve to illustrate this concept. Say for example, you have a company town where all the services and manufacturing are under the control of the company. The company owns the grocery store, gasoline station and medical facilities, etc. Say one of the employees steps out on a limb and tries to unionize the previously union free workforce. Or, say he decides to run for the part time job of city counselor on an anti-company platform. If that society is true to conventional libertarianism, the company could insure that the employee looses his job and access to all the necessities of life, without any legal recourse. The employee's only other recourse would be to move from town. But if he owns a house, his only buy offer might be one equivalent to forfeiture. If the employee accepts the buy offer, what he receives is equivalent to robbery. If he stays or never steps out on a limb, he will only be as free as the company permits. Effectively the concentration of economic power, that the company enjoys, has permitted it to violate the freedoms otherwise guaranteed by the Social Contract. That is why the run away accumulation of economic power must be denied. Monopolies must either be prohibited or be subject to the close inspection and regulation of government. Wholistic Libertarianism through its principle of the Concentration of Power, recognizes that it is better to circumscribe the right to the accumulation of unlimited economic power, than not to do so and thereby endanger the fundamental liberties and well being of the majority. All non-governmental organizations should be scrutinized by the Concentration of Power principle. That includes unions which monopolize all the labor in a industry, over a wide geographic area. Imagine a union which represented all the hospital workers in a multi state area. If that union went out on strike, it would imperil the lives of millions. The threat of such a strike would allow it to economically blackmail the rest of society. The hospitals, in the face of public pressure, would be forced to grant any demands made by the union. Such a threat can be likened to blackmail because it involves the threat of harm and an unfair exchange. An agreement made while under blackmail is not a voluntary one. As such the excessive demands of the blackmailer are a form of thievery. To prevent this thievery, labor monopolies must also be scrutinized by the Concentration of Power principle.


Common Domain

No man is an island. We all make use of the common domains: the atmosphere and the water resources of the planet. Our use of the common domain is necessary for our physical and economic survival. But at the same time, that use may be harmful to others. That harm can be considered as an attack on liberty, but the principle of the Common Domain grants us a waiver. When we breathe, we consume oxygen while adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The oxygen is vital for our survival while the carbon dioxide is harmful in excess. We also occasionally, emit other gases which are noxious. And don't forget our body wastes. The point is: even if one only examines our bodily interactions with the environment, we are polluters. It's true for us and for all other animals. To live is to pollute. However we are blessed with an amazing, self cleansing planet which can rid itself of much of our animal and machine emissions. The principle of the Common Domain recognizes that our survival and well being requires the use of the common domain and sets reasonable bounds for that use. Those reasonable bounds vary with: the negative effects of our pollution on the health and well beings of others, the local and world wide ability of the environment to self cleanse itself, the availability of cleaner or pollution trapping technologies and the purpose and/or necessity of our pollution generating activity. The main point about the Common Domain principle is that it seeks the middle ground of optimal well being. It does not absolutely forbid pollution but it does discourage that which is unnecessary and/or poses a distinct health danger.

The Common Domain principle covers any domain or its use, where private use becomes public exposure. Electromagnetic transmissions through the atmosphere (radio and television) are a good example of this. The Common Domain principle also has another side which seeks a reasonable balance between public and private ownership. If all the land was held privately, where would the corridors of commerce (roads) rest? It's likely that such a society would be more backward and prone to conflict. By reserving some land for public use, we avoid the conflicts and the violations of liberty they foster.


Human Reality

The HUMAN REALITY principle deals with the needs and limitations of human beings while simultaneously trying to minimize the loss of liberty incurred by meeting those needs and limitations. If a person is at the verge of starvation, can he be expected to respect the property rights of his prosperous neighbor? For many people, the answer would be no. Thievery, for whatever reason, must be punished. On the other hand, the starving person may have been a law abiding and productive citizen, at other times. Society doesn't gain much by punishing such a person. It would be better for everyone, to prevent the starvation than to deal with the consequences. It is then a matter of expediency, that can and should lead the government to extending a safety net to desperate individuals. On that basis, HUMAN REALITY would allow some elements of welfare policy to continue. Conventional libertarianism would not and thereby ignores human and societal reality. Socialist and liberal thinkers can see no evil in welfare and ignore both liberty and human reality. They think the welfare recipient has a right to such aid while simultaneously denying any injury to the liberty or well being of the taxpayer. They would also ignore the parasitic behavior their philosophies encourage and thereby ignore another side of human reality. The HUMAN REALITY principle allows government aid to the desperate person, but conditionally. Such aid is granted on a basis of expediency and NOT as a matter of right. As such, any conditions that tend to minimize the burden on the taxpayer while keeping the
safety net intact, are welcome. Welfare recipients who are able to work, should be required to perform public service when private employment is unavailable. They will then contribute towards their own support and the support of other recipients, unable to work. Government can also demand that the recipient refrain from unnecessary behavior that increase the taxpayer's burden while taking all actions to decrease the taxpayer's burden. The unnecessary behavior would include drug and alcohol abuse, foolish diet by the unfit obese and sexual reproduction (while on the public dole). The actions meant to decrease the taxpayer's burden would include looking for work, education and relocation if that is the only path to employment.

While the principle of Liberty abhors any restraints on what we can do with our own bodies, the principle of Human Reality does provide some limits. The reality is we are sexual beings, naturally attracted to the opposite sex and that our mental powers to resist such attraction are not unlimited. If a beautiful woman walks down main street, naked, in the evening hours; can she reasonably expect to go unassaulted. In a society where clothing is the norm in public, the principle of Human Reality demands that individuals safeguard their liberties by being appropriately clothed.

Again, is the liberty of our persons absolute; for example, can we voluntarily submit to slavery? The principle of Human Reality says no. While few in this century would consider such a proposition, it is instructive to ponder such a question because it probes the boundaries of our liberty. To become a slave is to surrender future liberty. The slave has no political rights, must submit to all wishes of the master and whatever punishments the master wishes to impose and also be at the beck and call of the master continuously and without end. It is a set of conditions that rankles the spirit of any person and inevitably brings him into rebellion. However good, the intentions of the would be slave, were at the outset, slavery is not a condition he can forever abide by.  The spirit demands liberty and because ultimately we do not have dominion over our spirit, liberty is not something we can sell. That is Human Reality. With this knowledge, it is rightful that government prohibit slavery, self imposed or otherwise.

The relationship of government to desperate people must be guided by the principle of Human Reality. People can reach a state of desperation because of the obligations they have incurred. Generally, we have a right to enter into agreements with our fellow citizens and seek legal enforcement if the other party fails to abide by those agreements. But this right should not seen as unbounded. The previous paragraph discussed one limitation. Additionally, the agreement must be voluntarily made between competent adults. The subject of the agreement cannot involve an illegal activity. You cannot hire someone to kill another person. The terms of such an illegal agreement are null and void from the outset and neither party can demand governmental enforcement of its provisions. That is part of the risk of making an agreement. You must know what is legally enforceable. Also inherent in any agreement is the risk of default by the other party. The competent adult must appraise that risk before entering into a agreement. Accordingly, while he can expect legal recourse if the other party defaults, there are limitations to that recourse. You cannot demand payment of the other party's debts at the expense of his life or liberty. It is here that the principle of Human Reality limits what can be demanded and thereby avoids a state of desperation.


Addendum:

Flag Desecration
First, it must be realized that a desecration of our American flag is an attack  on our whole  national  identity. It is different
than criticism of a government official or even the whole government. Many libertarians, while upset by the desecration of the American flag, will still insist the desecrater has that right. The following response should assuage those feelings: First it is desecration only if done in view of others or is otherwise communicated to others. Secondly, we don't actually have to punish the desecrater with a jail term or fine. But we must draw a logical conclusion from the act. The act almost proves that the desecrater is disloyal to this nation, that he is in effect renouncing his citizenship. Then the consequence of American flag desecration should be a public and compulsory inquiry into the loyalty of the desecrater. If the inquiry produces any other evidence of disloyalty or bad citizenship, the desecrater should be deported while receiving some measure of compensation.

With respect to other issues, some libertarians will feel that this puts us on the slippery slope of sacrificing liberty for the national good. Not so. We can clearly define the circumstances where national security or welfare is paramount. Activities that cross the national border should be subject to the scrutiny and control of government along with desecration of the American flag  or incitement to the forceful overthrow of the government. The Nationalism Principle must prevail when we interact with foreigners. On the other hand the Liberty Principle must still protect domestic personal activities or business activity that are viewed (by the majority) as self destructive and consequently not in the national interest.

National Defense
When a state of war has been declared by the Congress, the level of scrutiny should increase. Such scrutiny would punish support for the enemy via public speech, press or assembly. To a lesser degree scrutiny should also be increased if Congress has declared a state of enmity (a new concept) with another nation. In that situation the government should be empowered to identify and collect intelligence (wire tapping, etc)  on those citizens who have demonstrated their sympathy to our enemies. It would be imprudent and irresponsible of the government to do otherwise considering that a state of enmity might precede a state of war.

During war time or a state of enmity, our national survival and the Social Contract principle can justify the draft of citizens into the armed forces. That contrasts with the conventional and impractical libertarian opposition to the draft under all circumstances. During war time many unselfish citizens will volunteer for military service. But many other citizens will not; however they would willingly abide by their obligation to share in the common defense if they are nudged to do so by the draft. Otherwise, what good would their liberty do if we all fall victim to foreign conquest?

In the natural state those animals and people that are unwilling to defend themselves, will go extinct. During the Frontier era that was probably the case. But now in these more prosperous and comfortable times where the civic infrastructure generally protects against assault, most never need to defend themselves. Additionally we have a volunteer military. This, unfortunately has allowed the growth of pacifist and cowardly sentiment which could not long exist in a natural environment.  Like our  ballooning  national trade deficit, it cannot go on forever without dire consequences. It is unnatural. Ultimately when pacifist sentiment prevails, our nation will not survive. The Social Contract Principle and national survival demand that we provide disincentives to those who will not provide for their own defense or the common defense. Pacifist citizens can be placed into three categories:
1>those who reject any personal effort towards the national defense
2>those who will not join the military but will benefit the national defense by domestic employment in a defense or essential industry
3>those willing to join the military but not as combat soldiers assigned to killing  the enemy
Warrior Category > those willing to kill the enemies of the U.S. as authorized by their military superiors

Category Three pacifists should loose their eligibility to be elected U.S. Senator or President, thereafter.
Category Two pacifists should loose their right to vote for U.S. Senator and also suffer the penalties of Category Three, thereafter.
Category One pacifists should suffer the Categories Three and Two penalties. Additionally, during a state of war, the government at its discretion, should be able to revoke their citizenship and then deport them at its convenience.

These categories should be chosen by the citizen when he/she becomes otherwise eligible to vote.

The Right to Bear Arms
We certainly are in favor of the unambiguous right to bear arms by individuals. Unfortunately the Constitutional wording  alluding to a "A well regulated Militia" has given liberals the opportunity to do mischief. The right to bear arms by individuals for their self defense is not only a basic liberty but very worthwhile considering the all too frequent tendency of government to be the enemy of liberty instead of its protector. The recent Supreme Court decision against blanket banning of handguns
is a step in the right direction. Indeed it might be beneficial to contemplate some disincentives to our legislators who enact laws that violate the rights of the individual. It seems nowadays there is no respect for liberty by many local governments. They think they can legislate anything...tell you what you can do in your own house (building codes), what you can do with your own body...what you can eat. If the legislators of acts subsequently ruled unconstitutional were fined (like the parking tickets they hand out to us), maybe they would better remember this nation's heritage of liberty.

                                                                 

Down below is the letter I wrote to my Congressman...thankfully he is a conservative.  How about copying me?

Today it was reported that "Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, a 19-year-old Jordanian, entered the United States illegally and lived in Texas, where he tried to set off an explosive attached to a vehicle at the base of the 60-story Fountain Place office tower". First I hope you will ask for an investigation of how he managed to get into our country. Secondly please sponsor legislation that will demand the death penalty for foreigners or anyone foreign born who comes into our country and plots or tries to mass murder Americans. Right now this person when convicted will get a life sentence, which will cost this nation money it doesn't have...allowing him to do us at least some harm.
While I honestly believe this type of crime deserves the death penalty, a vote on it will expose the liberal wimps for what they are.

On a different topic: energy conservation...we just bought a clothes dryer with electronic controls. At the store it was not plugged in and didn't realize that it would be using electricity all the time, because it has no power switch. Please sponsor legislation that will force all manufacturers to disclose how many kilowatt hours/month of electricity their machines use when idle and corresponding monthly cost based on the current national price average for kilowatt hours. Notice I ask for disclosure not a ban..because I treasure LIBERTY.

I assume you are for choice as the President said...if you're happy with your current insurance plan you can keep it. So then why do the current reform plans all call for mandatory insurance, denial of consumer choice to buy a low premium/hi deductible/no pre-existing conditions policy. The truth is you're going to force every one into the same boat so that you can then rob from the healthy/young to pay for the sickly. The other truth is you and your liberal friends certainly don't believe in the American heritage of LIBERTY. How could mandatory insurance be compatible with LIBERTY, it is'NT !! You like to say, well we have mandatory car insurance...let's see, I don't have to drive on the public roads..which is a privilege, not a right...but if I want to live in America, I will have to pay for some rotten medical insurance that you, the damn government will dictate the terms of...or I can pay a fine/ go to jail or just drop dead. Isn't that a wonderful choice that you liberals provide. And the irony is that after you trample on liberty, drive us into national bankruptcy with more of your socialist give aways, it still wont help. Because the real problem is not access to medical insurance but the rotten health of most Americans who insist on eating a crap, junk food diet. They will still be diseased, be miserable and be poor..because no plan (no matter how many people you decide to rob from) can afford to pay for all of their endless maladies.

24 year-old Carlos Leon Bledsoe, a prison convert to Islam who changed his name to Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, shot 2 American soldiers (in uniform) outside a recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark. One of them died. Isn't that domestic terrorism? just like the killings in Salt Lake City by a Bosnian, Moslim immigrant and other cases. Isn't this domestic terrorism?

The 2 shootings should be a rallying cry for Americans to protest their government's indifference to Saudi money, coming into this country. Money aimed at spreading their particularly hateful Wahabi branch of Islam, in our own country. That is something we could do, that would be highly beneficial.  Freedom of religion or discrimination is NOT an issue. Freedom  of religion cannot excuse an ideology that calls for the annihilation of non believers or their subjugation...and certainly opposes the freedom of religion and separation of church and state demanded by our Constitution. They are as much an enemy to America as were the Soviet Bolsheviks. Aside from that, anything that crosses the border is rightfully subject to the scrutiny and control of the Federal government. See more at www.geocities.com/simplynatural@att.net

Senator Baucus of Montana (Democrat..)  announced plans for mandatory medical insurance...for adults
I really felt like cussing him out, but contained myself, and sent this letter to him, instead:

"Any medical insurance plan is doomed to failure. The truth is that so many (great majority of) Americans are sickly that no matter how you plan to provide medical insurance, your plan will fail, while further devastating this nation's economy. Do you doubt this or that our health is still declining? "About a third of American children are overweight and one-fifth are obese. Obese children as young as 10 had the arteries of 45-year-olds and other heart abnormalities that greatly raise their risk of heart disease, say doctors who used ultrasound tests to take a peek inside." That's from a study presented to the American Heart Association on Nov. 11, 2008. Why are we so sickly?

It's as simple as the saying: you are what you eat. And what most of us eat is unwholesome, artificial and toxic. To dictate what people eat would trample on their liberty...only slightly worse than your plan for compulsory medical insurance.  But government can lead people away from unhealthy diet choices just as it has done with cigarette smokers who have quit voluntarily. All foods with unnatural ingredients must be conspicuously labeled with "UnNatural". The font size and contrast of that wording would be mandated to be the largest of anything on the wrapper. If the government can scientifically demonstrate that a certain ingredient damages health, it should also mandate a similar "UnHealthy" label. The same mandate should apply to restaurant food/menu items. That's for starters. We also need to take away the legal advantages enjoyed by groups with a vested interest in disease.
Abolish the prescription laws and the FDA (as presently constituted),  end the monopoly health care sought and maintained by the collusion of the legal system, the AMA and the drug industry, end the censorship imposed on the nutritional supplement industry, require the military and public schools to exemplify good nutrition, demand that doctors must make pricing available before patients become obligated to pay (in non-emergency situations), create a federal database on the on the internet, open to all, listing doctors qualifications and any malpractice verdicts made against them...to know more contact me."

For the readers of this blog, visit   http://www.geocities.com/simplynatural@att.net/index.html   for more details on what ails us and what can be done about it while respecting Liberty.