Wednesday, August 05, 2009
John R. Houk
© August 5, 2009
Judge Bob writes of the difference in the world view of Liberals and the world view of Conservative Capitalists.
Bob uses the analogy of a baseball game. The Liberal view of the goal of the baseball game would be starting at 0 to 0 and ending at whatever score as long as it is tied. The reward being an egalitarianism bringing equal value to every player regardless of a team mate’s effort.
The Conservative Capitalist view of the game would be starting at 0 to 0. The goal of the game is one team to win meaning there is a loser. The score ends with one team having a greater score than the other. The payoff for the winning team is every team mate is a winner. The payoff for each individual is a productive role for the team to excel. The best team mates started. The productive game hero perhaps receives the game ball. If it was MLB the rewards of winning would be in terms of money with the best players being paid according to their productive value to the team with an MVP perhaps making a big bonus.
Now Bob said it a little differently and probably more eloquently, but I suspect you get the point.
The Liberal world view will lead to a seemly pleasant utopia in the beginning; however egalitarianism will lead to a lack of production, the lack of moral clarity and mundane emptiness that will degenerate society.
The Conservative world view will lead to rewards for goals and a payoff for success. On the other hand if greed abrogates moral clarity, then a society of graft will overcome the society of reward. Nonetheless the goal of the reward instills and inspires creative or inventive ways to get to an end; thus the reward in sight brings progress if used for the greater good improves society.
As you might guess I believe there is evil as a potential in both the Liberal/Socialist and Conservative/Capitalist. The former can lead to State control of every aspect of an individual’s life leading to the worst possible outcome of State management of accepted thoughts and ideology. If Capitalistic restraints and safeguards are lacking then the oppression of masses of people by preventing the possibility of upward mobility via managed exploitation due to the greed of the elite reaping the benefit of their rewards on the backs of managed ‘barely get along’ individuals.
There is no doubt in my mind that restrained Capitalism is far superior to restrained (especially unrestrained) Liberalism/Socialism. Moral Capitalism will always lead to a better society because of innovation that benefits the greater good. Moral Capitalism affords the innovative individual the ability to step out of daily survival by reaping the rewards of ownership of ideas or production thus an upward mobility.
Ultimately I view Liberal/Socialism as a subscriber to secular humanistic concepts which in the realm ethics leads to moral relativity. This means morality is judged on a sliding scale of human secularism’s scale of acceptable morality. Moral relativity benefits the egalitarianism of perceived non-violent lifestyles disregarding a divine moral compass. Despite my negative feelings toward Liberal/Socialism there are some aspects of universalism that counter the negative aspects of greed in Capitalism. For example egalitarian Liberalism is responsible for ending child labor in America. Liberalism ended segregation in America. Liberalism forced companies to provide a safe work environment for labor. Liberalism provided an outlet for labor to not be exploited by their employers.
The flip side of these good societal acts by Liberalism is apparent also. Segregation was legally ended but the effort to upgrade the equal rights of Afro-Americans led many to become dependent on the State for financial living. In essence many on perpetual welfare have become welfare-slaves yet are unconscious of their slavery because food is on the table. The success of Afro-Americans remaining on welfare has developed into to a boon for all ethnic groups (including Caucasians) that live in poverty to become slaves to welfare. The welfare-slaves that are politically active via the vote of course tend to vote for the hand that feeds them regardless if significant other representations of the Left are contrary to moral concepts such as the practice of the Christian faith.
Again my mistrust of the Liberal/Left bleeds through these words; nonetheless if restrained Liberalism is used in like manner that restrained Capitalism diluted greed via the law then some forms of universal concepts may work for American society.
The Universal Healthcare concept is one of these. Free market enterprisers are quick to point out the horrors of European and Canadian universal health. The two horrors that come to mind is the long wait time to see a doctor and the denial of medicine for the cure for it is not part of the health plan. These negative aspects should draw concern from Americans who KNOW that some kind of health reform is badly needed in America.
To the horror of many of my fellow Conservatives I am in favor of Universal Healthcare; however I believe there are more competitive vehicles to achieve Universal Healthcare that make free market insurance companies happy while limiting the taxation on all spectrums of American economic class taxpayers. I have dreaded actually looking at the Obama Universal Healthcare plan because I am both for Universal Healthcare and against supplying that Healthcare solely on the backs of wealthy Americans’ taxes. A mandatory privatized Universal medical insurance plan would be a better idea for the individual, the insurance companies and the medical industry. After all the insurance companies have a financial boon in car insurance in which it is the law to have insurance to drive. Universal privatized medical insurance could work the same way and regulated according to the person’s income. Yes the poor will pay next to nothing but the rich won’t have to foot the entire bill. Instead of redistributing the wealth it will be a redistribution of responsibility according to ability to pay. The more one is able to afford better insurance. Of course the more choices one has in medical care would be available to better insurance yet at least the poor would have medical access rather than zero medical access. That is nearly the way it is now accept lives would no longer be ruined by spending one’s savings for care that is not affordable. More hospitals will collect more money from the less moneyed because of by law medical insurance.
I see the biggest problem to my Capitalist Universal Healthcare is the lack of cajones of Republican Conservatives to even breathe the words Universal Healthcare. So what is left?
Either America will remain in a deficient Healthcare mode or the Left will dictate the terms of Universal Health. Universal Healthcare on the Left’s terms will probably lead to the very horrors Conservatives publicize in anti-Universal Healthcare ads.
I am almost willing to gamble on the Obama Healthcare passing so that Conservatives can chip away on the extreme Leftist portions over the next few years. This will enable all Americans to have access to medical services and medicine.