As usual, the mainstream discussion of health care "reform" focuses only on "acceptable" topics, which careful avoid exposing the underlying violent nature of the state. For example, almost all of the debate over Obama's commie-care focuses on whether it "works," without defining just what it means for the system to "work."

If someone breaks into your neighbor's house, steals a bunch of his stuff, and gives you his wide-screen TV and $1,000 in cash, does that "work" for you? Well, as long as you either don't know about, or are willing to ignore, the inherent immorality of what happened, yes, it "works" just fine--for you, anyway. You got stuff you didn't have to pay for. What could be better? (How about being a moral human being?)

"The most good for the most people" is a very common, and heinously evil, measure of whether some master plan "works" or not. For example, for lots of people in Canada and the UK, socialized medicine does "work," because they're getting a lot more health care than they actually paid for. They receive the benefit, while someone else (usually someone labeled "the rich") is forced to pay the bill. Could it be that most of the Canadians who say, "Yeah, the system works great," are saying it because they're getting more than they paid for? If you ask me, that's pretty darn likely. Is that the proper measure of how good a plan is: how many people get free goodies?

Let's apply such a standard to a different scenario. Here is my master plan, which will give the most benefit to the greatest number of people: In each town, we'll rummage through the tax records, and find the richest 0.1% of the residents. Then we'll kill them, chop them up, make hamburgers out of them to feed to the homeless, and take all their stuff and hand it out to their neighbors. Just think what could be accomplished for the "common good," if that tiny fraction--only one in a thousand--made such a "contribution" to society. Chances are, you would significantly benefit from my plan; it would "work" great for you! So can I count on your vote?

Why not? Don't you think the benefit for those 999 justifies the "cost" that that one person should be happy to pay? (I'm sure some of the evil rich will be so greedy that they won't want to be made into hamburgers, but who cares what they want? The majority is always right!)

What's really sad is how many leftists feel noble and compassionate as they advocate that someone else be forcibly robbed by the state. "I'm so charitable and humane that I want the poor to be given stolen loot ... taken from someone other than me." Wow, ain't you just a pillar of altruism. (Next time, try giving your own damn money away.)

If socialism "works" for you, it's probably because you're receiving stolen goods. If you don't mind that, and you think that some nebulous notion of "fairness" makes mass robbery moral and righteous, then I ask only one favor of you: stop hiding behind elections, "legislation," and other political rituals--if stealing in the name of the "common good" and "economic equality" is a noble endeavor, then stop being such a sissy and go do it yo' damn self. You'll still be advocating thuggery and violence, theft and extortion, but at least you wouldn't also be a hypocritical coward.

 

 

 (P.S. If you think I'm being a tad harsh, please keep in mind that I spent a year in prison as a direct result of the "compassion" and "charity" of collectivists. So if you don't like me pointing out the stupid animal thuggery underlying your "philosophy," tough turds.)