This year our usual, patriotic, celebrate-our-pioneer-heritage and eat-a-lot-of-homemade-ice-cream 24th-of-July celebration was ruined when I pulled the wool off of Utah's wolf pack in sheep's clothing--mainly my entire family and 80% of all Utahans. And there, under that downy, vanilla-candle-scented and bleached fleece was not a pack of republicans but a whole flock of liberal-leaning federal government subsidized sheep.
Think it isn't so? Bravely proceed on my stalwart Utah Republicans and first answer the following no-brainer questions:
Setting aside issues of eminent domain--suppose a person owns a large track of land--is that person obligated to sell it if she does not want to? Of course not. Suppose that because this land owner refuses to sell she thereby makes the price of land every where to go up. Or even worse, land speculators also buy up a bunch more land and further cause the price of land to rise. Should these land owners be forced to sell their privately own real estate or sell it at a reduced price? No!!! Private ownership is a bedrock principle of our capitalist system.
So far so good, you are still a conservative capitalist. Let's continue. Suppose your company owns and controls most of the worlds diamonds. Does your company have a right to control how many of those diamonds are sold on the open market to make sure that your beloved bride's rock is still as valuable, if not more, as it was the day you bought it to wed her? Yes! Of course. Capitalism means the right to sell your property when, where and at the price that you can demand. Right?
As a further example, suppose you are a car salesperson. Your at work and see some sap walk onto your car lot. The minute you lay eyes on him, you know from years of finely tuned experience and sharply honed skill that, without you even telling a single big looper, he will buy one of your automobiles for several thousand dollars more than anyone else. Now even though you wouldn't have sold it to your mother at that price, is it legal, fair, all American, according to Hoyle to do it? Yes, buy low and sell as high as possible. This my dear friend is another bedrock principle of capitalism--maximize profits and minimize losses.
Feeling good about your conservative credentials. Let's move on to the harder questions.
Now suppose a mega virus, that is killing 9 out of 10 humans, is raging, not just in some foreign country among people who don't look or talk like us, but across the world, including America. Then, glory to the mother of ingenuity, a US Pharmaceutical company comes up with an exclusive vaccine and decides to demand as high a price as people are willing to pay or decides to sell it to all member of its corporation at a cut rate price but to all others at an exponentially high "COBRA" rate. Now lets say that you've been priced out of the market and 90% of your family will die? Are you okay with that because it is the conservative, capitalist way of the free market? Feeling a little uncertain?
Next suppose that 50% of the world's grain is slotted to be used to create bio-fuels to meet the world's energy demands but at least 75% of that same grain crop is needed to prevent mass starvations across America. Or suppose that some guy name Joe in his Technicolor dream coat determines there will be 7 years of plenty which will be followed by seven years of famine. In these last two scenarios, would it be consistent with bed rock conservative, capatalistic market principles for the government to intervene and assure that grain stocks be stored to stave off starvation? You think maybe? Getting soft? Cozying up to that swearword "liberal"?
Now suppose that all the big boys of oil get together and decide to either: control the supply to increase price; set a price higher for Americans than, let's say, the Chinese; or worse to not sell a drop of oil for several months to the American consumer. Would this be okay? Would you call upon the government to do something about it? If your answer is yes then you my friend are at the far left of the political spectrum and are at the very least a democrat or worse, a liberal.
So, if you think that cheap gas should be a right guaranteed by our government, why is it such a stretch to ask that same government to insure that as a free and great people we guarantee that adequate health care is within the reach of every American? Don't feel the need or the pain? If you don't, it's not because you are a conservative, it's only because you are among the lucky few that the medical industrial complex has not priced out of the market. The reality is that making health care within the reach of every American is a more realistic goal then perpetuating the myth that we will always have as much inexpensive nonrenewable fossil fuels as we desire. Moreover, just like you may find a higher percentage of believers in God in a fire fight in a fox hole then in more calmer times, in desperate cultural circumstances, you may find more democrats then usual during more circumstances. And these are desperate times. So, Utahans, welcome to the democratic party. You'll like the way you look, I guarantee it.
Loren M. Lambert, Copyright July 31, 2008
6 comments:
The only thing you have pulled the wool off of is you poor understanding of politics. It's to bad you ruined your families holiday to do it.
Dear Anonymous, Don't worry too much, I really didn't ruin my families Holiday, they actually enjoy a good hearty political row, and it was just a more interesting way of introducing the topic. Please don't hold back in your insight and explain how I pulled the wool off of is my poor understanding of politics. I am waiting breathless to be enlightened.
The anonymous poster correctly pointed out that you have a poor understanding of politics in the United States. What she failed to touch upon is that you also don't understand economics. Unfortunately, it would take both a course in political science and a course in economics to set you on the right track.
What you did reveal is that, as said best by Barack Obama, Americans, whether liberal or conservative, have more in common then they do differences.
This very insightful comment was emailed to me and deserves consideration:
Free Enterprise is ALWAYS the winner. In a free market system, everyone participates according to their own motivation and ambition - the lazy do just enough to get by, the uneducated struggle and do nothing to improve themselves, the whiners are free to complain but offer no solutions, while those with ambition innovate and succeed. This innovation is what propels mankind to new higher standards of living, namely technology and medicine. And the nice thing about Free Enterprise is its self regulation. Supply and Demand are almost laws of nature. Where there is a market, someone will find a way to provide.
When a government steps in and tries to control/distribute wealth, or medical benefits, or oil, or any other perceived asset (such as in a communistic regime), the lazy are pacified, the uneducated remain so, the whiners grumble a little softer, but the innovators are stiffled and less motivated. Progress is suppressed. I suggest that if profits of pharmaceutical companies were regulated by the government, the miracle vaccine you described will never be invented.
Such is the plight of the oil industry. Government regulation has stiffled oil exploration and development of new refining facilities. Thus, we are living in 2008, where world oil demand is at an all time high, and the country is stuck with 1992 policies and practices. Being a strong believer in capitalism, I am certain new technologies are on the horizon to compete with the high price of oil. But until that new technology is readily available to the general public, we will continually be reminded of government regulation and restriction every time we see a gas pump. I wonder how many "tree hugging liberals" are leaning a little bit more to the right in favor of relaxed government intervention of the oil industry.
As for healthcare, I don't see a liberal vs conservative battle going on here. I am certain every person would prefer affordable medical treatment for everyone. Also, what I don't see is a free market approach to medicine. Whether it be government restriction through state education policies, or regulation by "good 'ol boys" of the medical community, limiting the number of new medical students every year keeps supply low and prices high. Every year, the U of U School of Medicine accepts about 100 new students. However, several hundreds more are turned away. I am not proposing lower standards for admission, but opening the door for additional qualified applicants to become doctors. More doctors means higher availability and lower, competitive costs. Lower costs also means any amount of government subsidy goes further. Is there a better solution? Expect the government to pay the high prices of medical treatments for everyone? Let the government manage state hospitals staffed with state doctors while the wealthy can receive better treatment at private hospitals if they desire? Increase the taxes of highly paid doctors so others can spend it on medical care, giving it back to the highly paid doctors? Expand the neerly insolvent Medicare and Medicaid? How about using tax dollars to facilitate the training of more doctors and encouraging the private sector to offer more competitive services? Again I say, Free Enterprise is always the winner.
The constitution guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Anything else you want requires a little sweat and blood.
BTW... I am not a conservative or a republican. I guess I would have to say I am very independent. I am still waiting for Obama to say something that doesn't sound like a traveling medicine show, and his energy policy "properly inflated tires" is very weak.
Dear Utahlawyer,
Please, please, please do deign to bestow upon our undeserving minds an unraveling of your superior understanding of politics and economics.
People of your ilk wallow about in the seemingly complex mires of economic and political theory while hundreds of thousands experience the struggle of daily living which grinds up your complex theory into a simply reality. That reality is that not all is well in the Disney Land theme park that the Medical Industrial Complex has cooked up for us.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Simple, straightforward and true. Corporations have achieved absolute power. Given this reality, it needs to be understood that not only can tyranny be welded by a gun totting dictator, but by a briefcase carrying Corporate thug. I am sure they taught this simple truth in your grade school just as they did mine. Or did you skip grade school and go staight to college?
Sincerely, your humble servant, Loren M. Lambert
August 26, 2008 7:57 AM
Post a Comment