Donald Berwick, the Pro-Gun Control Lobby, and Paternalism
Q: What do Donald Berwick and gun control advocates have in common?
A: Both distrust ordinary Americans’ ability to exercise individual rationality and responsibility. Instead, they believe that the government should restrict our freedoms for our own good. And if they have their way, we’ll end up paying the price.
Dr. Donald Berwick is President Obama’s newly appointed head of Medicare and an unabashed supporter of socialized medicine. He has repeatedly praised the British National Health Service as a model for the United States to emulate.
The Wall Street Journal recently published a selection of Berwick’s public statements on health policy. Two in particular stand out because they are such naked attacks on the efficacy of individual choice and rationality:
1) I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That is for leaders to do.
2) The unaided human mind, and the acts of the individual, cannot assure excellence. Health care is a system, and its performance is a systemic property.
Hence, Berwick has explicitly called for doctors to relinquish their “clinician autonomy” and instead follow standardized government treatment guidelines. Patients should forgo using their “unaided human minds” and instead let their “leaders” decide what kind of medical care they should receive.
Many gun control advocates display a similar disdain for the rationality of ordinary Americans. This can be seen most clearly whenever a state considers allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms.
In 1987, the state of Florida started granting concealed weapons permits to residents on a “shall issue” basis, meaning that anyone who met standard training requirements and who passed a criminal background check would be granted a permit. Prior to that, most states gave broad discretion to local sheriffs and police chiefs to grant (or deny) such permits for any reason they wished. In practice, this often meant that only those who were politically connected (or who had made significant contributions to the sheriff’s re-election campaign) were granted a permit.
As Florida considered this reform, gun control advocates argued that allowing ordinary civilians to carry firearms would turn peaceful towns into “Dodge Cities.” Blood would run in the streets, they claimed. Yet nothing of the sort has happened, either in Florida or in the numerous other states that have since adopted similar laws.
As Howard Nemerov and others have shown, states that allow citizens to carry firearms are safer than states that don’t. An armed citizenry deters crime.
Equally important, armed citizens do not get into shootouts over trivial disagreements, such as who arrived first at the best parking spot at the local grocery store. Instead, the millions of ordinary armed Americans across the country have exercised the proper rationality, restraint, and responsibility that comes with carrying an instrument of deadly force.
But despite over 20 years of statistics showing that Americans can and do responsibly exercise their Second Amendment rights, this has not stopped gun control advocates from raising the same fallacious “Dodge City” argument every time a new state considers allowing honest citizens to carry concealed weapons.
A similar phenomenon occurred in the recent national health care debate. Despite decades of statistics showing that patients in Canada and Great Britain suffer greater mortality from cancer and other serious diseases than U.S. patients, this has not stopped men like Berwick from advocating the adoption of the same failing socialized health system here in the United States.
So why do the health care and the gun control statists persist in their wrong views despite the evidence to the contrary? As writer Ayn Rand once noted, “the trouble is not in the nonsense they accept, but in what makes them accept it.” In this case, the statists are driven by a fundamentally flawed view of human nature.
An armed citizenry not only deters crime, but it can deter a tyrannical government from subjugating the republic.
Here’s hoping.
Who are you kidding? That would apply only when the “armed citizenry” has tanks, artillery and air support. You might be able to hold off the local sheriff until he can call in the Tactical Unit, but let’s face it – you couldn’t defeat a platoon of Cooks & Bakers with your home arsenal!
You might want to do a little historical research on partisan activity in the Soviet Union during WWII, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, and guerrilla warfare in general before making such a broad statement. All of these groups started out small and underarmed against their opponents yet were able to inflict a lot of damage against modern armies.
And in every case when they came up against well equipped conventional forces, they got their butts kicked if they didn’t clear out fast enough. They only made sense when there were conventional forces on their side who could at least take some of the heat off of them. The Reds simply sat back 20 miles from Warsaw and let the Germans pound the Home Army and Warsaw to pieces.
Armed resistance – or any type of resistence – can take many forms. I agree that no citizen or group of citizens can win a toe-to-toe slugfest with the American military. But your premises are, I believe, incorrect.
Let me suggest that if the dark day of weapons confiscation ever arrives here, I for one, will not wait in barricade. I will actively hunt down the ones who send the confiscators.
Also consider that throughout the centuries, the entire course of history has often been determined by the actions of one individual. And that no tyrant can maintain a 400 or 500 yard perimeter forever.
Some of our military may well raise ther weapons at their fellow citizens. I can tell you for a fact that not all of them will. I am a patriot and rifleman, like my father before me. I swore the same oath that he did to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. As far as I am concerned, nothing and no-one will ever render that oath null and void. And I am not alone.
Amen fellow Patriot, a man with my way of thinking. “I will actually hunt down the ones giving the orders” I’ll second that and raise it to one more level. Not only will I hunt them down but I’ll tape it, send it to their overlords, and tell them in no uncertain terms, “you’re next” along with their entire family, friends, associates and family dog. and mean it.
As a recent member of the US Military, I can assure you the American Armed Forces are more likely to stand WITH the American People and not against them, especially in the face of the current regime.
Indeed, personal firearms will not prevent tyranny if the majority of the country decides that’s what they want. The only real guard against tyranny in the long term is for those of us who love our freedom and understand that it comes from government protection of individual rights to convince others that (1) government control of guns, medicine, banking, schools, etc. leads to tyranny and that (2) tyranny is bad for them.
Possession of a firearm changes peoples’ attitudes, making them less meek. Also, you have a background assumption that “the army” has a safe place to fall back to and that the factories that make the ammo are in a distant, and safe, location.
Civil war with large numbers of civilians scattered all over the nation? Think of what happens to the economy, with various people “going Galt”, committing sabotage, and shooting anyone in uniform. No front lines, no rear echelon, no rest areas, no one safe.
With all due respect to America’s armed forces, they have not defeated either the Afghans or the Iraqis in several years. How would they do against Americans who are even better armed?
That’s why a person with just a gun does not take on a tank. He takes on the tank crew when they exit the tank.
Subjugating the public?
Subjugating the country-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2Kevz_9lsw
I think the gun control advocates should modernize their campaign. Dodge City is so last century. They should instead say that if the citizenry is allowed to carry concealed firearms, it will be Chicago, with blood flowing in the streets. So, we need stringent gun control.
Wait a minute…
Good one Griz.
“I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That is for leaders to do.”
I would laugh, but it’s no laughing matter.
So many liberals in power remind me of an episode of the Twilight Zone where a platoon of men had been together in battles all over the pacific. In the very last moments of the war, a new Lieutenant comes on the scene and orders them to charge a cave that isn’t even a necessary objective. He’s so full of himself, and eager to countermand any suggestions of the far more experienced sergeant. He just wants blood and guts so he can make a name for himself.
May God have mercy on us from the academic bureaucrats.
The socialist Drug prohibition laws similarly assume that most people do not have common sense enough to stay away from drugs. Unfortunately, the civil disorder and erosion of liberty associated with the War on Drugs affects us all. The War on Drugs was merely practice for the War on Guns and now the War on Medical care. You think we would have learned from Prohibition-1.
I hate being patronized. A lot of Americans do. And yet, over and over, they patronize the American people. This Berwick’s statements remind me of Sunstein’s “libertarian paternalism.” How do they come up with terms like that with a straight face, btw?
We are not children. Stop trying to parent us, bureaucrats!
Grouping these two topics (Gun control and Socialized medicine) begins to make an extremely important point. The failures of both are easy to prove – using both logic and evidence. Historical successes of either are almost non-existent. However, (here comes the point) this has nothing at all to do with the left’s support of these two issues. They don’t believe the logic behind these two issues – they BELIEVE IN these issues on a philosophical, moral and almost religious basis. After all – this is what “good” people think (feel). These issues “should” work. (Whether or not they actually “do” work is absolutely irrelevant.) There are not policies to be implemented – there are moral positions to be trumpeted! Gun Control and Socialized Medicine are not things that they “do” – they are things that the left is “for”.
Here is where conservatives err. It is not possible to change the way someone “feels” with logic. You can demonstrate that these thing do not (nor have they ever) worked in practice. You cannot change the “feeling” held by leftists that they “should” work by proving that they do not and have not work.
GDT wrote:
Here is where conservatives err. It is not possible to change the way someone “feels” with logic.
The conservative error is not the fact that they oppose emotionally-held beliefs with logic — if only that were the case!
The conservative error is their refusal to challenge the moral premise behind those emotionally-held beliefs.
Observe that conservatives today are not saying that socialized medicine per se is wrong — for if they took that position, they’d be forced to oppose the socialized medicine for seniors (Medicare) and the socialized medicine for the “poor” (Medicaid) that they long ago endorsed.
So instead they take the tack of opposing Obamacare on the grounds that we cannot afford it — or on the grounds that it will result in rationing. These are valid arguments — but they concede the moral high ground to the other side of the debate.
The Democrats/leftist/progressive’s moral premise is altruism — the notion that morality demands self-sacrifice for the sake of others. Conservatives dare not challenge this moral premise — in fact, most of them fully agree with it. That’s why, when Obama invokes his slogan, “Man is his brother’s keeper”, it silences the opposition — or simply reduces them to arguing that we can’t afford right now to keep any more brothers.
This is precisely why the conservatives have utterly failed in their efforts to limit the growth of the welfare state. They have, instead, compromised their way to political defeat after defeat, usually under the banner of the slogan, “We don’t have to go to extremes!”
Well, now the American people can see that the extremes came to them.
Once you concede the moral high ground — once you agree that what the other side wants is morally right — you are doomed to fighting over the speed with which their programs will be implemented. And such is all conservatives have managed to do for the last 50 years.
And so if, IF, conservatives and the American people in generally really wish to fight socialized medicine, they must grow the spine to stand up for their right to exist for their own sake. They must reject the altruistic principle that one man’s need entitles him to another man’s money. They must learn to reply to Obama’s slogan by declaring that no “brothers” anywhere on earth can invoke a “right” to have others forced into “keeping’ them — because ALL men are created EQUAL, with each possessing the same, identical rights, including the right to live for one‘s own sake, pursuing one‘s own happiness, by means of one‘s own honest effort.
The Democrats/leftist/progressives have no answer to that — if only we can find some leaders with the courage to say it.
Mike –
You have reinforced my point – by completely missing it. In your post you take the position that socialized medicine is morally wrong (I agree by the way). Liberals take the position that it is a moral imperative. Both sides believe their positions strongly. Neither will budge. This debate is simple contention. (Yes it is! No it’s not!). There is no way to win. The debate is emotional. “Challenging the moral premise” (from your post) doesn’t change anyone’s mind about anything. It is almost a liberal perspective “It doesn’t matter what we actually “do” as long as we state our position loudly enough.”
The key to this debate is not to shout “No it’s not!” louder and with more conviction. You will never persuade the left that the poor and downtrodden should not receive “free” flu shots. They will NEVER wake up and say “Well gee; I suppose there is an issue with taking stuff from people who earned it and giving it to people who didn’t.” The key is to reframe the debate. The issue is that socialized medicine does not work. It is a ponzy scheme – it is an attempt to create an economic perpetual motion machine. It is the reason for $20 aspirin tablets – it is why people call 911 and take an ambulance for a hang nail. It results in rationing and delays that costs peoples lives. It has worsened care everywhere it has been tried. It has increased costs exponentially every where it has been tried. It does not work, it has not worked, it does not have the on paper potential to work. It is a scam that harms everyone involved.
We will not ever convince people who believe that socialized medicine is “right” that it is “wrong”. Attempting this is futile and probably counterproductive. The only way to “win” the moral debate is for the other side to concede – and they are just not going to do that. Maybe (just maybe) we can show them that utopian socialized medicine is simply impossible and that futile attempts in that direction harms the people that they would help.
GDT – You are wrong that the conservatives have challenged the morality of socialism. Conservatives may implicitly hold an individualist morality. But, by and large, when it comes time to vote they revert to their explicitly held Christian morality – which accepts the same relevant moral principles of socialism.
This type of thinking is what guided conservatives over the last 30 years to argue the PRACTICALITY of capitalism, while undermining its moral foundation. Even today’s darling of fiscal conservatism, Paul Ryan (from my own state), voted in favor of TARP. When explaining why he voted for it he implicitly endorsed the high priest of socialist fiscal policy, John Maynard Keynes. Practical arguments will not convince leftists if they don’t even convince conservatives.
Conservatives need to discover the morality on which individual rights and capitalism depend; a morality of reason and self-interest, not of faith and the interests of an unknowable being.
Christian morality does no such thing. Christian morality places love as its highest virtue, and love BY DEFINITION cannot be coerced. The Bible says, “Thou shall not steal,” and “Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s goods.” However, it also holds up as the paragon of virtue to give of oneself willingly, and with no ulterior motives.
GDT wrote:
You have reinforced my point – by completely missing it. In your post you take the position that socialized medicine is morally wrong (I agree by the way). Liberals take the position that it is a moral imperative. Both sides believe their positions strongly. Neither will budge. This debate is simple contention. (Yes it is! No it’s not!). There is no way to win.
The point is not to “win” in the sense of convincing liberals that socialized medicine is wrong. I fully agree that THAT is impossible — you will never change their minds. The point is to put them on the defensive by morally knocking the props out from under them — and to strengthen the case against socialized medicine by invoking a basic moral principle that most Americans understand and agree with.
You see, in the first place, the debate you describe above — the “Yes it is moral! No it’s not moral!” — is NOT at all the debate that has been going on. There isn’t a conservative politician on earth right now with the stones to challenge the morality of socialized medicine.
The debate that has been going on is this: the Democrats assert, “Providing healthcare to all is a moral imperative! — to which conservatives reply: “But we can’t afford it!” or “But it doesn’t work!” — to which the Democrats reply, “Every other civilized nation on earth has made it work, so we can too.” Whereupon the Democrats are left standing as the moral crusaders trying to do good while the conservatives are left trying to prove a negative — trying to prove that it can not work here in America.
Consider how different the debate would be if Republicans offered a moral argument against socialized medicine. When the Democrats assert, “Providing healthcare to all is a moral imperative!”, Republicans should respond, “Nonsense. Freedom is a moral imperative. A man’s doctor bills are his own responsibility. Forcing one man to pay another man’s doctor bills is every bit as immoral as forcing one man to pick another man’s cotton. There is no ’moral imperative’ that makes it right for one man to satisfy his ’need’ for healthcare by stealing from his neighbors. Theft is always immoral — no matter how badly the thief needs the proceeds and no matter who does the stealing. And by the way, Obama, in America man is not his brother‘s keeper — because in America, all men are created equal — not divided into ‘keepers’ and those entitled to be ‘kept’”.
That won’t “end” the debate — and it won’t convince the Democrats to give up — but I can guarantee you that it would put them on the defensive. And it would communicate to the American people — the majority of which oppose socialized medicine — that there are very good moral arguments against it.
That is not the end of what I have to say on this matter. But it’s all I can go into at the moment.
Exactly correct, Michael. The most successful argument that the Left has ever won was to convince Americans that it is okay to steal from one person to give to another in the name of “fairness”. Once you establish that the premise is false then the structure has no choice but to fall down. Too bad no conservative pol will ever make that argument, as you’ve said.
Your last paragraph is SPOT ON!!
Reality, common sense, facts….will not usually change the lefts/progressives “feelings” that A or B should work.
Thus we need to teach reality, facts, common sense in our schools instead of what feels right. Everyone is NOT a winner! If children grow up thinking all life is about is feelings we get……Obama!
Remember, Paul, the point of Obamacare and gun control is not to protect the citizenry from illness and criminals, but to reduce the citizenry to helots easily controlled by their masters. And Dr. Berwick has made it clear that he intends to be one of the master class.
Indeed. We must DEMAND that they treat us as self governing competent citizens. But when they tell us to “stuff it, you small people,” as they have done, and as they do every day, well…then what?
Then. What? That’s the question nobody’s prepared to answer. We all know that even if…and it’s not going to happen…Obamacare were repealed next year, that law will be vetoed and there won’t be the power to over ride. Obamacare remains till Obama is gone…and by they the current system is destroyed and nothing is left but Them.
So, I ask again….demand, and then what?
Nobody wants to talk about the real alternative.
Nobody wants to talk about the real alternative.
Let’s face it – many of the most hardened, the most cynical realists among us do not want to admit that it’s not merely the fact of slo-mo trainwreck that’s happening now – it’s that we’re also riding in one of the cars.
We’re caught in a stunning contradiction between our faith in the rule of law and the unspoken trust that underpins the social contract, and the fact that in the back of our minds, we know that that trust and the rule of law has been relentlessly corroded to the point of vanishing. This is the trust that allows us the confidence that we can honor each others business AND personal transactions. The foundation of everything from the handshake deal to the most complex of business transactions; from the trust of friendship to the bonds of marriage – all have been assaulted, battered and railed against by the reigning popular orthodoxy. From the pulpit to an evenings worth of television, the message that we get is that our collective salvation lies in servitude and that our partners in business and love can’t be trusted. All pretty much as Gramsci envisioned. Those of us with any sense of history know the final destination of that train.
These two views are irreconcilable. We must either deny and vociferously reject the destructive anti-values and messages emanating from our pastors and our popular culture, or settle for surrender. How many of us will go for the latter case is a question yet to be resolved.
Never forget that the stakes in this game of suicide poker with liars wild is – us.
And to what end? Orwell told us over half a century ago:
“We are the priests of power-do not forget this, Winston. Always there will be the intoxication of power…If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever.”
Unfortunately for all of us, the alternatives to resigning ourselves to the fate of human chattel are dwindling down to fire and blood. Not a choice we asked for, but one that we will by now almost certainly have to embrace.
Shortly after Florida enacted its ‘Shall Issue’ law the incidence of Car Jacking did skyrocket. (What’s that an increase in crime?)
However…
It seems that the cars involved all hsd something in common.
They were all Rental Cars. (seems there was something that made rental cars identifiable.)
And guess what?
Rental Cars DON’T have any Armed Citizens in them. Seems the criminals figured it out in a hurry that you attack a Citizen of Florida you may get your head blown off, but if you attack a rental car you have a free hand.
The rentals stopped making their cars obvious and the problem suddenly went away by sheer coincidence.
But there is NO benefit to ‘Shall Issue’ laws, none what-so-ever.
jd
It’s neo-feudalism.
The difference between the Right and Left can be boiled down to two words: good and evil. People on the Right believe that human beings are fundamentally good and when left to their own devices will do the right thing because they are inclined to do so. People on the Left, however, believe that human beings are fundamentally bad and when left to their own devices will engage in all kinds of evil machinations. Which brings me to the inherent contradiction in the argument of the Left: if humans are fundamentally bad, then why advocate that these bad beings have dominion over other humans? If human beings are fundamentally bad, then the last thing we would want to do is centralize power in a few people who would be prone to do bad things. That little point is often lost on people of the Left.
And yet, the lefties would (and probably will) say that you have it backwards: They believe that people are naturally good, and conservatives think that people are naturally evil. How this view justifies governmental supervision of every aspect of life is never explained.
Actually, I would say that the conservative view is that people and governments are CAPABLE of evil, and law and custom evolve to limit the harm people and governments can cause others. Other than that, people should be left to their own devices. Liberals believe that people are innocent, naive lost little lambs, and must be guided and protected in every instance by wise overseers.
And what is the ultimate result of government trying to blunt every one of life’s sharp edges? Now, now, let’s not always see the same hands raised…
Funny you should be talking about the “inherent contradictions” of the Left, in light of a comment posted by Instapundit in his entry linking to this article:
I read the link you gave about Mr. Berwick @ 10:46 am. One sentence stands out. ‘Berwick has explicitly called for doctors to relinquish their ‘clinician autonomy’ and instead follow standardized government treatment guidelines.’ This sentence cuts right at the heart of Roe vs. Wade does it not? Didn’t that case enshrine into the Constitution that government make not interfere in the relationship between a woman and her doctor? Wouldn’t it be the supreme irony if the Supreme Court, or an inferior court for that matter, struck down Obamacare using Roe vs. Wade as a precedent? The agony for the right and the left would be excruciating.
Yes, it would; contradictions hurt like hell. Contradictions that are common to both “left” and “right”, as evidenced here.
Rather odd for purported opposites, no?
How is it agonizing to the right? We have the left trapped in a Morton’s Fork- they cannot keep both abortion and Obamacare. Besides, no matter which survives the challenge, we have another means to attack it- if Roe v. Wade, then the Personhood Movement or a Constitutional Amendment, if Obamacare, then defunding it or challenging it in court for a different reason.
The worst of it is that there are ways to control costs in Medicare and private insurance that do not affect freedom of choice. For example, many doctors are dropping out of Medicare and practicing for “cash” because Medicare bans “balance billing.” That means the Medicare payment is all that can be charged and it is so low it does not pay expenses. If CMS would simply repeal that ban, patients and doctors could negotiate fees and the doctors would remain in the Medicare program. Why not a simple solution like that one ?
Control.
IN the days we live in one of the things that occasionally makes me smile IS THE FACT THAT the citizens of the USA possess 35% of all the small arms in the world. Ain’t it grand.
I think it is interesting that the enlightened people strongly believe in natural selection/evolution and how it leads to the development of complex ecosystems though individual organism competing for their own interest. These intellectuals laugh at those who think the natural world needs “intelligent design”.
However, these same enlightened ones can’t imagine sectors of the economy being able to evolve and function efficiently on their own through individual competition and/or without “expert” guidance.
I’ve often pissed off some conservative friends with this concept. “So you trust a woman with a gun, but not with an unborn baby?” If they are smart they fall back to “we make laws to protect the innocent.” Which is a fairly good argument however where do you draw the line? To me you either trust a person to make smart life and death decisions or you don’t. I figure the governments role should be to make sure you can make those decisions without coercion or fraud.
Wow – really flawed logic here. The fact that “we trust people with guns” does not mean you have the “CHOICE” to shoot anyone you want for any reason you want. Yes gun ownership is a life and death power – but if you exercise that power – you will be held accountable for your decision. “Trusting a woman with an unborn baby” is completely different matter than a societal endorsement of killing that unborn baby for any or no reason. What a woman may or may not do with an unborn baby, and what a gun owner may or may not do with a firearm is completely different that want we formally endorse for each.
Pro-Choicers believe: Any reason, no reason, no scrutiny, no questions at all ever.
Pro-Gun people understand: Extremely limited reasons, extremely great duress and unbelievably extensive scrutiny after the fact that may well be life changing even if you are right.
Again – really flawed logic and really weak analogy.
Why would you “trust” anyone with the life of a child when that person has determined to kill it? Stop that leftist BS of using the word “choice” as a euphemism for infanticide.
Yes, we do trust our fellow citizens to make life and death decisions, and we are fully justified in punishing them when they make the wrong decision- a greater punishment for malice and a lesser punishment for carelessness.
I support a person’s right to own a gun.
I also support laws against murder.
There is no contradiction.
Dr Hsieh is right! Is is time we asserted some pride and refused to accept the condescending bureaucratic mindset that asserts that individuals are incapable of making rational decisions to sustain their lives. These ideas need to be challenged and fought against. A man’s right to think and act freely must be respected.
“Berwick and gun control advocates share a flawed view of human nature and a disdain for the rationality of ordinary men. Thus, their paternalistic desire to restrict our freedoms.”
They share an elitist disdain for the ordinary men. They try to hide their desire to restrict the yokels’ freedom behind a paternalistic veneer. Father knows best, the teenagers need to be protected from themselves. It is nothing paternalistic about their desire to control, it’s an insult to our intelligence.
It’s neo-feudalism.
It’s funny you should say that, because these lines from Berwick:
1) I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That is for leaders to do.
2) The unaided human mind, and the acts of the individual, cannot assure excellence. Health care is a system, and its performance is a systemic property.
…. remind me quite loudly of neo-conservatism. The idea that human beings as individuals cannot be trusted to make rational decisions, but the same human beings suddenly become rational almost Godlike, when they become “leaders”, is just the sort of thing you hear all the time from the likes of David Brooks or Irving Kristol.
To be fair, this particular vice isn’t unique to neo-conservatism; it is a common thread running though the Left as well. But that it is profoundly anti-American, is inarguable.
I don’t think you’ve read much of Irving Kristol’s work. The proof is that you lump him in with David Brooks. The late Mr. Kristol is a better thinker than David Brooks ever will be. The other reason I know you haven’t read much of Irving Kristol’s work is that if you did you would know his justification for becoming a “neo-conservative” was because he came to the conclusion that a lot of the cockamamie schemes that liberals was cooking up during his time would not work. Indeed, “neo-conservative” is to come to have newfound respect for the fallibility of man and how any of his “grand solutions” in the grand scheme of things will not work and will only ensure misery.
as I understand it Dodge City (at the height of the “Wild West”) had a lower per capita murder rate than Boston did at the same time …
They’re worshipping the god of Socialism and anything other than seeing them as fanatic religious adherents doesn’t explain their willingness to drive all other religion from the public square, readily justify the murder of millions (living and as yet unborn), throw ever increasing amounts of treasure into already failed social manipulations, and demand that society give up the “antiquated concepts” of right and wrong or good and evil. They are so little different than the jihadists that they cannot bring themselves to call mass murder in the name of islam what it is.
Only by seeing them for the religious fanatics they really are can you understand them.
Regards
Bravo, Dr Hsieh! You’ve identified a deeper connection between those who want to control us in the realm of self defense and those who want to control us in the realm of our health care. And you hit the nail on the head in how we must assert our rights:
“We must assert our competence — and our right — to make our own medical decisions in consultation with our physicians without government interference.”
We must be willing to tell the health control statists “Leave us alone!” and be able to defend our right to make our own decisions in this regard.
Thank you!
Another good article that is able to weave together two seemingly disparate topics based on their similar philosophic core. Great job defending freedoms on two fronts with one article.
I have been legally carrying for quite a few years and have never even been tempted to brandish let alone use my firearm. Indeed, quite the opposite, for carrying a firearm imposes a serious level of responsibility that I am very aware of. And those who would forbid me from exercising this unalienable right have no idea of the confidence and peace of mind that comes from being quietly and inconspicuously armed.
For me, the trouble and responsibility of being armed has paid for itself on several occasions.
By watching the shrill crowd over the years, I can only conclude that what we are seeing is projection of their own fear about what they would do. They are truly worried that if they had a gun they would be dangerous to themselves and to others. They assume that nobody else is trustworthy or responsible either.
It’s not hard to understand the paternalistic attitude of the Left. At some point in their lives, they were told that they were the “Best and Brightest.” The really remarkable thing is that they actually believed it. If you’re one of the Best and Brightest, then it’s only reasonable to believe that everyone else isn’t bright enough to be allowed to think for themselves. Listen to liberals and it isn’t hard to pick up on their distain for most Americans.
Republican candidate for Congress and Harvard Physicist Mike Stopa has some things to say about Donald Berwick.
I like the ending of this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27UIzOqCQSY
Dr. Hsieh names a vital element, in his excellent essay, that we who want to forestall tyranny must understand. That those seeking to impose serfdom on each of us have an irrational, erroneous view of people. They offer no proof of it, they merely act as though it is self-evident that we are all repressed homicidal maniacs; or non-functioning dupes who must be told when, how and if to get medical care. Funnily enough, they think we’re smart enough to read their rules and follow them, as well as functioning enough to get up and go to work to pay the taxes they need for their royal decrees.
Thanks, Dr. Hsieh.
The US Constitution specifies the powers of the Federal government,
and the titles of the individuals who exercise those powers;
There is no title ‘Leader’ and there are limits on the power to tax
(the power to destroy) which are exceeded by the Fine = Tax penalty
for not following the Individual Mandate rule in the HCR Bill.
Socialized medicine and gun control isn’t about making everyone better or safer; they’re about making Demo-rats feel better and safer, while everyone else pays for it. These things are for left/liberal Demo-rats’ gratification. Period.
The error most conservatives make is believing that the leftoids are arguing what they say they are arguing.
The real arguement is that society is properly broken into classes. Commoners who need to be properly meek and thankful that their betters are slaving away at keeping the masses “safe” and poor, and the superior class that does what it wants.
Consider how both the slum dwelling gangbanger and the priviliged in the “may issue” states regard possession of a weapon. Makes them big stuff, right? Neither wants to face the self percieved loss of being “special”. (Like wearing Spiderman undies. Whoa, “Big Man”.) Neither likes the idea of just any old granny being able to carry a “Ghunnnnn”.
My Grandfather was a bootlegger back in the roaring twenties. It was the local sheriff who warned him when the feds were planning a raid. He was never caught and died a wealthy man. Moreover, I trust our military to do the right thing.
Berwick is without a doubt the morally worst government appointee I have ever heard of.
His contempt for human reason, freedom and the American public know no bounds. He holds a view of people as evil and stupid, and plans to treat us accordingly.
Because people are actually competent and capable of acting rational, and are therefore capable of making their own decisions, it is right for them to do so. To prevent this freedom is morally wrong.
Furthermore, he does not even believe his own principles. If people are so incapable of thinking that they cannot be trusted to make market decisions regarding their own health care, then he should not trust those same people in positions of government power, telling us what to do. Such views are inherently hypocritical, contradict their own premises, and are therefore invalid.
In the minds of Berwick and his ilk, they are not hypocritical at all. they believe that there are those inherently fit to rule (like themselves), and those who are only fit to serve (everybody not part of their little clique’). As such, they can easily define democracy as an nonviable system, leaving what has been called “plunder-or-be-plundered aristocracy” as the only alternative- with themselves doing the plundering.
The concept of a government deriving its “just powers from the consent of the governed” is essentially dead in the minds of the “enlightened elite”. All that is left, they believe, is the naked exercise of power- by the “elite’”, for their own advantage and amusement, and at everyone else’s expense.
For further exploration of the mindset, try;
Augean Stables- Demopaths and Dupes http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/demopaths-dupes/
Codevilla- America’s Ruling Class and the Perils of Revolution http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print
Oborne- The Establishment is Dead http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/162011/the-establishment-is-dead-but-something-worse-has-replaced-it.thtml
clear ether
eon
Some brief comments about the gun control issue
1. most gun control advocates advocate from either an emotional or conformist motive. facts don’t matter at all to these people; all that matters is feelings, and peer-approval.
2. Machiavelli taught that The Prince must maintain a monopoly on the use of arms. this must be opposed by any Society which wishes to retain Freedom of Expression. this lesson is imprinted upon history in indelible ink.
3 the haunting melody of Crosby, Seals, & Nash admonishes us “Teach, your children well … ”
what you teach them is: Government is dangerous. Government is the most dangerous killer known to man. Government must therefore be kept under the strict control of The People
which leads us to a discussion of Freedom of Speech, and Education. How to form a REPUBLIC and make government into the servant of the people rather than the master of the people
This is a false argument, gun control. (Obviously). The purpose of gun control advocates is to reduce or ideally eliminate gun crime. But the action of gun control does nothing to address crime, and instead (again, obviously) severely limits ALL individual Rights of the law abiding. As if that would have the intended effect. When all historical empirical evidence VASTLY out weighs such a ludicrous claim.
Advocacy for gun control persistence mirrors the lefts insistence that Marxism can ‘work’ in America, if we’d only try it. Yet ALL historical and empirical evidence VASTLY out weighs such a ludicrous claim.
And yet, both persist. It becomes blatantly obvious that facts do not matter, thus the debate is meaningless beyond distraction. And this isn’t about anything except the end result. CONTROL over YOU!
Yeah right – guns in the US are such a public health success aren’t they – only 32,000 killed a year and 110,000 shot.
Yeah, Marc,
On the public health front take a look at what impact lack of guns had on public health in regimes that were allowed to eradicate verminous creatures at will.
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm
It’s the chart at the bottom of the page. You know, the one that shows which gun laws applied and which governments mass murdered how many of their citizens…
How’s that for public health?
Apart from the fact that a few good ol boys with pop guns could hardly do much to an army, I think you should try and set aside the paranoia about government and look at guns from a public health perspective in the same way as say seatbelts in cars. The US has lost more than a million people since the late 1960s to gun homicides, accidents and suicides, and it is hugely costly to the nation. I don’t think it’s a price worth paying for an imaginary enemy, and you should also bear in mind that actually Americans are hugely demanding and reliant on the government for security, Medicare, social security and so on and even the tea party crowd are among the first to defend their rights to such programmes.
Then don’t own a gun, but keep your grubby mits off my weapons (I don’t even own a gun, but my family owns several swords). We have a right to own whatever weapons we want that we perceive will improve our security, provided that the weapon in question can be controlled by a single person and targeted at an individual threat.
In the US, when guns become more accessible, violent crime drops. A quick look at any US state before and after gun liberalization will confirm this. From a public safety perspective, gun laws should be less stringent.
But this isn’t about public safety, anyway. Its about whether or not people should be denied the de facto right to self defense by the de jure ban on the tools of self defense. People have a right to defend themselves, therefore they have a right to peacefully acquire and keep the tools of self defense.
In a similar vein, people have a right to peacefully acquire healthcare. But if I am attacked by someone who needs my money for surgery, I will defend myself with the tools at hand.
If the US is such a violent place then why do more eurofools migrate to this country than vice versa?
Out of a population of 300 million? Really?
The vast majority of those deaths occured in places where gun ownership is already all but illegal.
If you honestly believe that outlawing guns will reduce gun crime, then please demonstrate that by using some statistics.
I can show you hundreds of places where letting the people own guns has reduced crime.
I can show you dozens of places where making it harder for the law abiding to own guns has resulted in an increase in crime.
All you have to do is find a few places where restrictions on guns caused a drop in crime. To do this, just pick a country or a city. Cite crime statistics prior to the increase in gun restrictions, and then cite crime statistics after the restrictions.
If it is as obvious as you claim, you should have no trouble generating hundreds of such examples. Go ahead, be a man and back up your claims.
I like Paul’s connection between the gun control and medical control (they are very similar), and the way that gun freedom has / is coming. There’s power in fundamentals.
I really love to hate that icon you have (the guy w/ bag-o-money, the guy w/ gun to head – socialism).
Mythbuster, (July 23, 2010 – 7:56 pm) said, “[The Bible] holds up as the paragon of virtue to give of oneself… with no ulterior motives.”
Don’t you see how this idea drives politicians to expand the welfare state? What America needs is a morality of rational self-interest, not a morality of altruism. Altruism leads to statism, whether it is secular altruism or mystic altruism.
Since when have politicians given of themselves.
Don’t you see a difference between giving your own money, and voting to have govt take someone else’s money?
Altruism does not lead to statism.
Once you accept that it’s morally proper for those of ability to give to the needy-with no hope/expectation/desire for reward- you have established a moral code of sacrifice. Under such a moral code, nobody can claim to be an end in themselves. Each person is a means to someone else’s end – someone else being another individual, God or the state.
What moral principle would allow you to protest when you are robbed by someone who needs more than you? Only a code that says your life is your own highest moral purpose would. Individual rights are only protected by a system that recognizes each human being as an end in himself.
Dr King was able to achieve a national “examination of conscience” about the Democratic party legal system in the South.This led to real changes in individual peoples outlooks and actions. Is there a way to do this on any single issue now? In the hearts and minds of a significant portion of the US population, that examination led on to what might at first glance have seemed to be unrelated issues. Can the “overwhelming” inertia of modern life eventually be seen as a web that can be unraveled by pulling out any one strand such as liberty or freedom or responsibility? How can two generations of “statist” educational conditioning to conformity be addressed? How can each one of these Codevillian “rulers” be brought to look me in the eye as an equal individual person, not as a subject, enemy, statistic, tool, serf, dumb, or [insert their latest polite obfuscation of choice]? So much of the discussion almost seems to be using religious terms. Continual reliance on theories that have been proven destructive in practice here in US three times in a century [present administration course will make four] will soon end the American Experiment. The assumption of “rightness” [whether based on "fairness" or "morality" is irrelevant] seems to often lead into confusing power with authority. They may temporarily have power [50% + 1 vote from deceived and "uninformed" electorate], but that does not confer authority. Heroic Resistance activities may work in some instances and for some time [Some of the Rebet/Bandera people may have survived until 1956], but “Regime Change” will have to come person by person. HOPE peaceful education and debate can CHANGE enough minds and hearts to save American freedoms. GBUSA
Many gun control advocates display a similar disdain for the rationality of ordinary Americans…Patients should forgo using their “unaided human minds” and instead let their “leaders” decide what kind of medical care they should receive.
It’s a variation on the bitter-clingers-clinging-to-guns-and-religion point of view, promulgated by Dear Leader.
The moronic élitists surrounding Obama believe that they know better for you than you know for yourself.
They’re mental wonks, and their brains work very strangely, indeed.
So why do the health care and the gun control statists persist in their wrong views despite the evidence to the contrary?…In this case, the statists are driven by a fundamentally flawed view of human nature.
Hothouse flowers, like Berwick, are completely in love with the sound of their own notions ricocheting around between their ears.
Likely, he doesn’t find it the slightest bit unsettling that his beloved national British healthcare is shooting craps, as we speak.
Paraphrasing the inimitable words of Newsweek’s Evan Thomas, the (leftist) narrative is always right, damned if the facts don’t support it.
Talk about bitter clingers !
All of this is understandable in light of the single idea that most of Obama’s appointees (and Obama himself) have contempt for the founding principles and ideals of this nation.
They really don’t want you to enjoy liberty and freedom, in any aspect of your life.
That is the point of this entire administration.
I would imagine that Obama’s main reaction to America’s obvious aversion to his viewpoints is one of resentment that we childish and bitter clingers reject his enlightened views.
Small and tidy thinkers like Donald Berwick would have been nowhere near the constitutional convention.