The burden of proof is on those who want “change” to show that there is a problem in the first place, and that the problem can and should be addressed by some level/branch of government.

Leftists call themselves “progressives”, because they want you to believe that their proposals bring positive progress to society.  What I see in their actions, though, is an attempt to centralize as much power in the federal government as possible. That’s not progress. That has been tried over and over again in history, and the results range from societal stagnation to genocide.

If they were to get everything they want as far as nationalizing and socializing health care and the funding thereof, they would discover some new “right” that is being denied to us, and call on some government program for that, too.

Our plan is not "don't get sick"  and "die quickly if you do".  Our plan is to let people make their own plans through voluntary arrangements - with their co-op, their temple, their union, their doctor, their neighbors, or their insurance company or anyone  else who voluntarily gets involved. That's called liberty. Yes, people will still have problems, but they're going to have problems either way. Individual liberty, whenever possible, is better than expanded government.

California Governor Schwarzenegger has mentioned that the time may be right to debate marijuana legalization.  In California, marijuana use is legal as medicine, and recently the federal government has publicly backed off prosecutions in this area.

Let's get real.

Full disclosure:

1. I've never tried pot.  I didn't see the point.  Isn't thinking clearly hard enough these days without using mind-altering substances?  And if you really need to loosen up, what's wrong with wine?

2. I have known many people who have "tried" pot, and many of them have regularly smoked pot... for many years, and I've been able to observe their behavior over the years.

3. As demonstrated numerous times in this blog, I'm generally for personal liberty and limited government.

4. I want to keep reality in mind when dealing with issues.  I do not believe in overstating a case, as that destroys credibility.  Example: If you tell me that "reading" Playboy will lead to rape, then you shouldn't be taken seriously.  (I especially find it funny when someone says this and also recounts finding the magazine in her father's possession.  Was her father a rapist?)

With that in mind, let's take an honest look at the situation.

Legalizing pot will not solve court/prison overcrowding problems.  Yes, it will likely mean that some people will not be put into the court/prison system, because they run afoul of the law only because of pot.  But really, how many people fall into this category – having not committed any other crimes?  This would also be true if we legalized murder - though I do not equate selling pot and murder.  We could empty our prisons by striking most laws from the books.  We'll still have plenty of criminals to deal with even if pot is legal.  Whether or not pot should be legalized shouldn't hinge on whether or not it will be easier on this system.

Taxing pot will not solve our budget problems.  It might help, but spending is likely to increase as revenues increase, in a way that will make spending reductions (or, reductions in planned increases) politically difficult when revenues decline.  All of the other "sin" taxes, "Indian gaming", and lotteries have not prevented states such as California from facing deficits.

Taxing pot too much will perpetuate a black market.  This has been seen with tobacco.

Pot growers/distributors will not all suddenly become nonviolent, law-abiding, upstanding businesspeople upon pot legalization.  These people are growing pot in state and federal parkland, inside suburban homes dedicated entirely to growing pot, etc.  Many of these people are involved because it is a black market activity, rather than being outlaws solely because of their love of growing and selling pot.  They aren't used to dealing with numerous local, state, and federal regulations involved in running a business, employing people, and growing/selling a crop or drug.  Rather than a reduction in other crimes, we actually may see an increase as these people move on to other, more serious black market activities.

Legalizing pot will not solve our environmental problems by replacing petroleum.  It just isn't going to happen.  it may help a little, and if so, then good.

Sitting in a basement and smoking a joint isn't going to kill you, but regularly smoking pot will likely have negative effects in your life.  It may very well make you a Leftist blogger.  There are more productive and healthy things you could be doing with yourself.  Unless you find it to be the best medical treatment, you are probably better off not using it.

Many of the same problems society perceives and tries to address in regard to tobacco will also be present with marijuana.  They are both leaves.  Also, if people think this will create jobs in America but not elsewhere, they are fooling themselves.  Most likely, most commercial pot would be grown outside the U.S. and shipped in.

Prohibition does reduce consumption.  Alcohol drinking per capita in this country didn't return to pre-Prohibition levels until the 1970s.  This, however, does not address whether or not pot distribution/use should be prohibited.

With all of this in mind, people like me are more likely to be indifferent of even supportive of pot legalization if we are able to exercise our rights to:

1. Hold people accountable for their behavior (like being able to sue them if they crash into us because they were driving while impaired).

2. Not pay for someone else's medical treatment.  You ruin your lungs smoking pot?  Don't expect me to pay.

3. Rent to or evict people from our property (including pot users).

4. Hire, fire, promote, or demote an employee (including  pot users).

5. Not to insure pot users.

In Conclusion...

If I don't have a right to use my property or run my business the way I want, or pay only for medical treatments as I choose, then you don’t have a right to use pot.  Support my liberty, and I will support yours.  Otherwise, it is no concern of mine if you want to blunt your thinking and abuse your lungs.  I don't buy the alarmism that all pot use leads to harder drugs and a bad life, nor do I buy the utopian promises of potheads who call for legalization.  One of the problems with illegal drug use is that it supports nasties like Mexican drug cartels and terrorists.  Whether or not legalization would change that doesn't negate the fact that casual drug use currently supports those nasties, and thus is immoral.

What is extreme about opposing the spending of federal taxpayer money on:

• the dismemberment of innocent, defenseless human beings in foreign countries?
• the killing of innocent, defenseless human beings for medical research?
• propping up large corporations with failed business models?
• keeping someone in a house they gained possession of through taking out a loan they can’t repay?
  

What is extreme about asking our elected leaders to remember that:

• the people have a government, not the other way around?
• we as individuals retain most rights, and should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of our successes and deal with the consequences of our failures?
• we are a nation of laws, not elite cliques of entitled men?
• we are union of states with their own governments, powers, and rights?
• we have a Constitution that restricts what our federal government can do?
• the Constitution provides for checks and balances through separation of powers?
  

If doing these things makes one an extremist, then I ask what virtue is there in moderation?  How it is noble to take by force from those who earn in order to give to those who choose not to?  How is it good to trample on the rights of individuals?  How does one go moderate in matters of basic liberty, freedom, and responsibility?  Perhaps being "moderate" in these things is like being "a little" pregnant, with the "moderation" growing and growing until it gives birth to something new and dependent, forever changing things. But in this case, it is those who were not agreeable to conception who are saddled with paying child support.

"Extreme" stances in defense of life and basic natural rights are no vice.

Why would you be scared of someone who wants to protect their rights, and in doing so, protect yours?  Why are you afraid of those who want you to live with the consequences of your own actions, unless you suspect you are incapable of making the best decisions for yourself?

I am strongly pro-choice.  Here's a classic Playful Walrus entry explaining what I mean.

Here's a great letter to the Orange County Register.

Gary Ford of Lake Forest wrote:

Socialists meddle in the free market and try to manipulate it through laws and politics.  When the results are bad, they claim capitalism has failed and that we need to push even harder for socialism.

The current political and economic situation was created, not by the free market, but by government meddling with the free market.

The bureaucrats perpetuate the problem by refusing to allow the market to correct itself.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.  Kudos to Mr. Ford, and kudos to the OCR for printing his letter.

What does that make Obama?

For most of Bush's years in office, we heard cries that Bush was on a power grab with things like the Patriot Act.  People have even accused Bush of allowing or even orchestrating 9/11 as an excuse to grab power.

Remember how Bush was going to stay in office beyond the expiration of his second term?  I do.  Have any of the people who asserting such nonsense apologized?  Or do they claim that their warnings prevented it from happening?

Are these same people expressing any concern whatsoever at the power grab occurring right now under the Obama Administration?  Probably not – since they haven't been complaining about Hugo Chavez, either.

Saddling future generations with massive debt spent on unconstitutional meddling in business and trade is a power grab.  Taking control of businesses and dictating the micromanaging of those businesses, to the point of breaking legal contracts, is a power grab.

What has happened to personal responsibility and accountability?  Without it, we can't really have liberty.

Check out this print ad.

HT: The Opine Editorials

Our Constitution limits our government.  It tells our government specifically what it can do.  This is not how things are practiced these days, but it is how they should be.  Limiting government maximizes our freedoms.

Our Constitution isn’t there to list all of our rights.  Unless otherwise stated, we, the people, are supposed to retain all rights.

The founders of our nation had a lot correct and constructed a brilliant Constitution.  Once the evil of race-based slavery was abolished and it was recognized that each and every person has rights such as those enumerated in the Constitution, we were on the right track.

But what are rights and where do they come from?  What’s the difference between a freedom and a right?  What should be the role of government in our lives?  I've written about these things before.

Here are some of my other entries relevant to this issue:

We Still Have the Power

Rights Are Not Hand-Outs, and Hand-Outs Are Not Rights

Not All Freedoms Are Rights

Imaginary Rights

Legislating For Feelings?

Should Your Government Be Doing This?

Ask Not What the Government Will Do For You

Nobody Owes You a Job

Who Owns Your Earnings?

Funding Government: Of Fees and Taxes

Time For Education to Evolve (Featured in Townhall Magazine)

As a limited government conservative, I would never want to use the force of government to stop consensual socializing, physical interaction, cohabitation, religious ceremonies, voluntary associations and business transactions, or free expression.  I do think it is the role of various levels of government to cite, fine, and incarcerate one who physically harms someone else or steals or damages the property of someone else against their consent.

Therefore, I would never try to pry two men in bed together apart, so disrupt a “gay wedding” in a church, nor do I think it is excusable to assault someone just because they are gay, or spraypaint vulgarities on their home.  I think we should all have the freedom to exercise our rights to life, liberty, and property, regardless of whether we are attracted to men, women, both, or neither.

Yes, I believe that homosexual behavior is sinful.  I do not believe, however, that our laws should attempt to prevent the commission of all sins.

When someone like me refers to “the homosexual agenda” negatively, we’re not talking about seeking to live as you choose in your own home, or protecting yourself from crimes.

What we are talking about are things like:

• Denigrating traditional gender roles.  If the traditional masculine or feminine roles do not work for you as an individual or a couple (understandable, especially with two men or two women), that’s fine, but the rest of society can still embrace traditional gender roles, and should be able to without being accused of animus towards homosexual people.
• Trying to punish thoughts with “hate crime” legislation.
• Instituting official public school clubs centered around expressing sexuality and the affirmation of homosexual behavior.  I’m against public schools in general, but schools full of minors should focus on academics, athletics, and the arts, not to whom you have an attraction.  If you really, really need to form a gay-straight “alliance”, take Drama.
• Trying to get our churches to abandon Scriptural teaching on sexuality and marriage.
• Telling someone, especially a child, with homosexual thoughts or feelings that they must affirm themselves as homosexuals and engage in homosexual behavior, and that there are no alternatives.
• New or increased government funding for HIV/AIDS research, prevention, treatment, etc., especially at the expense of funding for other diseases not as easily preventable.  I’m not convinced it is the federal government’s place to spend any money on any disease, except in treating military personnel and federal prisoners.
• Trying to get us to believe it is okay for someone to dress inappropriately or undergo surgical mutilation and unnecessary hormone treatments in an attempt to appear to be the opposite sex, and that to accommodate such behavior, we should allow men and women to use the public restrooms of each other.  (I don’t lump “transgendered” with homosexual, but so many activists do.)
• Intolerance of anyone who does not affirm homosexual behavior.
• The notion that someone who engages in homosexual behavior should receive special or extra protection under the law, and shouldn’t in any way be criticized.
• Neutering state marriage licensing, especially through judicial imposition.
  
• Placing into law, curriculum, medical/counseling policies, church teachings, the media, and workplace training and policies that one must affirm:
• Homosexual behavior is healthy and morally neutral.
• Homosexual attraction should be embraced and acted upon.
• There is no difference between coitus and sodomy, and no qualitative difference between a couple comprisedof both sexes and a couple comprised of one.

Since I believe in property rights, I do believe employers should be able to fire someone based on their sexual orientation.  But, I believe employers, absent a contract that says otherwise, should be able to fire (or not hire) anyone for any or no reason, so it isn’t like I think someone should be able to be fired because they are gay.  An employer should be able to fire someone because they are the employer.

I do not think there is right to two men to commit sodomy with each other.  They have the freedom to, and as long as they are doing it in private I wouldn’t try to stop them.  But I’m against having laws or court decisions that there is a right to such behavior in a way that government must, say, license “marriages” between two men.

I recognize that not all people who identify themselves as homosexual support this homosexual agenda.  While some homosexual people make it the end-all, be-all of their existence and thus are “homosexuality advocates”, I know that there are plenty of homosexual people who, like straight me, have higher priorities, such as national security.  They don’t obsess over trying to get people like me to abandon our belief that homosexual behavior is wrong.  And I don't obsess over trying to get them to renounce homosexuality.

Under limited government conservatism, we can use our right to free speech to try to persuade each other, but we should not use the force of government to try to silence each other, or to force "affirmation" from each other.

Each American generation brings a new crop of idealists who think they are the exception to history - that they are so much smarter and inherently better than previous generations that they can govern in a way that will do everything right and solve all problems.  These people don’t (yet) understand human nature, and the further we go without an event like Pearl Harbor or 9/11, the easier it is for them to cling to their fantasies.  Three opinion pieces in today’s Los Angeles Times help make my point.

The editorial board questions the seriousness of the terrorist threat.

But by taking on a movement rather than a government, the United States has confronted unprecedented legal and procedural challenges that continue to haunt it -- and will do so long after a new president takes power, particularly if the current occupant of the Oval Office has his way.

The editorial board does have a valid point here.  “War on terror” is like “war on drugs” and “war on poverty”.  I believe Christ will return and the world will be transformed – and life will be different.  Until then, however, we’re always going to have sin, and poverty, and crime, and terror.  It isn’t like taking on one regime or one country.  Make no mistake – we need to fight terror, disrupting terrorist plots and killing or incarcerating terrorists.  Any regime that harbors terrorists who strike out at other countries needs to be defeated.  But there will be no end to the “war on terror” as long as life continues as it currently is.

In recent months, the Bush administration has been reaffirming its wartime powers by inserting language in legislation, rewriting intelligence procedures and changing regulations. For example, the New York Times reports that the administration added a provision to a proposal for hearing legal appeals from detainees at Guantanamo Bay that asks Congress to "acknowledge again and explicitly" that the U.S. is at war with Al Qaeda, the Taliban and related movements.

Good for Bush.  That’s his job – to protect us from terrorists.

Bush doesn't need such declarations in order to continue the war in Afghanistan; that was authorized by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001. Rather, he seems to be trying to solidify the legal justification for some of his administration's most questionable policies, such as holding detainees indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay or carrying out wiretapping operations on Americans without a court order.

The Taliban within Afghanistan are not the only terrorists in the world.

Should we consider our conflict with terrorists a war or a police action?

It’s a war that, like police work, will never end.  We ought not treat foreign enemies who murder as guerillas as mere criminals.

Preventing another attack on the homeland isn't a war, it's a security challenge.

It’s a security challenge that is aided by war.

The consequences of our war footing are not only restrictions on our freedom and privacy that would never be tolerated under ordinary circumstances, but the expenditure of billions of dollars on measures that may not be justified.

Oh please.  The only thing that has changed in my life is extra scrutiny in the airport and restrictions on what I can pack.  So what?

As just one example, is the degree of danger posed by the theoretical possibility that terrorists might put a "dirty bomb" in a shipping container really great enough to justify the amount we're spending to prevent it from happening?

This is from an editorial board that thinks because some people don’t have health insurance, all of us should be on government health insurance and because a few gay people think a marriage license would make them feel better about themselves and their relationships, all marriage licenses should be neutered and traditional marriage should not be esteemed.  They are for government intervention and control of so many things - except when it comes to one of the basic functions of government - protection of citizens from foreign threats.

Bush argues that the measures he has put in place are the reason the United States hasn't suffered a major terrorist attack on its soil since 9/11. Maybe that's true. Or maybe the threat just wasn't as great as the administration has made it out to be.

Bush can’t win.  If there has been another attack already, these same people would be blasting him for not protecting us.  Since there hasn’t been another successful major attack on our soil, then they doubt there was really a threat.  Maybe they wouldn’t be talking like this if the terrorists had crash an airliner into their building.

There is also this piece by Timothy Garton Ash, a contributing editor to their opinion pages, who is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and the professor of European studies at Oxford University.  In it, he talks about the rise of Russia and China in recent world events.

What has proved false is the neoconservative claim that this single threat now defines the whole pattern of world politics; that, as Norman Podhoretz puts it, the struggle against Islamofascism is World War IV.

Do neocons really say that Islamofascism is the only threat?  I don’t think so.

Analysts at Goldman Sachs predict that by 2040, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and Russia will have a larger combined economic output than today's G-7.

That means we’ll have more customers, more investors, more suppliers.  It does us no good if other parts of the world are using less of their potential.

At the same time, worldwide economic development based on the free movement of goods, capital and services (a.k.a. globalization) is exacerbating a whole set of trans- national problems.

That’s strange.  Usually such things solve problems.

Carbon dioxide emissions that accelerate climate change,

Oh brother.  You’re going to look like a fool in just a few years.

mass migration,

What’s wrong with migration?  Illegal immigration is only bad when the area being flooded with poor, unskilled newcomers has socialist and taxpayer-supported welfare and education programs.  Like California.

the risk of pandemics

Maybe people should be more hygienic?

Power is diffused to too many competing states, many of them illiberal, as well as elusive networks such as Al Qaeda.

It is not a problem that power is diffused to “too many” competing states.  That is a good thing, actually.  The problem comes with too much sin and corruption, and not enough Constitution-style separation of powers, checks and balances, and representative government; a lack of freedom and openness in capitalism, and a lack of authentic Christianity.

Russia and China are not simply great powers challenging the West. They also represent two alternative versions of authoritarian capitalism, or capitalist authoritarianism. Here is the biggest potential ideological competitor to liberal democratic capitalism since the end of communism.

Only when the people in control try to mimic free-market capitalism.  If they didn’t have us as an example, they wouldn’t know what to do.  What would China do without the U.S. market?

Radical Islamism may appeal to millions of Muslims, but it cannot reach beyond the faithful, except by conversion.

All it takes is a handful of them to kill millions of people.

He goes on to argue that an alliance of countries that are also democratic free-markets would be a bad idea.

There’s also a piece by Heraldo Muñoz, a dissident during the Pinochet era, who is Chile's ambassador to the United Nations, asking…

Should Pinochet be remembered merely as a tyrant who became an international symbol of repression, or as an economic reformer who turned Chile into a global success; and to what extent did the U.S. government bring about his dictatorship?

The bottom line here is that places like Darfur, Georgia, Iran, and North Korea are the default state of the world.  People are sinful and many are power hungry.  The reason we as a nation rose to prominence so quickly and have the freedoms and prosperity we do is because of the brilliance of the founders in understanding human nature and the need to limit government and the need for a Christian populace.  The government should stick to the Constitution.  The Church should make disciples.

In the ideals of American tradition, our laws have been meant to protect our God-given personal rights (such as freedom of speech and religion), protect property, and facilitate and protect honest trade.  Where our laws erred is when they sought to infringe upon these things, such as with slavery.  Ideally, someone should be free to do with their property and run their business as they choose, as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

In order to rectify past injustices, we implemented laws that prevented employers and landlords from discriminating against people on personal characteristics such as “race”.  But this idea has grown into a nefarious, Orwellian situation where we are now in the disturbing position of passing laws and, even worse - suffering court decisions overturning laws – in an attempt to protect feelings, to keep one person from offending another, to affirm choices in personal behavior that bring nothing productive to general society.

How did we let ourselves be ruled like there is a right not to be offended, or a right to public affirmation of personal choices that should not be society’s concern, especially when these things infringe upon clearly recognized rights to freedom of speech and religion?

I often hear that “freedom of religion doesn’t give you the excuse to perpetrate bigotry”.  While homosexuality advocates would disagree, I don’t promote bigotry, either in law or personal interaction.  However, I do believe that if a gay man wanted to open a business and staff it entirely with other gay men, he should be allowed to do so (without tax funding, of course).  Protecting property rights does not mean supporting bigotry.  Neither is noticing that there is a difference between the sexes and it is that difference that makes marriage marriage, and also behooves us to license marriage as a state.

When people exercise their rights, sometimes they will do things with which we disagree.  Sometimes, someone will be offended, or their feelings will be hurt.  That is the price of liberty.  As long as someone isn’t harming the physical person of another, slandering or libeling them, or destroying or stealing their property or defrauding them, they should be allowed to do what they want with themselves and their property – including offend someone.

As far as traditional marriage licensing hurting the feelings of some gay people – that’s something they should learn to live with or get over.  Licenses are issued by the people of a state, and are a privilege – not a right.  Like all licenses, we issue marriage licenses for a specific reason, for a specific purpose, and that isn't because we think it is a great idea that this particular couple is planning a life together or that we can see they are in love.  We don't issue driver's licenses based on how much we think the person will enjoy driving.  A gay person can choose to obtain a marriage license the same way a straight person can.  That most gay people do not want to enter in to traditional marriage does not obligate the state to change the licensing, despite what the California Supreme Court ruled.

Finally, just because you have the freedom to do something doesn’t mean you have the right to do something.  There can’t be a legitimate right to do what is wrong – only a freedom to do so.  And if that wrong infringes on the rights of another, then the freedom to do it will either be curtailed or the action met with legal consequences.

Ideally, anyway.

...but we need to deal with reality.

We don’t live in a libertarian country.  Any move towards a libertarian policy needs to be weighed against what will remain "non-libertarian", at least until it gets addressed, too.

For example, I think people should be free to offer their services on a daily basis unencumbered, and anyone who wants to hire them should be able to do so, unencumbered.  And it really doesn’t matter to me at all if that person who is being hired is here legally or not.  But I also think that 1) there should be a lot less public property – places where day laborers tend to congregate; 2) there should be stronger private property laws, so that if someone wants to host day laborers, they can (AND they can set the conditions, such as “no littering”), and if others want them off of their property, they can remove them; 3) government should not regulate the workplace (aside from actual crimes like fraud), nor collect payroll taxes; 4) there shouldn’t be tax-funded public assistance programs and thus no illegal aliens getting my tax money; 5) there should be separation of state and school, so that I can choose whether or not to pay for the education of the children of illegal aliens; 6) the federal government should control of the national borders so that terrorists, criminals, and their tools don’t make it here.

Under those conditions, the complaints that many people have about day laborers would be addressed.

Libertarians often argue that even illegal aliens greatly contribute to our society, because of their inexpensive labor.  I heard this once from a libertarian guest on KFI’s John & Ken Show.  The hosts couldn’t believe it; they kept describing how illegal aliens were ruining neighborhoods, schools, and other things.  The hosts and the guest were kind of talking past each other.  Although I understood what was going on, the conversation never got to the point where the guest explained that in “his” world, the negatives of illegal aliens would be largely eliminated – in his world, the schools and roads and such are private property and not funded by taxes or controlled by government bureaucrats, and illegal aliens don’t get public assistance.  That’s something the hosts didn’t seem to catch, and something the guest never explicitly explained.

In a libertarian world, there are no tax-funded schools, so it doesn’t matter how many illegal aliens are in our schools.  In a libertarian world, infrastructure is paid for by users, not by taxpayers.  In a libertarian world, there are no social welfare programs paid for by taxes.

Take another example - “drugs”.  I would find legalizing them more tolerable if I have the right to freely fire (or not hire in the first place) someone who does them, and to protect myself and my property from someone who is high, and if I had other libertarian freedoms, such as not paying for the health care of druggies.

Legalizing prostitution is more tolerable if I can own the sidewalk in front of my business and bar streetwalkers from standing there.

Get the picture?

Over and over again, we see politicians, academics, activists, pop artists, and media propagandists proclaiming that we have a “right” to things such as health care, education, retirement pay, mass transit, housing, a job with a “living” wage, food, abortion, and doctor-assisted suicide, all funded and/or arranged for by the government.

This is not how the people who created and adopted our Constitution saw rights.

They saw rights as something we naturally had, something coming from “nature’s God”, and that it was the government’s role to protect, not grant, rights.

Living as we do in a bountiful, wealthy society of hundreds of million of people, it is tempting to look around and think you deserve - and therefore have a right - to something you see around you and that you want.  But again, that is not how the people who created and adopted our Constitution saw rights.

Take the right to free speech.

Your right to free speech does not mean anyone should be forced to listen to you.  They can walk way, and it wouldn’t be a violation of your right to free speech.  Nor does your right to free speech mean someone else has to provide you with their billboard, printer, telephone, satellite, DSL line, cable, or broadcasting system for you to get your message out.  You can pay them to provide those things.

You have a right to free speech because God gave you the means of communication – the physical abilities to communicate.  If you found yourself on an island where there was no government employees, no politicians, no telephone, no radio – you would still be able to talk with or sign to or write to anyone you encountered.  You could believe and worship (freedom of religion) as you saw fit.  You could use a rock or anything else you could get your hands on to defend yourself (right to bear arms).

You could take care of yourself, you could learn, you could store up for the future, you could build a cart or raft, you could build a hut, you could decide to make things or do things for other people in exchange for what they had to offer you, you could eat what you had access to, you could fling yourself against a boulder to kill the life within you, you could jump off of a cliff to kill yourself... HOWEVER, you could not FORCE someone else to perform surgery on you, or teach you something new, or take care of you just because you are old, or haul you around in their cart or raft, or build a hut for you, or to give you something to do and pay you whatever you want, or to go get food for you, or to perform an abortion on you, or to kill you gently – not without violating THEIR rights to choose what they want to do.  You could make VOLUNTARY exchanges and arrangements with them, if they chose to be near you.  Maybe they would even CHOOSE to do some of those things for you for free.

The government is not “someone else”.  It is us.  It is funded by us.  Now, we can collectively use force (via laws, backed up by the military, law enforcement, etc.) to FORCE a doctor to perform surgery on someone, and then pay them what we decide is fair or not pay them at all.  That is possible.  But that doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t make it a right.

If you look at what the founders of the U.S. put in place, you’ll find a system where our natural rights are recognized and protected, and where everything else is based on a voluntary exchange in which force need not be involved, except to expose and counter theft and other denials of natural rights - crimes which involve force or deception themselves.  Health care provided by someone else is NOT a right.  It is something provided on a voluntary basis by doctors, nurses, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, etc. who have put a lot of time, effort, and money into getting to the point where they can provide those services and products.

Everyone should be able to offer their services and their property to whomever they choose, for the compensation they choose.  Sometimes that compensation will simply be a warm heart (that’s called charity).  Whoever is offered those goods, services, and property should have the choice to refuse, or make a counter offer on the compensation, or to agree to it as-is.  Likewise, if you are seeking goods, services, and property, you should be able to approach whomever you want and offer whatever you want as compensation, and go from there.  That is liberty. That is freedom.  That protects rights.

If you opened up a shoe store, you wouldn’t want government force to be used to set your prices, determine what kinds of shoes you will sell, or to force you to sell shoes to someone, even if that person will immediately take that shoe and throw it at other people.  People need shoes in the same way they need specialized health care.  Why should the doctor, nurse, hospital administrator, insurance company worker, or pharmaceutical researchers be treated that way?

What most people mean when they call for “universal health care” is that they want someone wealthier than they are to be forced to provide something to them.  There are wealthier people who call for such schemes, too, but almost invariably they do so because they think it will get them some personal advantage such as being able to use their connections in the government to be able to gain a monopoly or to skim money somewhere in the system.  When a company that manufactures medical equipment endorses increased government involvement in medical care, you can be sure it is because they are confident that they can manipulate the system to their advantage.  It is far easier to manipulate something when the power is centralized in Washington D.C. or Sacramento than when the power is with multiple organizations consisting of voluntary membership or spread among millions of families and individuals making their own choices.

Health care is not a right.  It costs money, and while it certainly is a wonderful thing when a medical professional chooses to take care of someone who will not be able to provide material compensation, that professional should not be forced to work for free or less than his or her worth.

If you make voluntary plans and arrangements that provide you with what you need and want in the areas of health care, education, retirement income, transportation, housing, work/wages, and food, then good for you.  Voluntary agreements (which don’t include any conspiracies to steal from, assault, or murder someone because they victim is not a volunteer) ARE something to which we have a right.  Exercise those rights, instead of counting on “someone else” to take care you simply because you are alive.

I’m in favor of property owners choosing what to do with their own property.

I’m in favor of employers choosing whom to hire, promote, and fire.

I’m in favor of employers choosing what they will offer as compensation, and employees choosing whether or not to accept.

I’m in favor of allowing each employee to choose whether or not to join a union.

I’m in favor of people choosing whether or not to pay for health insurance.

I’m in favor of people choosing whether or not they will save for the future.

I’m in favor of parents choosing which school, if any, their child will attend (if accepted), and which school(s), if any, they will financially support.

I’m in favor of people choosing whether or not they will own or carry a handgun, unless they’ve shown they can’t be trusted with a gun.

I’m in favor of people choosing whether or not they will support a business.

I’m in favor of people choosing whether or not to be charitable, and being able to choose which charitable efforts they will support.

I’m in favor of people, even if they are elected officials, choosing whether or not to publicly express their religion.

I'm NOT in favor of legally ensuring someone can choose to kill their own child without legal repercussions.