Search This Blog


Thursday, March 29, 2012

Caring cannot be imposed

 YOU WILL CARE!!!!  or pay a fine...

Dahlia Lithwick over at Slate has a bizarre concept of freedom, morality, caring and responsibility

She first writes,

But after the aggressive battery of questions from the court’s conservatives this morning, it’s clear that we can only be truly free when the young are released from the obligation to subsidize the old and the ailing

We can debate the meaning of "obligation" (whether we have an obligation to be forced to pay for someone else's welfare, especially having the younger poorer group of citizens pay for the welfare of those who are, on average, much wealthier) another time. 

This point she makes is NOT what the ObamaCare Supreme Court Case is about. Progressives could have made this all about this "obligation" if they pushed for Universal Healthcare. They didn't. That blows up her main point. Progressives pushed to force people to buy health insurance or face penalties. Thus we are arguing about whether we can force people to buy health insurance against their will or face penalties (some cases leaving people worse off than before... ie no health insurance and now $1,000 less in their bank account).

Next she states,

Freedom also seems to mean freedom from the obligation to treat those who show up at hospitals without health insurance, even if it means letting them bleed out on the curb.

This doesn't make any sense. Hospitals are required by law to treat  patients regardless of their ability to pay. Thus supporting ObamaCare (forcing people to buy health insurance so you don't have to pay a few extra pennies to subsidize the emergency care of the poor) means you don't care about the poor (or at least haven't logically thought through your own position).

She goes on a wild illogical rant about telephones, gym memberships and broccoli next. PS, the price of telephones and service dropped considerably once the government stopped mandating rates and deregulated the industry...but that is another story.

Finally she states,
But we seem to want to be free from that obligation as well. This morning in America’s highest court, freedom seems to be less about the absence of constraint than about the absence of shared responsibility, community, or real concern for those who don’t want anything so much as healthy children, or to be cared for when they are old.

And there we have it. To Lithwick, freedom is about compulsory compassion. To her people are only responsible and caring when government compels them, by force, to pay for the health care or welfare of others (ObamCare mandate doesn't do this by the way, remember it requires people to buy something they may not want). 

 Your lack of faith in government force disturbs me!

Lithwick is completely illogical; sadly she is not alone as many Americans think like this (including conservative culture warriors - remember, someone is not moral or virtuous because you use the force of government to ban something they like or require a specific approved behavior). You cannot be forced to care and you cannot be forced into being socially responsible. Voting for politicians, signing petitions or protesting does NOT mean you care about others. 

Caring, compassion and responsibility are defined by personal action and sacrifice. Sacrificing your own time and money. If Lithwick TRULY cared she would be volunteering her time and money to help those in need.  I don't know if she's done either; it isn't any of my business. I'm only concerned about her totalitarian understanding of freedom and caring.


  1. Why can't ?
    Perlengkapan bayi anak di surabaya