Yes We Can!
posted at 12:25 pm on March 10, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
My friend Jazz Shaw has an, er, interesting take on my post regarding FOCA and Catholic hospitals. He finds the final option of closure by Catholic bishops opposed to government coercion of abortions so distasteful that he wonders aloud whether the Catholic Church can be allowed to close its hospitals, or whether farmers can choose not to farm:
One of the fundamental dangers – widely and correctly considered to be a threat to our national security – of allowing foreign, potentially hostile nations to control our supply of oil, is the concern that they could cut it off at any time for any reason to our detriment. They might do it for religious or political reasons, or perhaps as part of a larger war effort. This is why it’s important to boost our own supplies. If we are to take the Catholic Church at their word, then FOCA and the larger abortion question have nothing to do with this question. The true issue is that they are apparently willing to cut off all emergency, required medical support to their individual communities because they do not agree with restrictions and legislation passed by the lawfully elected government of the United States.
First, Catholic hospitals are not owned by “foreign, potentially hostile nations.” They’re usually owned by the diocese, and sometimes by Catholic orders which exist independent of the diocese relationship. They receive their funds from parishioners in that diocese as well as through such fees as can be collected from patients and their insurers. Unlike OPEC, they don’t operate a monopoly. Anyone can open a hospital in the US, as long as they don’t mind losing money as Catholic hospitals do, thanks to their charitable work in low-income communities. That’s a strange analogy to use.
We’re not talking about a car dealership closing down here. Were that the case, drivers could travel to purchase cars from more distant towns until the demands of the open market drove the opening of a new dealership.
Well, that’s actually what we are talking about. If a Catholic hospital closes, people will have to go to another health-care facility. Again, Catholics do not have a monopoly on health-care facilities, nor have they ever argued for having one. They do offer health care as a voluntary service to poorer communities as part of their social-justice mission. The other options may be farther away or not as accommodating, but that’s just the way it is.
Suddenly cutting off local health care is on par with suddenly putting an embargo on a nation’s oil supply.
Again, Catholics do not run the entire health-care system. It’s nothing of the sort.
If the representatives of the Catholic Church who control the flow of vital health care services are willing to even suggest that they would remove all health care because of rules and laws regarding abortion and family planning, they are, in effect, threatening an even worse embargo and demonstrating that they really don’t care about the welfare of the citizens in their communities.
I’d argue that they’re setting their priorities in keeping with the tenets of their faith, and again, the argument that closing the 4,000 Catholic facilities around the nation would end all health care in America is just silly. They are a small but important part of the health care system, but they are not a national HMO, which gets us to the crux of Jazz’s argument.
What if the nation’s farmers banded together and declared that all food production would suddenly cease unless the government abandoned NAFTA? Can we legally force them to produce food even if people are starving the next week?
Er, no. You can’t force farmers to produce food if they don’t want to do so, and I’d think this was rather obvious. It’s their land, and they can choose not to grow crops if they want. It may not be their land for long if they don’t get revenue from it, but the government cannot march onto the farm and force them to work the land, even if they default on the mortgages. That’s slavery, and though Jazz jokes about writing this for Pravda, it’s exactly what the Soviets did for decades and what the Germans did in 1933 with their Hereditary Farm Law (William Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, pp 257-8).
Catholic churches own these hospitals, and they can choose at any time to close their businesses, just as anyone else can close their business when it no longer makes a profit or when other costs become too high. Just as with the farmers, all the government can do is negotiate with them to find ways to keep them in business, but government has no right to force a private business to remain open — or to offer services to which the proprietor objects. If government action threatens to force Catholics to choose between their faith and their hospitals, then government needs to determine whether they’d rather the hospitals stay open or force a showdown.
Don’t worry; Jazz does better on Card Check.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Do you know that’s an ad hominem?
JadeNYU on March 10, 2009 at 2:29 PM
And where did those “resources” come from? They were looted from others.
So, what, they had an obligation to use their minds to enrich their overlords and provide for others, regardless of their desire to do so? Um, that’s called slavery, and Galt and the others refused to support their own destroyers any longer. Why, for example, didn’t James Taggart, an executive with “pull” and friends in Washington, produce anything and ended up as a screeching, neurotic lunatic by novel’s end? Because of the inherent contradiction in his moral code – you can not force the men of the mind to use their minds. They must use their minds by their own free will and accord.
Seriously – I think I’m being generous when I say that you missed the entire moral point of the story – expertly.
Moral? According to whom? By what standard? Whose code of morality are you using as your standard?
You haven’t presented any, though.
Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Actually, Ed’s choice of reference was excellent. In Atlas Shrugged, the government, frustrated that people no longer want to work under its new rules and are leaving their jobs, passes a law requiring them to stay on the job. The law requires business to produce exactly what they produced before. What you’ve done is criticize what may be the most appropriate and intelligent reference to Atlas Shrugged, in the context of contemporary politics, ever.
Splunge on March 10, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Why?
Jim Treacher on March 10, 2009 at 2:38 PM
What we seem to be forgetting is that the Liberals and the Obamanation consider health care a right, not a service and certainly not a business venture, whether it makes a profit or not. It will never matter in their small, warped minds that the church is providing a needed community service at considerable expense – there will be no credit for past good deeds.
TheThis government wants religion out of community service and community organizing – take a look at what’s happening in Connecticut. We all need to be thinking about what our breaking point is, at what point “we won’t take it anymore”. And we need to be thinking about why a government that claims we are all responsible for ensuring our fellow citizens have access to excellent health care would go to such lengths to eradicate an organization that provides that care to so many who otherwise would not have access to it. Why?gopmom on March 10, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Good Lt, I would pile on but there’s nothing left but a few nubbins of quivering flesh of Countto10. Best defense of the ideas of Atlas Shrugged I’ve seen for a long, long time. I salute you.
bonnie_ on March 10, 2009 at 2:54 PM
The only requirement on the moral code in this case is that it value dependability, honesty, and responsibility.
As for straw men, you point out one yourself–a number of characters go inexplicably insane, others follow a moral code that is laughably not moral, and a number of outrageous government actions pass with little or no protest. The world of “Atlas Shrugged” is surreal, exaggeratedly hellish.
I appreciated the message in the book, but nothing new is imparted in part three, which I only read out of pig-headed determination to finish what I started. The book is wordy, meandering, and, overall, not well written (but I still think the first to parts should be required reading in high school). Her concept of love and sex is grotesque, and, of the four men courting Dagny, the best is left to die in the desert, while the stalker gets her in the end. What Rand describes is often not what she says it is.
Count to 10 on March 10, 2009 at 2:56 PM
What does the RCC threatening to withhold health care from everyone if it’s forced by the government to commit what it considers murder have to do with destroying individualism, either now or in the future?
You truly are living on my world if you believe using that quote helps make your point. From whom did you learn your critical thinking ’skills’ – Jazz Shaw?
You are functionally insane…
Bizarro No. 1 on March 10, 2009 at 3:01 PM
I guess I need to remind you who your audience is when you say that. :)
Bizarro No. 1 on March 10, 2009 at 3:12 PM
That’s not the looters’ code, though. And responsibility to whom?
Not moral according to whom? You are evading this, as the characters (Taggart, Dr. Stadler, etc) who believed as you do tried to evade it.
And that was the point – it was a vision of, as Galt put it in his speech, “a world without mind.” Glad you saw how terrible it was – that was the point.
And consequently, you failed to grasp the meaning of what was actually in it – Galt’s speech, while long, was the primary philosophical statement of the whole book and the why of Rand’s philosophy.
I thought it was compelling, direct and powerful. Difference of opinion over style, not substance here.
But it isn’t inexplicable. James Taggart was confronted with what he truly was – a monster advocating the torture of an individual human mind for the sake of wielding power over it, and he was horrified to the point of insanity. The contradiction became apparent when he was demanding that Galt’s captors “make him scream.”
Your memory is selective.
All Rand was saying about sex is that attraction is based on seeing one’s values in another, and that that attraction and the eventual act of sex is a physical expression of those values. Dagny was attracted to men she thought were greater than herself, while Eddie (though noble) was not greater than Dagny. It certainly isn’t what the Bible says, that’s for sure, but again, whose code of morality are you basing your assumptions and premises on?
And your characterization of Galt as “a stalker?” Well, that about sums up your understanding of the novel quite nicely. Nothing personal, but you really and truly just failed to “get” AS. That’s OK – I’m here to help.
I actually think that what Rand describes is exactly what she says it is. If you read the bio notes in the book, she said that the book was a post-script to her life, with the added phrase “…and I mean it.”
I can only show you the door – you have to open it.
I’ll address anything else later, after work. :-)
Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Thanks!
It took a long time and several re-readings (and even listening to it on audio) until it all clicked. And now that it has, there’s no going back :-)
Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 3:21 PM
To Ed’s Pal; Catholics aren’t your enemies they’re your f’g neighbors. No thanks to you they have the constitutional right to their sincere belief that aiding abortion in any way is a MORTAL SIN punishable by an ETERNITY IN HELL. As St. Peter said to the authoritarians of his time, “Whether it is right in the sight of God for us to obey you rather than God, you be the judge”.
You POS hypocrit, if you have a single freedom-loving bone in your body and want the government to take over Catholic hospitals then MAKE US AN OFFER. It will be a lot cheaper than the Porkulus Package.
Lord, “moderates” are such useless pussies.
rcl on March 10, 2009 at 3:31 PM
This book is in my arsenal.
I have a co-worker, who was what I like to call “default political stance” of ignorance (read democrat). I noticed he was complaining about taxes. Seeing the opportunity I pounced. I gave him my copy of “The Fair Tax”…he loved it.
So, this is the journey I am taking him on.
1) The Fair Tax
2) Dumbing Us Down (About government compulsory monopoly schooling)
3) Atlas
He will be one of us when he stops basing decisions on emotion and starts using his head.
vsunited on March 10, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Business owners, food producers, hospital operators — they’re all Kulaks to the Obama Administration. They won’t be allowed to stand in the way of the revolution.
Cicero43 on March 10, 2009 at 3:38 PM
LOL good luck with that. You planted the bug of reason that he won’t be able to ignore (but he’ll likely try), so that’s a good first step.
Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Hence the word “maybe“. I didn’t say I thought it was a bad choice, just that I understood DTMH’s observation of the irony of using this cover as the graphic for a post also covering Catholicism.
On the other hand, I asked if there was a town with only one hospital, a Catholic one at that, and I don’t recall an example, so DTMH has his faults too. There are other options between evil and good, Democrat and GOP, you know.
LastRick on March 10, 2009 at 3:42 PM
You seem to be jumping too much into the narrative. The characters are not real people, so I don’t put any stock into the morality Rand ascribes to them: I have never even heard of someone with their “moral code”. Thus, it is a straw man.
Dagny’s romances amount to serially submitting to rape. This is twisted, regardless of Rand’s theory of seeking what is greater than one’s self. Assigning a concept of greater of lesser is not objective. It’s almost as if she is looking for something to be a god for her (which I also picked up with all of her Jesus allusions on Galt). Sure, Rand doesn’t write of Galt as a stalker, but that is what he does–it is the difference between tell and show.
As for insanity, James was insane long before the scene you mentioned. He is well and truly insane by the time of his wedding, and not for any particularly good reason. He is created to go insane, like inhuman clockwork.
Style vs. substance: well, duh, we were only talking style here. I found the substance quite enlightening, though I will nit pick on Rand’s elitism. I’m just working off my irritation that the substance gets all mucked up with a bunch of style that I don’t care for.
Oh, and that three hour speech was unimpressive and repetitive. It was hard enough reading the same thing over and over again with slightly different words–listening to it would make me want to claw my eyes out. Now, the playboy’s (what was his name?) speech on the nature of money, that was good.
Count to 10 on March 10, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Well, Ed, I have to disagree, and hold your opinion in higher esteem than Allahpundit’s. Don’t forget you’re in a liberal-dominated nation that uses things like “immanent domain” to sieze private property, and a nation that is moving toward mass infrastructure nationalization. What’s to say the government that has already taken away farmers’ lands won’t say that the farms aren’t critical infastructure, nationalize them, and take ‘legal’ action against the farmers’ ‘insurrectionist’, obstructionist civil disobediance? Catholic run hospitals are no different; especially in a climate where we’re moving toward social medicine. A catholic hospital serving where there’s no closer hospital would cause a devastating blow to some. Not all can drive the extra distance, because thev’ve no transport, or they just can’t live that long. Don’t be so certain with the Obamanation as the president.
Virus-X on March 10, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Yet, you go to great lengths in this thread claim that they are “not moral.”
Why do you put “moral code” in scare quotes?
What are you offering as a “moral code?”
I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.
Dagny’s romances amount to serially submitting to rape.She wanted it from each of them if you read carefully, dude. And I’m being serious.You are not understanding the meaning of objectivism. The evaluation of whether something is greater or less than is the epitome of observing objective reality and making judgments – using your mind and reason – to make the judgement. It certainly doesn’t mean you shall not know the difference between something you like and don’t like.
Nonsense. He had the chance to change the whole time – he consciously ignored it at every turn because he clung to the looter code. He hated his sister (his antithesis and who lived by the opposite morality of reason) and he reached his logical end. He was a monster, and was shown as such.
Um, it’s no secret that Rand didn’t put stock in a higher power. That’s why her philosophy holds objective reality as the standard and not “the mystical higher power.” Man is a heroic being in her eyes, and she doesn’t waste her time on the mystics of spirit OR the mystics of muscle – they’re equally useless.
Really? So Galt’s nothing more than a stalking rapist? That’s an…interesting reading that Rand never wrote into the book. I may want to subscribe to your newsletter.
Fair enough. It certainly isn’t for the faint of heart. I happen to think her level of detail and clarity is remarkable and her writing talent immense.
Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Virus-X: All the more reason not to piss off the guy who can hold your life in his hands, no?
Blacksmith on March 10, 2009 at 4:09 PM
The Church gets a “choice,” too.
Live with it, hippies.
Venusian Visitor on March 10, 2009 at 4:10 PM
GOPMOM sez:
Actually, the Connecticut Legislature did a very quick ‘ding-dong ditch’ of that thoroughly bad piece of legislation. The ‘leaders’ then had the temerity to blame the problem on antiquated laws going back at least 100 years!
Virus, granted a State may take property from the land owner through Eminent Domain. However, as ExpertLaw states:
Productive farm land is extremely difficult to condemn. Thus, the only choice, in your scenario, would be to nationalize all farms (seizing privately owned land a’la Zimbabwe). Which is the point of Atlas Shrugs
SeniorD on March 10, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Jazz, you ignorant sl##, put the blame where it belongs.
This is not an example of the Catholic Church deciding to abandon those folks who had been using their hospitals.
This is an example of Obama forcing the Catholic Church to abandon those folks who had been using their hospitals.
The responsibility rests entirely on Obama and his party.
Troll Feeder on March 10, 2009 at 4:23 PM
On the subject of armed insurrection…I already came across a chilling discussion about the left’s solutions to this a while back.
I was following a series of links off of the HuffandPuff Post (I wish I had the link series but it was late at night and I didn’t paying that close attention to where I was before the wife pulled the plug on my pc) on people being up in arms about “redistribution” of everyone’s wealth, the takeover of the 401K programs to prop up Social Security, and tax policy.
The comment line went down talking about what can be done if the “better clinger crowd” decided to revolt and that “they have all those guns that need to be taken away from such stupid children”.
The point was made and discussed about how the government could “release a plague that would scare the clingers right off the streets” and that the could arrange it so that the only way for the “clingers” to get the antidotes for them and their family was for them to let the police search their homes for firearms and after they were all seized THEN the “clingers could get inoculated.
I will tell you the discussion absolutely stunned me and it seemed that the whole idea had been well thought out by several someones who were in a position to do something about it.
babylonandon on March 10, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Sort of like Bill Ayers calmly discussing the murdering of millions of “capitalists” once they took over?
SOSDD
Itchee Dryback on March 10, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Indeed, the most honest definition of Kulak I have ever heard is “the imaginary villain for a non-imaginary horrid solution”….
Obamunism in a nutshell…
sven10077 on March 10, 2009 at 4:58 PM
The Weather Underground were pikers compared to the modern moonbat.
sven10077 on March 10, 2009 at 4:59 PM
It is the point of Rainbow Six and State of Fear, frankly…..the moonbats feel totally empowered to do whatever they wish and totally exonerated from any moral hesitation because “we are saving the planet/helping the people”….
Atlas may shrug but our body politic better vomit the crap out before too long.
sven10077 on March 10, 2009 at 5:01 PM
I have one problem with Ayn Rand, and that is the premise of her arguments. Her theorems are valid as long as you have the following axioms:
(1) the industry leaders (the ones who are, at least, “supposed to innovate) do truly *create* new ideas. In other words, intellectual ability results in success.
(2) the society does not have huge differences to start with, that is, there is no underclass that is completely cut off from all the resources of the society.
While I would agree with (2) at least in the US (some societies clearly are exceptions to that : think India and China), I definitely beg to differ with (1). Here are my points:
(A) any purely capitalistic society (the kind that Rand proposes) will pretty soon breed monopolies which thrive purely by absence of competition, even though they periodically churn crappy products. Case in point : AT&T before it was broken down by the US government, or Intel before AMD became a major competition, or Microsoft Internet Explorer. Also, sometimes the products delivered by large corporations are downright negative: aka recent banking meltdown.
(B) Any purely capitalistic society theoretically results in a pareto distribution of wealth, with the most wealth centered in the hands of the few. If (A) was not true, there would have been a moral ground for the very high echelons of wealth (at least IMHO), but when that is not the case, it becomes hard to prevent a swing of the pendulum to the left, in a democracy.
peter_griffin on March 10, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Babylonandon: The thing about using a plaque style attack is that it would burn itself out in flyover country. Viruses and other microorganisms capable of causing disease via the pneumonic (airborne person to person) route require close contact. The people that would bear the brunt of any such outbreak would be in the large cities with lots of overcrowding. Who is that more likely to affect?
Ed; State governments have already penalized people of conscience for failing to serve a favored group. For instance “e-harmony” in New Jersey and the Photographers in New Mexico and probably others who haven’t gotten wide spread press. Obviously, these aren’t truly major players like the Catholic Health Care system is but they do set a precedent.
chemman on March 10, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Ed:
Back in the day farmers were penalized for dumping milk to bring up prices. That is why there is a dairy program, to protect consumers from shortages.
And farmers who take part in farm programs are told to a large extent what and when they can farm. That is the whole point. It is called the Food Security Act for a reason.
If farmers banded together and decided not to farm and there were food shortages because of it, I doubt very much that the government would just stand by and watch that happen.
What has that got to do with the Catholic Church anyway?
Terrye on March 10, 2009 at 5:26 PM
I strongly recommend that everyone read “The Last Centurian” by John Ringo. Particularly the last half. I realise this is SF, but the protocol for what is going to happen is spelled out very well. The marxist/democrats don’t have to force anyone to do anything. They just confiscate their business or farm (because it is nationally important), and turn it over to their supporters, who will operate it. Ringo has some great humor when the big central states grain and beef farms are turned over to the granola bunch of organic farmers from the east and far west. They don’t even know how to hook up the tractor. But, I don’t want to give away the plot.
The same will hold for hospitals. Nationalize the hospital and turn it over to a community organizer from ACORN. Get the drift on what’s a gonna happen? This is exactly what Mugabwe, papadoc, Chavez, Stalin, and Mao did. They confiscated the farms and turned them over to party apparachniks. 30 million people died in the Ukraine. The Kulaks (farmers) were demonized until the communists killed them on sight.
Old Country Boy on March 10, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Ringo’s book is cautionary, sure – but it’s a caution aimed at those who’re immune to constructive criticism. Recall how Bandit Six came to fame, after all – it wasn’t through his exploits on the field, or by becoming a food magnate. It was through making the press rue the day he’d been born. On a regular weekly basis.
Blacksmith on March 10, 2009 at 5:38 PM
If the Catholic hospitals receive public money, they can not withhold services. I would welcome all Catholic hospitals closing if they think it is that important a principle. At the same time, they can close the schools too if they have to teach evolution.
keep the change on March 10, 2009 at 5:59 PM
+1
whitetop on March 10, 2009 at 6:00 PM
We’ve come fun circle. Our ancestors left England to escape the religion and government.
mixplix on March 10, 2009 at 6:01 PM
we now have the religion of government….
heady days.
sven10077 on March 10, 2009 at 6:04 PM
Good Lt : can you please respond, sir?
peter_griffin on March 10, 2009 at 6:05 PM
Not to carry water for the Randians, but I would submit the odds of us ever living in anything approaching a purely objectivist society are about the same as the odds we’ll build an undersea city where you can splice your genes for fun, and buy weapons out of vending machines.
No advanced society will ever tolerate a completely dissolute and hopeless underclass, or completely shred the social safety net – besides being contrary to the Judeo-Christian ethos that illuminates Western societies, it’s foolish and inefficient from a strictly utilitarian standpoint. Humans are a renewable resource, meaning an individual human can be down on his luck today, but useful and productive tomorrow. Rand’s paeans to capitalist supermen may inspire readers to remember a time when men of achievement and daring were idolized, instead of reflexively denigrated – and might even buttress the point that a society which idolizes such men is much more likely to achieve great success across the board – but it doesn’t follow that we must denigrate or ignore those less capable or fortunate.
Fortune always plays a significant role in a free society – success is a combination of ability, drive, and a dash of good luck and good timing. Freedom necessarily implies a degree of random chance, for it is the denial of predestination or inevitability. It is therefore appropriate for the successful to remain humble, and understand their great ability was enhanced by good fortune, and for society to make reasonable provisions for those who might be in better condition if they had been a little luckier.
The lion’s share of wealth will always end up in the hands of a relative few. Believing otherwise is the foundation of the monstrous collectivist evils that killed millions throughout the 20th century. One notices that all those “workers’ paradises” were ruled by men with limousines and luxurious palaces, and the notable communist strongmen of the modern day, like Castro and Chavez, have fabulous personal wealth. I would rather apportion wealth to those who earn it, and return something worthwhile to society in the process, than those who are skilled at organizing communities of armed thugs to take it by force.
We’re a long way off from the pendulum swinging in anything approaching a Randian society anyway. I find it useful to read such works because they are a provocative contrast with what we have now, which is about as far from objectivism and laissez-faire capitalism as you can get without death squads and secret police. Maybe we can start pulling back in a more libertarian direction before it comes to that.
Doctor Zero on March 10, 2009 at 6:09 PM
If catholic hospitals go on strike
it will be to protect doctors who now no longer have the right to refuse to commit infanticide.
Think about it – and consider going on strike with them.
Paul Murphy on March 10, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Absurd. Yes she was atheist, big whup. Anyone (which is probably most on here minus you) who has read/studdied her work especially Atlas would easily understand the following: Owners of business, property holders, producers, etc. in general have every right to control their own actions and decisions. In the case of Catholic owned hospitals, it is their right solely. That was the whole point of the producers ’shrugging’. They not only had the right, but the moral duty to do so. She was wholely consistent on this major tenent throughout her body of work. For someone who was never read any of her work to argue her consistency on her beliefs is beyond ridiculous.
anuts on March 10, 2009 at 6:14 PM
There is a philosophical difference between receiving public money as direct grants to stay open or receiving public money for services rendered (to any one who is carried in the door) just because they are government insured. “keep the change” is using a quibbling arguement to accomplish his percieved end of the state not establishing a religion. This is not establishing a religion. This is a charitable group providing services that ARE NOT PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT. There is no RIGHT to heaqlth care. This was the same stupid argument used to disenfranchise colleges for accrepting students that had pell grants or sallie mae loans. These liberal and ultraconservative idiots will use any specious arguement to further their ends.
The a$$holes will swallow the bailing out of for-profit businesses with trillions of dollars, but choke on the gnat of charitable religious services because of their misinterpretation of their first amendment of “separation of church and state.” Will these evangelical athiests stop at any arguement. If you don’t wish to believe in something, that is OK. But, don’t justify it by trying to force everyone else to not believe in the same thing. You guys are worse than any televangelist.
Old Country Boy on March 10, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Thanks, it is always a pleasure to converse with you. It is for such excellent exchanges that I keep coming back to HA. I agree with what you said, it is a great reminder as to how badly things can be, if someone does not remember the benefits of capitalism. On the topic of wealth distribution, I was not really pontificating *for* the cause, I was merely emphasizing on the “giant underclass” hazard that it entails (and which, I believe, we have been able to avoid admirably in the US).
I have a comment on the Manchurian candidate thread which is slightly O/T, but I would love to get your response on this. It might shed some light on your comment regarding us being as far from laissez-faire capitalism as possible. I think we still need regulations, because as human population increases, so do methods to game and potentially seriously disrupt the system.
peter_griffin on March 10, 2009 at 6:18 PM
Actually, I think the Catholic hospitals should be taken over. Then the open heart surgery, needed at some future time by such as “keep the change” can be performed by a politically correct chiropractor who voted for Obama. This chiropractor will make the big bucks by inducing abortion on demand by manipulating the spine. Or may the surgery can be performed by one of the liberal/marxist college professors; after all they are “doctors” too.
Old Country Boy on March 10, 2009 at 6:19 PM
Yeah,, interesting and clever. Kinda like when those sinners who thought they were really smart by asking Jesus “Who is my neighbor?” and “Is it right that we pay taxes to Caesar or not?”
People sit around trying to think up clever new ways to deceive people and lead them down into hell.
Yeah,, “The church isn’t really taking a stand on principle by refusing to kill babies,,, no,, they’re really a bunch of terrorists!”
JellyToast on March 10, 2009 at 6:34 PM
DTMH – do you really want to go under the knife of a doc who’s been forced to provide abortions against his or her conscience?
I’ll tell you, I make it a point not to piss off people who can carve me up like a holiday roast, roust out my guts to find out what’s wrong, set it all to rights or wrongs and I’ll never know the difference until I’ve lived or died – and put me back together again. I make that a very special and particular point. And here I’ve always been told that the lefties are the smartest ones in the room.
KTC – the view of the Church as antiscience is a stale holdover from the Reformation days with Galileo “And yet it moves” Galilei. Which distorts the actual trial six ways from reality (he was more on trial for calling the Pope a corrupt, nepositic old git in the Pope’s own backyard – in the same paper – than for supporting the Copernican theory. Which Copernicus being a Catholic monk himself puts a slight damper on the whole antiscience thing too, but let’s not let those meddlesome facts get in the way of a good story!). In plain and simple terms, the Church has never (in my lifetime anyway) had an issue with evolution, nor with teaching the same. Go to a Catholic school, demand to see a book from a class on biology – and evolution and cell theory will be there, just as Galileo’s experiments on air friction will be in a physics book, alongside Copernican theory and Kepler’s Equation proving it correct. Indeed, given the low number of kids in our public schools who put nose to grindstone and take the “hard” science classes, there’s a fair chance the Catholic school’s books will have seen more recent and more rigorous use, despite being newer editions of the same title (full disclosure – I was public schooled. Most of my friends were Catholic schooled).
But don’t let those meddlesome facts get in the way of your good story now, mkay?
Blacksmith on March 10, 2009 at 6:36 PM
When the government says ‘all hospitals must perform abortions’ it is saying ‘better to have no hospital, than a hospital that will not perform abortions’.
.
This is how all mandates on the private sector should be interpreted. Remember, for example, how adding mandates to employer-provided health insurance (for mental-health coverage, substance abuse, breast reconstruction, etc.) results in some number of employers discontinuing that benefit. ‘Better to have no health insurance than health insurance that does not include X’.
.
It is the government that initiates this game of chicken. But the government pretends there is only one way for the game to be played, and does not like people to realize that there are other outcomes.
MikeInOhio on March 10, 2009 at 6:43 PM
I just can’t stop on this subject. The Catholic hospitals I have been in and visited did not make be go to catechism before they would work on me. (The Baptist hospital didn’t either, and they don’t perform abortions) They take everyone, regardless of religion or lack thereof. The halls of catholic hospitals have protestant ministers, rabbis, and imams wandering around. The doctors and surgeons are not necessarily Catholic, but are accepted to practice there because of their competance. Generally, the only way you know you are in a Catholic hospital is the crucifix ay you come in the door. They do ask you your religion, but that is to get the right clergy to you if you want. All you have to write down is none.
I think I’ll go down to St. Johns and wait for one of you liberal schmucks to demand the emergency room take down that dxxned crucifix before they work on your heart. attack.
Old Country Boy on March 10, 2009 at 6:50 PM
I’ve not read Atlas Shrugs, but I hear it’s a great counter to communism. I should start reading it.
FontanaConservative on March 10, 2009 at 6:55 PM
When did anyone tell ACORN how to do what they do? Was it at one time 5 billion dollars? Now it is only 1 billion dollars?
How is it that the catholic church is vilified in the media and on blogs? when the collective goverments are such a failure?
How stupid is it to assume farmers will impose self inflicted backruptcy because of nafta? Farmers will do what ever it takes to make a profit just as any business person would.
Does the church make money with thier hospitals? Probably. However what happens to this assumed profit?
The church is different than the farmer. The church is in the morals business, the farmer is simply just in business. The former for souls the latter for dollars.
bye the by I am not a catholic but a bible thumping southern baptists. usmc 65-72
TomLawler on March 10, 2009 at 7:03 PM
The Catholic Church has never opposed the theory of evolution. At worst, she ignored it when it was first published.
CDeb on March 10, 2009 at 7:06 PM
I think I’ll go down to St. Johns and wait for one of you liberal schmucks to demand the emergency room take down that dxxned crucifix before they work on your heart. attack.
Actually I took down the crosses myself when my daughter was born. I made no issue of it and the hospital people were too busy to notice.
An explicit statue of some guy nailed to a couple of pieces of lumber and bleeding to death was not what I wanted to associate with my daughters birth.
No doubt some one eventually put them back up once our need for the room no longer existed.
MSimon on March 10, 2009 at 8:40 PM
msimon – boy are you a real piece of work. With you protecting your daughter from the evil crucifix against a bunch of nuns, you are really showing he-man bravery. If you hate the people who are bringing your daughter into the world so much, why didn’t you just go to planned parenthood. I’m sure they would have brought her into the world, briefly, for free. Courtesy, on your behalf, would have at least honored the belief that provided you a safe place to bring your daughter in the world. I feel sorry for her because of you.
Next time, why don’t you provide your own safe place.
Old Country Boy on March 10, 2009 at 8:52 PM
-
“So one question before you go the rest of the way under… What are your feelings on abortion?”
-
It could happen, especially once you make them into murderers at the point of a court’s dictate.
-
I always made a similar argument about abortion and the women who have them. Of those that I know who had one, most are not right even now… My daughter says the same thing.
-
Do you really want to leave them alone say… baby sitting your kids? Not me.
-
RalphyBoy on March 10, 2009 at 8:57 PM
I see it as a guide to thwarting a group of petulant children called “Wall Street” in their attempt at evading punishment.
sethstorm on March 10, 2009 at 8:59 PM
She’s not any more.
Bob's Kid on March 10, 2009 at 9:39 PM
I am not a fan of the Catholic church, but if the choice is between easing corporeal suffering, while sending souls to hell. Or letting people suffer in this life, but live in the next.
Close the hospital, and burn down the building.
darktood on March 10, 2009 at 9:47 PM
Jazz Shaw revealed how “critically” he thinks and how “moderate” he truly is. But this guy is a New Yorker who fancies himself to be a “moderate” Republican !
so may be he should try to mingle with David Brooks.these two are made for each other.
nagee76 on March 10, 2009 at 10:14 PM
Oh, my God, Morrissey. Jazz Shaw doesn’t know the first thing about oil, business, or America. Every word of that thing is wrong, and not just wrong, but COMPLETELY EVIL. That has to be the most completely TOTALITARIAN opinion I’ve ever heard.
Honestly, does he even imagine it’s possible for the government to force someone to offer services if they choose not to? What’s he going to do, have policemen stand there and move the doctor’s arms?
The man need to have his head removed and replaced with a working model.
philwynk on March 10, 2009 at 10:15 PM
Darkfood – I can’t follow your convoluted logic or sick rant. However, if you need psychiatric help, I suggest you contact your county health department – or maybe one of those doctors that teach political science at the university. Please leave the personnel at the local hospital, no matter who runs it, alone. If you have a religious crisis, please contact James Jones.
Old Country Boy on March 10, 2009 at 10:18 PM
Just the part about depending on foreign sources that might shut us down is insanely stupid. The crude oil market practically a perfect free market, and oil sources are more or less interchangeable. If Iran chooses to sell oil to Germany instead of to us, Canada will gladly sell us more and Germany less. The only way an oil source could deny us oil would be to deny the entire world oil… and risk the wrath of the entire world.
philwynk on March 10, 2009 at 10:20 PM
Folks — if the Catholics decide to close their hospitals, and the government attempts to force them to remain open, the doctors will simply refuse to provide services. They’re prepared to engage in conscientious civil disobedience.
philwynk on March 10, 2009 at 10:25 PM
The point is freedom of conscience. And from your response, you would burn the building down while it still had people in it. Which is not what I said.
Not, “Close the hospital by burning down the building.”
darktood on March 10, 2009 at 11:26 PM
Why is the cover of Atlas Shrugged on the front of this post?
Sir Andrew on March 11, 2009 at 12:45 AM
NOT a really good idea to have medical people working as slaves.
The solution here would be for the government to have a HIPPA style ‘informed consent’ regulation. That, if asked, the Catholic hospitals would provide written information about ‘the alternatives’… to be found elsewhere.
michaelo on March 11, 2009 at 12:50 AM
The leftist government of this country does not own the minds of the population.
We the people still, maybe not for long now, but as of this moment we are still allowed to follow our own conscience.
Barack Obama and his government does not own the conscience of the Catholic Church. Nor does this totalitarian government own my conscience!
petunia on March 11, 2009 at 1:15 AM
I’m kinda new here, but Ed! Ya tossed yer man to the wolves? Mind if I have just a little bite?
I’m sure we could all survive without hospitals, or even doctors, as mankind has been surviving without hospitals since… well, since the dawn of mankind. But I’m more than certain we would perish on a steady supply of hospitals (free clinics, whatever) without that steady supply of food. I won’t run you through the same on the waste disposal (EWwww! Give me a toilet and treatment plant over a hospital!)
jusgottabeme on March 11, 2009 at 2:06 AM
I am waiting for the day when the Fed govt calls the religious hospitals bluff, and they watch with anger when the religious hospitals close because they don’t have a choice.
F15Mech on March 11, 2009 at 3:05 AM
How is this for a concept….
Allow the Catholic hospitals to operate in a way that does not go against their dogma, at the same time allow state run hospitals offer a choice.
I see nothing wrong with that.
Somehow it still causes issues.
F15Mech on March 11, 2009 at 3:16 AM
So you are saying that anyone who gets any government money for anything must submit to the government authority for everything?
A hospital charging Medicare for geriatrics (a charge for services, not a grant) must perform abortions?
How about, in the interests of seperation of Church and State, we pass a law forbidding recipients of SocSec, Welfare, and the EIC from donating to their church?
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on March 11, 2009 at 3:57 AM
I recomment the Blackstone Audiobooks version. It is much better heard than read. Some books are like that.
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on March 11, 2009 at 4:27 AM
Read the comment thread.
:-)
Good Lt on March 11, 2009 at 7:44 AM
The Government can do almost anything that it wants to…
Thirty years ago I was living in Evansville, Indiana (a very strong Union area). My neighbor had a medium size company that was constantly being besieged by Union demands, wildcat strikes, and grievances. He finally reached the point where it was no longer feasible for him to manufacture his product and meet his deliveries. He decided to quit and close his factory.
He was informed, by the National Labor Relations Board, that he could not close his business until all the issues with the Union had been successfully arbitrated.
Uniblogger on March 11, 2009 at 8:08 AM
I thought you made a good point about the deregulation of CDs on the other thread. Government must have a careful regulatory role in the free markets, because otherwise they’re not really free – a consumer is not making free choices when he’s being defrauded, which pretty much every aspect of the subprime debacle boils down to. The trick is to keep government regulatory without allowing it to become participatory. The current system asks us to accept a government which is both the referee, and the biggest, meanest player on the field.
It’s not easy to maintain the proper separation of government and free enterprise, because the temptation to manipulate the rules is hard-wired into every tough competitor. Every hard-charging stock trader daydreams about the millions he could make if a certain regulation was bent a little, or if a certain government official he occasionally plays golf with would be a little more willing to divulge priviledged information. Likewise, every government official savors the power and wealth he can accumulate by selling his influence to the highest bidder.
The rise of information technology has only blurred the lines between free-market competitors, monopolistic entrprises, and government further. I wonder what Rand would have said if she had lived long enough to see the world’s richest man build the world’s largest company without manufacturing any physical products at all, and achieve near-absolute market dominance without technically becoming a monopoly.
I don’t think the system can ever be fine-tuned perfectly, but it seems clear that a massive decoupling of government from private industry – through reduced taxation, regulatory reform, tax simplification on the scale of a flat tax, and privatization of bloated government-run industries – is necessary to undo the madness we see playing out before us. Government controlling a massive, high-tech free market is like a clumsy, neurotic giant trying to thread a needle – its endless failures only frustrate it, and make it resort to increasingly frantic and counterproductive efforts.
Doctor Zero on March 11, 2009 at 10:38 AM
“(A) any purely capitalistic society (the kind that Rand proposes) will pretty soon breed monopolies ”
No, this is not possible. Entrepreneurial pressure is too high. Just because you don’t know the names of other web browsers, doesn’t mean they don’t exist and can’t supplant IE.
“(B) Any purely capitalistic society theoretically results in a pareto distribution of wealth”
More BS. Look If I create a company, sell a product and get wealthy thats not wealth redistribution. Thats acquisition by merit.
You need to read a book. What our socialist government does by taking my money by force and giving it to people who didn’t earn it is REDISTRIBUTION.
The difference is choice. No one has to purchase my product, the government steals by force.
Lt, good job on AS, you are spot on.
dogsoldier on March 11, 2009 at 11:44 AM
The rise of information technology has only blurred the lines between free-market competitors, monopolistic entrprises, and government further. I wonder what Rand would have said if she had lived long enough to see the world’s richest man build the world’s largest company without manufacturing any physical products at all, and achieve near-absolute market dominance without technically becoming a monopoly.
I can’t speak for her (no one could) but she would possibly be not only accepting but consider it logical. Howard Roark didn’t look at the granite but the buildings that could be created from them. For her the product of man’s achievement was the rational mind, not the businesses created, which were the outward sign.
itsspideyman on March 11, 2009 at 11:55 AM
I am waiting for the day when the Fed govt calls the religious hospitals bluff, and they watch with anger when the religious hospitals close because they don’t have a choice.
F15Mech on March 11, 2009 at 3:05 AM
Spot on F15Mech. Those who have no religious conviction have no understanding of its power.
itsspideyman on March 11, 2009 at 11:58 AM
It is not only that we as Catholics disagree, it is that FOCA would force us to commit an act of murder. To pro-choice people abortion is a political issue, to us it is the taking of a human life. If I worked in a hospital I would quit before I participated in an abortion. You could throw me in jail and it would still be NO from me.
Herb on March 11, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Catholics have gennerally supported the Democrats for years. Rome and her bishops have been advocates of horrible, leftist “ideals” such as the “Living Wage” which have led to a legislative move towards socialism (all done in the name of “Social Justice”).
Apart from abortion and traditional marriage, Rome has been on the side of the Left (open borders, gun control, social spending, minimum wage, palestinian moral equivalence, anti-Iraq War, etc.) too often.
You lie down with the dogs, you wake up with fleas. Don’t come crying to us now.
mankai on March 11, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Dogsoldier, I appreaciate the fact that you responded, however I wish there were more facts in your rebuttal.
(A) monopoly argument: I am intimately familiar with the technology business, which is why I gave that example. My point is: when you have a very large player in *any* industry, it is easy for that player to churn out crappy products and get away with it. I know for a fact that Intel got away with charging ridiculous profit margins in the 90’s for server parts even when they had substandard chips (ask anyone involved in OEM’s like Dell or HP, and they can confirm what I am saying).
(B) pareto distribution: that is a theoretical result which is well known in economics. As I mentioned later and Doctor Zero agreed to, having a large underclass is counter-productive in a social setup, and is a roadblock to implementing Rand-ism “as-is”.
This is being personal. I believe it should be obvious from my comments that I have read this topic in some detail. If political talking points are all you have to offer, please refrain from responding.
peter_griffin on March 11, 2009 at 12:17 PM
If Catholic hospitals refuse to offer abortions, doesn’t that leave a demand for abortions that a clinic could satisfy?
Either way, government intervention in the hospitals, or any sector of the economy for that matter, is immoral. Although frankly a Catholic hospital should not ever receive public funds for any reason.
Sir Andrew on March 11, 2009 at 12:57 PM
In defense of Dogsoldier, he is correct as well as you. Yes, monopoloies do occur. Not only that, but in a truly free society some forms of monopolies can be more efficient because the need to stop competition from entering the market can require monopolies to be efficient. I do not speak of government approved monopolies which are woefully inefficient but pure competition where the best have (currently) a share of the market sufficient to tag them as a monopoly.
Case in point, the Alcoa case of 1947 brought by the federal government against the Alcoa company. There was no competition in the aluminum manufacturing market because Alcoa charged prices at very low margins because they were highly efficent in their production processes. The government argued that because they were so good they should be broken up for the sake of competition, let in its history never showed any of what we would consider to be unfair competitive practices. They were just the best.
Will a purely capitalistic society, practicing a laissez-faire captialism succedd? Will we always have an “underclass”? I don’t know that answer. Safe to say we will never have a perfect society. Worse is the danger of having a society that provides for its people but never answers the question: to what end?
How far do we go in helping our fellow man? I believe in the values I was taught, believe we should be there when there are those in need, but free men are also responsible for themselves and must accept their burdens when needed. If we are all part of a society, then it’s up to each one of us to be as little a strain on the society as possible.
My opinion and no one else’s, is that the best form of government is one that puts as few burdens on society as possible, allows free people to realize their own dreams, and takes care of those who can’t, but draws realistic lines as to how far those burdens can be carried by the government (which is we the people). This is not far from what Obama is saying, but unfortunately he is adding a hopeless burden on the backs of all of us.
Somewhere we have forgotten to ask what is the proper role of government, and the responsibility of our citizens. Ayn Rand spoke of the ideal and it’s right for any leaders of an idealogy to do so (does God compromise with the Devil?) I want my son (and all our children) to inherit a world where they are free to choose their futures. Only in a society that is free will that be possible.
itsspideyman on March 11, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Thanks, itsspiedeyman, for bringing in more facts into the debate. I generally agree with what you and Doctor Zero said, and also generally agree with the broad principle that Ayn Rand espoused. I always like a debate on such topics which are based on facts and/or theories, hence I normally fail to hide my frustration when I get replies which are just talking points and personal attacks.
On to the point of monopolies : the Alcoa example you gave was very relevant, and in fact representative of how monopolies created by perfect competition *should* be. However, 2 facts create a problem:
(1) perfect competition is *perfect* only when all entrants start off in a level playing field. It has been shown in economic theory that if the competition is imperfect, the differences between the competitors rise exponentially, and will ultimately lead to the creation of a “major player”.
(2) It is unquestionably true that most (if not all) major players become major because they are the best for that product at that point of time. However, once they have reached that status, in a lot of cases, they tend to invest more in monetary expansion as opposed to R&D to create better products, so their product quality suffers. The tech sector, being R&D intensive, has seen multiple examples of such major players which in fact poison innovation (ala Microsoft’s bullying of Netscape, or AT&T charging enormous tariffs on phone lines prior to their split).
Ayn Rand’s main point was to promote capitalism by rewarding innovation (equal player assumption as stated in (1)). Having established major players which poison innovation by bullying smaller companies, is directly antithetical to that concept.
peter_griffin on March 11, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Well put peter_griffin. To let you know, I owned two ISP’s from 1997-2004 and I know what it’s like to get bullied around, at that time by BellSouth. For them however it wasn’t successful; in chasing the money tail, their services slipped, they lost customer satisfaction, and AT&T heeled back upon them and ate them. So we’re back where we started.
I’m definitely with you on the personal attack thing. I enjoy good conversation, free people exchanging ideas; afterall, that’s the American way. It’s regretable we can’t talk sometimes in a rational way.
GTG, have a pleasant afternoon.
itsspideyman on March 11, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3