Yes We Can!
posted at 12:25 pm on March 10, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
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.
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 Next »
This is nothing more than “How dare you shake my village’s dust from your sandals?!”
Christien on March 10, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Jazz must’ve been tired when he wrote that…. or he might have finished the bottle of JD that he never shares with us.
Catholic’s should shut their hospitals down. In fact, they should tear the hospitals down. And take all their pictures of Christ and the Pope out of there too. How dare they have the items of faith on the walls where everyone can see them.
If they don’t perform abortion on demand, they MUST not be allowed to have religious pictures up
originalpechanga on March 10, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Step three?
Atlas shrugs.
Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Then as the tax flow stalls we will have steps four, five and six. One of them will consist of armed confrontation, the question is which one.
Bishop on March 10, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Headline: “Police threaten to shoot a Doctor for refusing to murder a child—Planned Parent Clinics hardest hit—Funeral Director’s claim to have mixed emotions”
Rovin on March 10, 2009 at 1:04 PM
When an insane man says the mafia is out to get him, his doctor says it’s not the mafia, it’s his mental disease.
But here in America you can say the Catholic Church coerces you and plenty of ordinary people will chime in “you go, girl!”
jeff_from_mpls on March 10, 2009 at 1:04 PM
People like Jazz believe everything is relative and a compromise can always be reached. They’re shocked when the Church explicitly says that they mean what they say and will take appropriate action if they are forced to make a choice between their beliefs and keeping a hospital open.
Damned Catholics, why can’t they be like politicians? Say one thing, do another.
GarandFan on March 10, 2009 at 1:04 PM
What other medical procedures are hospitals required to do? Are hospitals required to perform procedures regardless of there individual expertise or abilities? Will Planed Parenthood be required to perform normal deliveries?
Forcing all hospitals to perform abortions implies abortions are necessary and there is a shortage of abortion providers. Unfortunately there is no shortage of abortion clinics.
This isn’t about medical care but rather the totalitarian tendencies of the pro abortionists.
MHatch on March 10, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Is Project X next?
Heh.
Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Obama has already removed the conscience exemption from medical professionals’ performing procedures against their faith. What would stop him from requiring the hospitals to remain open? Ct is considering legislation which would allow the state to change Diocesan boards with lay people chosen by CT. The freedom of religion in the US is on its way out the door.
wtis02575 on March 10, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Since we’re all clearly in agreement on this proposal, I know that I’ll be able to count on all of your support on Friday when I unveil my plan to confiscate all of the RCC’s property, convert the churches into low cost housing for gay married couples, confiscate all of their crucifixes and melt them down to pay for condoms and morning after abortion pills to be distributed in elementary schools.
Let’s get behind these plans and get them in place!
Jazz Shaw on March 10, 2009 at 1:05 PM
That would be a losing argument.
Rand would never, never endorse forced servitude – NO WAY IN HELL.
DamnCat on March 10, 2009 at 1:05 PM
+10 lol.
Itchee Dryback on March 10, 2009 at 1:06 PM
In all this talk about a takeover of Catholic Hospitals seems to ignore a fundamental fact. A hospital without a staff is just an empty building. Catholic hospitals are staffed by people who generally agree with the moral position of the Catholic Church on abortion and other acts of medically assisted murder whether they are catholic or not. So after the government seizes the facility who will staff it?
There are political dangers for the President as well. Seizing the hospitals is an attack on the Catholic Church. Hispanics are more devout and faithful to doctrine then other American Catholics. Obama must know that Hispanics will desert the Democrats in droves if he attacks the church. The Soviets went after the Church in the 1980s. How did that work out for them?
jerryofva on March 10, 2009 at 1:06 PM
I’m waiting to see the Freedom to Perform Female Genital Mutilation Act. I’m sure it is on the agenda somewhere.
Vashta.Nerada on March 10, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Gent bent, you fascist twat.
doubleplusundead on March 10, 2009 at 1:08 PM
They can always open hospitals that enforce sharia law.
Wouldn’t that be a hoot.
Kini on March 10, 2009 at 1:08 PM
As critical as I am of the style, plot, and characterizations of “Atlas Shrugs”, that overarching theme does have a great deal of merit to it.
And, Hack, you are arguing by association, identity, and superficial considerations, while everyone else is talking about fundamentals and principle. I imagine this happens to you a lot.
Count to 10 on March 10, 2009 at 1:08 PM
That’s what happens when you pretend Wikipedia is a substitute for the text that you’re pretending you’ve read.
Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Why is anyone worried about what Rand would think/write/say? She’s not a player in this – the Obama and his thugs in Congress are. His actions and policies are based on HIS ideology – not ours, nor the RCC, nor Rand’s The issue is what OBAMA plans.
He cares not a whit about what we think abut him. He has 4 years to move the country in the direction he wants and he will have help from Congress to do it. He doesn’t care what Hispanics think about him – he got what he wants from them and is in office.
wtis02575 on March 10, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Bwahahahaahahahahah!!! That was a good one.
BrideOfRove on March 10, 2009 at 1:11 PM
FIFY.
Christien on March 10, 2009 at 1:11 PM
That’s the whole point. You can’t just go in and take over an institution, that looks thuggish. You need a compelling reason to pull the wool over the eyes of the illiterate masses, and make yourself look like a selfless hero defending the down trodden. Gotta go Bishop Sheen is on EWTN.
Tommy_G on March 10, 2009 at 1:11 PM
If I understand this correctly, the government proposes to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, even though it is against their moral code. When apprised of the notion that Catholic hospitals would rather close than commit murder, the government then posits to force the Catholics to keep the hospitals open by moving their control from the diocese(sp?&cap?) to “a panel of laymen”? That is government mandated tyranny. Cue liberal media “spin”ning tops in 3…2…1…
TASS71 on March 10, 2009 at 1:11 PM
They can always open hospitals that enforce sharia law.
Wouldn’t that be a hoot.
Kini on March 10, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Yeah, I’d like to see abortions at that hospital! BTW, thanks for the “Free market” explanation awhile back Kini! Finally got the Diet mt dew from my nose!
catlady on March 10, 2009 at 1:11 PM
DtMH apparently heard the question, “Who is John Galt?”, and concluded that he was the villain of Atlas Shrugged.
And Jazz was joking in his 1:05 comment, so let’s not start tossing around the ad hominems.
Ed Morrissey on March 10, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Well it seems that between FOCA and the end to charitable giving, The Messiah is doing all that he can to make sure there are no competitors to his new Big Governement (see Islam and Soviet Union for more examples). Get the Catholics out of Health Care (also denying them a public releations source of good will) and dry up their funding through charitable giving. Then paint them as intolerant on gay marriage, luddite by opposing embryonic stems cells (who cares if it works, as long as NARAL & Planned Parenthood make a profit) and the Church becomes public enemy #3 (after Rush and apparently Cantor).
Iblis on March 10, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Because she had these troglydytes and their creed nailed – to a “T” – 50 years ago, and better than anyone before or since.
You’re ceding a great deal of intellectual ammunition against Obama’s collectivist agenda by ignoring her, but it’s a free country for the time being.
Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 1:13 PM
How does abortion square with the “First do no harm” thing?
BrideOfRove on March 10, 2009 at 1:14 PM
It goes something like, unborn children are not people, so you’re not actually harming anybody.
Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 1:15 PM
This is where you and I agree. I think the problem that arises here is that Ed is looking for an example of libertarianism (people have free will to do what they want), like farmers choosing not to farm or Catholic hospitals choosing not to stay open, so he chose the Atlas Shrugged cover as the graphic. Was it an appropriate graphic? Maybe not. Ayn Rand saw herself as no Libertarian, but rather as an objectivist. Subtle but different.
LastRick on March 10, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Which reminds me, Rand’s (pseudo)science sucks. I mean, beyond the fantasy of science fiction. Particularly the part where the main character just knows the magic engine works just by reading a partial description, but is unable to reproduce it, that its creator invented a whole new valid branch of science, but doesn’t know what it is.
/off topic
Count to 10 on March 10, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Thjs is simply part of Obamas plan. If they can tick off enough private hospitals to the point that they close down operations, then the gov. will have it’s perfect excuse to step in and start providing healthcare. Obviously the place to start this is the same place they start all social programs that eventually expand…poor communities. People claimed Obama was a socialist before the election and they were scoffed at and rightly so, Obama is no socialist, he is however a full blown friggen communist!
BadMojo on March 10, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Let’s get behind these plans and get them in place!
Jazz Shaw on March 10, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Right there with ya; I’ll be the guy standing in the back, festooned with ammo belts, holding a pistol in each hand and wearing a brown shirt.
Oh…also a “Hope and Change” button on my jacket.
Bishop on March 10, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Jus’ wondering, Cap’n Ed…..but are you aware that Rand hated Christians, was an elitist extremist and a sexual libertine?
Just sayin.
;)
strangelet on March 10, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Uh, a quick point here. Roman Catholics are NOT pacifists. We believe in the doctrine of Just War.
The Catholic religion also allows killing in defense of one’s home and family. We are not pacifists, no how, no way. Now I must clean my guns and say a couple of rosaries. Heh.
bonnie_ on March 10, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Well, he is, in a weird sort of way. But he also appears to have godlike powers of omniscience and a subtle form of omnipotence.
Count to 10 on March 10, 2009 at 1:19 PM
First let me say I just bought this book the other day. From what I’ve read it’s creepy for the fact that what I’ve read in the book seems to be almost a mirror of what’s going on today.
From what I’ve read of Rand’s and seen what’s been wrote about her, this seems exactly right. While she has strong ideals, she doesn’t seem to want most of them (indeed if not all) to be forced onto to anyone else.
What I read fom one of DTMH commets, I have to say how exactly do the Catholic hospitals force people to do what they want to do? I’m Penticostal, the woman I’m marrying is Catholic. I’ve been to her church countless times and I’ve never been told to do something I didn’t want to do or didn’t feel confortable to do.
Building upon what we see already with the government and the church(s), I have to wonder how many more power grabs will this country take until the american people as a whole begin to shrug?
roopster217 on March 10, 2009 at 1:21 PM
I think Dagny assumed it worked, and if it didn’t, that Galt was at the very least on the brink of a revolutionary discovery. The point was that Galt assembled and came up with the idea and the creative pathway to communicate how it was to be done, and that the last missing pieces were missing along with him.
/OT
Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Maybe it’s worth asking – how did Rand know so much about Obama?
Hint: “Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.” George Santayana
hawksruleva on March 10, 2009 at 1:22 PM
?
I was referring to DeathtomediaHacks. What is the people for? Democrats?
Count to 10 on March 10, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Villain?
According to whom?
I think that was Rand’s point :-)
Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Re: “You’re ceding a great deal of intellectual ammunition..”
Not ceding ammunition – just believe that we’re aiming arguments in/amongst ourselves when there is live fire aimed at us by real opponents not concerned about intellectual purity, but about raw outcome. It’s not a novel any more – it’s real life and I think we should be fighting that outcome, not Rand’s positions.
wtis02575 on March 10, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Fighting with what? Incoherent slogans? Bumper stickers? Birth certificate conspiracies?
Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 1:25 PM
In NC, last year I believe, we had state Dr’s refusing to participate in death penalty executions because they believed that it was against the Hypocratic Oath. I found odd it for 2 reasons.
1)The Dr’s weren’t performing the executions, they were there to certify that death had occurred.
2)How do they reconcile abortion with the Hypocratic Oath?
As others have said before, we are all just a clump of cells like an embryo, albeit further along the developmental process.
tempestleo on March 10, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Count to 10,
I was riffing off the habitual use of the belittling “you people” by DTMH, benny shakar, getalife, ernesto, and assorted other Hot Air trolls.
Christien on March 10, 2009 at 1:28 PM
This DeathToMediaHacks pwnage is great fun. To try to make a lame point about a book which he “have no read”, well, that’s just a big ‘ole fail, ain’t it?
Daft Punk on March 10, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Eh, why is this Jazz Shaw continually referenced as being relevant? He’s openly toying with the idea of forced labor. That is disgusting and hardly conservative.
Jazz Shaw, Ross Douthat, Katleen[sic] Parker, Heather MacDonald: the new face of conservatism. To wit, the parvenu pseudo-conservative additions to the D.C./NY axis cocktail scene.
spmat on March 10, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Science doesn’t work that way, and neither does technology. If you can’t reproduce the end result, then claims are just so much meaningless bluster. If you don’t know what the “missing pieces” are, then you have no reason to think it was anything but BS from the beginning. So, either Dagny and the two or three other characters that see it are delusionally invested in wanting it to work, or Gualt is beaming that conviction into their heads with his godly power. Either way, it (and the entire ending, actually) undermines the theme of the book, which is really too bad.
Count to 10 on March 10, 2009 at 1:30 PM
What makes him the villain? His stand against the corrupting influence of government and society lead, if not to the saving of humanity, at least to a CHANCE to save it.
Just because millions of Americans suffered as a result of Galt’s refusal to be a slave, doesn’t make him evil, any more than an 1850′s slave would’ve been evil to shut down a plantation. If you’re thinking that’s not the same thing, you’re right. Shackling innovators hurts more people than shackling 1 cotton picker, regardless of ethnicity.
hawksruleva on March 10, 2009 at 1:30 PM
+1
OmahaConservative on March 10, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Ah, I get it.
(Identity rears its ugly head again)
Count to 10 on March 10, 2009 at 1:31 PM
I’m not sure science works that way either.
For example, if Watson and Crick hadn’t known the exact elemental structure or composition of DNA base pairs (AGCT), but had known that base pairs did in fact exist, did that invalidate their discoveries? Why didn’t they stop if they had one piece of information but not another other? Didn’t the knowledge of one lead to or compliment the next step?
Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 1:34 PM
That’s false comparison, in many ways. He deliberately set out to cause the problems that gave the socialists the power to enact their vision. He empowered them (and, if you ascribe to him the powers he seems to have at the end, made them that way to start with). The ending is him and his happy little group plotting the conquering of the world from there safe little haven, while the world suffers the destruction he imposed on it. Sounds villainous to me.
Count to 10 on March 10, 2009 at 1:35 PM
BTW, you do find out that Galt did in fact reveal his discovery and invention to one of the old engineers in the 20th Century Motor Company in (who had since died). You don’t find that out until Dagny starts searching for him after finding the motor, though.
Minor plot point there :-)
Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Who imposed the suffering – the looters and moochers or the producers?
You have it exactly backwards. The reason that Galt and the Strikers left was because they were being looted by the collectivists in their respective spheres.
Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Well, I’m up for anything that gets me signed on for free cocktails.
Jazz Shaw on March 10, 2009 at 1:39 PM
That depends on whether the Hispanics, in general, love the Catholic church more than they love getting stuff paid for by someone else.
MarkTheGreat on March 10, 2009 at 1:39 PM
?
In the book, the characters were left with nothing, no progress, but were absolutely sure the thing would work. Heck, it even went against what they understood to be true. Basically, they swallow a hucksters pitch about perpetual motion (okay, not quite), without any evidence that any of it is true.
Count to 10 on March 10, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Science works in all sorts of ways. Maybe, in this case, the characters WERE delusional, the fact of their presence there indicates some serious desperation. I found it quite plausible that Dagny and Hank could see how the static motor COULD work, without knowing exactly HOW. They were inventors/innovators themselves, after all. Generally, stuff you find built in a factory is at least an attempt to harness ideas in real ways. Besides, clearly Dagny wanted to PROVE it could work. She was driven to make the idea of that motor a reality; to put the theory into practice.
Regardless, the point in the novel somewhat echoes your thoughts. Without someone to invent the motor, society doesn’t benefit from it. The discovery of the motor was an echo of mankind in the dark ages, staring in awe at the Roman aqueducts.
hawksruleva on March 10, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Count 10
I think you’re failing to comprehend the central theme of Galt’s fight. Even Dagny – Galt’s eventual lover – refers to Galt as “the destroyer” for a good portion of the novel. Galt’s response to that is for her to check her premises. One of them was wrong.
That’s the question the book asks – who really moves the world? Who really are the destroyers?
Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 1:41 PM
I always thought that Objectivists viewed themselves as Extreme Libertarians.
MarkTheGreat on March 10, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Hey, that’s exactly what my high school football coach used to yell when things got too rowdy.
forest on March 10, 2009 at 1:41 PM
I think you need to re-read the book.
Vashta.Nerada on March 10, 2009 at 1:42 PM
I am an Orthodox Christian and one homily one of our priests gave sticks out in my mind above the rest. He said, “The world should conform to the church. The church does not conform to the world.” Obama and his ilk want the church to conform to their idealogy, instead of Obama & friends conforming to the doctrine and teachings of the church.
tnmama on March 10, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Only from the perspective of the people who were dependent upon the achievers. If I have an item that you desire, and I refuse to sell it to you, does that make me evil? In your eyes maybe, but from my perspective it’s mine, I worked for it. If someone else desires the same item they can work for their own. All of the equality BS that gets rammed down our throats on a daily basis is just that, fertilizer. Everyone has equal opportunity to achieve to their highest potential, but there is no way to equalize everyones potential.
BadMojo on March 10, 2009 at 1:43 PM
+1
Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 1:44 PM
It gets circular. The reason the collectivists had the power to loot was because the strikers were taring down the economy.
There are a number of ways that the events of the story are inconsistent with a more realistic scenario, and the one interpretation I can give to tie it all together is that the world was Galt’s playground, and everything happened the way he wanted it to. Especially when Rand starts giving him the Jesus treatment at the end (sermons, betrayal, temptation, torture, salvation, paradise).
Count to 10 on March 10, 2009 at 1:45 PM
You have entirely too much faith in your fellow citizens.
Remember Elian Gonzalez? Kidnapped at gunpoint and shipped back to a Communist nation run by a bloodthirsty tyrant.
Remember Waco? Polarized and isolated with the willing assistance of the mass media, accused of child abuse, then burned to the ground and sealed in concrete. The dead included.
Nobody spoke up then except a few who were labelled as kooks and ignored. The same will happen if Bawreck Insane O
bsama orders his thugs to march on resisting Catholics. I’ll put money on it.Dark-Star on March 10, 2009 at 1:45 PM
I’m relatively late to the discussion, but can anyone tell me why B follows A in Jazz’s argument? If it would cripple the nation’s healthcare system for Catholics to shut down their hospitals, maybe the government shouldn’t put them in that position. I mean, you don’t see our diplomats to the Middle East disparaging Islam or throwing pig feces at those who export oil to America, because we know that provocation has consequences.
On the other hand, we do still hear our
chosen onepresident bashing businesses and then wondering aloud where all the d*** money has gone.Do our schools even teach cause and effect anymore?
cackcon on March 10, 2009 at 1:49 PM
It sounds like you can some of your philosophy as follows:
“I need $10. Give it to me, or you’re evil.”
hawksruleva on March 10, 2009 at 1:49 PM
The reason that the collectivists existed at all was because of the creativity, vision and work of the Strikers. It was the producers carried the socialists/collectivists on their shoulders the whole time. Even before Galt (Nat Taggart, for example).
When the looters, using their ever increasing nonsense about “fairness” and “the needs of society” and “social concerns” as a veil for the appropriation of the proceeds of the creativity and production of the producers, Atlas shrugged.
Rand (in the book)likened it to a pig that got a few acorns from a tree and then proceeded to dig up the roots of the tree for more. The tree died and produced no more acorns, and the pig went hungry.
Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 1:49 PM
bah – I meant “sum up your philosophy”. Too much caffeine.
hawksruleva on March 10, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Karl Marx knew something that the Socialists, like the Liberal Left – led by Obama, never have understood …
Under Democratic Socialism (the path we’re headed down now) … you can only “redistribute” so much wealth. At some point, the “prime movers” refuse to give any more – or they leave the country, or quit the game entirely.
At that point – the only option left to Socialists is to TAKE by FORCE.
What we are seeing now – is that this realization is starting to take hold in the American Socialist movement. Soon, we won’t be calling them “Socialists” anymore – Socialists are benign, cute little creatures. These folks will soon be full-on COMMUNISTS bent on TAKING.
HondaV65 on March 10, 2009 at 1:50 PM
geeze “The Moderate Voice” is turning more and more into “The Irrational Noise”
Sad.
Diogenes of Sinope on March 10, 2009 at 1:51 PM
The collectivists already had the power to loot. That’s why the strikers went on strike.
MarkTheGreat on March 10, 2009 at 1:51 PM
I agree with the commenter who said that the right thing to do is to keep the hospitals open and continue to politely decline to murder babies until the jackboots come.
Which they will, in one form or another. There is historical precedent: When Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell realized the royal treasury had a cash flow problem, they liquidated the monasteries along with their hospitals and schools and told the populace, “don’t worry, the Crown will take care of you.” Behold the modern welfare state. This is another round of that old trick. Having Catholic hospitals close or be nationalized is one obstacle out of the way of government-run health care. The state controls the money, and gets to set the ideology on its own, no dissent allowed.
evergreen on March 10, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Oh well. Who is John Galt?
Paul K. on March 10, 2009 at 1:53 PM
That would be all well and good, if they were just refusing to sell something they have. But they went farther than that–they actively set out to convince other people not to sell, also. Beyond that, almost all of these people had become monopolists of sorts, having destroyed their competition, leaving nothing when they left. Yes, Rand piles heaps of scorn on that competition, but there it is. In some sense, the strikers were violating an implicit social contract by what they were doing. Did they have the right? Probably, but that doesn’t make them any less villainous for exercising it in that way. Extortion, collusion, racketeering–Rand had no problem with any of these, so long as they were used by the brilliant elite rather than the stupid masses.
Look, the basic message about the hubris of government and importance of property was something I like a great deal. Its just that the packaging was painful.
Count to 10 on March 10, 2009 at 1:54 PM
The compression of events in the book was also a necessary literary device. It would’ve been more realistic to portray a struggle between innovators and moochers that stretched over several generations, with the innovators occasionally achieving breakthroughs (like the computer?) that staved off the oncoming Dark Age.
But that book was long enough already. And the strike isn’t COMPLETELY out of bounds; the American Revolution had some echoes of the same ideas. Americans felt like the folks back in England were getting rich from the sweat of colonial labor, and threw off the yoke.
hawksruleva on March 10, 2009 at 1:54 PM
God.
Count to 10 on March 10, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Thanks for the tie in to Rousseau, so we know where you are coming from.
Vashta.Nerada on March 10, 2009 at 1:56 PM
LOL
+1
Daft Punk on March 10, 2009 at 1:57 PM
They cannot. The original Hippocratic Oath specifically states:
Οὐ δώσω δὲ οὐδὲ φάρμακον οὐδενὶ αἰτηθεὶς θανάσιμον, οὐδὲ ὑφηγήσομαι ξυμβουλίην τοιήνδε. Ὁμοίως δὲ οὐδὲ γυναικὶ πεσσὸν φθόριον δώσω. Ἁγνῶς δὲ καὶ ὁσίως διατηρήσω βίον τὸν ἐμὸν καὶ τέχνην τὴν ἐμήν.
(Oops, sorry. I forgot to turn on the Universal Translator)
“I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.”
In other words, no euthanasia and no abortions.
The modern version of the Hippocratic Oath, the one medical school graduates are encouraged to take, was not written by Hippocrates but by Louis Lasagna in 1964. It bears very little resemblance to the original.
AaronGuzman on March 10, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Slightly O/T, but related from Jill Stanek. This was from the other day:
Congressional doctors fight Obama plan to overturn healthcare conscience rights protection; Comment email address DEFUNCT
Today she has posted:
This is the page in the Federal Register in which the rescission is listed:
Rescission of the Regulation Entitled “Ensuring That Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law”;…
You can do further reading on the page to review:
1. Conscience Clauses/Church Amendments [42 U.S.C. 300a7]
2. Public Health Service Act Sec. 245 [42 U.S.C. 238n]
3. Weldon Amendment
These are all conscience provisions. I’m glad to say my former Congressman Dave Weldon, a prolife physician, was responsible for the Weldon Amendment
INC on March 10, 2009 at 1:57 PM
In the spirit of Ms. Rand, I would rather see the Church close the hospitals, dynamite them to the ground, and leave in place a sign saying:
JohnGalt23 on March 10, 2009 at 2:00 PM
How in the world did you jump to that conclusion?
However, if you agree to take out the trash for $1, and I find the trash has piled up over time while I was off doing other things, I’m not going to be thrilled that it was because you decided it wasn’t worth your time.
Count to 10 on March 10, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Ahh…so convincing people to follow your ideals is inherently evil? Well…that changes things immensely doesn’t it. Speaking of change…hrmm…who was it who has spent the last few years indoctrinating people into the ideas of “hope and change”?
Sharing an idea is not evil, if the idea has merit people will agree. If not it usually fails to gain support. Sometimes that’s not the case and a group of weak minded people can be convinced to drink the koolaid in some hyped up jungle paradise.
BadMojo on March 10, 2009 at 2:01 PM
No they didn’t.
They merely explained to the other producers that the worst thing you could do to a looter whose moral code is “greed is evil,” and “the needs of the many outweigh the wants of the few” and that “the lowly” and “the poor” were the reals source of spiritual wealth, and “the rich have to work for society and not themselves” and “the mind is of no significance” was simply to comply with that code.
Hence, why John Galt left his motor to become a track worker. Galt was complying with the moral code of the looters (the salt of the Earth are the “real” producers), as were others. Ellis Wyatt lit his oil fields on fire because he was leaving them as he had found them – in a natural state of unharnessed chaos that required a mind to harness them and give them value. The looters, unable to match his productive ability or entrepreneurial skills, didn’t know what to do with them.
Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 2:02 PM
No. Not God, but a man who knew enough to stop the total exploitation of his work to feed a socialist beast that was already imploding under its own enormous weight. It just needed a catalyst. The Church needs to be true to herself. I wish she would take a firm stand.
Paul K. on March 10, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Actually, I would say that the “hope and change” mem is another good example of this, leading us to the “Randian” government (can I coin that, like “Orwellian Society”?) now in power.
Good ideas don’t always win a debate, as much as we would like them to.
Count to 10 on March 10, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Obama’s government is “Randian (you mean “objectivist?”)
Do explain.
Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 2:11 PM
No, seriously, its pretty clear that Rand thought of her character the way that Christians think of Jesus. Brush up on the new testament, and then re-read part three. Its all there.
Count to 10 on March 10, 2009 at 2:12 PM
No, no, just as an “Orwellian” government is a government like the one described in “1984″, an “Randian” government would be a government like the one described in “Atlas Shrugged”.
Count to 10 on March 10, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Actually, no it isn’t that clear, because Rand at no point compared Galt to Jesus or anybody else in the novel to Jesus. Galt was a hero, not God.
And do explain how Obama’s administration is “Randian (objectivist).”
I think the people at the Ayn Rand Institute disagree, but who are they? What do they know about Rand?
Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Ah.
The government like the one in AS is similar to a real one (and keep in mind the book wsa a work of FICTION like 1984 – corrupt, fat on it’s largess, entitled to loot, incapable of understanding the value of free markets and its relation to freedom and their own survival, etc.
That’s the nature of just about any government that has ever claimed it was doing everything “for the people.”
Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 2:18 PM
But that’s not “they way they found them.” A great deal of resources had been directed toward supporting them on the promise of their production, so their refusal did additional damage. Look, one has every right to do such a thing, but I won’t pretend that it was a moral thing to do.
Also, there are a lot of straw men mixed in with the good arguments. Its in my nature to weed them out.
Count to 10 on March 10, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Like I said, go back and read it again. The symbolism is all there. Heck, he’s even betrayed with a kiss, offered the world, and tortured on a cross(-like device).
Count to 10 on March 10, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Its just like Good Lt. said. Also you have to remember, these people rationalize drug use because it “isn’t hurting anybody”. My styrofoam coffee cup from the 7/11 is like an A-bomb, though. They have a great way of rationalizing all of their irrational behaviors and numerous intellectual gaps.
Rightwingguy on March 10, 2009 at 2:26 PM
The Catholic healthcare system is too big to bail.
ConstantSorrow on March 10, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Because she had these troglydytes and their creed nailed – to a “T” – 50 years ago, and better than anyone before or since.
Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 1:13 PM
———
Kratman seems to “get” them….
Mew
acat on March 10, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »