by Rick Shepard

Created on: December 23, 2009   Last Updated: December 24, 2009

General Welfare

Since Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal, through Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, and now with President Obama, those two words have taken on new meaning. Surely the Founding Fathers of the greatest nation in history, the most prosperous, most mighty country on the face of the earth, did not intend for our national and state governments to be so intrusive and all-encompassing.

The answer to this question would tend to depend on one's position. If you're on the receiving end of this largess, you would be hard pressed to answer no. If you're an individual or corporation that would benefit from public policy, surely you would think that the more government the better.

However, if you're a person or company who's property will be confiscated or who's freedoms will be diminished, probably the answer would be yes.

Lets look at health care, since its currently at the forefront of public debate. Health care is a product, albeit a very important one. A doctor's services are no different than those of a mechanic who works on your automobile.

If your car is broke, you take it to the mechanic and he fixes it. Its the same with your body. Broken bones and broken carburetors both need fixing.

Now, would you allow the government to dictate which mechanic you visit or to set the price that mechanics charge? Would you take your car to a mechanic that was run like your local DMV? Health care is no different. Price and quality of care are best dictated by the free-market.

Now before any of you cringe sufficiently at the mention of those words and stop reading, no one is suggesting that doctors who take advantage of the public shouldn't be punished. If a doctor performs a surgery that does damage to, or overcharges a patient, that doctor should pay. No argument here.

Government steps in only after they have established that some area of human endeavor is in need of regulation or been deemed a basic human right, or some group of people need assistance.

Most of the time government is wrong in this assessment. Individuals (and companies, which are simply groups of individuals with a shared goal) should be free to pursue their own interests as long as that pursuit doesn't harm or impede another.

A quick aside, should you begin to consider me a stone-hearted conservative. No one is saying that those less fortunate aren't in need of assistance, only that the government is not the best vehicle. Plenty of privately funded organizations like the Red Cross and the Salvation

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>