Sunday, December 01, 2013

Morals and Ethics, Health Care and Government

The disaster that is Obamacare continues to point to the ever widening problems of having a government attempt to impose its own idealistic ideas of what the process is of providing health care, which is not the same as 'health insurance', runs into obstacles where simple ideology driven bureaucratic rules and regulations run up against the common man and his enterprises.  Of the most concerning is the attempt to impose regulations mandating coverage of abortion and 'birth control' upon diverse groups who have religious teachings that make those immoral practices.  They are not just immoral for oneself but, to hold true to their religious teachings, it is immoral to support these services in any real way.  Thus the first of many suits, and truly it should be a class action suit, is one by Hobby Lobby that refuses to obey the power of government over religious principles in their common enterprise Hobby Lobby.  I'll use a Hot Air article as it is where I left some commentary and I will give that to you in an unvarnished way:

Religion is the observation of holding oneself to account to set of beliefs that have real world practice attached to them. Corporeal individuals may not have that transgressed by mere human law as the observance and practice is to a higher moral authority than any government can ever hope to be. The corporate entity is a voluntary association of individuals under a set of agreements and, as such, may have religion as their basis in practice and observation which includes a moral code and doctrine behind it.

No one is forcing employees to work at a such a concern that has such requirements and performs such practices. Even if you disagree with them and sign up to the corporation, you are not allowed to enforce your belief system upon the others in the voluntary cooperation out of respect for their beliefs. If you want to be employed by a place that offers you services that don’t have such restrictions then go find them, you are not forced to work at a concern that does not share your practices nor your beliefs.

I have my own problem with corporate entities, but they tend to dwell in the realm of duration and lack of finality of them when they allow, abet and encourage criminal activities amongst its members to the benefit of the corporate entity. Three Strikes and you’re out would be a start to ending such abuse, but that is a far different thing than the internal practices that are not criminal in nature and adhere to a known set of moral standards that the company upholds for those voluntarily associating with it.

Where does the government get off telling a corporate or corporeal entity that they must support practices that are considered immoral by their belief system? Those who abjure such practices are not in any way, shape or form utilizing them and if others wish to do so then let them PAY FOR IT based on some other agreements but do not force those who hold a higher standard to paying for something which they consider to be immoral in the extreme.

This doesn’t stop at the corporate level and paying for abortion and contraceptive access is that camel’s nose under the tent sort of deal. What if some fine grandee of a bureaucrat gets through required euthanasia of the old, the sick or the mentally ill? Not just paying for ‘access’ to it, which in and of itself has extreme moral problems attached to it due to the way that bureaucrats are stretching ‘voluntary’ to become involuntary… if government becomes the arbiter of morality, then we have truly lost our way as it is only fit to punish things that are immoral that physically effect individuals and STOP THEM and PUNISH those who commit such acts. When you force individuals to support things they consider immoral, then where can it draw the line on ANY OTHER act? I have seen governments of men, not of law, and I want nothing, whatsoever, to do with them. And that is coming into sharp focus today more so than at any other time in our history.

ajacksonian on November 29, 2013 at 10:18 AM

All of Obamacare is about substituting the good sense of individuals in procuring methods of health care with that of government regulation, bureaucracy and punishment.  In the past century we have been witness to medical experimentation upon blacks without fully informing them of what they were signing up for, forced sterilization of the mentally ill at government institutions, and we currently have States that have regulations for euthanasia.  These are not questions of speculation but ones of fact done under government auspices, Federal and State, and at the behest of political doctrines and adherents who pushed for such things as eugenics, population control via abortion and sterilization, and having medical personnel 'assist' in suicide.  These are, one and all, moral wrongs in so many religions held by so many believers that it is not funny.  Yet that these things happened is a fact of our history in this Nation and demonstrates the evils of government willing to take expedient means towards ideological ends to the detriment of its citizens.

The Hobby Lobby case is not just about this one corporation, a collection of private citizens chartering a company to do certain legal activities in a voluntarily cooperative manner run by owners who have a belief system that requires their moral adherence to laws that come from a source other than Nature or mere civil government.  To have freedom of expression is not just in expressing oneself verbally but through activities and actions that follow in a given line of conscience that comes from no source under government or Nature's control.  Forming a company to serve the public in certain venues by believers and then running it in accordance with their belief system is freedom of expression and religion, both.

When government seeks to impose its power over the individual and begin to dictate practices that one holds as immoral, then ethics require that those mere civil laws not be followed so as to be true to eternal moral laws handed down from the highest power of God.  It matters not if God is the singular, the plural or a vague understanding of the morality behind the universe and life itself, that one believes in it and is true to it in their daily lives which hinders none, harms none and is widely understood puts this case into a full Amendment I application: freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and freedom of free association amongst one's fellow citizens.

Civil Government is without wisdom and has problems even finding out what it did last week or last year, not to speak of what it has done decades ago.  It is not a thinking being but a freely made construct amongst the people of a Nation or State to do common activities for the defense and protection of all and, in the case of the US, to stay away from all matters of morals and ethics in following moral practices.  Government itself is a Punisher and necessary evil and not granted power to do good, but to punish the wicked and those who would disrupt society.  The good of society is from its citizens figuring out how to lead good, moral and ethical lives within mortal boundaries of income, savings, sustaining life, creating families, and creating communities in which we all seek to help each other and prosper in that doing. 

It is not immoral to seek to make a profit to sustain a company after paying one's workforce and providing them with agreed upon benefits.  It is not the icon of payment, not the coin or bill or credit exchange pieces, that are evil but only in the pursuit of same without thought to ensuring that it is gained via properly provisioned service or goods under payment contract.  In pursuit of money as its own end, there is no real good, but in pursuit of wealth which is accumulated by providing the best value at the lowest cost to one's fellow man and making a profit to expand such provisioning is true wealth beyond any dollar or penny hoarded.

Providing goods and services by individuals who hold a strict moral code and ethically abide by it is no sin and is not illegal.

Forcing such individuals to support immoral practices with forced payment into a system which requires such support: that is pure evil as it substitutes the power of government for the teachings of God.

And only death, destruction and chaos ever come from that.


Cavalier829 said...

I'm sorry, but your comments aren't Jacksonian in the slightest but pure Whigism, i.e. not even pure Free market economics but corporation worship, through and through. The true ideology of the Republican party, and a bit sacrilegious, I might ad. Paternalism.

While I applaud your participation in the political dialogue by posting a blog, it would be more intellectually honest to call it the Bushian
or Nixonian. Jackson believed in democracy and used his veto to stamp out renewal of the 2nd Central Bank of the U.S. and would not have agreed with your "corporate rights," philosophy but opposed them vehemently. And, "corporate morality?" That is going over the top.

If, as I suppose, you claim your Jacksonian heritage from a Weekly-Standard-esque belief in indefinite Executive privilege, I would ask you to reconsider the premise of your blog, for you are not full-fledged. Am I wrong?

We do desperately need a new Jacksonian/Jeffersonian party, but one that is historically honest, in full. I think you already know this, you seem like an intelligent fellow. Besides Free trade and Preemptive Wars please tell me what makes Republicans any different than fraudulent Whigs?

Care to joust?:

Thank you.

A Jacksonian said...

Cavalier - The concept of a corporate 'person', that is a legal fictive entity is one well established in both legal and historical fact. It is a voluntary association of individuals, not something that is dictated by government like the 2nd National Bank or modern Federal Reserve. Those two institutions are government created entities and are thus highly suspect, especially considering the threats they impose to our economic system. As Jackson pointed out if Congress has the power to make one bank, it has the power to make many and we would be better served either without such a politically expedient entity or with a competition amongst entities.

If a company does not represent the individuals who found it and who seek to provide a good or service at a low cost and yet make a profit so as to expand that business, then what does it represent? At what point can the morals and ethics of those founding a company be violated by government and have the government trample on the very rights of the individuals who founded that entity to do those works?

I have extreme problems with 'free trade' as it is formulated: the idea of economically unburdened trade being a boon to all has destroyed the Mexican agricultural system, as one example. That has uprooted individuals who first sought work in industries that went to Mexico and then to Asia, which left a class of people who no longer worked the fields, no longer have jobs and must, perforce, find other work. That work was found in two places: north of the border and with criminal cartels. The former is undermining the US workforce and the latter is killing Mexicans at an alarming rate in a most brutal fashion. Where is the morality in that form of 'free trade'?

There isn't any and while it may suit multi-national corporations, it has not been the great boon to the US workforce that it was promised to be.

Those corporations act as rootless entities, who have moved from their original founding positions to ones of opportunism on an international scale. Yet our trade laws cater to them. There is a clear distinction between the family run, local business and the multi-national corporation that becomes a law unto itself able to corrupt legislators of multiple countries to get trade agreements beneficial to the large entity and without thought or even with malice towards smaller scale, local and national concerns. Is not the primary duty of a government, any government, to ensure that its economy is protected and that the wealth of Nations be something that is accountable to each Nation?

If our government cannot act to protect our economy and understand that trade is a wealth builder of Nations, but accountable to each one then how can any view of government 'regulation' be supported? That economy of a Nation is put at peril during war-time, and we had a threat from Switzerland to stop supplying our military with high-tech displays for our fighter aircraft and there was NO local back-up available. While we are in the era of 'come as you are' wars, anything past those initial stages requires a sustainment effort that has a deep logistical train. Each tie of our equipment outside of what the Nation can produce is an item of potential failure, and for modern fighter aircraft an all-digital display is one such item, and without it otherwise good aircraft can be side-lined without replacements. Free trade has a cascading effect that cannot be minimized during wartime. And anyone who thinks the US can be protected with the civil sword remaining unbloodied is a fool.

I have no love for Bush, Nixon, LBJ, JFK and while I find a few things that Reagan did admirable, he did not follow through on promises to cut the size, scope and power of the US federal government. He may be a conservative icon, but the things left undone and the things done by underlings to work with international organized crime and rogue regimes sponsoring terrorism leave me without any real good warm fuzzies. (cont'd)

A Jacksonian said...

If we cannot even bother to look up what terrorism is and how to go after it, as described by Lincoln in his General Orders 100, or by the actions of Jefferson, or by Law of Nations which gives us the concept of Private War, a species of depredation and man reverting to savagery, then how can we ever hope to think that our politicians can figure out something so mundane as balancing a budget? One is a primal dividing line necessary for Nation State survival, the other a mere adding of sums, and yet our government can do neither.

Is it any wonder that the Progressives feel like babes in toyland and don't understand that their looting of the civil population for their bankrupt social theories will lead to ill ends for all? It isn't as this stuff hasn't been tried: it has and has failed each and every time with a great cost to the Nations doing so, often in lives.

Government is a necessary evil and a Punisher, that is its role as an organ of the society of a Nation. That is not a high status role, it is not the brain, but those parts that deal with digestion and excretion. It is important, yes, but has only a few things given to it to do so that the people can live free lives with their liberty, and follow their happiness. When government seeks to dictate what is and is not moral it violates individuals and their seeking happiness in a lawful manner. When government takes sides with large corporations and empowers them, feeds them cash from the public coffers to corrupt them, then it is in that act of corruption that government shifts from necessary evil to a pure evil as those funds are not done to support a war but simply to line pockets. Yet it feels free enough to tell everyone how to spend their money on one of the most personal pieces of property they have: their bodies. If we see ourselves as abiding by the ideas of Locke, then that set of dictates on health and each of us choosing how to seek it for ourselves, is a pure evil as it substitutes a bureaucracy for personal conscience and the cost to the individual and those organizations they form called companies.

If telling individuals in companies what to do by government for their health care is not a species of National Socialism than nothing is. If corrupting corporations with public funds to do the government's bidding on topics outside of the range of the few things given to government to do is not a species of National Socialism, than nothing is. And if putting banks under the control of cronies who then manipulate our legislative and executive branches to make mere money without direct public oversight, yet to the benefit of the few and well connected is not National Socialism, than nothing is.

I have no love for this formulation of modern politics and government: it does not end well. The examples are rife and deep in history of complex systems of trade and government collapsing, and yet we are now, in this modern age, at the edge of just such an event. And no amount of relinquishment of personal liberty or freedom to any government has ever staved off such a thing... yet that is all such failures know how to do.

If our government would but uphold laws of contract, without trying to decide winners and losers and telling us all what to do with our lives, we would be far better off than we are today.

If our government would do the actual duties given to it to enforce our borders and abide by treaties which prohibit the arming of criminal and terrorist concerns, we would be far safer than we are today.

A Jacksonian said...

The American People as individuals can work out their lives much better without government 'help', and more cheaply, too. We are in the few days where trying to roll back this behemoth is nearly impossible and yet necessary, beyond all doubt. That it will implode on its current course is also without doubt. This 21st century has opened the pathways to the stars, yet our politicians seek to put chains on us to hold us to the ground and beholden to them. Yet America, with a frontier, allows Americans to discard government faster than any other thing we know how to do as a people. Because when you can uproot to a land or space of opportunity with huge risk, the idea of a lovely government telling you what to do while taking your money to do so just makes no sense at all.

Even without one it makes no sense, come to that.

Do you see where I am coming from on this?

I am sorry that my physical health needs continued attention: I could blog when I was on a pathway to recovery out of mental shambles due to neurological problems. Now my body needs to understand that it must find a way to recover a bit on its own, as well. Such is life. I prepare for bad times, and I urge all to do so.

Cavalier829 said...


You're are certainly nothing, if not prolific. lol. Thank you for your response. I am very sorry to hear of you're current health worries. I too have suffered in recent years from health issues.
I intend on reading more of what you have written on the topics of our day.

but what I will leave you with is this. It's not enough to be Right. You are right that Corporations, which are a legal fiction, have been given,"Rights," by the Supreme Court under the 14th Amendment. That's part of the problem.

As it was in Jackson's time, politicians are bought and sold by these corporations. The question is not one of ideology, but of the corruption of democracy in America. Monetary corruption. By politicians bought and paid for, and politicians buying us with our own money. Corporations are made up of people, are (only in theory) democratic, but in reality that function is moribund. By their hierarchical bureaucratic nature they are inherently political and therefore amoral. And the bigger they are, the more immoral they become. And they corrupt people in the process by virtue of membership.

There will always be Capitalism. The only questions are whether that Capitalism is conducted in the dark or in the light and consequently, whether there will be more of it, or less of it.

And hence we come full circle. It's not about being right, it's about trust. We need a government we can trust. The answer is of the heart, not of the head.

I hope you are better, my friend. I'll talk again soon.

A Jacksonian said...

Cavalier - It is the very longevity of corporations that is a concern to me, as well. If they had a death date or at least a 'Three Strikes and you're out' concept so that those that abuse their longevity to their own benefit would be disbanded, particularly after criminal misdeeds by corporate heads or individuals working to the benefit of the corporation, then I would have fewer problems with them. I actually proposed that back some time ago.

That corporate vs corporeal difference makes a difference and needs to be addressed. A family business, run by a family, held by a family and kept by a family so that they are always in charge of it are of less concern, but even those should have a 'Three Strikes' system applied to them. Likewise one for upholding immigration employment, so that miscreant companies would face fine, misdemeanor and then disbanding on the third count would also curb those abuses. And that stigma then passes on to any corporation trying to buy it out on the first two strikes: you are purchasing damaged goods which can harm you if you do not have severe oversight of it.

Depending on how expansive the concept of 'corporation' is, this could apply all the way to religious institutions as corporate entities. Even with those exempted, charities have demonstrated that they become overburdened and seek special advantages over time as well. There is nothing so good about corporations that they should not be limited to a limited period which may be long, but is not infinite.

A sunset rule for every law, rule and regulation of government for 10 years would go a long way to clearing out government of defects, as all would have to be re-passed every 10 years. Only those few offices mentioned by the Constitution would continue, but they would have regulation and rule re-passing applied to them, as well. The Progressive notion of a ratcheting larger government is destructive to life and liberty, both, and needs to be constructively addressed.

I thank you for visiting and reading my blatherings!