During his visit to Cairo, President Obama said that he was committed "to governments that reflect the will of the people." There, in a nutshell, is the problem with his thinking, as well as with the thinking of his predecessor, the thinking of almost all members of Congress and the Supreme Court, the thinking of most of the nation's intelligentsia and commentaria, and the thinking of most Americans.
What's wrong with what he said? Well, imagine in a prior life that Obama had visited the antebellum South before blacks had become a majority of the population. Imagine that during the visit, he had complimented Southern whites for having governments that reflected the will of the people: "Hey, y'all, my compliments for reflecting the will of the people and maintaining slavery."
An extreme example? Yes, but it shows that a moral government is not necessarily a government that reflects the will of the people. Rather, a moral government is one that protects the rights of the individual -- especially against the transgressions of the majority.
What Obama should have said in Cairo was that he was committed to governments that protect the rights of the individual -- that is, to governments that safeguard the life, liberty, speech, and property of each person. Such a government wouldn't allow a woman to be stoned for adultery just because a majority believes that Allah says it's okay.
Obama didn't speak this way, because in his view of government, the individual is secondary to the will of the majority, the collective, the common good, and a charismatic leader.
Take nationalized healthcare. Obama has said that physicians are going to have to "sacrifice" to fix the problems with the healthcare system -- problems, by the way, that have been caused largely by the government he proposes as the solution.
What he meant was that for the common good, physicians will be forced to make less money. This isn't as draconian as the Incas sacrificing virgins for the common good, because, after all, "only" doctors' livelihoods will be sacrificed, not their lives. But the thinking is the same.
The danger is that if physicians can be sacrificed one day, you can be sacrificed the next day. In fact, you will be sacrificed under nationalized healthcare. The underlying premise of nationalized healthcare is that you don't own your body; instead, the collective owns it. As such, the collective can dictate what medical care you receive, at what price, and by what provider.
Sadly, it isn't necessary to trample on individual rights to fix the problems with healthcare, just as it isn't necessary to trample on individual rights to fix any social problem. To the contrary, almost all social problems have been caused by trampling on individual rights, but that's just too basic and too true to be taught in schools or to be accepted by the ruling class.
For example, the horrendous socioeconomic problems among inner-city African Americans have their genesis in government programs -- slavery, followed by Jim Crow, redlining, and the forcible taking of money (property) from taxpayers to support a welfare system that has brought two-parent black families to near-extinction and triggered severe academic problems, dropout rates, and crime (with special support from the government war on some drugs).
The use of force for other than the protection of the individual never has a happy ending.
It took mankind thousands of years to develop a political, economic and social system in which the individual wasn't at the mercy of the mob, tribe, collective, majority, alpha male, chieftain, shaman, or monarch; or at the mercy of other people's envy, superstitions, ignorance, and irrationality.
The chains that kept individuals in slavery, serfdom, subservience, penury, fear and blind obedience to some collective will and a higher authority were broken by the concepts of individual liberty, property rights, free trade, the division of labor, and specialization -- the things that made America great. The result was an explosion in prosperity, creativity, innovation, longevity and health.
The shocking thing is not that President Obama is hurriedly reconnecting the chains of collectivism and statism, just like both major political parties. The shocking thing is that no one is gasping in shock.
An author and columnist, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.
شتر سوار بر گرد به خانه،کتاب تازه پیمان جهان بین ،بدون تردید یکی از بهترین آثار نویسندگان ایرانی در غربت است. من با کارهای قدیمی پیمان که در دهه چهل در مجله های فردوسی و خوشه زنده یاد احمد شاملومنتشر میشد آشنا هستم ولی کتاب شتر سوار برگرد به خانه را باید نه تنها بهترین کار او دانست ،بلکه احتمالا بهترین اثر از میا ن معدود قلم زنان ایرانی که حتی نیازی به تفسیر و ترجمه نیست و بزبان انگلیسی برشته تحریر در آمده است.نویسندگان ایرانی در غربت در سالهای بعد از این فتنه به اصطلاح اسلامی،در مورد جریان های سیاسی و تاریخی مطالب با ارزش و مستندو مهمی را منتشر کرده اند ولی در زمینه قصه و شعر تنها یکی یا دو اثر و نوشته و کتاب.در اینجا لازم است که از کتاب پر فروش ،خواندن کتاب لولیتا در تهران نوشته خانم آ ذر نفیسی نام ببریم که باعث افتخار همگی ماست.پیمان جهان بین از درد و دردهای زندگی در غربت میگوید و لی این قصه گوی شیرین زبان دیگران را قصه گوی کتاب خود میکند.قصه های شیرین و تلخ آ وارگان، کودکان آواره جنگهای ویتنام و کامبج،آواره های جنگهای داخلی یوگسلاوی ،آواره های افغانستان، روسیه،سومالی،عراق و البته ایرانی. آرش از زندان گوهر دشت در شبی که باید اعدام میشد فرار میکند و بهترین قصه گو. مرحبا پیمان.دکتر جلیل دانا
This is message 127b2. Please leave it up until 22:00 GST. It will remove itself within 24 hours.
Posted by: Payman Ibrahim | Sunday, November 01, 2009 at 06:30 PM