Here's The Conflict

This video reveals the heart of the matter. It does not reveal the ultimate authority in the matter however.

Mr. Hare is all good intentions. He says nothing about how he is going to provide the health care coverage. For him, the sob story is the end of the story. He wants to fix the hurt.

However, his actions belie his intentions because he cannot fix the hurt - not his way. Rather he is a cause to have the United States Government take out its force mechanism - taxation with gun toting individuals and prisons behind it - and take the money from you and me without our consent in order to fulfill HIS intentions. His actions tell me a deeper intention - to cause more hurt and give "hurt" a forum for its existence. (In other words, Hare is a spiritual parasite of those who can do something about the hurt - the doctors and the producers who support them - and is seeking to bring the world of parasitism into existence by government fiat.

All of this, to be accurate, is not about intentions. There are many people who would like to see a person who needs something have it and are, believe it or not, willing to do something about it. The issue here is about the MEANS of fulfilling one's intentions. Some are willing to use the means of the criminal and call it something else. Others are not.

And this is where the Constitution comes in. Our government via the Constitution is designed to protect the right of every human life to his life, as distinct from all life. The first obvious consequence of this agreed-to purpose is that the government cannot go out in the land and initiate force against, destroy and diminish, other human lives in order to do that. To do so negates the reason for its existence as a government of human beings, at least in these United States. (This principle is not unique to the United States. It's true for all human beings formed into political units.)

No one is here because they agreed to be a slave - a means to someone else's ends. That's not to say that a person couldn't agree to that - at least temporarily. I am saying that I have not and won't agree to that and, I doubt I could find anyone who would agree to that - even among the moochers who expect to benefit from the slavery. (I don't recall any black slaves telling their masters to give them everything they need to live and they would agree to being their slave. Somehow it doesn't work that way.) I challenge you to find such a person. Further, I wouldn't want to live in a country with such a philosophy because I would know that I am creating enemies which overhang any success I might achieve. In other words, there is no freedom in any gain one might make. (This, by the way, is a cost O and the Democrats will have to pay in the future.)

The Obama Administration and Democrat Party have taken up creating all US citizens as dependents - doormats - to be stepped on and used up in any way that it's whims dictate. (Here's an apt image, though unsavory. The government will "use you and throw you away like a used rubber." "Throwing you under the bus," the form of this behavior is the form associated with Obama. It's the same thing.) Once we accept being dependent, we have the government not only for material sustenance and benefits, but for keeping all those angry slaves away from us so they won't hurt us and steal our stuff. O is in the process of forming a giant protection racket.

Sorry! That ain't happening! Not with my consent.

So what we see is that Obama and the Democrats have become another scourge of history. All the people who consider themselves doormats already are happy to have Obama and the Democrats force some goodies out of other people for them. The leaders' biggest concern is the anger of the "slaves." They think that if the general population sees some irrational act on the "slaves'" part, they will rush over to the government's side for protection. Not me. I'm on the "slaves'" side. All of this shows how ignorant of the larger principles our leaders are, why the Tea Parties are growing, and how dependent they are on maintaining and fostering this ignorance.

Is there any doubt they are venal? For many of them, politics and political science has been a life long profession. Frankly, I don't see how Obama and the Democrats can be anything other than venal. This is so especially since the collapse of the great socialist experiment - Soviet Russia. Socialism, i.e., redistributionism or progressivism, doesn't work because it cuts the society off from the life force that is needed to keep it going.

America is the incarnation of the realization that access to that life force for the good of each and all of us means that you have to recognize it in every human being. It is an individual thing. It is not just a good idea nor a group thing. Individual Rights is nothing more than acknowledging the conditions in society that protect a person's life and let him live as a human being. Beyond that, insofar as the government is concerned, life is up to you. (Culturally the existence of America reveals that we have become ignorant of these larger principles in recent times. This is a modern phenomena - one of the last 100 years or so.)

It is the principle of life itself, not just a political notion of some kind, that is at stake in America right now. Obama and the Democrats are not going to be able to produce the "just" society they claim. Contrary to theorists, life is not fair and one cannot make it fair. Life is not fair because it follows the law of cause and effect, not some idealized end result. "Fair," in the Obama context of that term, is an utopia. It is a dream without a reality. (In our times, we use the word fair to call up some notions that undermine the real issue - justice. Justice on the other hand depends on ownership. Without ownership, the words "justice" or "what's fair" are means to separate you from what is rightfully yours - namely your property you were born with or earned. This is why property rights are so crucial to a working, prosperous, life-affirming society.)

What we are going to have to confront for the first time in history is this: A person's concern for his neighbor is an individual concern and if you don't have this concern, then you don't have it. There could be many reasons why you don't. It certainly doesn't, at least according to my code of ethics nor any objective code of ethics, mean you are evil if you don't have it. Likewise, it doesn't mean you are good if you do have it. Whether you consider it worthwhile to worry about your neighbor or have it as a value is up to you. One thing is certain, it cannot be a duty.

Perhaps if we could tell the truth about this, we would learn something about whether we really value a society of people or not and under what conditions that is so or not. When we are ready to confront this, we will be able to tell the truth and mature. And then maybe we will be in a position to let go of the politician as some arbiter of human life. No one is. It can be no one's job to do that. The moral authority for your life is you. It's yours - all yours.

The truth is, the real, magnificent possibility of human society has yet to be discovered.

Until then, Mr. Hare is just another waaaa, waaaa, waaaa - unwilling to grow up, be responsible and think, and live among adult human beings. If we follow his moral code, it would be time to throw him under the bus. If we follow mine, it is time to make an example of his views and attitude, and vote him out of office.