GraniteGrok

My debate with Jim Splaine is along this same line that Dr. Walter E. Williams is making here: our Country was founded on the twin pillars of Classic Liberalism (not to be confused with the philosophy of the current crop of Liberals) - Freedom and Individual Freedom.  Why, then, are we rushing headlong into a situation where we, as a society, wish to relinquish those Rights to such to those (re: "Elites") under the rubrics of:

• They know better than us how we should live our lives - allow them to regulate our lives!
  
• Only Government (and those Elites that control it) can solve our problems and take care of "victims".
  

Dr. Williams writes concerning the first (emphasis mine):

Try this. You are a 22-year-old healthy person. Instead of spending $3,000 or $4,000 a year for health insurance, you'd prefer investing that money in equipment to start a landscaping business. Which is the best use of that $3,000 or $4,000 a year -- purchasing health insurance or starting up a landscaping business -- and who should decide that question: Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, George Bush, a czar appointed by Obama or a committee of Washington bureaucrats? How can they possibly know what's the best use of your earnings, particularly in light of the fact that they have no idea of who you are?

Neither you nor the U.S. Congress has the complete knowledge to know exactly what's best for you. The difference is that when individuals make their own trade-offs, say between purchasing health insurance or investing in a business, they make wiser decisions because it is they who personally bear the costs and benefits of those decisions. You say, "Hold it, Williams, we've got you now! What if that person gets really sick and doesn't have health insurance. Society suffers the burden of taking care of him." To the extent that is a problem, it is not a problem of liberty; it's a problem of congressionally mandated socialism. Let's look at it.

It is not society that bears the burden; it is some flesh and blood American worker who finds his earnings taken by Congress to finance the health needs of another person. There is absolutely no moral case, much less constitutional case, for Congress forcibly using one American to serve the purposes of another American, a practice that differs only in degree from slavery, which we all should find morally offensive.

It used to be that family would help those in need.  It used to be that friends would help those in need.  It used to be that charitable societies would render aid when needed.  Government has pushed them aside.  In essence, distorted the "charitable marketplace" by stepping in where private citizens used to volunteer.

Whether it is health care, education, employment or most other areas of our lives, I ask you: Who has the capacity to master all the complexity to make choices on behalf of others? Each of us possesses only a tiny percentage of the knowledge that would be necessary to make totally informed decisions in our own lives, much less the lives of others. There is only one reason for the forcible transference of decision-making authority over important areas of our private lives to elite decision-makers in Congress and government bureaucracies. Doing so confers control, power, wealth and revenue to society's elite. What's in the best interests of individual members of society, such as a person who'd rather launch a landscaping business than purchase a health insurance policy, ranks low on the elite's list of priorities. 

We in America consent to be governed - we voluntarily transfer part of our Rights to Government so as to have an ordered society.  I yield no consent to Government that would, for the purposes of those serving in that Government, put me into a virtual cell.

I may be dumb - but not that dumb....and frankly, I do believe that I am smarter than a lot of our elected officials - WHY would I ever want to yield my Rights to a Maxine Waters?