First off, thanks, all, for a great campout. It was fantastic to see you all again, and to relive the glory days, and look for a hole we didn't find. It may not compare in magnitude, but in Sunday School today we discussed Alma 17 in which Alma meets Ammon, Aaron, Omner, and Himni after some years apart doing their several works, and I was reminded of our little gathering. I appreciated being able to discuss all that we discussed, and I learned that my body is not so fond of sleeping bags as it once was.
With the current uprising concerning the individual mandate, I got to thinking about such things as I read many a heated commentary on Facebook about how this is both the greatest moment in recent US history and the first step down a deep slope to absolute constitutional obliteration, to exaggerate but slightly. One FB friend, in particular, seemed incensed that we had chosen oppression over independence, socialism over democracy.
I think I can guess where the Libertarians in the room stand on the subject, and I think most Republicans and Democrats respectively (or disrespectfully) know where they are supposed to stand. What I find most discouraging about the debate in general is that people seem to be so ready to cast stones (labeled generally as cold hard facts) at others in an attempt to "convince" one another of the evil of their respective ways without pausing a moment to consider the validity of various idealogical differences. It would seem a presumptuous thing for me to assert my correctness over yours so categorically, particularly when there is very little chance that I bother to gather facts from sources with which I am unlikely to agree.
What I've been thinking about over the last few days is independence vs. interdependence. Particularly as we approach Independence Day this week, we consider the ideal of independence to be one of the great virtues we posses and revere as a nation. I think it's good for a country to be independent of other countries, and for countries which believe in independence to grant the right to others. What struck me in my Facebook friend's post, however, was how he bemoaned the end of independence, not from a foreign hand, but from our own government.
Was the idea ever to be independent of government? Or independent of one another? Isn't there a difference between not being oppressed and being dependent? I think about all of the ways I am dependent on my government, and in most cases I'm really quite happy to be so. It actually makes me glad that other motorists are required to carry liability insurance. I don't mind so much paying taxes on gasoline, considering that doing so means I have good roads on which to drive my cars. Municipal taxes to support a deterrent for people to break in to my house? I'll get behind that.
If the colonies had wanted complete independence from not only England, but from each other, could they have achieved it? Could they have fought the revolution melee style, every colony for itself, and won? Where would we be if they had?
Independence does not equate with progress. A nation of independents would have no borders, no public services, no laws, no common rights, no recourse for wrongdoing. It would consist entirely of farmers working all day, every day, to feed their own families, and he who hath the best shot hath the most land. He who hath the strongest back hath the most food. And nobody hath an iPhone.
Isn't it our interdependence that makes us great? The fact that I invented a better irrigation system so that you could grow more crops means that we both get fed and fewer of us have to do the farming.
It's remarkable to me to look back through history and see how yesterday's liberal ideas are today's conservative ones. I think both are important, if only to ensure that we evaluate our progress honestly. How many times, though, have programs or policies been vehemently decried because they were "evil", and yet have so much to do with providing the liberties we enjoy today. There are certainly lines that should not be crossed, and we should always be on guard to protect them, but it's so easy to take a position on principle without drilling down to figure out what the actual principle is.
I wonder if, at the advent of public education, a similar fight ensued. What have we gained by giving everybody a better chance at being literate? Is your kid's education my problem? I think so. Even a heartless corporation needs employees who can read and write and communicate with other humans. Public education is just good economic policy. Is your kid's health my problem? I tend to believe that the same arguments apply.
From my point of view, I don't think that the requirement to either buy health insurance or pay a fine at tax time is bad, and I'm not particularly fond of health insurance in the first place. As evolved humans, we seem to agree that it is right to take care of a sick person. Unfortunately, modern medicine is expensive. I agree that it's somewhat uncomfortable to be required to pay for somebody else's care, that it would be better if we all just did it voluntarily. It's funny that everybody seems to agree that everybody should have access to healthcare, and that the "right" thing is for everybody to pitch in so that can happen; it's just a matter of having to or not. An attitude shift during tax time would seem to me to solve the disagreement completely.
In short (finally), I think I don't have much problem with the idea or spirit of the individual mandate. If the nation gets more healthy, I'm happy to pitch in. The actual mechanics and implementation of the system are likely to be flawed and imperfect, because they will be designed and enforced by politicians, but I think it's right to get stepping in that direction.
What do you all think about it?
Oh, and this is, I believe, the 240th post on our blog.
-Benjamin
