Thursday Night

I don't even want to talk about the BYU-TCU "game" on Thursday night. Leave it to BYU to get your hopes up and con you into getting emotionally involved, only to dash your hopes into small, unrecognizable pieces.

I was in Chicago on Thursday night so we watched the game on DVR on Friday night instead. Rather than watch the game on Thursday night, I was at a team dinner where the topic of discussion turned to politics.

The intelligent and enthusiastic younger team members tried their vigorous best to argue in favor of wealth redistribution (i.e. taxing the "have's" to give to the "have-nots" still leaves the "have's" comparatively better off and makes the whole better off). My problem with this is that it actually takes away individual freedom by placing decision making control in the hands of government instead of the actual individuals, and is a remarkably similar excuse to those oft given by felonious kleptomaniac n'er-do-wells. One of the major non-Republican candidates, for example, is proposing, as I understand it, to raise taxes on social security on those who make over a certain amount, but without providing any additional social security benefit whatsoever. In other words, if you make more than X, you have to pay more in social security tax, but the social security benefit you receive at retirement wouldn't change at all. Paying money for zero benefit at all hardly seems fair. At least with income taxes, you can argue that the wealthy are paying for the public resources they consume since trade-enhancing infrastructure enables business, whose profits flow in proportionately greater measure back to them. If 40% of Americans who pay no taxes at all will suddenly get a "rebate" check from the government for no change in behavior that doesn't strike me as a particularly efficient way to incentivize improvement. That's called welfare or handouts. Which leads me to a second point: I believe in work.

In the case of healthcare, the proposal on the table by one of the major non-McCain candidates actually seems to put in place a structure that moves us significantly toward a single-payer system. I'm certainly for healthcare for those who need it; no one wants to see others suffer. My problem with a single-payer system is that there is no competition. Competition is a very good thing. We have anti-trust laws and government reviews to prevent monopolies. This is because monopolies can essentially charge what they want, which leads to little to no incentive for improvement. Competition, on the other hand, forces improvement because today's customers may leave tomorrow if they're given a better, lower-cost option. Constant improvement is the mandate for survival. No competition, government run healthcare is a scary prospect.

As you know, I'm not really one to post for reasons other than to inform or to entertain. And, I don't think I've done this subject any justice whatsoever. However, with the election drawing near, I feel a desire to weigh in. I'm not really enthused about either candidate, to tell the truth. But, when you vote in a few weeks, please carefully consider which candidate values each person's individual freedom the most, and is most likely to keep government interference at a minimum. Please do not vote for Barack Obama.