I Just Want To Be Free

 Here's the situation: Me and a liberal friend (yes, I can have those), have been going back and forth on Facebook. First, what you will see is her response to a comment that I made. Then you will see my response. I'm posting this here because my response was too long for Facebook to publish in the comments. First, my friend's comment (warning, she uses the "f" word if you are sensitive to that):

Oh Jamie, I love you and will always love you. Of course this is going to be a heated debate, I disagree with you on ever level babe. You just don't get it and won't. You are delusional and think all of mankind is equal, equal in thought, equal in ability to maintain self and others, equal physically, mentally, intellectually. You want an Ozzie and Harriet world that never existed to begin with. I could easily refute all of your claims with numbers and facts but it won't change your mind anymore than you will change mine. I know you are as passionate about your beliefs as I am mine. I just happen to think I am on the human interest side of this while you truly come across as the me, mine, and ours view to me. That is not to say I don't enjoy a good debate and will always listen to you I just won't agree with you. Perhaps I worded my comment poorly as I didn't mean you equated the KKK with PP, you did however equate them in funding and that is just silly, the KKK is a hate group plain and simple while PP is an organization that does NOT promote abortion, they support women's heath, plain and simple and if abortion is a choice a woman makes then they have a place to assist them through PP and other organizations and I am thrilled there are places for such women to go. The bottom line Jamie is that govt is necessary and your idea of privatizing everything on the planet is a clear plan for disaster and would do little more than to increase the already huge divide between the haves and have nots, that is no recipe for healing for growth, that is a recipe for chaos simply because "your" group would maintain a one thought order while "my" group would maintain an opportunity for all regardless of their personal or religious beliefs. Religion has no place in politics and will never have a place and I, for one, am very grateful that we have a gov't that will see to that (in the constitution I think, wink). Any organization that offers a service with an agenda such as your woman's health group is dangerous to me, while organization such as PP who's ONLY agenda is to provide safe and affordable healthcare to those that need it regardless of their beliefs is the only way to go. You need to admit it, you want everyone to think as you, live as you, have the same standards as you.....that will never happen, we are all entitled to our beliefs and still be allowed the same quality of service whether that be health, food, education, roads, you name it and we all have to pay for it, that is how the world works, plain and simple. And as for the quality of education in this country, we could argue for eons, it is the republican agenda that has fucked up education with all their accountability measures that have to date produced nothing more than a cheating system to appease the ignorant while continuing to ruin what once was a respected field and without quality education this country doesn't stand a chance. The republican party claims to want more quality education but on their terms and with certain schools of thought to be used only, that is a most dangerous path to go down. Give people knowledge of all and allow them to make their own choices, indoctrination has never worked to the good of the world as a whole, take a look at the middle east. We are and will remain a leading nation because we are a caring nation that while isn't perfect we still stand for freedom of thought, freedom to choose, and thank goodness for that. You don't have to support everyone's views but "your" group needs to stop wanting to control everyone's actions, thoughts, and desires. It's simple Jamie, you get the same opportunities I do and even the idiot KKK member is entitled to their twisted belief system, we don't deny someone's basic needs just because we disagree with their use of resources. As to all the funding issues and debt we are in, you have no where to look but the republican that caused this, Bush, plain and simple. That idiot team took this country into the toilet and we are barely starting to climb our way out of it and it will take a hell of a lot of time and yes, TAXES. As to our arguing, don't stop, well maybe on this one lol...but I am always up for a debate and can still love you in spite of the fact you ARE an angry old white dude....lol. Just kidding, chillax. You say that everyone needs to get back to taking care of themselves and stop taking hand outs, back at ya, take care of you and allow others to do the same for themselves and stop asking people to believe as you do, you want to punish those that don't follow your religious or personal beliefs while I want for all to have basic needs regardless of how they feel about abortion, gay rights, God, Ninja Turtles, or even Big Bird!

 

 

Here's my response:

 

Ok. Here we go: First, I’m going to ask you to refrain from statements like, “You think…” and, “You want…” and, “You believe…” These kind of statements do two things. 1. They express what you think that I think and what you believe that I believe, not what I really think and believe. So really, these statements are more about your biases and prejudices than anything else. 2. They prevent us from having a real conversation about the ideas and principles that differentiate us, because you have prejudged what I say based on your biases against conservatives. We cannot have a conversation if you are not going to hear what I am actually saying.

 

Secondly, I would like to explain briefly the philosophical foundation of my thinking. My fundamental principle is that freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. Anything that involves freedom also involves responsibility. We simply cannot have one without the other. Having the freedom to choose something means that I am responsible for the consequences of my choice. If I decide to hand responsibility to someone or something else, I lose my freedom to choose. I have to do what the one or the thing to whom I gave responsibility wants me to do, because it is they, not me, who will have the consequences. Two examples: Thannie’s pulmonologist, who manages the damage done to his lungs after his initial trauma, has decided that Thannie should have the RSV vaccine, Synagis. It is a round of shots, one set per month, for 6 months, to guard him from serious pulmonary disease during the cold and flu season. The doctor says it is absolutely necessary that he should have this. The insurance company, to whom we have given responsibility to pay for our health care by paying our monthly premiums, disagrees. The insurance company will not cover it. The cost for this round of shots is $12,000.00. So we either have to forego the shots, or pay for them ourselves, or find another way to get them. We pay for insurance to make them responsible for paying for medical costs. We have given that responsibility to our insurance company, therefore we lose a certain level of freedom in choosing our healthcare. Luckily, we have found another way to provide these shots to Thannie, so he is going to get them. The point is we want the freedom to give him the medical care the doctor believes is necessary, so we have to be responsible in having it paid for, one way or another. We took that responsibility and found a way through the generosity of the company who is going to provide the shots. If that hadn’t worked out, we’d be paying $12,000.00 for them. Freedom and responsibility. We want to choose what healthcare our children receive, so we need to pay for it. One would think, well, with government healthcare, we wouldn’t have to worry about that. That’s not the case. I worked with a client who was denied treatment for Hepatitis because the panel that makes decisions for Medicaid/Medicare recipients had decided that for the class of patient in which my client belonged, the benefit of the treatment did not justify the cost. The difference was this client of mine had no other options for paying for it. She had given responsibility to Medicaid/Medicare for paying for her healthcare (like we did our insurance company), and so lost the freedom to choose what healthcare treatments she could receive. I could give you many more examples in different areas, including housing, health, and food, but this would be a lot longer. Freedom and responsibility cannot be separated. If we want freedom, we must take responsibility. That is the foundation of all of my political philosophy.

 

Now, to some of your specific points. I’m not sure why you, who are “pro-choice,” have such a venomous attitude towards organizations like the Pregnancy Help Center (PHC). Allow me to explain to you what the PHC does. When women come to us, we welcome them. We do an assessment as to what their needs are. Then we offer them directly or make a referral to a place where their needs can be met. We offer directly mental health and social work support. We offer them directly clothing and food for both them and their baby. We make referrals for housing, healthcare, and other things that we cannot provide directly. We do this with a loving and nonjudgmental attitude with the idea that if a woman’s needs are met for material, social and emotional support, then it would remove the reasons she would feel she needs to have an abortion. If a woman chooses, after meeting with us, that abortion is the best choice for her, we do not stop her. We will not refer her to an abortion provider, because that violates our religious belief, but since you believe in religious tolerance, I’m sure you don’t have a problem with that since she can find abortion providers without our help. We do not deny abortion services or seek to have abortions made illegal. We provide a service to women directly, without asking for government support, hoping to stop 1 abortion at a time by offering a woman a choice when she feels there is no other alternative. I’m not out to convince the world that abortion is wrong.  I believe that abortion is wrong, and I put that belief into action by helping women who are in unplanned pregnancies, and hopefully prevent an abortion by helping them get what they need so they don’t feel that they need to choose to end their pregnancy. If they make that choice, I’m not going to stop them, but because I believe it is wrong, I’m not going to help them either. That’s true tolerance. They are free to act in a way that they think is right. I am free to act according to my conscience. I would imagine that you who are pro-choice can’t have a problem with us offering a woman an alternative to abortion as one of the possible choices for her to make. Why is that so wrong to you?

 

It’s actually ironic to me that you say that “my” group would support “a one thought order”, while your group would not, specifically in the instance of privatizing education. You are the one who is advocating a one school system run by the government, and you bemoan the fact that the government then puts regulations on education. Remember, we cannot have freedom without responsibility. If you want the government to provide education, then the government has the authority to decide on standards, curriculum, and every other aspect of education. You cannot expect the government to take responsibility for providing education, and then allow schools to be free to do what they want. You cannot give up responsibility and keep your freedom. Privatizing education would allow everyone the freedom to choose the education they want their children to have. If a person is an agnostic, they could send their child to a secular school where religion is not included in the curriculum. If a person is Christian, the person could choose to send their children to a Christian academy. Privatizing education actually allows people to send their children to a school where they feel the values they want their children to learn would be taught. The “one-size-fits-all” public, government regulated education system that you value does not allow for that kind of diversity. Children aren’t allowed to pray openly in their school if they choose freely to do so. Christian children with traditional beliefs about marriage, for example, are often forced into sex education classes that teach that they should be accepting of things that contradict their traditional values. Why is it that tolerance only applies to those who agree with the liberal agenda? With the public, government education system in place, many people do not have a choice as to where to send their children, and so are forced to send their children to schools that teach things that violate their personal beliefs. Of course, giving this greater freedom in education would mean greater responsibility, especially in terms of funding. People would have to pay their children’s schools directly, rather than having their taxes go to the state and local governments to be divided among schools that they may not even utilize. It would remove state authority over education. What would ensure educational excellence is the competition that would exist between schools. Lesley and I took the choice of schools very seriously, knowing we would not be using the public schools. We chose St. Peter’s because of its reputation for being so strong academically. Competition between the private schools creates the drive to be the very best school, because most (not all, but most) would want to send their children to the school where their children will receive the best education. Competition between the schools would also ensure lower costs. Private education is expensive, but we would not have to pay property taxes to support schools anymore. Lesley and I and you currently pay taxes to support a broken, dysfunctional (even you say so) educational system that we don’t utilize. Lesley and I don’t use it because we use the private schools. You don’t use it because you don’t have children. Privatizing education would mean that people would only pay for the school they are using. Why should we be paying for a public service that we don’t even use? You can look at the Catholic and secular private school system in St. Louis as a model. Some are more expensive than others. The ones that are most expensive offer multiple scholarships to ensure that if a child is academically capable, that child can attend. It would also eliminate the idea that all education needs to be the same. If you have a young person, for example, who has a high interest in mechanics, why should this young person be forced to sit through years of English grammar classes? This young person and the parent(s) could choose to send him to a school that focuses on mechanics and engineering at an earlier age, and the child could be engaged in education in a way that actually prepares him to be in the work force. We can’t do that now, because the government regulates what education children receive. When people abdicated the responsibility of educating their children to the government, they lost the freedom of allowing their children to learn academically, socially, and morally the values that they hold.

 

I also think it is ironic that you say that “my” group wants to maintain a “one thought order” while “your” group wants to maintain diversity and tolerance despite personal and religious beliefs, but you think of me as an “angry, white, religious guy.” That is incredibly insulting and demeaning. I know you don’t mean for me to be insulted by that, but I am. Allow me to enlighten you about the diversity that constitutional conservatives like me believe in.

 

The only reason that the government is involved in the gay marriage question in the first place is because of taxes. It is written into our tax code that married couples get tax credits for being married and having a family. If the government were to abolish tax credits for marriage and family (which can only happen if the government establishes a fair tax), then there would be no more need for the government to be involved in marriages at all. That makes the question of gay marriage a religious issue. Gay people who want to be married in a church could go to a church that allows gay couples to marry. I personally believe, based on my religious faith, that marriage is ordered by God and can only exist between a man and a woman. This is what my church teaches. But if a different church wanted to allow gay marriage, what would that matter to me? I go to the church whose teachings make sense to me. They can go to the church whose teachings make sense to them. That’s tolerance. Tolerance is not trying to get the Catholic Church to change its teachings because you don’t like them.

 

As a constitutional conservative, abortion is a state’s right issue. The Constitution of the United States is silent on the matter of abortion, so states should be allowed to set their own laws through their own legislative processes. One state may make abortion illegal altogether, while another state may allow abortions without any limitations. That’s tolerance. Tolerance is not trying to get people who believe that abortion is a moral wrong to change their religious beliefs.

 

I know that government is, unfortunately, necessary. As a constitutional conservative, however, I believe the function of government is limited. I believe that the government is responsible for providing for the protection of the United States from enemies both foreign and domestic. That requires a strong military. Probably the closest I get to the idea of welfare and disability is the debt that is owed to those who have served in the military protecting us from threats. Our veterans deserve lifelong health care and benefits for the service they did for you and me, but for me that goes along with a having a strong military. It incentivizes military service for people. I also believe that government is responsible for ensuring the means of interstate commerce, and negotiating between states for commerce. That’s it. Limited government.

 

I do not believe the federal government is responsible for providing welfare and education. Once again, those are states issues. The needs of Missouri are not the same as the needs of California or New York or Wisconsin or Wyoming in terms of caring for the poor and the disabled. This is a state issue, not a federal one. What works in one state will not work in another, because of different population, different demographics, and different fund sources. The states should have sole authority to provide what welfare and medical help they determine is best suited for the needs of the state, not the federal government with, again, its “one-size-fits-all” approach. I also believe that if we as a people, both humanists like yourself and religious people like me, were a little bit more radical in our generosity toward the poor and the disabled, there would be no need for welfare. We would understand that part of our responsibility is to take care of each other. Is that a high moral standard? Sure. But it’s one that is universally accepted. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

 

You have these beliefs that I want everyone to think like me, act like me, believe like me, and eat, sleep, and dress like me. I’m not the one calling you names, like “an angry, white, liberal woman,” because I don’t agree with you. I’m not the one who thinks you should be silent about your strong convictions, and pay for things that you find morally offensive. I’m not the one who thinks that you should be forced to accept things that you believe are wrong. I’m not the one calling organizations that you support, like Planned Parenthood, “dangerous” because I don’t agree with them.

 

I remember during the 2008 elections being called all kinds of names. I was called a misogynist because I believe that abortion is wrong. I was called a homophobe because I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I was called a racist because I believe in a smaller, fiscally conservative, constitutional government, and so would not vote for Obama. I get tired of being called names by the liberal left, and told I’m intolerant because I don’t agree with you. The only way you would consider me being tolerant is if I said I agree with you. What a crock of crap! I don’t care what you believe, and I don’t care if you act out on your beliefs. I just want to be free to believe what I believe, and act on my beliefs. How does that make me different than you? As the system exists, I am forced to support things, like a dysfunctional, broken educational system that I don’t use; like PP, whose philosophy I don’t agree with; like federal (let me repeat: FEDERAL) welfare and Medicaid/Medicare. I am forced by the system to participate in the system that violates my morals and beliefs. How is that tolerant of me? Privatizing everything, as is my argument, allows for true tolerance, diversity and freedom. My money goes where I want it to go. My children are educated in the way that I think is best for my children. I become personally responsible for helping the poor and the disabled, and I am also free to help them through the organizations with whose philosophies I agree. I become personally responsible for exercising my freedom. And in being free, I, and I alone, am responsible for the consequences of my choices.

 

From what I can tell, your philosophy of government abdicates personal responsibility to the government, and limits freedom. The more responsibility we give to the government, the less free we are. The more personally responsible we are, the freer we are. I just want to be free.