Sunday, November 8, 2009

Silencing of the Mighty Guns

It has been some time since my last post, for those that followed the deployment to the heat and sand, you can understand my absence. As much as I intended on ’sabbatical’ from the blogging world, a very troubling story arises which brings me back in. Somewhat fitting that this story about asking the USS Constitution to use “less powder’ or stop shooting all together, turn down the volume so to speak, of both the guns and colors with the National Anthem comes on the heels of the media version of Harry Potter and the Fort Hood murders.  Seems that just like we can not mention “he who shall not be named”, we can not use the terrorist word as that was stricken down from the Homeland Security Director – thus it obviously is a case of workplace violence.  Totally misunderstood.  It’s not like there were signs or anything…

If the timing of this story with Old Ironsides were not enough with the murders, it comes days before Veteran’s Day.  What should be a day of remembrance, a day to honestly thank those who heard the call and answered their Nation.  However, a very disturbing trend lately has me realizing that many loose sight of what they have, and the freedom to truly live the way they want -thanks to those who have gone before us, and those who still to this day stand guard on what we chose to preserve.

Too many will walk around that day, not even noticing the date on the calendar, and when they do, the meaning of it.  Not until they see their calendar and notice the odd color of the day, or the notation designating a US Holiday while they then realize “oh, it’s veteran’s day” (lower case emphasized).  It originally was designated to observe the end of WWI, thus Armistice Day.  In 1954 Congress changed it’s designation and to this day is for honoring the near 25 million veterans.  Of course, these same folks that will forget the day are the same ones driving around with the yellow magnets showing their “support our troops” declaration.  I wonder how many eco-friendly cars in Charlestown have them on their trunks, owned by the same protesters for the the oldest commissioned vessel in our Fleet.

So where does that leave us?  Those still serving.  If we take the advice of one of those in the condo’s, we could just modify our standards:

“On Sat and Sun, would you be open to eliminating or delaying the morning salute to say 9am?”

Sure, forget tradition.  Forget all those that went before us, and just make it 9am. Heck, let do colors at noon.  Why not?  There really is no more enemy – we’ve already established that from here on out we are dealing with man made disasters. Perhaps we should all just  pack up, go home, turn over the guard, and wish us all the best.  Let’s face it, I missed the entire 6th grade of my son’s life last year while deployed for 13 months.  These condo folks must have it right; everyone loves us again – no more enemies.

What is often heard at a Navy retirement, my brothers and sisters in the Marines, Army, Air Force, and Coasties I am sure could modify to their liking; the message is the same – we stand the Watch.  What happens if we no longer do that?

Aye mates, for many years…

This Man stood the watch.

While some of us lay about our bunks at night sleeping…

This Man stood the watch.

While others were with their loved ones…

This Sailor stood the watch.

While others were attending school…

This Shipmate stood the watch.

And yes, even before many of us were born…

This Shipmate stood the watch.

As our families watched the storm clouds of war, brewing on the horizons of history…

He stood the watch.

Though he saw his family ashore, often needing his guidance…

he knew he must stay…

Because he had the watch.

You silence the guns, you stop our traditions, and you create feel-good terms and think you will still wake-up to the land you love (ok, the land that you presently occupy and  do what you want)?  We serve so that you may enjoy the freedoms that you have.  We don’t do it for recognition, we don’t do it for the medals, the plaques, the money – we swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.  Of course, just knowing that verbatim make us a mobster in some eyes, but we don’t worry.  We stand the watch.  We will die before someone comes over here and tells our children how they will have to live their lives.

We have pride.  We have tradition.  We have standards.  Our colors do no run, and neither do we.  We know the history of where we have been, and will not forget who was before us, and those still with us.

Of course, one thing those in the condos should also remember – we have pretty good aim also, and if the guns get silenced, I hope the final salvo clears all powder in the mags.  Wait, did I just say that out loud ?

We have your back Old Ironsides…

View This Poll
polls

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Boudoir Belle

Kiki de Montparnasse is one of those one-stop shops for all your boudoir needs, and frankly I don’t think there are too many of those about. Sure, there’s your Agent Provocateur, Myla and Coco de Mer, but is that really enough, I ask you? KdM serves up not only seriously sexy lingerie, but also throws in some candles, bedding, accessories (I’m loving the suspender tank top)  and “instruments of pleasure” in one slick, elegant and girlie package. With boutiques in NY and LA, and concessions in Selfridges, Liberty, 10 Corso Como etc, there is no excuse for not having a proper boudoir any more. Plus, next season is all about underwear as outerwear so get with the programme!

Third Party Time? Yes Provided You Have $10 Billion and 10 Years!

Glenn Beck-11-06-09-D

Glenn Beck-11-06-09-E

To run for elected office in the United States, a candidate needs what I call MOMMA which is the following:

  1. Money
  2. Organization
  3. Message
  4. Momentum
  5. Ambition

Money is the major obtacle and reason third parties never get very far.

While I am all for starting a new political party of conservatives, libertarians, and independents who advocate limited constitutional government, some very wealthy individuals, billionaires, would need to bankroll the effort.

I think it would take a minimum of ten years and ten billion dollars to pull it off.

There are simply very few people with this kind of money and patience to support the foundation of a national political party.

Keep in mind what you are up against by looking at the foundations that fund the progressive radical socialist Democratic Party:

Funders

“…This section of DiscoverTheNetworks examines the immensely wealthy charitable foundations that provide financial backing for leftist groups and causes. These foundations (sometimes called endowments or charitable trusts) are nongovernmental, nonprofit entities whose assets are provided by donors and managed by their own officials, who each year earmark portions of their assets for what they consider to be socially useful purposes. Most of these foundations can be classified under the following categories:

a) Community foundations, which build their endowments through contributions from many donors within a given geographic region, and typically focus on local needs

b) Corporate foundations, which are private foundations established by for-profit corporations but legally separate from the parent corporation

c) Family foundations, in which the original donor or the donor’s family plays a significant role in governing the foundation

d) Independent foundations, which are private foundations, usually endowed by one source such as an individual’s bequest

e) Operating foundations, which are private foundations that use most of their income to provide charitable services or programs of their own, rather than making grants to outside organizations

f) Public foundations, which are public charities that operate significant grantmaking programs

The DiscoverTheNetworks database currently identifies more than 115 major foundations whose political and philanthropic orientations are generally Left, and whose combined assets exceed $90 billion. Many of the foundations described in this section are so large that entire cultural and political movements can be shaped by a single one of them. (See, for example, the Ford Foundation’s role in underwriting The Open Borders Lobby.) The four largest foundations that consistently fund leftist agendas are the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. The total assets of this quartet in 2004 amounted to approximately $49.343 billion. Out of this, they gave some $2.448 billion to their selected donees.

Several very large tax-exempt entities — most notably the Tides Center, but also the Liberty Hill Foundation, the Shefa Fund, and the Proteus Fund — are pass-through operations designed to mask the relationship between donor and gift. That is, they take money from donors who specify the precise groups and causes for which they want it earmarked, and in turn funnel that money to those recipients, allowing the donors to not be publicly associated with the groups being funded. Such transactions are called donor-advised funds. (The JEHT Foundation, which closed its doors permanently in 2009, was yet another pass-through.)

As of 2003, the major left-leaning foundations not only held $51 billion more in assets than their conservative counterparts (those that consistently fund groups promoting individual rights, a pro-market stance, and limited government), but also funded the Left with more than twenty-six times the funds dispensed by foundations that could be considered conservative. With many billions of dollars at their disposal, the foundations profiled in this section of DiscoverTheNetworks are positioned to permanently shift America’s political dialogue to the Left through their grant-making power. Leftist activists commonly hold key positions on the staffs and governing boards of these foundations, and in many cases they serve on multiple boards. …”

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?type=funder

Also, keep in mind the above is only the foundation money.

The executives of large corporations, law firms, and unions routinely write large checks to both the Democratic and Republican parties and their candidates.

This is why many conservative and libertarian candidates as well as radio talk show hosts still strongly urge people interested in politics to take over the Republican Party instead of starting a new party.

If you had ten years and ten billion dollars, I believe a third party is the way to go.

If you do not, then you must challenge the leadership of the Republican Party, many of which are closet progressive radical socialists or big government types.

How many Republicans have called for eliminating several of the Federal Departments and a surplus budget?

You can count them on one hand.

The problem of forming a national third political party in the United States is one economists call barriers of entry and they are quite high and real.

Still, one can dream:

The Impossible Dream 

Thursday, November 5, 2009

The Christian's Relationship to the Mosaic Law

A wonderful companion message to the one posted last evening, What were Gentile believers grafted into?.

The Gentile Believer and the Law

We have said that the experience of the ‘wretched man’ of Romans 7 is not the normal experience of a converted Gentile. It is, nevertheless, a sad fact that it may (and often does) become the abnormal experience of converted Gentiles, who, through ignorance of the great gospel truths revealed in Romans, or through the influence of Judaizing teachers and legal systems of theology, fall from their standing in grace, and seek justification, or spiritual enrichment, through law-works.

Hence the solemn warning of Galatians 5:4: ‘You are deprived of all effect from Christ, whosoever in law are being justified; you are fallen from grace.’

For as there were in Paul’s day, so are there now, many who desire ‘to be of the law, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm’ (1 Tim 1:7).

So also the struggle of that ‘wretched man’ becomes the experience of many unconverted Gentiles who, totally ignorant of remission of sins through faith in the blood of Christ, are seeking perpetually (because seeking vainly) for an inclination of the heart to keep the Mosaic law. The condition of such, if they be earnest and sincere in their desire to keep the law, is indeed ‘wretched’ in the extreme.

It was thus necessary, in addition to the revelation given in Romans 7 of deliverance for the believing Jew from the yoke of the Law, for the Letter to the Galatians to be included in the Word of God, in order to instruct and warn Gentile believers against putting themselves under that yoke.

In referring, however, to Galatians our object is simply to see what light it throws on the conflict described in Romans 7. What we find in Galatians confirms strongly the view that the experience described in Romans 7 is that of a conscientious unconverted Israelite, and not at all a ‘Christian’ experience. In fact, the main object of the Apostle in writing to the assemblies of Galatia was to warn them against teachings which would lead them into such an experience.

Galatians 2

In Galatians 2, Paul relates how he remonstrated with the Apostle Peter for compelling the Gentiles to live as the Jews do (v. 14). We can be sure that the matter in dispute is esteemed by the Spirit of God to be exceedingly important; otherwise it would not be brought to our attention in the form of a rebuke administered by Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, to Peter, the leader of the twelve.

In this connection Paul draws the line sharply between Jews and Gentiles, saying: ‘We, Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man in not justified out of the works of the Law, but out of the faithfulness of Christ, even we [Jews] have believed on Christ Jesus that we might be justified out of the faithfulness of Christ, and not out of works of Law’ (vv. 15-16).

And he adds: ‘For if I build again the things I threw down, I constitute myself a transgressor.’ That is to say, if he should set up the Law again as an obligation for himself, he would make himself a law-breaker. ‘For,’ he continues, ‘I through the Law died to the Law, that I might live to God.’

Here Paul again brings himself forward, as a typical Jew, and repeats in few words the doctrine elaborated in Romans 7.

‘I have been crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live‘, or, as the Greek may be equally well rendered, ‘I am not any longer living, it is Christ that lives in me, and the life I now live in the flesh I live by the faithfulness of the Son of God.’

It is possible for every believer to reach the place where he can make this saying of Paul his own. It involves death to sin and life to God in Christ, and the abiding presence of the Spirit of Him who raised up Christ from the dead. This verse obviously contains a condensed statement of the truth revealed in Romans 6 and 7 concerning the believer’s death (as to his old nature) with Christ, and his living again in the supernatural life of the risen Christ.

That new life is not and cannot be lived under the Law of Sinai.

‘I do not,’ says Paul, ‘make void the grace of God’ (as Peter was doing by his dissimulation and by returning to the practice of Judaism) ‘for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died for nothing’ (v. 21).

Galatians 3

Having thus dealt with the case of the believing Jew, who had been delivered from the Law by means of Christ’s death, the Apostle directly addresses the Galatians, who, being Gentiles, never were under Law, but began their relations with God in the Spirit.

The Jew began his service of God in the flesh. For him, therefore, there might be found some excuse for continuing after conversion as a man in the flesh under Law, not exercising the liberty for which Christ had made him free.

But for Gentile believers, who never were under the Law, but had the great advantage of beginning in the Spirit, to put themselves under Law and to attempt to be perfected in the flesh, was the ‘senseless’ action of those who had been ‘bewitched.’

‘O senseless Galatians, who had bewitched you,’ that you should act thus after the truth concerning Christ crucified has been plainly put before you? ‘Are you so senseless? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being perfected in the flesh?’ (Gal. 3:1-3).

It was indeed ‘senseless’ in the extreme to undertake the perfecting in the flesh of the work that was begun in the Spirit.

The Apostle then refers to Abraham, whose faith was accounted to him for righteousness, and points out that the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles out of faith, proclaimed that good news to Abraham, saying, ‘In you shall all nations (Gentiles) be blessed’ (Gal. 3:8).

The Galatians are warned of two serious facts.

First, Paul teaches that all who are of the works of Law (in contrast to those that are ‘of faith’) are under the curse of the Law.

Second, he asserts that the curse comes upon everyone who ‘does not persist in all things which are written in the book of the Law, to do them.’ From this it follows that no one is being justified with God by virtue of the Law: ‘For the just shall live out of faith; but the man that does those things (required by the Law) shall live on account of them‘ (vv. 10-12).

In view of this, it would naturally be asked, How does it come about that the Jews, who were placed under the Law, which none of them has kept, have escaped from the curse of the Law?

The answer is, ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us.’ This statement manifestly applies solely to Israel, for the curse of the Law was never pronounced against the Gentiles. Hence Paul uses in verse 3:13 the pronoun ‘us’. The contrast between Jews and Gentiles is again clearly marked by verse 14, which goes on to say that Christ was made a curse for the Jews in order that the blessing of Abraham might come not only on them, but also on the Gentiles in Christ Jesus.

The contrast between the curse of the Law, pronounced upon those who were under the Law, and the blessing of Abraham coming to the Gentile believers in Christ, is very instructive. An additional consequence of Christ’s bearing of the curse of the Law is then set forth, namely, the we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

The promise was made to Abraham and to his seed long before the Law was given. From this it follows that the promise cannot be nullified by the Law, which was given 430 years after. If then the Law was not given for the purpose of adding anything to the promise, or of taking anything from it, why was it given?

It was added for the sake of transgressions, that is in order that the repeated transgressions of the Law by every Israelite, might reveal the presence and nature of sin in the flesh, and show the futility of attempting to secure justification out of Law-works. Moreover, it was given, not as a permanent institution, but only ‘until the Seed should come to whom the promise was made’ (3:19).

This statement shows that the period of the Law was strictly limited in time, as it was limited also in scope to the children of Israel. Its era did not begin until 430 years after God had begun to deal with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their descendants; and it ceased when the promised Seed died under the Law. The curse of the Law was exhausted when Christ was made a curse by hanging on a tree (Deut. 21:23).

Whatever God’s purposes were with the Law, they were all accomplished when the promised Seed died on the Cross.

Since that event even the Jew is no longer under Law, for by no amount of law-keeping can he now secure the promised blessings of the promised land. The old covenant is entirely ended (2 Cor. 3:7-11; Heb. 7:13). The words on the Cross, ‘It is finished’ (in the original it is the single word ‘accomplished’) included the purpose of the Law, which thereupon came to an end.

The temporary character of the Law as a Divine institution is further set forth, with great clearness, in verses 23-25.

‘Before faith came,’ says the Apostle, ‘we [Jews] were kept [or guarded] under Law, having been shut up to the faith which was about to be revealed. For which purpose the Law has been our tutor up to Christ in order that we might be justified by faith. But faith having come, we are no longer under a tutor.’

By noting the tenses of the verbs, as given in the above renderings, the sense will be readily and clearly apprehended. It is very clear indeed that these statements apply only to Israelites.

After speaking in the first person of the Jews, the Apostle, addressing the Gentile Galatians, says by way of contrast:

‘For you are all the children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek.’

The contrast between the ‘we’ of verses 24 and 25 and the ‘you’ of verse 26, is very significant.

Galatians 4

Some of the statements in Galatians 4 are broad enough to embrace both Jews and Gentiles, for both were, before conversion, in bondage to the elements of the world. But the special bondage of the Jew – the yoke of the Law and the penalty of its curse – is also specifically mentioned. As the heir is ‘under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father; even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem those that were under the Law, that we might receive the status of sons. But because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, ‘Abba Father.’” (4:2-6)

The defective reading of verse 6 in the Authorised Version ‘And because you are sons,’ instead of ‘But,’ as it is in the original, hides the contrast between the case of the believing Israelite and that of the believing Gentile. The former needed to be redeemed from under the Law (the guardian) before he could receive the freedom of a son, while for the latter there was no such need. The bondage of the Gentiles was a different kind of bondage. Not knowing God at all, thy were in bondage to those who by nature are not gods (4:8). But the point we wish to emphasise is that they were not under Law at any time, and this point is very clearly presented in the passage we have been examining.

The Believer’s State Is Not One Of Lawlessness

In emphasizing the important truth that the believer is not under the Law, because, if a Jew he was delivered from the yoke of the Law by the death of Christ, and if a Gentile he was never under the Law at all, must not obscure the important fact that the state of the believer is not one of lawlessness – far from it.

What is spoken of in Romans 7 as ‘the Law’ is the Law given to the Israelites through Moses. That Law was by no means a complete statement of God’s requirements, though it was quite sufficient for the purpose of revealing the presence of sin in the flesh, for demonstrating the utter corruption of human nature, and for making manifest the exceeding sinfulness of sin. The teachings of Jesus Christ showed that the full requirements of God’s holiness and righteousness are far above those of the Law of Moses.

‘You have heard that it was said by (or to) them of old, You shall not kill … But I say to you, Whoever is angry with his brother without a cause, etc.‘ (Matt. 5:21-48).

The believer of this dispensation is not living under the Law of Moses. That law was given for the regulation of the conduct of men in the flesh. The believer is ‘not in the flesh, but in the Spirit.’ (Rom. 8:9). He is not, therefore, operating in the sphere in which the Law of Moses was effective.

The child of God, though not under the Law of Moses, is ‘not without Law to God, but in-law to Christ’ (ennomous Christou, 1 Cor. 9:21). He owns the risen Christ as His Lord, and judges that his entire life in the body is to be lived no longer unto himself, but unto Him who died for him and rose again (2 Cor. 5:15).

Being in the Spirit he is to be governed by ‘the law of the Spirit‘ (Rom. 8:2). Being in Christ he is to ‘fulfil the law of Christ’ (Gal. 6:2).

This is a condition very different from that of the Israelite under the Law of Moses, and on a much higher plane. The life of the child of God is not a life hedged about by constraints and prohibitions, but a life of liberty in which he is free to follow all the leadings of the Spirit, and all the inclinations of the new nature which the Spirit imparts to those whom He quickens.

It is a life of freedom – not freedom to sin, but freedom not to sin.

He who practices sin is the slave of sin; only the free man can refuse obedience to the demands of sin, and yield himself to God as one who is alive from the dead. The Word of God abounds in directions addressed to the children of God, by which their walk, while yet in this body, is to be guided and controlled.

These directions are found in the commandments of Christ, and in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, whom the risen Lord empowered to be the channel for the revelation of His special communications to and concerning the Church. And these directions are illustrated by all the holy Scriptures, the things which happened to the Israelites having been written, not for our imitation, but for our admonition (1 Cor. 10:11).

The believer has been called into liberty; and he is exhorted to stand fast in the liberty for which Christ has made him free (Gal. 5:1). Yet he is not to use his liberty so as to furnish occasions for gratifying the desires of his old nature (Gal. 5:13).

Having been brought, through the resurrection of Christ, into the sphere of the Spirit, the believer is commanded to remain there; that is, to be occupied with and interested in the things of the Spirit. While so engaged he cannot at the same time be fulfilling the desires of the flesh.

‘This I say then, walk in [or by] the Spirit, and you shall not fulfil the desires of the flesh’ (Gal. 5:16). ‘If you be led of the Spirit you are not under the Law’ (Gal. 5:18).

Ephesians, which especially reveals the position of believers as quickened together with Christ, raised up (i.e. ascended) together with Him, and seated together in the heavenly places in Christ, abounds in practical directions for the believer’s guidance in all his earthly relations. We…call attention to them in order to guard against the supposition that, because the believer of this dispensation is not under the Law of Moses, he is therefore in a state of lawlessness.

The main points, then, of the teaching we have been examining are these:

  • That the sufferings of Christ were incurred for the sins of His people, that is to say, the sins of those whom God justifies upon the principle of faith.
  • That the death of Christ delivers the believing sinner, whether Jew or Gentile, from the servitude of sin.
  • That the death of Christ also brought the age of the Law to an end, and delivered all converted Israelites from the yoke of the Law.
  • That the resurrection of Christ brings all believers into the sphere of a new humanity, where there is a new life, whose Source is the risen Christ, which life is imparted by the Spirit of God to the believer while the later is yet in the mortal body.
  • That believers, though not under the Law of Moses, are governed by the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, and are required to ‘fulfil the law of Christ.’

Messianic Good News, The Christian’s Relationship to the Mosaic Law by Philip Mauro

Yeh, that'll stop the little buggers

David Davis

Telling them all about how lovely sex is, from the age of about 8, has not stopped them doing it as soon as the boys can get it up and the girls can slip it in, so that strategy has failed…so let’s just tell them even earlier, shall we!

I may be very obtuse, but I can’t see the logic in telling very very young children all about things to do with things which the same tellers ensure that they can’t consent to, for years and years. The difference between the ages of five and sixteen, seen from the viewpoint of an infant, is a stretch of geological time. I know, I remember.

These are things best left ot the families of the children, to sort out…ah, I forgot! The State now owns children, not families!

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Virtual Window Shopping

Marks & Spencer, Liberty & American Apparel have all signed up to NearLondon’s virtual West End, joining John Lewis which announced its decision to participate in the interactive project earlier this month.

Some of the London’s most famous shopping areas – Oxford Street, Regent Street, Bond Street and Leicester Square – will be mapped out.

Internet users will be able to wander down streets, click into stores and browse the items for sale. The virtual world will be made as realistic as possible, with even weather conditions reproduced in real time.

The environment will also be enriched by buses driving down streets, news stands that reflect breaking stories and content from films being screened at cinemas in Leicester Square streamed on billboards. Christmas lights will even turn on once those in the real world are switched on.

Read more here

 

Want to Really Improve Health Care?

Via Instapundit:  The post at fightaging.org, The Doom that Fell Upon Medical Progress in the US, only touches upon the tip of the iceberg of the needless human suffering caused by the exploitation of patients — the consumers — by “our” medical system.  In the underlying post they cite, American Healthcare Facialism, Prof.  DiLorenzo from the Ludwig von Mises Institute captures more of the problem, from a political and bureaucratic perspective, caused by state interference.

The problem is older and more deeply rooted in human nature.  G. B. Shaw observed in 1902:

No doctor dare accuse another of malpractice. … But the effect of this state of things is to make the medical profession a conspiracy to hide its own shortcomings.  No doubt the same may be said of all professions.  They are all conspiracies against the laity and I do not suggest that the medical conspiracy is either better or worse … but it may be less suspect.

The medical community’s monopoly is based on technical knowledge that was wholly their property.  The laity was largely prevented from acquiring this knowledge or even the means of acquiring it.  The internet has profoundly altered that balance of knowledge.  Motivated “patients”, i.e., consumers, now frequently know more about their diseases than most of the doctors they encounter, much less the nurses or others of the doctor-lite crowd.  The doctor is no longer the sole, literate, non-religious man in the village.

We have granted the medical profession, and all the other allied “professions” and medical institutions, a monopoly over our medical care.  It has gone so far as to prevent us from taking medicines that we need without their permission.  That monopoly is no longer justified by the balance of knowledge — and hence, power — that now exists.

Prof. DiLorenzo points out the influence states have in inhibiting competition.  Again, using doctors as a conspicuous example:

Physicians have long enjoyed a degree of monopoly power derived from state legislatures that delegate to the American Medical Association (the doctors’ union) the “right” to limit entry into medical schools through accreditation. Only graduates of accredited (by the AMA) medical schools are licensed to practice medicine. [Not quite true.  Graduates from foreign schools can practice after passing a harder test than is required of AMA school graduates.]  The AMA has used these state-granted privileges to limit both the number of medical schools and the number of medical-school graduates. The reduced supply of doctors drives up the price of medical care and the income of AMA members.

The physicians produce an artificial shortage of doctors for the express purpose of providing full, highly paid employment for all physicians, even the most incompetent.  Implicitly, they are telling us — the people, the consumers — that their prosperity and job security are more important than our lives and health.  Like the military’s up-or-out policies — if you are passed over for promotion a certain number of times, then you are discharged — we need to graduate so many doctors that the incompetent cannot stay in practice.  And we need to demand the transparency of results — medical outcomes — identified by individual physician, to know which doctors are good and which are not.

The word “patient” indicates that, traditionally, we are to be passive, medically, in the care the doctor provides.  This is exactly what must change if we are to rectify the priorities of the health care system.

We must return to first principles, those upon which our republic was founded.  We must be clear in our use of words.  This is not a matter of Democrat/blue/left/progressive vs. Republican/red/right/conservative.  This has nothing to do with the political parties of the twentieth or twenty-first centuries or on which side of the hall the French factions congregated in the eighteenth.  These are all false, one-dimensional scales that mislead rather than enlighten.

This is a matter of liberty vs. tyranny.  Tyranny has its own eternal allure.  ” I am weak, I want someone to take care of me, make decisions for me.”  This motivates children, the weak and the slavish.  At the other end of the true scale is Liberty.  “I am strong, I can take care of myself and my loved ones, I will decide what is in my own best interests.”  These attitudes motivate the strong and the free.

In the true meaning of the term, Liberty is what we strive for.  The only progress that we can make is toward greater individual strength and enlightenment to support greater liberty.  Heading back from Liberty towards Tyranny is regression.  As usual, the terms have been stood on their heads in the current national health-care-reform debate:  a Liberal means one who wants the government to have a greater and more tyrannical role, and a Progressive is one who sees movement towards Tyranny as “progress.”  a Progressive is actually a Regressive, a Liberal, a wannabe Tyrant.

We must privatize the health care system, break up the monopolies, encourage competition, demand transparency of outcomes, and take back our power as free adults and as consumers.  We do have the power.  It is up to us to use it.

India is one indicator of the possibilities brought about by an abundance of doctors and freer access to medicine.