Wednesday, October 23, 2013

The Dichotomy of Freedom

 
I have been thinking lately about freedom and the dichotomy that exists in my life.  I love being free. Give me the time to go backpacking in the mountains where I can walk where I want, see what I want, eat as I wish, sleep wherever I find myself at the end of the day, and I am a happy camper.  I think all of us have the inherent desire to be free. The slaves wanted freedom when they lived for so many years in an unjust society. Explorers wanted the freedom to find new lands. Those venturing to the New World sought freedom. Those that crossed the Appalacian Mountains and ventured west wanted to stake their own territory and live life free from those that wanted their tax money and levy their own version of life on others. Patrick Henry uttered those famous words "give me liberty or give me death". Geeze, the state slogan for NH is 'Live free or Die'. History is filled with examples of the oppressed overthrowing the current government in a desire to be free.  Who can forget the Chinese student standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square.  I did a quick search double checking the reason for the protest and read that University students marched and gathered in Tiananmen Square to mourn the death of the General Secretary and voiced grievances against inflation, limited career prospects, and corruption of the party elite. (sounds applicable to me in the US now).

I've been thinking about freedom, in part because of the new 'affordable care act' that is coming to fruition in the states.  The very name of the act is a joke as we all know that medical health care insurance is about to skyrocket in the States. I mean, name me one Government program that is run more efficiently than an equal in the private sector? My freedom to decide if I want to have health insurance is no longer an option. I either have to get it or pay a fine and now my payment will, in part, pay for yours, if you are one the those that pays no taxes. That isn't freedom. To be honest, I don't like being told what to do when it comes to Washington bureaucrats making decisions that they themselves refuse to live by. 

Yet, I have chosen to live a life in which I have revoked my freedom by living in obedience to Katie.  Now granted, she does not rule me with an iron hand. In fact she rules with a gentle gracefulness with her decisions are very much dependent on how I will be affected. We had a discussion today regarding whether or not she should offer to work a half-day this weekend. She wanted my opinion and I told her I really don't care. Yet she is concerned with what I will be doing while she is off working.  I have lots to fill my time with. Yet, she is anxious about making this decision because it will infringe on our weekend together.

What to I wish? I wish she'd just make the decision that would best suit her.  I'm pretty adaptable and will work around her schedule.  It's not like I am just here for the weekend and then gone for the next month.  I'm hers and will be hers for the rest of my life.  As a man that has promised her my obedience and promised to submit to her as the head of our home, I have played my hand. I've told her that I prefer to put my freedom as it relates to our life together in her hands to give or withhold as she wishes.

What a difference in world views I have as Katie's sub versus my opinions and beliefs with respect to how I feel all US citizens should live. On one hand I don't desire any more freedom than what Katie deems necessary. On the other hand I want our Government to do less rather than more. I enjoy Katie keeping me dependent yet hate it when one of my freedoms are taken away when it comes to politics.  I don't make a boat-load of money but I sure don't work to have others take what isn't theirs.  More recently I am having to pay for others that do less.  I don't want to pay for men or women that are well enough to work yet chose to suck off of me and others that work for a living. I'm now expected (as an employed person) that it's not fair (or even right) anymore for me to keep what I've earned. I need to pay more to support those that choose not to work and choose not to seek work when they have no excuse not to.  Trust me, I know too many of these people personally. I don't think T Jefferson or John Adams or Benedict Arnold, or any of the other patriots that constructed our Declaration would agree with such a philosophy.  Personally I think they would tell our Pres and Legislature that believes as such to 'stick it where the sun doesn't shine' but of course, that is just conjecture on my part.

For those of you that disagree, feel free to wire me cash in the amount that would put a severe cramp into your lifestyle. After you do, I'll listen seriously to what you have to say :) 

I'm Hers

PS. Sorry for getting political but I needed to get this off my chest.

18 comments:

  1. I think you speak for a lot of people including me. Well said..... RR

    ReplyDelete
  2. First of all my compliments to you and your wife, you two have something special to be cherished.
    Second...Medicaire and Medicaid government programs only have 3% management rates compared to over 25% for private health insurance. Yes we want minimal government interference but at times government is the solution.

    Curious Man

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the stats. Here is what I have found as one that works with kids on Medicaid - they go to the doctor ALL the time. I man all the time. That drives up costs. Further, if I am correct, the Affordable Care Act will now insure 49,000,000 currently uninsured. You and I will be paying for that. Now I know that insurance is important. My frustration is with those that are capable of paying into the system that choose not to but instead continue to find ways to remain on a Welfare system that was not meant for that purpose.

      Thanks for sharing! (and I mean that)

      Delete
    2. IH,

      This is a huge problem. I'm also aware of these issues in my work. There are legions of families that do little other than manipulate the system to get as many services as possible from the government. Most don't work at all. This is something I see first hand.

      Delete
  3. Great post, and it's very interesting the paradox that we face, isn't it? We do want our freedom, but I think part of the freedom we want is the freedom to surrender and submit to our women. We want our women to have the freedom to rule us. I think it boils down to our desire to have the freedom to live life the way that suits our temperaments the best.

    Now, even though I think this is a great post.......Benedict Arnold? Seriously? I think you were testing our reading skills! LOL

    ReplyDelete
  4. Who do you think pays for emergency room visits when a simple ear ache becomes an unbearable infection? Of course it's you Mr. Taxpayer. Getting everyone insured is designed to lower the cost of medical care. Everyone knows that Americans pay a disproportionate share of their income to health care when compared to those nations with universal health care. I'll never understand why people act in contravention to their stated goals. One other thing, the greatest benefit of society is that it helps us come together and more easily structure the necessities of life. This then frees us to do things like go backpacking and look at trees and contemplate life. Every man for himself isn't freedom because then we're consumed with finding food, shelter and security. I don't have a google account or other identifier so I'm just going to sign this so you'll know I believe enough in what I say to put my name on it. Michael Thompson.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry, but being forced to buy insurance I may not want is NOT freedom! And paying for the health coverage of others unwilling to work with MY hard earned income through increased taxation is not freedom, either.

      Delete
  5. Michael, Have you EVER said 'no' when the checkout person asked you to donate a dollar for MS, or Coats for Kids or some other worthy cause. Have you EVER passed a hitchhiker and not stopped? Of course you have. We all have. That privilige is called freedom. It may not be ethical or moral but it's your right to leave an old man soaking in a cold rain because you don't want your car wet. That is freedom. The irritant to the affordable care act is that it infringes on your and my freedom. and it will cost us more. Checkout the % of taxes people pay in England where socialism abounds. Its way more than you and I pay. And answer me this. Name me one country in the entire world in which socialism has succeeded for 200 years. You will find not one. I wonder why.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Socialism in England - don't make me cry. We have a right wing government hell bound on importing all that is worst of the Tea Party and other Neo Liberals and selling off the National Health service to American companies. Sometimes things are best done by governments. Ever wondered why places like Sweden have the happiest citizens.

    In all countries we pay taxes. What's different in terms of your freedom - to pay taxes for the 'affordable care act' or to pay taxes to fund defence, or education, or whatever. No difference; you and I don't have the freedom to not pay.

    I suggest that neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism survive. There are things best done collectively. The USA is a mixed economy just like every other (including China) - it's just the balance that varies (and often within any one country over time).

    I've always read Christ as being a socialist (small s).

    All good wishes

    Tony Harrison

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks Tony, I'm sure you know much better than I ever will what it's like to live in the UK. As for Sweeden, I'm sure it's much more complex than the government. Family, income, lifestyle, climate, etc all factor into one being happy. I appreciate you sharing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The U.S. spends 17% of its GDP on health care now and only 84% of the population will be covered. The World Health Organization rates the U.S. at number 37 in health care. Cuba is rated # 39. France was rated # 1 spending 12% of its GDP. as a nation we are consumed with marginalizing the lower class such as cutting food stamps. At the same time, we allow corporate america to run wild in our government. We need to promote a heathier life style such as fixing our food system (watch the documentery Food Inc.). As far as private business doing a better job in running pensions vs. Social Security not even close, look at how many private company pensions have went broke and people were robbed of there retirement. We the people of this nation have been taught to accept less and that it is good that big business will have more I will never know. My suggestion to everyone is to quit listening to the False( FOX) news channel and get there info somewhere else and quit living in fear. Thank You

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous, thank you for writing as I do appreciate the comments but you are ignoring the thrust of the post - FREEDOM. Having government do more FOR us is not freedom. That's imprissonment. It is the abuse of the free money that we offer as a temporary help for those needing work that has me so pissed off. When I see healthy men show up day after day where I work and just hang out with their Obama phone in hand it ticks me off. I'm paying for that Obama phone. I'm paying for the money they are getting and they are doing nothing to seek employment. I'm paying for the guy I know that just through out his foster kid when he turned 18 because he could no longer get the almost $1000/month income from 'raising this kid' and now just got another. He isn't 'raising anyone. He's sucking off the government and using a child as a means to keep him from having to get his ass up every morning and earn an honest wage. Its the mother that wants more babies because she gets more money, not that she needs more babys to raise as a single mom but the babies are tied to her governmental wage. That is so sad for the children involved. It's people like these that ruin it for all of us. And I don't want to pay for them. Its a loss of freedom and you know what? Those that rely on the government to keep them alive aren't free either. They may think they are but they are stuck living on a subsistance living that they will never get out of and saddest of all - their kids are watching and more than enough will continue the process.

      Delete
    2. Well then lets look at the Dept of Defense or the Dept. of Agriculture and how much corporate scandle that goes on there. You are stepping over $100 dollar bills to pick up pennies when you go after the poor. Who are we going to go after when the poor completely stripped. Denmark was named the happiest country and guess what they have socialized health care. I only try to look at the facts not some warped strategy that the tea bag faggots have come up with. Thank You

      Delete
  9. This is so disappointing! I've enjoyed your keen thoughts and intelligent comments but your unfortunate (and narrow-minded!) venture into politics has cast a pall over your words, for some time I fear.

    Yes, being required to have health insurance is an infringement on freedom. No doubt about it. But then again so is having to wear a seat belt or having to ad smoke detectors to your house or not being able to smoke inside the office or even having to stop at a traffic light (or having to drive on the right side of the road!) = and I HATE traffic lights!. Living in a society requires sacrificing these and other "freedoms." The only question is whether they are justified by the social gain, and all economists and public health professionals recognize that universal health care is critical to (1) the health of our nation and (2) an effective health care system.

    The impingement on your freedom is small and the social gain is big so suck it up! Be a U.S. citizen!

    I also agree that people should not be abusing or gaming the system. That is immoral, inefficient and costly. But that is a compliance/enforcement problem, not a problem with the program, be it welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance, income taxes, etc.

    Plus, if you are going to rant political, you should at least get your facts right. As others have commented, US health care is the pits internationally - lower quality and much higher cost. - and growing at an unsustainable rate. So it must be changed!

    - You subscribe to the belief that private sector is always more efficient than the government. But that is not true in health care. VA system, Medicare, Medicaid all are less expensive than private insurance. Now that may be because the private health care market is not truly competitive, with few entrants, opaque costs, indirect buying (through employment), pressure situations (making health care choices when gravely ill), all making consumer shopping virtually impossible. That is why almost all developed countries have some sort of government involvement, more commonly a more centralized single-payer system.

    - The government bureaucrats and not exempt from the ACA. But, like most working Americans, they have their health insurance through their employment and are not directly affected by the insurance mandate provision of the ACA.

    - This is not socialism, not even close. It's not even "socialized medicine," as the doctors, hospitals, even insurance companies are not owned by, run by, or employed by the government. It is a "free-market" Republican idea, proposed initially by the Heritage Foundation. It was proposed and adopted by a Republican governor of Massachusetts, where I live. And it works here, without the drumbeat of "freedom denied" or "socialism."

    P.S. Sorry, but I had to get this off my chest!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sorry, I'm confused about your resentment of government mandating you purchase health insurance? Do you not drive? Do you mind that your state requires you to purchase car insurance to ensure that you have the ability to pay for your actions? I'm not clear on the ethical difference (yes, I understand the Constitutional one of state vs. Federal). For health insurance to work, everyone needs it (that's why it's insurance - see "moral hazard". IMO the penalties for not having it weren't nearly severe enough. I suppose an alternative would be allowing people w/out insurance to go die if they can't pay out of pocket, but that raises other problems. Curious as to how you reconcile this. Yes, I think everyone who can (and needs to) work, should. No, I don't like paying for "disabled" who are gaming the system, but you're conjoining two very different concepts. I'll add that. a. I've studied healthcare extensively and b. likely pay more taxes than you do.
    capriol

    ReplyDelete
  11. I could not agree more than I do!

    ReplyDelete