Letter: Vote 'no' on Measure 101
Whenever the question arises regarding any particular tax measure, the deeper question should always be asked: Is my vote to tax my neighbor for the supposed good in question morally justified?
In other words, is it OK for me to band together with other like-minded voters to become a majority and then force others at the point of a gun to pay for the particular good that I desire? More specifically, if certain people are in need of health care, is it morally justifiable for me to force others, at the point of a gun, to pay for it?
If it is understood that among the very few legitimate actions of a government is retaliation against the initiation of force, rather than becoming the initiator of force, then the answer should be "no."So if a government should only retaliate against a thug and should not become a thug, then how would that justify a tax on something like insurance premiums, for example?
There are those who would answer that voters allow for government initiation of force all the time, by forcing the innocent and unwilling to pay for schools, roads and endless regulations. So would this type of answer be a justification or an excuse? If I come from a family tradition of wife-beating would that justify my misogynist actions?
OK, so I now can feel some voters getting angry with my suggestion that they are behaving like thugs when all they really want to do is to help poor unfortunate people in need of health care. Well, this is a case where the moral is also the practical.
What these angry voters and editors of the Spotlight clearly do not understand is that a truly free market in health care would be the best way to provide health care for everyone. But a free market and the initiation of force are antithetical. Continued government thuggery in health care may help a few in the short term, but will definitely harm everyone in the long term. The incalculable harm to free market health care began as far back as the administration of FDR and the swath of destruction will continue unless voters gain the wisdom and courage to stop it.
The Spotlight editors were correct about one thing though: they described government actions as 'sausage making.' What I find incomprehensible is that they are willing to continue to believe that these sausage-making masterminds will make wiser health care decisions than individuals in a free market.
Let us begin now to work toward the goal of a society free from the initiation of force.
Vote 'no' on Measure 101.
Roy A. Fuller