Broken Not Crushed life as a statement, not an apology

I like principles. I like trying to isolate the overarching values involved in any issue, observing the forest rather than studying the trees.

I’m afraid that that perspective is being lost in the current discussion on health care. We’re being treated to specific data on need (or lack thereof), on cost, on effectiveness, on payment, etc.

Some of us (very few, it seems) are talking about Constitutionality.

But what about the principles that go deeper than even the Constitution? What about the God-given (not goverment-granted) rights that the Constitution exists merely to protect? Where does freedom come into the discussion? As something that is to be forsaken for the greater good? Or something that is to protected and fought for, no matter how good that greater good appears?

I think one reason people are getting so worked up over the specifics of President Obama’s health care plan (or “health insurance reform“, as it’s now called) is because they know, even if they don’t articulate it, that this plan is contrary to freedom, and by extension, to human dignity. Words like socialism are being used, because we intuit that this plan is not compatible with freedom as we have known it in this country. So we get bogged down in the details of whether this plan does or does not constitute socialism (ideological debates the President would prefer us to avoid) — more trees.

But the discussion really needs to take place at the level of freedom, because that’s ultimately what’s at stake.

The freedom of a man to live his life without coercion. The freedom to enjoy the reward of risk and hard work. The freedom to give from the generosity of his own heart, rather than at the point of a gun. The freedom to plan for his family as he, not someone in Washington, sees fit.

Pasted below is an excerpt I found especially powerful, taken from a recent Voices for Reason blog post entitled, “A uniquely American plan for health care reform“. (I encourage you to read the entire post for context.)

The United States was the first moral society in history. All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary co-existence of individuals.

For all the negative “tree-level” discussions of how the US has rotten health care, I think this “forest-level” principle is the most important piece of the whole debate. We lose sight of it at our own peril.

Thoughts?