The debate over Obama's health care plan continues but many liberals are painting anyone who disagrees with such plans to be an insane extremist or a robot to be commanded by conservative extremists. Wouldn't it be more fair to say that individuals will differ and that this is democracy in action?
by Richard Sutton
The way opponents of nationalized health care are being characterized is dehumanizing which might be amusing if you consider that the social liberals are the ones who are supposed to "care about people". I have a few rhetorical questions:
If dissent is not respected then we might assume that individuals don't matter and if individuals don't matter then what is to prevent those in power from doing anything they wish to anyone they wish?
If individuals do not control themselves when they dissent do they control themselves when they agree (or at all)? If the individual is characterized as not controlling their own actions then can it be assumed that they need to be controlled?
That dissent against Obama's plan is merely machinery while dissent For it is characterized as inherently genuine and good. If some kinds of thinking are bad shouldn't those in power decide what people will think?
The implied threat of "flag at whitehouse.gov" has a chilling effect on honest dissent. If it was appropriate to encourage citizens to "tattle" on their neighbors in the former Soviet Union the is it OK here?
I'll allow my gentle readers to draw their own conclusions...
Un-American Attacks on Health Care Reform - Nick Coons
A Culture of Dependency - Austin Raynor
Universal Health Care: Trampling the Constitution - Austin Raynor