I’m sure you’ve heard by now about Greg Collett, the Tea Party candidate for the House from Idaho who says government-paid healthcare is evil but still enrolled his 10 children in Medicaid. But you have to see the long, rambling, incoherent and contradictory diatribe he posed to his website to explain away that hypocrisy. It’s delightfully moronic.
Let me start with a quick summary of my views on the proper role of government. Good government is based on the concept of individual, God-given rights. (Evil forms of government entertain the nonsensical notion of collective rights.) The foundation of government is an equal right to life. Property, or natural resources and their derivatives, is essential to sustain life. Liberty is necessary to acquire and control property. These three things form our basic rights. We also have an inherent right to secure these fundamental rights, all of which are gifts from God.
Our rights are limited by the rights of others. If we violate the rights of others, we have committed a crime. We hire government to help us secure our rights, which is accomplished by punishing crime. If we assign any power to government that we do not have a right to as an individual, then government becomes tyrannical. In fact, if we support the use of government to do anything that would be considered a crime if we were to do it individually, we are no more or less than a criminal at heart.
Government is force, and using government to force men to do good works takes away the agency of man. When government is used to take money from one citizen and give it to another (even for a seemingly good cause) it simply amounts to legal plunder, making government, and those that support it, the criminal. Just as we cannot preemptively interfere in the lives of others, we should not do so using government.
Right. Except gay people, of course. God doesn’t like them so they obviously can’t have any “God-given rights” and they should be punished and discriminated against.
Let me set the record straight. Yes, I participate in government programs of which I adamantly oppose. Many of them, actually. Am I a hypocrite for participating in programs that I oppose? If it was that simple, and if participation demonstrated support, then of course. But, my reason for participation in government programs often is not directly related to that issue in and of itself, and it certainly does not demonstrate support. For instance, I participate in government programs in order to stay out of the courts, or jail, so that I can take care of my family; other things I do to avoid fines or for other financial reasons; and some are simply because it is the only practical choice. With each situation, I have to evaluate the consequences of participating or not participating.
By way of example, here are a few government programs and policies that I oppose because they do not conform to the proper role of government, yet I participate in them: I am against marriage licenses, but I still got one to get married; I am against the foster care program, but I became a foster parent; I am against property taxes, but I own property and pay the tax; I am against federal ownership of land by the Forest Service and BLM, but I use the land for hiking, backpacking, camping, and fishing; I am against national parks, but I visit them; I am against driver’s licenses, vehicle registration, license plates, and mandated liability insurance, but I comply with all of them to drive; I am against public funding of transportation systems, but I still use them; I am against building permits, fees, and inspections, but I get them as needed; I am against public libraries, but my family uses them; I am against public schools, but I occasionally use their facilities; I am against occupational licensing, but I use the services of individuals and companies that comply with those requirements; I am against USDA inspections, but I still use products that carry their label; I am against the Uniform Commercial Code and designated legal business entities such as corporations, but I use the services of such entities and have set up several of them for myself; I am against the current structure of our judicial system and courts, but I still use them; I am against the 17th Amendment, but I still cast my vote for Senators; and the list could go on and on.
Do I really have to point out the obvious difference between complying with the law because doing so would be criminal and voluntarily getting government welfare that you claim you don’t need and think is an evil thing? He’s trying really, really hard to distract attention from his hypocrisy and making himself look even worse in the process.