Needing Wants

If only I could remember where I first heard the phrase “we are a country of wants…who believes they are needs.” Yep. It is the entitlement mentality. That phrase represents the new movement for “rights” that are neither inalienable nor practical. How often have we heard a self-important politician or a “rights” advocate proclaim their rights to healthcare? Well, my poor misguided fellow humans, you have an inalienable right to life (which many deny to the unborn), its up to you to find a way to succor it. God has provided you with life. Do what you can to preserve it. All of us share the same inalienable rights, but we may have varying methods or preferences for preserving or enhancing our lives. One such method may be found by seeking the best most high-fallutin’ healthcare regime available. Others may prefer to follow more natural, herbal methods. And some of us may wish to roll the dice and live a totally debauched and gluttonous life. It seems, therefore, that YOUR healthcare is neither a right for you nor an obligation of mine.

As we attempt to draw the distinctions between wants and needs, rights and needs, we might use the following illustration: Harley avoids doctors and pharmacy counters whereas Farley goes to ER for a hangnail and takes a number of meds. Should Harley be forced to subsidize Farley’s medical addiction through punitive taxation, and should Farley cough up the money to pay for Harley’s natural multi-vitamins? If you have answered in the affirmative, then it isn’t much of a leap to insist that we should purchase Farley’s food for him because his vitamins supplement an extremely healthy diet. Because we agree to by Farley’s food in the previous illustration, we are socially, morally and equitably obligated to purchase the food for Harley. He prefers Big Macs, Big Boys, super-sized fries, and Dilly Bars from Dairy Queen. Food is food, after all.

The moral, economic and personal bottom line is that we NEED food. We NEED shelter of some sort during inclement weather, and most of us NEED clothing in certain types of climates. The Bible states  (paraphrase) that if we expect to eat, then we must work for our sustenance. Working will also produce resources for limited shelter and clothing. If there is no moral or theological basis for a collective effort for providing the basic needs, where can we find a universal imperative for meeting the wants of individuals…as varied as they might be? Any decision for provision by the state or the collective requires that some value be given to the item. Generic or brand? Cloth coat or fur coat? Prius or 10-year old Chevy? It is unavoidable that some wants (or perceived needs) will be satisfied while others remain unmet. Given the individual preferences and perceived needs, it follows that the distribution of the collective largesse will be uneven and biased. Besides, government will grossly underperform anyway.

As each person transforms personal “wants” into “needs” or “rights,” the social order moves closer to a breakdown. The new-found needs begin to ratchet higher and higher as the government redefines its role, and the level of satisfaction for the recipients sinks lower and lower. The end result is a government and economic structure incapable of providing the newly-defined “needs” while the frustration level of the populace swells because of their dissatisfaction. Redefining wants as needs leads to a disintegration of the economy and the social order. Everyone—government and individuals—live beyond their means….spend beyond their abilities to produce. Wants are unfulfilled, and needs are shortchanged. The benevolent Nanny State slips into chaos. The government yields to anarchy. The competent and resourceful will satisfy their own needs while their neighbors resort to violence or endure suffering. Expecting government to supply our wants leads us down a deadly to destruction. It is unfortunate that so many of our citizens have misinterpreted the “pursuit of happiness” clause to mean that they chase after government goodies while other taxpayers pay the bill.

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com    or    www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Minority Rights

When you saw the title of this column, you probably made an assumption about its subject matter. You were wrong. As a third-party candidate for statewide office, I have become painfully aware of the double standard the media use when covering politics. Only rarely are those of us who represent smaller parties or points of view covered by those who engage in “serious” print or broadcast journalism. Frequently when an esteemed member of the Fourth Estate does lower herself/himself to seek our views, they do so with an aire of “gotcha” in place. For example, one so-called writer, editor, bottle washer and copy-machine-fixer of an online news source sought to get my opinion on one of those “when did you stop beating your wife” questions. It involved a member of our party (Libertarian Party of Ohio, www.LPO.org ) who was heavily involved in a protest outside of a congressman’s home following the passage of the Healthcare Travesty. This particular congressman had been a member of the infamous Stupak coalition of pro-life Democrats, but just like his group leader, had caved and voted for the bill on the fraudulent pretense that the President’s executive Order would trump the legislation. Our member is a candidate for the office that is currently held by the lily-livered, cowardly fraud. Our member and his cohorts staged a protest on the sidewalk outside the home of the aforementioned spineless congresscritter. It was legal. It was a valid expression of the First Amendment.


Would I personally protest at a politician’s home rather than his office? No, I would not, but that does not alter the fact that as long as the protesters obeyed the law and remained on the public sidewalk, and did not harm or threaten the person, the property or the family of the congressperson, then they had every RIGHT to do so. Our party is fundamentally based on three primary principles: smaller, Constitutional government; lower taxes resulting from smaller government; and more personal freedom. The writer wanted me to condemn our member for protesting on the sidewalk near the politician’s home because he believed it was tasteless. Maybe it was tasteless, but the First Amendment does not address the issue of taste…particularly when political speech is involved. So, the writer wishes for me to condemn the protester/member and undermine the principles of my party. That I refused to do so automatically slotted me into the category of tasteless rube with no standards of decency. If those two options are the only ones available, then I plead guilty to the latter.

Having studied the elements of victimology for several decades, I understand that if the media were to treat my party as a bona fide minority (which we are until Election Day), then they would provide every imaginable justification for our shortcomings and failures. Instead of being a pesky afterthought when they seek pithy quotes about important matters, we would be at the top of the Rolodex as a protected political minority. I am not insisting that we be given the same level of deference as Jesse Jackson or Michael Moore. Call me anything you want, O’ all-knowing journalist, just call me. Our voice may be tiny, but it is a voice that represents thousands (maybe even millions) of freedom loving people in the Buckeye state. Keep on doing your tired old sound bites and quotes from the old duopoly, but give the champions of liberty a voice…a chance.

If Affirmative Action were in place for the previously stated conundrum, then we would be the first to be sought when something profound or confrontational was needed for the newscast, the column or the article. Personally, I don’t want the affirmative action remedy. I do not mind going last in the quotation roundup. You see, our adversaries are so predictable and non-committal, that its fun to follow them and kick-up some dust. So, minority rights are fine with me. I don’t require special treatment. I merely want treatment.

Email or comment:  earl4sos@gmail.com