Wednesday, September 14, 2011
The Right for Money and the Republican Debate
It was enlightening to see the cheers and claps at last night's Tea Party Republican presidential debate, when Texas Rep. Ron Paul, suggested that it’s not the government’s responsibility to take care of uninsured people even if on their deathbed.
Loud cheers of "yeah!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall, in response to the question if he was saying that society should just let the person die?
And if the person cannot afford the insurance?
In the mind of these people, nothing is more sacred than the right to make money – not even the right for life. Under this approach, will they fund a police? After all, a robber has the right for money just like an industrialist, only his means are different. And if you don’t want to get robbed, hire your own army.
Why should we spend money on courts, judges and a legal system? After all, those who have money could send their people to resolve any dispute. The more money they have, the higher the chances the dispute will be settled in their favor.
Let those with money pave their roads, educate their children and employ their own doctors. And for the rest of us, we should be grateful for the right to live under the wings of our feudal landlords, who will determine where we should live, and if we should live at all.
America was established by those who fled the lordship and feudal systems of Europe, where money meant might, power and rights. Our governing system was established to protect the people from the tyranny of individual power. But today, for some, the right for money is the only right that the government must protect: a slippery slope that will return us just where we escaped from. I am sure that this was not what TS Eliot meant when he wrote:
And the end of all our exploring.
Will be to arrive where we started.
And know the place for the first time.