On the use of "should" and what I mean by it.

So, this little status update has been going around on Facebook yesterday:

(Your Name Goes Here) agrees that no one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick.

And of course I agree with that. Who in their right mind wouldn't agree with that particularly inoffensive statement? You'd have to be crazy to disagree with that! Of course, no one SHOULD die because they cannot afford health care, and no one SHOULD go broke because they get sick. Also, no one SHOULD go to bed hungry and everyone SHOULD have a safe place to sleep at night. Which is why people SHOULD give freely of their time and means to help out their fellow men. But that's just it. Here, when we say "SHOULD", that's aspirational. SHOULD is an ideal. SHOULD, in this context, is then twisted to imply that I agree that the U.S. government SHOULD provide health care for everyone, and that's where I put on the brakes and add the N'T to SHOULD.

The problem here is that while my participation in the receiving of benefits may be voluntary (and that's questionable - I may be forced into participation by events not of my choosing), my participation in the paying for it will almost certainly not. Won't be voluntary for me, won't be voluntary for anyone in the United States, and probably won't be voluntary for anyone in the world market who purchases goods and services from the United States or does business with us in any way, shape or form. The required revenue either will be generated directly from citizens in the form of tax increases (Hello, April 15th), or indirectly in the cost of goods and services to every man, woman, and child in the country (which has the same effect).

We instinctively understand, if I break into someone's home, and steal a million dollars from them, and give ALL of that money to poor blind orphans, that's still theft. My intention is irrelevant. It's wrong, and I would go to prison. (and the orphans would probably have to give the money back). It's a criminal action. I have attempted to force someone into contributing money that they may or may not have done of their own free will. It doesn't even matter if the money was set aside for those same blind orphans. If I went in and took it, it's theft, plain and simple.

Now, if the Government does that same thing, not by breaking into my home and stealing in the dead of night, but by doing things in the open by passing a law that removes the money from my paycheck, or causes a decrease in my ability to acquire goods for my family because of necessary price increases on goods that are now taxed at higher rates, that may be legal, but I'd argue that it's just as wrong as the example I used above. It's a difference in terms. When I do it, it's theft. When the government does it, particularly when the government does it against the will of the people (how popular is that public option today?), it's called tyranny. And it's tyranny regardless of the stated ends. Sure, providing for people's health care is a worthwhile thing. But once we've allowed the government to force us to provide for people's health care, that's a very dangerous precedent to set.

About two hundred and thirty years ago, we had a bit of a sharp debate regarding tyranny in this country, and the citizens of the United States decided we're not fans.

Now, I could go on about the projected budget, and how those always inflate (Hey, remember when the projected 10-year deficit was only 7 Trillion Dollars? Yeah...). I could go on about how government run programs are less efficient and require much more overhead than private charities. I could explain that the cost increases might force businesses to hire fewer people or to let go of people they have on their payrolls now, or that they might require that I reduce my own charitable giving simply to continue to be able to pay my bills. But that would concede the point that "were we able to do it affordably, more government interference with health care would be all right", and I just don't think that's the case. It's a question of Liberty, folks. Something we SHOULD stand up for.