How to lower healthcare costs

(This Letter to the Editor was submitted to the Opelika-Auburn News on 24 March 2006 in response to this editorial.)

Dear Editor,

In your 22 March 2006 edition, a staff editorial called for an "overhaul of national health care." While I agree with your staff's call for change, I must differ as to what kind of change is needed.

It is true that many Americans cannot afford the healthcare of the highest quality, but government intervention is a major cause of the problem, not a solution. The high cost of drugs is a consequence of ever-lengthening drug patent terms and the almost insurmountable cost of getting a new drug approved by the FDA. For a single drug, this can run anywhere from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars. This high level of regulation discourages new companies from engaging in just the sort of competitive innovation that could seriously lower drug costs in the long-term.

The "strong lobbying influence" wielded by the pharmaceutical industry is a direct result of the public policies that have made the government itself the industry's most important customer. If individuals were to pay for their own healthcare, there would be far less opportunity for companies to seek special favors from politicians and bureaucrats.

Finally, the government's guarantee of health care to all removes an important incentive for living a healthy lifestyle—the real monetary cost of poor health. No one wants those in poverty to be neglected medically, but a sense of entitlement to taxpayer-sponsored health services is sure to encourage overeating, smoking, and other unhealthy lifestyle choices among those least able to afford the consequences. The real solution to the healthcare crisis is liberty and personal responsibility, not government.

Dick Clark
Candidate, Alabama House of Representatives, District 79
www.CitizenClark.com

Auburn Plainsman shows off my rattlesnake

Well, on Sunday night I got a call from another Plainsman reporter. This time, the reporter was interested not in my waterfall experiences or my politics, but rather my pets.

Check out the story and image linked here.

The best quote from the story?

Clark’s fascination started as a kid in Louisiana, when classmates brought alligators to show-and-tell and boys would snake-hunt on the weekends.

“When I was a kid, I used to ride my bike three miles almost every day to this pet shop,” Clark said. “I used to bug the heck out of them trying to get to hold a snake.”

Yeah, I really must have annoyed the heck out of the folks running that pet shop. For the record, the pet shop was the big blue "St. Tammany Pet Center" at the corner of Fountain Drive and Robert Boulevard (formerly Robert Road) in Slidell, Louisiana.

Now, the really odd thing about this story is that the other "peculiar pet owner" interviewed is a Chinchilla owner named Josh Ricciardone who hails from my hometown of Slidell, Louisiana. Does Slidell somehow breed more adventurous, think-outside-of-the-box pet enthusiasts?

From One Christian to Another, On Human Liberty

(This essay is an excerpt from an email that I sent to a fellow Christian Libertarian on an email discussion list. The recipient had previously expressed their own doubts about the Non-Aggression Principle, and the philosophical steps to arriving at such a conclusion, as well as the Principle's compatibility with scripture. The name of the other party is withheld, but the principles expressed stand on their own.)

Philosophy is simply logic applied to various "problems." I believe, as a Christian, that God imbued us with logic by creating us "in His image." I believe this is what separates us from the animals—abstract thought, and the ability to willfully glorify our Creator, as breathed into our dust-composed bodies.

Also, you should be aware that the scriptures only condemn vain philosophies in Colossians 2:8:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

It is clearly incorrect to interpret this to mean that all philosophy (philo + sophia = "love" of "wisdom") is abhorrent before God. We are to be Bereans, and to knowledgably critique the positions of others to determine if they are consistent with God's will as revealed through general revelation ("...written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." 2 Corinthians 3:3) and in special revelation ("All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Now, if someone misinterprets God's word due to some predisposition (often due to human traditions, as noted above), we are to gently correct them. "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." (James 5:20-21)

Now, I would not presume to judge you for your beliefs about the state, but I would tell you that I believe that it is most consistent for a Christian to be an anarcho-capitalist. I know that murder is wrong. There is no scripture passage that provides an exception for government officials. Therefore, collateral damage, wrongful execution, etc. are sinful and should not be directly or indirectly supported by believers.

We know that prostitutes were viewed by Christ as sinners, but as sinners who should be shown love and mercy. We know that our Lord defended at least one such sinner from an angry crowd, stating in John 8 that "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." The crowd's response? "And they which heard [it], being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst." Surely, she was a sinner, and Jesus told her to go and sin no more. He treated her with love and concern, seemingly not just concern for the community, but for her. So from this passage I take it that Jesus did not teach the use of violence against prostitutes. This jives with the non-aggression principle.

Now, of course, the next biggest scumbags (at least in Jesus' times) seemed to have been the tax collectors ("publicans"). For this offense, unlike with prostitution (a victimless crime), restitution seems to have been in order, as per Zacchaeus. The commonly cited "render unto Caesar" was a trick answer to a trick question (Luke 20:20 states that they wished to "take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.") It is not a mandate to pay taxes. It is a mandate to support property rights. Of course, with that particular response (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's; render unto God that which is God's) it is not clear that anything is Caesar's—at least Jesus doesn't say that anything is. Certainly we assume that everything does belong to God, therefore rendering the question of taxation moot.

In the ultimate scheme of things, it doesn't matter what we "think" works best. It only matters that we abide by the express commands of our Lord and Creator. Even tithes are not to be taken forcibly, "for God loveth a cheerful giver." (2 Corinthians 9:7). Why then should taxes be seen as legitimate? It doesn't matter if you or I think the government can do the best road-building and maintenance—the apostle Paul clearly destroys consequentialist ethics in Romans 3:7-8 when he states, "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not [rather], (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just." In other words, it is not okay to commit evil acts to bring about good in the future. This consequentialism is clearly condemned in scripture, and it is the sole basis for taxation. In whom is your faith: the traditions of man (taxation) or the divinely inspired words of the scriptures?

Note too the express condemnation of government in 1 Samuel 8:4-20. I include a portion of that passage below:

"Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them."

I will not reject our Lord's divine providence for my life, so I will never pledge my loyalty to anything other than Him and His instructions. Since I would not will that anyone use force against me (barring my own commission of a property/violent crime), as an adherent to that faith which states, "If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (James 2:8; also in Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 5:43, Matthew 19:19, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14, etc.), I must never aggress against another.

In closing, the non-aggression principle is 100% in keeping with God's word, so far as this humble reader can tell. I pray that you will see my above note (which I sent only to you, not the list, as per Matthew 18:15-17) not as a castigation of an ideological opponent, but rather as an appeal from one believer to another.