I think I'm going to treat myself to that pricey spa and massage I've been eyeing for a while. I had better survive this waiting period and stress, I want that massage! Lol. In the meantime, I'm going to post a "vacation responder" on my e-mail for a few short days as I think my poor Gmail refresher button is just about to file an assault charge against me soon.
"I'm on vacation: from myself and the world. Thank you and have a nice day"
I've typed like seven different responses to this and I don't know whether to respond with a moral argument or a statement of objective fact. Objectively, the very nature of government is re-distributive. Example: when an army is raised, the protection which that army affords all citizens of the state is distributed equally while the costs are concentrated within a smaller proportion of the population (usually economic elites). The very nature of government is extraction and subsequent re-distribution. See Mancur Olson, 1993: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2938736
Now, if you want to make the argument that we shouldn't have government at all, then we can discuss this matter on those terms. However we should be mindful that many of the conveniences which we associate with modern life (roads, an electrical grid, potable water, toilets which you can throw used toilet paper down, the absence of roving bands of ax wielding ruffians) are the result of the growth of government. The private sector simply would not build an interstate highway system nor provide an efficient police force (see, much of the 3rd world and an outfit named Halliburton). Not because the private sector is evil, but because undertaking such a project simply isn't profitable in the short-run.
Beyond the obvious need for government to provide public goods, one could make the argument that government is needed to provide private goods as well, again through re-distribution. Subsidies to agricultural interests benefit a relatively small proportion of the population while imposing a general cost on John and Jane Q. Taxpayer. It is a gross inconsistency, as well as the height of hypocrisy, that many individuals who are virulently opposed to re-distribution support it when it benefits their own particular industry (see Charles Grassley re corn).
None of this even addresses the reprehensible 'moral argument' made regarding 'rightful gains' and 'reaping what one has sowed'. Remember that we are talking about healthcare! In the richest country the world has ever known it is a shameful tragedy and a blight on our national conscience that people should go without healthcare. Anybody with a thread of morality or compassion, who knows the history of the 20th century and is cognizant of the way in which much of the world lives, would agree that the right to live and be healthy is a basic human right.
Whatever you want to call it, I love Obamacare. I work 4 research positions to pay for rent, bills, etc. and wouldn't have health care if it weren't for this plan. Taking time off is almost essential to get into my graduate program but I want to be productive and do research instead of just getting a random full time position with health care. I work really hard and I'm glad worrying about how to pay for health issues isn't part of my stress load.
