How selfish.
Arguments that appeal to sympathy are popular among liberals. They must use this type of argument because their logic is inherently flawed. Instead of demanding charity (an oxymoron at best) and complaining that she must endure the toils associated with survival, she could have adopted a different perspective—a perspective that is grateful for the technologies that have allowed her son to progress as much as he has while still allowing her to keep her 100-acre ranch.
After all, if universal health care were really her fundamental priority, she could have moved to France or any number of countries a long time ago. Instead, I believe she knows that the quality of care in the United States is far better than anywhere else, but still believes that care should be distributed freely. To borrow from tired old phrase, she wants to have her insulin and inject it, too.
We all have our priorities in life. My friend’s position is the archetypal liberal argument. She and other socialists believe that their own priorities should also be the priorities of the society, and they seek governmental intervention to regulate them. They believe that another’s property should assist them in pursuing their own goals. Again, how selfish.
Margaret Thatcher said “The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people’s money.” While that is true, it is only a problem. What causes the government to run out of other people’s money? The problem with socialism is that it imposes the fiscal burden of others’ priorities on an unwilling people. The more this happens, the more these people will be drained of their wealth. When they have lost their financial independence, they too will demand the government to subsidize their goals.
