Ethical Relationships

I was reading this post by Dan Edge about relationships. It kind of made me feel guilty because I had just let a long-term friendship go, but then I remembered...

"How could you do this after everything I've done for you?"

Now let me give this phrase a little context. If my ex-friend and I were ever talking about good friends that she had had in years past, she would always say this phrase when referencing the fact that they weren't her friend any more (or at least not a best friend any more). The use of this phrase by her would always rub me the wrong way, because it felt like she was holding this person for ransom - their friendship was payment for...services rendered?

As I see it, any relationship is an exchange - a trade, if you will. Both parties involved are looking to trade interests and time. If one party isn't getting out of it what they need or want, trading stops; otherwise it would be a waste of interest and time. I have to admit that in the last five years my interests and the way that I enjoy using my time have changed a great deal - so much so, in fact, that I'm sure that there are people out there who don't even recognize the person that I am now. I think that my friend is included in that group of people.  I tried to fit her and her interests into the sphere that was now me, but it didn't work. The things I cared about and was concerned about differed greatly from hers. On top of that, there were a lot of unhealthy aspects of our relationship that I will not go into right now. In going through the process of changing and growing, I became a much stronger person than I was when our friendship started, and I felt like the unhealthy aspects of our friendship were more damaging to me than the friendship itself was good. And so I turned down invitations. I stopped calling. I stopped putting forth the effort to maintain the friendship. And I got:

"How could you do this after everything I've done for you?"


Which actually seemed to prove my point quite well.

I will not apologize for who I am now, and I will not change for anyone. The changes I made were for myself (I will be posting another aspect of these changes in relation to my friends in the very near future). As my favorite author said:

"I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction." -Ayn Rand, Anthem

And I think that says it all.

I found this article today and, while I was reading it, certain affirmative phrases kept running around my head. Stuff like: "Right on!", "You tell 'em!", and "Give 'em hell!"

My problem has been, everyone seems to either use the terms Republic and Democracy interchangeably, or they have been so brainwashed by our public school system that they actually think that our government is supposed to be a democracy (these same people haven't ever heard the term republic in their lives - I think it has been banned from school textbooks). So if you are one of those people and would really like to know what I mean by "republic," or you just want to see why I was going through so much affirmation while I was reading the article, check it out. I promise you, it is worth your time.

Republic? Democracy? What's the Difference?

Just a Reaffirmation...

I ran into this blog post this morning and, since it so perfectly illustrates what I was rambling about yesterday, I have decided to provide a link to it here. This article talks about how important a parent's role is in directing their child's education, whether in a public, private, or homeschool setting.

I am glad that I ran into this post this morning.

Conversations about Education

My oldest daughter spent the night at a friend's house last night. Great for me, although I didn't know how great at the time. When I went to pick her up this evening, I spent two and a half hours talking to the friend's mom about education issues.

I guess part of my problem is that I am so used to the people around me being apathetic and so used to the status quo, that I never really expected to find someone as sensitive to education issues as I am, much less someone that is the mother of one of my daughter's friends. It was an amazing conversation, and with someone that isn't an educator! We talked about the increasing entitlement mentality of our kids (she recommended a book that I hadn't heard of on the subject) and the waste and fraud in our school systems. And of course, since our daughters go to the same school, we talked about issues that run rampant in their school.  The talk was so uplifting for me that it has given me hope that there are parents out there that aren't totally apathetic. And I know that there aren't. But as someone who has spent most of her adult life as a single working parent, I haven't had the time to be active enough in my daughter's school to get to know other parents all that well. This episode has shown me that I may well want to start, though, and not just for the reason of meeting other like-minded parents. As a taxpayer and parent, it is my job to find out how my money is being spent, and for someone as interested and concerned about our public school system as I am, I am being horribly negligent in keeping up with what is going on in my own daughter's school. As far as her classes go, I have a pretty good idea and she and I talk about it a lot, but as far as the whole school - I didn't walk away from that conversation feeling like the most responsible parent in that department.

Another area that this conversation has me thinking really hard about is homeschooling. Not that anything the parent told me surprised me. I wasn't surprised by any of it. But, being someone who has thought seriously about homeschooling in the past and still constantly thinks about it, this conversation has re-affirmed my conviction that public schools are not the places that are the best for our children, and the government is not the most trustworthy educator. They certainly aren't the most trustworthy when it comes to handling Other People's Money, which is why there is so much fraud and abuse in the public school system in the first place. If they run out of money they can complain and get more. Private schools are businesses, running on a profit-motive; if they don't have the money to do what needs to be done, they shut down. They have to be responsible.

So why would I homeschool rather than putting my daughter in private school? As an educator and someone who is very interested in how kids learn, I would gain first-hand knowledge about how kids learn. I have already done extensive studying into the topic. Plus, what mother wouldn't want to stay home and take care of their kids? Since the advent of the welfare state made it almost impossible for mothers to stay home with their kids and daycare is becoming an ever-growing industry, parents aren't raising their kids any more. Educators are doing it more and more. It really is a shame, and sometimes the parents of the kids I teach point out that I spend more time with their kids than they do. They expect to get their money's worth because of it, and I try very hard to deliver, but I hate the fact that it is me, rather than them, who is raising their children. To be the one raising my kids and teaching them the things they need to know to be independent, thinking adults would be one of the greatest gifts that I could give them. And perhaps, through the experience, I can extend that gift to other parents by educating their kids to be independent, thinking adults.

Streamline

Stress.

Stress has been killing me lately. Between my job, research, and my two kids I have been a bundle of nerves, stretched so tight that I could explode or implode at any moment. Luckily, my boyfriend and I planned a mini-vacation to the beach before I did myself any permanent damage.

It was just what I needed. We got away from everything  and enjoyed our time together. It was the best vacation I have had in my entire life.

Upon re-entering reality, I have come to realize that my hierarchy of things to focus on had fallen  completely to shambles. This had caused me to stress about things that I didn't even need to be stressing about. I had lost focus of my goals and dreams and had begun pursuing a haphazard collection of goals that didn't even interest me enough for me to give any of them my full energy.

Since I have dedicated this blog to freedom - mainly personal freedom - I want to take this time to state my goals for the next year as clearly and precisely as I can so that if I ever get as off-track as I have been recently, I can remind myself of what I felt was important to me when I was in a moment of greater clarity.

 Goal #1

I will refocus my research on education, specifically on developing the curriculum that I have been working on. I will continue to study Objectivist epistemology and other areas of Objectivist thought in regards to education. I will also finish reading "The Underground History of American Education." I will probably have to start over at the beginning and read the entire thing through since it has been so long since I have picked it up.

Goal #2

I will continue to give my all as a teacher, and will continually apply the principles of my research to my job.

Goal #3

I will work towards living a healthier life by eating better and exercising more. In the past I have viewed this as a weight-loss goal, which I feel has hampered my efforts at accomplishing anything. Instead of focusing so much on weight, I will focus more on being healthier. While weight loss is something that will make me healthier, I will maintain a focus of overall health rather than just weight loss.

Goal #4

I will remember, as I strive to meet these goals, that I have a family that needs me. I will take better care of myself so that I can better meet their needs. I will try not to become so overwhelmed by all of the other factors in my life that I can't be everything I need to be to them.


These goals reflect the main areas of my life that I would like to work on. I expect myself to have made major improvements in all of these areas within a year. And a year from now, if not periodically before then, I will check back and see how I am doing. 

Unearned Guilt Part II

I am going to digress from the polished form of my usual posts for a moment, because this subject of unearned guilt is extremely personal to me and I feel like I should give it the attention that I feel it is due. I say this because I know that for many, many years I struggled with unearned guilt - up until three or four years ago when I got rid of most, if not all, of it.

Most of the problem comes from my upbringing - my childhood demanded guilt on a daily basis, a guilt that continued in many forms into my adult life. I got rid of this guilt fairly recently, but this isn't the guilt that I want to spend my time here addressing. I just feel that it is an important thing to include to give some background into where I am coming from.

A lot of my guilt also came from my religion. I was raised a Christian and went to church very regularly until I was 18 or 19 years old. I remember questioning my faith and Christianity even when I was a child, and those questions never stopped. I constantly felt like I was never good enough; I always had to do more and more to prove myself to God or Jesus or the preacher or the people around me. I suppose that I understood that Jesus saved simply because I asked him to, but I couldn't get past the biblical mandates to do more and be more. So I did. I worked hard. I ran a Sunday School program with fervor until I was so burnt out on it that I couldn't see straight. I sang, I prayed, I read my bible, and it still was never enough.

At this time, I remarried my ex-husband, which was another area of unearned guilt for me. Christians aren't supposed to get divorced. They are supposed to stay together and provide the best future they can for their kids. When we got remarried we switched churches because he didn't like the one I was at. Of course there was guilt  from that. I was leaving a church where I ran the Sunday school program - just leaving it hanging. But I wanted to do what I thought was best for my marriage. People at the new church didn't stop talking about how great it was that we had remarried.

Almost a year later he and I split up. The new church wouldn't understand this; everyone I tried to talk to about it recommended that I do what I could to make things better. But it was hard for me to do that when another woman and several lies were involved. I left the new church because of the lack of understanding from them and I didn't go back to the old church because I had burned bridges there. I was shocked at what I felt was the hypocrisy of the people around me, including my husband who read a bible daily but talked to a woman who wasn't his wife and lied to her about me and our children.  I even felt my own hypocrisy because I had left a church that I hadn't wanted to leave in order to make someone else happy. I had left a Sunday school program in the lurch. I was a hypocrite.

On top of this there were my friends. I have to bring this up, because I feel that there may be other people out there going through this situation and not being able to get out of it. Through my process of getting rid of the unearned guilt that I was carrying around,  I lost a lot of the things that I had in common with my friends that I always hung out with. Not that this was the total cause for my sudden lack of interest in my friends. Hanging out with my friends was always a stressful experience for me; I always felt like I was doing something wrong and was always made to feel not good enough. The same types of guilt that applied in my church experience were living themselves out every day in front of my friends. Through my journey to rid myself of all of this guilt, I decided that I didn't have to feel like that all the time. I began limiting my time with my friends and not calling them as much. My life has been much less stressful because of the decision I made to cut the drama and the negative feelings out of my life. Of course, through the process of getting all of that out of my life, I have had to hear a lot of, "How could you do this after everything we have done for you? You are so selfish!"

And to this I reply: Yes, I am selfish. My personal well-being is important to me, and I HATE feeling guilty all of the time for absolutely nothing at all! I do not owe you my life and my sanity; I do not owe you my time or my being. This goes for my "friends" as well as any god that may or may not be out there. This goes for anyone in my life that may be a catalyst for any unearned guilt that I may feel. I refuse to subject myself to the stress of such guilt any more, and I am glad that through my soul searching and self-discovery I became a strong enough person to be able to do everything that I can to rid myself of this stress.

Tea Party Guilty of Sedition

Let's get one thing clear here: according to the definition of sedition the Tea Parties and several spokespersons may be inciting it. But if we the people just bury our heads in the sand and let the government run all over us, like it is now doing, what will happen then? What is the cure for a runaway government in a country that is supposed to be a republic?

Sedition. Incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.

Well, we sure do have a lot of discontented people out there, myself included. And since in this republic the power is supposed to be with the people, I see no problem with the people airing out their problems - and trying to do something about them. But many others think that this is unpatriotic and ridiculous.

According to Joe Klein of Time Magazine: "Let me be clear: dissent isn’t sedition. Questioning an administration’s policies isn’t sedition … but it is disgraceful and the precise opposite of patriotism in a democracy.”

Well, Joe, perhaps it is...in a democracy. The problem is, the United States isn't a democracy - or wasn't meant to be. And the reason for the First Amendment is so that when the people, who are supposed to have the power, are upset with the way that the government is running things, they can show their discontent without the fear of being punished by the government who is supposed to be working for them.

Check out this article about Joe Klein's statements. I'm glad that this is getting a little bit of play, anyway. Maybe more people will wake up and see what is happening to our country and how much control the government actually wants to have. 

President Making Racist Comments?

In the video featured in this article, President Obama not only asks certain races to help his party out in the 2010 elections, but also once again cites George Bush as the cause of ALL of our problems, and lists the many "fixes" that his fellow democrats have implemented. Wow, our country is in such better shape now!

Give me a break!

Daily Caller: President Obama Plays the Race Card

Jesus A Cult Leader?

It is very well possible. Let us go through the definition of "cult":

  1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.   (This, of course, applies to Christianity, especially to Jesus. Christians meet on Sundays to worship their Savior, and communion and baptism are rites and ceremonies. Communion, in particular, is disturbing in that Christians are symbolically eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus, all to "remember" what he did for them. Can anyone say cannibalism?)  
  2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers.    (The person here mentioned, is of course, Jesus. Veneration is a feeling of awe, respect, or reverence, which followers of Jesus not only feel, but are commanded to feel.                                                                                                                        
  3. the object of such devotion.     (Who is the object? Jesus.)
  4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.   (Anyone who has ever been to church knows that it is one big community. People band together to help each other, guide each other in their walk with Jesus, and pray. There are study groups, prayer groups, and other types of activities. Through all of this, the church builds itself into a strong community where people go seeking help and guidance with their problems. All of this in the name of Jesus.)
There are other forms of the definition, too, mostly referring to cults involving members living outside of social norms. But even in that particular definition, there was one word that stood out to me: Charismatic. No one can say that Jesus wasn't charismatic. His own people chose him over a hardened criminal to be crucified; that shows a lot about how charismatic he was. And his words have held people for thousands of years, once again showing the power of those words.

For more discussion about Jesus as a cult leader, I recommend this essay:
Cult Leader Jesus

This essay gives a lot more proof positive that Jesus was a cult leader than I have, and even includes Bible passages to make the point. It should be an interesting read for anyone willing to take up the question.

I recently purchased and read the book Direct Citizen Action by James Ostrowski. This book lays out many of the foundational principles of what has happened to our country and details things that we, as regular American citizens, can do to fight the monster that has been created - in Ostrowski's words, "...win the second American Revolution without firing a shot." Ostrowski does this clearly and concisely, purposefully keeping his statements as brief as he can in order to keep the length of the book short. In this way he has maximized any activist's potential use of the book by keeping the cost of the book low; he has also held the potential reader's interest by keeping to the point.

Ostrowski begins by defining the exact nature of our government, the way our founding fathers intended it. They never intended for our government to be a democracy (majority rule); rather, they intended the American government to be a republic. Ostrowski does a wonderful job detailing the differences between the two.

Ostrowski then goes on to detail a strategy for action and explains why trying to change the current system from within the political realm won't work. There are many grassroots organizations out there trying to do just that, but Ostrowski explains why it is a particularly hard uphill battle. But he points out that any action taken will help - the entire Revolution will be hard.

Ostrowski's action plan is detailed through the rest of the book and includes items such as "vote with your feet," "vote with your dollars," and "pull your kids out of government schools." Each action item comes with a detailed description of how this will help to change the current system. He also gives small business owners ideas for how to attract patriot customers, and patriot customers the tools to find like-minded businesses to support.

This book is by no means exhaustive in its pursuit of action items, but it never was intended to be: "I hope that this book will get your own creative juices flowing. American's excel at taking the initiative and improvising." Ostrowski's concern is that the current liberty movements will lose steam because, while they are taking on the current system, they are doing it mostly through words and not action. Since everyone knows the phrase "actions speak louder than words," Ostrowski has given us some clear actions to take that will underscore the words that have been said.

Another wonderful feature of this book is the countless online resources That Ostrowski includes to help the reader on their journey of Citizen Action. I will be listing some of these resources at the end of this post.

Anyone who is serious about the cause of liberty and wants to put in place a clear plan of action should read this book. I will look forward to hearing any feedback and participating in the new action movements that spring from the ideas given by James Ostrowski.


Resources:
Political Class Dismissed 

Government Schools Are Bad for Your Kids: What You Need to Know 

The Free State Project 

The Tenth Amendment Center 

Alliance for Separation of School and State 

Mises Institute 

This is an excellent article posted on the American Thinker about how there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. We've all known this for quite some time, but in "Fighting Statism" Justin Blackman goes beyond what we've all known, and seeks to determine the philosophical and strategic mistakes that have led to this problem. Kudos to Justin for helping us see part of the problem!

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/fighting_statism.html

Unearned Guilt Part I

What causes unearned guilt? This is a question of philosophy, though many people do not recognize it as such, just as many people do not recognize that they are carrying any unearned guilt. There are many aspects of our society that not only cause unearned guilt, but enhance and nurture it as well.

Before we go any further, let us define the term "unearned guilt" Guilt is defined as "a feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime, wrong, etc., whether real or imagined." To feel this feeling without having done anything wrong, such as the word "imagined" suggests, is unearned guilt.

So how does our society nurture unearned guilt? What are the primary sources of this guilt? First and foremost is the attitude of today's society that we are our neighbor's keeper. Altruism. The belief that if we have more than our neighbor we are morally obligated to give them a portion of what we have. The belief that if we sacrifice for those who don't have, everyone is better off. We are made to feel guilty because we have something and someone else doesn't, but if we have earned what we have, why should we feel guilty about having it? There is a huge difference between giving to someone who doesn't have as much as you because you want to, and being made to feel morally obligated to do so. This is the difference between charity and altruism. Charity does not require a sacrifice - you are giving because you can and because you want to. Altruism always requires a sacrifice - a sacrifice of time, money, or your entire being for someone or something else.

One of the greatest proponents of altruism is religion in general, but I want to talk specifically about Christianity, since it is the religion I am most familiar with.  The beginning of the Bible's quest to turn us into altruists is the Garden of Eden - the story of Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit. Because Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they were banished from the paradise of the Garden and all of mankind was cursed to be born already in sin. Millions of generations of people have been born feeling no integrity and no self-worth simply from this story. But Christians have a way out: Jesus Christ. The weight of guilt, not only from the Garden, but from the inability to follow the incredible amount of laws and commandments God gave his people, should make any serious Christian run straight to the alter and beg Jesus to be his master. But that is exactly what the Christian system is designed to do. When you read page after page of completely impossible regulation on your life, your only choice in this system is to submit to a savior - the one who can save you because you can't follow the law. But this, too, comes with a price. This master expects complete obedience to his word for saving you from your impossible state, and he expects to be worshipped, at that. In this phase, there is continuing perpetual guilt - the feeling of never being good enough or of never doing enough for this master who saved you from your previous guilt. The master tells you to give and you give constantly of your time, your money, and anything else you feel is necessary to give - and this is the sacrifice. This is the slavery to your unearned guilt that is perpetuated by Christianity. Some would say that this isn't a sacrifice, that there is reward at the end of this road of sacrifice. Who says this? The master, the one who has them enslaved in their guilt. No one really knows if this reward is real or not; they rely on faith - a belief in something for which there is no sensory evidence or rational proof - and the threat of eternal pain and suffering in hell. All of the pieces are in place to keep the serious Christian in a constant state of guilt and half-hearted hope.

I am not trying to argue about the specifics of Christianity as much as I am trying to show how the religion keeps people in a constant state of guilt. Christianity pulls people into a master/slave relationship and keeps them there for years and years, unless one is able to recognize the constant guilt and the mechanism behind it, power. Anyone who is the "master of" this type of relationship has power over their "slave" by means of their guilt. There are many such relationships in our society, not just religion, and I will be exploring other such relationships in future posts.

It wasn't long ago that children were raised with the expectation that they would earn their luxuries - they did work to earn whatever money they could to buy the things they wanted, whether it was toys, candy, or other items. In this day and age, kids are having things handed to them more than ever before. Parents justify this by saying that they deserve it, they are only kids and they should have the same things that every other kid has. But this attitude by parents is creating a new generation of kids that feel that they are entitled to whatever new toy, game, or electronic device that comes along. Later in life, this entitlement mentality manifests itself in unhealthy and unrealistic attitudes, such as the idea that one is entitled to a job, to housing, to food, or whatever basic necessities one needs to get through life.
Our children are not being taught the basic concept of responsibility, but it is not solely the fault of the parent. Fault also lies with the teachers of our children, who not only take a large part of the parenting away from the actual parent, but teach our parents that the child's self-esteem and self-confidence are at issue.

In 1974, nine students were suspended from a school in Columbus, Ohio without a hearing after a fight in the school's cafeteria. This was standard procedure in the majority of our schools at the time, and since the principal witnessed the fight, there seemed to be no reason to question the suspension. But the parents took the school to court, and in a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court, it was ruled that the principal had violated the student's fourteenth amendment rights to a hearing before suspension because the school district decided to make education a right of the citizens. Because of the ruling of Goss vs. Lopez, schools not only had to madly rush to find new ways to discipline children, but they had to recognize that, because they were involved in mandatory public education, they had to treat children as if they had the same legal rights as adults. For this reason, schools began employing lawyers to make sure that anything they did would not violate the constitutional rights of students. Because of this new policy of due process in schools, teachers found their hands tied when it came to disciplining students, and bad behavior became prevalent in schools.

Desperate for a way to control the masses, parenting experts and psychologists entered the scene in the late '70s and early '80s and stated that the reason bad behavior was so prevalent was because our children had no self-esteem. A new movement was started, and included a self-esteem task force that was formed in California. Complete with the mistaken notion that self-esteem was formed by extrinsic forces, this movement involved educating parents and teachers in the art of praising children for everything they did - regardless of whether or not it was correct - in order to make them feel good. Children began receiving awards for "participation" in every area from spelling bees to soccer, all in an effort to avoid the hurt feelings of the losers. Everyone became a winner, no matter their level of commitment, or whether or not they actually tried to succeed. The phrase "good job" became universal for any work any child did, no matter how "good" it actually was.

This trend has continued for the past thirty years and has yielded even more interesting strategies to raise self-esteem. In many school systems the normal grading system that most of us grew up with has ben replaced by a system that doesn't seem to grade at all. My own daughter was graded on whether or not her work was "satisfactory" until she entered sixth grade. This was frustrating for me because I felt that I never knew how well she was acutally doing. Many teachers have eliminated the use of red ink when grading papers, since red ink is associated with failure. And teachers and administrators have seriously considered getting rid of any type of game or activity that involves winning and losing.
Because of these measures that schools and parents have taken, success and failure have become subjective values, with our children feeling good about their work no matter how good or bad they actually do. This becomes a problem when our children can't do simple math but don't really worry about it because they tried.

Some experts are now seeing the effect of this thirty year long experiment and are saying that the parenting experts and psychologists had it wrong. The main problem is that once these children enter the workforce, success and failure become objective values rather than subjective. These new young adults can't take criticism because they have been told that everything they do is good. They expect to be praised for everything and given rewards, such as promotions and raises, for no reason at all.
The way we can stop this trend is to understand that self-esteem isn't built extrinsically, but intrinsically. The current philosophy builds a false feeling of accomplishment based on the praise received from other people. The philosophy of building self-esteem intrinsically requires that a person put forth the effort to do the best they can so that they can feel a real sense of accomplishment, a feeling that comes from within themselves.

Are We Selfish?

With the passage of the health care legislation liberals and progressives make conservatives out to be selfish fools who want the current system to remain. They parade story after story of people who can't get health insurance, people who suffer somehow because of the shortcomings of the insurance industries. The purpose of this parade is to paint those who oppose this legislation as uncaring, unfeeling, selfish people who would rather see these people die than do something about it. The problem isn't that conservatives are selfish; the problem is that there are two ethical theories at war with each other: egoism and altruism.

Egoism is a moral theory that holds that an individual should be the beneficiary of his own hard work. It holds that if an individual wants to pursue happiness, they can by their own sweat. It holds that if an individual makes money through work that they have done, it is their right to keep it and use it for their benefit. It holds that if a man creates something that is beneficial for everyone, he has a right to use or sell that creation any way he wishes - and the profit that he receives from that creation is also his by right. Egoism is about enjoying the end result of your hard work, of taking responsibility for your future and working to make sure that future is as promising as you can make it.

Altruism, on the other hand, is a moral theory that holds that man must sacrifice his money, his work, his happiness, and himself for the good of someone else. It holds that the needy, the impoverished, the hungry all have a right to a man's earnings before he does.

The health care legislation has put these two theories at odds with each other in many different areas. The doctors who will be impacted is one example. Doctors spend many years in school learning their skills. They spend many more years in internships honing those skills. After they enter into practice, they spend countless hours keeping up with current medical research. Because of the need of their skill and the countless hours taken away from other parts of their lives, doctors expect to be paid what their time and skill are worth by the people who seek to utilize that time and skill for their health. Our government had already placed limits on what doctors could earn through insurance with Medicare and Medicaid, which only pays doctors a fraction of what it costs them to treat their patients. Now, with an expansion of government-backed health insurance and private insurance companies being stretched to the limits, doctors can expect to see even less compensation for their time and skill. But they are called greedy and selfish because their costs go up.

Insurance companies are made out to be evil businesses that do nothing but suck money out of people's pockets. In reality, insurance companies see only a two - three percent profit in their business. People have misconceptions about what health insurance is, which is one of the reasons why we are in this mess. Health insurance was created to cover people's expenses in the event of an unexpected medical emergency, such as a broken bone or a catastrophic illness. Insurance companies deal with risk; the higher they feel the likelihood is that you will use their insurance, the higher your premiums will be because they insurance companies will need the money it will require to pay your medical bills. For years people have been using health insurance for anything - colds, annual exams, regular prescriptions. Because insurance is being used all of the time for anything, premiums are naturally going to go up - the risk that you will use their insurance has gone up. But the insurance companies are labeled as greedy and selfish.

Pharmaceutical companies are being targeted too. The legislation is expected to cut pharmaceutical companies' profits by a large percentage. But pharmaceutical companies use a large amount of those profits to research new life-saving medications, something that can't be cheap. These people work tirelessly to develop drugs to save people's lives and combat any of the diseases out there, and now their ability to develop these drugs will be taken away from them. But they are being called selfish and greedy.

And then there is the American people, who are being treated as a collective rather than as individuals. The American people, most of whom work hard to provide for themselves and their families, will now find themselves being taxed to pay for this new insurance program. They will also be made to buy insurance that they may not need or be able to afford. The hardest hit will be those with the highest income - people who have worked, saved, and invested toward their future and will now find it taken away from them in order for the government to be able to subsidize the insurance premiums of those who may not have earned as much or worked as hard. This redistribution of wealth is a slap to the face of those who have achieved their own American dream, those people who are often called greedy and selfish simply because they have more than others. Never mind that many of these people donate to charities of their own free will. Many of them own their own businesses and will be forced to offer insurance benefits to their employees, benefits that they may not be able to afford to give. Small and large business owners will be forced to lay off workers in order to afford to pay for benefits for those remaining. People who are currently contemplating opening a small business may think twice when they see other companies teetering on the edge because of the new insurance mandates. But these business owners are labeled selfish and greedy.

Is selfishness the desire to keep what you have rightfully earned? Is it selfish to expect to be rightfully compensated for your work or the product of your time and effort? If this is what we are defining as evil, then we will have many hard lessons ahead as a country. When we see our private insurance companies disappearing because they can no longer afford to stay in business; when we see a decrease in the amount of new life-saving or life-enhancing drugs being produced; when we see the number of new enterprises diminishing and unemployment increasing; when we see a decrease in the number of productive individuals because it no longer pays to be productive, then we will see which is the true evil: egoism or altruism.