On the Death of Success & Individual Freedom

Update! At least he's honest...Rev. Al Sharpton says America clearly voted for socialism when we elected President Obama...and so it goes...



Fundamentally, success is a feeling. That’s why money alone can’t define one’s success; it’s simply not possible. You can have all the money imaginable and still not “feel” successful while someone else with barely a pot to piss in might feel satisfaction in the extreme.

The only consistent feeling associated with success is abundance. When you feel a sense of abundance, or if you prefer, fulfillment in material, emotional and spiritual life you probably feel successful. That threshold of abundance or satisfaction is determined only by the person you’re looking at when you brush your teeth in the morning.

The destructive forces that act against success are:

     • Fear,
     • Doubt,
     • and Complacency.

Of the three, complacency is the most dangerous.

Never in my lifetime have I seen a more serious threat to individual freedom and personal liberty than the threat posed by the debate over mandatory healthcare in the United States. This is the most egregious attempt at collectivism in U.S. history and is proof that government imposed altruism is the most destructive force working against individual freedom.

The United States was founded on the principle of individual freedom. This made us, for the first time in history, a society in which the government was a servant of the people rather than one in which the people were subjects of the government. This important distinction was expressed to the world in the elegant prose of the Declaration of Independence. Most important was the declaration that individual rights are natural rights and not defined by a ruler or a ruling body. Our founders created a government that would above all assure that individual rights would be protected from any actions of that government.

The fact is, despite the rhetoric, healthcare is not a right. Your freedom to care for your own health is. You don’t have the right to health insurance anymore than you have the right to a plasma screen television or a new car. You have the right to pursue these things provided you don’t impose on the rights of others to do the same.

This important distinction resonates most clearly in the words the founders used to define exactly what natural rights were: “…life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Note clearly the word “pursuit.” Your right is a freedom to pursue happiness, not a guarantee of it.

“A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort.” Ayn Rand

As soon as you allow your government to take from one to satisfy the needs or desires of another, you’ve crossed the line from freedom to tyranny; the only debate is one of scale.

If you feel it is morally just to provide for the healthcare of others, do it! It may be a moral obilgation to care for others, that's the job of charities not the government. You’re absolutely free to pay for the healthcare of another person or to purchase health insurance for your employees. In fact, you can even through the political process persuade the majority in your own State or municipality that you should provide all the basic material needs for the citizens of those entities and do so. The States and the people do have the privilege to create programs and make laws outside the power specifically enumerated in the Constitution; the federal government does not.

Why were the founders so paranoid about the power of a strong, centralized authority? That’s exactly what they rebelled against. As soon as the central authority has control over the natural rights of the individual, the government becomes a threat. It doesn’t matter if that threat comes from a king, a dictator, a president or from Congress.

Before you respond with the argument that all people living in the United States should be entitled to a basic level of healthcare ask yourself at whose expense? Before you consider that, remember that expense is not just a dollars and cents issue; those dollars and cents are only symbols representing the product of each individual’s labor. The government simply does not have the right to control the product of your individual labor (though arguably that limit has been violated numerous times throughout our history.) As soon as the government confiscates your labor and gives it to someone else, that government has become tyrannical and you’ve become a slave, not a free man.

One might argue that each of us offers our consent through the electoral process. The potential for abuse of that consent is exactly why the founders specified so clearly the limitations of federal power. The Constitution does not tell the government what it can do; it specifically tells the government what it can’t do.

So why do so many people want the government to expand and become the beneficent provider of our basic material needs?

Is it because we’re attempting to evolve into a more enlightened society that assures a basic level of material comfort for everyone? That’s the argument of every elitist in history. There are always those who know best you need most. When those people are elected to Congress, it’s inevitable that they feel entitled and endowed with the wisdom to decide what’s best for you. This is not theoretical; it’s happening.

Did the great socialist regimes of the 20th century succeed in creating a perfect altruistic society? No; every one failed miserable and slaughtered millions of people in the attempt. You can argue that this is because those societies were not ruled by Aristotelian intellectuals who theoretically rise above personal interest to rule with pre-ordained wisdom and kindness but rather by despots and psychopaths. It’s no accident that despots and psychopaths do pretty well politically when they can appeal to a society’s sense of entitlement or complacency.

The United States is the only society, or at least the first, that placed the interests of the individual above that of the collective; and it works. In the midst of our self-interest we are still the most dynamic, generous, charitable and selfless nation on earth.

So why are we locked in the most contentious debate in modern history over what seems to be the moral and logical desire to provide basic health care for every American?

Because we’re lazy.

Wouldn’t it be easier to simply have one system? We wouldn’t have to shop for insurance, we’d know that no matter what happens to us we can go to the doctor or hospital and our needs would be taken care of. Everyone would have access to the same basic care. Best of all, just like taxes, we really wouldn’t notice the costs of this service because it would just be taken care of; all we have to do is manage the money we have left after all the deductions are taken from our paychecks. Our healthcare, for all intents and purposes would be “free!”

Not so much.

The experiment has already failed. “FREE!” is not the same as freedom. Every example of nationalized healthcare has some degree of restriction, rationing and denial of treatment. The difference is that the authorities decide who is treated and how, not the individual. Certain treatments even in the most democratic versions in Canada and England are outlawed and access to them is restricted by law regardless of your ability to pay on your own. At the same time taxes in these semi-socialist states are the highest in the world; no, it’s not free.

This is the heart of the issue. It’s not about covering people with authentic need; we could have done that for the next 10 years with the money and resources we’ve wasted on this battle.

We’re again facing a defining moment in American history. Are we a bunch of complacent wimps who need a paternal government to provide for our basic needs? Are we reverting to the status of subject, subject to the generosity of our rulers?

Will we emerge from this as a people who above all cherish individual liberty or as a people who would prefer a central authority vested with our trust to define and assure just access to minimal standards of living for all?

Complacency will certainly assure just that.


Jim Bouchard is a speaker, media personality and author of Think Like a Black Belt (available May 2010) and Dynamic Components of Personal Power. Visit JimBouchard.org.

Note from Jim: Hey, I love to write in a hard-core, pithy, “man of the streets” style; that’s who I am. I’d love to inject some sarcasm and have a little fun with this whole issue. This issue is too important, so pardon my departure. For those who look for the “Black Belt” theme in my articles I’ll say that in this case, the real Black Belt Mindset is expressed by simply facing the challenge in front of us. Whichever way this issue goes, I’ll be back to task next week.