When the Taliban blew up statues that were representative of
the Afghan heritage, people the world over were baffled as to their motive.
Some said the Taliban must be so fanatic about whatever religion they have adopted;
they could not tolerate a symbol of the old religion. And some said, the
Taliban must be so fanatic about their newly acquired power, they wanted to
give a demonstration of it for all to see. Whatever the real reason, the act of
the Taliban was nothing but a demonstration of the power of fanaticism.
You do not have to be a primitive bunch of kids to be
fanatic about something, and use the power at your disposal to demonstrate it.
The first time I became aware of this reality happened long ago when Canada changed
the measuring system from the English to the Metric. It used to be that when
you exceeded the speed limit and were caught, you would get a ticket condemning
you to pay one dollar for every mile above the speed limit. And usually, the
cops would not stop you for anything less than five miles above the limit.
Thus, driving in the city, you would normally get a ticket for five dollars or
ten dollars – unless you were a beast on wheels.
On the day that the system changed to the metric, and most cars
still had their odometers showing the speed in miles rather than kilometers, I
was stopped by two cops and given a ticket for 15 dollars. So I asked: What's
that about? And one of the cops replied: That's in honor of Pierre Trudeau.
Well, I did remember that a few fanatics on the radio were making hay about the
change from the English system to what they called the French system, but that
was the first time someone made the linkage between the French system and the
French name of Pierre Trudeau who was then Prime Minister of Canada.
The cops explained that the change from the English system
to the French system nullified the bylaw which set the fine to one dollar per
mile, and that they were free to give any fine they deemed appropriate. I asked
what they thought my speed was and they said: It must have been more than five
miles over the limit which translates into God knows how many kilometers, and
so they deemed that 15 dollars should be okay. Well, I did not like what
happened, and went to court to fight the ticket but the cops did not show up,
and the case was dismissed.
That incident taught me the lesson that fanaticism is a
force that would combine with the official powers conferred on the fanatic,
thus form a powerful tool that can be used to hurt the innocent in society if
not the society as a whole to further the goals of the fanatic. And this is
what comes to mind when you read the article written by Jim Demint and
published in the Wall Street Journal on October 18, 2013 under the title: “We Won't
Back Down on ObamaCare” and the subtitle: “Fighting a law that is unfair,
unworkable and unaffordable is reasonable and necessary.”
Once a senator who could not change things while occupying a
space in the seat of power, Demint became president of the Heritage Foundation
where he hopes to change things by pressuring the seat of power not from within
as required by the rules of democracy but from the outside by rallying the
people to his point of view. The reason why he is doing this, he says, is that he
wants to “protect the American people.” He says as much while admitting that
“Supporters of ObamaCare defend the law [because they too] want to help
people.”
Thus, you have two opposite sides who believe they are doing
what is good for the American people. The difference is that one side is made
of the adherers of the law of the land which makes of it the existing heritage,
whereas the other side calls itself the Heritage Foundation but seeks to blow
up what is already there in a manner that is not much different from the
actions of misguided fanatics like the Taliban.
Most of the arguments used by either side have been rehashed
over and over again, and there is no point repeating them here once more. But
there is one new element that Jim Demint has introduced into the debate; an
element he says is based on research done by his Foundation. It is that the
premiums will increase, and that “the hardest hit by the increases will be
young adults.”
This is possible and it is as it should be because the
reality is that if the young get sick while young, they will be taken care off.
If they don't get sick now, they will have paid enough into the system that
when they get old, they will be taken care of with the money they paid into the
system. What the young cannot do is not pay into the system now because they
are generally healthy and they reckon they will not use it unless tragedy
strikes and they fall ill or have an accident. But if not, and they get old,
they will still want to depend on a system in which they paid little or
nothing. This is not how insurance works, and they must not be encouraged to
think that way.
Do you see what the Heritage Foundation is advocating here?
It is telling the young people it's okay to depend on the system twice without
paying into it once. They can use it when young because society will not let
them die even if they are not covered. And they can use it when old because
society is generous enough to look after them even after they pass their
productive years.
So then, who will pay for all that? Borrowed money will.
Thus, if anything, Jim Demint and the Heritage Foundation are blowing up America 's chances to be free of the burden of
debt by claiming to do the thing that will free America