The National Treasure Question

    Imagine for a moment that availability of government funding was not in question in Government Health Care.  Imagine that you had the possibility of personally receiving the entire annual government budget each year, worth trillions, in the form of health insurance that could only be spent on you.  Would you take it?

While no one can live forever, your Government Health Care trillions would stave off almost all diseases well beyond your 100 years of life.  As you aged beyond that, surgeries would see you through difficult times, perhaps to 105 years of age.  At 110 years of age, you would be approaching the oldest human on Earth, and would be honored in Washington D.C. as a National Treasure.

But at a certain age, despite all the money you have taken from taxpayers and from seizing printed money, your state starts to decline beyond the reach of medical science.  At 115 years of age, the trillions in health care policy that you possess begins to be used on desperate and risky operations to try to keep you alive.  Many of the innovative surgeries are painful.  By 120 years of age you start to object to the Government Health Care, but to no avail.  The State points out that you chose to take the health care insurance, so you don't have a choice to not receive the: medicines, surgical operations, and National Treasure goals of the government.

After a while, you start to wonder if it was wrong to sign up for the windfall Government Health Care opportunity, and at the same time financially devastate and destroy an entire country.

Paul Wharton

Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

 

The Final Executive Order

    In the United States of America there has been an alarming development that mostly started with Barack Obama.  He began the common assertion of the President issuing "Executive Orders".  In practice this evolved into radical reversals of law - with them changing drastically every time a different political party gained the Presidency.  This has gotten out of hand.  For the sake of long-term adherence to law and to prevent bad Presidents from destroying this country for 4 years, it must be stopped!

America has just elected a new, moral President with a sweeping mandate.  In my opinion, I think that what President Trump will achieve in his second Presidency will make him the Greatest President in American History.  This is why I think that now is the right time to shore up the country with all moral and correcting Executive Orders, and then, finally, close the book on that practice for good.

It is necessary to make sure that America gets all the right laws it deserves.  The Constitution will be respected; but Obama and Biden have made such a mess of our government that it is proper for President Trump to make it right before ending the possibility of more executive legislation.  Americans fought The Revolutionary War to have the opportunity to found a new code of law and government.  In England, The Glorious Revolution swept in new laws and a new government, and also had another name: The Bloodless Revolution.

President Trump is going to have a lot to do on January 20th, 2025 at 12:00 PM.  I suggest he have two papers for his signature: the first for the big stack of Executive Orders, and the second that ends that power by the Executive Branch for all future time.

Obviously, this does not stop the potential for change in law.  The American Judiciary can still make rulings.  And, American Legislators can pass law.  It is just that the American President will not have most of the power of all 3 branches.

Paul Wharton

Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

A Hybrid Objectivist - U.S. Constitutional Government

    As I have been writing in my blog, an Objectivist government according to the philosophy of Ayn Rand only has 5 political functions:

    (1) Police

    (2) Military

    (3) Judicial

    (4) Diplomatic

    (5) Treasury

Objectivism does not give legitimacy to anything else.  On the other hand, Ayn Rand and the philosophy of Objectivism is a huge proponent of the U.S. Constitution which does grant legislative powers to defined political bodies - those being the Senate and House of Representatives.

I have been searching through my books and using the aynrand.org website to try to find some quotes I remember reading by Ayn Rand about her endorsing an American government with legislation because she writes that that is the way the Founding Fathers set it up.

In essence, it would be unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to uphold DOGE cutting all of Congress.  But, looking on the bright side, it may not be an entirely bad thing to see democrats running to the courts to argue for the upholding of the Constitution.

Paul Wharton

Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter