Don’t believe everything you read

Travis Hiner’s guest editorial in the Star-Herald fails in so many ways, I was tempted to not even write this, but I honestly feel that, if you are going to publicly state your opinion, then it should be able to bear scrutiny. This editorial does not.

Hiner begins by saying socialism is rearing its ugly head among a small group of politicians. Who are they? We don’t know. He never names them or give examples. Then he mangles George Santayana‘s quote about forgetting history. Fortunately, the quote is famous enough that we all know what Hiner is trying to say.

Onto the next paragraph where Hiner says, “Socialism historically has led to Nazism, Communism and Fascism. The reason is fairly simple. Socialism allows the government to control all facets of the economy and people’s lives. Individual freedom of choice is reviled and replaced with socialism’s mantra that government will take care of everything.”

According to Wikipedia, “Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers’ self-management of the means of production as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.”

Did you catch that last sentence? There are many varieties of socialism and no single definition. Hiner’s definition is the one that is thrown out to scare people. It claims there is a revulsion of freedom of choice and the government will take care of everything. Except that’s a fantasy that has never happened. If Hiner believes his statement, he needs to prove where Socialism has led to Nazism, Communism, and Fascism. He fails to provide examples yet throws out scare words to stir people up.

He claims that once Socialism is in place, it will lead to an authoritarian government. He doesn’t explain how. If you present the argument, you have to defend it.

Let’s look at his next assertion.

Our country’s unique strength and success comes from our adherence to our Declaration of Independence, which says “we hold these truths to be self-evident … (we have) the inalienable right (God given and cannot be taken away) to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Liberty is individual freedom of choice. Freedom of choice falls into two categories: social freedom and economic freedom.

Self-evident does not mean god-given. By assuming this, Hiner assumes everyone believes in a god. They do not. Merriam-Webster defines self-evident as, “evident without proof or reasoning.” There is no god involved here.

I also do not understand why he is trying to hold up the Declaration of Independence, since he was just talking about systems of government – Socialism, Nazism, and Communism – but then fails to speak of a Democratic Republic, which was laid out in the U.S. Constitution. The Declaration of Independence was just listing the grievances we had against King George III of England. We do not adhere to the Declaration. It is not the law of the land.

I will refrain from commenting further. An explanation of how people confuse and conflate the Declaration with the Constitution would take up far too much time.

Next, Hiner shifts into talking about freedom of choice. He claims there are two categories and names them – social and economic.

Economic freedom is simply your right to take money you earn and spend it on goods and services you desire.

Economic freedom is a term used by the right, so Hiner’s definition is what the right believes it to be. But his arguments are not valid.

Government at all levels (federal, state and local) attack this freedom in many ways. First and most obvious are individual taxes, Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid taxes. These taxes alone take 30-40 percent of your paycheck, which reduces your economic freedom of choice. To give some perspective, in 1910 the total federal, state and local taxes were only 10 percent.

It is interesting that Hiner claims Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are taxes. They are not. They are social welfare programs that make society better as a whole. By lumping them in with income tax, he is trying to get you to think these are bad for society.

He also throws out two sets of numbers here. Are they made up? Where are they from? How accurate is that data?

As pervasive are hidden taxes caused by regulations and taxes on business. Every regulation costs money and are passed to us through the prices of goods and services. For example, it is estimated that 30 percent of every dollar you spend on medical expenses are caused by regulation. You can be sure that every time you see a new regulation being proposed, that it will raise the price of products or services you buy.

It has been estimated that between the obvious taxes and hidden taxes of regulation, 70 percent of your paycheck disappears. We all agree that governments have to be funded and that some regulations are necessary, but at 70 percent, it takes away much of our freedom of choice.

What are these hidden taxes? What are the goods and services he is talking about? Yes, regulations cost money. They are imposed to make our lives safer. Again, he throws out an estimate, but then does not explain where the estimate came from. Also, I cannot be sure each time a new regulation is proposed it will raise the price of the products or services I buy. That is why, as a good American, you should research everything your government does, whether it is local, county, state, or federal.

Again, you can’t state that 70 percent of your paycheck disappears without providing evidence. It’s a basic tenet of how arguments work. Hiner has now written several paragraphs, but has yet to explain how my freedom of choice is lowered. He has provided zero evidence.

I would argue that the cumulative effect of freedom of choice is why this country is more successful than all other countries. Freedom of choice is the most powerful force in this world and that is why governments of all kinds despise it and continually try to reduce it. Fortunately, our Constitution and Supreme Court limit or at least slow down government’s attempts to limit freedom of choice.

I would argue the opposite. I have friends all over Europe and in Australia. I have been to their homes many times. They have a lot of freedom of choice. Maybe stop listening to pundits, make some foreign friends and travel to see how things really are.

Hiner names social freedom of choice above, yet never speaks of them. You can’t say there are two kinds of freedom of choice and then never speak of one of them. It weakens your argument.

So, that social freedom of choice Hiner never spoke about is about to come back and bite him. He states the Supreme Court limits or at least slows down government’s attempts to limit freedom of choice. So, the Supreme Court ruled back in 1973 that abortion is legal. That’s a social freedom of choice. It also allows women to be economically free.

By Hiner only talking about keeping his greedy dollars that he earned, he has made clear that he does not really care about social freedom of choice. He just wants to keep more of his money. He’s made it to the top and is pulling the ladder back up with him. Fortunately, for the majority of Americans, we’re pulling it back down and saying everyone can have an equal opportunity if we just pull together.

See what I did there? That’s why you must scrutinize everything and never take anyone’s word for their assertions or data.