As a conservative and a Christian (two very unpopular things to admit on Slashdot) some would probably be shocked to hear that I am not against collectivism. In fact, I believe collectivism fills some very key deficiencies in society, such as caring for the less fortunate who are our brothers and our sisters, our neighbors, and our fellow countryman. Personally, I participate in several "collectivist" types of activities, such as distributing food to the unemployed, and repairing the homes or providing services to the elderly. The human affinity for community is an undeniable driving force of our psyche. Yet, collectivism can only go so far, as has been proven time and time again throughout the 20th century. Once collectivism becomes a tool of the state, a compulsory system, its sinister side appears and the result is human disaster in both death, destruction, and poverty that is unrivaled by any other system of governance.

Despite the apparent deficiency of societies based on collectivism (either in the form of high tax society or direct redistribution of wealth), the western Intellectual is still disturbingly enamored with the struggle to implement collectivism on a grand scale. Having been a "liberal" myself in my formative years, I can identify with these academics and intellectuals. I think Jamie Glazov put it succinctly when he wrote in his book United in Hate, "Convinced that it is incumbent upon society, and not him, to imbue his life with purpose, the believer becomes indignant, he scapegoats society - and ends up despising and rejecting it." It is fairly simple to see why the need for "Change" is so readily accepted by those who benefit so greatly from the system in place.

The problem I run into, is that I am still pretty bad at dealing with people. So when talking to other people who are bad with people, I often end clenching fists than extending hands.

I'm not sure how to change hearts and minds of the disenfranchised, because they live in a society that feeds off of its own. The liberal world is full of unachievable goals of strength, beauty, intelligence and success which ridicules those who have it for being greedy, mocks those who attempt to become the things they are told they should be, and scorn as low lives, geeks, nerds, or other stigma's those who do not even try. On top of it, the liberal eco system cuts off the outside by presenting the other side of life, the conservative side, by presenting it in every possible negative stigma possible, from racists to zealots to homophobes or bible bangers intolerant of everything that moves. If I lived in a world that gloomy, I think I would "Hope" for "Change" too.

Yet the promised social utopia never appears. We never get any prettier, smarter, stronger or faster. Our food doesnt get healthier, the governments never get less corrupt, people dont welcome you with open arms... instead the exact opposites occur.

It was a hard and isolating road to escape from the liberal double think thought trap. Talking with the religious types at church wasnt as harsh as I thought it was. Reaching out and helping the homeless wasnt so bad. Advising teenagers against premarital sex, not to do drugs, and to sacrifice for the future didnt oppress them (though, it probably didnt do much good either). I've grown happier with the world around me, I've accepted that I have problems socializing, that the world doesnt suck, and yes, it is probably me that is the one out of place. So I look for people like me, even if they are liberal, to befriend on common interests and leave the politics out of it. Perhaps if they learn to love the world they are in, they wont have any more "hope" for "change".

I received a recent email from my bank regarding legislation being proposed in congress that impacts financial institutions ability to collect transaction fees. Below is an excerpt from the email:

"I am writing to you about an issue that could negatively impact all PSECU members. The U.S. Congress is considering legislation that would reduce the amount of interchange fees paid by merchants when they accept a credit or debit card in payment for goods or services. Interchange fees are used to pay the costs of processing credit and debit card payments, with a portion going to credit card issuers like PSECU.

This issue is important to all of our members since roughly 60% of our annual net income is derived from them, allowing PSECU to offer low- or no-cost products and services. Interchange income also helps PSECU absorb the cost of fraudulent transactions when merchant data systems are breached. A significant loss in interchange fee income may result in PSECU having to charge more fees, increase interest rates on loans, or at worst suspend some products or services. Therefore, it is critical to preserve the income PSECU receives from interchange fees paid by merchants."

I've done a little more research and it turns out that many smaller banks may be forced to cut VISA/Debit services for their members. I couldnt imagine online shopping without it. http://www.psecu.com/yourvoice/

Just got finished watching Glenn Beck episode with doctors on it. The show ended with a medical student explaining how a government option will provide low cost insurance that will create competition. Of course, its the government that is currently restricting competition between the 1300+ insurance companies in the United States. Create the problem and become the solution. Brilliant. One caveat as a proof read. I am not exactly sure WHY these companies cannot compete. Whether it be federal or state laws that are creating the barriers. Something to research on the spare time.

Anyone who has spent any amount of time dealing with the government, especially the federal government (state DMV is a paradise compared to dealing with any federal agency), knows that efficiency, low cost, and competition is not in the lexicon of government vernacular. Insurance companies have to be more efficient than government under one simple principle of nature: no business could operate like the government and survive. Businesses that operate on "deficit budgets" quickly lose value as their debt to income ratio become unsustainable.

And government debt CAN become unsustainable. Ask the USSR.... oh wait.

As a conservative, I accept a few simple facts in life. We are all individually responsible for ourselves. Our government is here to provide some basic services, but it is not here to "take care of us". Government that governs less is the best form of government. People will always go without, either by choice or by circumstance. No entity on this planet can give everything to everyone. Government cannot replace God. The harder we try to create an omnipotent entity to care for us, the closer we come to creating the golem that destroys us (see USSR and Mao for more details).

The debate is not about health care. The debate is collectivism versus individualism. Hopefully we will see the errors of the past... but by that last comment tonight... I fear for the worst.