Sandra Nelson's question is exactly what Lady Jennifer expected of her. She knew that far too many conservatives were overly defensive of their politics, and Sandra was no exception. "Mistress Jennifer, I would like to go back to what you said about Conservatives being their own worst enemy. President Bush was just reacting to the lies of the mainstream media when he used the phrase compassionate conservative. When Republicans are hounded out of office for minor transgressions, yet a Democrat gets caught with $100K in the freezer and still gets re-elected, I would say the media are more to blame than us. Why do you believe differently?"
"First of all, you need to see that the only thing the media is doing is holding us to a higher standard than they do their like-minded brethren. And this is consistent with what we said last night that liberals see expectations as something you only inflict on your enemies, not on your friends. Conservatives make a serious mistake when they see liberalism achieving their goals through the actions of the media, and foolishly believe that we could also if we had their help.
"I could not think of a worse fate for conservatism than to have the mainstream media on our side. Liberalism can spread through the media, but conservatism can't. Conservatism requires one on one contact. It is spread by people who set an example that others come to admire, and no other way. Instead of whining about the media's treatment of us, you should be grateful for it.
"I cannot overstate this. Conservatives are their own worse enemy. The liberal media is actually doing us a favor, because it forces us to focus on our strengths. The media can never be a reliable ally."
Evellyn Robinson's question was the reasonable, fact-based question that Lady Jennifer anticipated from her. "Mistress Jennifer, I think it would be helpful to understand what you're saying if you explained how things like the police or fire departments would work without governments. Or better yet, the military. I can't see how that would work without the government."
Lady Jennifer paused for a moment to collect her thoughts, then said, "I mis-spoke when I said the government should be eliminated. What I meant to say is that the government as it is commonly understood should be eliminated. The things we all — and I do mean all — want done, of course, I want to continue to be done through what should be called the government. But in my view, the government is what we have chosen for it to do, not what elites have decided what is best. Anything that cannot get everyone's support should be done through private hands until everyone is convinced that it should be the government's responsibility.
"Additionally, there is a fine line that you must understand, particularly when it comes to something like the military. Many liberals would like to see it greatly reduced, if not eliminated all together. They only see the military as a drain on our resources, and that its mere existence provokes the hostility we see directed towards us. Getting them on board with funding the military would be very problematic with my view of the government, but at the same time, these liberals should be careful what they wish for.
"If they were to some how to pull off what their hearts desire, and drastically reduce our military, then there exist, right now, enough patriotic citizens that are willing to privately finance the military. The left may believe that the war on terror is nothing more than a bumper sticker, but there are enough of us in this country who see it as a reality. And like any person alive, we are going to do what is necessary to insure our security. And that includes privately funding the military if we have to.
"The thing is, once we are paying for the military directly, and not with taxes, we'll start to see that the rest of the foolish nonsense that our taxes are being wasted on will seem even more like foolish nonsense, and this will make it even more likely that we will throw off our government.
"So to answer your question Evellyn, we are very, very close to throwing off our government as we know it. Now when I say close, I don't mean soon. I just mean that our ability to do so is nearly there.
"Before we leave this question, I want to talk about one of those many lessons to learn from our military. One of the most important reasons why the finest people our country has to offer are members of the military is because of the elimination of the draft. Coercion is not used to get people in, nor is it used to keep people in. You should keep this in mind when you are thinking about the kind of people you want in this country, and how best to bring them about. It's not done with force."
Becky Phadt's question was a bit of a disappointment for Lady Jennifer. She would have hoped that Becky would have progressed a little farther than she had. "Mistress Jennifer, while I know what you have been saying about socialism is true, I still think your position is a bit extreme. You seem to have nothing but contempt for good intentions, but wouldn't any worthy endeavor begin with good intentions? While a valid point can be made that socialism has been a failure wherever it has been tried, does that mean that it should never be tried again? Maybe it's an idea that hasn't had the right approach taken yet.
"Take Universal Health Care for example. I am willing to concede that there are a few problems with it, but if those problems could be worked out, wouldn't the pay off be worth the effort?"
"I'm sorry to say Becky," began Lady Jennifer. "…but socialism is fundamentally flawed, and health care is an excellent example to prove it.
"Did you know that Great Britain has an equivalent agency like our FDA? Yet there is a key distinction. With Britain's version they must have a cost benefit analysis in their approval process, yet with America's, no consideration can be given to cost.
"You don't have to take my word for this. Simple common sense would say that you can't give everything to everyone. Something must ration whatever there is, and either the market place will do it, or the government will. In Great Britain, they must weigh the benefit to their society of a drug, against the cost it would take to deliver it.
"What is wrong with this, you might ask? An easy analogy is the microwave oven. When these things first became available to the public in the 70's, only the wealthy could afford them. Yet with a market for them firmly established for the rich, other manufacturers got into it, and came up with the means of making them cheaper. Eventually the cost came down enough that even the poorest among us could afford them.
"The same can be said for health care. If drug companies can charge what ever they want for the drugs they develop, they will be willing to risk a lot to develop them. The thing is, they only have a monopoly on that drug until their patent runs out, and then anyone can make them. So because of the rich being able to afford better health care than the poor, eventually the poor will benefit from it.
"No matter how you look at it, socialized medicine is a parasite process. It cannot exist without other systems like ours that can take the risk to develop what would eventually benefit all.
"When I corner socialists with the example of the microwave oven, and I ask them what process would socialism use to create them for everyone — oh, and you have to ask a socialist this because a liberal would just deny being a socialist, so you can never engage in a meaningful debate on this with them — if you ask a socialist this, their usual answer is to say something like 'well, microwave ovens are not that important, but socialism can definitely deliver the necessary things.'
"And this gets to heart of the problem with socialism. A socialist is someone who cares more about keeping people alive than they are with allowing them to live. And contrary to popular opinion, the point to life is not to stay alive. If it were, then we are all destined to be failures, because we are all going to die.
"Socialists like to claim that their only concern is the welfare of the poor, but what really drives them is their hatred for the rich. Even though the poor would eventually benefit more if the rich were allowed to have better health care, the socialist can't handle that. As far as they are concerned, it's just not fair."
Source: reddit.com/r/eroticliterature/comments/2rvlvx/next_generation_christian_kingdom_ch04_what_are