Thanks to Kamala Harris for saying so clearly what she believes. We’re not picking on her; others believe precisely the same thing. She doesn’t believe that prices, the price system and free markets are humane. She doesn’t believe in freedom and capitalism. What’s the alternative? The force of government. That makes Harris a socialist or communist.

Despite entire countries being impoverished under socialist and communist rule, Harris and others ignore the fact that government brings about massive misery and unhappiness when it orders the production and allocation of goods, financed by taxation and subject to innumerable controls and regulations. All such systems cause immense corruption too.

Here’s what she said,

“It is inhumane to make people go through a system where they cannot literally receive the benefit of what medical science can offer. Because some insurance company has decided it doesn’t meet their bottom line in terms of their profit motivation.”

The price system combined with private compassion is far, far less inhumane than communism. Communism is brutal and cruel, reducing human beings to barbaric conditions. Capitalism results in unbelievable increases in wealth and goods at prices affordable to everyone. People who cannot survive on their own, which happens for a variety of reasons, have greater access to compassionate care under capitalism. America’s history of charitable and philanthropic institutions shows this clearly.

Harris’s maternal instinct is no problem if she exercises it herself in her private life, but not if she applies it to everyone through government. On a society-wide scale, the communism she’s advocating runs into insuperable difficulties, creating extremely inhumane results. Economic goods cost, which Harris ignores. If prices are abandoned, producers have no way of discovering what to produce and in what quantities, where and when to produce it and what innovations might be worthwhile. If government decides, it could be using up vast resources to prolong the lives of 90-year olds while skimping on the measures and innovations that may extend the lives of teenagers. Or it could be ordering the opposite: euthanasia.

Lacking the profit motivation that Harris criticizes, government bureaucrats have no means of deciding economic decisions in ways that produce greater happiness. Government disconnects the consumers of medical goods from the producers, preventing people from making the decisions that improve their happiness.

For the benefits of medical science to be spread more widely among poorer people, their costs have to be reduced. This can be done by removing government from medical markets.

Harris and others propose Medicare for All. Medicare for All eliminates private insurers under the Sanders version. The market disappears. Other proposals vary in their operation. The communists who back Medicare for All like the fact that the slogan is ambiguous:

“Adam Green, a co-founder of the leftist Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), said that Medicare for All’s ambiguity serves as one of its greatest strengths.

“‘There is a pleasant ambiguity and more of a north star goal nature around Medicare-for-all,’ Green contended. ‘This really does not need to be a huge intra-party battle. Why get in the weeds during the campaign?'”

It’s downright evil to sneak in communism through a slogan’s appeal while intentionally hiding its real content.

The Best of Michael S. Rozeff