Move To North Dakota
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
In his attempt to justify the merits of a public option, columnist Joe Rothstein holds North Dakota up as a shining example of what is possible in a socialistic state.
It’s not my intent to impugn North Dakota or the friends I have who live there. I have lived in North Dakota and fondly remember the experience as a pleasant and worthwhile time of my past. I didn’t live in North Dakota because of the benefits of it’s socialistic institutions, so I don’t buy his arguments as to why the rest of the nation should subscribe to a national expansion of the federal government’s take-over of enterprises which don’t belong under government operation.
I would suggest that North Dakota’s present positive economic climate is not attributable to having a state-owned bank or a state-owned elevator. I also would suggest that these two enterprises don’t justify (or have anything to do with) the federal government providing health care payments for all who wish to have or need health care payments made.
Mark Levin in his book, Liberty and Tyranny identifies the values of a federal system where individual states are free to pursue whatever programs, projects or approaches that they wish to experiment with. Instead of the entire population of the United States being forced to subscribe to socialized medical care -- those who see this as a requirement for government to provide, could move to North Dakota and benefit from having a state-owned elevator and state-owned bank.
(For those considering this option, as someone who’s been there, you might want to plan on bringing a warm winter coat…)
In his attempt to justify the merits of a public option, columnist Joe Rothstein holds North Dakota up as a shining example of what is possible in a socialistic state.
It’s not my intent to impugn North Dakota or the friends I have who live there. I have lived in North Dakota and fondly remember the experience as a pleasant and worthwhile time of my past. I didn’t live in North Dakota because of the benefits of it’s socialistic institutions, so I don’t buy his arguments as to why the rest of the nation should subscribe to a national expansion of the federal government’s take-over of enterprises which don’t belong under government operation.
I would suggest that North Dakota’s present positive economic climate is not attributable to having a state-owned bank or a state-owned elevator. I also would suggest that these two enterprises don’t justify (or have anything to do with) the federal government providing health care payments for all who wish to have or need health care payments made.
Mark Levin in his book, Liberty and Tyranny identifies the values of a federal system where individual states are free to pursue whatever programs, projects or approaches that they wish to experiment with. Instead of the entire population of the United States being forced to subscribe to socialized medical care -- those who see this as a requirement for government to provide, could move to North Dakota and benefit from having a state-owned elevator and state-owned bank.
(For those considering this option, as someone who’s been there, you might want to plan on bringing a warm winter coat…)
Posted by Doug Busselman at 10/2/2009 2:05 PM 
Categories: Nationalized Health Care
Tags: Government North Dakota Socialism
Categories: Nationalized Health Care
Tags: Government North Dakota Socialism
Comments