The positions can be summed up with either of these two descriptions. On one hand, people want the government to give them freedom from something, perhaps government itself, or policies that invade a certain sphere of privacy, or some other invasion of personal rights by companies or other individuals.

People also want freedom to something; they want the freedom to education, freedom to speak their minds, freedom to operate their lives without fear of being attacked. Unfortunately, although this sums up the philosophies of the two major parties we have in the U.S., it doesn’t quite reveal the anomalies of contradiction.

The recent Missouri ballot proposition to “allow” Missourians to opt-out of the government-mandated health care coverage is revealing in a sense. Although it was a pointless campaign — no matter the state-level dictate, it will be trumped by the federal-level mandate — it was enlightening in that it showed how the notion of individualism is perhaps the most contradictory concept in our society.

One would think the fundamental reason for which we have government is for the sake of the citizens; their well-being, their protection, their progression. In this, one would think a military is necessary from external threats, and internally health care would be necessary to maintain the condition of the people.

So, why is it we never complain that supporting a military is mandatory for every citizen, but we have such a hard time fathoming a government’s responsibility for the health of its people by providing and mandating health care? Furthermore, I don’t see people up in arms over requiring drivers to have car insurance, but the philosophy that supports it is essentially the same.

Basically people are egoists. It is a reality that there are evils in the world holding guns and ready to shoot us dead. Out of fear, we submit ourselves to the government, doling out funds to maintain a protective military, financing its hopeless ventures on the whims of avarice.

But health care is more immediate; its priority is not maintained by media aggrandizement at cardiac arrest level. When people feel healthy, then health care in general does not matter, and, of course, those that feel healthy are those that have or can afford health care. The private enterprise of health care in the U.S. is regulated so loosely that premiums and deductibles are comical.

The financial burden of health care for both the insured and the uninsured rests heavily on our government, swallowing 16 percent of our gross domestic product. Obviously the egoism that necessitated this isn’t the solution.

To these people, a government support of the health of its citizens just seems ludicrous. As Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, states, “Government-run healthcare is a gross overreach of the federal government.” Is it though? I find it a moral obligation of the federal government to care about my health. But then again, I also think the government has a military to care about my safety.

Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps the military is meant to secure the autonomy of the government itself with little invested interest in the protection of the actual people of the state. If this is the case, it is obvious why health care is not considered a moral obligation of the federal government. But of course this questions the value of a government that would enforce this disposition, or perhaps the profiteers who benefit.

In the end, there is a paradox. Some people want the freedom to live their lives without fear of having to protect themselves individually from external threats, but want the freedom from the government providing protection from internal threats. Every year, 45,000 people die because of lack of insurance. If 45,000 people were shot to death every year, I bet we would be demanding the government take responsibility and action.

Nicholas Earl is a State News guest columnist. Reach him at earlnich@msu.edu.