Americans take pride in being the world’s freest people. We celebrate freedom on Independence Day. We sing of it before our sporting events. But haven’t history’s most brutal regimes concealed tyranny behind veils of patriotism and rhetorical allusions to liberty? After all, dictators don’t gain power while pledging chains and slavery. They gain power with glowing promises to free the masses.
Any 20th Century communist regime you’d care to name has followed this model. Hitler did, too. Islamic republics boast of the liberation wrought via their revolutions. And Hugo Chavez is utilizing this game plan to solidify his hold on Venezuela, much as did his Cuban hero, Fidel Castro.
To argue that the United States now mirrors Venezuela or the defunct Soviet Union is premature. However, it’s seems clear that Americans have less regard for liberty--and less liberty for that disregard--than did our forebears. Certainly our political leadership holds individual liberty in low esteem. We have ignored Benjamin Franklin’s wisdom and surrendered large chunks of liberty in return for temporary security. Just as Franklin warned, we have less liberty and security to show for our submission. To confirm the point let’s look at traits common to the free and slavish mind.
Free people revere the rule of law and its role in preserving civility. Yet it’s also understood that law enforcement’s prime purpose is to investigate crime scenes after the fact. Seldom are police able to foil crimes in progress.
Liberty requires it’s possessors to shoulder the burden of self-defense. Toward that end free people rely on some combination of mental preparedness, physical strength and weapons proficiency. These qualities, especially regarding arms, are paramount to that defense.
The slavish mentality accepts nothing related to self-preservation. Personal protection means petitioning governments to restrict or abolish the legal possession of arms. Ignored is the reality that criminals, by definition, disregard such laws. In absence of self-preservation the slavish person will demand surveillance cameras on every street corner. The just and the unjust are then treated as equals, which is the greatest of inequalities.
Freedom asks nothing more than an opportunity; a free person seeks only a chance. Liberty’s desire is to utilize individual talent, ingenuity, initiative and intellect to their greatest capacity and profitability. There are no guarantees and success is unpredictable. Whatever the results may be, that which was gained was earned, not granted.
The slavish mentality wants government to alter the starting line. It isn’t opportunity that slavish minds demand; it is advantage based on known or arbitrary criteria. What’s more, there must be an artificial outcome. Predictability, even when producing poor returns, is preferable to the risks of an unknown future. The product is invariably the equal distribution of mediocrity, which is considered preferable to the “inequalities” of the bourgeois meritocracy.
Personal responsibility is tantamount to the free individual. Meeting obligations is as natural as drawing breath. That may mean working one job, two jobs, or launching a primary or secondary business. Conversely, one spouse may drop from the work force to raise children, accepting the corresponding loss of income and necessary reduction in expenditures.
No so for the slavish. Only so much responsibility is acceptable. They will generally tolerate the burden of providing for their leisure and entertainment. But beyond that the onus rests on government. Nearly everything under the sun has become a collective concern. It is the state’s responsibility to keep human needs adequately supplied.
The fact that government can provide nothing to the slavish and indolent without first confiscating it from the free and productive is immaterial. Tragically, the demands of the willingly dependent eventually enslave the free as well, despite their best efforts to maintain independence.
Whether America remains the land of the free or becomes the home of the slavish rests on which mentality prevails. The free must love, protect and incessantly preach liberty. We haven’t yet descended into irreconcilable servitude. But we stand at the precipice.
Showing posts with label slavery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label slavery. Show all posts
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Freedom on the auction block
Prior to the mid-19th Century, town squares often included an auction block. On those auction blocks human liberty was bought and sold like livestock, cotton, tobacco, or any other commodity. It’s not a prideful part of our nation’s history.
However, such transactions aren’t a scar upon the United States alone. Nor was slavery invented here, contrary to politically correct notions. Nearly every nation, culture and race has engaged in selling human liberty. In some parts of the world it is still openly practiced and culturally acceptable.
Advanced societies have long since abandoned auction blocks. What’s unique about the United States is that we ended legal slavery at an earlier age--less than 100 years--than other nations in which it’s been practiced. Yet there remains one place in America where selling human liberty is routine and celebrated: the U.S. Senate.
Look at how the Senate healthcare bill unfolded. Lacking needed votes, Sen. Harry Reid and his minions opened our wallets and went shopping. When the spree was complete the votes were there and the bill moved forward.
It began with Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), once a critic of the Senate plan. But when Reid sent $300 million to the bayou Landrieu had a change of heart. One Washington Post writer concluded that her payoff could look like a bargain before the wheeling and dealing was finished. That writer might be a prophet.
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) sought $100 million from a series of amendments that will spread money around the country faster than Sooners can cross an Oklahoma prairie. Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont socialist, grabbed $10 billion for his state. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) won concessions that will exempt 800,000 elder Floridians from the bill’s proposed Medicare cuts. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) garnered up to $100 million to offset Medicare costs in his state.
The American Medical Association got a piece of the action, too.
Medicare fees for physicians disappeared, as did subsidy cuts to selected physicians. Taxes on cosmetic surgery were dropped in favor of a 10-percent tax on tanning salons. In return the AMA, which apparently has more pull than the tanning salon lobby, endorsed Reid’s bill. The entire process is enough to make your head spin, or your stomach turn.
To be bought and sold in such manner is an affront to all a person is or ever will be. But, strange as it sounds, it isn’t the ultimate insult. To see our liberty sold by our representatives and bought with our money takes pain and abuse to a new level. It’s like opening a wound, filling it with salt, then bandaging it with concertina wire.
Yet supporters defend the treachery as standard Senate fare. Sen. Charles Schumer said it’s why we have a Senate. And Harry Reid called the vote-buying and pork-barreling “compromise”. Both are as far from legitimate Senate action as the East is from the West.
The Senate’s job is to enact laws within constitutional limits that protect life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and state’s rights, not circumvent them all. And compromise isn’t paying Senators to sacrifice their principles to Harry Reid’s perverted image of the public good. Deeds that Senators defend as compromise would get the rest of us jailed for bribery.
Liberty can’t forever suffer the selfish maneuverings of a recalcitrant government. Congress has become the chains of our subjugation. Maybe we can stop this assault on liberty. Maybe we can’t. But if we stand idly Congress will continue to sell us and our freedom without a second thought.
Our constitutional, legislative and human liberties are on the auction block whenever Congress is in session. Each time a vote is sold or bought the auctioneer’s gavel falls and what remains of our liberty is presented to the highest bidder. Isn’t it time to bury this custom once and for all?
However, such transactions aren’t a scar upon the United States alone. Nor was slavery invented here, contrary to politically correct notions. Nearly every nation, culture and race has engaged in selling human liberty. In some parts of the world it is still openly practiced and culturally acceptable.
Advanced societies have long since abandoned auction blocks. What’s unique about the United States is that we ended legal slavery at an earlier age--less than 100 years--than other nations in which it’s been practiced. Yet there remains one place in America where selling human liberty is routine and celebrated: the U.S. Senate.
Look at how the Senate healthcare bill unfolded. Lacking needed votes, Sen. Harry Reid and his minions opened our wallets and went shopping. When the spree was complete the votes were there and the bill moved forward.
It began with Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), once a critic of the Senate plan. But when Reid sent $300 million to the bayou Landrieu had a change of heart. One Washington Post writer concluded that her payoff could look like a bargain before the wheeling and dealing was finished. That writer might be a prophet.
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) sought $100 million from a series of amendments that will spread money around the country faster than Sooners can cross an Oklahoma prairie. Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont socialist, grabbed $10 billion for his state. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) won concessions that will exempt 800,000 elder Floridians from the bill’s proposed Medicare cuts. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) garnered up to $100 million to offset Medicare costs in his state.
The American Medical Association got a piece of the action, too.
Medicare fees for physicians disappeared, as did subsidy cuts to selected physicians. Taxes on cosmetic surgery were dropped in favor of a 10-percent tax on tanning salons. In return the AMA, which apparently has more pull than the tanning salon lobby, endorsed Reid’s bill. The entire process is enough to make your head spin, or your stomach turn.
To be bought and sold in such manner is an affront to all a person is or ever will be. But, strange as it sounds, it isn’t the ultimate insult. To see our liberty sold by our representatives and bought with our money takes pain and abuse to a new level. It’s like opening a wound, filling it with salt, then bandaging it with concertina wire.
Yet supporters defend the treachery as standard Senate fare. Sen. Charles Schumer said it’s why we have a Senate. And Harry Reid called the vote-buying and pork-barreling “compromise”. Both are as far from legitimate Senate action as the East is from the West.
The Senate’s job is to enact laws within constitutional limits that protect life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and state’s rights, not circumvent them all. And compromise isn’t paying Senators to sacrifice their principles to Harry Reid’s perverted image of the public good. Deeds that Senators defend as compromise would get the rest of us jailed for bribery.
Liberty can’t forever suffer the selfish maneuverings of a recalcitrant government. Congress has become the chains of our subjugation. Maybe we can stop this assault on liberty. Maybe we can’t. But if we stand idly Congress will continue to sell us and our freedom without a second thought.
Our constitutional, legislative and human liberties are on the auction block whenever Congress is in session. Each time a vote is sold or bought the auctioneer’s gavel falls and what remains of our liberty is presented to the highest bidder. Isn’t it time to bury this custom once and for all?
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Confusion on the meaning of charity
I say that America is confused on the meaning of charity. Let’s go to the dictionary.
According to Random House, charity is generous aid given to the poor. In Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law charity is “a gift for humanitarian . . . or other purposes beneficial to the public.” For something to be given it’s understood that the act is voluntary.
I also say that America is confused on the meaning of slavery. Let’s go back to the dictionary. Random House defines slavery as a state of subjugation. American Heritage reads, “the condition of being subject . . . to a specified influence.” Slavery grants a person no choice of options.
When a person contributes willingly to the benevolence of their neighbor they’ve established charity. It is spiritually pure and morally just. However, when one person is compelled via force to surrender the fruits of their labor for another’s benefit there is no charity. When government wields that force a state of subjugation is established. It’s neither just nor pure and dangerously similar to slavery.
Slavery need not be enforced with chains. Physical shackles do not typify its existence and no cotton fields are required. There is neither black nor white; there’s no race, ethnicity, or heritage of any kind. There is only misery, poverty and servitude. American political culture has so perverted charity that it allows the taking of property from one party for the benefit of another, thus we’ve rendered charity synonymous with slavery.
At some point, in the not so distant future, we could find our nation right back where it started. Not only can slavery exist, but it won’t be targeted toward any one group. It will encompass the whole of society, just as it did under the British Crown.
If we awaken as slaves in our own land, bound by the dictates of an oppressive, intrusive and unconstitutional government, who will we blame? Will it be the fault of the Democrats, or the Republicans? No, the prime author of our subjugation won’t be a political party. They will have played a key role no doubt. But we can’t place the blame solely on them.
Maybe we can blame Barack Obama, or George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton, or some other politician? Most have contributed to the demise of the American experiment. Most have used their power to expand the role of government in our lives and usurp our natural liberty and right of self-determination. But no president or politician, past or present, can take all the credit for our waning autonomy.
The Founding Fathers; they started this country. Can we blame them? Hardly. The Founders created a constitutional republic that limited the size and scope of the central government. The Constitution and its amendment process also established the means to end slavery as it then existed, although that didn’t happen as fast as it should have.
Maybe we should blame God? Absolutely not! God made man to be free, to think and to reason. This is evident throughout the Bible, wherein God repeatedly grants a choice to man. No, we aren’t compelled through divine authority to be enslaved, or to enslave one another. Nor are we compelled to think it charitable to force a person to serve the needs of their neighbor. Spiritual charity is inherently voluntary.
The blame for America’s descent toward servitude lies directly on us, the electorate. Not only have we ignored our impending chains we have openly embraced them. We have defined charity as government taking the production from one American and giving it to another. And we have lost touch with the practical definition of slavery.
We’ve become gutlessly apathetic concerning freedom and wholly ignorant of both charity and servitude. When we awaken as slaves in our own land the lion’s share of blame will fall on no one but us.
According to Random House, charity is generous aid given to the poor. In Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law charity is “a gift for humanitarian . . . or other purposes beneficial to the public.” For something to be given it’s understood that the act is voluntary.
I also say that America is confused on the meaning of slavery. Let’s go back to the dictionary. Random House defines slavery as a state of subjugation. American Heritage reads, “the condition of being subject . . . to a specified influence.” Slavery grants a person no choice of options.
When a person contributes willingly to the benevolence of their neighbor they’ve established charity. It is spiritually pure and morally just. However, when one person is compelled via force to surrender the fruits of their labor for another’s benefit there is no charity. When government wields that force a state of subjugation is established. It’s neither just nor pure and dangerously similar to slavery.
Slavery need not be enforced with chains. Physical shackles do not typify its existence and no cotton fields are required. There is neither black nor white; there’s no race, ethnicity, or heritage of any kind. There is only misery, poverty and servitude. American political culture has so perverted charity that it allows the taking of property from one party for the benefit of another, thus we’ve rendered charity synonymous with slavery.
At some point, in the not so distant future, we could find our nation right back where it started. Not only can slavery exist, but it won’t be targeted toward any one group. It will encompass the whole of society, just as it did under the British Crown.
If we awaken as slaves in our own land, bound by the dictates of an oppressive, intrusive and unconstitutional government, who will we blame? Will it be the fault of the Democrats, or the Republicans? No, the prime author of our subjugation won’t be a political party. They will have played a key role no doubt. But we can’t place the blame solely on them.
Maybe we can blame Barack Obama, or George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton, or some other politician? Most have contributed to the demise of the American experiment. Most have used their power to expand the role of government in our lives and usurp our natural liberty and right of self-determination. But no president or politician, past or present, can take all the credit for our waning autonomy.
The Founding Fathers; they started this country. Can we blame them? Hardly. The Founders created a constitutional republic that limited the size and scope of the central government. The Constitution and its amendment process also established the means to end slavery as it then existed, although that didn’t happen as fast as it should have.
Maybe we should blame God? Absolutely not! God made man to be free, to think and to reason. This is evident throughout the Bible, wherein God repeatedly grants a choice to man. No, we aren’t compelled through divine authority to be enslaved, or to enslave one another. Nor are we compelled to think it charitable to force a person to serve the needs of their neighbor. Spiritual charity is inherently voluntary.
The blame for America’s descent toward servitude lies directly on us, the electorate. Not only have we ignored our impending chains we have openly embraced them. We have defined charity as government taking the production from one American and giving it to another. And we have lost touch with the practical definition of slavery.
We’ve become gutlessly apathetic concerning freedom and wholly ignorant of both charity and servitude. When we awaken as slaves in our own land the lion’s share of blame will fall on no one but us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
