“Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”
Sadly, for many of us Americans, the fear of fears are beginning to come true:
In one of President Obama’s off-cue moments, speaking to Joe The Plumber, while campaigning for President, he talked about spreading the wealth around… that one line so frightened many Americans, myself included, that it nearly cost Barack Obama the election.
Most Americans are hardworking, and believe in the freedom of the individual, and the Equal Rights of each individual to pursue economic opportunity in their country. By now, most of us know, the terms spreading the wealth, or Social Justice, are terms that stem from economic systems such as Socialism and Communism… these systems have been tried, over and over, throughout history, and the outcome is rarely, if ever, a very good one. Such doctrines, are fundamentally un-American, and foreign to most American’s way of life and thinking.
Below are a few, very telling, and honest, clips …
–In this clip, Democrat Senator, Max Baucus, openly admits, this newly passed health care law, is income redistribution:
The obtainment of wealth was never guaranteed by our founders; however, the path for the general citizenry to become wealthy, come not have been much better. Written by Mark Ross
This brief exchange (below) is from the last speech, in The House of Commons (November 22, 1990), by former Prime Minister of England, Margaret Thatcher… She does a great job at articulating the fallacies of Socialism, and exposing the political intentions of those on the left, who so often exploit the impoverished, in order to move forward their political agendas…
The complete transcript to this exchange, can be read here.
–
verb [suhp-li-keyt]
1. To make a humble and earnest petition; to pray humbly.
2. To seek or ask for humbly and earnestly.
3. To make a humble petition to; to beseech.
Dictionary.com
noun
1. An economic doctrine that flourished in Europe from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries. Mercantilists held that a nation’s wealth consisted primarily in the amount of gold and silver in its treasury. Accordingly, mercantilist governments imposed extensive restrictions on their economies to ensure a surplus of exports over imports. In the eighteenth century, mercantilism was challenged by the doctrine of laissez-faire. (See also Adam Smith.)
Dictionary.com
noun
1. A social theory advocating the liberty, rights, or independent action of the individual.
2. The principle or habit of or belief in independent thought or action.
3. The pursuit of individual rather than common or collective interests; egoism.
4. Individual character; individuality.
5. Philosophy.
a. The doctrine or belief that all actions are determined by, or at least take place for, the benefit of the individual, not of society as a whole.
Dictionary.com
noun
1. The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.
2. The political principle of centralized social and economic control, esp. of all means of production.
Dictionary.com
At the root of many of our political debates, in The United States, are two very fundamental differences: Collectivism vs. Individualism -
And while much has changed in our modern world; and while there is, and likely should be, some exceptions to the rules, the general premise of individualism applies today as much as it did when our nation was founded -
Individualism, at it’s very core, gives individuals more freedom to make choices in their own lives – however, beyond that, if individuals, and individual entities, are to trip or fail, the effects on society should be reduced to the greatest extents possible.
For example:
• If a private company fails, they should be going through a bankruptcy procedure; likewise for individuals, and families who have over-extended their credit, or are no longer able to make ends meet.
At the state-level:
• If a program fails, at the individual state-level, it should not effect the other 49 states in The United States.
Conversely, collectivism presents systemic failures at every turn:
To name a few examples:
• The federal government owning over half of all mortgages in The United States, as opposed to individual banks assuming 100% of the risk, on all mortgages. (e.g. Fannie and Freddie, which were integral causes of our current, and severe, economic recession.)
• Unfunded promises from federal programs such as Social Security and Medicare, are leaving our Federal Government with tremendous deficits; which will place tremendous burdens on all (tax-paying) United States’ citizens; which subsequently, and negatively, can place tremendous burdens on the entire economy as a result -
In fact, in 1968, Fannie and Freddie were semi-privatized by The Federal Government because of the deficits they were placing on the budget of The Federal Government - thus facilitating, and opening up Pandora’s Box to the recklessness which followed. Had Congress never, presumptuously, created Fannie Mae as a government agency in 1938 - which allowed The Federal Government to buy government-insured mortgages from lenders, we would likely not be in the situation we are currently in today. Fannie and Freddie, today, are continuing to absorb billions in tax-payer dollars, just to keep them from collapsing.
The federal government, or state governments, as far as I am concerned, should not be running any programs or services which can potentially put the tax-payers and overall economies at great risk. Of course, with state sovereignty, each state is free, by consensus of their voters, to enact any programs they see fit.
Our founders, wisely, and deliberately, kept the powers of Congress limited to specific powers - sadly, many problems, as a result of excessive (unconstitutional) powers, exercised by our federal government over the years, are coming to fruition today.
–
Furthermore, anyone who believes in our Democracy/Republic, should be unified in de-centralizing an out of control federal government. Anyone who wants to increasingly give more power to our central government, can neither believe in Democracy or our Republic – as Democracy is either total rule by the citizens, or can be a representative form of government; however, many, especially on the left, claim to want more Democracy, yet they continue to vest more power into the federal government - which is essentially an Aristocracy, and the very concept upon which our founders fought to get away from.
Individualism, not only promotes more freedom, but for all practical matters, it safeguards our freedom, and the sovereignty of our nation as a whole. And furthermore, in my opinion, anyone who espouses collectivist systems such as Socialism or Communism, are not only rejecting our free-market system of economics, but quite possibly, a representative form of government as well. In my opinion, all such systems are fundamentally un-American; and by this country, should be rejected at all costs!
adjective [kwik-sot-ik]
1. Caught up in the romance of noble deeds and the pursuit of unreachable goals; foolishly impractical especially in the pursuit of ideals.
2. Capricious; impulsive; unpredictable.
Dictionary.com
Note:Although the above words have been cited many times, over the years – including by Ronald Reagan, in this 1961 speech on Socalized healthcare, there doesn’t appear to be absolute evidence that Thomas actually spoke or wrote these words.
“Resolved, that the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government.”
Twitter
Facebook