Too Far Gone? - not your typical rant
Forgive me for breaking my own rule … I know this is not a political blog. But I can’t remain silent anymore. I HAVE to get this in written form, because I just can’t keep it inside any longer.
Let me set the mood for you, and give you an idea of what the last straw was for me.
I was sitting in my living room watching television, when a commercial came on. It looked like one of those normal “get out and vote” commercials, seemingly non-partisan. The logo for the campaign even has a picture of a merged donkey/elephant, indicating that party lines don’t matter.
On the contrary … this commercial was deeply partisan … but that’s not what made me angry. Here’s a sample from the commercial, after I set it up. Basically the ad was a string of kids, “too young to vote”, telling us if they COULD vote, they’d “vote for the candidate who’d fix healthcare“, and “protect social security and pensions“. The commercial ends with a voiceover lady saying “it’s time for healthcare and financial security for all“.
You can watch the video here.
OK, this might not seem like a big deal to you, but when I watched this commercial, I was STEAMED!!!
At what point in our history did we lose sight of the values that this country was founded on? No, I don’t mean “family values” (I wrote about that here) … I’m talking about core American values … the values the revolutionaries DIED for, the values the founders RISKED THEIR LIVES for!!! What happened to voting for a candidate who is deeply committed to THAT!!!???
Think about what that commercial was saying. Basically, it was an endorsement for the candidates that would:
- “Protect social security” - this means the candidate that will continue to force people to contribute to a government controlled “account”. No choice. Oh, and if you never contribute to said account due to not ever having a job, you still get to withdraw from it.
- “Fix healthcare” - this means, surprise surprise, forcing people to pay higher taxes to the government, so the government can use that money to pay for your doctor visits and any other medical need you may have. Again, no choice … you have to participate. And again, if you never pay a DIME into the system, you’re still entitled to withdraw as much as anyone else.
- “Protect pensions” - This one really makes me angry! You want the GOVERNMENT to start getting involved in PRIVATE pension programs!!!???
I’m not saying that the government is useless. In fact, for the things that it was intended to do, it does quite well. It protects us via the military. It protects us domestically by passing laws that prohibit socially destructive behavior. I’d even say I’m moderately happy with the way the judicial branch protects the Constitution.
But as it starts creeping further and further into my PERSONAL life, I can’t help but notice how the government screws things up more often than not.
Again, I’m not an anarchist, and I see the value in government, but this commercial is BEGGING … literally BEGGING the politicians to take more and more responsibility away from us, and give it to the government. Forgive the cliche, but the founders are rolling over in their graves!
And some of you might think I’m just talking about the democrats … think again. Oh sure, all the republicans are talking “small government” during the 2008 campaign, but if they’re anything like their predecessors, it’s all talk. Consider the Patriot Act … great name for a piece of legislation, by the way, huh, as it is basically anything but patriotic. Some of you might be thinking “hey, the Patriot Act is a good thing, it protects us and keeps us safer”. Believe me, I used to be one of you … until I heard Andrew Napolitano explain what exactly was in the PA. If you haven’t already, I’d strongly encourage you to watch this former United States Judge explain just how much power the PA gives to the government. Be afraid. In the wrong hands, the PA could mean a near dictatorship.
Regardless of what party you think is evil, the fact remains that both use manipulative tactics to slowly erode your freedoms, one at a time.
Republicans scare you into giving up your freedoms. Terrorists ARE frightening, for sure, but are they more frightening than living without freedom? The revolutionaries didn’t think so. They faced certain death every day at the hands of the British, yet they believed so passionately in freedom that they deemed the risk well worth it.
Democrats play on your sympathy. Surely a great country would NEVER allow it’s young, elderly, and poor to go without, would it? If they can’t afford healthcare, then it’s our responsibility to provide it for them. If they didn’t save for retirement, “the government” (the taxpayers) should give them assistance. If a person is sick or disabled, then they deserve treatment and aid to pay their bills. Every child has a RIGHT to an education. If a disaster happens in New Orleans, California, or halfway across the world, the United States federal government SHOULD send them millions of dollars to help rebuild. Right???
NO!!!!!!
That may seem terribly insensitive to you, and if it does, then congratulations … you are a victim of the democrat machine. None of these “rights” are outlined in the constitution. They are inventions of quasi-socialist politicians over the last 100 years. There’s no such thing as an “entitlement” in any of the founding documents.
And the most frustrating thing about all of this is the fact that a person that is devoted to getting back to our roots is labeled a “radical”. If you don’t believe in the legitimacy of the IRS, the Department of Education, or the the Social Security Administration, then you’re way out in left field. Wouldn’t it be funny if Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin were in the public eye today … they’d be labeled as lunatics. And the same goes for any of the founders.
I’m not going to convince very many people, I know. But I had to get this out. I get livid when I hear people espousing such blatantly anti-American sentiments publicly. I can’t believe we’ve gotten so far away from our roots that we wouldn’t laugh such people into shame for saying the things they do.
But, I still don’t believe we are too far gone. I believe there is really hope for the future of this country. But it will take a serious metamorphosis in the minds of the American people. Ignore the guilt, ignore the fear … make a commitment to freedom … become a passionate soldier of liberty.
Oh, and if you’re looking for someone to vote for, consider Ron Paul 
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Fatal error: Call to undefined function: show_manual_subscription_form() in /nfs/c03/h05/mnt/48320/domains/nathanrice.org/html/wp-content/themes/ElegantBlue/comments.php on line 108
Yup “Too far gone” is a good way to sum up this issue. The problem now is that generations have been paying into social security and the population is already to a large extent reliant on these federal (and blatantly unconstitutional) programs.
For now, social security is “back on track” because the massive inflation of the last decade has essentially reduced benefits relative to earning power, and in a few years they’re projecting another social security tax increase. If younger workers were to opt out, some significant source of revenue would be needed to cover the baby-boomers who legitimately paid into the system and deserve the return they were promised.
Of course, this could be achieved by rolling back other federal programs and saving billions on pork. We talk about sustainability in environmental issues, why don’t they address the fact that our political-economic model of debt-fueled growth isn’t sustainable? Well, that just wouldn’t get votes now would it.
You mean Ron Paul “I think we did 9/11″ Ron Paul?
Listen to this You Tube clip of Ron Paul making an idiot of himself once again, saying mall security in America does a better job than our military, and that the only reason our government sends troops to other nations is to provide the terrorists with “easy” targets.
This guy is a Liberal who uses “libertarian” language to fool young people like you who don’t know any better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFhaH-6QLi4
Conservatives don;t have any good choices this time around, the whole line up is lying through their teeth, just as the Dems are. Clinton is going to win, anyone who doesn’t think so is naive about international politics.
You stand on the precipice of communism, and you won’t believe it. Until it’s too late.
@Sonny - “You mean Ron Paul “I think we did 9/11″ Ron Paul?”
Ron Paul never said that. He did, in fact, say that our interventionist foreign policy, along with the millions of dollars we sent to Bin Laden in the 80’s, coupled with our complete naivity concerning the nature of terrorism, led to us essentially inviting them to attack us. He took no blame away from them for their actions, but he did (correctly) point out that it was partially our fault for letting ourselves become victims on 9/11. Big difference.
As far as the audio you linked to is concerned, I’m sorry … but he’s right. I won’t go into the whole war debate here, but engaging in nation building (as we did in Iraq) does make us much easier targets for those wanting to kill us. Why focus your energy on unarmed civilians when it’s just as easy to take down an armed, valuable soldier. Heck, you don’t even have to worry about air-fare and a passport.
I’m not an anti-war person, believe me! What I am against is the idea that in order to stay alive, we have to give up our personal liberties and violate our own principles by removing regimes from power, only to replace them with our own. I’m sure I don’t have to remind you about the consequences of our actions in Iran, and more recently the consequences of our aiding Islamic extremists in the cold war.
BTW, true conservatives (that is, small/limited government conservatives) have a great choice this time around. But they only have ONE good choice. The rest are posers, although in large part vastly superior to any of the democrat candidates.
“You stand on the precipice of communism, and you won’t believe it. Until it’s too late.”
I do no such thing. Please re-read my post … it’s anything but ignorant to the threat of communism.
Well, I had intended to discuss, perhaps at length, the issues of socialism vs. liberarianism, and conservative authoritarianism vs. liberarianism with Nate and anyone else who cared to join, but with the knowledge that Sonny will inevitably interrupt I think I’ll go with email instead. Sorry for anyone else on here who might have liked to be involved.
The way I see it, there are two beneficial principles that come in to play whenever one is discussing freedom vs. social welfare.
On the one hand, there is the principle of staying out of peoples’ lives and allowing them to live or die by their own choices. I think we can agree that granting citizens maximum personal freedoms in their day-to-day lives is a noble idea.
On the other hand, there is the principle that an affluent society should take care of its poor and incapable citizens. The idea that society should intervene to provide basic comforts is also a noble idea.
The problem is that when either ideology is implemented, there is a partial or total loss or compromise in the other principle.
If you give people too much absolute control over providing their basic necessities, a certain proportion of them are bound to utterly fail. Many of them will even fail while working hard not to. A wealthy society that loses all charity for the poorest of its citizens does gain the ability to indulge guiltlessly and grow wealth boundlessly. A few will win spectacularly, many will barely win, and a few will simply lose. It’s not possible for everybody to win in that system. Sure, perhaps they “win” in the sense that they have their ultimate freedoms, but that really doesn’t matter to them if they are bound by poverty and can’t even get basic healthcare or food.
On the flipside, if you give people too much assistance, then it cuts down on ultimate freedom for everybody. Those who succeed on their own can still accumulate hypothetically boundless wealth, but a good portion of their wealth goes toward covering the necessities of their neighbors who fail. In a sense, that isn’t fair — they earned that money, and they have to give it to someone who didn’t. However, there is some virtue in making sure the basic needs of every citizen are met, and I don’t think the principle can be entirely dismissed. It’s not pure and absolute evil — things just are not that black-and-white.
Would it literally destroy society to raise taxes to cover the basic needs of everyone? No, I don’t think so. But it would destroy the principle of “every man for himself, win or lose”, an idea which any free society should place at least some value in.
This issue seems to me like it’s just a war between two high-minded principles; unfortunately they cannot both have a complete victory. As is usual in politics, if either side got everything they wanted, we would have a complete disaster. One or the other would be a triumph of principle, but we would have an absolute real-life disaster.
I think there is a point when you have to swallow what is right in principle and just make that compromise. Maybe provide some social services, but limited to the basics. Food, housing, and healthcare could be considered the basics. A number of tools could be used to accomplish this: Social Security, universal health insurance, education, etc. Those details could be debated endlessly, but that isn’t my point.
My overall point is that real people would truly be impacted in ways that affect their lives more than most people could imagine. The unfortunate reality is that a wealthy person who could afford to help others won’t necessarily realize just how much difference they can make. It may seem inconveniencing to give up some of their wealth, but it is nowhere near the level of inconvenience that the truly needy face every single day.
I think giving everyone absolute responsibility to meet their own basic needs would inevitably result in higher poverty, sickness, homelessness, crime, pollution, etc…. the negative effects alone may provide a fairly good incentive to at least meet all of society’s basic needs. Or maybe it’s not worth compromising the principle of maximum freedom; I really don’t have the answer.
Sorry about the long post. I felt that if I didn’t get this all out at once, my points would be lost and fragmented in the sea of religious debate that seems to have hijacked this thread. For the record, I agree that religion and politics have no business being together.
So much more to say, perhaps some other day…
I agree with Adam’s characterization of the whole debate- both notions are worthy and compelling, and unfortunately, both cannot exist as absolutes.
I also agree that a compromise is the only solution. Nathan, you say you are not an anarchist, but in the end if personal liberty in the sense of property is uncompromisable, why should anyone pay to support something that benefits anyone else at all? Should Ted Kennedy and I both contribute the same dollar amount in taxes towards the Massachusetts department of transportation? After all, even though his car must cost much more than mine, presumably we put a similar amount of wear and tear on the roads. What if I ride my bike- am I entitled to a tax refund for causing less wear on the road?
These are sacrifices we have to make to maintain a functioning society. I am loath to speak of ‘the greater good’, but in the end a degree of personal liberty must be given up if we wish to have anything but anarchy; any form of government at all requires such a sacrifice. When we debate among forms of government, we debate the degree of the sacrifice, not whether or not the sacrifice is made. The difference in a democracy is that the people may decide this; though any law at all is, when you get right down to it, a breach of liberty, at least we decide the laws. If you demand personal liberty be treated as an absolute in that arena, you must logically find yourself an anarchist.
If we end public schooling, as you suggest, what is to stop us becoming an oligarchy? What fraction of the 88% of American children currently educated in the public school system would be able to afford private school if pressed? Universal education is essential for democracy to flourish, and I think the founders agreed. Democracy dies in the dark.
If everyone should be educated for a democracy to function, should everyone also be fed? As Seneca the younger (Roman philosopher) said, “A hungry people listens not to reason, nor cares for justice, nor is bent by any prayers.”
Touching briefly on environmental issues you’ve posted about recently- You have stated you are against government regulations to control society’s effect on the environment. But you of course recognize the necessity of the rule of law to prevent the infringement of our liberties. If pollution in general and contributing to global warming in particular has the potential for endangerment to my health and/or property, doesn’t the government then have the obligation to impose regulations on these activities?
Your Democrats are now saying the war is being won because the terrorists have less targets to kill. Ron Paul said America sent the soldiers to Iraq to make them targets so they would be killed instead of your civilians.
What kind of idiots are running for your offices over there? How can you trust such people with leadership of your country? It seems as if they want you to be destroyed.
Libertarian and Democrat sound like the same talking points and argumentative strategy.
No offense, Hans, but I don’t think you have much of a grasp of the current political climate in the US.
Hans sounds a little familiar … perhaps like a good friend of ours who has been told repeatedly that he is no longer allowed to comment on stories at this blog.
Please find a different blog to hijack, Sonny.
Did you check the IP, or are you just guessing?
His IP changes, which makes me think he’s on dialup. If it were static, I’d just ban that IP.
As it stands right now, all comments have to be approved before being published, except for people I choose to let through immediately. All of my regular commenters are on the “immediately approved” list.
Ah. We had a couple of spammers (humans, bots are much easier to get rid of) with dynamic IPs on FES. One, apparently, had absolutely no life, and spent hours posting as many tubgirl images (if you don’t know what that is, don’t google- you don’t want that picture in your head) as he could before I could ban him and delete all the posts. Then he would sign up with a new nick, and go through the whole process again. Eventually I just put in a call to Charter, his ISP. Problem solved.
I share your frustration Nathan. Frustration in the laziness and expensiveness that a nanny state produces. It’s NOT what this country was about in the beginning. Some, like Hillary, come right out and say that they want to change this country. And she’s not referring to changing the name on the stationary at the White House. She apparently rejects everything the founding fathers stood for.
When she talks about ’shared responsibility’ what she means is to hell with personal responsibility, and ‘I’m going to take $10 billion from that industry.’ She wants the government to completely run our lives via punitive tax codes, punishing achievement, with an anti-capitalist anti-military defense mindset, dictating where and how we can meet our health care needs, where and how we can provide for our own ‘Social Security,’ where and how we can educate our kids. She doesn’t stop there, she wants to include illegal aliens as well. And on and on.
French President Sarkozy can tell us, and has, what can happen in a nanny state. He also reminded us what’s good about America. Something liberals and most democrats would be good to review. He said this last week before a joint session of congress.
Sarkozy’s quote that should have been part of the post above.
To the millions of men and women who came from every country of the world and who — with their own hands, their intelligence, and their hearts — built the greatest nation in the world, America did not say, “Come, and everything will be given to you.” Rather, she said, “Come, and the only limits to what you will be able to achieve will be those of your own courage, your boldness, and your talent.”
Really good and really interesting post. I expect (and other readers maybe :)) new useful posts from you!
Good luck and successes in blogging!