Can any representative republic
survive a progressively ignorant electorate? Can freedom be sustained in any
society hell-bent upon taxing its productive members out of existence, for
benefit of its non-productive? Can people unable to successfully govern their
own lives be entrusted with the power to govern others?
Not to be unkind, but we need
to face facts here. So long as a republic represents the will of the brave,
it will remain the home of the free. When it's run by the productive members
of society, it will remain prosperous. When it's governed by the independent
minded, it will not be dependent upon anyone. When run by those with a healthy
respect for individual rights, special interests will no longer need special
But when cowards, thieves and
thugs run things, those who believe that some "progressive" form of socialism
is better than individual freedom and personal achievement, freedom is diminished.
When those seeking to rob the rich in the name of the poor while stuffing
their own pockets and growing their own political power run things, then the
republic represents cowardly thieves, not the people.
When capitalism is attacked,
socialism is automatically advanced. We can not afford to allow socialists
to criminalize capitalism in the free enterprise capital of the world.
While democracy is by far the
most successful form of government on earth in the short run, it is once again
proving to be unsustainable in the long run. In short, people who make a mess
of their own lives and then seek government solutions to the mess they created,
are about to make a mess of their entire nation. America has been on this course for some sixty
years now and the self-destruction of the greatest nation on earth is accelerating.
In the best of circumstances,
government is still the most evil of necessities. Societies inherently know
this in the early stages of development. But generations later, few seem to
Even when very limited by design,
restricted by law, of, by and for the people, government is a deadly virus
constantly eating away at personal liberty and individual freedom, first slowly,
then at an accelerating pace as the "progressive" virus consumes that which
it was originally supposed to protect.
The very same democratic principles
used to protect personal liberty and individual freedom can, and as history
has proven, will eventually be used to attack personal liberty and individual
"The measures of the fair
majority... ought always to be respected." --Thomas Jefferson to George
If a fair majority decides that
individual freedom and liberty are to be protected, then that should be respected.
However, if that same fair majority decides that a greater common good trumps
individual freedom and liberty, then that must also be respected, yes? The
absolute rule of a fair majority is by definition, a democracy, even when
that majority chooses tyranny over freedom, collective socialism over individual
I wrote about the dismantling
of America in a recent column titled When 51-49 becomes 49-51.
In it, I talk about how freedom
and liberty are protected only so long as at least 51% (the fair majority)
desire personal freedom and liberty more than government solutions to personal
challenges. I also describe what happens once those who only respect a greater
communal good outnumber those who still desire personal freedom and individual
liberty, when 51-49 becomes 49-51, swinging majority interests away from individual
rights and towards the collective rights of the community at large.
Because one cannot be allowed
to fail, one can no longer be allowed the freedom to succeed either. Individual
success must be penalized by progressive taxation, because it is the only
way to eliminate, pay for or offset individual failure, once failure is deemed
inhumane and unacceptable by the commune at large.
Today, capitalism, free enterprise,
profit, independence, individuality and personal achievement are scorned as
dirty words in America. The successful are now referred to only
as "the greedy". They are targeted for revenge, taxed against their will,
driven from the community like common criminals, through excessive governmental
intrusion, taxation and regulation. Not even the very real threat of world
wide terrorism or national bankruptcy can spawn as much fear and anguish in
average American voters as evil "corporate America" does today. Not because corporate America is an equal threat, but because ignorant
voters have been fully indoctrinated.
As an example, just as socialism
is but a stepping stone on the road from capitalism to communism, Universal
Healthcare is but a stepping stone on the road from private medicine to Socialized
The case for Universal Medicine
is made on the basis that private medicine is failing to meet the needs of
the people. Medical costs are too high, as are insurance costs. The idea is
that a "single payer system" (the single payer being the federal government)
will solve the problem by simplifying the process and bringing down the cost
of medical treatment and insurance by way of "collective bargaining" on behalf
of the people.
Once Universal Healthcare is
installed, the federal government will soon cut out the inconvenient middle-man,
the health insurance company, collect the insurance premiums itself to stay
afloat and begin to administer medicine and medical decisions directly. This
is socialized medicine and there is only a hairline difference separating
Universal Healthcare from socialized medicine.
Our federal government has never
reduced its own size, scope or reach. Though every election cycle is filled
with promises to reduce the size, scope, reach and expense of the federal
government, and both liberals and conservatives claim to desire personal freedom
and liberty, politicians are instead elected on the basis of just the opposite.
They are elected on the basis of where they intend to grow government, not
Nobody is running on the basis
of reducing the size, scope and reach of government and if they did, they
would never be elected today. As a result, no Democrat politician would ever
run on such notions. Even Republicans feel the need to pander just to stay
in the game.
Few in modern America understand that individual freedom and
liberty can not co-exist with socialism or communism. Few recognize that they
are systematically destroying the greatest nation on earth with every attempt
to vote themselves or others gifts from the treasury. Few would knowingly
vote for socialized medicine, but most now support universal healthcare. Few
want socialism, but many now believe it serves the people better than capitalism,
otherwise known as economic freedom.
The new American majority is
indeed willing to trade individual freedom and personal liberty for free (paid
for by others) stuff, and a false sense of temporary security.
What's their defense? "A little
socialism can be a good thing. We don't like the term "socialism," we prefer
the term "socially conscious democratic 'progress.'" Learn to like it, you
greedy capitalist pig! It's here to stay!
Copyright ©2007 J.B. Williams