Home
Archives
Subscribe
About Us
Contact Us
Links
Special Features
Cartoons
Submissions
 
Our Founding Documents
The United States Constitution
Bill of Rights
Amendments to the Constitution
The Federalist Papers
 
Attack on America
 
 
 

How Much Longer Can America Survive an Ignorant Electorate?

August 20, 2007


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 consideration.

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 remember.

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 freedom.

"The measures of the fair majority... ought always to be respected." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792.

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 capitalism.

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 Medicine.

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 shrink it.

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

 


Home Current Issue About Us Cartoons Submissions
Subscribe Contact Links Humor Archive Login
Please send any comments, web site suggestions, or problem reports to webmaster@conservativetruth.org