Don’t Reign On My Parade

I will start this diatribe by stating several known, easily observable  facts:

• Barack Obama has been elected President of the United States.
• I am very disturbed by fact #1.  (Nov 8, 2998 Meet The Press, Valerie Jarrett, Co-chair, Obama-Biden Transition Team told Tom Brokaw “given the daunting challenges that we face, it’s important that president elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one.” for instance)
• I am a racist.  No, I don’t care what race Mr Obama claims as his own.  Nor do I put much stock in skin color.  However, I realize that “racist” has been redefined to mean anyone who disagrees with Obama, therefore I accept that label without further argument.
• The United States is not, never has been and was never intended to be a democracy.  In spite of this, there is an elitist element in our country that has pretty much convinced the uninformed that it is.
• There is no Constitutionally guaranteed right to vote in the United States.  Don’t want to take my word for it?  OK, ask the Supreme Court.
• The “dumbing down” of America has worked beyond anyone’s dreams or expectations.

Why do I mention these particular facts and what have they to do with each other?  Obviously, I intend to explain.

The United States of America was founded as a Republic.  Along democratic lines to be sure, but a Republic, nevertheless and most certainly NOT a Democracy.  Indeed, some of the Founders equated pure Democracy with a form of mob rule.

If this is true, why then why would any elite group try to convince the country that it IS a Democracy, and that every living citizen, along with a significant number of non-living or non-citizens, has the right to vote, no matter how hopelessly uninformed they might be?  Simple.  And, probably not the reason most of us would guess.  The United States was not only founded as a Republic, that Republic was bound by a written Constitution.   A Constitution that makes every reasonable attempt to limit the power and reach of the government it describes.  As if that were not enough, the Founders also made the Constitution very cumbersome to change, hoping to ward off frivolous changes.  Most especially changes made to favor the power of government, ergo the power of those who administer government over that of the people.

In recent years, it has been popular, among the elite, to have de-facto changes made to the Constitution by the courts.  A court system whose own lust for power has made it forget its true role in interpreting what is already there, rather than digging into the Constitution to find “rights” that were never there, never intended to be there, and, usually, not even in a area of Federal responsibility.  While this method worked well for a while, and with a particular Court, the more recent appointment of more traditional judges has hampered it.

So, if the elite are to continue to keep our Constitution “alive” through changes that would never have a chance of making it through the official process, then a new approach is needed.  For this, I offer you the notion of Democracy.  You see, in a Democracy, whatever the majority of apparent voter says, is the law, is it not?  And Constitution be damned!

But, is this really true?  Does one segment of the population actually have the right to impose a new form of government on another?  I refer specifically to current attempts to convert the United States to a socialist state.  I argue that it does not.

To begin with, I submit that our Constitution cannot possibly describe a socialist state.  It has too much to say in favor of our individual rights to person, privacy and property for that (in a socialist state, the state owns everything, ergo no such rights belong to the people).

If that is not enough, I raise another very fundamental matter.  Since the Enlightenment, a number of thinkers have refined a new concept, ultimately stated by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence… “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”

Put as simply as it can be put, I, along with millions of other Americans, DO NOT consent to be governed by a socialist state.  Period.  End of argument!

Since I still may not have not gotten the point across, let me try another approach.  We (The United States) are a Republic, not a Democracy.  Fine, you say, so what and why do folks like me keep harping on this point – does it really make any difference?  It is as simple as this.  A republic is a rules-based entity while a democracy is not.  Imagine trying to play a game, a really important game, but one where the rules of the game are made up or changed as the game proceeds.  Winning could turn out to be very hard in this game, unless you are on the side that can make the most noise, can be the most intimidating to the other players,  or can overwhelm them with sheer numbers.  This, my friends, is democracy, pure and simple.  If it sounds a lot like mob rule, well…

Now consider playing that same game except, this time, the rules are set in advance, are tightly enforced, and can be altered only in the most extreme circumstances.  This is a republic.

It is obvious that the republican method does not improve any given player’s chances of winning the game.  What it does do is ensure the game is played in a fair fashion, per rules that can be known to every player, well in advance of the game (I say “can be” because one can still choose to be ignorant of them).

If the game being played is called “self rule” and is being played in a place called the USA, the rule book would be called the “Constitution”.

I don’t know any way to make it more simple, yet the majority of our people still cannot seem to grasp the concept.  And, it is killing us as a nation.  But, on to other thoughts…

I have stated elsewhere in this blog that my philosophy of life is Objectivism.  While I have no intention of teaching a mini-course in Objectivism, I will tell the uninitiated that the most basic principles of Objectivism are:

• That I own myself.  Not some God, not some king, not some dictator, not some head of government, however chosen.  Nope.  Just me.  I belong to me and me belong to I.  From this simple notion I can go on to say that, if I own me, then I must also own the products of me.  Particularly, the fruits of my thoughts and my labor.  I can further surmise that since I own me and what I produce, I also have a responsibility to myself.  That responsibility is to act in my own self interest.  That is to say, I should live my life for me.
• That man’s rational mind is his only hope.  That is to say, success in life is based on thinking, using reality as the fodder for our thinking mill, not emotion, superstition or other such childish notion.  It then follows that if rational thought is the basis of a good life, teaching our young the basics of rational thought must be our most important responsibility.
• That each thing is what it is.  That reality is real, not the result of anyone’s imagination, wants, fears, etc. Further, that reality can be known and understood by a rational mind.

Almost immediately, one can see a chink in my armor.  If I have only my own self interest at heart, what could be better than a socialist state that can give me anything I want or need at little or no effort to myself, leaving me free to enjoy myself to the fullest?  Well, if you are a sucker (or emotion driven), then, for you, this may well be true.  For the rest of us, truly knowing what is in our own self interest might be the hardest thing we will ever try to learn.

Now, being a practical sort, I want my own self interest to be served for the entire length of my life, which I want to be as long as reasonably possible.  And, I want my self interest served at a minimum cost to myself.  I want it to be relatively easy and totally sustainable and long lasting.  This pretty much lets out simply taking whatever I want from others.  Indeed, this means that the method I choose for my own satisfaction must be agreeable to others!

But, even this will not discourage me because:

• I have a rational mind.  Something that, to my knowledge, is possessed only by humans, even if used by the few.
• I know of a game we can play that will allow all the players to win, at the same time.  In fact, it is the nearest thing to magic that the human mind can conceive.  No, it is not a secret.  The game is called Marketplace.

So, equipped with a rational mind and a game where everyone can win, is there anything I cannot accomplish?  No.  But only so long as I am free.  Free to exercise my ownership of myself with all that entails.

Free.  What a concept.  Does this mean I can do anything I want?  No it does not.  What is means is that I can do what I want with ME.  Why?  Because the only way I can be free is to allow everyone else to also be free.  In doing that, I allow them to exercise their ownership over themselves, and their products, just as I do over me and mine.  To do it any other way would simply mean that only the most powerful could be free.  Since “most powerful” is a concept that must be proven over and over again, all it ensures is constant turmoil.  Just mentally picture a country (of your choosing) that currently practices “strong man” government.  Enough said.  I am sure I don’t want that and I doubt you do either.

So, where are we now?  Oh yes, we all have to be free and we must all exercise our ownership over ourselves in a rational fashion and we have a marketplace to play in.  So far, so good.  Now, shouldn’t we all also be equal?  Funny you should ask.  There is a secret, evidently known only to those who actually use their reasoning ability.  For the rest of you, the “secret” is this… free and equal are opposites.  To have one, you must give up the other.  Bummer of a choice, but that is just the way it is.  If people are left free, they simply refuse to remain equal.  Likewise, to ensure people remain equal, their freedom must first be taken from them.  But, you say, didn’t Mr. Jefferson himself claim that “all men are created equal”?  Yes, he did.  But note that tricky word “created”.  What he did not say, imply or even hint at was the notion that “all men are created equal and must remain that way forever and in every respect and in every outcome”.  Indeed, the scope of Mr. Jefferson’s idea was only as applied to the laws men mutually agree to.  Simply put, if we are to be a nation of laws, said laws should apply to us all, equally.  Somehow, we have allowed that simple idea to expand into areas where it simply cannot apply.

I maintain that the concept of “equal” is best left to mathematicians and kept as far from governance as possible.  So, doesn’t this allow one person or group of persons to have an advantage over other persons or groups of persons?  Yes it does.  And, there is no rational remedy for this.  The gal with the better voice is more likely to end up a musical star.  The guy with extra long legs is more likely to end up a sports star.   The person with the big brain is likely to contribute more than the rest of us. The guy or gal born into a rich family is more likely to get into the best schools.  Indeed, the babies most healthy at birth are more likely to even live.  Personally, so long as we don’t use our natural advantages to harm others, I see no real problem with this.  It is simply part of the kaleidoscope we call life.  I say, get over it and focus on things that really can be changed!

So, again we ask, what can we do?  The truth is, I am not sure.  That is why I am soliciting your input.

My first thought was secession.  Let the socialists have their section of the country and let the free individualists have another.  While this does seem simple, in actual practice, it splits states, communities, even families.  The good side is that those who want a state that caters to their every whim would surely get the fastest, cheapest lesson in the history of mankind.  For that reason alone, I still tend to favor secession.

At some level, I suppose I have always favored secession.  I think it was the correct remedy the last time (e.g. Civil War).  The problem then was that the people on the states rights side of the argument chose perhaps the worst possible cause on which to bring their complaint – that of slavery.  Not only did this taint cause the states rights people to lose everything, it still hampers a rational discussion of states rights, due to the residue we have yet to purge from our system.

Good news though!  The secession I propose has everything to do with one’s view of freedom and government and nothing whatever to do with one’s view of another’s race.  Indeed, were we able to implement a rational secession, I would very much hope that any remaining racists end up on the other side (I refer to real racists, not the artificial kind I confessed to, tongue-in-cheek, at the start of this rant).

So, there you have it.  I am proposing a new country, built out of part of the old.  I further propose that we base it on the “original” Constitution (the base document and the first 10 amendments).  I propose that we call it the United States of America, since we will be using a Constitution that already calls it that.

Some may wonder whether an attitude such as mine is not somehow unpatriotic.  Quite to the contrary, I consider myself the ultimate patriot.  The America that prior generations fought to create and to preserve is exactly what I want to see again.  For totally selfish reasons.  I have lived a wonderful life in this land and I wish nothing less for my children, grandchildren and so on.  And, to openly reject being ruled, reigned over or otherwise subjugated is perhaps the finest expression of patriotism one could exhibit.

In fact, I contend that no actions opposing the actions of our current government can be considered unpatriotic for the simple reason that the government described by our Constitution, the one to which we extend our patriotism, no longer exists.  That is right my friends, the United States of America that we fought for, that we love sometimes more than life itself, has been destroyed.  Yes, the final collapse might take a while but it is inevitable.  Just look about you… and you will see:

• A so called “government” that has destroyed its country’s economy and that hasn’t a clue what to do about it other than go on a spending/bailout spree using money that simply does not exist.  This alone will seal our fate.
• A system of “education” that turns out hordes of functional illiterates, many if whom can’t find Canada on a map.An uninformed horde that knows nothing of  our intended system of government, of our economic system, yet are given the power to choose the future direction of the country.
• A business community that is, increasingly, devoid of ethics.
• A president elect who openly, vocally calls for a “Civilian Defense Force”, every bit as powerful as our military.  And the listeners cheered.  Not a single member of the so called “free press” bothered to ask who this force is intended to defend and from whom.  Before you let emotion get ahead of rational thought and accuse me of being extremist, please consider that Adolph Hitler published a book (Mein Kampf) in which he described his whole plan for the future.  Millions bought it, a few probably read it.  And still, these same people would gather by the hundreds of thousands to cheer madly over their own impending destruction.
• A president elect who embraces a “spread the wealth” philosophy. Indeed, who embraces most every Marxist theory of economics.
• A government that exists for its own benefit, not that of the people it presumes to govern.
• A republic trying to behave like a democracy.

And on, and on it goes.  Much more could be said but this should suffice to make the point.

So, here we are.  All I need now is for all of you to tell us how to get back to the world of the free and the rational.  Really – I am actively soliciting your input as well as your comments on what I have said.  All I ask is that your input be rational rather than emotional and serious rather than frivolous.

Tweet This Post