In many of my rants, I have justified distasteful actions based on the notion that we are headed directly toward a form of socialist dictatorship.  Now I must ask, do we all really know what that means?  Indeed, do I even know what it means?  You decide.

I suspect that, when most of us think of dictatorship, we envision a Hitler, Stalin or Mao, giving arbitrary orders and destroying whoever and whatever raises their ire at any given moment.  While there is no doubt that Germany, the USSR and China were under dictatorships when these monsters ruled, is this a true picture of dictatorship?  I suggest they were more than that – that, each of these examples, and many others like them, are examples of the combination of dictatorship and “strong-man rule”.

I submit that, while dictatorship often paves to way toward “strong-man rule”, it can exist without it.  So, what exactly do we mean when we talk of dictatorship?

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines dictatorship as a “form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations“.

I offer an even simpler definition – it is nothing more than government without the consent of the governed.

Imagine a form of government intended to be a constitutional republic.  Except that those who govern have decided to ignore the rules and constraints of the constitution.  And, where those who govern have decided to ignore the expressed will of the citizens they were elected -and vowed- to represent.  Would not such a government come pretty close to the notion of “a form of government in which (…) a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations”?  Does this not come frighteningly close to describing the government that sits in Washington DC as I write this?

Well, you might try to tell me that it does not fit this description because our current government was duly elected by the people.  Was it really?  Does a government that exists due to a combination of corruption, the nearly insurmountable power of incumbency and a majority vote from semi-literate people who are dependent on government handouts really represent the will of the people?  That is, of the people who work hard to keep the country running only to have the results of their labor confiscated to support this evil circus?  Before any of you answers “yes”, please think this over and be really honest with yourself.  If, after having done so, you still answer “yes” then you should not be reading this blog – it will only upset you.  Plus, I will try my best to say insulting things about your inability to think rationally.

For the rest of you, those who are capable of rational thought, those who are watching what is going on, is the above not essentially true?  If it is not, then please comment and point out my mistakes.

If it is essentially true, then I can only conclude that we are already partway into a state of dictatorship.  For sure, we do not yet have our “strong man” and the brutality common to the regimes listed in the opening.  But, neither did they, at first.  In fact, all of those governments started out with good intentions – from their point of view.  They really thought they were there to improve the lot of their people.  It was only after they became addicted to their own power that power itself became the object of their rule.  In a fashion, and with the irrational behavior much like addiction to opiates.

Has it not always been the case that as power becomes more concentrated, by being placed in the hands of fewer and fewer people, that it becomes ever more addictive?  Did we not already witness this with FDR and his henchmen?  In that case, human frailty (pure luck – he weakened then died) saved us, short of falling fully into the abyss.  Will we always be that lucky?

We have a political “perfect storm” brewing right now.  We have a “leader” who attracts an irrational, almost worshipful following, much the same as Hitler, Mussolini, and FDR.  We have an economic situation that is being made into a crisis meant to frighten people so that they are easier to herd.  We already have passive acceptance, on the part of the “sheeple” of a total departure from constitutional government – by all 3 branches of our government.  If we compare the current situation to the advent of the significant dictatorships of the 2oth century, the only enabling element we are missing is a major war.  How hard can that be to start?

Don’t get scared, don’t get discouraged – but do get angry!  Damned angry!  Then do what you must to stop this travesty while it can still be stopped.

Tweet This Post 

If all else fails, my suggested approach of last resort is armed resistance.  Note the focus on “resistance”.  I do not advocate citizens initiating an armed attack on the government for several reasons.  The main one being that it could appear to put the government in a favorable light.  Instead, the government should be made to appear the clear aggressor with the people only protecting their rights.  Lets look at it:

PRO:

1. It is the way people have won and protected their freedom and their property for centuries.
2. It is justified.  All people have the right to defend themselves against enslavement and plunder.   Our government’s fiscal policies certainly do both.
3. Many of us would rather go down fighting than to meekly submit to tyranny.

CON:

1. Obviously, armed conflict means wounds and death.
2. There is no guarantee the right people get shot.  The guilty are the office holders and the bureaucrats who do their bidding, yet the police and military are the ones most likely to make themselves targets.
3. It is not clear whether a sufficient number of citizens would join the freedom fighters.
4. Armed resistance to government tyranny often leads to an ongoing state of guerrilla warfare, bringing endless death and destruction without settling anything.

ISSUES:

1. It is impossible to determine in advance how the US military would react.  I suspect a number of citizens would be killed or wounded at the beginning of hostilities, simply because the military is trained to do battle.  However, some number of them would become sickened by the sight of their fellow countrymen being slaughtered.  How many of them would come over to the side of freedom?
2. If such action must be taken, it must be in response to the attempt to confiscate of our weapons.  If such confiscation is allowed to succeed, then there is no way to form an effective force for resistance.

ASSESSMENT:

Not a desirable approach and probably not viable.  Should be tried only as a last resort.  However, should the situation get to the point where there is no other option, it MUST be attempted.  Rational people hope it never comes to this.  Yet rational people also know that freedom is worth defending and worth bleeding for.  Force and violence may well be the only thing tyrants really understand.

Tweet This Post 

I make no attempt to hide the fact that secession is my preferred approach for returning to a constitutional republic.  At this stage in our history, the divisions in our republic seem too wide and too deep to quickly heal.  Rather than allow the situation to further degrade to the point of dictatorship or outright civil war, it seem to me better to let those states/regions with significantly divergent motivations go their own ways, each pursuing what it thinks in its own best interest.  After all, in a truly free society, which is my goal, each party has an equal right to its own ideas as to what is best.  However, in this scenario, each party would be in the position of imposing its vision of what is best on itself, rather than on its peers.

I am convinced that the very best way to help a people understand what they truly believe is to let them live by those beliefs.  For instance, if you think slavery is a great idea, then confirm it by becoming a slave.

I would like to think that, after some period of experimentation, the several states would come back together into some manner of commonwealth or, perhaps even a union of sovereign states (what a novel idea!).  Let’s look at it:

PRO:

1. This approach provides the maximum freedom for everyone, allowing each state or region to decide for itself the manner and form of its government.
2. There should be nothing to prevent like-minded states/regions from forming a union or partnership with each other.  Indeed, even merging into a single state, if that is what they collectively desire.
3. This approach would be nothing more than the physical manifestation of a breakup that has already happened in principle.
4. The time is right as evidenced by the 20 states (at this writing) who are asserting their 10th amendment rights.  My assumption being that secession is the only thing that will secure these rights for the states.

CON:

1. I am making the huge, possibly incorrect, assumption that the state I “land in” after secession would be inclined toward the kind of government I prefer – specifically, a constitutional republic.  There is no guarantee this would be the case for me, or for anyone else.  Without doubt, some of us would be required to either move to a state more suited to our desires, or stay where we are, under a government we do not approve of – hardly an improvement from our current situation.
2. We have no assurance that our enemies would sit idly by while we suffer the pains of dissolution.  They might see it as a perfect time to seek our conquest and/or physical destruction.

ISSUES:

1. What happens to the immense military capability currently controlled by the federal government?  In particular, how would we handle our nuclear arsenal?  In a perfect world, we would find some equitable way to divide it up.  However, were this a perfect world, we would not be entertaining these ideas to begin with.  We know from our experience with the dissolution of marriage that the division of what was commonly-held property is contentious at best.
2. How might we address those who end up in a state/region they don’t belong in, but who have such property or business holding as to make the move to another state overly difficult and/or harmful to others (i.e. employees)?
3. The last attempt at secession ignited a civil war.  Even with the changed circumstances, nothing prevents this happening again.

ASSESSMENT:

Among a list of options, none of which is truly desirable (including the status quo), I see this as the most palatable approach, certainly the fairest to all concerned.  This might well lead to another civil war.  I am inclined to accept this risk in the sure knowledge that doing nothing will lead to armed conflict or slavery.  At least in a civil war, we will know what we are fighting for – therefore would know clearly when we have won or lost, making it time to quit the conflict.  Contrast this with internal armed conflicts that are based on vague, general disagreements and emotion.  In such cases, none of the combatants actually knows when something important has been decided, making such conflicts tend to go on until everything and everyone have been destroyed.

Bottom line, I urge a combined approach where we simultaneously persue voting our way back to constitutional government, organizing a constitutional convention, and seceeding from the union, gradually concentrating our energies and resources on whichever of these is showing the most tangible progress.  All the while, keeping our guns oiled and our ammunition dry just in case.

Like everything I write, this essay begs for your comments.

Tweet This Post 

Striking has long been used in Europe as a method of putting pressure on government.  With varying degrees of success. The two types of
strike that come immediately to mind are:

• A tax strike – that is, a unified refusal to pay taxes, and,
• A general strike – that is, a unified refusal, on the part of the productive, to perform productive work.

In the United States, the income tax withholding system makes an income tax strike impractical, and this is the only type of tax the
ordinary citizen can use effectively against the federal government.  Most of the taxes ordinary citizens have direct control over
affect state and local governments and, at this moment, these are not the target of our efforts. Given this, the following will be
directed only toward the general, or productivity strike.  Let’s look at it:

PRO:

1. General strikes can be very effective, given adequate participation.  It is very hard for government to fight back against a general strike – giving the ordinary citizen the upper hand in a situation where that is rarely the case.
2. General strikes do not depend on support from the “takers”, slackers, and other parasites on society.
3. General strikes can be used to very quickly bring an entire economy to a standstill. Even those who did not intend to participate soon find themselves unintentional participants as various enterprises shut down due to the lack of essential goods and services.
4. General strikes very quickly deny the government the goods, services, and cash flow that are needed to operate, thus rendering government virtually powerless.

CON:

1. General strikes also very quickly affect the strikers and other innocent bystanders.  Without some advance planning and stockpiling, the strikers may well find themselves under even more pressure than that they have brought upon government.
2. In the present economy, it is very hard to ask already financially stressed workers to voluntarily give up what, for most, is their only source of income.
3. General strikes too often lead to general mayhem, violence, looting and the like.

ISSUES:

1. Labor unions are the best equipped to organize and implement strikes.  However, given that most unions are socialist entities, often “thugocracies”  themselves, they are very unlikely to help ordinary citizens resist socialization.
2. It is not at all clear to what extent the armed forces of the United States would, if so ordered, sustain fire upon unarmed citizens. My present assessment is that most would not, especially after witnessing it actually happening in the early stages of a conflict.  However, this can quickly change as command is passed from patriots to thugs.

ASSESSMENT:
Possibly viable but not at all an attractive approach.  The odds are simply too great that it would cause undue harm to the very people
whose freedom it presumes to regain.  The possibility of a general collapse of civilized conduct, especially in the inner cities, is already too great.  A general strike might well be all that is needed to set off such a collapse.

One might well ask how this is different from armed resistance (which we will discuss in a future essay)?  To my mind, the difference is
that armed resistance suggests some level of organization, some clear tactical and strategic goals, a clearly defined “enemy”, and
intentional limitations on collateral damage.  A general societal collapse suggests mindless violence and pointless chaos.

Tweet This Post 

Elsewhere in this blog, I mentioned the possibility of a constitutional convention http://www.troy.thoughtsaloud.com/2009/02/01/its-a-social-disease/.  Certainly the use of a constitutional convention sounds inviting – but, how viable is it really?  Let’s look at it.

PRO:

1. It is a constitutionally approved method of altering (indeed, of rewriting) our Constitution.
2. Two thirds of the legislatures of the 50 States must call for a convention to be held.  By my count, that would be 34.  At this writing, 32 states are on record as calling for a convention.  In theory, we need only 2 more (discussed further below).
3. Were a convention called, each States delegation gets 1 vote toward ratification of the new constitution and a 3/4 majority is required.  This would effectively nullify the huge voting majorities in some of the most liberal states, giving the so-called “red states” an actual majority, despite our lower population density.

CON:

1. We can be sure that the power elite would do everything in their considerable power to: first, prevent  convention being held, and, failing that, to try to load the delegations with delegates that can be persuaded, by threat or bribe, to prevent a return to a constitutional republic.
2. Most of the existing calls for a constitutional convention date from several years ago when a balanced budget amendment was all the rage.  We can be sure that the power elite would do everything they could to have these earlier calls declared null and void – even though there is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that they are.
3. Were a convention held, there is no guarantee the delegates would design a new constitution that is to our liking.  If the power elite have their way, we might actually end up with a new constitution that prescribes a socialist pseudo-republic.

ISSUES:

1. As suggested above, calls for a constitutional convention will not be looked upon favorably by the power elite current in charge.  These people are dedicated to turning the USA into a socialist state that will be part of a one-world government (run by them of course).
2. Given all that has transpired to date, we cannot expect a lawful, constitutional response to a call for a convention from our current government.  A concerted effort to force the issue could well be the spark that ignites another civil war.

ASSESSMENT:

This is a potentially dangerous approach that is bound to cause some level of political, if not physical, upheaval.  But, given the situation at hand, probably still worth the effort, especially if pursued in tandem with other approaches.  At the least, a serious call for a constitutional convention would give our would-be masters something serious to think about and could well cause them to use time and resources that otherwise would be used to further the cause of socialism.

And, if many of us are serious in our intent to resist a socialist dictatorship, there will be armed conflict before the issue is settled, no matter what approaches are tried.  In fact, sparking the civil war now, before widespread weapons restrictions are put into effect, might be to our advantage, however sad the process itself would be for so many innocent Americans.  But, hasn’t the tree of freedom always been watered with the blood of patriots?  Can it ever be otherwise?  At the end of the day, the cost of freedom is consistent with its value.

It sure would be nice to see some other points of view.

Tweet This Post 

Why not just use our voting franchise to vote the republic back to constitutional rule?  Let’s look at it…

PRO:

1. It is, presumably, still possible – at least in most regions of the country (a few regions being so corrupt that an honest result of the voting process is very much in doubt).
2. It is the constitutionally approved, traditional way to change the direction of government in the USA.
3. Historically, congressional elections better represent differences in the “will of the people” because the voting districts are smaller making many of them free from the overwhelming “inner city” votes in the major metropolitan areas.

CON:

1. We were voted into this mess.
2. Those who, in one way or another, are dependent on government for their sustenance, constitute a voting majority in many voting precincts.
3. It is two years until the next congressional elections and four years until the next presidential election.  A lot of harm can be done in two to four years.
4. The court system is a very real part of the problem in that it has totally failed to keep its collective oath to protect and defend the Constitution.  When the courts went -from- ensuring the acts of the other 2 branches of government were consistent with constitutional rule -to- constantly “interpreting” and “reinterpreting” the intent of a “living” constitution and legislating from the bench, it became an enemy of constitutional rule, rather than its enforcer.  I raise this point because replacing a meaningful portion of the federal court system, via the voting process, will take many years.  A wholesale impeachment of errant judges is too much to expect.

ISSUES:

1. Who do we vote for?  That is, where will we get viable candidates who support a constitutional republic?  It is quite obvious that most Democrats do not fit this description, and, the experience of the GW Bush administration shows many Republicans to be no better.
2. Even if we get the kind of candidates we need, how do we know they will stay that way?  There are several very powerful factors working against an office holder remaining true to his/her commitments.  These include the seduction of power plus the more practical fact that, when plunder is the rule rather than the exception, a legislator may honestly feel she/he is cheating his constituents by not going along to secure their fair share.
3. How can we push secondary issues to the background so that they do not polarize, ergo split, the votes of people who actually agree on the primary issues?  Stated another way, with the very survival of free markets in a constitutional republic at stake, issues like abortion, gay marriage, prayer in schools, etc., are really not that important, even though many voters have strong opinions about them.  If we lose the freedom to choose, our preferences on these secondary issues will be beside the point!

ASSESSMENT:

While highly desirable, changing the current direction of government through the voting process is problematic.  So long as the franchise is extended to slackers and political morons, voting is less than a totally reliable approach.  I suggest that this approach should be seriously pursued, but with realistic expectations -and- with other approaches being pursued in parallel.

Tweet This Post 

As I review the options open to us for saving our country, it seemed best to start with the one most people are prone to take.  That is, just wait around hoping things will get better.  After all, has not the chosen one himself embraced “hope” as a way toward the future?  Don’t get me wrong… there is nothing whatever wrong with hoping for a better tomorrow.  But there are two ways this can be done:

1. You can hope for the best while doing nothing whatever to make any difference, or,
2. You can be actively engaged in whatever action you think best, all the time hoping for a good outcome.  I am more inclined to call this “positive expectations” rather than “hope”.

This essay is about the first kind – the “I hope someone else does something” kind of hope.  Let’s look at it:

PRO:

1. It is by far the easiest path to take and, as indicated above, it is the path most of our citizens will take anyway.

CON:

1. With all due respect to my religious friends, there is no rational basis for expecting this to work.  If mere hope would work, how did we get into this mess to begin with?
2. By the time one realizes that this approach is not working, it will be too late in the game for any meaningful alternative.

ASSESSMENT:

Not a viable approach.

Well, that was simple enough – and, a good warm up.  Should any of you disagree, or want to expand on my analysis, please comment.  Next we will get into the realm of those things that might actually work.  Stay tuned.

Tweet This Post 

Over the last several months, this blogger has ranted about a range of different subjects.  Different, yet connected as they all have to do our basic freedom — and our prospects for passing that freedom on to those who follow us.  It seems a good time to pause and review the main points I have tried to illuminate…

1. We now have a new administration in power.  One that seems determined to move this nation toward European style socialism — or worse.  Pork barrel spending has reached an all-time high, now calculated in numbers most of us find hard to comprehend.  This new administration is already setting a new threshold for corruption.  Most administrations experience some level of corruption while in office.  This one is taking a shortcut by appointing people who were known to be corrupt before even taking office.
2. Our national economy has been severely wounded.  Wounded by the triple whammy of: out-of-control spending by the Bush administration; insane lending and derivatives practices in the financial community, aided and abetted by government’s willingness to backup the insanity with guarantees, such that financial profits remained private while losses are socialized; a main-stream-media inspired recession, intended to help elect a democrat but, unfortunately for us all, resulting in the collapse, driven mostly by the aforementioned financial insanity.
3. Rather than allowing the free market system to repair the damage inflicted on the economy (by government and its fellow travelers), the new administration is leveraging the situation, inflaming our natural fears, as justification for a return to the tax and spend policies that nearly brought the nation to collapse in the pre-Reagan years.
4. The federal government, aided by teacher’s unions, have taken almost complete control of our education system, turning it into a disgraceful machine designed to turn out semi-literate graduates who know nothing of history, economics, or constitutional government, who, instead, have been brainwashed with the nonsense of political correctness, diversity, and the value of the collective over the individual.
5. Our new administration seems determined to nationalize the finest health care system in the world, justifying this with the myth that thousands of Americans go without medical care.  For sure, health care costs too much in the US but this can be traced directly to Medicare, Medicaid and an out-of-control tort system.  Nationalization will serve to reinforce these ills.
6. We continue our disastrous slide away from being a constitutional republic toward the insanity of democracy, a slide that the new administration is dedicated to accelerating.  Thanks to the sewer we call an education system, an ever-increasing majority of our citizens actually applaud this.
7. We are now at the threshold where the “takers” in our society will be the majority, thus able to elect and maintain a socialist government.  After the coming movement of additional thousands out of the ranks of income tax payers, and the inevitable amnesty for illegal aliens, the “taker majority” will be assured.
8. Foreign governments are starting to refuse to buy the instruments of our national debt.  As this becomes the rule, government will have no choice but to print trillions of unsupported dollars.  This is likely to cause runaway inflation as the unsupported dollars dilute the value of preexisting dollars.  This, in turn, will, in effect, steal what little savings Americans have left by then.
9. Look for a renewed effort to neuter the Second Amendment.  This will be done under the guise of public safety but it will actually be the first step toward disarming the citizenry, to prevent any serious resistance, once the people start to wake up to reality.
10. I will leave 10 through infinity for the rest of you to fill in.

My purpose here is not to frighten anyone into giving up.  Instead, it is to help wake people up to what is going on around them — too often with their consent if not their outright support.

What I truly desire is to get people thinking about ways to reverse this mess.  For sure, some of the damage being done today will take years to repair, even if good government were to descend on us tomorrow.  But, please remember that old saw “when you find yourself in a hole, what is the first thing to do?”  The answer, of course, is “stop digging”.  Even if we do not yet know how to reverse this march toward socialism with the attendant loss of personal freedom, we can at least “stop digging” by ceasing to cooperate in our own destruction.

Although I have hinted at some possible actions in past blogs, I would like to use future blogs to explore practical ways that we can take action.

I know there are people out there reading this and I really need your help.  First, send a link to others who might share these interests.  Second, speak up by making comments.  I am convinced that all of us are far smarter than any one of us.  Please contribute.  Clearly I provide typos, misspellings, poorly structured thoughts.  Yet, I am still here, still ranting.  Please consider this if your only reason to not contribute is fear of making a mistake.  A wise old sergeant in the Air Force once told me that the only people who don’t make mistakes are the people who don’t do anything.  This is certainly NOT the time to not do anything.

Remember, the freedom you save might be your own.  Thank you.

Tweet This Post 

The essence of freedom is choice – the right to choose how to live your own life.  So long as your choices do not prevent others from exercising any of their own natural rights, your choices should be without bounds and without limits.  In my opinion, this freedom, this right to make our own choices, is fundamental; it trumps all other rights, privileges, rules, laws, etc.  With it, you can always be as free as you wish to be.  Without it, you simply cannot be free.

That sounds good doesn’t it?  But then, what about the fact that so many people (as in ALL of us at one time or another) make poor choices, choices that are not in our best interest, or in the best interests of others?  Let us analyze the nature of choice and its relationship to freedom…

First, imagine that, while I take reasonably good care of my own self interests, I have no regard or respect for my fellow citizens.  I drive in a way that threatens their safety.  I run a business that cheats its clients and/or its employees.  I use deception to encourage others to make decisions that favor me but are not in their own self interest.  And so on.

Not exactly a nice guy am I?  But, sadly, I am by no means atypical.  But, these are choices I am free to make, are they not?  Most emphatically not.

No truly free society, can long remain free when its members are unrestrained from making such choices.

Next, imagine that, while I’m reasonably nice to others, I have no respect for myself.  I manifest this lack of self respect by making very poor personal choices.  So, every single day, my mid-day meal consists of a double bacon cheeseburger and large order of fries (extra salt, of course) that I wash down with a couple of beers.  Then, sufficiently stuffed, I have another beer or two while I enjoy my after-meal cigarettes.   Then I take a long nap while all that crap gets absorbed by my system.  Evenings, it is usually chicken-fried steak or similar fried delicacy — maybe with a baked potato trimmed with bacon bits, cheese, sour cream, butter, and anything else I can find to make it even less healthy.  Then it is time for American Idol on the tube and some serious smoking and drinking.

Not exactly a recipe for long life is it?  And, I’m sure to be a regular customer of the health care system.  But, these are choices I am free to make.  Are they not?

In a truly free society, free from the constant intrusion of government, free from the intimidation of my fellow citizens, then these are, in fact, choices I am free to make.  Certainly not always good choices, in terms of my health and probable lifespan.  Probably not in terms of my ability to fully enjoy whatever lifespan I have.  But, assuming I take full personal responsibility for the outcomes, these are certainly choices I should be free to make – for myself, not for others.

Now, enter government.  What might government do to improve my choices – for my own benefit as well as that of others?

In the spirit of “promoting the general welfare”, government could support a system of education that strives to teach me, and all other citizens, how to think for myself.  How to take in information, analyze it, then use it to help me make rational decisions.  Rational in terms of my own enlightened self interest.  Highly desirable.  I am still free to decide for myself but have been exposed to tools I can use to significantly better my own life, on my own terms, while leaving my fellows free to do the same.  Quite desirable.  And, amazingly, a good use of government power.

If you willingly behave in ways that endanger your fellow citizens and/or deny them the exercise of their own rights, you are, in effect, demanding that government institute new laws and regulations in an attempt to protect those you would harm or defraud.  Anther good use of government power.

But, what happens when we want to be free to make our own choices, yet “rescued” from any bad outcomes they might bring?

Enter the “nanny state”.   Where government that has gone from “promoting the general welfare” to socialism, to attempting to enforce my specific welfare, by limiting my choices through the real or implied use of force, and/or the denial of physical liberty.  How dare they? you might think.  By what right/law/notion could “they” do such a thing?   Perhaps you demanded it??

When you accept government funded health care, you are, in effect, are demanding that government implement rules and regulations in an attempt to keep health care costs from bankrupting us all, mostly by outright prohibitions, or unbearable taxes on all those substances and activities you might use to harm your health.

When you accept those government “bailouts”, “stimuli”, “aids to children”, “food stamps”, “earned income credits” and/or whatever euphemisms we are using for “handouts”, you are, in effect, demanding that government take a larger role in the management of your company and/or of your very life.  After all, the government is “we the people” and “we” have a right to protect our investments, do “we” not?

In a word, when you consistently refuse to conduct your life in a rational fashion, or conduct it in a fashion that makes you a threat or a burden to your fellow citizens, you are demanding that government step in with rules and laws meant to channel your behavior along “acceptable” lines.  Acceptable to government bureaucrats, not necessarily acceptable to you.  But hey, it is all for your own good is it not?

And you are, at least theoretically, still free to choose.  The only drawback is that your range of available choices has been reduced to door #1, door #1 or door #1.  But when you do what you must and choose door #1, you are still choosing are you not?  You might think so.  Looks to me like you are obeying.  Free people make real choices.  Slaves obey.

Want to be free?  Then act free.  Free people make informed choices.  Acting in their own self interest while fully realizing that they must allow their fellow citizens to do the same.  And, most of all, free people take full personal responsibility for the outcomes of the choices they freely make.

At this moment, you are still free to choose between true freedom and slavery – between self determination or socialism.  I suggest that it is high time to start choosing in your own best interest.  Remember a choice is being made.  The question is whether you make it for yourself -or- whether it is made for you… by people who are operating in their own interest, not yours.

Just remember — freedom means you get to choose.  Yet freedom is also one of the choices you get to make.

Tweet This Post 

We have become a nation of “blamers”.  It seems that no person is ever to blame for anything undesirable that happens to them.  We can all think of many instances of this: whites are to blame for many blacks who remain outside the mainstream;  the rich are to blame for poverty; employees are to blame for incompetent/ineffective employees; the school systems are to blame for functional illiteracy;  lending institutions and credit card companies are to blame for consumer debt;  drug peddlers are to blame for addiction;  tobacco companies are to lame for the many ill results of tobacco use;  the fast food industry is to blame for obesity;  auto companies are to blame for traffic deaths and injuries;  servers and bartenders are to blame from drunk driving;  gun makers/sellers are to blame for most murders and robberies;  atheists and agnostics are to blame for the decrease in moral and ethical behavior;  and on and on until it should be enough to embarrass us all.  Indeed, no matter what undesirable thing happens to us, you can be certain someone else was to blame.

For sure, there are varying degrees of truth in all of these.  There can be no doubt that white racism made life harder for American blacks.  And, there are some truisms here:  were there no guns, the death rate from shooting would be zero.  Were there no automobiles, the traffic death rate would plummet (there would still be the occasional horse and buggy hit-and-run, people falling from horseback, etc.).

So what, you might ask, who really cares?  Well, at a minimum, always blaming others reinforces irresponsible behavior.  But, that is not the worst of it.  No, there is a much more subtle thing that goes with the attitude of “victimization”.  Think about this…

If I am black, and the conditions of my life are not what I want, and I blame these conditions on some nameless, faceless “white people”,  then, by definition, my circumstances cannot possibly improve until those “white people” either stop whatever they are doing and/or start whatever they are not doing, to improve my  life.  Meanwhile, until that happens, I am pretty much helpless, unable to do anything to advance my own situation.

If my health is not what I wish it were and I blame tobacco companies, fast food vendors, etc. for my condition, then I am bound to stay unhealthy until either I die, or all those evil merchants cease to make and sell their poisons.  And, I am helpless until then because, by definition, so long as tobacco is available, I must use it.  So long as junk food can be obtained, I must eat it.

If I am wallowing in debt, possibly facing bankruptcy or the loss of everything I have accumulated, and I blame the lenders, the credit card companies, and the “evil rich” for my condition, then, by definition, I am doomed to debt slavery.  So long as lenders will lend me money, credit card companies will  issue me cards, so long as the rich keep just getting richer, then I am, indeed, doomed.  There is nothing whatever I can do to change my own situation.

I hope you all ave noticed by now that the recurring theme in the snippets above is this:  to the extent that you blame others for your situation – any situation, then you have given those others a level of control over you and your life.  All you can do is wait for those others to mend their evil ways, or, worse yet, turn to government to be your savior.  Either way, you forfeit freedom and you forfeit control of your own life.

Now, if your life ambition is to be the human equivalent of a farmyard animal, dependent on some other human(s) for the necessities of life, and subject to their every whim, then I suggest that accepting your victim status and waiting for a miracle to occur, is your right.  If that is the case, rejoice in your victim status and shut up about it because the rest of us have more important things to worry about.

If, on the other hand, you prefer freedom and control over your own life, then I suggest you try a new point of view.  Take a long, clear look at your life, determine those areas where you would genuinely like change (presumably improvement), then ask yourself, with total honesty, what keeps you from making that change.  Look even deeper and consider how much of what needs to be done, can actually be done by you.  For sure, there might be things that others could do to make it easier for you – but, relying on that would just put you back into victim mode.  Focus instead on the part you can do — then do it.  Not only will this get you closer to what you really want, it will give you feelings of freedom, dignity and self control that in themselves are worth the effort.

I realize there is yet another group who are dependent simply because they do not have a clue how things work.  They want to be paid more because they are totally ignorant of the relationship between productivity/employee value and the pay one receives.  They have no problem with government handouts because they haven’t a clue how government gets the money it hands them, have no clue that they are demanding that their fellow citizens be mugged by government in order to meet their demands.  They envy the rich because they haven’t a clue how one becomes rich, that riches most often come from doing what others want, rather than doing them wrong.  The people in this group can only be pitied because only education can save them and I see no indication that those currently in power want to educate the ignorant out of government dependence.  Instead, they are willing to sacrifice these people for their own power.  Those of us who know better will have to rescue these people, if, indeed, they are ever to be rescued.

One last thought about envying the rich… am I the only one to notice that this is almost always directed toward rich business people?  For some reason, those among the super-rich who make their millions because of their ability to play with a ball or other child’s toy — or those who are paid outrageous amounts for their ability to look “sexy” while reciting words written by someone else, these folks are never among the “evil” rich.  OK, I know these people are paid what the marketplace deems they are worth.  But, so are most business executives.  Obviously, excessive pay and evil riches are in the eye of the beholder.  Get a clue.

And, take responsibility for your own outcomes.  Do not be a volunteer slave to anyone or anything – especially a government.

Tweet This Post