The dictionary says that Conservativism is - a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes. That definition certainly doesn’t describe the Republicans, and with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan doesn’t describe a single Republican president in history. In the past ½ century Republicans Nixon, Ford, and both Bush’s were all elitists who supported big business over individual rights, hardly conservative.
The dictionary says that Liberalism is - a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, non violent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties. Liberals in politics don’t call themselves liberal anymore they call themselves Progressive. Progressives according to the dictionary are making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc. I find that both of those definitions do not represent the reality of whom and what is our current “Liberal” party, the Democrats. In fact by definition liberalism is closest to the tenants of the Libertarian Party.
Here is what the dictionary says is the definition of Socialism ~ a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and/or control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. This accurately describes both the Demicans and Republicrats currently in power.
It is not arguable that from the words and deeds of Pres. B. H. Obama, he is a socialist. Unless of course we accept the Bill Clinton definition of “is.” History has clearly demonstrated that socialism (including its twin sisters fascism and Marxism) has lead to oppression everyplace it has been implemented, unless you think that the nearly 100 million people killed in the name of socialism last century is a success. Socialism has less chance of ever being accepted here in the USA because of the very founding principles, and type of people who make this country. Read a history book of the founding of the USA that hasn’t been warped by political correctness. Read the works of our founding fathers. Simply read the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Unless the very foundation of our society is changed socialistic policies will fail in this country.
This country was founded on moral not political principles; the moral principle that made this country, is based on property rights, specifically property rights as described in the 10 commandments. King George was thrown out of this country based on property rights. The 10 commandments, etched on our Supreme Court, are the ultimate definition of property rights. In the first 4, God as creator of all, expects his property rights to be honored, the 5th, tells children that as their creators the property rights of their parents should be honored, and the last 5 tell us to honor the property rights of others. Property rights are the foundation of our society. The 10 commandments can be summarized very simply as “Thou Shalt Not Covet.” The very nature of liberty is for everyone to be free of the covetous actions of others.
Physical property is what is commonly understood by everyone to mean property. You have the right to acquire, control and use physical things. Your most fundamental possession is understandably your person, your body. From this comes the right to life and liberty. You could look at children as also being such property, extensions of you until they reach the age of adulthood and themselves become independent, self-owning individuals.
The problem with property rights is what to do with unwanted property, whether it’s hazardous waste or an uncontrollable child, you as the owner of property are responsible for your property and cannot just dump unwanted property making somebody else responsible for it. So when you purchase florescent lights, when they are burned out, you not anybody else, is responsible for properly disposing of the useless, mercury filled hazardous waste, that at one time provided light. Failing to be responsible for your property in a way which forces others to take care of your property, is a violation of other people’s property rights.
Socialism is based in its core on violating the very founding principle of what the USA was created on, property rights. Socialism violates the foundations of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It is based on coveting others property. It is not based on liberalism, the idea of a liberal government which guarantees individual rights and civil liberties. It perverts the very nature of individual rights. “Taxation without representation” was a cry based on property rights, that government cannot arbitrarily take a person’s property.
Socialism’s core value is that you as an individual don’t have property rights and that even your labor is the property of the “community”, and that the community has the right to distribute you labor as the community sees fit. Socialism is based on coveting the property of others. Universal Health Care is a socialist doctrine. Saying Health Care is a right, is saying that you have the right to force the labor of another citizen to pay for your doctor, drugs, hospital visits, etc., and that the community has a right to determine how individuals use the product of their labor. Socialism is a construct used to concentrate power in some individual (Che) or Oligarchy (Communist party) to be the supreme decider of how a community distributes property. Socialist ideas are always about concentrating power and taking liberty from individuals. Obama himself said it in a town hall meeting in August of 2009, the “problem” with our constitution is that it makes it difficult to make big changes. A constitutionally limited government like ours makes enacting socialism difficult. Socialism and its proponents like Obama, don’t care what the people want, or about individual liberty, they care about concentrating power and control.
The polls are remarkably consistent; the majority of the people in the USA rejects socialism and believes in individual property rights. They want smaller government and don’t want government health care. The whole Tea Party movement is not against just the Democrats, it’s against both major parties.
The first Tea Party was in response to individual property rights being oppressed; a response to the King of England coveting the property of colonial citizens. The current Tea Party is in response to the very same issue, the failure of the government to protect individual property rights. If the two major parties don’t pull their head out of the sand and remember the why this country was founded the results of this “Tea Party” may be the same as the results of the original Tea Party. This country and the people of this country soundly reject socialism. As a people we have become fat a lazy, and allowed socialistic thinking to infect our public institutions. The Tea Party movement is a rejection of socialism, not just a rejection of the two elitist political parties. Our current government schools have all but eliminated the works of Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Paine, and Franklin. The all said the same basic thing. That the bible was right, men are by nature covetous, and that because government is made of men that it must be limited; that the purpose of government is to protect individuals from the covetous nature of others, and when government fails to do so, it can and must be changed. The Hope and Change desired by the people of this country is not for the government to do more, not for more socialism, but less for government.
For people who want and believe in liberty dealing with socialists who only want to add a little socialism, is like a lamb dealing with a wolf who promises to only eat a little off of one leg, not the whole thing. To give up any is crippling, and makes it easier to lose everything. Ben Franklin has been credited as saying, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner. Liberty is an armed lamb contesting the vote.” The American people need to learn that the wolves are named “Democrat” and “Republican”.
No comments:
Post a Comment