View Single Post
Old May 19, 2004, 07:28 PM   #86
edward j williamson
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Posts: 9
The Gullibility of the Governed.
by Edward J. Williamson

Almost 220 years ago, our founding fathers embarked upon their quest to create an independent nation, a nation in which individuals would be free to prosper according to their abilities, initiative, and self-discipline without the previous requirements of inherited entitlements so endemic to European societies of the eighteenth century; a society in which one need not be born to privilege in order to enjoy a life of plenty, but rather a society where one could create his own opportunities through individual effort, ingenuity, initiative, and achievement; a society in which free and independent citizens could celebrate the results of their efforts, become successful, accumulate wealth, and fairly enjoy the fruits of their own labors. The founding fathers also understood that the greatest threat to individual achievement and the smooth functioning of a fair and free society was government, specifically a strong centralized government such as the one they fought against and set about separating from.

One common misinterpretation of the motives of the founding fathers is the idea that their principal goal was to create a new and better government that would insure our new found freedoms. Right away one can see the erroneous reasoning in this line of thinking. The objective of government in and of itself is to control the people, make laws, and direct the flow of goods and money; to impose its version of order and regulation. Why in the world would a group of people, who were trying to throw off the chains of an oppressive government, seek to turn around and establish government? Simply put, they didn't. They set about to free themselves and these 'United States' from the control of a distant and tyrannical monarchy, one that ruled over the people, without their consent, and to enter into a provision in which the people could, in effect, govern themselves.

In 1781 the Articles of Confederation, which provided for a nominal federal government, were ratified by the states. Before long, naturally, the shrill cry trumpeting the need for a stronger central government resonated across the land. "The Federal Government lacks the power to compel the people and the states to pay taxes," came the call. As if this were a bad thing! I bet many now wish this were the case. So in 1787, our founding fathers formulated a new plan of government, the U.S. Constitution, which provided a stronger federal government, albeit with checks and balances and strict conditions. Even though it gave more authority to the federal government than the founding fathers envisioned at the time, it was far superior to any other plan or organization of government anywhere else in the world, then and even to this day. This article is not a constitutional treatise, however, but rather, as the title suggests, an explanation of just how the American people, as a whole, have been duped by politicians.

Our forefathers, when finally forced to contemplate what form of government our fledgling nation should adopt understood these truths: first, a monarchy and a powerful central government were anathema to a society that values the individual and liberty. Second, a true democracy was akin to mob rule and was an even greater threat to individual liberty. Another threat was the proliferation of political parties, for the founders knew that this was a tool to allow politicians with agendas to hijack any government of the people.

The framers of the U.S Constitution made no provisions for the formation of political parties because they had a deep distrust of them. Traditionally they had always been a source of corruption and an impediment to the freedom of the people to judge issues and politicians on their own merit. James Madison argued in the Federalist Papers against a political system in which 'factions' would be able, in effect and practice, to seize control of the reins of government, as well as to turn it into a virtual exclusive club bent on the agenda of a select group. I ask, "Has it not become so?" How many third parties do you see being elected to the halls of government, especially the Imperial Federal Government? Well, there is Bernie Sanders of Vermont, but he is a socialist, unfortunately, and seeing as how our government is in effect socialistic, it only figures!

For proof that the Democrats and Republicans protect the exclusivity of their special 'members only' club, one only needs to harken to one of the most insidious pieces of legislation ever passed, the so called 'Campaign Finance Reform' which virtually ties the hands of third party candidates hoping to make inroads into the halls of government, and in effect limits the viable choice of candidates to two parties. Here is what I have come to believe is taking place. The 'sheeple' at this stage are still smart and aware enough that if one party decided on a platform of complete control of all aspects of our lives they would quite possibly smell the rat. The Democrats, therefore, have evolved to the point where they take the duty of legislating laws meant to curb our financial freedoms, to redistribute our wealth, inhibit our free exercise of business by imposing political correctness laws, and exacting high prices through unconstitutional taxation in order to redistribute produced wealth and support their voting base. The Republicans have, over the years, come to take on the so-called 'burden' of controlling the social fabric of our lives through controls imposed on what one can do to his body or ingest into it, what one can watch, take part in, and with who.

Of course, they converge in certain areas as well. Take the 'TIPS' program and 'Homeland Security' for instance. The GOP has traditionally trumpeted its support for limited government, yet this new boondoggle has put onto the government payroll 171,000 new UNIONIZED government employees. So basically what you have is a class of people who can not be fired for being incompetent and inefficient. Both Democrats and Republicans supported, en masse, this new agency. We hear about tax cuts, yet the income tax remains, as do capital gains and corporate tax. This is a blatant trade off between the parties. The Republicans claim to support the Second Amendment, but still the Administration balked at supporting the arming of pilots. In that same vein, do people still have license to pack and carry whenever or wherever they deem necessary? No, of course not, because the Social Democratic Party has championed that side of the issue and their job is to keep the people unarmed, thereby keeping even safer, the fat, comfy politicos and ensuring that the same club members remain ensconced in their self-entitled thrones!

Until the people realize that the corner on the political market is being carefully guarded by a two party system, we will continue to lose our individuality and the liberties that have come at great cost. Until we realize that two party politics is a carefully crafted game meant to keep pre-arranged and pre-ordained 'club members' in office, it will be business as usual. How do the parties manage to keep a slew of gullible voters under their wings? Well, if you need me to spell it out for you in plain English, then why would I bother? You are already one of the duped!
__________________
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.-Ayn Rand
edward j williamson is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03401 seconds with 8 queries