From a woman in Arizona  who writes
an open letter to our nation’s leadership: 

“I am a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel  any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. Instead, we are burdened with Congressional Dukes and Duchesses who think they know better than the citizens they are supposed to represent. 

There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you’re  willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written . Please stand up now.
You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would feel so horribly disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut-job am I? Well, these briefly are the views and issues for which I seek representation: 

 One,  illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels.. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. 

P.S., I’m not a racist. This is not to be confused with  legal immigration. 

 Two, the STIMULUS bill. I want it  repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you No, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal. 

 Three: Czars. I want the circumvention of our constitutional checks and balances stopped immediately.  Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution, and honor it. 

 Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There are many conflicting opinions and it is too soon for this radical legislation. Quit throwing our nation into politically-correct quicksand. 

 Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision that will burden me, my children, and grandchildren.  Don’t you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night without even reading it. Slow down!  Fix only what is broken — we have the best health care system in the world — and test any new program in one or two states first. 

 Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored.  I want less government in my life, not more. More is not better! Shrink it down. Mind your own business.  You have enough to take care of with your real [Constitutional] obligations. Why don’t you start there. 

 Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes — how did they pull that one off?   Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census with our taxpayer money. I don’t trust them with any of our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them.  If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate. 

 Eight, redistribution of wealth.  No, no, no . I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs – and that is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person! Why do you want me to hate my employers? And what do you have against shareholders making a profit? 

 Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources.  Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.. 

 Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Every company must sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we’ll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. (Have you ever ripped off a Band-Aid?) We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us. 

 Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it?  Let’s have it. Let’s say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk.. Please stop trying to manipulate and appease me with clever wording.. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for.. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me. 

 Twelve, unprecedented quick spending.  Stop it now.
Take a breath.  Listen to the people. Slow down and get some input from nonpoliticians and experts on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed-reading our bills into law. I am not an activist.. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent.. I work. I’m busy.  I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave. 

 I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not.
It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face.  I am not laughing at your  arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill.. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is needless urgency and recklessness in all of your recent spending of our tax dollars. 

From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on bringing our concerns to Washington . Our president often knows all the right buzzwords like unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don’t want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we’re morons. 

We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented.. You think we’re so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work, pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone… and we are now looking at you.
You have awakened us, the patriotic freedom spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office.  

We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn’t ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us who will rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution. 

Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this.. We don’t care. Political parties are meaningless to us Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution, and that is all that matters to us now.. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them.. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. 

If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. 

We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? 

Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.”

---

This letter is rapidly circulating around the country. Americans everywhere identify with this 53-year-old woman. She has given us a voice. Once you read this, you will want to forward it to all of your friends…

Select this link or the icon below
to forward this article by email

by Norbert Sluzewski
NakedLiberty.com
January 3, 2010

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I consider myself an interested and vested observer of the American debate on health care reform. After all, the outcome of whatever form the proposed changes in the way health care are delivered (if in fact any changes will indeed be made) will deeply affect our relationship with our doctors, and certainly will have an impact on the quality of the care we receive from health service professionals.

However, listening to the arguments both proponents and opponents use in arguing their respective positions, one has to wonder whether each side is in fact debating the same issue. How can a people of the same nation have such diametrically opposing opinions on the same issue? After all, isn’t there a generally accepted societal consensus on what is good and bad? Surely, no person of significant influence in the government “of the people and for the people,” and certainly no true citizen of this country, would wish upon us something that could potentially be detrimental to our interests and welfare.

So something else must be lurking in the shadows of this debate and this something has to both lie at its root and also be so subtle and elusive so as to not have previously surfaced and itself have been debated. This murky notion must in fact be the core contributor to the disparity in arguments on both sides of the health care debate.

And here I find myself bewildered by the conspicuousness of this seemingly illusive notion. It’s really not that hard to uncover once you do a bit of national introspecting. In fact, the only thing that keeps it from being massively exposed is our fear of taking the issue head on and engaging in a serious dialog about it. It can be stated very simply – Americans don’t have a nationally uniform understanding of, and agreement on, what is an entitlement versus what is individual responsibility.

The American society does not have a generally accepted frame of reference for where welfare ends and where individual  responsibility begins. (By the way, if anyone is offended with equating government entitlements with welfare, then I challenge them to provide a clear definition of how the two differ, as I have yet to come across a compelling argument that differentiates between the two). Without first establishing a universally accepted framework, any national debate about governance, whether related to health care, the environment, control of financial systems, employment, etc. is inevitably futile. Even if its result is a solution that many or even most people support, those that don’t will comprise a significant disenfranchised populace, in all likelihood in active opposition to the accepted solution. A continual national tug-of-war results, with deep divisions, and with much productive human energy lost to societal friction.

At this time American’s don’t know who they are, they are in flux, they have lost their grounding in any foundation which could guide them in determining their course and destiny. A fundamental part of this grounding has to be an agreement on the extent to which Americans will allow the government to assert control over their lives, inevitably by usurping individual freedoms and liberty. By defining these boundaries Americans will choose to either return to their roots and founding principles of limited government and individual freedoms and liberty, or embark on the global experiment in socialist revival that is presently unfolding within the EU and throughout a number of countries around the world.

Many in the US look to Europe and see the EU as a social entitlement model worthy of emulating. Many of these progressive thinkers hold prominent positions in the US government or positions which can greatly influence government action. But while extolling the “quality of life” virtues they perceive are important (the touted 8 week summer vacations in France, universal health care in the UK and most other EU countries, etc.), they conveniently overlook the EU’s miserable economic growth rate of less than half that of the US (see table), consistently high unemployment rates, low rate of new business creation, and other factors which are the direct result of anti-capital sentiment across the European continent.

European Union Unemployment Rates

Year	Unemployment rate (%)
2004	9.1
2005	9.5
2006	9.4
2007	8.5
2008	8.5

Many here see the EU as an experiment in high-speed globalization, one which some feel America must actively participate in so as not to be left behind. But few American government policy writers delve into and openly discuss the mechanics of the social methods being deployed and promulgated throughout European societies. For example, the socialization of many services and economic forces in EU countries (e.g. medical services, education, transportation, certain manufacturing sectors, etc.) is generally accepted as failing or, at a minimum producing sub-optimal results, to which the low rates of economic growth in the EU-15 countries is a glaring testament.

EU-15 GDP Growth Rates

Member State	% GDP Growth
	2005	2006	2007	2008
Austria	2.0	3.3	3.4	1.9
Belgium	2.0	2.9	2.7	1.4
Denmark	2.5	3.9	1.8	1.2
Finland	2.8	4.9	4.4	2.4
France	1.7	2.0	1.9	1.4
Germany	0.8	2.9	2.5	1.4
Greece	3.8	4.2	4.0	3.5
Ireland	5.9	5.7	5.3	1.8
Italy	0.6	1.8	1.5	0.3
Luxembourg	5.0	6.1	5.4	3.1
Netherlands	1.5	3.0	3.5	2.1
Portugal	0.9	1.3	1.9	1.3
Spain	3.6	3.9	3.8	1.8
Sweden	3.3	4.1	2.6	2.0
UK	1.8	2.9	3.1	0.7

Evidence pointing to the miserable economic results of the early 20th century march of socialism across Eastern Europe, the USSR, Cuba, Mao China, South Korea and other aligned countries are today countered with arguments such as “this time we will do it better, we will do it differently.” Yet no one making these arguments is able to spell out how this will be done. How, for example, will the new global socialist order deal with the hard cold reality that only the free market system is able to produce goods and services in the abundance needed to supply the unproductive part of the world with food, medicine and essential products necessary for their survival? The European feeble sub-2% economic growth is barely able to keep up with its own population growth and needs of its citizens. The US free (reasonably speaking) market is still the most efficient in the manufacturing of goods and services, and by so doing is supplying the world with creative new products and services, not to mention food and medicines. By so doing it is still the only proven and sustainable vehicle which creates high personal wealth for investors and those who create the new ideas and products.

Before one can distribute wealth, one must first be created. No ideology can usurp this basic fact — that without a good economic engine, the train of society cannot move forward, and certainly cannot cross steep hills of adversity. “To each according to his need,” the rallying cry of the Marxist socialist movements, can only have meaning once someone has produced that which satisfies this “need.” Otherwise, it is an empty slogan, devoid of substance, logic and any founding in reality. In order to help those with needs, first a society has to produce wealth, which comes from the application of capitalist principles in the manufacture of goods and services. Historically, America has been the driving locomotive of the world. And ironically, it is the American fee market system which has allowed high-thinking global ideologues and proponents of a new socialist world order to ponder their progressive agendas, while having soup served to them from free market capitalist kitchens.

A strong belief in a system of deep social entitlements is probably the one theme that most universally defines progressive socialism. As Americans debate their universal health care issues, this theme is used as the underlying argument by those who support radical involvement of a higher government order in the way in which health care is dispensed and financed. Opponents are derided as having no appreciation for, nor sensitivity to the overriding public good which comes from a system which, they claim, only a government mandated system can provide. After all, how can any individual or company care for the public good with equal fervor as does the government of the people? No matter that no evidence can be pointed to, neither historically  nor in present society, where such public good has ever actually been delivered, efficiently or otherwise.

The great philosopher and writer Ayn Rand (“Atlas Shrugged”) eloquently laid out a world where every decision imposed by a disenfranchised entity (read: government, ruling body, etc.), while in each case for the well intended public good (or the entity’s individual definition of what the “public good” should be), inevitably causes a detrimental disturbance in the flow of goods and services, naturally following the basic principles of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Each subsequent decision attempting to rectify the previous, only causes a deeper rift in the balance of the natural energy that drives man to create and produce. Ultimately, without invention, production and human drive to improve oneself, the society as a whole must collapse so as to at some later time rebuild from its ruins.

As impractical or improbable as it would be, I would suggest that no American should contribute their vote nor voice their opinion on the health care debate without first reading “Atlas Shrugged” and becoming familiar with the core philosophy of Objectivism.

As one of my friends and excellent writers Nancy Morgan of RightBias.com put it:

“The people that don’t read it will likely end up living it.”

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Norbert Sluzewski is the Editor of NakedLiberty.com

Article may be published with attribution and must include trackback information
Article trackback: http://nakedliberty.com/2010/01/public-good-and-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/

*BREAKING NEWS* John Stossel to broadcast Atlas Shrugged special Washington Times The Hill New York Daily News This Fox Business Network program is planned to air on Thursday, January 7, at 8 p.m., Eastern time.

Related articles by Zemanta

• European business groups warn EU over protectionism (telegraph.co.uk)
• Exposé of Daniel Hannan’s “Ten reasons to leave the EU” (leftfootforward.org)
• My only prediction for 2010 and it ain’t pretty (inquisitr.com)
• Faith in Free-Market Capitalism Is Being Rewarded (kudlowsmoneypolitics.blogspot.com)
• Older and scarred (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Latest Public Option Concession Comes Into Focus (huffingtonpost.com)
• The euro: Year of the Pigs (guardian.co.uk)

I was fortunate recently to receive a gift from a close friend of a marvelous work of biographical documentary by Lou Cannon, an authority on the life and work of Ronald Reagan. The illustrated portfolio of Reagan’s contributions to America is truly an inspiring piece of literature, as well as a powerful historical reference of his accomplishments. The accompanying audio CD containing excerpts of his speeches, including the famous “Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Berlin speech of June 12, 1987, is a stimulating flashback to the times when American strength and influence was able to change the world in dramatic ways.

Moving page by page through this exceptional work one finds it difficult to not return in one’s mind to the culminating years of the 20^th century and remind oneself of the edge of the precipice on which the world stood in those days. The escalating arms race between the USSR and the United States was truly the one event in world history which, had it not been ultimately conquered, might have lead to our annihilation; the end of our civilization and as a human race.

Our options were limited but remarkably clear. Succumbing to the influence of Soviet domination would have changed, and indeed destroyed our way of life as a free society. This was not an acceptable option. Movements to appease the Soviet aggressor were growing, emanating both from within the US and many countries with liberal-leaning democracies. Cries of “better dead than read,” the rallying cry of anti-communist forces within the US were being elsewhere reversed, and “better red than dead” was increasingly heard around the world. It seemed as if the US was the last and only obstacle to the Soviet’s imposition of their social and economic order on the world. Yet still many around the world naively believed that, if only left alone and not challenged, the Soviet Union would necessarily do the same and retreat to its ancient borders and withhold further communist encroachment into their countries.

Reagan, however, saw this as it truly was – a war of ideas where in the end there had to be a victor and there had to be a defeated. He stated it very clearly – “Peace is so easy to achieve. I can give it to you in one second. All you have to do is surrender.”

The war had to be won. The consequences of anything other than victory were unthinkable. Astute in recognizing the perfectly aligned circumstances of the support of Pope John Paul II, the Solidarity uprising in Poland, and an opening presented by a slightly more realistic than his predecessors General Secretary Gorbachev, Reagan fearlessly confronted the Soviet regime and at the perfect moment dealt the final blow. His words of defiance against the Soviet empire, like a match, lit the fire of counter revolution throughout Eastern Europe, and the Soviet regime soon collapsed of its own weight and inability to defend its flawed ideals.

With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, most of the countries previously under its communist vice have since become prosperous market societies, and the American principles of freedom and liberty spread widely across these newly emerging free market democracies. Reagan left behind a legacy of a world much safer and economically viable. Bells of liberty and freedom had been made to ring louder and clearer than ever before. With his legacy we were also reminded of the power of liberty over tyranny and conviction over appeasement.

And here we are, no more than 20 years later faced with circumstances ominously similar to those during Reagan’s presidency. Though there may no longer be a Soviet Union, yet today’s Russia is increasingly becoming emboldened to act with the same dictatorial patterns as the Bolsheviks of half a century years ago. Socialism (or in reality a contorted and deformed version thereof) has been adopted by a number of dictatorial regimes like Venezuela’s Chavez and is spreading to other countries not far from our doorstep (Honduras). Islamic terrorism continues to be an unresolved threat and in fact may be strengthening its roots across the world.

But this time the United States lacks the leadership and conviction it did during the Reagan presidency. Indeed, our ideological infrastructure has been so severely infected with socialist principles and ideology that we cannot even be certain whether we are opposed to the progressive encroachment of hard core collectivism and government control into our way of life. Voices of mainstream political figures uttering words such as “we must accept the increased role of government in our lives” and “it takes a village to raise a child” all point to our increasing acceptance of government as a paternal figure in our lives. This is in complete conflict with our founding principles. It repaints our country with an ideology that is foreign to the core of our beliefs and in many ways invalidates the experiment that had created our country in the first place.

It is important to understand the chain of events that the world socialist envisions. It begins at an individual and national level, where the abandonment of personal liberties leads to the socialization of the society within the respective nation. Once enough individual societies have succumbed to the socialist ideology, this in turn becomes the seed toward globalized socialism, where individual nations forgo their national individuality and interests for the benefit of the global order.

While troubling within the context of our nation, the ramifications on the future of our world are extremely profound.  If America is absorbed into the “community” defined by the world-wide socialist agenda, its leadership role will cease, leaving the world to be led by a dysfunctional conglomerate of nations. As evidenced by the total ineffectiveness of the United Nations, the resulting inaction at a global level can be nothing less than terrifying.

Imagine a world without leadership, with the United States playing an equal partner role with all other countries of the world. A true “to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities.” Equal sharing of all resources. No conflict. No wars. No boundaries.

Utopia, you say? I say absolutely. Then I add. No food. No progress. No innovation. No invention. No individual – only the collective.

To create a world society which completely uproots and ignores the basics of the human behavioral DNA is excellent material for science fiction, but in the real world it is folly. By natural law man strives to become more than what he is. He does so because he anticipates this will improves his life. When he does, by so doing, he contributes to the progress of society.

Man is flawed (thank our Creator for that) and desires more than what he needs. And greed is as much a part of his character as is his need to breathe. Man is also benevolent, and once his needs are generally met, he gladly shares of his goods, first with family, then with others of his choosing.

You can no more remove these traits from man than you can make him refuse food or water. To remove them is to devoid him of the desire to create and improve.

The United States is at the crossroads of determining the shape of its future. While the socialist agenda has been active here for the better part of the 20^th century (Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal), at no time has the pace of radical change been so rapid as during the first 9 months of Barack Obama’s presidency. As if realizing that inconvenient truths must sooner or later catch up with his agenda, the breakneck speed of socialist reforms undertaken by him are intended to reach as far as possible before the electorate realizes the consequences of his  actions.

With each such reform the relevance of the individual fades further and the objective of the statist is closer to being realized.

While no credible single leader has emerged in opposition to this agenda, the electorate is clearly catching on and beginning to establish beachheads in pushing back on many of the reforms. But the voice of a leader in the tradition of Ronald Reagan is yet to be heard.  When he/she emerges, the battle will extend to winning back the statist’s gains and aiming our attention on the world stage, where America’s leadership desperately needs to be reestablished.

The United States has earned the right to be the dominant nation. It has done so by succeeding where others have failed, by creating a society and system of government which recognizes and aligns with man’s desire for freedom and liberty. By so doing it has created great prosperity and a standard of living for its citizens unmatched throughout the world. It has earned the right to lead because of its benevolence toward less prosperous nations, having provided more positive influence and material support for them than any other country and, in fact, more than all other nations under the United Nations banner.

Now our future is far from clear, our destiny far from being secure. The strength and effect of the mounting opposition to Barack Obama’s agenda will determine how far our nation swings in the direction of collectivism and how reversible (if at all) these effects will be. What is at stake is nothing less than the heart of our national identity, the principles of our 200+ year old democracy and the success of the experiment that is the United States of America.

Will history show the era of Ronald Reagan to be just a temporary relapse in the statist’s march toward the eventual imposition of socialist order upon the world? Or will it serve as a lasting testament of the power of conviction and the strength of our ideals that we once again now need to exhibit in defense of our liberty, freedom and national identity?

The answer may very well determine the course of our next 200 years as either Americans or as citizens of the world.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Norbert Sluzewski is the Editor of NakedLiberty.com

Article may be published with attribution and must include trackback information
Article trackback: http://nakedliberty.com/2009/09/on-the-precipice

 

Related articles:

• Politicus: Central and Eastern European Countries Issue Rare Warning for U.S. on Russian Policy (nytimes.com)
• Obama’s Missile Defense Concession Holds an Opportunity for European Security (usnews.com)
• Commentary: Why Obama’s plans are stalled (cnn.com)
• Details Emerge of Cold War Nuclear Threat by Cuba (nytimes.com)
• In Kennedy, the Last Roar of the New Deal Liberal (nytimes.com)
• Harry Truman, free marketeer? (marginalrevolution.com)
• Margaret Thatcher, Secret Defender Of Soviet Security (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• The Road Ahead In Kyrgyzstan (eveningwalk.blogspot.com)
• New dawn (news.bbc.co.uk)

by Norbert Sluzewski
NakedLiberty.com
August 23, 2009

Each and every day a child is born into a world of truths and lies, rights and wrongs, haves and wants.  From its first breath, it is conditioned to understand the forces of action and reaction, the relationship between wanting and getting, and how to manipulate the circumstances to best serve its needs. Whether it’s crying to receive its milk or copping a smile to get a hug, the child quickly begins to understand how to acquire material and non-material things.

Our mind is conditioned to think in terms of acquisitions and possessions. It is human nature and, just like with any other emotion, there too is an emotion attached to one’s possessions. The value of one’s possessions (regardless of whether they are material, like a home or a car, or non-material, like professional respect or rich family traditions) is directly related to the effort exerted in obtaining them. The depth of the emotion attached to these possessions is similarly directly correlated to this effort, as well as their value.  The three form an inextricable triad which is deeply rooted in human nature and natural law. From this simple observation, a basic conclusion about the human condition can be summarized as follow:

Your happiness is directly related to the value of the wealth (material and non-material) you’ve created and the effort you’ve contributed in creating it.

When we are first taught to play in the sandbox, we are told not to take the other children’s toys. Why? Because first of all those toys don’t belong to us – we haven’t earned the right to have them. Secondly, it would make the other children sad, since that for which they likely had to do something to get (i.e. earn it), would be unjustly taken away from them. It’s just common sense, isn’t it?

But some time very soon after the sandbox stage in a child’s development, these nascent links and deep-rooted relationships between ownership, effort and happiness begin to be eaten away. In the home this happens through parents who too easily accept the commercial media version of the world and who are not willing (or intellectually able) to espouse the basic principles of natural law and individual responsibility onto their offspring.   Outside the home the society takes over with incongruent representations of the real world, manifested in attitudes such as:

• debt is good (and you don’t really have to pay it all back)
• your mistakes are everyone else’s problem
• less capable does not mean less deserving
• every effort is just as good as any other, and should deserve the same outcome (i.e. it’s the effort that counts)
• opportunity should not be equally apportioned, but instead should be skewed toward those who need it most, even (or particularly) if at the expense of those who can produce a better outcome from such opportunity

Does that make sense? Is a society which has these as its principles efficient, fair, equitable and sustainable?

Clearly, the answer must be “no,” since each violates one or more basic laws of human behavior and indeed common sense. Yet over the better part of the 20^th century the American society has adopted and inculcated each of these values into its daily life and its government, media and cultural centers continue to promote even greater departures from the basic principles which make up the human behavioral DNA.

A modern society which is based on principles of liberty and freedom cannot at the same time be one which imposes unnatural laws and ordinances on its citizens. It is not, as most progressive liberals would like to see, a place and time where all are guaranteed an equal outcome, regardless of their individual contribution.  It certainly cannot be one which irresponsibly uses its financial and human resources and violates the most basic principles of supply/demand economics.

Like the sea farer that knows the immovable nature of the stars and how they provide him guidance to navigate the stormy waters, so too a modern society must have its anchor in tried and tested core founding principles. And this is particularly true in a world where change is occurring at increasing speed and where losing its national compass, a society risks eternal disorientation in the sea of conflict and divergence.

In his 1776 political pamphlet “Common Sense” Thomas Paine looks at the political systems of his time, the monarchy, the British parliament, commons and constitution and questions many of the prevailing ideas of the role of government and its relationship to the citizens. In so doing he applies a rigorous discipline of logic and of common sense, and exposes nonsensical laws and political traditions. Most constitutional historians agree that this scrutiny and deep analysis of the British system of government at the time made a significant impact on the writing of the United States Constitution.

We could say that much common sense was applied by the authors of the American Constitution in formulating the principles of our founding. We know that because of its common sense it has withstood the test of time.

Each time we step away from these guiding principles, we lose one more star in the sky to guide us by.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Norbert Sluzewski is the editor of NakedLiberty.com
He lives in Connecticut

Article may be published with attribution to the author and the NakedLiberty.com web site

Article is Copyrighted (c) 2009, XCIOS, LLC

Related articles by Zemanta

• On gun-toting straight-shooting constitutionalists (washblog.com)
• Tea Bagger Mark Williams Thinks We Should Be Turning Illegal Immigrants Away From Emergency Rooms (videocafe.crooksandliars.com)
• Hannity shakes his head at C&L, ‘liberal attack machine’ for pointing out the ignorance of Specter teabagger (crooksandliars.com)

by Norbert Sluzewski
NakedLiberty.com
August 23, 2009

From a psychological perspective, narcissistic people do not do well when the cards are stacked against them. Few would argue that Barak Obama possesses a rich dose of such self-absorbing traits. His energy is derived from mass adoration, from loud chants of support from his frenzied constituents, and from nodding of heads among the swarm of “yes” people that make up his inner-most circle. The personality makeup of this inner circle is in itself evidence of the strong need our president has for constant reinforcement and acceptance. In many ways, he is a child of the x-generation, brought up in a culture of having the universe revolve around him.

While self adulation served him well during his assent to prominence, where his confidence transcended all voices of skepticism, questioning his sincerity, veracity of promises made and his fundamental ability to deliver on those promises, now in a position of executive power, this same character trait is a strong obstacle to his effective leadership. Moreover, it is likely to become the noose on which his progressive liberal agenda will hang in testament of the poor leadership which the president has exhibited so far.

One of the most noticeable (but not much discussed) behaviors of the president is the extent to which he is shown to the public in solo appearances.  It is rare indeed to see him in any sort of a group setting. All that the media seems to ever get a glimpse of is the president walking alone to his helicopter, stepping up alone to a press conference podium, talking one-on-one, armchair-to-armchair with a reporter or visiting dignitary, or lecturing at a town-hall event or fund raiser. What is profoundly missing from this image is that of a strong, central figure surrounded by an equally strong leadership team, setting the tone of the conversation, crisply defining specific goals and delegating mission tactics to his lieutenants. Instead, after just a few months in office, the only images the public sees of the president seem to project exhaustion and isolation, lack of clarity of direction and being lost in the face of mounting public disagreement with his core beliefs.

There is a quote attributed to Mario Cuomo which roughly goes like this: “You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose.” And as with most great campaigners, Barak Obama has embraced an ideological dogma and has made great poetry of it during his campaign. His campaign message of social justice and accountable government, interspersed with hope, optimism and himself as the protagonist knight on a white horse, admittedly made for a great work of campaign poetry. Now that the last verse of the poem has been written, it is time to take out the true and tried manual of governing that is the Constitution which, while written in prose, is what defines our nation, its traditions and values.  Barak Obama somehow misses this critical point and until he does get it (if he ever does), his presidency will continue to be ineffective and mired in disarray.

The Constitution does not require exceptional leadership from any one individual nor any of the branches of government it defines – in fact, the process of checks and balances specifically provides a remedy for the flaws of human behavior which are expected to permeate all levels of government. However, the overall benefit to the nation is exponentially greater when such a leader emerges. But what the Constitution does not provide an antidote for is subversive activity which undermines it in the first place. The current president and anti-constitutional proponents of expanded government throughout the 20^th century appear to have discovered and understood the potential inherent in this Achilles heel of our system of government and are trying to usurp their hegemony over the founding principles of the Constitution.  By so doing, and with each legislative weakening of the links which bond the pieces of the Constitution together, the buffers which protect us against weak (or in fringe cases corrupt or incompetent) leaders are similarly undermined. Like a weakened immune system of a body, this exposes our society to progressively more virulent strains of government infectious activity to reach progressively deeper into our lives, to restrict our liberties and our freedom.

So frankly, I don’t particularly ascribe a great deal of emotion to whether Barak Obama will “snap out” of his campaign shell and begin to lead our nation with an intelligent domestic and international agenda. For now he is still bound by the limits on his authority through the Constitution and, as I am deeply convinced, his presidency will not just be a one-term event, but indeed will be recorded in history as one of the greatest polar swings in popularity, combined with the fastest fall from glory that any president has ever encountered.  He will soon be followed by another flawed human being (regardless of whether democrat, republican, libertarian, independent or other).  And that is how our system works.

On occasion we are blessed with an Abraham Lincoln or a Ronald Reagan who awakens us to what our nation can be and moves us to a higher plane of national self realization. Those are rare events but they leave behind a legacy which must survive until the time that the next such event occurs. We are in this transitional period now, awaiting the next “great emancipator” or the “great communicator” to make his/her mark on this great nation. In the meantime, our constitutional system of government must be protected and constantly re-enforced to allow for and support the next leap forward.

While the fate of Barak Obama’s presidency will in the end be unremarkable, his lack of leadership during his presidency can over the remaining duration of his term gravely affect the course of events in the unruly Congress which continues to accelerate the march toward the liberalization of our system of free market capitalism. This is where the focus of attention needs to be and where efforts to materially affect the makeup and balance of power should be centered.  The opportunity to do so is presented to us every November.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Norbert Sluzewski is the Editor of NakedLiberty.com

Article may published with attribution to the author and web site