In order for a person or a people to become “free” they first must become “independent”. This independence has a two-fold meaning. Independence must be declared from an oppressive government, as occurred in America in 1776 via the Declaration of Independence; however, in order for a people to be truly free, a second independence must be achieved from any government.
This second independence is not a separation from or a rejection of government. Government is necessary to protect and keep a people safe. It is, rather, a declaration of independence from dependence upon that government. If a person is dependent upon a government for much more than safety, then he/she will never be truly free.
If a person is dependent upon a government for his/her own welfare, he/she has deprived oneself of two fundamental ingredients of freedom: personal responsibility, and consequently, self-fulfillment. If one relies on the government for a paycheck, retirement, healthcare, food, housing, or anything else, then he/she has forfeited his/her potential to choose for oneself the level of success that is achieved in those same arenas. If one relies upon the government for income, then he/she is at the mercy of that same government for their own level of financial success. They have forfeited their personal responsibility for their own success. By forfeiting responsibility for self in an arena, one forfeits the ability to choose one’s own level of “fulfillment” in the same area. Self-fulfillment can no longer be realized and instead is substituted by a hand-out.
Secondly, reliance upon a government enslaves others governed by that same entity, whether they are recipients of these programs or not. Government cannot create wealth and resources, it can only redistribute them. If the government claims responsibility for the welfare of a particular demographic, then others will have to bear the associated costs. This redistribution not only hinders the level of success of the recipients of these programs, but also hinders the success and freedom that can be achieved by the financiers of these programs. The more social programs instituted by a government, the lower the potential for achievement for the entire nation.
These so called “entitlement programs” also hinder the government’s ability to balance a budget. Politicians are always looking for ways to increase their voting base. Entitlement programs are almost always on the top of that list. Additionally, politicians also realize that raising taxes on the governed is a surefire way of losing the support of a voting base. So what results is a cycle of increased social programs with minimal or no tax increases until a tipping point is reached (like we are currently experiencing).
Until people declare their independence from dependence upon their government, the expectation of a balanced budget and reduced deficits will only be a pipe-dream. The governed can shout about the necessity for their government to reduce spending, lower taxes, reduce deficits, and balance budgets all it likes, but until the governed take responsibility for its welfare away from the government and reduces its dependence upon the government, these dreams will never be realized.
About the Author
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
People often take the easiest way out though, and would rather get what they want in the current day then to truly be independent. Just look at credit card debt for a good example.
Off topic a bit (okay a lot - it's my own ramble), but one thing I've always thought interesting about early American voting rights - in all 13 colonies, only male land owners or males who paid a predetermined amount of taxes could vote up until about 1850. The assumption (I assume) was that if a person was female, she would be taking care of her family, and thus would only vote for things that would benefit their family. Women's political judgment was also considered unsound by many. If a person was not financially successful, they would most often be in some type of debt or financial obligation, and so would only vote for things that would better their financial condition. It seems the belief was that only people who would legitimately vote for the good of the country were those who were already somewhat successful and would vote for things that would improve the overall economy or the overall welfare, since they were the only "class" of people whose own interest paralleled those of the nation or state. Voting for familial or socialist causes would not benefit the nation in the same manner as voting for improved land utilization or facilitating trade. Not sure if I agree with this after seeing all the abuse of power by the rich and the whole idea of taxation without representation, but it's an interesting thought that I remembered after reading your "rambling"... See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States#Religion_test or http://www.crmvet.org/info/votehist.htm for references, or google it. :)
Look at that. A comment!!!
I think it's important to point out that states still restrict voters rights. The constitution and some amendments clarify which criteria cannot be used to discriminate against voters, but states still prohibit differing groups from voting.
Which groups should be disallowed from voting has been an interesting topic for me and I guess my position is still developing. As soon as I come to a tentative position, I change it. There are some great questions concerning the issue of voting rights. For example:
Should those who do not share the tax burden be allowed to vote?
Should illegal immigrants?
Should legal immigrants?
Should the uber-rich?
Felons?
Those known to associate with anti-american groups?
These and more are all good questions. I'm still sorting out my answers.
Post a Comment