After Obamacare started taking effect, some 30 large companies let it be known they would collectively be dropping multiple thousands of worker health plans, made unaffordable, by Obamacare. Now they have been granted a temporary waiver from Obamacare, for one year. But of course, we are less than a month away from election day, Obamacare supporting politicians are in trouble, so now, let the clouds and seas be parted, as a Great Hand passes down a temporary reprieve from slavery in toto, for one year. Bless the Godz O’ Government, Amen, Praise Obama.
Who in the hell do these masochist think they are? Oh, wait, I just answered myself. Now we can see a new world, coming into view. Statists have marched in military style, taking over the reigns of government, and ruling by decree. Many Decadian and Centurian Old Republicans think that Obama will lead Democrats now to the political and pragmatical center, apparently, just as he led their moderates, off the face of a left winged cliff. Republicans of the establishment ilk also seem to feel that their role as royal opposition is to tweak and make “efficient”, the legislation commonly refered to as “statist”. Really, we can look back about 100 years, and find near nothing but “statist” legislation. Starting with the Federal Reserve, legalized fractional reserve banking, government medicine, government non-military research, government retirement, government nanny laws, government police-state laws (including most of the Patriot Act), government non-producing agriculture, government ect…
We are slaves granted a temporary reprieve. Obama now complains to his minions that “there’s going to be gridlock” if the Democrats lose the house. In the past 100 years, congressional gridlock has been the best thing for the uS economy. “Getting something done”, has been a disaster when speaking of the US Government. The government needs to be gotten out of the way.
Then who is to be in charge? Hundreds of millions of consenting adults who know whats best for their lives, their “own” damn lives. The political battles shaping are essentially moral battles, or A Moral Battle, between the owners of their own lives, and the claimers to full, but more often “partially” ownership of others. Folks, the issue of slavery, the debate that supposedly ended with the ending of the Civil War between the States, has not been resolved, and it has not been resolved because the moral issue was not addressed fully. What has been resolved, is that people cannot be made slaves because of genetic disposition, esp. skin pigmentation. What has not been resolved is the issue of whether or not a man can be owned by another man, or an entity, without the mans specific consent. A mans property is not just his land and home, car and stock portfolio. A mans earnings in total, are his property. His property is a result of what he has earned. How can he “act”, if he cannot claim the results of his having “acted”?
The moral claim by our so-called “betters” is that a significant portion of our earnings are the property of either A. No one. Or B. Government. Or C. The other guy. To say that property that is yours now, should be A. no ones later, is to claim to hell with reality, ownership, and the idea of “claim”, nihilistic, at best, relativistic, perhaps. Evasive, for sure. It is made by many egg-headed brainiac’s in University settings across the country and shoveled to the young as hard and fast as they shovel them pills. B. Government. My foot. Government cannot claim or own, government has no legitimate power to act in any way other than as arbiter of claims, not maker, taker, or forsaker of claims. This should be done through courts of law, policeman (to degree) and through, in broad scale, national defense. C. The other guy. But who declares “whom” this “other guy” is? Anointed fairness agents of government? The “have-nots”? Often, it is not the communist leftists who make the “other guy” claim. It often comes on the right, from the “Religious Right” to be specific. This is where “my brothers keeper” comes from, as justification. It originates I believe, from the bible. If you value the poor man down the road with nothing, and that reason to value that man is valid, for sure, help the guy out. But for that guy to make a legal, AND moral claim that you must be his keeper, is simply hideous. Him using the gun-toting hand of government to “get the goods” from you, is insanely tyrannical. Pragmatic amoral busybody commentators saying this is ok, since the other guy has not, and you have, is what put this nation, where it is, today, as economic basket case.
Does a person have a right to a house, aka, a mortgage? If so, at whose expense? A right to health care? At whose expense for these goods and services? Even food and water? What claim of whose? It is simply not ok to “make such a claim”. Under a Republican form of government, as America was originally intended , man, had rights, inalienable, the right to life, liberty, and the “pursuit” of happiness. Not the rights (so-called) to other people’s “goods and services”. Whose goods? Whose services? How much of their time? How much of their money, their property, their “earned”, is not theirs? The very idea of helping a man who is”down” has been corrupted, by men-down pulling the producers down with them through legislative action, and executive decree. One can argue as well that government welfare, insurance, ect, is also inefficient, and private charity is much more efficient. but that’s not the point. That’s technical, the moral issue is what the enemies of statism need to focus on.
The religious right has been around for a long time. because someone considers themselves a “conservative”, or, “right-winger”, does not default them, to being religious right. The religious right, an out-of-power would be enslaver, believe in sacrifice as much, perhaps more than, the communist left. I could go into goofy claims about outlawing abortion, sodomy laws, and creationism, but many on the left do these subjects fine enough. What detests me about the religious right, is their moral claim to the duty of man to sacrifice his happiness, property, or, freedom, for the men-down. While many may disagree the government should be ultimate arbiter, they make no qualms about it acting as such. As the Ultimate Charitable God of Gods, if you will. The Holy Re-distributer. Churches today do not ask men to sleep on rocks and eat ashes, as they did through the dark ages in Europe, however, they do preach about the love of money being the root of all evil, and communist lefties love this. Not only is money lovable, the love of it should be admired. Embraced. Celebrated every day. Money exists to rid the world of inefficient bartering. But, more importantly,money exists because trading by brute force is uncivilized…at best. Money exists because there is an acceptance in the West today that clubbing a shop owner over the head for a slab of meat is wrong. Money, in a sense, symbolizes earnings. In itself, it is property. This should be loved, the desire for it should be loved, because it entails the desire for persuasion over force. It is not per say the love of money, it is the love of voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. A corrupt, fraud aspiring man seeking money, in the end, always looses it. Or seeks not money, nor has not the “love of” money, but a desire, or love of, the power to manipulate, or force “others” to do something. By definition, we than are no longer speaking of a love for money, nor of capitalism, but a refutation of life, a hatred toward mankind, and a faulty philosophical idea of life. (not to mention a complete breakdown of all the accepted laws of basic logic) The religious right usurps the very foundations of capitalism, and voluntary exchange to mutual benefit, basically, economic liberty, by exclaiming to the mountaintops that ‘the love of money is the root of evil.’ In fact, the dispense of logic, or suspending of logic to this sort of degree, is the very definition of evil, as it results in Dark Ages, men trading clubs in acquisition and inquisition. An element of the Tea Parties, is being infested by these brutish cloaked communists who proclaim a swing to the right is a swing to us becoming a better brothers keeper. One, as an individual, is not only not required to give a man fish, he is also not required to teach a man “to fish”. Religion requires man to bow, becoming subservient, to the ideas of collective, mystical rule. The religious right, are the Mystics of Muscle.
This is certainly not to say that all god, or God fearing individuals are secret communists at heart. It is to say that there is a conflict of visions between individualists, and religionists, and that they both exist on the American Right today. And that if, IF, the religionists win the right, and then win power, we will see a repeat of the aftermath of Ike, Goldwater, Reagan, and Gingrich. (Pat Robertson-ism and an acceptance of holy mother Marxism, in drag, LBJ and the Great Society, Clinton and the Great Pragmatic Plauge, Bush and free shit for the well connected, and Obama, and free shit for the unproductive). The premise of self-sacrifice being excepted, by religionists, will convey power back, to the communists, and give them back their collars and leashes they hold today. In the end, the only thing man is a slave to is himself, and his ideas. A proper moral code of the individual, as highest court of the land, is the only way through, and out, of the socialist, tyrannical times we are in today.
The answer to the question “Are you your brothers keeper?” should be answered, “no, I am no ones slave, I own my life in full.” Religionists humble this idea, leftists evade it. Both, are an equal, fundamental threat, not only to this American Republic, but to civilisation as we have known, and come to love it. A civil, peaceful, voluntary society (by and large).
Bad ideas make slaves. Good ideas allow for liberty to flourish. Liberty is there, it is the reinforced concrete foundations of peace, and tyranny is only powder-coated over it. The question politically and morally today is, not whether the left will lose power so much, as it is, what will the tea party movement become? An evaded, pragmatized, humbled mush? Or a principled, proud new guard, of this Republic, and of the worlds greatest ideas?