Saturday, May 01, 2010

To Protect and Preserve Our Rights and Property does not mean giving us rides during the race

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Every great civilization passes away. Each great society boasts its shining moment of splendor, and a devastating period of decline. The more liberty that is granted to the people, the longer a particular system lasts. The greater the division of power, the more magnificent, and lengthy, the history of the civilization.

When we think of the great civilizations that have come and gone, the two that Westerners immediately identify with is The Greek Empire, and the Roman Empire. Both civilizations rose to the heights of greatness in the lore of history, and both met an inevitable demise because of a lust for power by the "elite", an appetite for decay by the society, and an inability to protect and preserve the rights and property of the people from not only foreign invaders, but from the corrupt system rising from within.

Without the presence of government individuals have no freedom because they spend every waking moment trying to protect and preserve their rights and property from a lawless society. The presence of an over-expanded government leaves individuals with no freedom because the state dictates to the citizens what their rights are, and confiscates their property. Knowing this, America was forged with a system that recognizes that a person's rights and property is not something granted by government, therefore government has no authority to take away those rights or property. Our rights, the Founding Fathers concluded, are given to us by God, and is not something the government should be able to restrict, control, or eliminate.

Property, also, is not something granted by government, but instead something achieved by the individual through their hard work, risk taking, and a little luck.

The purpose of government, therefore, is not to give and take rights and property, but to protect and preserve rights and property. Past civilizations fell when the rights and property of the people were no longer protected, and the government determined that it was the elite who should determine who had rights and property, and at what amount.

"All men are created equal" does not mean that all men will cross the finish line at the same time. Some folks with natural ability will lurch out into the lead when the starting gun fires, while others will maintain a steady pace fueled by rigorous training and earned endurance. Other runners may not be so fortunate to have been born with a runner's body, nor have had the body that responds to training very well. They begin the race near the rear, and stop often to catch their breath. If one such runner battles through the painful process of finishing the long marathon, and another crosses the finish line as well, but about a mile in got a ride in a government car and was dropped off a few feet from the finish line, could it be said that they both ran the race and finished courageously and successfully?

How likely would it be that the runner that ran the whole race might be expecting a ride the next time around?

What if the person that got the ride in the car walked up to the prize podium as the race officials pulled out the medals, and then the race official walked up to the winner of the race and says, "You've won way too many races. There comes a point when enough medals is enough, we are giving this one, which we took out of your trophy case at home, to the wonderful person who braved the journey of the race in a government car. It's the compassionate thing to do."

The slower runner that accepted a ride in a government vehicle smiles as the medal is placed around his neck, and the official says, "And be sure to continue running in these races. Don't worry, if we think you need help, we'll give you a ride again, and we will keep giving you a medal until you have as many as those cold-hearted winners have."

Would the slow runner care to spend time to train? Would the slow runner be willing to work hard so that they can achieve victory, well knowing that if they do there will be other runners getting rides, and wearing his medals?

When the next race happens, and a whole fleet of government cars arrives, how many folks (aside from the most ambitious, of course) will jump in the car, get their ride, and receive their medals? Would they expect the same treatment the next time the race is run? Would they be angry if a new official arrived at one particular race and said that the spirit of individual accomplishment was being soiled by the free rides and unearned medals, and that the race was going back to its roots of being run on merit and achievement? Would the runners become angry if the officials proclaimed there was no money left for additional medals, and they weren't going to take medals away from the winner's trophy cases anymore either, and only the winners were going to get a medal at the completion of the races?

How would you feel if the response was, "That's not very compassionate. I worked hard to get out of bed, put on my shoes, and wait in line at the starting blocks. I'm entitled to that ride and medal. These people must be heartless siding with those people who are good at running these races."

Our civilization is at the teetering point where the government is giving free rides and is freely handing out medals. The people are beginning to expect it, they believe they are entitled to all of the goodies given to them by the government, taken directly out of the hands of the taxpayer and the successful achievers. Those that have achieved are being demonized for their success, and Barack Obama is declaring that there comes a time when enough profit is enough. The government is poised to dictate to Americans their behaviors through hard left policies that neither protect our rights, nor our property. At one point the number of dependents will outnumber the achievers, and when that tipping point is reached, how will the government afford to continue their policies of entitlement? There are only so many government cars and medals available.

With the current push for hard left policies, how is the federal government protecting and preserving the rights and property of all of its citizens when the government is limiting our rights by limiting our choices in health care and financial investment to name a couple, and taking the property of the wealthier citizens to hand it out to those that have not achieved the same?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

No comments: