Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Open Letter to a Communist (Whether He Knows It or Not)

Dear Comrade,

I wanted you to see what I see as the consequences of this election.  You, gentle reader, are probably growing tired of constantly rehashing an election that is done, over with, and that the conservative cause lost.  You, my regular readers, are free to tune out and go elsewhere.  I will get to other issues, such as  the possibility of voter fraud in Pennsylvania and Ohio eventually. But, I want to show Dear Comrade what you have wrought by your vote for Obama last Tuesday.  First, go read Daren Jonescu's article in yesterday's American Thinker entitled America Votes to End Western Civilization.  The central theme of Jonescu's piece is:
At the core of modern civilization is, or was, the project of practical freedom -- the effort to build societies consistent with the principle of ethical individualism. From the Platonic-Aristotelian conception of the individual rational soul, to the Gnostic divine spark, to the Christian emphasis on individual salvation, to Thomas Aquinas' injunction that human law must respect man's spiritual need for earthly freedom to choose virtue, to Locke's natural rights -- from all of this, and more, evolved a central theme of modern civilization, the effort to establish a society fully respectful of the dignity of the individual human being.
It is the notion that the Individual is first sovereign over himself. He delegates some of his sovereignty to the State to empower it to perform certain, circumscribed duties for the common good. This delegation only exists as long as the Individual, the ultimate sovereign believes the State is acting for the common good. He reserves the right to overturn the State and establish one more suited to the needs of the people. This is a revolutionary basis for government, and the only one of its kind in the world.  It is the basis for the exceptional nature of America, and on Tuesday a week ago, 53% of you voted to do away with that, in favor of getting trinkets from those of us who pay taxes.

Some may have a fuzzy notion of the difference between being a "subject" and being a "citizen." This is especially true when one views modern Europe through the lens of the post World War II period, and notes the seeming carefree good life that they enjoyed against the struggle, and poverty that some lived in here in the United States.  In Europe, they enjoyed endless unemployment benefits, free health care, subsidized apartments...in short they were taken care of despite their lack of ambition or entrepreneurial spirit.  On the other hand, unemployment in the U.S. has been looked upon as a shame, that must be corrected as soon as possible.  Here, we had to hustle, and got less vacation, less free time, and less job security.  If we had a job, we were required to go there five days a week, sometimes six, at oh-dark-thirty, and bust our tails until the job was done.  We bought our own health insurance, or "went bare."  We had to pay for our homes, our utilities, our food, do our own lawn, trim our own bushes.  It is hard work, being an American. You had to wonder, was it worth it?

Let's look, for a moment, at the difference between being a "citizen" and being a "subject" and see.  A citizen has natural rights that can not be taken away from him (or her) except through due process of law.  A citizen's natural rights include Life, Liberty, and Property.  A citizen has a right to self defense (and the tools to accomplish that), to speak freely, to practice his religion, to confront his accusers in Court.  The State must prove its accusations against him, and can not depend on him incriminating himself.  These rights have traditionally been so strong that no less a body than the Supreme Court has ruled felons, who are not supposed to be in possession of a firearm are immune to requirements to register those weapons.    So the Supreme Court has ruled in U.S. vs Haynes (1968). You can read the explanation of why at Clayton Cramer's site, but I wanted to throw that out there to illustrate the protections a citizen has against unreasonable government intrusion into their lives.

A citizen can, because of his rights, start a business, make contracts that are binding, and reap the rewards (and the headaches) of his success.  He can pass those rewards on to his heirs, or to his assigns as he sees fit, because he built that out of his own time effort and sweat.  In short, he owns himself, and the results of his labor.  People like Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford, and many others who seem to have had great wealth beyond all expectations started out poor, but had a great vision that paid off handsomely.  In the process, we benefited as well.  That is what made America prosperous.  It was a bi-product of the rights of citizens.  Carnegie didn't steal anybody's iron ore, he purchased it and refined it into useful steel.  Rockefeller didn't steal anybody's oil, he didn't even drill for oil.  Instead, he purchased oil from producers and refined it to make it useful.  Another way to look at it is that a citizen "owns" himself, and therefore the State.

Now, let's take a subject and see where the differences are.  A subject has been subjugated by another, be that the Queen, a dictator, or a social democracy.  His chains may sit lightly, for now, but he is none the less a subject, and the State can at any time do anything it wants to him.  The State owns its subjects.  There was a children's book entitled Black Beauty that I read as a child. The book was told from the point of view of the horse, Black Beauty, and recounts the way that various owners abuse him, and mistreat him.  Beauty is, of course, a horse, and everything depends on his owner.  Because the State provides his health care, for example, the State can also deny him health care for any reason.

If you wonder that so many conservatives were so adamant that ObamaCare was an evil to be avoided, that is the reason.  It may be imposed with the best of intentions, but it will come down to budgetary constraints, and then who will be treated, and for what will become a matter of politics and political correctness.  Moreover, in can only be imposed in a government system based on the State owning its subjects.  But nobody had a debate about whether to change our Constitutional basis of government.  The Constitution remains the law of the land, it is just ignored.  Further, Obama knows this, knows the symbolic value of ObamaCare.  He is announcing to the world that he has conquered America, has stabbed it though the heart, has subjugated it, an we are now his slaves, to do with as he pleases.  He has announced that he owns us.  Conservatives will not admit to being owned by anybody, anytime, ever. 

But maybe you don't believe that Obama and company believe they are subjugating us.  I have wondered all along if you see the same set of facts as I do.  But yesterday's outburst that a certain author was a "hater" and thus the what he has to say can be ignored answered the questions running through my mind.  First of all, Mr. Levin is not a "hater" and indeed loves the country, and loves the people in it.  More importantly, just as we have to listen to Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow, so it wouldn't hurt for you to open your mind to ideas that you find so distasteful.  Perhaps you will see that two people can honestly have different opinions.  Or not.

Yours truly,

No comments:

Post a Comment