I have really felt a lot of confusion this election. Not necessarily about who I am planning on voting for, but really about how so many of us can so strongly disagree on what is best for our country and our families.
Honestly. If you happen to stumble across this post and disagree with my thoughts, I would love to hear some of your reasons for your support of other ideas. Just please be civil ;-)
Because one of my main causes for confusion is this...since when is it ok to vote to take property from somebody else? I understand that many that support the idea that the "rich" should have to give more because they have more and that those that don't have as much should be helped. It ends up being somewhat of a moral argument...or the word that I have heard from both Obama and Biden..."fair." That it is our duty to sacrifice so others are taken care of.
The crazy thing is that I believe that statement in a different context. I believe that to those that are given much, much is expected. I am personally striving to be a compassionate, giving person. And I would have to say that I have a long way to go before I can even see Mother Teresa in the distance.
But I believe that the decision to give what we have to others should be a personal decision. Our household (as I'm sure most of yours' do) willingly gives a percentage of what we have annually to charitable endeavors. But that is a personal decision made by me and my husband. I strongly believe that the idea that the government can force people to support others is completely contrary to the spirit and wording of the Constitution. To maintain the freedom that this country has enjoyed for over 200 years, the people must remain free from excessive government involvement. Everytime the government gives us something, even protection, we are giving something back in return...some freedom. Obviously there are some necessary give and takes. But we should not sell our freedom for a mess of pottage!
And the idea that a politician can come in and promise to help you by pledging someone else's money is very disturbing to me. This politician gets all the credit for being compassionate and generous without giving one cent of his own money, but instead by using somebody else's money. And these days, it seems like this happens on both sides of the political spectrum. Politicians seem to think they have to buy our votes. That they have to promise more spending and more favors for each of us.
I do not want anything extra from the government!
If we feel strongly that people need help, then we, individually, should decide to help them. We can start foundations, donate money, give our time to volunteer. But the government should never force anybody to do those things.
People are balking at using the term socialism to describe Obama's ideology of "redistributing the wealth." That is because here in the US, socialism carries a very negative idea with many people. However, can somebody explain to me how this idea that everybody is forced--by the government--to share their excess with those who have less-- is not the equivalent of socialism? As I understand it, socialists believe that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society which results in an unequal society. They advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly.
Friedrich Hayek argued that the social control over distribution of wealth and private property advocated by socialists cannot be achieved without reduced prosperity for the general populace, and a loss of political and economic freedoms.
But the idea sure sounds good, doesn't it? It sounds nice. It sounds compassionate. It sounds like if you don't support it, you are greedy. I mean, why wouldn't you vote to help somebody out? Are you so greedy? But the ideas that surround socialism are empty promises. Every time a society has embraced socialism, the results include stagnanted growth, less for everybody, shortages. I lived in Venezuela before Chavez and I visited after Chavez. I talked to person after person, none of which had much to begin with, who talked about the new difficulties introduced because of Chavez' socialist agenda. Those who had less before have even less now.
And I am having a hard time understanding why so many people feel that it is ok. History does not support socialism. Why would it be any different for us? The basic premise is based on what I consider immoral...forced distribution. Unless you can voluntarily join the "group", forced giving seems so wrong to me.
And this is where it really gets confusing to me.
I go through both sides of the argument logically and I cannot come up with historic evidence, current evidence, moral evidence, or economic evidence that supports this redistribution of wealth idea. All I can see is that it sounds good and nice, so people don't care that it doesn't really work. And they focus on the niceness of it...the "fairness" of it...and they forget that the central issue is not about being nice and fair. We should all be nice and fair and generous. The issue is that the government should not be enforcing fairness by being unfair to some. The government should not be determining whose "needs" are greater. That is not the role of the government of the United States of America as established by the Constitution.
And one more thing ;-)....
If you are going to pledge others' money, there should be a requirement that you first have to pledge your own. If you truly believe that there is a need for monetary help...donate your money! The politicians (and Hollywood for that matter. Why do we hear about evil CEOs that make a lot of money, but no mention of Hollywood and athletes who make just as much and more money. I honestly don't get it. Personally, I don't care if someone makes a lot of money. I don't think money makes somebody evil. But if you're going to attack the wealthy, why are the job-creating CEOs the evil ones?) that speak so negatively about the "rich" usually live in a very nice, at least million dollar homes. I am not one to judge somebody else's house. Because in my opinion, it is your decision how you spend your money. But if you are out there preaching that we need to sacrifice in the name of fairness, then be the first in line. Sell your large home and buy something more modest. Donate the money to a cause that you care about. Be an example of sacrifice.
Because that is what this country is about in my opinion. Each individual has the ability and power and freedom to make a difference. To create change. It should not be the government, or one politician, making the changes for us. It should be each of us, individually doing our part voluntarily, that can create change. In our neighborhoods, in our homes, in our schools. Do not wait for government to do it for you. You have the ability to make it happen. And if somebody tells you that you need the government because you cannot do it yourself, prove them wrong. Because they are wrong.
If this is about compassion, be compassionate. But do not steal from somebody else to make yourself look compassionate when you have not donated your own wealth first.
And finally (yes, I am finally done with this rant!) a quote that has been attributed to Alexander Fraser Tyler,
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years."
What Gives Kids Confidence?
1 week ago
