We are
at a tipping point, and like any large company or country that cannot agree on
policy, future plans or who is to lead, we need to make hard decisions based ideologically
as well as pragmatically. What do we do
when roughly half the country wants more government involvement and the other
half is stifled and frustrated at the lack of liberty and freedom still
permitted under the law? Do you have the right, when you are in
office, to restrict the rights of some people because you know best for
everyone? There is a growing vocal
opposition to the unreasonable measures being taken on our behalf, and many of these measures end
up just causing more damage than they are supposed to help. What do we do?
Can we
agree that ideologically, we will never compromise with the “other side”? As a Libertarian, I cannot abide gov’t
intrusion into my personal and business decisions when I am not hurting or
using force against anyone. How does
this ever get reconciled with a person who thinks that people inherently need
the gov’t to show them right from wrong, to guide them when the path is murky
or dark, and to limit them from hurting themselves…all the while knowing that if
they fail at something, the gov’t saviors will provide for them without regard
to where that funding comes from…all they know is that it is their right. I see one way to assuage both sides, but it
will take some very fine negotiating, and a few Uhauls.
I am
suggesting that at the next US Census we ask one more question, “If the
constitution is not a valid document and guiding principle of the current US
Gov’t, would you support a split with the Union to allow two separate and
roughly equal boundaries where one would adhere to the principles of our
founding documents (Yes that means getting rid of Social Security, Medicare,
Obamacare etc.) , while the other pursues a more progressive gov’t with a new
constitution that includes the “right” to welfare, healthcare and other assumed
“rights” from the “FORWARD” mindset. The split could be done taking into
consideration land and agriculture, raw materials and mineral rights to give
both sides roughly even starting points.
Passports would need to be issued so one side cannot just “abandon ship”
when they go broke (guess which side that would be). Then, and only then would both Dems and
Repubs be forced to choose between sides, and they would be forced to stop nickel
and diming the public into a progressive cesspool.
I don’t
want to discuss North vs South, I don’t think that is a fair or doable way to
split this country, in fact the only way would be to get census data, and delve
into political ideologies of local politicians and use demographics to
assist. There would be some butt-hurt
people that would have to move, or adapt…it won’t be perfect, but think about
it…you are a hard working entrepreneur who is being told that it is your duty,
your fair share, to pay for healthcare, retirement, public schools, drug
interdiction etc…and you may not have political aspirations or feelings about
these issues, but you are being forced to pay for them. How is that freedom? How is that Liberty? If this sounds Randian (Ayn, not Paul) I
guess it sort of is, but when I am given the lesser of two evils to choose
from, haven’t we just admitted that our ideology of self-reliance and
individual responsibility is dead?
Shouldn’t we part ways as trading partners and friends…and let the other
pursue the more radical agenda they really want, but have to drag us kicking
and screaming to? We could let the
Progressive States of America invade Libya, Syria etc, and we could live with a
clear conscience. We could let NY and
California dictate the policy of the PSA while Wyoming and Arizona and Texas
focus on bringing as many businesses to states that embrace capitalism and free
enterprise. We could allow Oregon and
Washington to protect their trees and
owls, and ban the use of combustible engines, while Colorado and New Mexico
embrace legalized marijuana and the freedom to marry in a church without the
gov’t checking genitals. We could have Massachusetts
and Minnesota offer free health care to bring people there, while Georgia and
Ohio offer no corporate taxes, allow foreign repatriation of profits and no
minimum wages to allow the accelerated job growth and prosperity…with the
worker’s right to leave at any time.
So…which
side would you be on? Would you fight to
keep the union? Would you do so, knowing
that one side is enslaving the other to support it, else it would fail. Do you think it is “unfair” to allow the
productive members of society to abandon the tyranny set up by the recipient
class? Would you kill to keep them
enslaved? Would you allow a peaceful
split, or would you force an armed insurrection? Yeah, heavy stuff…but so is taxation without
representation…only a few hundred years ago.
Is it not the right of any American citizen to question his government
and if not given acceptable answers and accountability, is it not his god given
right to resist tyranny? Are we
there? I don’t know…but the question is
starting to be asked…so I imagine we may be approaching that tipping
point. Now…with this being the
alternative…is a third party still “not viable”…or do you just like the path we’re
on? Decisions have consequences…and
those consequences have been delayed for a century. And those chickens are coming home to roost. I, personally, like the idea of living in a country...a home...called the United States of Liberty. I don't really care where it is...just not Chicago...that place is trashed already.
