Exaltation of Individualism over Collectivism at the Heart of America's Founding

The United States of America owes its very existence as a nation to the idea that individual rights trump collective rights!

The argument for independence was founded on the conviction that the most basic unit of society, the one with God-given rights, is the individual. The rights of the individual are UNALIENABLE, whereas the rights of the governing body are DERIVED from the consent of the individuals governed.

Notice in this excerpt from the Declaration of Independence how the individual is held in high regard, and the collective is suspect.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (INDIVIDUALS) are created equal, that they (INDIVIDUALS) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments (COLLECTIVE) are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, (INDIVIDUALS) — That whenever any Form of Government (COLLECTIVE) becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People (INDIVIDUALS) to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their (INDIVIDUALS') Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when along train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their (INDIVIDUALS') right, it is their (INDIVIDUALS') duty, to throw off such Government (COLLECTIVE), and to provide new Guards for their (INDIVIDUALS') future security.

"Well then," the skeptic may ask, "why 'institute new Government' at all? What hope is there that any new government should be good, whereas the old government was bad?" That depends on the answer to another question:

What's the purpose for government in the first place?

Clearly for the Founders of our country, government was expressly for the purpose of effecting the Safety and Happiness of the individuals governed, (who, remember, were given their rights directly by God) and to guard the individuals' future security. The Government, therefore, MUST NOT abuse them, usurp (!) them, or reduce them under its absolute Despotism.

So, to the degree that any government serves its function, namely to protect and to serve the rights of the individuals governed - Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, Safety and Happiness, future security - to that degree it is then good government. But when any government becomes destructive of these ends and abuses, usurps and reduces the individuals governed under absolute Despotism, it is then bad government and MUST BE THROWN OFF.

Or so says The Declaration of Independence, if you put any stock in such things.

Gun Control (The Issue that was Mysteriously, Suddenly, and Universally Renamed "Gun Violence")

You are enjoying a night at the movie theater when suddenly some heavily armed maniac stands up in front and starts shooting people. Horrific chaos ensues. You crouch behind the second row of seats, aghast that this guy has just shot and killed 3 people. Now 4. Now 5 people. Then a gun slips out of one of the maniac's over-stuffed pockets. It clatters to the floor, gets booted under the seats, and comes to rest right at your feet. More and more people are dying. People are screaming "Somebody DO something!" You check the gun. It has 12 rounds in the clip and one in the chamber. The safety is off and it's ready to fire.

WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

A. Put the gun down because it has too many bullets in it.
B. Put the gun down because guns kill people.
C. Stand up and tell the killer you understand his pain, and if he'll just put down the AR-15 we can talk.
D. All of the above.
E. SHOOT HIM!

If you answered E you just saved countless lives. If you answered A, B, C, or D... you could become president.

HELP! Show Me the Way to Galt's Gulch!

Imagine

What if only the top half of American income earners paid any income taxes at all, and the other half paid NONE? If that ever actually became the case in this country, what would you say we should do about it? 

As long as we're imagining, let's go even further. Let's say it gets to a point where the richest of the rich, say, the top 1%, pay no income taxes at all because they get their money from investments. So they pay something called "capital gains" tax instead of income tax. Let's pretend they pay about 15% of everything they get, as capital gains taxes. So somebody who earns a $250,000 on his or her investments pays $37,500 to the government. (By the way, how much did you send the government this year?)

Anyway, back to my hypothetical America. In such a case somebody with a chip on his shoulder and a lot to gain from rousing the rabble could legitimately shout from the rooftops that the rich don't pay their fair share! (Of income taxes, that is. Wink. Wink.) But in terms of all taxes paid, let's see, $37,500 compared to my $0... Hmm. In this hypothetical case, who could be said to be "not paying their fair share?" Who's not even pulling their own weight, and who's being made to pull a lot of dead weight, all while being publicly decried, demonized as a greedy de facto white collar criminal?

Can you imagine such a scenario?

Would this be your prescription for a utopian society? 

Of course, by now you've realized that my hypothetical society isn't hypothetical at all. It's America 2012, carefully crafted by the Obama administration/campaign. This is class warfare. It calls for the redistribution of wealth, from the haves to the have-nots. What might go wrong? What would it be like to be that guy who gets told he's not paying his fair share, and that he doesn't deserve the money he earns - er, gets? Do you think he's going to continue to work hard after several years of getting repeatedly robbed and spat upon by the incredibly powerful federal government? Do you think he's going to keep his business operations in the U.S? Do you think he's going to hire unionized American employees who demand more money every year based strictly on seniority, not job performance? What might be the weakness in this vision for America? Is it sustainable? After the rich are taken down a peg, then what?

I will give you my answer. The problem is this:

"Redistributing" wealth DESTROYS IT! It ends up going not from one class to another, but rather into oblivion! It is empirically impossible to transfer wealth by force! And you will lose your FREEDOM in the process of allowing the government to make the attempt, that cannot but fail anyway!

Of course this presumably isn't the goal of Obama's vision for America, but a thing doesn't have to be intentional to be BAD!

America has been given a great gift; we have the advantage of all the world's history of failed experiments in government-forced collectivism (Socialism, Communism, and the like) to show us what NOT TO DO!

In Praise of Ideology

Hey Joe Six-pack. The very survival of The United States of America is in your hands this November. Some seriously pivotal issues will be decided by this election. So wake up! It's not a popularity contest. The bickering and arguments you are so sick of hearing, that you decry as "bitter partisanship," mark the front lines of the culture war whose outcome will determine whether you are still fit for self-government, which forms the very foundation of your FREEDOM!

Ideology matters.

For example, does the government allow us to live a certain way and to do the things we choose? Or do we allow government to have certain roles and responsibilities and not others? In other words, it matters where you think ultimate authority resides. Our Declaration of Independence asserts that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. It proclaims that individual men (and women, of course!) have rights given them directly by God. And therefore governments can only have those rights we choose to afford them.

This is what conservatives mean when they say they are for limited government. Limiting the power of the government preserves our individual freedom. The more we allow big-government power mongers to regulate our actions and even our thoughts (can you say "hate crimes?") the more we forfeit our God-given right to control our own lives to a colossal, impersonal steamroller on which our puny individual voices no longer have any effect.

Repeat after me: Big Government = Steamroller.

So if you think you should just vote for whichever guy comes across as more likable, think again.

Please.

"Trust" and "Choice"

I recently saw a "pro-choice" bumper sticker. It said,

IF YOU CAN'T TRUST ME WITH A CHOICE,
HOW CAN YOU TRUST ME WITH A CHILD?

The attempted deception here is dripping with irony.
The choice you love to claim as your right is the choice TO KILL.
The choice you love to claim as your right is the choice to kill A CHILD.
The choice you love to claim as your right is the choice to kill YOUR OWN child.
And you ridicule me for for not TRUSTING you?
Stunning.

Marxist Collectivism vs. Good Old American Capitalism