Cy
11-02-2008, 06:58 PM
Friends, it seems that our country has come to an impasse...
The intent of our forefathers was that we would have a nation of free individuals, each pursuing happiness as he defined it, under the rule of laws which protected basic natural rights (not guaranteed goods and services), without intrusion from the federal government.
The forefathers did not intend for parties. Why should there be? The basics of our "ideology" (if you could call freedom an ideology) were mutally shared. We have rights endowed by the Creator, and the government protects those rights. That would leave the criteria for office basically a function of experience, wisdom, and leadership. The Consitituion made it clear that no laws should be made unless the Constitution warranted said law.
But as it goes, parties did develop, and once that happened, every viewpoint, no matter how at variance with the Constition, could claim a place at the table of democracy. DeTocqueville's fear became the truth: The problem with democracy is that the majority can vote for the minority to hand over its wealth to it. The Constitution was to prevent that, but a little adjustment nullified that "problem": The Constitution became a document that only said, not would you COULD do, but what you COULD'NT do. So hey, the Constitution doesn't say you can't have socialism, so go ahead and do it! Go ahead and make a new bill of rights which codifies socialism.
And now we have come to an impasse. One group wants to remain with the original contract, the original meaning of the Constituion as written by our forefathers. The other group wants to forsake individual rights for "collective rights." Those in favor of collective rights will probably win, which means that those who simply want to be free individuals pursuing happiness without some collectivist head telling them how to sacrifice for the common good, will be forced to give up this quest.
The visions of America are simply incompatible.
I would be happy to let the "new vision" Obama-ites have a chunk of America where they can persue their socialist dreams and attain the glories of France.
But will they allow freedom-loving individualists a chunk of land where they can once again be free, as our forefathers intended?
Because I'm really getting tired of trying to apologize for wanting to be free. Let's just part our ways. We clearly have two incompatible visions of America.
The intent of our forefathers was that we would have a nation of free individuals, each pursuing happiness as he defined it, under the rule of laws which protected basic natural rights (not guaranteed goods and services), without intrusion from the federal government.
The forefathers did not intend for parties. Why should there be? The basics of our "ideology" (if you could call freedom an ideology) were mutally shared. We have rights endowed by the Creator, and the government protects those rights. That would leave the criteria for office basically a function of experience, wisdom, and leadership. The Consitituion made it clear that no laws should be made unless the Constitution warranted said law.
But as it goes, parties did develop, and once that happened, every viewpoint, no matter how at variance with the Constition, could claim a place at the table of democracy. DeTocqueville's fear became the truth: The problem with democracy is that the majority can vote for the minority to hand over its wealth to it. The Constitution was to prevent that, but a little adjustment nullified that "problem": The Constitution became a document that only said, not would you COULD do, but what you COULD'NT do. So hey, the Constitution doesn't say you can't have socialism, so go ahead and do it! Go ahead and make a new bill of rights which codifies socialism.
And now we have come to an impasse. One group wants to remain with the original contract, the original meaning of the Constituion as written by our forefathers. The other group wants to forsake individual rights for "collective rights." Those in favor of collective rights will probably win, which means that those who simply want to be free individuals pursuing happiness without some collectivist head telling them how to sacrifice for the common good, will be forced to give up this quest.
The visions of America are simply incompatible.
I would be happy to let the "new vision" Obama-ites have a chunk of America where they can persue their socialist dreams and attain the glories of France.
But will they allow freedom-loving individualists a chunk of land where they can once again be free, as our forefathers intended?
Because I'm really getting tired of trying to apologize for wanting to be free. Let's just part our ways. We clearly have two incompatible visions of America.