This year’s elections will not be about electing individuals. It will be about choosing between two basic premises. The one…the U.S. is a country of individual freedom…and the other….the U.S. is a country of central planners controlling individuals. The extreme of the former is “the law of the jungle”. The extreme of the latter is slavery. Civilized society cannot survive either of these two extremes.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution attempted to institute individual and collective protection while restraining federal control of individuals. In spite of that document, there has been a constant movement toward more and more of that federal control over the individual.
This creeping control is observed in all areas of life:
1. The federal government can prevent the building of a home on the owner’s property.
2. The owner of a business is scrutinized regarding the race, sex and salary of employees.
3. The federal government dictates what kind of food and how much of it is to be served on school lunches.
4. Individuals are required to purchase a federally approved health care insurance policy or face a fine or other penalty. A note of significance for the reader to consider is this: The authority to confiscate a person’s income received approval of the great majority of voters when the tax rates were 1% and 7%…..That health care penalty may be small now, but the authority to set it at what ever the planners may determine at any time has already been granted.
This small listing is not even 1/100 of the planners’ regulations that have crept into the lives of individuals. Those who wish can find multitudes of others, but it may be a little difficult to wade through the tens of thousands of pages of regulations imposed on individuals, organizations and businesses.
This election cycle we are given the choice between the two philosophies as they stand today:
One party represents by rhetoric and action a rapidly increasing degree of federal control, and the other represents a “decrease in the increase” of federal control with the possibility of a gradual turning of the ship of state toward more freedom.
For those who are steadfastly determined to support that first party, you must remember each loss of freedom to which you are acquiescent for another person will grant more power which may later be exercised over you.