| |
07/23/08
|
||||||||||||||||
|
December
25, 2006 The tradition is a broad one. Gift giving seems to be one aspect of Christmas we celebrate whether we're Christian or not. Come on, we get presents, and who doesn't love presents? Since time immemorial, mothers — my own included — have tried to instill their kids with some version of, "It's better to give than to receive." Learning and truly believing in those words should mean that all of us are a little less selfish and a little more selfless. The sentiment doesn't always hold true, of course; advertisers work tirelessly to make sure it doesn't. But whether we have our mothers to thank or not, most of us are more givers than takers most of the time. As individuals, not everyone is that kind of person. But as a whole, Americans are generous to a fault whether it's Christmas or not. No matter the time of year, when disaster strikes Americans typically step up to the plate. Millions of dollars were donated for the victims of the Asian tsunami; millions more in cash and goods went to those who suffered as a result of Hurricane Katrina. It doesn't necessarily take a holiday or a disaster, either, for people to be in a giving mood. But good intentions don't always guarantee the intended results, nor do the most good-hearted deeds necessarily pan out even for the targeted recipients. This is usually the result of short-sightedness, interference from those at least nominally in charge, or both. In fairness, though, it can be hard to think things through when there's a clear and pressing need and your heartstrings are tugging at your pocketbook; and don't for a minute forget that there are those who use that against you, and who use it well! Consider, for example, that most people are suckers for children. In general, if you tell somebody a child is suffering or threatened, they're there with their checkbook and their support. Politicians may be many things, but stupid they're usually not. They tell us that something is "for the children," and we're lined up at the ballot box to defend the little darlings by casting our votes appropriately. Unfortunately, what people don't see is that voting to give something "for the children" means taking away from somebody else. One of the most obvious examples of this involves gun control laws. When a small child in Detroit steals a gun from his uncle and ends up shooting a young classmate, politicians are right there insisting they're going to do something "for the children." It's not enough to punish the uncle and discipline (not to mention teach) the six year-old. Instead, demands are made that all gun owners — even those substantially more responsible than the uncle — must buy special storage or safety devices for their guns, or must keep them unloaded at all time, or must separate the guns from the ammunition, or... In effect, those who didn't commit any crime are punished right along with the man who did. Their freedoms are curbed. In many cases, they must pay "fines" in the form of the added expense of a gun safe or trigger locks. Even worse and certainly far more offensive is the fact that many of these "for the children" measures mean that a given gun is effectively worthless when quick self defense is needed. In addition, only those who are already responsible and law abiding (in other words, those who least need the law) will comply; the lazy, the irresponsible, and the criminal won't do anything any differently. The children we were all so concerned about are in as much danger as before, but now so are the rest of us who rush to comply with feel-good pseudo-safety measures "for the children." Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) — and a whole lot of other Democrats — think that we should have some sort of a national health care program "for the children." It's hard to argue against the idea of little kids getting their shots, or good medical service when they get hurt or sick, isn't it? And yet if we go ahead and give the plan a go ahead "for the children," we're going to be taking — and taking, and taking some more — from every taxpayer in the country. Then, as money gets tighter, we're going to be taking away from the quality of the best healthcare in the world. How exactly do cash-strapped parents and limited services do anything "for the children?" When you get right down to it, all of the so-called "entitlement programs" have been "for the children" or "for the less fortunate." An effort that's likely to be on the fast track when the new Congress convenes in January is the push for an increase in the minimum wage. Now, the minimum wage isn't all that much so it's not too hard to convince folks that it would be good if people who were qualified only for low paying jobs made a little more money. So what's the problem? Politicians are so busy talking about giving a raise to the underpaid or the lowest paid that they don't bother to mention that minimum wage increases have historically meant that more poor people lose jobs than gain any pay; that fewer new jobs are created; and that a ripple effect from these things typically has an effect far above and beyond the targeted group. In other words, we give something to those few folks, and a whole lot more people are going to have something taken away. Some folks think we need to open our borders wide and welcome all comers. They think we need to give other people in other places the chance to live free and to have greater opportunities. If you see photos or video footage of poverty-stricken Mexicans or desperate southeast Asians, it's really hard not to feel bad and want to give them those things. But everybody who suggests we give immigrants unfettered access or forgive the millions of those already in our country illegally is simultaneously giving away both some good-sized chunks of our national security and sovereignty right along with the lion's share of our culture (such as it is). Ironically, controlling our borders is the single most effective security measure we could take. Instead of tightening our borders or enforcing immigration law, there are plenty of people who will vote for just about anything else if it's "for our security." They'll submit to searches at airports; they'll willingly offer up private information to be added to government databases; and they'll even be fingerprinted or otherwise biometrically identified. But while they think they're giving all of us more security, they're really letting the authorities take more and more of our privacy. It's merely adding insult to injury to know that these measures aren't going to do a thing to stop another terror attack, particularly when do-gooders are desperately afraid of giving one thing: offense. They refuse to profile and instead engage in many of their efforts on a random basis. If the chances you or I will be pulled from a line on a random basis are relatively small — and they are — what do you suppose the chances of a terrorist being selected randomly might be? I'm thinking they're pretty much just as small, and the correlating chance we won't catch a man or woman truly bent on terror because of that attitude is a chance I'm not really willing to take. If we really want to give anything meaningful to anyone this holiday season, we might consider taking some things. If we really want to give ourselves our freedom, we might consider taking back our responsibilities. If we really want to give the poor a chance to lift themselves out of poverty, we might consider letting the free market take over and — as it invariably does — normalize salaries with the cost of living. If we really want to show the rest of the world how democracy works, we might want to take the power away from those who are abusers of the system in our own country. The sad part is that I'm not sure very many people will bother to consider either giving or taking. It's so much easier to sit back and see what others will give to make up for what others are taking. As long as we think we're coming out ahead for the moment, we're typically content to live in that moment. With that kind of attitude, I don't think it will be too long before we're utterly reliant on what we're handed because everything we have will have been taken. This holiday season, when you're wrapping presents and baking cookies, think for a moment on the larger scale of giving and taking that's been ongoing in government for so long. No matter how you've benefited by federal (and state and local) largesse, remember that others — usually including you — have had things taken away in a sort of broad and inherently uneven exchange. This isn't compassion. It's effectively communism, and simply calling it welfare, Social Security, FEMA, Medicare, or anything else doesn't make it less so at its roots. As you prepare to celebrate a new year, ask yourself if there's not something better you'd rather give to your children next year and in the years to come. The future, in both the long and short term, is in your hands. Will you take it? Or will you, as so many have done for so long already, be more inclined to give it away?
Domestic Enemies: The Reconquista is the sequel to Bracken's well received Enemies Foreign and Domestic (though The Reconquista can stand alone, Bracken suggests and I agree that the first book offers an important foundation to the events in the second). The first book was good enough that I was anxious for the sequel; after waiting two years, I'm delighted to say that The Reconquista was worth the wait. (Read the rest here)
Lady Liberty is a pro-freedom activist currently residing in the Midwest. More of her writings and other political and educational information is available on her web site, Lady Liberty's Constitution Clearing House. E-mail Lady Liberty at ladylibrty@ladylibrty.com. Now available:
"Eternal Vigilance: The Best of Lady Liberty 2002-2004" |
The Da Vinci Code: What it Means · And What it Doesn't Mainstream Moves Toward Freedom Matthew Bracken on Borders, Books, and the Future of Freedom -Interview Complete Archives for Lady Lib | ||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
Domestic
Enemies: The Reconquista by Matthew Bracken