Some May Be Surprised....

Some of you - especially who know me - might be surprised that I have a presence in the blogosphere.

I am anti-Facebook and anti-Twitter.  I don't belong to a great following and the most useful things I do via the Internet are finding phone numbers, driving directions, and e-mail.

But some time earlier this year I realized that if I did not find an appropriate outlet for my frustration about the direction our country is going, and some way to voice what I think is right, I was going to go crazy.

I can't believe the changes that are happening via government and the change in the general opinion of people in the United States!  I remember my father-in-law, who grew up in the 1940s, telling me in the early 1990s that I was delusional if I thought I lived in a free country.  He said that if a person from the 1950s were dropped into the USA of the 1990s he would likely think he'd been transported to some Soviet satellite state.

What would that same person think today?

It seems that at least two forces are working against our individual liberties as Americans.  First, we are succumbing to the natural temptation to shirk responsiblility.  Second, scheming and self-interested people in government are seeking to consolidate power in themselves and in the system.

Bart Simpson is the embodiment of the natural and instinctive will to avoid the negative consequences of our actions when he says, "Who, me?  I didn't do it!  Nobody saw me!  You can't prove anything!"  Funny.  But more and more of us ("U.S. Americans", as Miss South Carolina calls them) want to avoid the outcomes of our bad decisions.

The pro-abortion movement is a classic example of this.  By couching their argument as "pro-choice" they seek to ignare the fact that in the vast majority of pregnancies, the "choice" was made before two people took off their clothes.  Now they want to dodge the consequence.  The lost freedom.  The increased responsibility.  The morphing body.  The physical discomfort.  The financial obligation. 

Now we see the financial crisis.  Many firms made risky decisions which turned out to be bad ones.  Executives in banking, investing, manufacturing, and other industries risked losing everything for their companies, their employees and themselves.  Do you think they wanted to dodge that responsibility?

You betcha!

And, just as in the abortion issue, government is there to "help".

Laws restricting the natural consequence of sex have been in place since Roe v. Wade in 1973.  The "Troubled Asset Relief Plan" and "Stimulus Package" were introduced in 2008 and 2009.  The last two shield not only companies, but individuals from consequences of their own decisions and those of others.

We are moving away from individual responsibility to a state in which the State assumes more and more responsibility for our actions.  Of course, in doing this, the State takes more and more control OF our actions.

And the State is right in doing that, given a few assumptions.  I don't agree with the assumptions, but they are rational.

Let's look at motorcycle helmet laws.  How can the state have the right to tell an individual he or she must wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle?  (Forget the fact that a helmet makes perfect sense.)  If a person wants to ride, wreck, and turn themself into a vegetable it is their natural right. 

But what do we as a society expect the State to do?  When that person's medical insurance stops paying we look to some sort of welfare to help out, right?  So, the State now has a stake in the motorcycle rider's well being.  And as a stakeholder, the State now has a RIGHT to dictate some of the behaviors of the rider.

You see how easy it is to abdicate responsiblity and abandon freedom?

Now look at General Motors.  Previously a non-governmental organization, GM was free to select its own leadership and to negotiate its own labor agreements.  It could also select its own product mix and reward its workers' success as liberally as it wanted to.

Now the State has stepped in to rescue GM from almost certain failure.  GM is no longer free to select its corporate leadership.  The President of The United States was unhappy with GM's former president and requested that he be replaced.  He was!  Under the new ownership of GM, the federal government and the autoworkers' union are the principal owners and have a controlling interest in the company.  The federal government has established a super-executive position  which sits in review of all compensation for leaders of companies receiving "assistance".  And the new GM product line is being guided largely by conditions attached to the "assistance" funds.

So, if motorcycle riders and car company executives can give up their liberties so easily, how much closer should we watch ours?  How much closer MUST we watch ours?