Big Gov't Is Fed by Immoral People
Which is best for individual rights and Liberty — socialism, libertarianism, or conservatism?
In 2019, a growing population is accepting a fraudulent definition of Liberty to include the ability to abandon key institutions that prevent a malignantly and excessively large government — namely, the family, their community, and even faith — for the purpose of Big Government.
It’s striking that while many folks embrace the notion of socialism as a government construct to meet individual needs — such as dealing with educational debt they’ve incurred, seeking a wage without work, or obtaining “free” health insurance — they truly don’t care to also see the destruction of the ideology they support. In governments run under the rule of socialism, there is no private property, the means to production is determined by the collective for the collective and is the proven transitional decline in Marxist theory between capitalism to communism. In short, as government grows, Liberty is endangered and reduced. As individuals look to the government as their keeper past the self-reliance of income generated from work, the ability to have private savings and investments and making a commitment to family as a bedrock of support, the fabric of our society is becoming ripped apart because of the demands of government.
For these individuals to have their socialistic utopia, certain economic and cultural precursors are mandatory for all the “free” stuff the government doles out with money it does not have. Put simply, individuals must collectively fall in line to remit to the government their earned wealth at astronomically high rates to be redistributed for the needs of those who don’t work or work very little. Rights of property must also be abandoned for the common good. The assumption for socialism to work is for the collective to willingly abandon any opportunity to excel for the hope that all will have sameness and some government-sanctioned equality. Ironically, all the individuals who demand the rights of free this and that soon learn there are no true rights in a society of socialism except the priority of funding the mammoth government.
It may not just be those subscribing to socialism that are losing authentic freedom and doing harm to key institutions that do serve as prerequisites to economic, cultural, and political liberty. Last week, The Federalist published a thought-provoking piece by Nathanael Blake entitled, “How Libertarianism Makes People Susceptible To Huge Government.”
The key theme reasons that today’s libertarianism holds positions that are hostile to traditional forms of community — the family and church were specifically cited as “repressive and restrictive.” The premise of this contraposition is for the sake of autonomous individualism — I want it, I will it, I choose it, therefore I need it. As Blake argues, “Libertarianism has become less about a commitment to limited government and more a philosophy of autonomous individualism. The latter is an ideology that undermines the possibility of the former, in large part because it really does leave people alone.”
Being left alone to self-rule sounds perfect. Self-government works when there’s a common definition of right and wrong — that’s absent in today’s society. It works when there’s a commitment to the basic rights of each individual — such as the right of free speech, to assemble together, to worship, to bear arms, to own property, and you know, those constitutional things that have worked for a few hundred years. These rights are under threat daily due to interpretations of our Constitution. Self-government works when the value and benefits of citizenship in the sovereign body created for the purpose of its people and within her consent — yeah, this is definitely absent today. Self-government functions with a stable society that thrives. Today, our society needs more stability and it won’t come through government.
Unfortunately, as Blake reasons, the differences between conservatives and today’s libertarians have grown; an alliance that once worked is now fraying. In earlier years, conservatives’ recognition that unlimited, unrestrained government as a direct threat to a healthy culture of family, faith, and freedom paralleled the libertarian thought that too much government meant too little individual freedom. But today’s libertarian movement increasingly offers condemnation for conservative values that they once agreed to be the “cultural antecedents that promote and protect the virtues required for self-government.”
Why are laws created? Typically to address behavior that falls outside the bounds of legality and acceptable norms. Why are we living in a day that seems to require more and more litigation and legislation to maintain or restore order or stability? Sadly, said behavior is on the increase.
Socialists are antagonists to both libertarians and conservatives by giving the government the greatest authority and power. Similarly, libertarians and socialists assume some spontaneous order that runs contrary to both human thought and behavior, while both squint at faith and family as the structural bedrock of a health society.
Because the statement was made by a Founding Father — a white male who, no doubt, gained his status, not because of individual discipline, achievement and education, but because of his oppression of others — John Adams’ statement of truth is ignored for some feel-good sentiment espoused by social-justice warriors. Nevertheless, the facts remain as Adams put it: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”