I have been legally permitted to vote in the last ten presidential election cycles. I actually voted during my first opportunity to do so, back in 1976, for an evangelical Christian named Jimmy Carter. My guy won, whooppee! I celebrated for a day or two and then watched King Carter inflate the money supply of the SDA so dramatically we were stuck with double digit rates of inflation for years. The wealth of fixed income investment holders was stolen and destroyed by King Carter. Fortunately for me, I was in college and had no investments. But I did learn a valuable lesson from my act of voting and the events that followed thereafter. Fool me once....
It did not take me long to realize that presidential politics, as well as all other minor versions of political office-seeking, always play out according to the same script. I have never witnessed a candidate for any political office come forth and say something like this: "Things are pretty good in this country. We are richer than everyone else in the world. We are not being bombed or attacked by anybody and we are bombing and attacking people all over the world. We have more money today, on a per capita basis, than any people in the history of the world. Even people considered to be under the 'poverty line' today, whatever that is, are richer than the average citizen of this country was in 1950. My promise to you is to do nothing and let the good times continue to roll!"
Every candidate for political office says the same thing. Every candidate for office says that this country is going to hell in a hand basket and putting him or her into office will turn things around and make us all healthy, wealthy and wise. I guess that is the nature of the beast. Who is going to vote for a candidate who tells us things are going along nicely? If that is true, why not just keep the current politician in place? So in order to unseat the current politician and launch a new person into the position of career politician it is important to paint things as they are today as bleakly as possible. The problem is, if we are truthful about life in the SDA, we all have it pretty darn good and what is not good is almost always associated with government itself.
Another thing that I quickly figured out about the political process in this envy-filled land is that people vote for the person who promises to give them something for nothing. I just visited Hillary's website, found here, to discover what she is promising to give to those who vote for her. She wants to give $2 billion per year to people, and their families, with Alzheimer's disease. That money will come from taxpayers who do not have Alzheimer's disease. Hillary will initiate programs, with no price tag attached, to stop sexual assaults on college campuses. The taxpayers will bear those costs. Hillary also will subsidize inefficient green energy programs and put additional taxes on oil and gas. Taxpayers and consumers will bear those costs and the greenies will benefit from transfers of money and wealth to them. She also promises to "ensure that no student has to borrow money to pay for college." She does not say how she is going to do that but it will most certainly cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Taxpayers will lose and students will win. Hillary will enforce mandatory government preschool across the land. The cost of that will be borne by the taxpayers and those with children, especially single moms, will be the winners. Hillary will raise taxes on the rich, whoever they are, and "invest" in her favorite crony-capitalist enterprises in order to raise employment and make everyone rich. Taxpayers will pay the bills for those programs and her crony-capitalist friends will be the beneficiaries of the largess. Hillary affirms that health insurance is a civil right and reaffirms her support for Obamacare. Under Obamacare the taxes paid by the top 49% of the income population in the SDA pay for the health insurance premiums of the lower 51%. Hillary wants to strengthen labor unions. When she does members of labor unions will profit and everyone outside the union, including laborers, employers and consumers, will bear the costs of her support. Hillary also wants paid maternity leave for all. Employers, and eventually consumers, will pay the costs of that program and pregnant women will receive the payments. This is just a small sample of what Hillary wants.
Did you notice anything about what Hillary wants? I am not just picking on Hillary here. I could have done so with the other members of the big five (Cruz, Rubio, Trump, Sanders and Clinton). Although they favor different programs they all have a long list of programs funded by taxpayers that benefit special interest groups. All of them couch their plans to steal from one group to give to another in terms of civil rights, compassion, civil defense, defense of the environment, whatever that is, and economic growth. Strangely however, none of them dare call what they want to do stealing. I wonder why?
There is no such thing as a free lunch. When civil government, and the career politicians and bureaucrats who populate it, seeks to go beyond the protection of our God-given rights to life, freedom and personal property it goes too far. Without exception every single government program that goes beyond our three legitimate civil rights creates a system in which one group ends up losing and another group ends up winning. Without exception the members of the losing group experience some sort of financial loss and, conversely, the members of the winning group receive some sort of financial windfall, less 20% for government handling. Is there nobody in his sinful land besides the Welsh who understands that this process is immoral precisely because it legitimizes theft? Is there nobody in this sinful land who realizes that voluntary participation in this process makes you an accessory to theft?
I can hear the screaming objections, from the three people who read this blog, to what I have just written. Those objections are always of the same sort and I will address them right now:
- Not voting allows the greater evil to win. We must vote, even if it is for the lesser of two evils. My response: voting for evil, even if it is a lesser form, is still evil. Who among us would say that it is proper for a rapist to only fondle a woman rather than rape her because it is the lesser of two evils? Evil is always evil. Participating in evil is always evil.
- We must vote in order to defend ourselves from the depredations of others. At least this mindset recognizes one fundamental truth about civil government in this immoral country....the act of voting is really an act of violence in which the vote is used to either defend oneself from attack or attack someone else. Do we not have the right to defend ourselves, you might ask? If it were that simple I could agree with this position. But it is not that simple. No candidate that I am aware of is campaigning on a platform that is restricted to protecting our rights to life, freedom and personal property and eliminating all those programs that assault the taxpayers. Every candidate has his own bag of goodies to spread around to his friends and those goodies are always paid for by someone else. Give me an example of a candidate who will only vote for programs that do not create winners and losers and I will vote for him.
- We live in a democracy and voting is not merely a civil right, it is a moral responsibility. My response: Give me a break! While it is true I live in a democracy where the majority always wins, I have no desire to live under such conditions and I will oppose the immoral aspects of democracy with all of my being, and that includes the state sanctioned sacrament of voting. Only a grossly perverted doctrine of morality would declare that I am morally required to cast a vote in favor of a person who has already admitted his goal is to commit theft. In fact, just the opposite is the case. A person with any moral conscience whatsoever would oppose any act of theft, whether it is done by himself, his neighbor or majority vote.
- We, as a society, have decided to operate this way. We, as a society, have decided to tax the rich and use it to create a "safety net" for the poor and disadvantaged. My response is: I am a member of society and I do not want to do any of those things. Furthermore, I know many people who agree with me. Let's admit it, shall we? "We" is simply a synonym for "the majority." We live in a democracy and whatever the majority wants is what we all end up with. The minority is always abused and never protected. Those who use this defense are, oddly enough, asserting a version of the old "divine right of Kings" argument. Under the divine right of Kings it was understood that what the King pronounced to be the law of the land was right and proper because he was the God-ordained King. Under democracy the terms have changed but the principle remains the same. Whatever the majority declares is right because it is the will of the God-ordained majority of desperately sinful human beings. The fact that this is the way we operate does not make it right or moral. Just the opposite is the case, democracy is one of the most immoral forms of government known to mankind.