Live simply, so others may simply live

{The opinions expressed below are those of me, me, and maybe a few other people}

This SIMPLE credo has been seen recently on bumper stickers and it goes as far back as inspiring the Taoist movement. The art of simplicity can also be attributed to the philosophical origins of minimalism and liberalism.

'Lib' at the root, means free. ie, liberate, libertarian, etc.. It has, however become a modern political term. One that I will now attempt to uncover as NOT exactly free.

I mean little or no offense to anyone who considers themselves, 'liberal'. Rather I am attempting a dialogue that will inspire interaction, understanding, and communication. (I have many 'liberal' views. A topic for a later date)

The current, or 'neo'-liberal vibe has construed all things they want our govt. to do for the people as rights. Right to work, right to healthcare, right to homes etc.. Surely there should be no arm nor agency of the government that should work in any way to constrict the right of people to work, live in a home, and have healthcare, but to take from all and charge two thirds for the service is NOT the proper role of government.

Any act that violates these rights would be a bias based action. The desire to protect the right to speak at the cost of the right to homeschool. Or to protect the right of a woman to choose at the cost of the right to bear arms, is a bias that must be addressed. We either have theses rights and they are untouchable, or they are blowing in the wind. Up for grabs by whatever power happens to be 'elected; at the time.

I am addressing the designs of society as written by the 'left' (Another term for another day). These ideas do not, however, suddenly grant the government of the United States the power to tax its citizens and implement the health, home, and habitat of all Americans. The act leaving no choice in the matter. This lends itself to the democracy model that ignores an aspect of rights known as 'unalienable'. And this power flexing has, sadly, shown the government to consistently waste (I chose that word carefully) two thirds of all money it collects for these services. Now that's a large middle man.

Had these shown to be effective and run efficiently, I still would not classify the act as 'liberal'. As it is not an optional tax or voluntary tax, and therefore, currently and decidedly not free and not accountable to audit or change. I have yet to critique a model for 'socialized health, home and welfare' in this as I am attempting to remove a mislabeled package. 'Liberalism'. But this is just as the Canadian system of 'free healthcare' is not free. It would be much more preferable for America than the current healthcare debacle we are wrangling with today, but should never be confused as free or liberal. It is socialistic to the core if it does not give the option of out. A free system would allow for me to choose to join or leave at my own discretion.

This article is an attempt to clarify the usage of the words in the title. To request others to live simply, then to take from them as they lay pacified, is not a goal or model our federal, wasteful government should be playing. Please do not confuse my writing to say that there should be no help for the poor, no healthcare for the children, and no home for the homeless. Rather, these grand ideas should not be implemented at the barrel of a gun by a government that wastes two thirds of the money it takes for these 'services'. We, you and I, can do far better than they. And we should.

Now a brief on the neo-cons,

The neo-cons are a political movement supporting exemption akin to corporate welfare, they are a group that fights for rights so long as they are in line with the beliefs they personally espouse. But if they find an act that they disagree with, they attempt to control it with legislation. Examples are the war on drugs, homosexuality (They wanted to make an amendment about this), NAFTA (a deceptive and highly regulated 'free trade agreement'), etc.

The last idea I will define in this article is 'unalienable rights'. This means that all rights considered unalienable are not subject to crown, crowd, or crook. ALL people of this Earth have the exact same rights. In every country, in every language. These are the rights that nations and citizens have fought and died to protect.

These rights are the sole property of the bearer. Majority vote, popular demand, and fear have no bearing on them. The right to speak, act, think, express, interact with others, travel, and so on, are retained by us. They can not be voted away, ruled away, or taken without violation of the bearer.

Understanding this simplicity is crucial to the existence and sustaining of a government that is charged with protecting these rights and freedoms.

'My freedoms are more important than your good idea.' Anon off the net.
'Tax dollars should not be wasted on consenting adults' K.P.L. (Me)
'Keep your laws off my body' anon

The philosophy I have considered to be closest to protecting the rights of the citizens of America is the Libertarian. The man who is running right now for President of the United States of America for the Libertarian Party is Michael Badnarik.

I have written this to inspire interaction as well as clarification, and I welcome your questions and comments.

In Liberty,


Popular Posts