What difference does a number make?

'Conservatives want to just make all the money they can and don't care about sustainable economic and environmental impact they have on others! Capitalists don't do any long term planning. They've mastered mid-lenght planning, but they miss the long term and THAT is what the government is supposed to be doing!'

Comment from a shuttle passenger today.



This guy has clearly a devout faith in every political action and no confidence for the future when the capitalists are at the helm.

Before I go on, I must clarify, I am not about to throw out a post defending capitalism. I am addressing the common man (as I meet him) and the points of view that bring this man to believe in political action and not in any other option. Which also explains what makes his hand vote (R) or (D).

Well, I don't know what radio stations he limits his ears to, or which newspapers he won't read. But as you can not prove a negative, I can only suspect that the trend to avoid news sources that don't jive with your personal (or collective) points of view explains much of the widespread misunderstandings about politics and the proper role of government.

A trend in modern circles to read only the paper that agrees with the reader keeps people from the paragraphs that have the insight that might change a strong perspective.

But regardless of the news source, whether it be Fox 13 or NPR, I am amazed at how few people get what the libertarian perspective of politics is.

Far too many people go to bed each night assuming we live in a democracy.

What difference does a number make? What is ANY different from living under a tyrannical king and living under a tyrannical populace. Monarchy and democracy both have no inherent interest in respecting the rights of the people, lest those rights be considered expendable for popular opinion.

Now, many people will happily look around and scoff, 'tyrannical you say, you still drive to work and have money and have a good life?!?'

Do the actions of a tyrannical king have to exceed the point of unbearable in order to justify revolt or even acknowledgment?

Does the democratic government have the endless power to sweep over the individual rights of the masses in order to provide an ever expanding comfort zone for the majority?


If you wonder why more groups are demanding their rights be recognized, could it be that the gigantic system we have now, has become exclusive in its provisional execution of 'rights' protection?

The only rights that are deemed worthy of protection are those that can be thrown into the slush fund of popular culture.

And I am very uncomfortable with that reality.

Unalienable rights are not given by the masses, nor by the Bill of Rights or Constitution.

They are inherent, whether you ascribe to the Ayn Rand 'Objectivist' school of thought, or the Biblical school of thought, these rights are not given or taken.

A shift in thinking has turned our government from protector of our rights into this filter that now returns each of these as privileges.

These ideas, sadly, are not self evident.

This is why you find parties and organizations growing to restore them to the common dialogue.

It is in the newspapers and the radio stations that these voices must be welcome again.

But this is a free country, and Fox TV is welcome to interview the guests they feel think will sell the most ads.

But when it comes to the 'news' most stations push, I'm not buying it anymore.

Scott Lindsley


Popular Posts