Of Means, Ends, and the Protection of Capitalism

I have been giving a lot of thought to the term progressive.  It is partially because, as Constitutionalists, I think we look for the "home run" that returns our system back to the simple values the Framers had used to create the document. But to fully understand it, we have to look at the progressive ends (plural by intent) that are being used, and the progressive means that are being employed.

The Constitution affords us, as its central theme, the rights to free thought and the rights to property. It creates a framework to protect those basic concepts from both people and, more especially, government. It creates absolute sanctity of thought, and proscribes only certain limited ways that government may seize private property. Those avenues include eminent domain and fair yet limited taxation.

In this day and age, these principles are being eroded, and our Constitutional Capitalist system is in jeopardy. "We" have been convinced, by a progressive campaign of slanted information that is convincing "us" that we are better served if a government does stuff for us, than if we do things for ourselves. It certainly would be a nice idea if the police could catch criminals before they harm us. Yet we don't think about how much Constitutional liberty we have to give up to get that protection. If you can be detained before you commit a crime, it becomes a frightening world where sugared sodas are being banned. "You're under arrest! We know you're thinking of drinking a Coke Classic!" Frightening.....extreme...but far off target? I think not.

And how nice and comforting is it to know that, if we become unemployed, or disabled, or just down on our luck, our government has "benefits" for us, to "protect us" and make sure we don't suffer. Yet we don't acknowledge that progressively more and more people have availed themselves of those protections, and become dependent on it.  The "Don't Feed the Bears" sign doesn't exist because they don't want bear poop. It exists because the bears become dependent on tourists, expect to be fed by tourists, and see tourists as their only source of food.  Then the tourists go away for the season, and the Park Rangers have a group of hungry dependent bears on their hands.  The government just doesn't go away...

Instead, government is, like those Park Rangers, required to grow their responsibility and feed the hungry bears. How do they do this? They take food, in the form of tax money, from the folks who are working.  Not a big deal...It's the least they can do. Again, the problem here is that as more and more "bears" get dependent, more and more is taxed from the working tourists and given to the "non-working" (read that non foraging) bears. Let's look at the facts. In 2009, 48% of the "bears" paid no Federal income tax, compared to 52% who did. That 52% of the "bears" who paid Federal income tax were paying dangerously close to 50% of their earnings in combined taxes. Federal income, State income, property, sales, excise, use, cigarette, booze, dog license, fuel, and so on and so on taxes. Not to mention the increased cost of goods and services being passed on due to these taxes imposed on business.

Now let's go back to that Constitution. Is that taxation that is fair? Equal? Taxation, Constitutionally, is required to be equal amongst men, not according to their means.  It was designed that way purposely. It was designed to foster hard work, self reliance and to limit government, because our Framers knew the evils of big government. They had just freed themselves from the chains of big government.  And the notion that one man could legally get another man's "stuff" was abhorrent to them. Benjamin Franklin, one of those Framers, cogently put it this way, "When people learn they can vote themselves money, it will herald the end of the Republic."

Yet we have been led astray...

You see, our Constitution guarantees us the fruits of our labors, not the fruits of others' labors.  A different system guarantees us the fruits of others' labors. That system is called Socialism. "From each according to his means and to all equally."  Socialism is the system that redistributes wealth, and we are marching progressively in that direction every day. So what's wrong with that you might say. It's only fair. Why should some suffer while others prosper? Why can't we enforce a little charity?  And I might be seduced into agreeing with my innate American kindness. The only problem is that the system doesn't work that way. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and designed a system that protected us from the inherent flaws of socialism.

You see, the inherent flaw in socialism arrived at by the redistribution of wealth is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money.  We hear that platitude frequently on conservative blogs.  That is the ultimate cause of the failure of socialism. And that is being bandied about as the "nail in the socialist coffin"....the magic bullet that will protect capitalism.

This is just a new sense of security "we" are being lulled into.  You see, the next necessary step that we would be progressively required to take, when "we" ran out of other people's money, is for the government to "acquire" the means of making money. It will be required to "nationalize" industry, goods and services, and real estate, to produce the money to redistribute, because those pesky bears need it! 


Now, ladies and gentlemen, do you really believe that the likes of international financiers, or the magnates of industry, or the political brokers of power are going to allow you to choose who operates that government monolith created by the nationalization of property? Or do you think that, as the ultimate end, a very few very wealthy people will effectively own everything?

And do you think that that ultimate end will look like the monarchy our Founding Fathers so fervently were trying to prevent with our Beloved Constitution?

I think the answer is clearly YES!!!!!