Freedom

Two hundred thirty-two years ago a small band of rebels rose in armed rebellion to cast off the yoke of oppressive government. When backwoods farmers and self-educated idealists rejected the tyranny of monarchy, oligarchy, and theocracy which had — for all of recorded human history — ruled the fate of men, and united in a single cause.

Individual human liberty.

The revolution was successful, and the principles of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness established the philosophical foundation of the United States of America, as written in our Constitution.

In the past one hundred years, a new ideology emerged which threatens our right to self-determination. The ideology is insidious because it is rooted in a natural human desire to want to help others: altruism.

Altruism has biological survival value for our species because it allows us to work together to overcome threats. To financially help a friend or neighbor. To pull a child from a burning building. To form a church, or a non-profit organization.

Voluntary altruism is moral.

The threat to individual human liberty occurs when altruism is institutionalized in the form of government. Institutionalized altruism is the tipping point when the needs or wants of the masses supersede rights of the individual. When the earned rewards of individual labors are involuntarily taken, and redistributed to those who claim to have the greatest need.

Compulsory altruism is unjust.

Compulsory altruism is called socialism, communism, or fascism. Collectivism. Every form of collectivism requires a hierarchy of leaders who determine how collective wealth is redistributed as welfare, or subsidies. Those leaders form an oligarchy — whether appointed or elected — and the circle is complete: the will of the few once again controls the behavior of the masses. This oligarchy seeks both foreign and domestic control.

Individual human liberty is the sacrifice.

The 2008 presidential election is a conflict of ideals. The terms "republican," "democrat," "conservative," or "liberal," are no longer specific enough to describe viewpoints. Instead, two diametrically opposed philosophies are in competition.

Collectivism vs. individualism.

Because an individual exchanges time (life) for resources (wealth), necessary to survive and prosper, any political candidate can be evaluated by his or her philosophical intentions regarding another person's wealth:

1. Will it be collected and redistributed to others, according to their desires or "needs"?

2. Or will it be used sufficient only to protect individual human liberties of the producer?

Against this measure, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and John McCain are all collectivists.

Ron Paul, alone among candidates, stands for individualism.

For those of us who value individual human liberty, this struggle for independence — from the control of oligarchy and the desires of our neighbors — is not fought from behind fences and across open fields against an enemy in scarlet uniforms. This battle is fought electronically, using words and video and votes. Where our philosophical ancestors clutched longrifles, we carry laptops.

Comments

[Fighting Windmills]

*applause*

You are a very talented wordsmith, Rick. Thank you for pointing out this post to me.