December 4, 2010
Stopping the InevitableBy Doug Lucas
It is in dispute as to who the original author of this thought was. Some say Alexander Tytler, and others Alexis de Tocqueville. Either way, the words ring true. The sentiments are sadly familiar and ominous, but they may also offer an unintended ray of hope.
Between forty-seven and fifty percent of the electorate in this country pay no income taxes at the federal level, and a growing percentage receive "earned income" tax credits. These are tax refunds given to people who never paid taxes, meaning not only do they not pay in, but they are actually given unsolicited welfare by the top fifty percent and are told that this is their due. They are entitled to it; it was earned. The narcotic of free money has been slipped to them in a figurative mickey.
A large and growing percentage of our citizenry that do have good jobs are working for the government, earning twice what their private-sector counterparts bring home. To pour salt in the wound, these extravagant salaries are for jobs that produce no goods and add no value to our economy, and they are actually paid for with confiscated monies from the only members of society who are producing goods and services that people need.
It seems that the above prediction is coming true right in front of our very eyes, and once the balance tips and the takers outnumber the givers, there is little chance of peaceful reversal.
We stand at a precipice. Can we stop or reverse our destiny? If you take the above scenario as the only given, it seems fairly hopeless. The lure of free benefits, unearned giveaways, and exaggerated salaries for parasitic jobs is almost too tempting to resist. Largess is seductive. It forms an ever-widening destructive vortex that sucks in all but the most resolute. It feeds on apathy, dependency, and entitlement attitudes. How can it be stopped? Is it even possible?
When half of the voters, who are now a net drag on the economy, cast their ballots in hopes of electing someone who will give them more goodies from the treasury, are we not swirling hopelessly around the drain that pours into the cesspool of crushing debt and eventual tyranny?
While on the surface this seems like an unstoppable force, buried in the quote is a possible solution. They can vote.
The fuel for the takers must be cut off, but how? What feeds them? Taxes. Where do taxes come from? The producers. How do the takers get their hands on this largess? They simply trade their votes to people who have the sovereign authority to use force against the producers to confiscate their earnings and redistribute it to them.
So the bottom line is votes. It's a waste of time trying to stop the money; government presses will keep churning out our future demise until and unless a fundamental change takes place. If the votes are there, the money keeps flowing.
So let's slaughter a sacred cow now, and while we're waiting for the grill to get hot, let's ponder the obvious question. Why should a parasitic class have the right to vote?
Many will cringe that this question is even voiced. Even good people who know the dire straits we are in may shy away from pursuing this line of thinking, or dismiss it outright as a non-starter, but that would be a mistake. Asking uncomfortable questions is what put this country on the map, and it may be the only thing that keeps us there.
"The vote" seems such a cornerstone of America's foundation; however, we routinely take that right away. As with all rights, it is not unqualified. Most felons, through actions they freely chose to pursue, lose that right routinely. Extend that thought, step out of the box, and ask yourselves this: If some can forfeit this right through personal actions, why not others?
If people take a federal job should they retain the right to elect their own benefactors while suckling at the public teat? Should someone who is on welfare be allowed to vote on benefit increases or extensions? Should those who are consistently voting themselves largess be allowed to continue unimpeded? Should the takers have the tools to force the givers to fork over ever more staggering amounts of treasure, or should that be a decision made by the givers? Those addicted to government largess have become infantilized. Would any sane parents give their children the unqualified right to set their own allowance? That is, in effect, what we have done.
American history is full of limitations on the right to vote. Many, if not most, were undeniably wrong, such as disenfranchising freed slaves, women, and people who couldn't afford a poll tax. However, these onerous limitations were levied against people due to circumstances beyond their control. These wrongs were also properly remedied by amendments to the constitution.
Unlike the victimized classes listed above, government workers and welfare recipients are not victims in the traditional sense. Furthermore, they should be considered to have voluntarily abrogated their right to vote. They could just as quickly recover that right by throwing off the shackles of dependency and becoming a producer again. You can't change the color of your skin, but you can refuse to take welfare.
This is only one of many possible ways to build a firewall between the treasury and those who seek to plunder our nation's future. These are ominous times, and it will take serious solutions to curb the darker tendencies of human nature.
Those among us who seek to slow the mad dash to ruination must consider every constitutional possibility to preserve our nation. This is a fight for survival. It is a battle against what some say is inevitable.
Any attempt to wrest the levers of power from the takers we will be assailed, denigrated, castigated, and attacked from every side, but if we are to remain free men, the battle must be joined.
Note: This article is primarily concerned with voting rights at the federal level. State and local voting would be an entirely different issue and should be decided at the appropriate level.
Doug can be contacted at email@example.com.