Something has always bugged me about people's ignorance when they are confronted with "government." What is this entity called government that immobilizes their good senses?
I refuse to believe that all those who immediately attach credibility to actions, statements, and promises of government do so without any inner sense that something is wrong, irrational and perhaps dangerous. The question is why don't they speak up? Why don't they protest and at the very least demand an explanation of those thoughts that cry out against the conflicts that government causes.
We see this oppression of individual thought occurring in the military and where dictators and monarchs rule with the sword. The military's subversion of individual thought is understandable. You cannot convene a committee or ask for a second opinion when the battle field commander yells "charge." You charge whether you agree, understand or feel like charging or not. Your training makes your superior's orders your knee-jerk reaction. You first obey and if able or necessary, ask for an explanation later.
When confronted with a dictator's orders, or decrees from your monarch, the knee-jerk reaction is to be silent, agreement is not optional. Discretion is dangerous. If the order involves your action, you comply and remain silent, even defending the order if necessary, just in case you might appear to be in disagreement with the one who gave the order.
Why, in a free society with guarantees of individual liberty for all, would we willingly subject ourselves to such abuse and then not from an identifiable ONE, but an illusive, non-descript "government," filled with people like you and me. They appear to willingly, even gleefully, transform from Dr. Jekyll into Mr. Hyde depending whether they enter the daylight of citizenship or the darkness of government.
I am confident that everybody in this country would be able to recount horror stories of encounters with the government's Mr. Hydes. The one that particularly is a thorn in my side is the concept of government's role as a real person. That is, it is not just people who make up government and nothing else, but that it is a real entity and that it has a personality.
We gave government its personality and installed it with power over us. Why are we still defending these masochistic actions. Or, is it Stockholm Syndrome?
Government's constitution caused not-so-benevolent people to take control of our acceptance that government is a real person that can sometimes do good and sometimes bad things. By cunningly feeding on our acceptance of government as a real entity with a personality, we are willingly following and obeying whomever is in charge.
The truth is counter intuitive to most of us, unfortunately, keeping this mythical entity alive and very dangerous. The truth is that the one in charge is our servant, not our king, dictator or battle field commander.
In a monarchy speech such as this would be blatant treason. In a free society it is absolutely necessary and required behavior. It is recognition of the truth, giving birth to action to rectify the wrongs in our society, which is a free people's response to oppression.
Government is not capable of any actions unless we grant it, not to government, because it doesn't exist, but to those neighbors of ours whom we appointed to take care of those tasks that we have neither the time nor the inclination of doing.
That identity we created and bestowed upon "government" is a myth; a beast that threatens to consume us unless we obey. When this beast growls for more of our harvest, we willingly, in fear, feed him lest he comes down from his mountain and smite us.
Those of us who do not work in government, can be compared to ranchers who till their land, tend their crops and bring their harvest to market every year. All human beings have a piece of land, which is their talents, hard work and general ability to plant, tend and grow a harvest. I am such a rancher.
Those of us who work in government, are utterly and wholly funded by other, special government workers who have the right, and the weight of the law behind them, to confiscate as much of my harvest as they deem necessary.
Let's not at this time consider that part of my confiscated harvest that is given to my neighbor because he neglected to till his land and plant a crop last year, ensuring he won't till his land this year either. Let's just consider the legitimate payment of my other neighbor who also doesn't till his land but receives part of my confiscated harvest as wages for his efforts to confiscate my harvest next year, ensuring that he will continue to receive part of my harvest.
It stands to reason, then, if more people like me are taken off the land and enticed to rather share in the confiscated harvests of others than producing a harvest themselves, that the harvest would of necessity become smaller and smaller every year. If the harvest becomes smaller, more would have to be confiscated from those who still till the land and break their backs to bring in a harvest every year, right?
As I said earlier, for those neighbors, who do not till land for an existence, as I do, but work for us to do those tasks we do not want to do, we gladly and willingly surrender a portion of our harvest to ensure that they remain willing to do those unwanted tasks. We hold those neighbors in high esteem creating for us greater liberty and opportunity to become more productive ensuring that they remain well paid and cared for.
It is when those who consider us as their subjects, who believe our harvests and land belong to them to benevolently distribute as they see fit, that are the beasts on the mountain. The dragon that needs slaying.
Let's look at the picture in a practical manner. In 2009 the federal government confiscated $2.1 trillion from our harvests. The federal payroll was $181 billion that year. That is, for every $1,000 a government employee received, roughly $11,000 had to be confiscated. Granted, not every dollar confiscated went to pay a government employee, but the overhead of getting a dollar to a government employee required that $11 be confiscated from my harvest.
The key to understanding this is that government doesn't produce anything, it just has people managing, controlling, supervising, tracking, collecting, enforcing and reporting on our actions and our harvests -- all its revenues consist of confiscated harvests. Nothing else.
So, if we speak of stimulating the economy by subsidizing or bailing out things, we speak of confiscating larger portions of my harvest to give to others who haven't produced a harvest or haven't produced enough. Or, worse, who have stolen others' harvests.
If we speak of creating jobs by hiring more people in government, we speak of confiscating larger portions of my harvest to pay those newly employed people who will now be unable to produce any harvest of their own, further reducing the harvest.
Why are we just blindly accepting that unemployment is somehow countered by hiring more government employees?