Skip to content

October 13, 2011


Tyranny: An American Way of Life?

by RogueOperator

A century into the progressive domination of politics, and the slow creep of statism has led to a massive government promising its citizens everything from subsidized childcare and medical care to free education and retirement pensions. Of course, these benefits of simply being born in this country are being financed by productive citizens, while liberals accrue all the credit by merely waving their hands from the lofty seats of government.

Many conservatives grumble about this state of affairs but accept as a way of life the perquisites, which allow progressives to act like all good comes from the state’s magical money tree.

But contrary to common belief, there is so such a thing as an opportunity cost. We cannot continue to have freedom and fiat, economic dependency and social license, mediocrity and prosperity. Americans appear to believe that society can be rearranged like modular furniture, and liberty and tyranny can coexist side by side. But these are antitheses – eventually one will win out.

The leftist sees absolutely nothing wrong with the government controlling ever more of the economy and society. Like a baby animal born in a state of captivity, he lacks certain basic instincts. Most of humanity is mentally equipped enough to realize that yielding power to the state is an eternally dangerous proposition.

This is fairly simple to illuminate, and just as easy for the liberal to emotionally reject. The state is essentially a group of men with guns; giving it the power to control who wins and loses in the economy eventually means it wins and we lose. Ceding it the power to “regulate” guns, means it will eventually disarm us, making it that much easier for it to have its way with us. Eventually, that is what happens.

The left can live in denial, but it can’t whitewash the historical record showing this to be the case, even as the impending verdicts of European social welfare states now beginning to collapse into chaos awaits. Of course, through revisionist history, the left can try.

The welfare state has approached in incremental fait accompli, a Fabian socialist march conditioning people to become accustomed to tyranny.  Accepting the easy allure of social welfare, which we ourselves pay for, leads to mutual enslavement and dependency on government for our livelihoods. There can be no true democracy, no real choice, under such continual compulsion. It is impossible to be free in such conditions; and what eventually results is a thoroughly corrupt, patron-client economy degrading into a demoralized and collapsing political community.

The core psychological issue is that the left perceives that freedom comes from yielding one’s ego to society and the state; while the right perceives this attitude, correctly, as dangerously allowing oneself to be manipulated and taken advantage of. Those on the right want to act themselves, knowing the democracy means an engaged and self-reliant citizenry; while those on the left want to be acted upon, along with everyone else. That is why the rich on the left will not simply cut a check to the treasury to finance social welfare. It emotionally needs the government to compel them, along with everyone else.

The twilight period of American prosperity, yoked under with unsustainable debt and declining under the weight of big government, has led many to believe that we can continue to have freedom of opportunity and government control over every aspect of our lives. But men will abuse power to protect their social status and benefits, whether money is at issue or not. This is the big lie socialists have fallen for.

If we believe it is fine to go after the rich and to seize their property for our own personal benefit, then ours becomes game as well. The death of principle will usher in the death of freedom, and all its attendant benefits.

As posted on Political Crush.

4 Comments Post a comment
  1. Oct 13 2011

    Wow, you make really great points here. Like why the rich leftists won’t act on their purported values — because they won’t go it alone; this requires force. Or liberty and tyranny cannot coexist because they are antithesis (I want to expand on this one). Or “the state is essentially a group of men with guns.” There’s more, but these were my favorites.

    On liberty and tyranny: they certainly cannot coexist because they are antithetical, as you said, and this is why (on a conceptual level). Liberty is the absence of coercion while tyranny, being a system of legalized authority over action and property, necessarily implies coercion (because we’re dealing with authority over volitional beings). This simply means that on any one issue (or aspect of reality) there is either coercion or not. The attempt to create an aspect of reality that is both non-coercive and coercive at the same time and the same respect is more accurately an exercise of the certifiably insane.

    At different times or in different respects, coercion and non-coercion can exist — e.g., the government may coerce you to pay a 30% income tax, but allow you to dispose of the rest of your income as you see fit. That 30% tax is coercion, but spending 70% is not; so, in this case each individual cent is a different and distinct. With that said, an argument could be made that your wages are under the influence of coercion. (The term wage, as compared to pennies, is a more basic concept within the hierarchy of concepts because your wage contains all your pennies earned). It would be accurate to say that your wages are under the influence of coercion and that you lose the right to your earnings because your entire income is taxed a percentage — i.e., you get to keep what the government lets you keep.

    Our current state of affairs, at the lowest conceptual level, is a mix of isolated freedoms and coercion. The larger picture, however, is that rights — the most basic political concept under consideration, which incorporates all other concepts of actions and property — are no longer secured. Instead, rights are replaced with permissions dictated by whatever our “benevolent” government doesn’t regulate. The scary thing is, with the implementation of Obamacare, our government is starting to play with forced action Vs. forced inaction; this certainly is a new dawn for tyranny.

    (wow, that turned into quite a post; I appologize for the length, but I couldn’t resist — it was fun).

    • Oct 13 2011

      My pleasure. I am glad you read the whole post and had something to add to it.

  2. Jan 18 2012

    Those on the right want to act themselves, knowing the democracy means an engaged and self-reliant citizenry; while those on the [right] want to be acted upon,

    Didn’t you meant to say while those on the left want to be acted upon?

    • Jan 18 2012

      Thanks for reading so closely. I must have messed that up when I was rearranging the sentence. Appreciate the correction!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Note: HTML is allowed. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to comments

%d bloggers like this: