Here we are already into June of 2008. The temperature here in northeast Georgia is climbing into the 90’s. As the weather heats up, so does the presidential election.
The completion of all the primaries and caucuses is upon us and the dozens of candidates which began in the process have finally been whittled down to two senators. First there is John McCain, a Republican and someone I’ve heard referred to as a moderate, middle of the roader, left of center, Conservative, and so on. The second is Barack Obama, a Democrat, generally labeled a far left Liberal.
It seems everyone labels the presidential candidates differently depending upon what the label means to each individual. Seemingly, there is a lack of definition for any particular label. The implication of what a political conservative is may mean one thing to me and something else entirely to another. Because of the confusion about the language, there is a great deal of misunderstanding. To compound the problem, news broadcasters and political pundits seem to get a kick out of spinning it all around us, as they too seem to be in a state of confusion.
This morning I looked up the word “liberal” in the dictionary. The dictionary defines liberal as “characterized by or inclining toward opinions and policies favoring progress or reform, as in politics or religion.” A secondary definition describes liberal as “characterized by generosity or lavishness in giving.”
There does not seem to be anything wrong with that dictionary definition of the word liberal. On the other hand, as President Bill Clinton once said, “depends upon what the meaning of is, is.” Most would agree that generosity in giving is a good thing. To share on a voluntary basis the abundance of all we have is a positive thing, at least in my opinion. Consequently, when one claims to be a Liberal Democrat, on the surface it would appear that “generosity or lavishness in giving” would be a noble trait. Defining the president of this great United States as a liberal, does not seem such a bad idea, based upon the dictionary definition of the word.
However, there is something wrong with the real meaning of “liberal” in a government setting. Something very wrong. The generosity and lavish giving is not the candidate’s (potential president) wealth, money and property, but yours and mine. They take by force or threat of force for “lavishness in giving,” and in reality, the wrong is not in the giving, but the “taking” of one’s property (money) without the consent of the owner. This is an act of thievery, legal plunder, and is nothing less than stealing. Thievery is simply the taking of one’s property in violation of the will of the owner. Even a child understands that is wrong.
This reminds me of the guillotine story. When one’s head is placed on a chopping block, it matters not if the operator is the holiest of priests or the worst of criminals, the bottom line is he chops one’s head off. In this connection, when someone takes your money and property, without your consent, it matters not if the person is a liberal, conservative politician, or the worst of criminals. It matters not what the intention is with reference to how it is to be used, the violation of one’s right to own property is wrong.
When we hear all the promises made by politicians relative to a variety of social giveaway programs in general and health care for everyone in particular, it all seems like such a generous thing to do. But stop and think about the system of thievery that takes place before this lavish giving can be implemented.
Let Freedom Ring!