The centerpiece of last night’s Republican national debate between nine candidates, goes to the answer given by Michelle Bachman to the question relative to what we deserve. Specifically, that which we earn belongs to the individual and not the government. The subject of what we deserve was money, i.e., property.

Several interesting punchlines were delivered by various candidates, however nothing really new, but a lot of the same old rhetoric bantering back and forth, offensively and defensively between the hopefuls, left one wondering, “Where’s the beef?” The one brief and fleeting moment, hit on the crux of private property ownership versus political government controls of taking private property, when Michelle Bachman said one’s money does not belong to the government.

The very essence of Freedom is private ownership of property, and only when we understand that concept, that characteristic, can we journey into an understanding of Freedom. It is set forth in the great document which states Our Rights to life, liberty, Happiness {property}, and in the moral guide of the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not steal.”

Just three days prior to the debate last night, I had posted an article, number 629, titled “Principles and Value Judgments as Relates to Freedom: What do I deserve?”

Despite the fact that the question of what we deserve was answered by that which we own and belongs to us, it is receiving more notice by several pundits on morning news stories, and that’s a good thing, bringing attention to the importance to the subject of ownership, which is the naked premise, underlying all the other rhetoric and debate discussions. All other pursuits seem dull by comparison.

In Will Durant’s “Story of Philosophy,” his remarks can be related to all the other subjects mentioned in the nine person debate last night, when he states: “Here we shall find his metaphysics, his theology, his ethics, his psychology, his pedagogy, his politics, his theory of art. Here we shall find problems reeking with modernity and contemporary savor; Communism and Socialism, feminism and birth control and eugenics, Nietzschean problems of morality and aristocracy, Rousseauian problems of return to nature and libertarian education, and Freudian psychoanalysis—- everything is here.”

And so it was last night as such subjects as forced immunizations of young girls were debated, along with government-paid education of illegal immigrants, U.S. financed wars of nation building. Social Security, unemployment, unprotected National borders, socialized medicine and taxes, all mentioned. A gush of sentiment, the solutions to these and other societal problems, by political government, can only be solved by confiscation of private property to finance.

First one candidate postulating his notion the problems should be addressed by the Centralized Federal government and the next claiming it should be by individual states. When all can and should be addressed by individuals in the Free-enterprising, capitalistic system, set forth by our founding fathers.

Aside from the answer given by Michelle Bachman, stating one’s money belongs to the individual and not the government, where were there any solutions to all the problems of crisis this nation faces, pitched as being found in the individualism of Free-enterprising system of Capitalism?

Where in the economic line of reasoning, was there any solution put forth by the candidates aside from Socialistic, political government answers to the problems this country now faces? Who among the nine person line up of Candiates, vying for President of the United States of America, had any solution to anything that did not further restrict personal Freedom and Private Property Rights?

With reference to “that which we deserve.” The word “deserve” is an adjective, which describes a condition and is simply a value judgment. On the other hand, one’s money, as Bachman mentions is “Property,” is a noun, which is a thing. The Principle of Ownership deals with “things” and not some abstract description.

During the debate, Newt Gingrich asked the question: “Why are we giving ninety-nine weeks of pay for doing nothing?” Obviously because those politicians in positions of power to take property and re-distribute, think they “deserve” it. Obviously this points up the muddled erroneous rationale of what is happening in this country, by attention on what one deserves, a value judgment that it’s ok to rob one to give to another.

If the 300-plus million citizens in this country feel the need they must have a leader, why is it there seems no demand for one who is going to abide by the laws of this country as set forth in the Constitution? Why are we tolerating the rhetoric coming from a slew of candidates, touting nothing aside from more of the same game plan of thievery that brought us to this brink of collapse? Why is so difficult to understand that “taking from the haves to give to have nots” is thievery and wrong, according to such great moral guides as the Ten Commandments and the Declaration of Independence? Why all this politicking to flock to the polls to vote for more of the same?

The bottom line solutions to the crisis we face, was never more clearly articulated than in the rhetoric coming out of the mouths of the candidates last evening. Specifically, more political doles and controls. The debate was not about viable solutions, that is, a return to the free-enterprising capitalistic system that made this country the greatest on earth, providing the greatest good for the greatest number. A return to a moral way of life, in Freedom, with private property ownership at its core, instead of the collectivism of socialism? Have we become so indoctrinated via the propaganda of those who have a lust for power, we can’t see nor fathom the simple truth of Freedom, and the self-responsibility and self control it requires?

Who in the line-up of nine candidates, has not been a part of the re-distribution of socialism, aside from Herman Cain? Is there no one out there qualified to be President, who can stand up and say, “I’m running for president for the sole purpose of getting the government off the backs of the hard working producers in this country, and returning this nation to the original plan of the Founding fathers, which made it the greatest nation on earth, for one brief period of civilization?”

Instead of our focus being upon those inalienable Rights given to us by our Creator, and insisting upon that which we “deserve” instead, it appears we may very well be on the precipice of getting that which we deserve because we have neglected the eternal vigilance required to be free.

A reminder of what Abraham Lincoln said in his 1865 speech: “The people are the rightful masters of both Congresses and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”

Now, at this crossroads as never before, we stand to decide whether or not we will live under and pass on to the next generation Freedom for the individual, or the absymal mediocrity of the bondage of a system of socialism.

The devout Communist Lenin warned us back in the twenties of the last century, how he would take over Europe for Communism, then said; “The United States, we shall not have to attack, it will fall into our hands like overripe fruit.” If we are just for one moment, honest with ourselves, it appears our current state of affairs is fulfilling that prophecy.

LET FREEDOM RING

JUST ME AC

email: annecleveland@bellsouth.net

Share →

One Response to WHAT DO YOU DESERVE? MICHELLE BACHMAN ANSWERS IN LAST NIGHT’S PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE IN ORLANDO, FLORIDA (Issue 630)

  1. Ken says:

    Great post. The answer is…. none. No one can “lead us into indvidual responsibility.” We must take responsibility for ourselves. Even voting in itself is an act not of taking responsibiliy for one’s life, but in ceding it to the State.