Socialism = Slavery

Image (c) AFP

                               This article is an excerpt from Godvernment: Government as God 

Tom Sheppard

9/4/2020

Socialism makes citizens into slaves.

You don't believe me?  Consider the state of the slave and his family.

Slaves are always fully employed: Slaves don't ever have to worry about unemployment.  Mom and Dad, and even the children, work when they become old enough.  Moms don't have the option of one of them staying at home to raise the kids while the other brings home the bacon.  If they don't all work, the master punishes them.

Slaves are all economically equal: No matter how hard they work, or how much they produce, they get paid the same as the slaves who do nothing every time the master looks away.  They are taxed 100 percent, and then the master gives them what she or he thinks is appropriate to keep them healthy enough to keep working.

Slaves have completely equal opportunity: Slaves don't get to keep the fruits of their labors.  No matter how hard they work, or how smart they are, it won't automatically make their situation better.  Did you know that it is probable that Eli Whitney, the inventor of the cotton gin—an invention that gave the Southern cotton industry real economic legs and is credited with "reinvigorating slavery," actually took credit for an invention made by his slave?  You don't hear that story in American History class—do you?

Slaves have totally free healthcare: The slaves don't have to pay for healthcare.  The master gives them whatever level of healthcare that the master decides is suitable for them, even though the master may have access to a much better level of care than is provided for the slaves.

Slaves have free housing: The slaves don't have to pay for their food and shelter.  They get whatever food and shelter the master decides to give them.

Slaves are safe from crime: The slaves don't get to have access to guns.  That might not bode well for the master, making it hard for him to keep the slaves in line.

Slaves have totally free education: The slaves don't have to pay for education.  They get whatever education the master thinks they need to be effective in the work he assigns them.

Slaves get free clothing: The slaves don't even have to pay for their clothes.  The master sees to it that they have whatever clothing he or she feels is appropriate for the work they do.

Slaves get rewarded for government service: There is opportunity for a better life for slaves.  Slaves that are especially pleasing to the Master can work in the "big house."  There, they get better clothes and food and education, because they are directly serving the master.

Doesn't that list of "government benefits" sound a lot like the liberal agenda for this country?  It does to me.

Star Parker describes herself as "a welfare, crack ho."  The story she tells of her gradual realization that the welfare system has the "unintended consequence" of enslaving its recipients is enlightening.  Now, she is a champion of capitalism and freedom, which causes many people of color to decry her as an "Oreo"—black on the outside, but white on the inside.  That kind of thinking is another tool used by liberals to snatch economic freedom and victory from the hands of the poor and keep them in poverty.

The socialism in this country was championed by the Democratic Party by the likes of Woodrow Wilson and his protégé Franklin D. Roosevelt.

It should not be forgotten that it is the Democratic Party that pushed to keep slavery in place.  It is the Democratic Party that passed the infamous Jim Crow Laws, and it is the Democratic Party that initiated "The War on Poverty" under Lyndon B. Johnson.  It is now and always has been the aim of the Democratic Party to keep people of color under their thumb and their control.

I wish I could say that the Republican Party has staunchly opposed this creeping socialism and reprehensible oppression of people of color.  Unfortunately, the party of Lincoln and Frederick Douglass has largely been won over into the camp of socialism too.  Most presidential elections, we are given the choice between a socialist (Democrat) and a lite-socialist (Republican).

Neither choice is very appealing, and neither turns back the tide of socialism and slavery that is rolling in on us.

What is the answer?

Constitutional conservatives need to quit viewing politics as a spectator sport.  They need to overcome their natural revulsion over running for office and get into the ring.  They need to run for offices at all levels—local and state mostly—and take back our country, one city and county at a time.

Food for thought!

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/ 
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard 

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

(c) Copyright 2020 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

Your comments are welcome. Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as GodClick on the image below to buy your copy today

Godvernment is available in both paperback and ebook format through Amazon.

Rightful Role of Government Part 2

This is Part 2 of a two-part article on what I believe is the rightful role of government.

I wrote this in response to a couple of different groups that have been agitating for the scrapping of the US Constitution.

Before you go throwing the Constitution under the bus because of how it is being subverted today by an immoral people in favor of an anarchist view that has NEVER operated successfully, you should consider that our foundation is built on the notion that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  To me, that sounds a lot like the rallying cry of Libertarians and anarchists.  So what are they fighting against except the notion "that  to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

Libertarians and anarchists seem to want to throw out the baby along with the bath water.  The bath water is dirty (our government has become corrupted) so get rid of the baby since it made the water dirty (abolish the Constitution because it frame the government which others have corrupted).  This is a foolhardy approach to solving the problem, and one which, if followed will result in much less individual freedom, not more.

For more than 100 years, the US Constitution stood as a bulwark, generally doing a good job of protecting the majority of people from the predations of a minority (the minority being those who want to exercise unrestricted power over others - call them "king-men" (and women) if you will).
And protecting the minorities (minorities of race, religion or creed) from the predations of a majority.  There are notable big exceptions such as slavery and when the US Government declared war on the Mormons before the Civil War.  And there are notable smaller exceptions such as when local governments were corrupted and turned a blind eye to the operations of groups like the KKK who operated according to their own views of right and wrong (lawful and unlawful).

The Rule of Law has ushered in an unprecedented era in world history.  Today, the rule of law is being supplanted by the rule of regulatory fiat (monarchy or Executive Orders) posing as the rule of law.  Regulatory fiat (monarchy) allowed both the creation of the Ma Bell Monopoly and its later dissolution.  Regulatory fiat allowed the creation and later dissolution of the railroad monopolies.  Regulatory fiat (monarchy) has allowed the creation of the postal service monopoly and allowed the partial dissolution of that monopoly into its present pathetic state.  In this country the supplanting of the Rule of Law began when the ideas of Marx and Engels were embraced by powerful and weak Americans who wanted power and embraced the notion that the State should embody the will of the people instead of serving as a bulwark against the usurpation of their individual freedoms.  Inasmuch as people adopt the view that the state is to embody the will of the people, rather than serving the people to protect their individual freedoms, then they are embracing the notion that the state and the strengthening of the government of the state is the starting point for the solution to all of society's ills. 

The obverse view, that the state exists solely to preserve individual freedom, puts the burden for righting societal injustices or inequities on the shoulders of each individual and requires them to act on their own or to persuade others to join their cause with their time, energy and money given freely to act to improve the lot of the poor or other downcast or disadvantaged peoples. 

Too many people would rather abdicate their individual responsibility, along with their individual freedom, to government, thereby giving the government the ability to coerce folks who are not like-minded to support the "noble" causes adopted by the masses (or presented by demagogues to attract the attention and pity, or concupiscence of the masses).

I believe that government has no business getting into the business of charity.  And the federal government and Supreme Court have no business trying to legislate or adjudicate moral issues.

When government gets into the business of charity - providing economic help to disadvantage sectors of society, several bad things happen:

1. Government robs individuals of the responsibility to account to God for their treatment of the poor and needy by making the individual contributions both compulsory and utterly without connection to the individual contributor.
2. Government sets up programs which always have the unintended consequence of increasing the number of people in disadvantaged group.
3. Government always put most of the money (consistently around 80%) devoted to the issue into the hands of facilitators and government employees and a fraction (consistently around 20%) into form of actual benefits delivered to the needy.

When the Federal Government and the Supreme Court get into the business of legislating or adjudicating moral issues, several bad things invariably happen:

1. The democratic process is short circuited.  Instead of allowing for lively public debate to be held in each state and locality and allow local people to decide with their votes or vote with their feet by moving to localities that favor their views, a decision is forced upon major sectors of the society which is in direct conflict with their moral views.  This does not settle the matter, rather it drives lasting wedges between different segments of society.
2. When the Federal Government or Supreme Court try to settle a moral issue with laws or rulings, they ride roughshod over the right of every citizen to the free exercise of conscience.  They make it illegal to be on the "wrong/losing" side of a moral decision. 
3. This trampling of rights of conscience can only lead to what is, by definition, subversive behavior as people will violate the law, seek to thwart the enforcement of the law, or even violently oppose the government that is seeking to impose the law which they find morally reprehensible.

The decision of the Supreme Court to create a right to abortion, the decision of the Supreme Court to create a right to gay-marriage are high profile examples of situations where the imposition of a decision, instead of settling the matter, has provided a club for one group to attempt to rob the opposition of their rights to dissent on grounds of freedom of conscience.

What is needed today is not an abandonment of the US Constitution.  Rather what is needed is individual and mass commitment to adherence to the principles of individual responsibility and individual rights.  Along with acknowledgement that the exercise of individual rights requires the acceptance of the consequences of those exercises, including failure, unhappiness, ill-health, poverty, incarceration, disability, or even death.

The Constitution was designed to give us the opportunity to succeed and the opportunity to fail.  And, as every successful person knows, failure is always a necessary precursor to success.  What those who seek to cast aside the principles of our Constitution want is a framework that prohibits success and protects us from failure and from the negative consequences of our own choices.  That kind of institutionalized irresponsibility is what is largely wrong with our society today.

I believe that 90% of our current statutes and at least 50% of our Federal and State government infrastructures would evaporate if every regulation and every law passed or currently existing were forced to show 1) origination in the rights enumerated in the US Constitution and 2) adherence to the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

The problem is not the baby in the bath, the problem is the bathwater getting dirtier every minute  because mom and dad are using dirt for soap.  The problem is being compounded by the fact that some are deliberately throwing dirt on the baby because they want the baby to be thrown out so they can install their own child and rule the roost.

The solution is to find and elect individuals who are willing to adhere to and support a return to the foundational principles of individual responsibility AND individual freedom, protected by limited government restrained within the boundaries of enumerated powers consciously, deliberately and thoughtfully yielded by the people and preserved by the individual rather than collective energies of the people.

It took 100 years of misguided statism to get where we are today.  It will take many years, decades or perhaps even a century of unremitting, unceasing, individual vigilance and individual effort to regain the individual freedoms and responsibilities which have been usurped by those who I called statists (variously known as progressives, liberals, communists, socialists, marxist, maoists, etc.).

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.

Visit Tom's Amazon.com Author's Page

(c) Copyright 2015 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

 Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

Rightful Role of Government - Part 1

This is Part 1 of a two-part article on what I believe is the rightful role of government.

I wrote this in response to a couple of different groups that have been agitating for the scrapping of the US Constitution.

One of those groups, the Libertarians and Anarchists want to scrap it because they believe that any government other than self-government is too much government.  Based on FaceBook (FB) posts adherents to these views have made, they view the Constitution simply as a vehicle to usurp their personal sovereignty. They also tend to embrace the decadent cultural stance that all forms of external government are equally wrong from a moral standpoint.  This stance utterly ignores the reality that under various forms of despotism like Socialism and dictatorships, their very ability to voice such opinions would likely be ended with a bullet to the head.  Which stands in sharp contrast to how the US Constitution protects their rights to free speech.

The other group that wants to scrap the US Constitution are the Progressives / Socialists / Communists / Liberals.  This second group wants to scrap it because it expressly thwarts their efforts to eliminate personal property rights, freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.  They use a variety of arguments against the Constitution and they have successfully implemented a vast array of laws, regulations and court rulings that fly in the face of the express authorities granted and reserved by the wording of the Constitution.  One of their chief arguments, not being able to truly contest the principles in the document, is that it was written by dead white farmers whose ideas are totally out of touch with the events of our day.  This argument ignores the facts that the principles embodied in the Constitution are derived from millenia of human experience and thought and that the "farmers" were actually among the best educated people in the world at the time and were experienced farmers, business owners, clergy, soldiers, philosophers and public servants.

There is no question (at least among serious students of history) that the US Constitution was an expansion of Federal power.  The problem at the time was that the Articles of Confederation left the union open to being picked apart by large European powers, mostly through connivance - since force would likely have been met with a united response from the American states.  And the Articles of Confederation had already proven inadequate for managing the financial obligations incurred in the war as well as the commercial and legal issues that were raised in the course of the Revolutionary War. 

In spite of what flaws there may be in the US Constitution, it was as Cleon Skousen calls it "a 5,000 year leap" forward in the governments of men.  And, it still stands as the best form of government in existence today, even after some significant dismantling and perversion by forces (legislatures as well as courts) over the past 100 years. 

In fact, most of the flaws cited today are those created in the past 100 years by those who are seeking to destroy the Constitution.  The beauty of the US Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) as originally framed and interpreted is that it created a strictly limited Federal government while explicitly recognizing that the powers of government derive solely from the governed.  Prior to this time, nearly every government in the world assumed that the powers of government derived solely from God onto the shoulders of the monarch, and that the citizens were not citizens, they were subjects (a person who is under the dominion or rule of a sovereign) and they had NO inherent rights, the king being accountable only to God for the use of his power.

The Magna Charta was a huge leap forward in that it made the king accountable to the nobles and the people through the powers given to the parliament.  Previously the only accountability of the king was to those who could wield sufficient military or financial power to bring him to heel.  And financial power without the military might to back it was simply an invitation to have debts cancelled and wealth transferred at the point of bloody sword.

Anarchy or total self-government is not a realistic model for sustainable society in today's world.  In fact, the anarchist movement is largely a tool of the statists.  If the model of the anarchists were accepted, and every man became a law unto himself, human nature (essentially unchanged through 6,000 years of recorded human history) would soon find the strong preying on the weak.  The victims would band together and seek the protection of the strongest, or strength in numbers.  Either way, they would immediately have to trade some or all of their personal sovereignty for increased security.   The strongest would protect them and demand obedience and we would have feudalism and monarchy in short order.  Again, the stronger would "eat the sovereignty" the weaker until Empires were rebuilt and the monarch (the state) would again be the source of all authority and individuals would have surrendered all their individual sovereignty so that they would be prey only to one predator (their monarch) rather than be prey to a hundred different bullies.

The only time self-government (total individual sovereignty) will work is when the individuals will also agree to relinquish their sovereignty promptly (in a minute - e.g., minutemen militia) for self defense and the apprehension of predators (of the 2-legged variety), and agree to a common set of public standards for interaction (e.g.,  thou shalt not steal...).

Realistically speaking, the US Constitution has worked out very well for us so far.  It's bedrock is under unremitting attack right now and if it falls, the end result will be despotism, not freedom.  The US Constitution has successfully limited government and assured individual freedom for more than 200 years and helped create the most prosperous and powerful  nation on earth - powered by the will of individuals who believe that these freedoms are worth defending and that the principles underlying this structure are eternal beacons for the happiness of both individuals and society.

Coming Up - The Rightful Role of Government - Part 2, including...

• Predation by the minority
• Predation by the majority
• The Rule of Law

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.

Visit Tom's Amazon.com Author's Page

(c) Copyright 2015 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

 Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

Bernie Sanders v Donald Trump for President - Hurray!

Today's Wall Street Journal features a front page article titled, "Unhappy Voters Shake Up Contest."  The article notes that Hillary Clinton's lead in the polls is sinking while her Democratic opponent Bernie Sanders has jumped to 25%, from less than 10%.  Likewise, it points out that Jeb Bush, once the heir apparent now finds himself running in third, with Donald Trump pulling the top numbers among Republicans.

I look with relish and uncommon excitement at a presidential election that would pit Bernie Sanders against Donald Trump.

First of all, if those were the two picks, for the first time in decades we would have two contenders who are truly, fundamentally, different from each other, instead of having candidates who were just two different shades of the same color.

Second, this would be the first presidential election in my memory where the two candidates are not saying whatever they think it takes to get elected and instead are taking principled, and frequently unpopular stands that are consistent with their ideologies.  Both men appear to be willing and able to state their convictions and stand up for them, regardless of any pressure to do otherwise.

Third, this particular match-up would give Americans the chance to make a clear choice between the two competing economic models of the last century - a choice that historic facts would appear to be moot, but still it persists.

Bernie Sanders is an unapologetic Socialist.  For decades he has consistently voted for laws and measures that drove this country closer and closer to the socialist ideal.  He makes no apologies for his approach and he doesn't try to hide it. 

While I personally find it amazing that anyone can look at the lessons of history and see the massive failures of socialism in the former USSR and China, and any other country that has embraced the policy of trying to make their people all equally poor (except for those ruling elites), and yet continue to espouse such blatant stupidity, nay economic suicide; still, I find Bernie Sanders admirable in his consistent commitment and advocacy of his principles.

In sharp economic contrast to Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump is an unapologetic capitalist.  Unlike the hypocrisy of uber-rich George Soros, Warren Buffet and Oprah Winfrey, who having feathered their own nests through capitalism now seek to destroy the means for others to attain similar levels of prosperity, Donald Trump continues to espouse policies that would keep the American Dream alive and keep the doors to individual success and prosperity open to all comers who are willing to work hard and smart.

Unfortunately, I suspect that if the establishment fails to keep these two zealots out of office, they will arrange for the untimely demise of any President of the United States (POTUS) who they cannot control.  And neither Bernie Sanders nor Donald Trump sound at all like the kind of men who will dance to any tune that is not their own.  I am not one of those crackpot conspiracy theorists, seeing some nefarious hand in everything.  Still, I recognize the realities of human nature and power.  Those who benefit from the ongoing trend toward socialism in this country will do what they can to encourage the movement that direction.

I know many Republicans are as horrified at the prospect of having The Donald as their candidate or POTUS as some Democrats are at the prospect of having Bernie as their front man.  Still, for the American People, I hope that each of these two contenders manage to knock out the same-old-same-old front runners from both parties and give us a real, discernible choice in this upcoming presidential election.  I think it would be just what the country needs - a clear choice instead of choosing between socialism (liberal Democrats) and socialism lite (moderate Republicans).

Let's have a real, public, debate over the virtues of capitalism v socialism.  Let Donald and Bernie go toe-to-toe and let the American People make a clear choice for one economic approach versus another.  I am hopeful that the majority will choose the opportunity of capitalism over the oppression of socialism.

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.

Visit Tom's Amazon.com Author's Page

(c) Copyright 2015 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

 Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.