Quote of the Day - liberty vs. security

From Jacob Hornberger talking about gun control:

"But the illusion -- the pipe dream -- is that bad acts can be prevented by the deprivation of liberty. They cannot be! Life is always insecure. The only choice is between liberty and insecurity, on the one hand, and insecurity and enslavement on the other. The true patriot scrutinizes the actions of his own government with unceasing vigilance. And when his government violates the morality and rightness associated with principles of individual freedom and private property, he immediately rises in opposition to his government."

Welfare turns opponents into dependents

From National Center for Policy Analysis:

Political analysts have noted that because the number of those in the ruling elite amounts to only a small fraction of the number in the ruled masses, every regime lives or dies in accordance with public opinion. No matter how powerful or pervasive a regime is, it can still be overrun by the sheer superior numbers of the people it governs. However, this traditional political framework has been undermined by the development of the modern welfare state, says Robert Higgs, a senior fellow with the Independent Institute.

While the original framework would dissect the country into two populations, the gladly ruling and the reluctantly ruled, the welfare state has created a third group: dependents. Though they are most certainly ruled, they are often fierce defenders of the regime and its advocated status quo, thereby breaking ranks with the rest of the ruled who only tolerate it. They do this because the welfare state allows the current regime to be the primary provider for an ever-growing body of dependents, and this dependency engenders loyalty.

• An index of dependency developed by the Heritage Foundation found that the metric increased from 19 in fiscal year 1962 to 272 in fiscal year 2009.

• The Heritage researchers found that in 1962, 21.7 million persons depended on the government-run programs included in their index, yet this same figure for 2009 had grown to 64.3 million.

• Adding dependents not included in the Heritage study might easily increase the number to more than 100 million people, or to more than a third of the entire population.

The handouts of the welfare state exploit this large swathe of the population and earn their repeated and unwavering votes by perpetuating the status quo. As greater portions of the population come to rely on the government for their livelihood, the more clout it will inherently have as its number of detractors dwindles.

An additional symptom of this growing trend, which can be seen in the current political sphere, is that the creation of a status quo-supporting population inherently causes increased resistance to change. This conservativeness manifests itself in a lack of radical policy and in the loss of personnel turnover in Washington.

Source: Robert Higgs, "The Welfare State Neutralizes Opponents by Making Them Dependent on Government," Independent Institute, December 8, 2011.

A nation of slaves

In February, I did a post called "Another form of slavery?" in which I questioned whether or not Americans were trading freedom and liberty for slavery to government through dependence upon various programs.

At the time, I linked a column by Star Parker asking similar questions. There is now another one, this time by Nathan Tabor, called "The De Facto Slavery of the American People."

"Unfortunately,too many citizens do not recognize the revival of slavery, albeit more refined and less obvious enslavement. And, sadly, today more and more Americans are willing to give up certain freedoms in return for the promise of government largesse. And most of these citizens don't even realize what they're doing, because the news media are failing to perform their role as purveyors of truth and accuracy.

Enslavement will not come with a bang, but with a slow, relentless whimper. Each day, each week, each month, each year brings us closer to a state of de facto slavery as a result of greed disguised as "civil rights."

Ask most Americans and they will tell you that food, clothing, shelter and other necessities are "rights." Surely, they are necessities, but they are not rights that need to be provided by an omnipotent government.

And even when warranted, government charity has a way of morphing into government nightmares."

He applies the slavery concept to President Obama's health care plan:

"Dressed up with flowery language and high-sounding platitudes, it is nothing more than a grand power grab of life-and-death decision-making.

A friend asked me rhetorically: Why would Americans turn over their health and welfare -- their very lives -- to a bunch of crooked politicians who spend most of their time covering up, lying, cajoling and cheating, all in the name of power?

Why are Americans so quick to turn life-and-death decisions to a government that continues to have a problem covering up its sex scandals? Could it be they want to be enslaved?"

It's a good question and one I wonder about regularly - do people really want to be enslaved by government and told where to live, where to go to school, where to 'work' (as in Lucas County Commissioner's scholarship program that would require recipients to perform service in exchange for the money to pay for college), where to put their kids in daycare, which agencies can help them, what programs to enroll in, etc...?

Are people so afraid of doing things on their own that they would trade their freedom for the security of government care? Do they even realize that they have lost their freedoms as a result? Do they care?

It is the thought that so many of our fellow citizens think slavery to government is a good thing that has me worried for the future of our nation.

Another form of slavery?

For a couple of months now, my husband and I have been discussing the idea of government as a slave owner, with people, dependent upon the largess of the politicians in charge, as slaves.

We've not fully fleshed it out, but have skirted around the edges of the concept with questions like:

* If government gives you housing and food, tells you where you can send your kids for day care or school, and tells you where to go to a job or training, are you really 'free'?

* Is today's welfare 'society' (for lack of better term) the same as a slave plantation from the 1850's? The 'master'(government) takes care of all your needs and you, in return, do as they say. You may not be out in the fields working, but you're going through the programs they dictate and following their rules in order to maintain your handouts...

* How is today's welfare system any different from slavery? Is it the same concept with a nicer package and the 'illusion' of freedom?

We've been wondering about these things and talking about the differences and similarities. And then today I found Star Parker's column, "Back on Uncle Sam's Plantation," and I realized that others are considering the same things - but in a broader way.

Parker, whose personal story is inspiring, expanded the scope of the idea from the individual to industry and she hits the nail on the head with this observation:

"Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich America on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism."

I hope you will read her full column and that it will cause you to also consider the long-term implications of when government 'help' becomes 'control.'