SEARCH BLOG: MORALITY
Often we are astounded by the outrageous positions of our "leaders." We wonder if they are laboring under a mistaken sense of "social responsibility." What I mean is that they believe it is their duty to "protect" everyone from "unfair" situations.
The problem is defining what is "unfair."Yesterday, for example, I wrote about the judge's decision that illegal "residents"... that's a stretch... were protected from local ordinances that prohibited housing and employment as a result of the 14th Amendment which was established to protect Black citizens' rights. Somehow the distinction between citizen and interloper was lost.
Apparently, the judge felt that the interlopers have the same rights as citizens... because we have to be "socially responsible" to them. This is a judge who represents the same level of government [federal] that conveniently ignores its duty to enforce border security and the immigration and naturalization laws.This is the same government that feels a "social responsibility" to mandate mileage requirements for cars and trucks while subsidizing ethanol production that creates inflationary pressures in the corn market, a basic staple of many poor, while actually decreasing the mileage efficiency of vehicles running on that fuel by 25%... and causing significant environmental damage from misuse of land never suitable for growing corn.... Can anyone find a better example of government "perfection" in applying its version of "social responsibility?"
The founding fathers of this country never intended the Constitution to be used as the basis for government intrusion into every action of our lives. It was intended to be a guiding principle for a country where the citizens could live in freedom from an overbearing government:Unfortunately, that George's vision of the future seems to be more and more evident as the vision of the founding father George's disappears.
- The state's manipulation of language for political ends. Obfuscation in naming is a favorite; e.g. WAR IS PEACE. The state's use of language is designed to reduce or eliminate ideas deemed dangerous to its authority.
- Invasion of personal privacy by the state, whether physically or by means of surveillance.
- The exercise of total state control in the daily life of citizens, as in a "Big Brother" society.
- The state's encouragement of policies which contribute to the economic and social disintegration of the family.
- The substitution of traditional religion with the adoration of the state and/or its leaders.
- The state's encouragement of "doublethink," whereby the population must learn to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent; e.g. giving liberty up for freedom. They are the same thing, hence doublethink.
- The revision of history in the state's favor.
- A dystopian future.