How many people in this country truly believe that we live in a country where we are truly free to do as we please, assuming we don’t infringe upon someone else’s rights? That would be an interesting poll to see on CNN someday wouldn’t it? The next question I would ask in the poll would be how many people think that the US government is being run in accordance to the plans of our founding fathers? I would hope that the results of both polls would yield an unpleasant result for the liberal media, but unfortunately I know that it wouldn’t, because there are many Americans who are content with the way things are, and don’t want to bother questioning their elected officials actions, for one reason or another.Let’s think about the first question. If we were truly free to conduct our lives independent of any government authority, assuming our actions don’t harm others, would we be worried about trivial things such as wearing a seat belt, or a bicycle helmet? No, we wouldn’t, and we shouldn’t have to either. Think about the potential consequences of not doing one of those. In a world with no government interference, the only thing that can happen is you cause injury to yourself. No one else is going to get injured from your own stupidity in those situations. If you choose to drive your car without a seat belt, or ride your bike without a helmet who am I, or anyone else for that matter, to tell you that you can’t do it? Sure it may save your life, but the government’s job isn’t to meddle in your personal decisions.

Let’s also think about all the other ways that the government involves itself with our everyday lives.

You can’t drive a car (legally) without the prior consent of the government, by getting a license. Once you’ve gotten your license, you can’t drive your car without registering it with the government.

If you come across a nice piece of land that you wish to build a house on, you’ll have to first check with the government to make sure that the land is zoned for residential property. Once your home is built, you’ll probably want to get married and start a family. You won’t be able to do that without first a blood test, and then a marriage license. If you and your spouse for some reason decide not to have children, you may wish to get a dog, but hold on, you’ll need a license for that vicious poodle. Once you’ve finally settled into your new home, you’ll soon find that the fine piece of real estate you’ve selected qualifies for additional property taxes because it has “a nice view”. And since you’ve built such a fine home, and have a lovely family, you’ll want to do whatever you can to protect them. But you’ll have to hold off for a little while, because you won’t be able to get a gun permit until you’ve passed your background investigation, paid the appropriate fees, and filled out the proper paperwork. And even then, you’ll only be able to purchase certain types of guns/magazines/ammunition because you’re too dangerous for the government to trust with a magazine capacity of any more than 10 bullets.

When you wake up in the morning, you may wish to take a shower, or go to the bathroom, but you won’t be able to use the water that you have paid for at the pressure you want, because the government has regulations on acceptable residential water pressure. In other words, you probably won’t feel as clean as you want to feel after cleaning up the mess you made when you clogged the toilet, since the water does little more than trickle out of the shower head.

Speaking of water, say you want to put in a swimming pool in your backyard. You’ll have to make sure that you check with the town you live in, to find out how far away from your neighbor’s property your swimming pool has to be on your property.

Say you want to smoke a cigarette. You won’t even be able to buy a pack, without paying a hefty government imposed tax, which can be 50% of the cost of cigarettes or more when you include the state, city/county, and federal taxes. Even once you have your pack of cigarettes, you won’t be able to smoke in many restaurants, or other public places, because the government feels that you’re forcing other patrons of those establishments to stay there and suffer by inhaling your second hand smoke. (There’s a reason why most places allow smoking where the government doesn’t regulate it.)

All of these government interferences on our lives have no place in government, as far as the founding fathers were concerned (can you guess what my answer to the second question above would be?). By slowly interfering with our everyday lives, the government makes us less dependent on ourselves, and more dependent on our elected officials, who care, for the most part only about their personal well being. Why do we let this happen? Is it because we think the government is always going to be there to protect us from all of life’s inconveniences? If world history’s trend continues into modern day America, we’ll soon find that the government will be life’s biggest inconvenience.

• Remedy for a Bad Economy It seems these days that everyone is on the Government...
• Only in America Only in America, can the government simultaneously claim to tighten...

• "Charity Doesn't Solve Anything" According To Richest Man Alive A guest post by Michael - Since my forum/blog is...
• Guest Post - 7 Ways to Preserve Your Wealth (Most of my writing here on the Amateur Financier focuses...

“Let them hate us so long as they fear us.” – Roman Emperor Caligula.”The majority can never replace the man.” – Adolf Hitler.

What makes a dictatorship so dangerous? Is it the people’s total lack of freedom? Or is it simply that the dictator has a big head? I would argue that it’s the latter.

Look at the quotes above from two of the most brutal dictators history has to offer. They both show a general arrogance which is present among all dictators, where they put themselves on a higher pedestal than the general public. They have given themselves a sense of security, in believing that no one can touch them for one reason or another, and typically they are correct (temporarily at least).

Dictators make the government become so big, that people have no other choice to rely upon it for survival. If they choose otherwise, they will most likely face death. They often give the people the story that they want to hear to gain their power.

Germany had just come off of a difficult defeat in WWI when Hitler came around. The country’s morale was low, and they desperately needed a leader who would promise to hold their hand until they could get back on their feet. Hitler gave the people what they wanted, a strong leadership that offered to unite the country. Unfortunately, the German people up to that point in their history had not been accustomed to reading the “fine print”. With the strong leadership came a total lack of freedom. People genuinely feared the government, wondering each day if it would be their last.

The other thing that Hitler had going for him, was that his predecessor, the Weimar Republic, took the liberty of disarming the German people. Because of this, Hitler inherited an unarmed citizenry, allowing him to speak truthfully the quote above. For that matter, he could have truthfully said Caligula’s quote as well. What did he care if the citizens hated him, they couldn’t do anything about it.

I have singled out Hitler in my examples, simply because his crimes are well known, and therefore make good reference points. He is not unique, however. Many other dictators have risen to power in a similar fashion, where they promised the world to their people, but in the end took everything they had. In a way the hypothetical conversation between the citizens and dictator seems like it could have come straight from a bad relationship, “Baby, I know I’ve hurt you in the past, but I promise things will get better. Trust me.” Yea, right. All too often in relationships as in dictatorships, the one making those empty promises turns out to be the one who winds up hurting the other even worse.

Like I said, Hitler’s dictatorship is not unique. Millions of people, to this day live under brutal dictators, who see nothing wrong with killing their opposition. Don’t take it from me though. Ask any recently liberated Iraqi what life was like under Saddam. Or ask the countless refugees from Haiti and Cuba who try, often unsuccessfully, to reach the United States why they fled their country. But beware, their answers may shock you.

• John Kerry Supports Mandatory Service in the Military The best thing about the internet is it allows the...
• Big Government - Big Mistake How many people in this country truly believe that we...

• Boots for Women Fashion is a cycle. Though modern trends never cease to...
• Prophecies of the Messiah in the book of Daniel: Prophecies of the Messiah in the book of Daniel 7:13-14, 7:27,...

If the United States government operated more like a sporting event, would we have as much trouble coming to a consensus on the pressing issues of the day? If the government was more like sports, would people dish out millions, if not billions of dollars in an election year to make sure that their candidate wins? Would they even care who won? I would hope not, and let me explain why.

Being that I’m a hockey fan, I’ll use that for my example. Hockey has a set of rules, which states what the players can and cannot do. Both teams know the rules when they step out onto the ice, and therefore can be reasonably assured that if they follow the rules, the referee won’t penalize them. Games always begin and end the same way, with a 0-0 tie score at the beginning and a winner and a loser at the end (fine, they can tie too, let’s not get too technical with this analogy). After the game, the players shake hands and leave the arena happy in knowing, win or lose that they played, and the referees called, a fair game.

So what does this have to do with government? The federal government has its own set of rules, just like hockey does. It’s called the United States Constitution. It tells the government what it can and cannot do (just in case you need a refresher, click here for the Ninth and Tenth Amendments). The decisions that our federal elected officials make should follow rules from no other document, nor be interpreted to fit one’s personal interests. The same goes for hockey. You wouldn’t expect the referees to call the game according to another sport’s rules, in favor of one team or another for any reason, or based on the crowd’s reaction, would you?

Why then should we have to worry about what candidate gets elected to office? They’re all reading the same rule book aren’t they?

It sounds great in theory, but in reality, officials rarely ever follow the rules 100% of the time. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of voting for laws, not because they’re constitutional, but because the law either promotes their idea of what the country should be, or they feel political pressure to vote for a “politically correct” law.

Can you imagine how awful it would be to watch a hockey game if there were equally spineless hockey referees that called the game (and ultimately determined its outcome) based on the intensity of the fan’s cheers or boos? There wouldn’t be any point in watching the game, because I can tell you right now that the home team would always win. No matter how dirty the home team played, or how well the visiting team played this would always be true. Unfortunately the same is true in politics. Politicians, for the most part vote based on the political cheers and boos, and not based on the rules like they’re supposed to.

Ben Franklin once said “when the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” This will be caused by spineless politicians who fail to adhere to the rules of the “game”, as outlined in the Constitution. Instead they will adhere to the voices of the majority in order to increase their odds of being re-elected under the guise of doing what’s best for the country. Not only isn’t this good for the country, it’s actually dangerous.

Liberals have been constantly advocating against the recent war in Iraq, while at the same time voting for unjust and unconstitutional laws. If they keep getting their way, and if history does in fact repeat itself, “the tree of liberty [will] be refreshed…with the blood of patriots and tyrants” (Thomas Jefferson). It’s ironic that the ones advocating peace now could be the ones inciting violence later, isn’t it?

Let’s put all self interests aside, and just play by the rules.

• More Kerry Lies A recent Newsweek poll show Kerry gaining some ground on...
• Un-Constitutional Constitution? How many Americans have actually read the U.S. Constitution in...

• DUmmies Exposed: Bipartisanship Means Follow Barack I found this in the DUmmy thread over at Conservative...
• Golf as an Olympic Sport? Top golf players are full of enthusiasm as their appointed...