The Great American Experiment followed the sacrifice of, “lives . . . fortunes . . . and sacred honor” in defense of an idea. The idea that individuals, free from the tyranny of central command and control, protected their individual interests better than any unrelated protector, no matter how kind, caring or otherwise motivated. The Great American Experiment was funded, fought, and died for on the promise that freedom led to higher standards of living for everyone, greater innovation in business, agriculture, and every other aspect of life for everyone it touched, successful and failing alike. The government would be as limited as possible, the people as free as possible.

Carl Marx, believed the antithesis of these ideas. Marxism suggests that such freedom, and the fact that some people would be immensely more successful than others under such freedom, hurts the average person. Marx believed that for some people to succeed, others must fail, that the size of the pie is fixed, and who gets large pieces and who goes hungry is mostly random, except that dishonest people predisposed to fraud will skew things to their advantage. The typical honest person will suffer under the abuse of the dishonest. People are better served, in his theory, when each produce according to their abilities, and a central authority distributes according to one’s need. The average is better served when everyone follows the plan.

Every society in human existence has either answered to a central authority like a king, or had some system whereby the people chose their governors. In early history, a king who fought for the position was best able to fight to defend his people from invaders and pillagers, or to invade and pillage neighbors. Most were still farmers and hunters. Later, when technology progressed to the point where people could produce more than they consumed, trading came on the scene with the evolution of the middle man (middleous homosapien). This relied on fair play and people were hunted down and killed for foul play. Knowing who could be trusted and a person’s reputation became valued knowledge. Middleous man evolved to make a living off of what they knew instead of what they could grow or hunt. This only happened because there was enough excess produced to support people who did not directly hunt or gather food, make clothing, or build shelter, and there was efficiency in producing a couple of commodities where the climate was best suited to it and trading them for goods that could be more efficiently produced elsewhere. (This is why we raise beef and corn here, and they raise sugar cane in the tropics). It was almost unregulated. The middle men got together and formed colleges, or congresses, (groups of like minded people to serve a common end). Being a member of such could encourage producers and buyers to deal with you. The members of such groups would promise better and better prices to producers, and better and better quality to the buyers. Some would temporarily make a better living by such promises than from what they knew. They promised more than their competing middle men, until they could no longer produce and the group collapsed. They were replaced.

This system was ultimately replaced by the selection of fair play representatives (governors) by consensus. This made the selection based more on the perception of the candidate’s abilities than on actual performance. (Sound familiar?) Sometimes the selection was fair; sometimes it was coerced and intimidated. Indeed, control of all societies has been and is by governments chosen by a range of methods, with violent seizure of power after surrender on one end of the scale, and free and frequent elections on the other.

I am only concerned with the violent seizure method in that it is no more or less likely an end to any society, regardless of where their system currently lies along the scale, and is therefore mostly unpredictable. Such systems arise when the people are not able or willing to withstand its takeover. My concern is with the other end where America selects its government. Every society in human existence who chose their governors based on promises of representation have ultimately fallen to wasteful spending. The cliché is that they fell when the electorate voted themselves larger shares of the stores of grain than they were motivated to produce when fed with free grain. It is another of human’s natures. Until the mid 1900’s, these happenings were part of common education.

These are well known facts. In the pre-American world, kings tried to motivate their subjects with a system of taxes and entitlements. Prior to America’s founding, it was generally believed that anarchy would ensue without divinely inspired and chosen leaders. Many cultures still believe that today. Our founders believed that no one is more or less divinely created than the next, and that anarchy ensues without a divinely inspired population. They conceived a system whereby people could correct tyranny by choice. They conceived, debated, and persuaded the acceptance of a system that limited the power of the government to only that which the people authorize it to have. They demanded limits on government which could not be changed by the government serving those limits. They knew that human nature would compel elected officials to promise ever increasing rations from the public stores, and that once government control got sufficiently complicated, one size-fits-all policies would be the only way to manage the complexity thereby limiting innovation and individual motivation. They believed that nearly every government activity must be controlled locally, or fail.

So here we are. We stand at the cross roads where intellect faces human nature. On the one hand, intellect can rightly lead us to the conclusion that perfect management of a well motivated populace, provided for in accordance with the needs of each, eliminates suffering caused by bad decisions made by the individual. Human nature can lead us to accept Marx’s arguments without challenging the assumptions inherent in them. Marx’s utopic theory requires that human nature be resisted by the managers so that corruption does not foul the system, and that human nature be resisted by the managed so that defense of individual best interest no interfere with the common good even when contrary to individual good. Human nature explains why corruption is so common in countries with Marxist leaning systems. The self interest of the briber is provided for by the indulgence of the self interest of the bribed. Innovation is only relevant when conceived by or recognized by the managers and no incentive exists outside of ego for the innovator or the observant manager. Likewise, human nature leads us to vote ourselves larger shares of the public stores on the promises that “they” will be sufficiently taxed and sufficiently tolerant of the taxes to continue to produce grain undeterred. Human nature leads some to believe this despite the evidence to the contrary.

On the other hand, intellect can lead us to look for examples of both systems, socialist and free market, and determine which provides better conditions for the poor, or disadvantaged. Human nature would be to choose the best performing system.

Have we chosen the system whose theory stands up to rational debate when devoid of real world examples, or the system that has proven successful in practice despite being too complicated to fully explain every action rationally?

The choices, as I understand them are these: Recognize that we have the best medical system in the world BECAUSE the rich pay more than the poor, BECAUSE the rich have access to new treatment and technology before it is cheap enough for mass consumption; Recognize this it is this arrangement which makes medical care for the poor more available than it was a decade ago; Recognize that medical treatment of the poor is more available than it is in any other system in the world; Recognize that much of the medical treatment available to the world’s poor only exists as a result of the American medical system; Recognized that more treatments are available to the poor than would be if FDR had been successful in realizing socialized medicine; Recognize that a generation from now, the poor will have less access to as yet undiscovered treatments under socialized medicine than would be available if the rich continued to fund research and development; Recognize that socialism, Marxism, communism, statism, progressivism, liberalism, or however else you chose to label it, has led to the death of more people in the world than all other calamities combined; Recognize that because these systems rely on complete adherence to the common plan and surrender of the protection of individual defense of one’s best interest, violence and oppression are always used to control the population; Recognize that the wealth created by American entrepreneurs has funded the defense of most of the free world for two generations. Simply, choose to protect the rights of the individual to succeed or fail by one’s own decisions, unencumbered by agendas of social justice and wealth redistribution.

Or, choose the path chosen by every free society ever known. Choose the path dictated by emotion and human nature. Choose to bankrupt the country by trying to plan and provide an ever increasing array of goods and services, devised by a politically motivated committee that sets it own limits, provided to increasingly less motivated and demonized producers.

Will intellect win out over emotion? Am I wrong in my belief that I am on the side of intellect and not emotion? Is it arrogance that got us here in the first place, to believe that the human nature cycle of tyranny-escape-freedom-prosperity-guilt-entitlement-dependancy-tyranny can be short circuited without the pain of tyranny fresh in our minds? Are we destined to go down as the society arrogant enough to think that it manage all things for all people, just as the Romans did?

I hope not. I hope, that the success of the Great American Experiment thus far, can inspire us to not relinquish this prosperity and freedom in return for short term illusions of social justice. I hope that we recognize the success that took us from 13 colonies, too worthless to warrant the resources to control those colonies, to the most prosperous, powerful, free, and generous people in the world in less than 100 years. I hope that we collectively believe in our hearts, that the reason people immigrate here from every country in the world is freedom and opportunity and not a random coincidence. I hope that we as a country do not give in to the human nature that leads us to believe that our neighbors make poor choices at home, but perfect ones when electing officials, that these same neighbors make poor decisions at home, but perfect ones once in Washington DC.

I hope that we recognize that it is because of human nature, not despite it, that socialism and statism have always failed wherever they existed, and that free markets have succeeded everywhere they have existed. There is only so much motivation garnered from threats of fines and imprisonment, but the motivation of the hope for a better life is only limited by one’s imagination.

My original point was that is must be horrible to be a liberal/progressive/collectivist with things going so badly. Occasionally I comment about how they tend to eat each other when in charge. Part of the reason is that they each think that their own issue is the only important one but the principles they insist further their interests actually hinder the agenda of other liberal/progressive/collectivists. How is related to President Obama not qualifying as the antichrist? They are both explained by the idea behind the phrase, “We hold these truths to be self evident.”

When a self evident truth is up for debate, only the nuts out in left field argue against it. (Sorry, not leftist field, right field is just as good.) For instance, if the bill up for debate was to outlaw the murder of children for their milk money, this self evident truth would receive little opposition. The Democrats hold a dominant majority in the House, a super majority in the Senate, and the Presidency. If the Republicans commit to vote against everything, or if they agree to stay home, makes no difference. Why then has a health care law not passed? Why has it been changed from health care reform to health insurance reform? Why, has cap and trade not passed? Why has Gitmo not closed? Why are our troops still in Iraq? Because Republicans voted against these? No, if that were the case, the big health bill buy offs like the “Louisiana Purchase” and the Nebraska bribe would have been to holdout Republicans, not Democrats. Why would Democrats need to be paid to vote for a self evident truth of their own creation?

Also, what would motivate a Republican to vote against a self evident truth proposed by Democrats, especially in an election year when they could be held to account for voting against a self evident truth? Why would an uncaring, self serving Republican not be tempted to vote for the winning side if it was in keeping with their personal views on a particular issue and helped ease their re-election?

Simply, because they all know these are not self evident truths. The other self serving, political hack, Republicans love the idea that the Democrats will be held responsible for the consequences, all bad in the short run, no benefits until after the next presidential election. Some Democrats actually believe that there are great truths that are not self evident, stealthy truths which require higher education and enlightened understanding to be seen. These believe that it is worth going against the blind common people for the common good. Some political hack Democrats believe that it is always about political party and that these issues are not important to anyone, except in the context of political battle. All Democrats, regardless of motivation, voted for one of the healthcare versions except a few in the House who were “allowed” to vote against their version in hopes of protecting their seat in the upcoming November elections. Such allowances would not be needed for a self evident truth.

Of course, you could argue that universal mandated health insurance is a self evident truth. But, then you would have to ask yourself this: How big a looser would Democrats have to be to control the House, Senate, and White House, and not be able to pass a law furthering a self evident truth? How incompetent would the President need to be, for Americans to elect him in with a self described commanding mandate to pass such, with an unhindered, compliant Congress, and not get a bill to his desk.? How incompetent would he have to be to botch the debate so badly that Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat would fall to a Republican running on the platform of voting against the current bills? Universal insurance was Kennedy’s life’s work and he helped enact universal health insurance in Massachusetts. The voters knew their vote could spell the end of the issue Kennedy martyred himself for. Yet, they voted against the truth they are personally experienced in. (Kennedy could have resigned when he found out he was dying. This would have allowed a replacement to be appointed by the Governor to serve out the remainder of Kennedy’s term. This would have likely been the Governor appointed Democrat who did immediately replaced Kennedy. Instead, it was decided that Kennedy dying in office would garner sympathy for his cause. This shortened the appointment to 3 months until a special election could be held. – Self evident falsehood, or incompetence. You decide.)

Or, could it be a combination of the two?

Consider that the problems the liberal/progressive/collectivists are having stems from the largest shortcoming of their philosophy: all big decisions should be made in one central location by a few all-powerful clairvoyants. Chicago politics enjoyed some separation between campaign rhetoric, the rhetoric of sitting officials, and the actual votes on the actual laws before them. The liberal legislature passed the liberal agenda, watched only by a liberal electorate, only on issues still the local prerogative. President Obama was ill prepared by the only job he had ever really held. He is/was incompetent to stand questioned about the liberal agenda by non-liberals on the national stage. If the state and local acts were the major controlling factors in attracting or discouraging international business in Illinois instead of federal acts, President Obama would be more practiced. Discussions of competing with the Chinese for jobs when the Chinese employers do not pay for universal health insurance would have been more commonplace and he presumably would have had less trouble selling it to fellow Democrats without paying them off. In short, if the authority still resided with the states and their citizens, a U.S. President would not need to defend such policies to people in every individual state.

Is our President incapable of selling a truth that sells itself, to people of his own party who hold the same beliefs and agenda? Even without understanding the details, wouldn’t the truth be obvious?